Jump to content

Return of challenge caches


Recommended Posts

It's funny that several of us spent so much time on the other thread discussing how a checker could approximate confirmation of a category challenge, but it turns out all challenges based on cache names are now forbidden.

I think it shows very well why these challenges are forbidden now. It's fine to have a good discussion in the forums, but when cache hiders and finders are having the same discussion it leads to appeals. And it's far easier to ban them all than to start a whole new discussion about where to draw the line...

I guess you didn't read the other conversation. Checkers are easy -- trivial, really, from what I could tell -- for a challenge requiring a finite set of words found in the cache title. That was explained in detail in the thread. Yet this class of challenge is now forbidden even though agreement between hiders and finders would be hard to mess up even without a checker.

 

The subclass of "category" challenge -- where the list of words isn't fixed but merely identified by a category -- aren't possible for a checker (although various alternatives were suggested). The assumption in that thread was that only category challenges would be forbidden since it's impossible to write a checker, but what we find now is that the entire class is forbidden, so all the discussion about how to check an almost-category challenge turns out to be pointless.

 

Since the vast majority of challenges that come to my mind involve information in the cache title or CO name, I'm not sure what's left. Just brute force challenges like "N multicaches of terrain rating T or higher", I guess, and calendar fillers. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing much room for innovation. What I find annoying about this is that forbidding these challenges has no bearing at all on any of the stated problems, it just "fixes" something else that some people complained about even though it wasn't actually a problem.

Link to comment

Firstly, as someone who generally likes challenge caches, I'm glad they are back and the guidelines seem good.

 

For this calendar type

 

I do see the impact of Leap Day on "calendar" challenges, such as this fill the calendar challenge. These calendar challenges are not affected by the new guidelines. Some of these challenges include Leap Day and some do not, but that's based on the preference of the challenge cache owner and is stated in the challenge cache description.

 

Under the previous rules, in my area anyway, challenges to fill in 366 days were not allowed, only 365. I assume that will still be the case. I'm not sure if this is documented in the "reviewers rulebook", or just a local interpretation. I think the logic behind it is - if a new cacher were to start now, they would find it frustrating to have to wait 4 years.

Link to comment

The difference I see between the difficult single cache and the difficult challenge cache is that the single cache is always attainable by a person who is able to do the necessary task to retrieve; one task, one find. Whereas a challenge cache may itself be easily attainable while the qualification may be, according to the local caching landscape, unattainable; not because the challenge cache is hard, but because there may be no way for a person to qualify 'reasonably' (reviewer judgement) in order to log the challenge cache.

 

Granted it's a fine line... I mean, if a single cache requires a boat, the cacher can find the cache as long as they gain access to a boat (friends, rent, etc); likewise, if a challenge cache requires caches only available by traveling great distances, the cacher can find the cache as long as they remember to seek and find qualifying caches while away from home.. or just keep caching actively for 5 years... or gain access to a boat 50 times... or, or, or.

Why should Groundspeak ban a Challenge cache that is unattainable to geocachers in a particular area? It just means cachers must travel outside that area to qualify for those kinds of challenges. The "Jasmer Challenge - Alberta" is unattainable without traveling long distances from Calgary, but 23 people still have managed to find/complete it. That's 23 more than the number of folks who have found certain technical rock climbing caches, difficult hiking caches, hard puzzle caches, etc.

 

Additionally, there are certain multi-caches whose stages are thousands of miles apart and thus unattainable unless a local geocacher travels great distances. Yet Groundspeak will go ahead and publish those locally unattainable multi-caches while banning a locally unattainable Challenge cache. Why?

 

*shrug* I just see it as GS deciding that "extreme difficulty" is multiplied for challenge caches, 'reasonable' is highly dependent on local caching landscape, and you need to qualify in addition to finding the listed cache... and a single cache of extreme difficulty isn't affected by those same factors.

I agree that those factors can increase the difficulty for some Challenge caches. They even could make a particular Challenge cache extremely challenging and "almost like a private cache." But certain single Non-Challenge caches can be even more difficult and even more "almost like a private cache." For example, I could create a 25-stage multi-cache than included an extremely hard puzzle to get the coordinates to Stage 1, a multi-day backpacking trip up and down mountains to a cliff that you need to rappel down to get the coordinates to Stage 2, a deep-lake SCUBA dive to get the coordinates to Stage 3, travel across the ocean to Stage 4, a multi-day canoe trip through the wilds of Northern Ontario to Stage 5, etc., etc. Yet Groundspeak probably would ban my relatively easier Challenge cache while publishing my more difficult single Non-Challenge cache. It's kinda hard for me to understand why that is.

A reviewer posting on another forum had some good insight. They said to consider the viewpoint of a casual geocacher who will probably never qualify for difficult challenges. In the eyes of the casual cacher, many challenges restrict finders to the big numbers club. On the other hand, they might be more understanding of a T5 climbing cache or D5 puzzle because if they manage to sign the log, they get to log a find.

 

I'm not trying to argue whether challenging challenges should be allowed (because that's not our decision to make), but something like this might be one possible explanation to help understand why Geocaching HQ could shape things this way.

 

One opinionated non-factual hypothesis is that since Geocaching HQ likely gets a lot of revenue (or potential new revenue) from casual / newbie cachers, placing a bunch of challenging challenges might be disheartening or frustrating if up to 10 years of grinding is required to claim a find. This might lead newbies away from the game, causing them to lose interest - revenue lost for HQ. There are countless rebuttals to this, I know, but it's just a thought - it might have some sort of business aspect too.

Edited by brendan714
Link to comment

Quick read through the new guidelines and the explanatory notes suggests that a lot of the contentious issues have been eliminated. I predict there will be haggling over Standard 5 point 3:

 

"A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify."

I don't know if there's any way to remove the subjectivity from this part of the guidelines.

One way to remove the subjectivity is to delete that particular guideline. Groundspeak doesn't impose a "reasonable number of cachers" guideline on Non-Challenge caches, so why impose it on Challenge caches? Let Challenge caches be challenging!

Link to comment

Quick read through the new guidelines and the explanatory notes suggests that a lot of the contentious issues have been eliminated. I predict there will be haggling over Standard 5 point 3:

 

"A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify."

I don't know if there's any way to remove the subjectivity from this part of the guidelines.

One way to remove the subjectivity is to delete that particular guideline. Groundspeak doesn't impose a "reasonable number of cachers" guideline on Non-Challenge caches, so why impose it on Challenge caches? Let Challenge caches be challenging!

 

How exactly would you impose a guideline that a reasonable number of cachers in your area have found your cache if it has not published yet?

Link to comment
It's funny that several of us spent so much time on the other thread discussing how a checker could approximate confirmation of a category challenge, but it turns out all challenges based on cache names are now forbidden.

I think it shows very well why these challenges are forbidden now. It's fine to have a good discussion in the forums, but when cache hiders and finders are having the same discussion it leads to appeals. And it's far easier to ban them all than to start a whole new discussion about where to draw the line...

I guess you didn't read the other conversation. Checkers are easy -- trivial, really, from what I could tell -- for a challenge requiring a finite set of words found in the cache title. That was explained in detail in the thread. Yet this class of challenge is now forbidden even though agreement between hiders and finders would be hard to mess up even without a checker.

 

The subclass of "category" challenge -- where the list of words isn't fixed but merely identified by a category -- aren't possible for a checker (although various alternatives were suggested). The assumption in that thread was that only category challenges would be forbidden since it's impossible to write a checker, but what we find now is that the entire class is forbidden, so all the discussion about how to check an almost-category challenge turns out to be pointless.

 

Since the vast majority of challenges that come to my mind involve information in the cache title or CO name, I'm not sure what's left. Just brute force challenges like "N multicaches of terrain rating T or higher", I guess, and calendar fillers. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing much room for innovation. What I find annoying about this is that forbidding these challenges has no bearing at all on any of the stated problems, it just "fixes" something else that some people complained about even though it wasn't actually a problem.

 

If a lot of people are complaining about it then I would consider it a problem.

 

Even before the moratorium there are lots of people complaining about the silly word game involving create challenge caches which require people find cache with some arbitrary sequence of characters in the cache title. Personally, I don't see a lot of innovation in "find 20 caches with caches titles which have more vowels than consonants". The fact that nobody else has posted a "Find 13 caches with titles which contain a word which rhymes with 'spoon'" doesn't make it innovative. One of the biggest complaints was that these silly word game challenges inevitably led to people creating cache for no other reason that it could have a title which would help people meet the criteria for one or more of those silly challenge. Although we were told that the primary reason for the moratorium was due to the disproportionate amount of time spent on appeals, some of the guidelines may have been put in place simply because they actually listened to their users complaints.

