Return of challenge caches

7.4k · June 1, 2016

One can only hope.

You should at least pretend you're approaching the discussion with an open mind.

I was the third one to comment on the thread to say, sincerely:

Speaking as someone who was decidedly "meh" about challenge caches before the moratorium, I am happy to see the new guidelines address most, if not all, the ways these caches were degrading the quality of the game.

I am looking forward to new challenge caches that truly promote and inspire geocaching.

Over the course of this discussion I have come to see that my optimism was unfounded. It's a very disappointing thread.

6.8k · June 1, 2016

Speaking as someone who was decidedly "meh" about challenge caches before the moratorium, I am happy to see the new guidelines address most, if not all, the ways these caches were degrading the quality of the game.

I am looking forward to new challenge caches that truly promote and inspire geocaching.

Over the course of this discussion I have come to see that my optimism was unfounded. It's a very disappointing thread.

In what sense do you regard the thread as disappointing?

In my opinion it just reflects the fact that new guidelines raise more questions than they answer.

I also wonder what kind of challenges you have in mind when you write "truly promote and inspire geocaching".

Find at least one traditional caches with the significant hiking attribute at an elevation of at least 2000m (just an example - can depend on the region) on at least x days (not x consecutive days) [x will again depend on the region]

e.g. seems to be a challenge cache fitting your statement but it will not be published while a 365 streak challenge will be published but does not seem to promote and inspire geocaching.

3.1k · June 1, 2016

As for "show off" challenges, there also are Non-Challenges out there that demonstrate exceptional SCUBA, hiking, climbing, and boating skills. Groundspeak doesn't have a guideline against showing off. Ignore them, if they don't suit your tastes.

One obvious "show off" example for keeping the "reasonably attainable" guideline is that a cacher may wish to emphasise that they have certain difficult-to-acquire icons (such as Ape cache or Groundspeak Headquarters). If I was big-headed I might set up a local Challenge cache only loggable by those with these two icons. Although plenty of people in Washington USA might have these, hardly anyone (possibly no-one) in my local area will qualify so the likely reason for me doing this is that I want to broadcast my achievement. The cache will just be taking up space that a less egotistical cacher could use.

Another example is if I happened to have logged over (say) 15000 caches and set this as the criterion. Although one or two in the area might qualify, for the majority this sort of figure is unattainable, so again it looks like self-promotion. Probably not the sort of thing to encourage.

First, some people might ascribe "showing off" as the motivation for an "Ape/HQ" challenge, even though the actual motivation could be to inspire others to make those journeys. I created a Fizzy challenge, not because I wanted to broadcast that achievement but rather because I had lots of fun completing that challenge and wanted to encourage other geocachers to give it a try.

Sure, and if "I want to inspire" was an acceptable defense against reviewer judgement, there'd be cache placement chaos That's quite subjective. Someone who's cache is denied may simply retort "but I want to inspire people to find these caches!" True or not, it's not gonna work.

You seem to be very confused. There is no guideline regarding acceptable motivations behind creating Challenge caches. A reviewer can't deny publishing a challenge simply because they think the owner wants to "show off." So, there's no need for anyone to retort, "I want to inspire."

Fourth, why should experienced cachers be denied inspiring challenges? I've found about 14,300 caches, but my find rate has declined quite a bit this year. Your 15,000-finds challenge might be just what I need to get excited about geocaching again. Actually, that kind of challenge doesn't really interest me much, but certain extremely difficult challenges (currently not allowed to be published) just might press my buttons.

I agree in spirit, and I'm of the same midset. Love challenges. Even extreme ones. But I also don't want to see regions litered with challenges only people who've been caching for 15 years (or very much every single day for a year) could have a chance of accomplishing. That's why reviewers have to make that judgement of what's reasonable. If not reasonable now, 15,000 would be more reasonable in 3 years than it was 10 years ago. That line has to change. So once again, our concern is about where that line of "reasonable" is judged by any particular reviewer [team], not that there is a subjective "reasonable" guideline. [Emphasis added.]

Today, there are lots of fairly easy and medium-difficulty Challenge caches as well as difficult ones. If the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline was dropped, then why would cache owners who like to create fairly easy, medium-difficulty, and difficult Challenge caches suddenly stop creating those kinds of caches and only create extremely difficult challenges? That makes no sense.

First, most challenge cache owners haven't been caching for 15 years, so they couldn't create extremely difficult caches that only those with 15 years' experience could qualify for. (The owner has to qualify for their own challenge.)

Second, most people who create fairly easy challenges do so because they enjoy seeing lots of people succeed with those challenges and enjoy reading lots of logs. Even if those owners would qualify for an extremely difficult challenge, they aren't likely to create only extremely difficult challenges, because they still enjoy seeing lots of people succeed and still enjoy reading lots of logs. (Very few people are likely to log finds on extremely difficult challenges.)

Finally, that line (the "reasonable number of cachers" line) does not have to change if the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline has been dropped. The topic being discussed is "why the 'reasonable number of cachers' guideline exists at all." If that guideline is dropped, as I suggested, then there is no line to change. The concern precisely is whether there should be a subjective "reasonable" guideline. That is exactly what is under discussion here.

3.7k · June 1, 2016

First, some people might ascribe "showing off" as the motivation for an "Ape/HQ" challenge, even though the actual motivation could be to inspire others to make those journeys. I created a Fizzy challenge, not because I wanted to broadcast that achievement but rather because I had lots of fun completing that challenge and wanted to encourage other geocachers to give it a try.

Second, there probably aren't a whole lot of people who want to create any caches (Challenge or Non-Challenge) that will get logged by few, if any, people. It's easy to create an impossible Puzzle cache, but they are rare. Most people want their caches to be found.

Third, if the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline was dropped and someone did publish a Challenge that you felt was absurd, then you could add it to your Ignore list. That Challenge cache takes up no more space than an impossible Puzzle cache and perhaps less space than the extremely difficult multi-cache. And with the new Challenge guidelines, that extreme Challenge cache's location must be on the listing page (and thus won't cause proximity issues when you want to hide your own cache). The impossible Puzzle cache could be hidden anywhere within two miles of its posted coordinates, and the extremely difficult multi-cache could have containers scattered across many, many miles.

Fourth, why should experienced cachers be denied inspiring challenges? I've found about 14,300 caches, but my find rate has declined quite a bit this year. Your 15,000-finds challenge might be just what I need to get excited about geocaching again. Actually, that kind of challenge doesn't really interest me much, but certain extremely difficult challenges (currently not allowed to be published) just might press my buttons.

Note that the guidelines specify that a reasonable number of cachers IN YOUR LOCAL AREA should qualify.

Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify.

Hardly anyone is in 5-figures of caches around here, despite the huge cache density, so the list would be rather short for the 15000 challenge (assuming that one of the few was willing to submit it). The Ape/HQ challenge may be "inspiring" for the wealthy retired cacher, but the list from my local area consists of one (as far as I know) and is unlikely to rise to a "reasonable number" ever. And I suspect that applies to almost everywhere in the world. So if I submitted this challenge I'd be pretty sure that it would remain unfound for ever, so I would expect others to see it as a vanity project. Although people could ignore it, I guarantee that it would cause annoyance and would be regarded as deliberately unloggable. Edited June 1, 2016 by Happy Humphrey

6.8k · June 1, 2016

Note that the guidelines specify that a reasonable number of cachers IN YOUR LOCAL AREA should qualify.

I guess that all participants here are aware of this, but we do not all agree whether it's a change to the positive to require that a reasonable number already qualifies and not that they could qualify.

For many the interesting aspect of challenge caches is working towards qualification and not being qualified already.

I do see the point of CanadianRockies. Where should challenge caches come from which inspire someone like him?

9k · June 1, 2016

The constantly changing geocaching landscape makes it even harder for reviewers to constantly make good, subjective judgments. Today, 10 pre-qualifiers might be deemed as what's needed to "be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers," while 11 might be needed tomorrow. That's another reason to drop the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline -- not to keep it. If Groundspeak dropped that guideline, then we wouldn't need to trust the reviewers' judgments regarding "reasonable number of chachers" because they wouldn't have to make those judgments.

Ok. I disagree, but we can disagree about whether the mere existence of the right for reviewers to judge what's "reasonable" is acceptable.