 

As I see it, when moratorium went into place we were all basically suspended due to the behavior of some users (a large enough number of users that GS felt that they needed to action). After a year (plus a month or so), some changes were made, the suspension was lifted, and now we're on probation. If a significant number of users continue to behave badly, we might all be expelled from creating challenge caches.

 

Link to comment
As I see it, when moratorium went into place we were all basically suspended due to the behavior of some users (a large enough number of users that GS felt that they needed to action). After a year (plus a month or so), some changes were made, the suspension was lifted, and now we're on probation. If a significant number of users continue to behave badly, we might all be expelled from creating challenge caches.
+1

 

If the new system works, then challenge caches will continue. If the old problems that led to the moratorium resurface, then there will be no more new challenge caches.

Link to comment

I agree that those factors can increase the difficulty for some Challenge caches. They even could make a particular Challenge cache extremely challenging and "almost like a private cache." But certain single Non-Challenge caches can be even more difficult and even more "almost like a private cache." For example, I could create a 25-stage multi-cache than included an extremely hard puzzle to get the coordinates to Stage 1, a multi-day backpacking trip up and down mountains to a cliff that you need to rappel down to get the coordinates to Stage 2, a deep-lake SCUBA dive to get the coordinates to Stage 3, travel across the ocean to Stage 4, a multi-day canoe trip through the wilds of Northern Ontario to Stage 5, etc., etc. Yet Groundspeak probably would ban my relatively easier Challenge cache while publishing my more difficult single Non-Challenge cache. It's kinda hard for me to understand why that is.

I dunno. To me the primary difference is still that it's a matter of finding one single cache, vs finding a load of other caches while the listed cache may still be easily attainable. An extremely difficult single cache container is different in experience than a cache container that can be found yet can't be logged unless an extremely difficult task involving multiple other caches is also completed. I agree that it would be nice if the reviewers were relatively lenient with their judgement of what is a "reasonable" challenge, but I can grok the logic that lead to the guideline decision.

As I've noted before, the logic that lead to the guideline decision is found in this Help Center article. Groundspeak believes that an extremely difficult Challenge cache is "almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren’t permitted on the website.)" That might be a logical argument, but it's inconsistently applied logic since an extremely difficult Non-Challenge cache also is "almost like a private cache."

 

Your argument seems to be that an extremely difficult Challenge cache provides a different experience than, say, an extremely difficult Traditional cache. So what? What is it about the extremely difficult Challenge experience that justifies banning that experience while allowing the extremely difficult Traditional experience? The extremely difficult Puzzle experience also differs from that extremely difficult Traditional experience, so should extremely difficult Puzzles be banned, too? What about extremely difficult Multi-Cache experiences? Personally, I enjoy different geocaching experiences and am glad they exist.

 

You're making an argument, but I fail to see the logic that justifies it. At least I see the logic behind Groundspeak's argument, even if it's inconsistently applied.

Link to comment

Groundspeak bans extremely difficult Challenge caches because they are "almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren’t permitted on the website.)" But Groundspeak allows extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches, even though they also are "almost like a private cache." The logic is inconsistently applied.

 

A reviewer posting on another forum had some good insight. They said to consider the viewpoint of a casual geocacher who will probably never qualify for difficult challenges. In the eyes of the casual cacher, many challenges restrict finders to the big numbers club. On the other hand, they might be more understanding of a T5 climbing cache or D5 puzzle because if they manage to sign the log, they get to log a find.

I guess I'm just not seeing the distinction here. Yes, an extremely difficult Challenge cache would be very difficult to find. Only a few people are likely to claim a find for that kind of Challenge cache. But what if that same casual geocacher also noticed an unfound, 5-year-old Traditional cache that required a multi-day backpacking journey up and down mountains to a cliff that one needed to rappel down to reach the cache? Wouldn't they also think that only a few people are likely to claim a find for that kind of Traditional cache?

 

In a world where extremely difficult Challenge caches are allowed, some of those challenges would restrict finders to the "big numbers" club. Just as extremely difficult hiking/climbing caches restrict finders to very fit and skilled geocachers. Just as extremely difficult Puzzle caches restrict finders to very clever solvers (and the people with whom they might share the final coordinates). Just as extremely deep SCUBA caches restrict finders to a small subcategory of the small group of SCUBA-trained geocachers (and the folks who might sign the log at the water's surface). Just like the International Space Station cache restricts finders to the few astronaut-geocachers who travel there.

 

I always thought Groundspeak allows extremely difficult caches to inspire some people to stretch their limits or perhaps to vicariously share in the adventures of others. I've always considered this wide diversity to be a good thing.

 

Most new geocachers quickly learn that they don't have to find every geocache that's out there. They eventually figure out what kinds of caches they most enjoy and probably focus their efforts on them. They, too, come to appreciate the diverse smorgasbord of geocaching options that are available to them.

Link to comment

Once again, I'm not disagreeing, and may dislike whatever limitations are subjectively applied to denied challenge caches.

 

Your argument seems to be that an extremely difficult Challenge cache provides a different experience than, say, an extremely difficult Traditional cache. So what? What is it about the extremely difficult Challenge experience that justifies banning that experience while allowing the extremely difficult Traditional experience? The extremely difficult Puzzle experience also differs from that extremely difficult Traditional experience, so should extremely difficult Puzzles be banned, too? What about extremely difficult Multi-Cache experiences? Personally, I enjoy different geocaching experiences and am glad they exist.

 

This is the paragraph you refer to as the reasoning for the guideline:

This guideline aims to ensure that a challenge cache is obtainable by a reasonable number of players. If only a few people can find and log a challenge cache, then it’s almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren’t permitted on the website.) The “reasonable number” of cachers must reside in the area where your cache is placed.

So, in their mind, judging a "private cache" that is a single cache listing is very different than judging a "private cache" which requires qualifying for an ALR by finding numerous other single cache listings. You're running on the idea that they are (should be) equivalent. It seems they are not. We can disagree with GS on that, but that's their logic. The difference, again, I believe is the nature of the cache type/requirement for Finding - one is a single cache in the listing (whether trad/multi/unknown/etc), the other is an extensive task above and beyond a single cache in the listing (challenge ALR).

 

Whether the latter is "reasonable" is judged on a completely different standard than whether a 5T extreme cache is "reasonable". The logic is sound, we just don't like how it's applied. At least, we presume to not like how it's applied, since we haven't seen the reaching effect of challenge denials based solely on this guideline (which existed before the moratorium).

Link to comment

Quick read through the new guidelines and the explanatory notes suggests that a lot of the contentious issues have been eliminated. I predict there will be haggling over Standard 5 point 3:

 

"A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify."

I don't know if there's any way to remove the subjectivity from this part of the guidelines.

One way to remove the subjectivity is to delete that particular guideline. Groundspeak doesn't impose a "reasonable number of cachers" guideline on Non-Challenge caches, so why impose it on Challenge caches? Let Challenge caches be challenging!

How exactly would you impose a guideline that a reasonable number of cachers in your area have found your cache if it has not published yet?

Personally, I wouldn't impose the "reasonable numbers" guideline on either Challenge caches or Non-Challenge caches.

 

But if Groundspeak wanted to consistently impose the "reasonable numbers" guideline on all types of caches, then they could do so in the same way they currently should be imposing that guideline on Challenge caches: with good judgment.

 

How did our Volunteer Reviewers determine whether our "A Month of Unknowns Challenge" would "be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers," since it was unlikely that anyone else in our area had already completed this challenge? They looked at the challenge requirements, applied their own geocaching experience, and determined that plenty of geocachers could accomplish that challenge if they made a deliberate effort to do so. In this instance, their judgment proved to be correct (so far, 23 geocachers have found that challenge). Could their judgment have been wrong? Of course. It was a subjective decision based on their previous geocaching experience; there's no guarantee that comes along with that.

 

That same kind of good judgment also could be applied to Non-Challenge caches. (Again, I wish Goundspeak wouldn't impose this guideline on any caches.) A Volunteer Review could look at a topographical map, D/T ratings, and listed attributes and realize that a submitted Traditional cache would involve a multi-day hike and rappelling down a cliff. After exchanging emails back-and-forth with the cache owner, the reviewer might make a subjective decision based on their knowledge and not publish that submitted Traditional because it's too unlikely to "be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers." (But no guarantees.)