Groundspeak lackies and reviewers are the ones who pointed out that subjective challenge guidelines resulted in a huge amount of extra work for reviewers and a huge number of appeals. That's the major reason Groundspeak cited for imposing the challenge moratorium. That's the threat that hangs over our heads for the next year as Groundspeak determines whether their new framework is sufficient to fix the problems. I'm just saying that if they want to cut down on even more reviewer and appeals burdens, then dropping the subjective "reasonable number of cachers" guideline with help reduce the problem. Nobody has provided a solid, rational reason for keeping that guideline.

Sure. The question then is, would dropping the subjective "reasonably attainable" clause provide an overall better landscape for challenge caching than allowing reviewers to judge what's reasonable in their region? Well, we know Groundspeak decides to support that clause, so they must feel it's worth the tradeoff. And now we have a year to find out how it works out for the reviewers worldwide.

As for "show off" challenges, there also are Non-Challenges out there that demonstrate exceptional SCUBA, hiking, climbing, and boating skills. Groundspeak doesn't have a guideline against showing off. Ignore them, if they don't suit your tastes.

---

We already covered the difference between challenge and non-challenge caches earlier in the thread. Not going to revive that again.

---

We covered why the "Challenge caches are almost private caches" rationale is a double standard. The "show-off caches should be banned" rationale is a second double standard.

..my point was that challenge caches are judged by a different standard than non-challenge caches, so I don't think comparing any judgement standard between the two concepts is relevant. You can if you want, but I'll just keeping pointing to the fact that they are different concepts (beyond the listing's physical cache-finding component) which is why the challenge (not the act of finding the listing's physical cache) is judged differently.

First, some people might ascribe "showing off" as the motivation for an "Ape/HQ" challenge, even though the actual motivation could be to inspire others to make those journeys. I created a Fizzy challenge, not because I wanted to broadcast that achievement but rather because I had lots of fun completing that challenge and wanted to encourage other geocachers to give it a try.

---

Sure, and if "I want to inspire" was an acceptable defense against reviewer judgement, there'd be cache placement chaos That's quite subjective. Someone who's cache is denied may simply retort "but I want to inspire people to find these caches!" True or not, it's not gonna work.

---

You seem to be very confused. There is no guideline regarding acceptable motivations behind creating Challenge caches. A reviewer can't deny publishing a challenge simply because they think the owner wants to "show off." So, there's no need for anyone to retort, "I want to inspire."

You seem to be a missing the point. And I'm not confused. That's exactly what I was attempting to illustrate.

Let me try it another more direct way: You said "some people ascribe 'showing off' as the motivation..even though the actual motivation could be to inspire". But reviewers won't care about that. If they did, anyone could see that as a loophole in the review and simply say "but I want to inspire". True or not, it's not gonna work. "Providing inspiration" isn't an acceptable reason alone to publish any challenge, let alone "show off" (or "vanity", I like that) challenges.

Today, there are lots of fairly easy and medium-difficulty Challenge caches as well as difficult ones. If the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline was dropped, then why would cache owners who like to create fairly easy, medium-difficulty, and difficult Challenge caches suddenly stop creating those kinds of caches and only create extremely difficult challenges? That makes no sense.

What is "easy, medium-difficulty, and difficult"? To you? Universally? In Germany? In Iceland? In Cuba? In Seattle? What then is "lots"? To a 1 month old cacher? To a 15 year old cacher? You state "lots of fairly easy/medium/difficult" as if your understanding is the same to everyone, when in fact reviewers are the ones who have, and continue to judge, both what is "reasonable" and what the near-future landscape of regional challenge caches looks like. IF we presume your understanding of easy/medium/difficult is universal, then that only shows that your reviewers' judgement has been accurate, providing the very landscape that you see by their denial those that aren't. What if the rule hadn't existed and reviewers had just published every single non-impossible challenge that was submitted, with zero subjectivity? Ah, what ifs! So many possibilities. Maybe we should ask the reviewers to send us their exhaustive list of the likely many hundreds of denied challenge cache listings, the very reason for the moratorium, so we have a better idea of what they previously considered "reasonable" under the old guidelines.

First, most challenge cache owners haven't been caching for 15 years, so they couldn't create extremely difficult caches that only those with 15 years' experience could qualify for. (The owner has to qualify for their own challenge.)

There's nothing stopping them from attempting that. And if they did, their difficulty would be judged the same as everyone under being "reasonably attainable".

Second, most people who create fairly easy challenges do so because they enjoy seeing lots of people succeed with those challenges and enjoy reading lots of logs. Even if those owners would qualify for an extremely difficult challenge, they aren't likely to create only extremely difficult challenges, because they still enjoy seeing lots of people succeed and still enjoy reading lots of logs. (Very few people are likely to log finds on extremely difficult challenges.)

And as we know it's not just about "easy" challenges. It's also unreasonably complex, convoluted challenges that are difficult to understand, even if easy to qualify.

Finally, that line (the "reasonable number of cachers" line) does not have to change if the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline has been dropped. The topic being discussed is "why the 'reasonable number of cachers' guideline exists at all." If that guideline is dropped, as I suggested, then there is no line to change. The concern precisely is whether there should be a subjective "reasonable" guideline. That is exactly what is under discussion here.

..there's more than one topic being discussed here.

Per that one point about the "reasonable number of cachers" clause, the only rebuttle against it I've seen which I think is defensible is for easy, understandable challenges that have simply not previously been considered - no one qualifies because no one's done it yet - so is it not publishable? The best solution I think based on the idea of 'beta testing' is to present the challenge to a few other people and ask them to pre-qualify. If you find it's hard for 10 others to pre-qualify, and you can't find 10 who already qualify, chances are it is not "reasonably attainable" in Ontario... and that's why they have decided to use that standard to help them judge reasonability.

Do you or I think that standard is unreasonable? That's a different question than whether there should even be a judgement for reasonability. On the latter, we disagree. On the former, I think we'd agree. But let's see some test cases first.

9k · June 1, 2016

I guess that all participants here are aware of this, but we do not all agree whether it's a change to the positive to require that a reasonable number already qualifies and not that they could qualify.

Here's my reasoning why I think this really is a non-issue (and perhaps what reviewers may say were you to raise the issue with them):

- If it's an easy challenge, you could ask go and ask N cachers to qualify before publishing, and it shouldn't be an issue. Send the list and they'll publish it.

- If you can't find or easily get N cachers to qualify for the challenge, it's probably not a reasonable challenge for your region, and that'll support their decision to deny it.

- Pre-qualifying for a challenge cache should matter as much to a cacher as beta testing a puzzle or field-work cache matters. That typically means they'll log the find after the FTF is claimed.

If the point of the clause is to present the challenge as reasonable attainable in the eyes of the local reviewer[team], then we should either be able to easily find qualified users, or be able to 'beta test' and obtain qualified users, in order to publish it.

Personally, I'd gladly help out by beta testing challenge cache ideas pre-publish. I don't care if I qualify before or after the cache itself is published. Heck I'm trying to qualify for as many of Ontario's existing challenge caches as possible, many of them of which I may never set a foot anywhere near. Because I, personally, love challenges.

3.7k · June 1, 2016

Note that the guidelines specify that a reasonable number of cachers IN YOUR LOCAL AREA should qualify.

I guess that all participants here are aware of this, but we do not all agree whether it's a change to the positive to require that a reasonable number already qualifies and not that they could qualify.

For many the interesting aspect of challenge caches is working towards qualification and not being qualified already.

...

I think that the point is to demonstrate that others in the area could be reasonably expected to work towards qualification, by showing that some already have.

3.1k · June 1, 2016

Yes, I'm wondering why the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline exists at all. So far, nobody seems to have provided a rational reason to support that guideline, whose subjective nature causes problems for Groundspeak's Volunteer Reviewers and Appeals group (and imposes a double standard on Challenge caches).

They've explained - people in the past have attempted to publish either ridiculously complex challenges to understand, or challenges that show off experience and are so high in requirements that few may ever qualify, etc etc (appeal to and be reasonably attainable by); these fall into the majority of appeals they had to deal with related to challenge caching. [Emphasis added.]

As for "show off" challenges, there also are Non-Challenges out there that demonstrate exceptional SCUBA, hiking, climbing, and boating skills. Groundspeak doesn't have a guideline against showing off. Ignore them, if they don't suit your tastes.

One obvious "show off" example for keeping the "reasonably attainable" guideline is that a cacher may wish to emphasise that they have certain difficult-to-acquire icons (such as Ape cache or Groundspeak Headquarters). If I was big-headed I might set up a local Challenge cache only loggable by those with these two icons. Although plenty of people in Washington USA might have these, hardly anyone (possibly no-one) in my local area will qualify so the likely reason for me doing this is that I want to broadcast my achievement. The cache will just be taking up space that a less egotistical cacher could use.