Link to comment

Would a new challenge cache be allowed if the requirement was to have already have found a challenge cache? The only way to design a checker for it would be to scan the cache title.

I seriously doubt that you could create such a challenge under the new framework.

 

First, as you noted, such a challenge checker likely would need to use information from the cache title, which is now prohibited.

 

Second, even if you could use information from the cache title, that information isn't sufficient for a checker to make a pass/fail decision. Some Unknown-type caches include the word "Challenge" in them, even though they aren't Challenge caches. Some Unknown-type caches do NOT have the word "Challenge" in them, but they are actually Challenge caches. And some Challenge caches are Traditional-type caches.

Link to comment

I'm not suggesting I would submit such an extremely challenging Challenge cache for publication. Given the existing Challenge cache guidelines, I probably wouldn't waste my (and Groundspeak's) time making such a submission.

 

The point I was (originally) making is that I have a difficult time understanding why an extremely challenging Challenge cache is banned by Groundspeak (because "it's almost like a private cache") while an extremely challenging Non-Challenge cache is allowed (even though "it's almost like a private cache"). The justification seems inconsistent to me.

Oh I know, I wasn't implying that at all. By "you" I didn't mean specifically you, I meant anybody. It was just something that I can see happening often. If it becomes a problem maybe local reviewers will start requiring a percentage based on the number of total cachers. Just a guess.

I certainly hope Groundspeak never resorts to replacing good judgment with magical numbers (or percentages). See my earlier post as to why very few people might have completed the challenge at the time of publication but it still can "appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" if they make a deliberate effort to qualify.

If some can't use good judgement to create challenge caches that are attainable creating a constrained may be the only option. At times it's seemed like some are treating challenges as a contest to see who can create the most difficult or more complex challenge rather than a cache that will appeal to many cachers.

Just to be clear, the "good judgment" that I hope Groundspeak never resorts to replacing is the good judgment of Volunteer Reviewers (see my earlier post). Our Alberta reviewers wisely have been considering multiple factors when they interpret the "reasonable number" guideline rather than simply imposing some magical number/range of numbers/percentage.

 

If lots of Challenge cache creators use poor judgment regarding the "reasonable number" guideline and continue to frequently appeal to Groundspeak, then there is at least one other option. Rather than impose some magical number/range of numbers/percentage, Groundspeak could delete the "reasonable number" guideline entirely. As I've noted before, Groundspeak doesn't impose that guideline on Non-Challenge caches, so why should they impose it on Challenge caches?

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Your argument seems to be that an extremely difficult Challenge cache provides a different experience than, say, an extremely difficult Traditional cache. So what? What is it about the extremely difficult Challenge experience that justifies banning that experience while allowing the extremely difficult Traditional experience? The extremely difficult Puzzle experience also differs from that extremely difficult Traditional experience, so should extremely difficult Puzzles be banned, too? What about extremely difficult Multi-Cache experiences? Personally, I enjoy different geocaching experiences and am glad they exist.

This is the paragraph you refer to as the reasoning for the guideline:

This guideline aims to ensure that a challenge cache is obtainable by a reasonable number of players. If only a few people can find and log a challenge cache, then it’s almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren’t permitted on the website.) The “reasonable number” of cachers must reside in the area where your cache is placed.

So, in their mind, judging a "private cache" that is a single cache listing is very different than judging a "private cache" which requires qualifying for an ALR by finding numerous other single cache listings.

I don't share your ability to read Groundspeak's mind, so I have to rely on the paragraph they wrote. Nothing in that paragraph explains why the experience of finding an extremely difficult Challenge cache is bad while the experience of finding an extremely difficult Non-Challenge cache is good. That paragraph explains that, because only a few people can find an extremely difficult Challenge cache, "it's almost like a private cache" and Groundspeak doesn't permit private caches. But that same logic can be applied to extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches that only a few people can find; they, too, are "almost like a private cache," but they aren't banned. The logic is there; it's just inconsistently applied by Groundspeak.

 

You're running on the idea that they are (should be) equivalent. It seems they are not. We can disagree with GS on that, but that's their logic.

No, I'm not claiming that the experience of finding an extremely difficult Challenge cache is (or should be) equivalent to the experience of finding an extremely difficult Non-Challenge cache. The experiences can be very, very different. Vive la différence! I'm claiming that if only a few people can find a cache means that cache is "almost like a private cache" and should be banned, then a consistent application of that logic would mean no cache that is likely to have very few finds should be published, regardless of whether that cache is a Challenge cache or a Non-Challenge cache (and regardless of the experience that is associated with finding that cache).

 

The difference, again, I believe is the nature of the cache type/requirement for Finding - one is a single cache in the listing (whether trad/multi/unknown/etc), the other is an extensive task above and beyond a single cache in the listing (challenge ALR).

And I ask, again, so what? What is it about the extremely difficult Challenge experience that justifies banning that experience while allowing the extremely difficult Traditional experience? The extremely difficult Puzzle experience also differs from that extremely difficult Traditional experience, so should extremely difficult Puzzles be banned, too? What about extremely difficult Multi-Cache experiences?

 

What is it about the experience of finding an extremely difficult Challenge cache that you (or Groundspeak's mind) find so horrible or disgusting that it justifies banning these types of caches? Personally, I enjoy different geocaching experiences and am glad they exist.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Groundspeak bans extremely difficult Challenge caches because they are "almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren’t permitted on the website.)" But Groundspeak allows extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches, even though they also are "almost like a private cache." The logic is inconsistently applied.

 

A reviewer posting on another forum had some good insight. They said to consider the viewpoint of a casual geocacher who will probably never qualify for difficult challenges. In the eyes of the casual cacher, many challenges restrict finders to the big numbers club. On the other hand, they might be more understanding of a T5 climbing cache or D5 puzzle because if they manage to sign the log, they get to log a find.

I guess I'm just not seeing the distinction here. Yes, an extremely difficult Challenge cache would be very difficult to find. Only a few people are likely to claim a find for that kind of Challenge cache. But what if that same casual geocacher also noticed an unfound, 5-year-old Traditional cache that required a multi-day backpacking journey up and down mountains to a cliff that one needed to rappel down to reach the cache? Wouldn't they also think that only a few people are likely to claim a find for that kind of Traditional cache?

 

In a world where extremely difficult Challenge caches are allowed, some of those challenges would restrict finders to the "big numbers" club. Just as extremely difficult hiking/climbing caches restrict finders to very fit and skilled geocachers. Just as extremely difficult Puzzle caches restrict finders to very clever solvers (and the people with whom they might share the final coordinates). Just as extremely deep SCUBA caches restrict finders to a small subcategory of the small group of SCUBA-trained geocachers (and the folks who might sign the log at the water's surface). Just like the International Space Station cache restricts finders to the few astronaut-geocachers who travel there.

 

I always thought Groundspeak allows extremely difficult caches to inspire some people to stretch their limits or perhaps to vicariously share in the adventures of others. I've always considered this wide diversity to be a good thing.

 

Most new geocachers quickly learn that they don't have to find every geocache that's out there. They eventually figure out what kinds of caches they most enjoy and probably focus their efforts on them. They, too, come to appreciate the diverse smorgasbord of geocaching options that are available to them.

This is just more speculation, but perhaps it has to do with accessibility. I can find the physical cache to a hypothetical "Find 100,000 Caches Challenge" that's located 100 meters from my home. But I will never be able to log it as found online. Does it bother me? No, I don't care in the slightest - at worst I'll just put it on the ignore list and find some other cache that interests me. But it could easily bother someone else. When I talk about accessibility, I mean that challenges can usually be found in the city limits of big cities, and they are usually easy to visit, find and sign. Caches with very challenging terrain are inherently (but not always) in remote or difficult to access locations. In many cases they require a conscious effort to visit.

 

Also, what about perceived difficulty? There's a big difference between knowing that something is impossible and knowing that something is doable with difficulty. To a newbie, a difficult challenge like my hypothetical "Find 100,000 caches" would be seen as impossible. A tough puzzle, multi or trad is definitely doable - they might not want to try but they know it can be done. Again, it helps to look through the eyes of a newbie.

 

Apart from all that stuff, think about this:

It's Geocaching HQ's job to make money. They make more money by making more people happier. If people said in a survey that they don't like certain things about a certain cache type, Geocaching HQ will probably listen to make people happy. Unfortunately, they don't necessarily need to keep the veterans of the game (including many challenge cache enthusiasts) quite as happy because they know most will reapply for premium membership anyway. This might also explain why a lot of work goes into the Geocaching phone apps, when lots of veterans don't care. This game is a business to GHQ, and from a business perspective what they did was probably the right call.

 

Again, I don't necessarily agree with any of this and it's all speculation, but it might be one possible explanation.

Link to comment

This is the paragraph you refer to as the reasoning for the guideline:

 

This guideline aims to ensure that a challenge cache is obtainable by a reasonable number of players. If only a few people can find and log a challenge cache, then it's almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren't permitted on the website.) The "reasonable number" of cachers must reside in the area where your cache is placed.

So, in their mind, judging a "private cache" that is a single cache listing is very different than judging a "private cache" which requires qualifying for an ALR by finding numerous other single cache listings.

I don't share your ability to read Groundspeak's mind, so I have to rely on the paragraph they wrote. Nothing in that paragraph explains why the experience of finding an extremely difficult Challenge cache is bad while the experience of finding an extremely difficult Non-Challenge cache is good. That paragraph explains that, because only a few people can find an extremely difficult Challenge cache, "it's almost like a private cache" and Groundspeak doesn't permit private caches. But that same logic can be applied to extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches that only a few people can find; they, too, are "almost like a private cache," but they aren't banned. The logic is there; it's just inconsistently applied by Groundspeak.

...despite obviously not "reading Groundspeak's mind" as you so eloquently jab, I was attempting to explain that clearly their judgement of "private cache" is different in the context of single cache listings than in the context of challenge caches. That is clear by their wording and the implication as you've explained, no?

I wasn't even attempting to touch on whether one experience is "good" and one is "bad".

I'm only looking at the fact that GS is judging "private cache" differently depending on the context. One being a single cache to find, and one having an ALR.

 

You're running on the idea that they are (should be) equivalent. It seems they are not. We can disagree with GS on that, but that's their logic.

No, I'm not claiming that the experience of finding an extremely difficult Challenge cache is (or should be) equivalent to the experience of finding an extremely difficult Non-Challenge cache.

Nono, nono, that's not what I said. The bolded is in reference to GS's judgement standards (see the last sentence you quoted of mine above), not our experiences in finding. Their judgements, as above, are different in different contexts; they are not judging an extremely difficult 5T traditional cache with the same standard as an extremely difficult challenge cache. Are you denying that point? Because that to me seems to be precisely the issue you're focusing on (with which I do not disagree - the judgements are different, or, "inconsistent").

 

The difference, again, I believe is the nature of the cache type/requirement for Finding - one is a single cache in the listing (whether trad/multi/unknown/etc), the other is an extensive task above and beyond a single cache in the listing (challenge ALR).

And I ask, again, so what? What is it about the extremely difficult Challenge experience that justifies banning that experience while allowing the extremely difficult Traditional experience? The extremely difficult Puzzle experience also differs from that extremely difficult Traditional experience, so should extremely difficult Puzzles be banned, too? What about extremely difficult Multi-Cache experiences?

"So what?" isn't a question I have any interest in answering. So I'll leave that as a rhetorical. Why? Again, for me it's because we haven't yet seen an example of how this (old) guideline will impact challenges moving forward, because judgements are entirely subjective by reviewer and region. Once we have examples of challenges that have been denied, then I'll return to that issue of whether GS's judgement of "reasonable" is, IMO, reasonable.

 

What is it about the experience of finding an extremely difficult Challenge cache that you (or Groundspeak's mind) find so bad that it justifies banning these types of caches? Personally, I enjoy different geocaching experiences and am glad they exist.

Ditto on the last sentence. See above for the rest.

 

I don't know what we're really arguing (again) about. Judgement in different contexts, different standards. Is that good or bad? You're saying yes, I'm just not commenting on that just yet; only that the logic behind it is based on the different contexts - one being a single cache find, the other being a single cache plus ALR. That's it. No comment objectively about what's good or bad or whether there should only be one standard. But we'll soon find out whether the guideline seems excessively restrictive. That was a minor point of contention before the moratorium, so, will certain guidelines now being officially written in have a negative effect on that judgement process? We'll see soon.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Groundspeak bans extremely difficult Challenge caches because they are "almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren’t permitted on the website.)" But Groundspeak allows extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches, even though they also are "almost like a private cache." The logic is inconsistently applied.

 

A reviewer posting on another forum had some good insight. They said to consider the viewpoint of a casual geocacher who will probably never qualify for difficult challenges. In the eyes of the casual cacher, many challenges restrict finders to the big numbers club. On the other hand, they might be more understanding of a T5 climbing cache or D5 puzzle because if they manage to sign the log, they get to log a find.

I guess I'm just not seeing the distinction here. Yes, an extremely difficult Challenge cache would be very difficult to find. Only a few people are likely to claim a find for that kind of Challenge cache. But what if that same casual geocacher also noticed an unfound, 5-year-old Traditional cache that required a multi-day backpacking journey up and down mountains to a cliff that one needed to rappel down to reach the cache? Wouldn't they also think that only a few people are likely to claim a find for that kind of Traditional cache?

 

In a world where extremely difficult Challenge caches are allowed, some of those challenges would restrict finders to the "big numbers" club. Just as extremely difficult hiking/climbing caches restrict finders to very fit and skilled geocachers. Just as extremely difficult Puzzle caches restrict finders to very clever solvers (and the people with whom they might share the final coordinates). Just as extremely deep SCUBA caches restrict finders to a small subcategory of the small group of SCUBA-trained geocachers (and the folks who might sign the log at the water's surface). Just like the International Space Station cache restricts finders to the few astronaut-geocachers who travel there.

 

I always thought Groundspeak allows extremely difficult caches to inspire some people to stretch their limits or perhaps to vicariously share in the adventures of others. I've always considered this wide diversity to be a good thing.

 

Most new geocachers quickly learn that they don't have to find every geocache that's out there. They eventually figure out what kinds of caches they most enjoy and probably focus their efforts on them. They, too, come to appreciate the diverse smorgasbord of geocaching options that are available to them.

Well articulated indeed :). Why should a new person qualify for everything straight away, this logic is so flawed. They can aspire to it in time and maybe it will be a motivating factor for them. Personally I will never find a tree climbing cache but I very much respect those that do.

Link to comment

Quote,Michaelcycle:

The souvenir count is too easy to artificially manipulate and too difficult to manually verify. I suggest GS reconsider allowing challenges based on souvenirs.

 

I believe a project-gc checker is working from your finds - it's not scraping your profile.

So those who "earn" souvenirs with finds that they post and then delete won't have the find for a checker.

 

Also, small potatoes really.

 

Apparently not. Please see reply from pinkunicorn (post #76 above)

 

As for the size of the potatoes, that is debatable.

Link to comment

This is the paragraph you refer to as the reasoning for the guideline:

 

This guideline aims to ensure that a challenge cache is obtainable by a reasonable number of players. If only a few people can find and log a challenge cache, then it's almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren't permitted on the website.) The "reasonable number" of cachers must reside in the area where your cache is placed.

So, in their mind, judging a "private cache" that is a single cache listing is very different than judging a "private cache" which requires qualifying for an ALR by finding numerous other single cache listings.

I don't share your ability to read Groundspeak's mind, so I have to rely on the paragraph they wrote. Nothing in that paragraph explains why the experience of finding an extremely difficult Challenge cache is bad while the experience of finding an extremely difficult Non-Challenge cache is good. That paragraph explains that, because only a few people can find an extremely difficult Challenge cache, "it's almost like a private cache" and Groundspeak doesn't permit private caches. But that same logic can be applied to extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches that only a few people can find; they, too, are "almost like a private cache," but they aren't banned. The logic is there; it's just inconsistently applied by Groundspeak.

...despite obviously not "reading Groundspeak's mind" as you so eloquently jab, I was attempting to explain that clearly their judgement of "private cache" is different in the context of single cache listings than in the context of challenge caches. That is clear by their wording and the implication as you've explained, no?

I wasn't even attempting to touch on whether one experience is "good" and one is "bad".

I'm only looking at the fact that GS is judging "private cache" differently depending on the context. One being a single cache to find, and one having an ALR.