Another example is if I happened to have logged over (say) 15000 caches and set this as the criterion. Although one or two in the area might qualify, for the majority this sort of figure is unattainable, so again it looks like self-promotion. Probably not the sort of thing to encourage.

First, some people might ascribe "showing off" as the motivation for an "Ape/HQ" challenge, even though the actual motivation could be to inspire others to make those journeys. I created a Fizzy challenge, not because I wanted to broadcast that achievement but rather because I had lots of fun completing that challenge and wanted to encourage other geocachers to give it a try.

Second, there probably aren't a whole lot of people who want to create any caches (Challenge or Non-Challenge) that will get logged by few, if any, people. It's easy to create an impossible Puzzle cache, but they are rare. Most people want their caches to be found.

Third, if the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline was dropped and someone did publish a Challenge that you felt was absurd, then you could add it to your Ignore list. That Challenge cache takes up no more space than an impossible Puzzle cache and perhaps less space than the extremely difficult multi-cache. And with the new Challenge guidelines, that extreme Challenge cache's location must be on the listing page (and thus won't cause proximity issues when you want to hide your own cache). The impossible Puzzle cache could be hidden anywhere within two miles of its posted coordinates, and the extremely difficult multi-cache could have containers scattered across many, many miles.

Fourth, why should experienced cachers be denied inspiring challenges? I've found about 14,300 caches, but my find rate has declined quite a bit this year. Your 15,000-finds challenge might be just what I need to get excited about geocaching again. Actually, that kind of challenge doesn't really interest me much, but certain extremely difficult challenges (currently not allowed to be published) just might press my buttons.

Note that the guidelines specify that a reasonable number of cachers IN YOUR LOCAL AREA should qualify.

Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify.

This whole "show off" discussion started when I wondered "why the 'reasonable number of cachers' guideline exists at all." Thebruce0 offered one possible reason: the guideline prevents "show off" challenges. You then provided a couple examples of what you considered to be "show off" challenges. I responded with four reasons why I didn't believe potential "show off" challenges were a good enough reason to justify the existence of the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline. And now we come to you latest post.

When I talk about dropping the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline, I am including not just the first sentence of that guideline but also the second sentence, which you quoted: "Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify." Get rid of both of them. They create problems and nobody can seem to come up with a rational reason to keep them around.

Hardly anyone is in 5-figures of caches around here, despite the huge cache density, so the list would be rather short for the 15000 challenge (assuming that one of the few was willing to submit it). The Ape/HQ challenge may be "inspiring" for the wealthy retired cacher, but the list from my local area consists of one (as far as I know) and is unlikely to rise to a "reasonable number" ever. And I suspect that applies to almost everywhere in the world. So if I submitted this challenge I'd be pretty sure that it would remain unfound for ever, so I would expect others to see it as a vanity project. Although people could ignore it, I guarantee that it would cause annoyance and would be regarded as deliberately unloggable.

If the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline was dropped, then there would only have to be one 15,000 finder in your area to create such a challenge. It might generate instant inspiration to a few other 5-figure finders in your area and future inspiration to other geocachers. As well, it might inspire 5-figure finders who are traveling through your area.

I don't doubt that a few people might be truly motivated by vanity to create "show off" challenges. I just don't think the number will be as high or their effect as serious as you might fear (for the reasons I mentioned in my 7:52 AM post). And they probably won't cause enough problems to outweigh all the burdens and problems that the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline causes. If the costs of the guideline are great and the benefits are small, then a cost/benefit analysis would conclude that it is rational to get rid of that guideline.

In addition to the Ape/HQ challenge inspiring the wealthy, retired geocacher, it also could inspire the family going on a two-week vacation and happen to be visiting Seattle or Brazil. We visited the Groundspeak HQ during a two-week vacation when we passed through Seattle (and we're neither wealthy nor retired).

I suppose some people still might be annoyed with these kinds of extremely difficult challenges, even after they ignore it. But if "annoyance" is adaquate justification for banning extremely difficult Challenge caches, then isn't annoyance also a good reason to ban lamppost caches, guardrail caches, power trails, puzzle caches, SCUBA caches, mountain-top caches, rock-climbing caches, tree-climbing caches, boat caches, Quad-vehicle caches, Beacon caches, Wherigo caches, etc.? If not, then what could justify applying a double standard to Challenge caches versus Non-Challenge caches?

Edited June 2, 2016 by CanadianRockies

6.8k · June 1, 2016

Note that the guidelines specify that a reasonable number of cachers IN YOUR LOCAL AREA should qualify.

I guess that all participants here are aware of this, but we do not all agree whether it's a change to the positive to require that a reasonable number already qualifies and not that they could qualify.

For many the interesting aspect of challenge caches is working towards qualification and not being qualified already.

...

I think that the point is to demonstrate that others in the area could be reasonably expected to work towards qualification, by showing that some already have.

That makes sense for certain types of challenge caches like having found x multi caches, having a streak of >y days etc

It does not make sense for challenges of a completely different type where qualification will be something which with a very high probability will not happen just by chance and not just by having cached a lot.

It's much more likely that a few cachers in a cache dense area with many multi caches have found say >1000 multi caches than that a comparable number e.g. has a sequence of finds on four successive days

where one of the caches on the first day is at an altitude of say 0-250, the second day at an altitude of 1000-1250, the third day at an altitude of 2000-2250 and the fourth day at an altitude of 3000-3250 (just an arbitrary example).

Of course one could first send out local cachers to fulfill the challenge before a challenge cache is published, but that takes out the suspense in my opinion and I regard that as pretty lame. Personally I do not even like having caches beta-tested by one person and actually somehow sending out the main target audience in advance before a cache gets published is not what I would appreciate.

2k · June 1, 2016

What is "easy, medium-difficulty, and difficult"? To you? Universally? In Germany? In Iceland? In Cuba? In Seattle? What then is "lots"? To a 1 month old cacher? To a 15 year old cacher? You state "lots of fairly easy/medium/difficult" as if your understanding is the same to everyone, when in fact reviewers are the ones who have, and continue to judge, both what is "reasonable" and what the near-future landscape of regional challenge caches looks like. IF we presume your understanding of easy/medium/difficult is universal, then that only shows that your reviewers' judgement has been accurate, providing the very landscape that you see by their denial those that aren't. What if the rule hadn't existed and reviewers had just published every single non-impossible challenge that was submitted, with zero subjectivity? Ah, what ifs! So many possibilities. Maybe we should ask the reviewers to send us their exhaustive list of the likely many hundreds of denied challenge cache listings, the very reason for the moratorium, so we have a better idea of what they previously considered "reasonable" under the old guidelines.

And this paragraph is the crux of the issue with the wording in the guidelines that CR is talking about. Subjectivity of the reviewers is what caused the issue to come to a head in the first place. Well, that and stubborn COs who believe that their CC should be published as is so they appeal the decision. Removing the clauses suggested REMOVES the subjectivity issue. Does it create the possibility that someone might publish an unattainable challenge? Certainly, but with challenge caches being less than 1% of all submitted caches, is that really an issue? Is it really that bad if someone publishes a single challenge that only 5 people might qualify for? There's a 4 corner challenge near me (one cache in each hemisphere - one can double qualify two hemispheres with a single cache) that I'll most likely never qualify for. I have no problem with it being where it is and no problem with the CO creating what very few people will have the opportunity to do. 10 finders in almost 4 years.

There's a CO looking to put out a 100 souvenir challenge in the area. She's posted a note on our local geocaching FB page to see how many qualify, how many don't (and the # they have), and how many would be interested in trying to achieve it. As of right now, there are about 5. Is this challenge attainable and reasonable? I would think so but I've yet to hear how her submission has gone.

Edited June 1, 2016 by coachstahly

3.1k · June 1, 2016

I'm not saying the Ontario reviewers aren't allowed to impose some magical number of pre-qualifiers. I'm saying they seem to be leaning towards one extreme of interpreting "attainable" while other reviewers seem to use apply more common sense and use a more standard, dictionary interpretation. I'm glad I'm in common sense territory.

I'm the reviewers would disagree with your claims to lack of "common sense", and almost certainly Groundspeak is on the reviewers' side. [Red color added.]

I agree with you in sentiment, but I won't throw around claims to "common sense". "Common sense" in this case is determining what is reasonable. I may disagree with what they decide is "reasonable", not that they are not using "common sense".

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Ontario reviewers lack common sense (I didn't say that's what you said, but ok). I'm saying they seem to favor (according to you) the automation of a challenge checker to determine "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" and pass on the opportunity to apply their common sense (which I'm sure they have in abundance) to make that judgment call. Thus Ontario reviewers are unlikely to approve the kinds of challenges (like the "month of Unknowns") that obviously can be accomplished by a "reasonable number of cachers" but likely will have few pre-qualified geocachers in the area.

Citing myself again, I don't know if reviewers will or won't publish that specific example; I'm citing an explanation that would be logically deduced from their interpretation of the guidelines. Would they consider it reasonable in Ontario? I don't know - we haven't seen one published or denied yet. I would certainly hope they see it as reasonable, but I can see that potential drawback one may use as reason for denial - holding off finding Unknowns in order to qualify.

If Ontario reviewers won't publish challenges unless 10 local geocachers (excluding the owner) have pre-qualified (as you previously have claimed), then it's very likely that those reviewers won't publish a "month of Unknowns" challenge anytime soon. Even big-numbers geocachers rarely achieve this kind of challenge accidentally.

If Alberta reviewers apply their common sense when they determine if a "month of Unknowns" challenge is "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers," then (given the significant number of Unknown caches in the Calgary area), I'm almost certain they will realize that such a challenge is indeed "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" in this area (if they make a determined effort to complete that challenge). This proved to be the case. I don't think anyone else in this area had pre-qualified for our challenge, but three people qualified at the end of the first month and 22 have found it in total.

So, no, "common sense" is not determining what is reasonable in Ontario. According to you, automated challenge checkers are being applied instead.

I don't know what you mean by "automated challenge checkers".

I mean that Ontario reviewers seem to be basing their decision about "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" on whether 10 cachers (other than the owner) have pre-qualified for the challenge (determined, perhaps, by running the automated challenge checker).

Also, I don't get your first sentence. They are using their common sense, that is, based on their knowledge of the geocaching landscape in Ontario, based on discussions amongst themselves, based on evidence and defense presented in favour of publishing the cache, they make a judgement call. They use common sense when making judgements.

Ontario reviewers are applying their common sense only when they determine the number of local geocachers who must pre-qualify in order to be "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers." Once they determine this "magic" number, they no longer apply common sense even if it's obvious that a "month of Unknowns" challenge is "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" (and even if there are zero pre-qualifiers).

Maybe. We don't know yet. With the other changes to the guidelines, they may not. When we have examples one way or another, as I keep saying, then we'll find out.

Why would changes to other guidelines affect how the unchanged "positive" guideline is interpreted? Nothing is impossible, but I'd be happy to accept your wager that my "A Month of Unknowns Challenge" wouldn't be published post-moratorium. I like my odds.

If you submit one, I hope it does get published. If it does, then we will know that it is considered reasonable by the Ontario reviewers. Until then, it's pointless arguing who is "right", because there is no test case result to analyze.

So, I guess that's a "no" on that wager you proposed. While it's pointless to argue about who is "right" at this time, it isn't pointless to discuss the probabilities of whose views will be proven correct. It looks like your view is up against some pretty long odds (which is why I'd be happy to accept the wager).

2k · June 1, 2016

I guess that all participants here are aware of this, but we do not all agree whether it's a change to the positive to require that a reasonable number already qualifies and not that they could qualify.

Here's my reasoning why I think this really is a non-issue (and perhaps what reviewers may say were you to raise the issue with them):

- If it's an easy challenge, you could ask go and ask N cachers to qualify before publishing, and it shouldn't be an issue. Send the list and they'll publish it.

- If you can't find or easily get N cachers to qualify for the challenge, it's probably not a reasonable challenge for your region, and that'll support their decision to deny it.

- Pre-qualifying for a challenge cache should matter as much to a cacher as beta testing a puzzle or field-work cache matters. That typically means they'll log the find after the FTF is claimed.

If the point of the clause is to present the challenge as reasonable attainable in the eyes of the local reviewer[team], then we should either be able to easily find qualified users, or be able to 'beta test' and obtain qualified users, in order to publish it.

It's not a non-issue if the reviewers are going to require X number of cachers to already qualify for a proposed challenge. Why should that be a determining factor if a challenge will be published? The guideline doesn't say attained; it says attainable. If it's easy (and using your own words - What is "easy, medium-difficulty, and difficult"? ), it should be attainable and reasonable, meaning that it shouldn't matter how many already qualify. Does the number of already qualified people the reviewers require change for each and every proposed challenge or is it a hard target? Here we go with the subjectivity again and the main reason for the difficulty with challenge cache appeals.

Just because one can't find X number of cachers who already qualify doesn't mean it shouldn't be published, and that's the issue I have with the use of "attainable" vs. "attained". Using that logic, a post-moratorium Jasmer or Fizzy challenge is unlikely to get published because it's unlikely that there are a significant number of cachers who have completed their Jasmer or Fizzy.

9k · June 1, 2016

If Ontario reviewers won't publish challenges unless 10 local geocachers (excluding the owner) have pre-qualified (as you previously have claimed [yes because that was reported from a cacher's denied challenge submission]), then it's very likely that those reviewers won't publish a "month of Unknowns" challenge anytime soon. Even big-numbers geocachers rarely achieve this kind of challenge accidentally.

If Alberta reviewers apply their common sense when they determine if a "month of Unknowns" challenge is "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers," [just as the Ontario reviewers applied their common sense to make a judgement that have many in disagreement about what's reasonable] then (given the significant number of Unknown caches in the Calgary area), I'm almost certain they will realize that such a challenge is indeed "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" in this area (if they make a determined effort to complete that challenge). This proved to be the case. I don't think anyone else in this area had pre-qualified for our challenge, but three people qualified at the end of the first month and 22 have found it in total.

Great. So if there are qualified users now, and the reviewers don't judge it as an unreasonable challenge, then it could still be published now. Let's see if anyone gets a challenge like your "Month of Unknowns" published!

So, no, "common sense" is not determining what is reasonable in Ontario. According to you, automated challenge checkers are being applied instead.

---

I don't know what you mean by "automated challenge checkers".

---

I mean that Ontario reviewers seem to be basing their decision about "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" on whether 10 cachers (other than the owner) have pre-qualified for the challenge (determined, perhaps, by running the automated challenge checker).

Sure, that is a possible and valid process.

Also, I don't get your first sentence. They are using their common sense, that is, based on their knowledge of the geocaching landscape in Ontario, based on discussions amongst themselves, based on evidence and defense presented in favour of publishing the cache, they make a judgement call. They use common sense when making judgements.

---

Ontario reviewers are applying their common sense only when they determine the number of local geocachers who must pre-qualify in order to be "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers." Once they determine this "magic" number, they no longer apply common sense even if it's obvious that a "month of Unknowns" challenge is "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" (and even if there are zero pre-qualifiers).

...if they are using 10+1 cachers having already qualified as the standard to decide that a challenge is "reasonably attainable" in Ontario, then how is it not common sense to say that if one can't find 10 other cachers who qualify, it's not a "reasonably attainable" challenge in Ontario? That's a purely logical flow.

As I said elsewhere, the only counter to this (other than merely disagreeing with what threshold of finders is deemed "reasonable") which I've seen that I can really side with is the case of a task that has never been accomplished before, despite how easy it may be (an example a friend gave was an 8 icon day years ago). No one had considered going to that extent. So, if a challenge like that were submitted today, one where no one has done it merely because no one had considered doing it, it would be denied on the strict regional standard of requiring 10 pre-qualifiers + the CO. In that case not having qualifiers doesn't mean it's "unreasonable", it just means no one's done it yet. So then, being a devils'-advocate to myself, I considered what a reviewer's response may be -- that if it's not a hard challenge, then it should be easy to find 10 users who can qualify for it quickly, to be submitted as the pre-qualifiers, in order to have the cache published; and if you can't find those 10, then it's probably not a "reasonable" challenge in the eyes of the reviewers.

Will reviewers say that? I dunno, but given their history in how they respond to disagreements with their judgements, I would not be surprised (it takes a strong argument and case to change their mind if they've already made a decision on a subjective matter). And frankly I see that as a reasonable response anyway since there is the precedent of COs practicing finding beta testers for other caches.