No, Groundspeak's wording makes no mention (clear or otherwise) of an ALR Challenge cache being different from a single Non-Challenge cache. Perhaps you're inferring that Groundspeak must recognize some difference, since their logic is otherwise being inconsistently applied. Here's another possibility: Perhaps Groundspeak wasn't even aware that they were inconsistently applying their logic.

 

But let's assume there's something different about extremely difficult Challenge caches (above and beyond them being "almost a private cache") that make them unacceptable to Groundspeak. You seem to believe that the "something different" is the fact that Challenge caches involve an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR). If that's the case, then there must be something about an extremely difficult ALR that is so horrible or disgusting that it justifies banning them. What is it? What is it about extremely difficult ALRs that is so terrible that Groundspeak thinks they should be banned while easier ALRs should be published?

 

Groundspeak shouldn't ban something just because it's different. There should be some underlying reason why that difference is bad. Otherwise, Groundspeak should ban Multi-caches, because they're different from Traditionals. Ban EarthCaches, because they're different from physical caches. Ban events, because they're different from everything.

 

You're running on the idea that they are (should be) equivalent. It seems they are not. We can disagree with GS on that, but that's their logic.

No, I'm not claiming that the experience of finding an extremely difficult Challenge cache is (or should be) equivalent to the experience of finding an extremely difficult Non-Challenge cache.

Nono, nono, that's not what I said. The bolded is in reference to GS's judgement standards (see the last sentence you quoted of mine above), not our experiences in finding. Their judgements, as above, are different in different contexts; they are not judging an extremely difficult 5T traditional cache with the same standard as an extremely difficult challenge cache. Are you denying that point? Because that to me seems to be precisely the issue you're focusing on (with which I do not disagree - the judgements are different, or, "inconsistent").

No, I'm not denying that Groundspeak applies different judgment standards to extremely difficult Challenge caches versus extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches. That's precisely my point. Groundspeak judges those extremely difficult Challenge caches to violate their prohibition against private caches but apply a different standard to extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches (which they go ahead and publish). Another way of saying this (as I have many times before) is that Groundspeak applies their "private cache" standard inconsistently.

 

Maybe they have a perfectly good reason to justify this double standard. If so, then they haven't revealed it.

 

The difference, again, I believe is the nature of the cache type/requirement for Finding - one is a single cache in the listing (whether trad/multi/unknown/etc), the other is an extensive task above and beyond a single cache in the listing (challenge ALR).

And I ask, again, so what? What is it about the extremely difficult Challenge experience that justifies banning that experience while allowing the extremely difficult Traditional experience? The extremely difficult Puzzle experience also differs from that extremely difficult Traditional experience, so should extremely difficult Puzzles be banned, too? What about extremely difficult Multi-Cache experiences?

"So what?" isn't a question I have any interest in answering. So I'll leave that as a rhetorical.

As I noted above... Groundspeak shouldn't ban something just because it's different. There should be some underlying reason why that difference is bad. Otherwise, Groundspeak should ban Multi-caches, because they're different from Traditionals. Ban EarthCaches, because they're different from physical caches. Ban events, because they're different.

Link to comment

It is worth noting that one of the major complaints people have about challenge caches is that they were being used more and more as a way of excluding classes of finders from otherwise banal urban hides, rather than as a means of truly inspiring geocachers to do more.

 

Placing a cache at the top of a mountain is a much different thing than putting a cache on a guardrail and adding an extreme set of ALRs.

Link to comment
It's funny that several of us spent so much time on the other thread discussing how a checker could approximate confirmation of a category challenge, but it turns out all challenges based on cache names are now forbidden.

I think it shows very well why these challenges are forbidden now. It's fine to have a good discussion in the forums, but when cache hiders and finders are having the same discussion it leads to appeals. And it's far easier to ban them all than to start a whole new discussion about where to draw the line...

I guess you didn't read the other conversation. Checkers are easy -- trivial, really, from what I could tell -- for a challenge requiring a finite set of words found in the cache title. That was explained in detail in the thread. Yet this class of challenge is now forbidden even though agreement between hiders and finders would be hard to mess up even without a checker.

 

The subclass of "category" challenge -- where the list of words isn't fixed but merely identified by a category -- aren't possible for a checker (although various alternatives were suggested). The assumption in that thread was that only category challenges would be forbidden since it's impossible to write a checker, but what we find now is that the entire class is forbidden, so all the discussion about how to check an almost-category challenge turns out to be pointless.

 

Since the vast majority of challenges that come to my mind involve information in the cache title or CO name, I'm not sure what's left. Just brute force challenges like "N multicaches of terrain rating T or higher", I guess, and calendar fillers. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing much room for innovation. What I find annoying about this is that forbidding these challenges has no bearing at all on any of the stated problems, it just "fixes" something else that some people complained about even though it wasn't actually a problem.

 

I actually did read and understood large parts of the other thread, although I skipped some contributions when I got the impression that the same arguments were repeated over and over.

 

I agree that the problems concerning category challenges were prominent in that discussion and that banning the entire class for this reason only would be overkill, but my believe is that the decision was well considered and it was a priority to keep the criteria as simple and well-defined as possible to avoid future discussions. Unfortunately, this indeed also means that some appealing challenges won't be possible anymore...

Link to comment

This is the paragraph you refer to as the reasoning for the guideline:

 

This guideline aims to ensure that a challenge cache is obtainable by a reasonable number of players. If only a few people can find and log a challenge cache, then it's almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren't permitted on the website.) The "reasonable number" of cachers must reside in the area where your cache is placed.

So, in their mind, judging a "private cache" that is a single cache listing is very different than judging a "private cache" which requires qualifying for an ALR by finding numerous other single cache listings.

 

I disagree here with your explanation and side with CR on this point. On its own merit, the challenge cache is still a single cache listing. The action of finding the required caches to qualify for the challenge is the difficult task and is therefore the equivalent of being like a private cache. The single traditional, multi, unknown, (or any other type of cache), has its own action required to find the cache. In that sense, they're equal, at least in my mind. Neither one is easy, neither one is available to a "reasonable" number of cachers, yet one is usually allowed without question while a challenge cache is not.

 

The actions needed to be able to find either type of cache (the difficult challenge cache or the difficult "other" cache) are inherently limiting in both situations and as such, are almost like private caches. I'm not SCUBA certified but I could get SCUBA certified to find a cache. We have two multis here in the middle of Indiana that require SCUBA certification. How are those not like a private cache? There is not a reasonable number of players that can attempt to find these caches, yet they were published (caveat, they were published quite some time ago but it's my guess that a SCUBA cache would still get published in central Indiana, even though there is not a reasonable number of cachers who would be eligible to find it.)

 

I'm not qualified to log a "Found it" on an extremely difficult challenge that might get published, but I could get the caches needed to qualify for an extremely difficult challenge. However, it won't be published because it's too much like a private cache. The consistency is lacking. Both actions needed to make a find on either of the single caches are inherently limited to those who are willing to take the necessary actions to log a find.

Link to comment

It is worth noting that one of the major complaints people have about challenge caches is that they were being used more and more as a way of excluding classes of finders from otherwise banal urban hides, rather than as a means of truly inspiring geocachers to do more.

 

Placing a cache at the top of a mountain is a much different thing than putting a cache on a guardrail and adding an extreme set of ALRs.

 

And if the challenge cache in question inspired you to find the cache at the top of the mountain?

 

The actions needed to find either one are limiting by their very nature and similar in that regard. They both exclude classes of finders. However, if you're willing to do what's needed to log each one as found, you won't be excluded any more.

Link to comment

No, Groundspeak's wording makes no mention (clear or otherwise) of an ALR Challenge cache being different from a single Non-Challenge cache.

Why would it? That's an obvious and quite clear difference, and why Challenge Caches are an exception.

 

Perhaps you're inferring that Groundspeak must recognize some difference, since their logic is otherwise being inconsistently applied. Here's another possibility: Perhaps Groundspeak wasn't even aware that they were inconsistently applying their logic.

Because there is a difference. The logic is being inconsistently applied, if you believe the standards should be equal. If you don't, then they aren't. i'm not making a statement either way. I'm just saying there is a different between a T5 traditional and a very difficult challenge, and thus I believe that Groundspeak believes that their differring judgement between the two contexts is valid.