Maybe. We don't know yet. With the other changes to the guidelines, they may not. When we have examples one way or another, as I keep saying, then we'll find out.

Why would changes to other guidelines affect how the unchanged "positive" guideline is interpreted? Nothing is impossible, but I'd be happy to accept your wager that my "A Month of Unknowns Challenge" wouldn't be published post-moratorium. I like my odds.

If you submit one, I hope it does get published. If it does, then we will know that it is considered reasonable by the Ontario reviewers. Until then, it's pointless arguing who is "right", because there is no test case result to analyze.

So, I guess that's a "no" on that wager you proposed. While it's pointless to argue about who is "right" at this time, it isn't pointless to discuss the probabilities of whose views will be proven correct. It looks like your view is up against some pretty long odds (which is why I'd be happy to accept the wager).

First, it's a saying; I don't bet. (no, really). But I still favour the chance that a Month of Unknowns streak wouldn't be published. Of course I could be wrong. Of course a reviewer might make an exception. Of course it could be published in one region and not another. In any of those cases, great! I'd love to see a challenge like that publishable. But based on what we know of the guidelines, what we know of interpretations of said guidelines, what we know of past rulings and similar publishings, and what we (don't) know about the reviewers' "reasonable" subjectivity post-moratorium, I still see more chance of denial than publishing. I hope I'm wrong.

What is "easy, medium-difficulty, and difficult"? To you? Universally? In Germany? In Iceland? In Cuba? In Seattle? What then is "lots"? To a 1 month old cacher? To a 15 year old cacher? You state "lots of fairly easy/medium/difficult" as if your understanding is the same to everyone, when in fact reviewers are the ones who have, and continue to judge, both what is "reasonable" and what the near-future landscape of regional challenge caches looks like. IF we presume your understanding of easy/medium/difficult is universal, then that only shows that your reviewers' judgement has been accurate, providing the very landscape that you see by their denial those that aren't. What if the rule hadn't existed and reviewers had just published every single non-impossible challenge that was submitted, with zero subjectivity? Ah, what ifs! So many possibilities. Maybe we should ask the reviewers to send us their exhaustive list of the likely many hundreds of denied challenge cache listings, the very reason for the moratorium, so we have a better idea of what they previously considered "reasonable" under the old guidelines.

And this paragraph is the crux of the issue with the wording in the guidelines that CR is talking about. Subjectivity of the reviewers is what caused the issue to come to a head in the first place. Well, that and stubborn COs who believe that their CC should be published as is so they appeal the decision. Removing the clauses suggested REMOVES the subjectivity issue. Does it create the possibility that someone might publish an unattainable challenge? Certainly, but with challenge caches being less than 1% of all submitted caches, is that really an issue? Is it really that bad if someone publishes a single challenge that only 5 people might qualify for? There's a 4 corner challenge near me (one cache in each hemisphere - one can double qualify with a single cache) that I'll most likely never qualify for. I have no problem with it being where it is and no problem with the CO creating what very few people will have the opportunity to do. 10 finders in almost 4 years.

Since we don't have access to the complete database of submitted caches that caused the moratorium in the first place, I don't feel comfortable saying that Groundspeak had no basis for deciding to move ahead with this set of new guidelines. They had their reasons. We might not like them. So it's not the reviewers that's of issue; Groundspeak has explicitly given them the right to make the subjective decision, weighing in favour of them having that responsibility instead of removing that clause and telling reviewers to publish everything. So yes, that is the crux of the issue, but we only have one side of the story; ours.

* In short, for the new guidelines Groundspeak specifically favoured reviewer subjectivity over limitless publishing, in that they believed this new setup would be a better solution to what caused the moratorium in the first place. They've given it a year to find out if it will work. If it doesn't, we can say goodbye to challenge caches. If it does, further improvements. That's where we're at.

There's a CO looking to put out a 100 souvenir challenge in the area. She's posted a note on our local geocaching FB page to see how many qualify, how many don't (and the # they have), and how many would be interested in trying to achieve it. As of right now, there are about 5. Is this challenge attainable and reasonable? I would think so but I've yet to hear how her submission has gone.

That'll be interesting to hear.

9k · June 1, 2016

Here's my reasoning why I think this really is a non-issue (and perhaps what reviewers may say were you to raise the issue with them):

- If it's an easy challenge, you could ask go and ask N cachers to qualify before publishing, and it shouldn't be an issue. Send the list and they'll publish it.

- If you can't find or easily get N cachers to qualify for the challenge, it's probably not a reasonable challenge for your region, and that'll support their decision to deny it.

- Pre-qualifying for a challenge cache should matter as much to a cacher as beta testing a puzzle or field-work cache matters. That typically means they'll log the find after the FTF is claimed.

If the point of the clause is to present the challenge as reasonable attainable in the eyes of the local reviewer[team], then we should either be able to easily find qualified users, or be able to 'beta test' and obtain qualified users, in order to publish it.

It's not a non-issue if the reviewers are going to require X number of cachers to already qualify for a proposed challenge. Why should that be a determining factor if a challenge will be published? The guideline doesn't say attained; it says attainable. If it's easy (and using your own words - What is "easy, medium-difficulty, and difficult"? ), it should be attainable and reasonable, meaning that it shouldn't matter how many already qualify.

The measuring stick is that there are at least 10 who qualify. That's how they know it's reasonably attainable by their judgement. If it's easy, then surely there are FAR more than 10 who already qualify. If they believe it to be "easy", they may not even ask for a list. It's like being carded when buying alcohol. If you look old, you may not be carded. If you don't, regardless of your age, you may be denied purchasing if you don't show valid ID proving your age.

The 10 who pre-qualify is the "legal drinking age" in Ontario for publishing challenge caches, despite whether think that's too high or low.

Does the number of already qualified people the reviewers require change for each and every proposed challenge or is it a hard target?

As far as I understand, it's a hard target across the region. That's per the Ontario regional policies for challenge reviewing.

Edited June 1, 2016 by thebruce0

3.1k · June 1, 2016

The purpose of the guideline is to prevent challenges that reward negative behavior, like DNFs. And to prevent challenges that require you to stop finding caches that are outside of the challenge, such as "find 200 consecutive multi-caches." Finding an Unknown cache every day for a month doesn't do these negative things, since it allows other types of caches to also be found during that month. [Emphasis added.]

Trust me. I tried to reason out of it the same way - it can "encourage" finding elsewhere, rather than "discourage" finding that makes qualifying harder.

That isn't the reasoning I cited above. Simply encouraging finding elsewhere doesn't get you past that guideline. A challenge to find 200 consecutive multi-caches encourages the finding of multi-caches but still violates the guideline because it doesn't allow you to find non-multis during that time period.

Ok, it doesn't disallow you from finding non-Unknowns. But it can encourage someone to not find Unknowns during their regular caching habits (in order to save for later, to not risk disqualifying it for future attempts if the challenge fails), and that has been used as reasoning for "positive" geocaching. And yes, I have heard that first-hand. [Emphasis added.]

Did you save the email where the reviewer spelled out that reason? You seem to have an odd way of interpreting the "positive" guideline, so I'm not sure you were denied publication for the reason you believe. Literally hundreds of streak challenges have been published, even though they can cause geocachers to change their "regular caching habits." I can't imagine you were denied because of that reason; there probably is more to this story than we know.

Correction: I did take my challenge to appeals (I found an appeals email after the initial review), and I have one reviewer note on record. Context: Primary denial reason was based on the initial concept of consecutive finds (logs) of a specific cache criteria (a direct context for restricting caching in order to qualify). Secondary was how reasonable the tasks were (by extension, rare criteria meant that one would have to restrict their caching habits in order to attempt to qualify). It's the Ironman Bingo Challenge, which underwent a number of changes to be publishable (barely; that is, judged sufficient, 'reasonable') as is.

The primary issue is the way it will force a cacher to restrict their caching in order to accomplish the challenge requirements. We think the idea would work if you did not require consecutive streaks of particular cache types, sizes, etc.; as it stands, however, users would have to pass up other caches in order to meet the requirements of many of the particular squares.

I see it as failing this section of the guideline "A challenge cache concept that severely limits the number of cachers who can achieve the challenge will likely not be published." http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=206 section 4.14.3

Denials:

1. Restricts caching (in this context, consecutive finds; elsewhere, example given by restricting regular 'caching habits')

2. Severly limits number of cachers (reasonable number of cachers)

Yes, your initially proposed challenge sounds like it violated the old version of the "positive" guideline. The guideline's new wording is: "Challenge criteria must be positive and require that a geocaching goal be achieved." The new guideline also cites an example of a not acceptable challenge: "challenges that require finding only some particular type for over time, as 100 consecutive Mystery finds."

Our "A Month of Unknowns Challenge" doesn't violate this guideline because it allows you to find any other kind of cache during your month-long streak of finding Unknown-type caches. Ours is a "positive" challenge, while yours was a "negative" challenge. It looks like the published version of your challenge cache no longer prohibited finding non-streak-type caches during the streak period, which turned it into a "positive" challenge.

As you noted, another reason for not publishing your original proposed challenge is because it violated the old version of the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline.

The Appeals quote sort of talks about restricting caching habits. But I've only seen reviewers/Appeals apply that old "regular caching habits" guideline when those habits were disrupted to such a severe degree that geocachers couldn't find many non-challenge-type caches while completing the challenge. E.g., "Challenges that require ratios in finds; such as 10% of finds must be Attended logs, challenges that require finding only some particular type for over time, as 100 consecutive Mystery finds." That seems to be the case with your initially proposed challenge.

3.1k · June 1, 2016

The constantly changing geocaching landscape makes it even harder for reviewers to constantly make good, subjective judgments. Today, 10 pre-qualifiers might be deemed as what's needed to "be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers," while 11 might be needed tomorrow. That's another reason to drop the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline -- not to keep it. If Groundspeak dropped that guideline, then we wouldn't need to trust the reviewers' judgments regarding "reasonable number of chachers" because they wouldn't have to make those judgments.

Ok. I disagree, but we can disagree about whether the mere existence of the right for reviewers to judge what's "reasonable" is acceptable.

Right, but in the context of a discussion forum, it would be nice if you offered a rational reason for why you support the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline. Simply saying Groundspeak must have "had their reasons" doesn't really cut it.

Groundspeak lackies and reviewers are the ones who pointed out that subjective challenge guidelines resulted in a huge amount of extra work for reviewers and a huge number of appeals. That's the major reason Groundspeak cited for imposing the challenge moratorium. That's the threat that hangs over our heads for the next year as Groundspeak determines whether their new framework is sufficient to fix the problems. I'm just saying that if they want to cut down on even more reviewer and appeals burdens, then dropping the subjective "reasonable number of cachers" guideline with help reduce the problem. Nobody has provided a solid, rational reason for keeping that guideline.

Sure. The question then is, would dropping the subjective "reasonably attainable" clause provide an overall better landscape for challenge caching than allowing reviewers to judge what's reasonable in their region? Well, we know Groundspeak decides to support that clause, so they must feel it's worth the tradeoff. And now we have a year to find out how it works out for the reviewers worldwide.

Yes, Groundspeak presumably believes that the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline is worth the trade-off. But that doesn't mean the guideline actually is worth the trade-off. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking Groundspeak to please justify their decision, since the consequences of being wrong could be rather severe: the end of future Challenge caches. Some of us care enough about Challenge caches to question whether Groundspeak actually made the right decision.

ETA: You might want to note this comment by the Ontario reviewers: "The Listing Guidelines are revised by Geocaching HQ from time to time. With your constructive feedback - the Ontario Reviewer Team can not only provide Geocaching HQ with information for future Listing Guidelines consideration - we can hopefully improve our own approaches and processes, also."

As for "show off" challenges, there also are Non-Challenges out there that demonstrate exceptional SCUBA, hiking, climbing, and boating skills. Groundspeak doesn't have a guideline against showing off. Ignore them, if they don't suit your tastes.

---

We already covered the difference between challenge and non-challenge caches earlier in the thread. Not going to revive that again.

---

We covered why the "Challenge caches are almost private caches" rationale is a double standard. The "show-off caches should be banned" rationale is a second double standard.

..my point was that challenge caches are judged by a different standard than non-challenge caches...

That's why it's called a "double standard." Most people frown upon unjustified double standards.

Edited June 2, 2016 by CanadianRockies

3.1k · June 1, 2016

I agree in spirit, and I'm of the same midset. Love challenges. Even extreme ones. But I also don't want to see regions litered with challenges only people who've been caching for 15 years (or very much every single day for a year) could have a chance of accomplishing. That's why reviewers have to make that judgement of what's reasonable. [Emphasis added.]

Today, there are lots of fairly easy and medium-difficulty Challenge caches as well as difficult ones. If the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline was dropped, then why would cache owners who like to create fairly easy, medium-difficulty, and difficult Challenge caches suddenly stop creating those kinds of caches and only create extremely difficult challenges? That makes no sense.

What is "easy, medium-difficulty, and difficult"? To you? Universally? In Germany? In Iceland? In Cuba? In Seattle? What then is "lots"? To a 1 month old cacher? To a 15 year old cacher? You state "lots of fairly easy/medium/difficult" as if your understanding is the same to everyone, when in fact reviewers are the ones who have, and continue to judge, both what is "reasonable" and what the near-future landscape of regional challenge caches looks like. IF we presume your understanding of easy/medium/difficult is universal, then that only shows that your reviewers' judgement has been accurate, providing the very landscape that you see by their denial those that aren't. What if the rule hadn't existed and reviewers had just published every single non-impossible challenge that was submitted, with zero subjectivity? Ah, what ifs! So many possibilities. Maybe we should ask the reviewers to send us their exhaustive list of the likely many hundreds of denied challenge cache listings, the very reason for the moratorium, so we have a better idea of what they previously considered "reasonable" under the old guidelines.

Tappity-tap, tap, TAP. Your semantic tap dancing doesn't get you out from under your silly argument.

Use whatever reasonable definition you want for "easy." Do you honestly believe that few "easy" Challenge caches will get published if the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline disappeared tomorrow? Do you honestly believe Challenge cache owners who enjoy seeing lots of people successfully complete their challenges and enjoy reading many logs suddenly will stop enjoying those things and stop creating easy challenges?

Do you honestly believe that lots of Challenge caches that will be published that can only be achieved by 15-year veterans? Why would that happen if most Challenge cache owners haven't cached for 15 years and owners must have completed their own challenges?

First, most challenge cache owners haven't been caching for 15 years, so they couldn't create extremely difficult caches that only those with 15 years' experience could qualify for. (The owner has to qualify for their own challenge.)

There's nothing stopping them from attempting that. And if they did, their difficulty would be judged the same as everyone under being "reasonably attainable".

Geocachers can attempt whatever they like. The guideline that prevents them from succeeding is: "Challenge cache owners must show that they have met the challenge."

This discussion assumes that the "reasonably attainable" guideline has been dropped (see this history). So, they would not "be judged the same as everyone under being 'reasonably attainable,'" as you wrongfully assert, because there would be no "reasonably attainable" guideline anymore.

Second, most people who create fairly easy challenges do so because they enjoy seeing lots of people succeed with those challenges and enjoy reading lots of logs. Even if those owners would qualify for an extremely difficult challenge, they aren't likely to create only extremely difficult challenges, because they still enjoy seeing lots of people succeed and still enjoy reading lots of logs. (Very few people are likely to log finds on extremely difficult challenges.)

And as we know it's not just about "easy" challenges. It's also unreasonably complex, convoluted challenges that are difficult to understand, even if easy to qualify.

The "unreasonably complex, convoluted challenges that are difficult to understand" still would be prohibited by the "challenge requirements should be simple, and easy to explain, follow and document" guideline.

Finally, that line (the "reasonable number of cachers" line) does not have to change if the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline has been dropped. The topic being discussed is "why the 'reasonable number of cachers' guideline exists at all." If that guideline is dropped, as I suggested, then there is no line to change. The concern precisely is whether there should be a subjective "reasonable" guideline. That is exactly what is under discussion here.

..there's more than one topic being discussed here.

You've tap danced around so much that you've forgotten what it is we're discussing. Again, I refer you to the discussion chronology, here.

Edited June 2, 2016 by CanadianRockies

7.5k · June 1, 2016

Since we don't have access to the complete database of submitted caches that caused the moratorium in the first place, I don't feel comfortable saying that Groundspeak had no basis for deciding to move ahead with this set of new guidelines. They had their reasons. We might not like them.

I had to laugh at "complete database": I'm not sure we've heard a single example. But either way, the fact that Groundspeak has given us no basis makes me perfectly comfortable in assuming they have no basis until they show us otherwise.