 

You seem to believe that the "something different" is the fact that Challenge caches involve an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR). If that's the case, then there must be something about an extremely difficult ALR that is so horrible or disgusting that it justifies banning them. What is it? What is it about extremely difficult ALRs that is so terrible that Groundspeak thinks they should be banned while easier ALRs should be published?

I don't know, don't care at this point, as that's not the discussion I'm trying to have, primarily because no ugly head has yet been reared as evidence that there is a problem. I'll cross that bridge when it comes.

 

I disagree here with your explanation and side with CR on this point. On its own merit, the challenge cache is still a single cache listing. The action of finding the required caches to qualify for the challenge is the difficult task and is therefore the equivalent of being like a private cache.

You're talking about the ALR, which is the difference between the "single cache listing" (that is, for physical caches, signing the logbook in order to log it found online), and the challenge cache which requires the additional task. On its own merit, you cannot log a challenge cache found, as you can with a physical cache, until its ALR is complete. That is the primary difference, and that really is the only factor separating the two contexts by which GS can defend their different judgement standards of "extremely difficult" and thus "almost like a private cache". That's all I'm sayin' yo.

 

I'm not qualified to log a "Found it" on an extremely difficult challenge that might get published, but I could get the caches needed to qualify for an extremely difficult challenge. However, it won't be published because it's too much like a private cache. The consistency is lacking. Both actions needed to make a find on either of the single caches are inherently limited to those who are willing to take the necessary actions to log a find.

I agree. But we are equating the two types of cache-finding setups. One is a single cache, the other is compounded by requiring finding of multiple caches. GS obviously sees that as a significant enough difference to justify the difference in their judgement. If I were to make the call, I would agree - the judgment, being entirely subjective, shouldn't be (that much) more restrictive just because it's a challenge ALR; but, I can understand how they're applying the logic.

 

Not every cache has to be found by everyone. If it's too difficult, you don't have to find it.

 

On the other hand, because it's published, the reviewer had judged it reasonably possible for a person to be able to go to GPS coordinates and find the cache (whether there was a puzzle preior or it was the result of multiple waypoints or execution of a cartridge - none of which are required or verifiably completed as intended; see other thread discussions).

If a person does that with a challenge cache though, they haven't yet earned the right to log it online, so the reviewer has to judge whether the challenge itself is reasonable, and that's based on the reviewer's knowledge of local community, local cache landscape, and a number of other unique factors, none of which bear the same level of influence on the judgement of a single physical geocache's 'reasonableness', regardless of its rating. There's a fundamental difference between the judgement of challenge caches and other cache types, most epitomized in the existence of the ALR.

 

One more point, I think whether a physical cache is "reasonable" or not to find is almost entirely summed up in already-applied properties of the listing. What aspect of a physical cache can make it a "private cache"? Restricted access (permanent restriction to any person, as opposed to periodic access)? Membership access to a site? Perhaps a required cost (an attribute can indicate that though)? I think there are many more factors to consider when deciding what "reasonable" is in the context of challenges. Where that bar/standard of acceptable resides post-moratorium, well I dunno - we'll find out when reviewers start denying challenge submissions in certain regions.

 

I really, truly, hope that the reviewers aren't ridiculously strict on what they consider "reasonable", because challenges definitely give us goals and things to strive for that we may think are well beyond our capabilities, until we actually complete them. And that's a hugely rewarding feeling. And if we don't want to take it on, we don't have to log the cache.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

This is the paragraph you refer to as the reasoning for the guideline:

 

This guideline aims to ensure that a challenge cache is obtainable by a reasonable number of players. If only a few people can find and log a challenge cache, then it's almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren't permitted on the website.) The "reasonable number" of cachers must reside in the area where your cache is placed.

So, in their mind, judging a "private cache" that is a single cache listing is very different than judging a "private cache" which requires qualifying for an ALR by finding numerous other single cache listings.

I don't share your ability to read Groundspeak's mind, so I have to rely on the paragraph they wrote. Nothing in that paragraph explains why the experience of finding an extremely difficult Challenge cache is bad while the experience of finding an extremely difficult Non-Challenge cache is good. That paragraph explains that, because only a few people can find an extremely difficult Challenge cache, "it's almost like a private cache" and Groundspeak doesn't permit private caches. But that same logic can be applied to extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches that only a few people can find; they, too, are "almost like a private cache," but they aren't banned. The logic is there; it's just inconsistently applied by Groundspeak.

...despite obviously not "reading Groundspeak's mind" as you so eloquently jab, I was attempting to explain that clearly their judgement of "private cache" is different in the context of single cache listings than in the context of challenge caches. That is clear by their wording and the implication as you've explained, no?

I wasn't even attempting to touch on whether one experience is "good" and one is "bad".

I'm only looking at the fact that GS is judging "private cache" differently depending on the context. One being a single cache to find, and one having an ALR.

No, Groundspeak's wording makes no mention (clear or otherwise) of an ALR Challenge cache being different from a single Non-Challenge cache.

Why would it? That's an obvious and quite clear difference, and why Challenge Caches are an exception.

Good grief. "Why would it?" Because you claimed Groundspeak made that clear in their wording (see bolded words, above). Nowhere in Groundspeak's paragraph (see italic paragraph, above) does Groundspeak mention an ALR Challenge cache being different from a single Non-Challenge cache, as you claim they do. First you read it in Groundspeak's mind, then you read it in Groundspeak's wording. Now you ask, "Why would it?" Tappity, tap, tap, TAP.

 

Yes, it's obvious that a Challenge cache is different from a Non-Challenge cache. But Groundspeak's paragraph doesn't suggest that's the reason why they ban extremely difficult Challenge caches. The only reason Groundspeak mentions is that some extremely difficult Challenge caches would be found by very few people, which Groundspeak doesn't allow. Yet some extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches also would be found by very few people, but they aren't banned. Can you say "double standard?"

 

You can't justify a double standard simply by saying the two things are different. The difference has to provide some rational reason for treating the two things unequally. You don't provide that reason and neither does Groundspeak's paragraph (please read it again).

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

I agree that the problems concerning category challenges were prominent in that discussion and that banning the entire class for this reason only would be overkill, but my believe is that the decision was well considered and it was a priority to keep the criteria as simple and well-defined as possible to avoid future discussions. Unfortunately, this indeed also means that some appealing challenges won't be possible anymore...

That's not what I meant, although I can see how you could have interpreted it that way. No, I was just amused that we talked so much about category challenges while none of us had any clue the actual restriction would be even more severe than just categories.

 

There's really no way forbidding challenges based on cache name could be aimed at making it simpler or better defined since as long as the lists are fixed, they're already simple and clear cut. The only possible reason for the name restriction is to satisfy those that blame challenge caches for bad caches they've seen planted.

Link to comment

It is worth noting that one of the major complaints people have about challenge caches is that they were being used more and more as a way of excluding classes of finders from otherwise banal urban hides, rather than as a means of truly inspiring geocachers to do more.

 

Placing a cache at the top of a mountain is a much different thing than putting a cache on a guardrail and adding an extreme set of ALRs.

 

And if the challenge cache in question inspired you to find the cache at the top of the mountain?

 

The actions needed to find either one are limiting by their very nature and similar in that regard. They both exclude classes of finders. However, if you're willing to do what's needed to log each one as found, you won't be excluded any more.

 

I don't see exclusion as a huge issue unless exclusion is the actual purpose. And unfortunately, some cache owners really were placing challenges that were designed solely to exclude people. I think it's for the best that reviewers have some latitude here.

Link to comment
There's really no way forbidding challenges based on cache name could be aimed at making it simpler or better defined since as long as the lists are fixed, they're already simple and clear cut.
Huh... It seems to me that cache name challenges create a lot of ambiguity when it comes to the "very similar or identical challenge cache" guideline. Eliminating cache name challenges gets rid of that ambiguity.

 

"What do you mean, a very similar or identical challenge cache already exists? My new 'spell the US national parks' challenge cache series is completely different from the existing 'spell the US states' challenge cache series, or the 'spell the US presidents' challenge cache series, or the 'spell the countries of the world' challenge cache series, or the 'spell the elements of the periodic table' challenge cache series, or..."

Link to comment

The only possible reason for the name restriction is to satisfy those that blame challenge caches for bad caches they've seen planted.

 

Or it could be the reason stated in the Blog:

 

They generally reward database management, rather than geocaching achievement.

 

Input was sought from the Community, and the majority didn't seem to care for them. Seems pretty simple.