So it's not the reviewers that's of issue; Groundspeak has explicitly given them the right to make the subjective decision, weighing in favour of them having that responsibility instead of removing that clause and telling reviewers to publish everything. So yes, that is the crux of the issue, but we only have one side of the story; ours.

Except they added a bunch of restrictions the reviewers have to enforce even if those caches don't cause any trouble in their area, so the reviewers' right to decide is severely limited.

* In short, for the new guidelines Groundspeak specifically favoured reviewer subjectivity over limitless publishing, in that they believed this new setup would be a better solution to what caused the moratorium in the first place. They've given it a year to find out if it will work. If it doesn't, we can say goodbye to challenge caches. If it does, further improvements. That's where we're at.

Right. Because obviously challenge caches are the problem. A failure of these changes to stop problems couldn't possibly be evidence that Groundspeak's approach to challenge caches is wrong.

2k · June 2, 2016

The measuring stick is that there are at least 10 who qualify. That's how they know it's reasonably attainable by their judgement. If it's easy, then surely there are FAR more than 10 who already qualify. If they believe it to be "easy", they may not even ask for a list.

The bolded is what I take some issue with. The guidelines don't specify that it should already have been attained by anyone other than the CO - "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers." As CR succinctly points out, his month of unknowns streak has since been deemed attainable because 22 have logged it as found in the 2 1/2 years it's been out. I don't like the attained vs. attainable way in which the reviewers are applying it to each challenge. It's been attained so therefore it's attainable. Well... duh. Are there 10 in Ontario who have their Jasmer or Fizzy complete? If not, there's no way either of those two challenges would be published under the post-moratorium reviewer process because they're not attainable. Does that really make sense?

My friend's souvenir challenge, assuming it falls under the same guidelines as above (10 who already qualify), won't be published, even though over time, it will be attainable by quite a few as they work toward completing the challenge. Just because something doesn't meet the magical "10" does not mean that it's not reasonably attainable. I'll be interested to see what she has to say about it and the process she went through, assuming it gets published.

3.1k · June 2, 2016

I guess that all participants here are aware of this, but we do not all agree whether it's a change to the positive to require that a reasonable number already qualifies and not that they could qualify.

Here's my reasoning why I think this really is a non-issue (and perhaps what reviewers may say were you to raise the issue with them):

- If it's an easy challenge, you could ask go and ask N cachers to qualify before publishing, and it shouldn't be an issue. Send the list and they'll publish it.

- If you can't find or easily get N cachers to qualify for the challenge, it's probably not a reasonable challenge for your region, and that'll support their decision to deny it.

- Pre-qualifying for a challenge cache should matter as much to a cacher as beta testing a puzzle or field-work cache matters. That typically means they'll log the find after the FTF is claimed.

If the point of the clause is to present the challenge as reasonable attainable in the eyes of the local reviewer[team], then we should either be able to easily find qualified users, or be able to 'beta test' and obtain qualified users, in order to publish it.

"Attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" doesn't mean a Challenge cache is easy. I gave our "A Month of Unknowns Challenge" a difficulty rating of 3.5, which still seems about right to me. Other similar challenges are rated between 3.5 and 5.0 in difficulty, which might reflect differing local conditions.

The point is that even big-numbers cachers are unlikely to accidentally complete a "month of Unknowns" challenge, so many areas probably will have few, if any, pre-qualifiers. Among Ontario's top 10 finders, for example, only "hikerT" has pre-qualified for this challenge. Was that completion accidental? No. They qualified because they made a determined effort to complete the "MCTOA: Challenge: Mystery Month." By the way, chalk up another published "month of Unknowns" challenge (this one located in New York state). We're now at 7 "outliers."

Here's a "2-month-long Unknown-streak challenge." Now at 8 outliers.

Here's a Texas "month of Unknowns" challenge. Now at 9 outliers.

Edited June 2, 2016 by CanadianRockies

3.1k · June 2, 2016

The measuring stick is that there are at least 10 who qualify. That's how they know it's reasonably attainable by their judgement. If it's easy, then surely there are FAR more than 10 who already qualify. If they believe it to be "easy", they may not even ask for a list.

The bolded is what I take some issue with. The guidelines don't specify that it should already have been attained by anyone other than the CO - "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers." As CR succinctly points out, his month of unknowns streak has since been deemed attainable because 22 have logged it as found in the 2 1/2 years it's been out.

Just to clarify...

Our reviewers looked at our "A Month of Unknowns Challenge," applied their common sense, determined that it was "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" (even if no one else had pre-qualified), and published it. Was their judgment sound? In this case, it turned out that plenty of local geocachers could attain this challenge (22 have done so to date).

1.3k · June 2, 2016

Perhaps it could have helped to use a system that would provide quantification of degrees of difficulty?

Five degrees of challenge difficulty that are maybe described thus:

1 - Recommended for beginners

2 - Attainable by casual cachers

3 - Attainable by half the local caching population

4 - Attainable by less than a quarter of the local caching population

5 - Attainable by 10 or less local cachers

Rather than eliminate extreme challenges altogether, this would allow them to exist, but be filtered as needed.

3.1k · June 2, 2016

Also, I don't get your first sentence. They are using their common sense, that is, based on their knowledge of the geocaching landscape in Ontario, based on discussions amongst themselves, based on evidence and defense presented in favour of publishing the cache, they make a judgement call. They use common sense when making judgements.

---

Ontario reviewers are applying their common sense only when they determine the number of local geocachers who must pre-qualify in order to be "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers." Once they determine this "magic" number, they no longer apply common sense even if it's obvious that a "month of Unknowns" challenge is "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" (and even if there are zero pre-qualifiers).

...if they are using 10+1 cachers having already qualified as the standard to decide that a challenge is "reasonably attainable" in Ontario, then how is it not common sense to say that if one can't find 10 other cachers who qualify, it's not a "reasonably attainable" challenge in Ontario? That's a purely logical flow.

I probably could have phrased things better. Let me try again.

The point at which Ontario reviewers are applying their common sense is only when they decide how many local geocachers must pre-qualify in order for them to consider a Challenge cache "to be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers." Even if it's patently obvious that plenty of local geocachers could complete the challenge requirements if they set their minds to doing so, the Ontario reviewers will not apply their common sense at this point in the process. Instead, the Ontario reviewers will insist on not publishing that Challenge cache unless their magical number of pre-qualifiers already have accomplished the challenge. As a result, the Ontario reviewers are likely to overlook some rather wonderful challenges. Alas.

Think of it like a college admissions committee that applies their common sense and determines that an acceptable applicant is anyone who achieves a (new) SAT score of 1500 or better. That is the magical number. Accept if equal to or better than 1500; reject if below. As a result, the committee is likely to overlook some rather talented students.

Another approach to admissions would be for committee members to apply their common sense to multiple applicant factors, including their SAT scores but realizing that the student who comes from a low-income, single-parent family and who worked at a job for 20 hours per week might be an acceptable applicant even if they scored only 1480 on their SAT.

As I said elsewhere, the only counter to this (other than merely disagreeing with what threshold of finders is deemed "reasonable") which I've seen that I can really side with is the case of a task that has never been accomplished before, despite how easy it may be (an example a friend gave was an 8 icon day years ago). No one had considered going to that extent. So, if a challenge like that were submitted today, one where no one has done it merely because no one had considered doing it, it would be denied on the strict regional standard of requiring 10 pre-qualifiers + the CO. In that case not having qualifiers doesn't mean it's "unreasonable", it just means no one's done it yet. So then, being a devils'-advocate to myself, I considered what a reviewer's response may be -- that if it's not a hard challenge, then it should be easy to find 10 users who can qualify for it quickly, to be submitted as the pre-qualifiers, in order to have the cache published; and if you can't find those 10, then it's probably not a "reasonable" challenge in the eyes of the reviewers.

Replace the "8 icons in a day" challenge with a "month of Unknowns" challenge, and that's essentially what I've been explaining to you for quite some time now. The essential difference is that a "month of Unknowns" likely is more difficult than "8 icons in a day."

One objection to "beta-testing" the Challenge caches is that an owner might not be able to round up enough beta-testers. Not because the challenge is too difficult but rather because the owner is unpopular or unknown. Does Groundspeak really want to not publish a Challenge cache simply because the owner doesn't have enough friends to serve as beta-testers? Or maybe the owner has plenty of friends, but too few of them find the challenge to be interesting. Does Groundspeak want to introduce a Wow! factor into their Challenge cache guidelines?