Link to comment

 

Input was sought from the Community, and the majority didn't seem to care for them. Seems pretty simple.

 

I missed the announcement regarding the results of the survey and what the majority doesn't care for. Would you provide the reference please.

The Blog gives a pretty good summary of the process:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2016/05/return-of-challenge-caches/

 

The two avenues for input appeared to be the thread in the User Insight Forum that was open for about a month and ran on about 10 pages. The other was a Survey that was announced in one or two of the newsletters, which generated almost 20,000 responses. Sorry if you didn't get a chance to see those.

Link to comment

I find this interesting...

 

Note: At this time, challenge caches published prior to April 21, 2015 are grandfathered into the game. As with any grandfathered cache, Geocaching HQ may archive caches which become problematic.

 

:ph34r:

 

Oh yes... it will become problematic... it always comes with controlling people...errrr... cache owners. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Quote,Michaelcycle:

The souvenir count is too easy to artificially manipulate and too difficult to manually verify. I suggest GS reconsider allowing challenges based on souvenirs.

 

I believe a project-gc checker is working from your finds - it's not scraping your profile.

So those who "earn" souvenirs with finds that they post and then delete won't have the find for a checker.

 

Also, small potatoes really.

 

You're free to believe that, of course. Since I wrote the checker it can confidently say that this is not the case, though. Project-GC gives me a list of the souvenirs you have earned (in the form av souvenir IDs) and I can then work with that to figure out if the number of type of souvenirs for the user is sufficient.

Link to comment

Firstly, as someone who generally likes challenge caches, I'm glad they are back and the guidelines seem good.

 

For this calendar type

 

I do see the impact of Leap Day on "calendar" challenges, such as this fill the calendar challenge. These calendar challenges are not affected by the new guidelines. Some of these challenges include Leap Day and some do not, but that's based on the preference of the challenge cache owner and is stated in the challenge cache description.

 

Under the previous rules, in my area anyway, challenges to fill in 366 days were not allowed, only 365. I assume that will still be the case. I'm not sure if this is documented in the "reviewers rulebook", or just a local interpretation. I think the logic behind it is - if a new cacher were to start now, they would find it frustrating to have to wait 4 years.

 

That's a local rule. There are lots of challenges that require all 366 days. I own one of them.

Link to comment

You're free to believe that, of course. Since I wrote the checker it can confidently say that this is not the case, though. Project-GC gives me a list of the souvenirs you have earned (in the form av souvenir IDs) and I can then work with that to figure out if the number of type of souvenirs for the user is sufficient.

 

So this checker is easy to cheat then?

Link to comment

You're free to believe that, of course. Since I wrote the checker it can confidently say that this is not the case, though. Project-GC gives me a list of the souvenirs you have earned (in the form av souvenir IDs) and I can then work with that to figure out if the number of type of souvenirs for the user is sufficient.

 

So this checker is easy to cheat then?

 

You can log a cache that qualifies you for a souvenir, get that souvenir, remove the log and still have that souvenir in the eyes of the checker, yes. There are lots of ways to cheat in geocaching for those that are so inclined, just like there is in solitaire. So?

Link to comment

You're free to believe that, of course. Since I wrote the checker it can confidently say that this is not the case, though. Project-GC gives me a list of the souvenirs you have earned (in the form av souvenir IDs) and I can then work with that to figure out if the number of type of souvenirs for the user is sufficient.

 

So this checker is easy to cheat then?

 

You can log a cache that qualifies you for a souvenir, get that souvenir, remove the log and still have that souvenir in the eyes of the checker, yes. There are lots of ways to cheat in geocaching for those that are so inclined, just like there is in solitaire. So?

 

Well it only becomes important where the CO rejects the Found log on their challenge cache and the 'finder' protests that the checker says they qualify and thus their log should stand.

Link to comment

You're free to believe that, of course. Since I wrote the checker it can confidently say that this is not the case, though. Project-GC gives me a list of the souvenirs you have earned (in the form av souvenir IDs) and I can then work with that to figure out if the number of type of souvenirs for the user is sufficient.

 

So this checker is easy to cheat then?

 

You can log a cache that qualifies you for a souvenir, get that souvenir, remove the log and still have that souvenir in the eyes of the checker, yes. There are lots of ways to cheat in geocaching for those that are so inclined, just like there is in solitaire. So?

 

Well it only becomes important where the CO rejects the Found log on their challenge cache and the 'finder' protests that the checker says they qualify and thus their log should stand.

But that's not a fault with the checker, it's a fault with the way Souvenirs are managed on geocaching.com and if someone designs a challenge based on souvenirs then they have to accept the limitations of the implementation.

Link to comment

 

Yes, it's obvious that a Challenge cache is different from a Non-Challenge cache. But Groundspeak's paragraph doesn't suggest that's the reason why they ban extremely difficult Challenge caches. The only reason Groundspeak mentions is that some extremely difficult Challenge caches would be found by very few people, which Groundspeak doesn't allow. Yet some extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches also would be found by very few people, but they aren't banned. Can you say "double standard?"

 

I agree Groundspeak doesn't explain this, and I can't speak for them.

 

But I will give my own view. Putting challenges aside for a moment, difficult caches have always been part of the game, and generally accepted. If there is a SCUBA or other cache I can't do, it doesn't bother me (or I believe most cachers). So Groundspeak has never had an issue with difficult/extreme caches.

 

When challenges started to increase, there was an increasing number of challenges with criteria which was difficult (and/or convoluted). And many cachers found these frustrating. Making it mandatory that at least the CO qualifies is one step to address this. But apparently not enough.

 

To me, it is as simple as that. A few might complain that they can't SCUBA or climb trees, but difficult "non-challenge" caches have not been seen as a problem in general. (Maybe with the exception of very difficult or convoluted puzzle caches, many complain about those). Challenge caches with criteria which few could ever meet have been seen as a problem.

 

So

 

- Yes they are different

- Yes there are different standards

- Yes, the new guidelines do not explain why they are being treated differently.

Link to comment

You're free to believe that, of course. Since I wrote the checker it can confidently say that this is not the case, though. Project-GC gives me a list of the souvenirs you have earned (in the form av souvenir IDs) and I can then work with that to figure out if the number of type of souvenirs for the user is sufficient.

 

So this checker is easy to cheat then?

 

You can log a cache that qualifies you for a souvenir, get that souvenir, remove the log and still have that souvenir in the eyes of the checker, yes. There are lots of ways to cheat in geocaching for those that are so inclined, just like there is in solitaire. So?

 

Well it only becomes important where the CO rejects the Found log on their challenge cache and the 'finder' protests that the checker says they qualify and thus their log should stand.

But that's not a fault with the checker, it's a fault with the way Souvenirs are managed on geocaching.com and if someone designs a challenge based on souvenirs then they have to accept the limitations of the implementation.

 

Do they have to accept it?

 

Is that received wisdom?

 

Personally I'd reject any find where souvenirs had been gained to which there was no entitlement - but I'd be sure to write that into the challenge qualification requirements.

Link to comment
I don't know why Groundspeak are SO reluctant to add a Challenge Cache attribute! :mad: :mad:
I am not a lackey, and I don't play one on TV, but my take is that they may be interested in doing more than adding an attribute, but only if challenge caches survive the year without creating the same problems they created before the moratorium.

 

If the same problems pop up again, then I think they'll just grandfather all the challenge caches and stop accepting new ones. But if the new system for challenge caches works the way they hope, and they make it a year without the same problems popping up again, then I think they'll move forward with a new cache type.

 

But that's just a SWAG based on my own outsider observations.

 

Sounds about right. In the Blog article, they stated this:

What’s Not Changing (for now)

 

The idea of a challenge cache icon or attribute earned significant support from the community. We agree there are a lot of good reasons to implement one. However, we want to confirm that the new framework will reduce the problems which led to the moratorium. It wouldn’t make sense to engineer a new icon or attribute only to lose it if challenge caches don’t work out. We’re going to give it a year or so, and then re-evaluate the situation. If we find that things are going well, then we will strongly consider adding a new icon or attribute for challenge caches.

Link to comment

I agree that the problems concerning category challenges were prominent in that discussion and that banning the entire class for this reason only would be overkill, but my believe is that the decision was well considered and it was a priority to keep the criteria as simple and well-defined as possible to avoid future discussions. Unfortunately, this indeed also means that some appealing challenges won't be possible anymore...

That's not what I meant, although I can see how you could have interpreted it that way. No, I was just amused that we talked so much about category challenges while none of us had any clue the actual restriction would be even more severe than just categories.

 

There's really no way forbidding challenges based on cache name could be aimed at making it simpler or better defined since as long as the lists are fixed, they're already simple and clear cut. The only possible reason for the name restriction is to satisfy those that blame challenge caches for bad caches they've seen planted.

 

An individual cache listing could be very simple and clear cut, but that should also be the case for the criterium the reviewers use. I don't want to start another pointless discussion, but can imagine some issues when reviewing fixed lists.

  • How long would a fixed list be allowed to be? A threshold could be added to the guidelines (let's say 25 :anibad: ), but whatever the chosen number might be some hiders would complain that that number is too low.
  • Is the list complete, and why are certain items included (or not) in the list? P.ex. a cache that challenges to find cache names starting with 20 different letters of the alphabet that are included in a fixed list, with the letter T being the only one that's not included (because the CO doesn't like tea).

 

However it may be, interpreting customers' wishes and dislikes and satisfying them will have been among the reasons for the decisions that were made.

Link to comment

I find this interesting...

 

Note: At this time, challenge caches published prior to April 21, 2015 are grandfathered into the game. As with any grandfathered cache, Geocaching HQ may archive caches which become problematic.

 

:ph34r:

 

Oh yes... it will become problematic... it always comes with controlling people...errrr... cache owners. :ph34r:

What does "problematic" mean?

The grandfathered caches won't be "problematic" to review, since they've already been published.

 

Will they be deemed "problematic" if cache finders can't figure out how to determine whether they've qualified for a CC or not? If the CO can't explain the qualification requirements clearly enough, then that's either a CO's communication problem or a cache finder's comprehension problem.

 

If the cache finder understands the qualification requirements but doesn't want to do the work necessary to determine whether they qualify or not, assuming a checker isn't available, then I wouldn't consider the grandfathered CC to be "problematic" or the CO to be "controlling". In such cases, the cache finder is the one being "problematic" by insisting they should be allowed to log a CC for which they can't prove their qualifications.

Link to comment

While the rulesguidelines now say the challenge cache must have an online checker it doesn't say that finders MUST use the online checkers.

That's interesting. I wonder if that is how it will be interpreted in practice.

I'm certain of it. Plenty of people post stats from GSAK and screen captures from the GC site already. No reason to believe they will change their method if it is still a valid way to provide confirmation.

This seems like a crucial detail that remains ambiguous with the new CC framework.

 

Looking at Guideline #7 from the perspective of an inexperienced cacher:

"the challenge cache may be logged as found online only after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented."

 

  • "log is signed" -- That's pretty objective and not difficult to understand. The cache finder needs to sign the physical logbook.
  • "challenge tasks have been met" -- Could be difficult, but Project-GC checkers make this easy with a few mouse clicks.
  • "and documented" -- What?

Guideline #5 still says that the requirements must be easy to document, but are there any rules/guidelines regarding how the requirements can be documented? Should a cache finder assume that if they get a green light on the checker, then there's nothing else they have to do in regards to documenting that they've met the requirements? It seems that if the new guidelines are supposed to be adding clarity to CC's, then 'documentation' should also be clarified.

 

Pre-moratorium CC's mentioned in the cache description how to prove qualifications. For example, include your qualifying finds in a bookmark list or screenshot or in your log. Shouldn't new CC's also mention how to prove qualifications? I see a newly published CC that includes a link to the PGC Checker, but the listing doesn't say anything about how finders should 'document' their qualification.

 

Maybe the CCO intends to run the PGC checker against everyone that logs a "Found It". Is it the intent of the new guidelines that CCO's should run the PGC checker against each finder as part of their due diligence in QC'ing their listing? I'm not trying to debate whether this is a valid expectation or not. I'm trying to get clarity on what is expected by TPTB to ensure CC's don't become "problematic" going forward.

 

ETA: Actually, I'm seeing several new CC's that don't say anything about how to document qualifications. They all include a link to a PGC Checker, but what are cache finders supposed to do after getting the green light? Cachers that have documented CC's in the past might still include screenshots or lists of their qualifiers because they're used to the pre-moratorium methods.

 

GC-challenge-67.png

Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

Do they have to accept it?

 

Is that received wisdom?

 

Personally I'd reject any find where souvenirs had been gained to which there was no entitlement - but I'd be sure to write that into the challenge qualification requirements.

As I interpret the guidelines they have to.

 

Firstly, it's depending on how the challenge requirement is written. If it says "Have 50 souvenirs", it's very clear that it doesn't matter how you got them.

 

The solution for you as the challenge owner is then to require something like "Have 50 souvenirs for which you still fulfill the requirement". BUT, you won't be able to create a challenge checker for that requirement, so you won't be able to publish the challenge.

 

Disclaimer: I am the founder of Project-GC, but regardless of that I don't have any closer insight in the guidelines or interpretations related to this matter. This is my PERSONAL interpretation, Geocaching HQ and/or reviewers might see it differently, but to me it's crystal clear.

Link to comment

Do they have to accept it?

 

Is that received wisdom?

 

Personally I'd reject any find where souvenirs had been gained to which there was no entitlement - but I'd be sure to write that into the challenge qualification requirements.

As I interpret the guidelines they have to.

 

Firstly, it's depending on how the challenge requirement is written. If it says "Have 50 souvenirs", it's very clear that it doesn't matter how you got them.

 

The solution for you as the challenge owner is then to require something like "Have 50 souvenirs for which you still fulfill the requirement". BUT, you won't be able to create a challenge checker for that requirement, so you won't be able to publish the challenge.

 

Disclaimer: I am the founder of Project-GC, but regardless of that I don't have any closer insight in the guidelines or interpretations related to this matter. This is my PERSONAL interpretation, Geocaching HQ and/or reviewers might see it differently, but to me it's crystal clear.

 

That's a shame.

 

I've had people post fake finds on my caches just so they could get a souvenir - and then delete the log because they posted it 'by mistake'.

 

So a challenge based on souvenirs would likely draw in the cheats too.

 

Unless GS overhauls the souvenir system - and I don't see that happening ever.

Link to comment

It is worth noting that one of the major complaints people have about challenge caches is that they were being used more and more as a way of excluding classes of finders from otherwise banal urban hides, rather than as a means of truly inspiring geocachers to do more.

 

Placing a cache at the top of a mountain is a much different thing than putting a cache on a guardrail and adding an extreme set of ALRs.

 

And if the challenge cache in question inspired you to find the cache at the top of the mountain?

 

The actions needed to find either one are limiting by their very nature and similar in that regard. They both exclude classes of finders. However, if you're willing to do what's needed to log each one as found, you won't be excluded any more.

 

I don't see exclusion as a huge issue unless exclusion is the actual purpose. And unfortunately, some cache owners really were placing challenges that were designed solely to exclude people. I think it's for the best that reviewers have some latitude here.

 

But you brought up exclusion as one of the major complaints about challenge caches. I'd like to see an example of a challenge cache that was designed solely to exclude people. Was it really that rampant, especially since challenge caches were less than 1% of all submitted caches on the site?

Link to comment

It is worth noting that one of the major complaints people have about challenge caches is that they were being used more and more as a way of excluding classes of finders from otherwise banal urban hides, rather than as a means of truly inspiring geocachers to do more.

 

Placing a cache at the top of a mountain is a much different thing than putting a cache on a guardrail and adding an extreme set of ALRs.

 

And if the challenge cache in question inspired you to find the cache at the top of the mountain?

 

The actions needed to find either one are limiting by their very nature and similar in that regard. They both exclude classes of finders. However, if you're willing to do what's needed to log each one as found, you won't be excluded any more.

 

I don't see exclusion as a huge issue unless exclusion is the actual purpose. And unfortunately, some cache owners really were placing challenges that were designed solely to exclude people. I think it's for the best that reviewers have some latitude here.

 

But you brought up exclusion as one of the major complaints about challenge caches. I'd like to see an example of a challenge cache that was designed solely to exclude people. Was it really that rampant, especially since challenge caches were less than 1% of all submitted caches on the site?

 

This aspect of the guidelines is not new for challenges. It is, as far as I know, something that has always applied since challenge caches were "a thing".

That being said, one person I know made the comment that technically, unless all the caches are T1/accessible, there is a degree of exclusion inherent in just about every challenge.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...