Since we don't have access to the complete database of submitted caches that caused the moratorium in the first place, I don't feel comfortable saying that Groundspeak had no basis for deciding to move ahead with this set of new guidelines. They had their reasons. We might not like them. So it's not the reviewers that's of issue; Groundspeak has explicitly given them the right to make the subjective decision, weighing in favour of them having that responsibility instead of removing that clause and telling reviewers to publish everything. [Emphasis added.]

You realize, of course, that this is a false choice. If Groundspeak decided to drop the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline, then the result isn't that reviewers must "publish everything." The other Challenge cache guidelines and general guidelines still apply.

Reviewers still can refuse to publish Challenge caches that don't have a challenge checker; that do have a long list of confusing, convoluted requirements; whose owners haven't already completed the challenge requirements; that are located too close to a school; that are too close to other caches; etc.

* In short, for the new guidelines Groundspeak specifically favoured reviewer subjectivity over limitless publishing,... [Emphasis added.]

Another false choice. The alternative to the subjective "reasonable number of cachers" guideline isn't "limitless publishing." See above.

...in that they believed this new setup would be a better solution to what caused the moratorium in the first place. They've given it a year to find out if it will work. If it doesn't, we can say goodbye to challenge caches.

With such serious consequences, doesn't it behoove us to make sure the new Challenge framework really is as good as it can be? Isn't it possible that an even better solution would be to drop the subjective "reasonable number of cachers" guideline and jettison all the burdens and problems that accompany it?

Edited June 2, 2016 by CanadianRockies

7.5k · June 2, 2016

Hardly anyone is in 5-figures of caches around here, despite the huge cache density, so the list would be rather short for the 15000 challenge (assuming that one of the few was willing to submit it). The Ape/HQ challenge may be "inspiring" for the wealthy retired cacher, but the list from my local area consists of one (as far as I know) and is unlikely to rise to a "reasonable number" ever. And I suspect that applies to almost everywhere in the world.

Nope, sorry. I can think of 10 5-figure cachers in my area off the top of my head, and I don't really pay much attention to that kind of thing. So all the challenge caches being imagined as "obviously ridiculous" by others in this thread, I already face because they're popular, and I expect them to continue unabated under the new rules. It doesn't bother me at all.

So if I submitted this challenge I'd be pretty sure that it would remain unfound for ever, so I would expect others to see it as a vanity project. Although people could ignore it, I guarantee that it would cause annoyance and would be regarded as deliberately unloggable.

Why should GS care if you annoyed anyone? I mean, I can see thinking "Gee, Happy Humphrey shouldn't be able to annoy people. How can we discourage that?", but I can't see, "Happy Humphrey shouldn't be able to annoy anyone, so let's completely eliminate one kind of cache that lots of people enjoy because Happy Humphrey might someday consider using to annoy people."

June 2, 2016

There's a 4 corner challenge near me (one cache in each hemisphere - one can double qualify two hemispheres with a single cache) that I'll most likely never qualify for. I have no problem with it being where it is and no problem with the CO creating what very few people will have the opportunity to do. 10 finders in almost 4 years.

There's a CO looking to put out a 100 souvenir challenge in the area. She's posted a note on our local geocaching FB page to see how many qualify, how many don't (and the # they have), and how many would be interested in trying to achieve it. As of right now, there are about 5. Is this challenge attainable and reasonable? I would think so but I've yet to hear how her submission has gone.

Those are pretty different kinds of difficult. The first only takes a (largeish) bit of money and time for a well-placed trip. In my local area we have a challenge to find earthcaches on three continents which is pretty much the same, and that doesn't get many logs.

As for the souvenir challenge, if you've been caching for a good while you are likely to qualify for that easily. I have 98 as I write this and with my planned trip to the gigaevent in Germany in less than two weeks I'll gain 4 more. Just the august promotion two(?) years ago gave you a third of that requirement for a rather small amount of work. On the other hand, trying to force quick advancement for this challenge is difficult. You can travel to a lot of megas but they will give you one each. New countries (or, if you're lucky, states) give you one each. Groundspeak also puts out a few easy ones each year, but getting to 100 will take some time unless you can travel the world constantly.

3.5k · June 2, 2016

https://web.archive....=kb.page&id=206

Well, I don't know why the data source isn't shown there, but specifically recall that it was a requirement pre-moratorium, that data for challenges be attainable from GC Finds data. Maybe that was one of those 'unwritten rules' people complained about so much.

If it was an unwritten rule before, then the guidelines have changed.

The rule was written in the Help Center page you linked to. The old guidelines were not presented in a numbered list format, the way the new guidelines are presented. The 'unwritten rule' was actually written in the 2nd section from the top of the page:

How will you know when the challenge cache requirements have been met?

Importantly, geocache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the geocache requirements have been met. The challenge criteria on the geocache page must reflect this consideration, and must be verifiable through information on the Geocaching.com website. Challenges relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published. Geocache owners will need to ensure that geocachers can verify that they have completed the geocache requirements without compromising their privacy. Challenge cache owners may also be asked to outline a long-term geocache maintenance plan.

3.5k · June 2, 2016

Perhaps it could have helped to use a system that would provide quantification of degrees of difficulty?

Five degrees of challenge difficulty that are maybe described thus:

1 - Recommended for beginners

2 - Attainable by casual cachers

3 - Attainable by half the local caching population

4 - Attainable by less than a quarter of the local caching population

5 - Attainable by 10 or less local cachers

Rather than eliminate extreme challenges altogether, this would allow them to exist, but be filtered as needed.

This determination of 'challenge difficulty' seems like it would be fraught with issues:

The wording of 'attainable'. Aren't all challenges potentially 'attainable'?
Determining how many cachers have 'attained', if that ends up being the basis for the degrees, would require an automated way of checking cachers' stats. This means PGC Checkers would be needed and in other topics we've discussed that multiple types of challenges can not have checkers created. What degree would be assigned to challenges without checkers?
Assuming it's possible to determine how many cachers have 'attained' a particular challenge, then when is the 'challenge difficulty' determined? A challenge like CR's 'Month of Unknowns' would be a 5 when published, since only 1 cacher had attained it - but a year later it would be a 4 when >10 cachers had attained it. Would a challenge retain the applicable degree from when it was published, or would degrees need to be refreshed on a regular schedule? If the latter, then what would be the correct schedule (monthly, annually, biannually)?
What comprises the 'local caching population'? Would we use city or county or state or country borders? Would be include only cachers that are active, or the total number of user accounts?

3.5k · June 2, 2016

Of course one could first send out local cachers to fulfill the challenge before a challenge cache is published, but that takes out the suspense in my opinion and I regard that as pretty lame. Personally I do not even like having caches beta-tested by one person and actually somehow sending out the main target audience in advance before a cache gets published is not what I would appreciate.

+1

One objection to "beta-testing" the Challenge caches is that an owner might not be able to round up enough beta-testers. Not because the challenge is too difficult but rather because the owner is unpopular or unknown. Does Groundspeak really want to not publish a Challenge cache simply because the owner doesn't have enough friends to serve as beta-testers? Or maybe the owner has plenty of friends, but too few of them find the challenge to be interesting.

I have to agree with this. I'm not a fan of a guideline that necessitates sourcing beta-testers. Having to find beta-testers seems like placing a 'networking' criterion for who can be a CCO. If a cacher doesn't use Facebook and/or doesn't attend a lot of events, then it would be difficult to find beta-testers. The potential CCO's ability to find beta-testers shouldn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of their proposed challenge.

Here's a "2-month-long Unknown-streak challenge." Now at 8 outliers.

Here's a Texas "month of Unknowns" challenge. Now at 9 outliers.

There's a 10th outlier in Oregon.

6.8k · June 2, 2016

The rule was written in the Help Center page you linked to. The old guidelines were not presented in a numbered list format, the way the new guidelines are presented. The 'unwritten rule' was actually written in the 2nd section from the top of the page:

But this part was not there

Challenge cache criteria

must come from information broadly available on Geocaching.com such as on the statistics page, cache placement dates, types, attributes, souvenirs, etc.

It seems to me that the new challenges only allow a subset of for what badges are available at project-gc/badgegen but nothing beyond that which is of a different spirit. In the "beyond that" area there have been the only challenge caches that I found interesting.

Edited June 2, 2016 by cezanne

3.5k · June 2, 2016

Here's my reasoning why I think this really is a non-issue (and perhaps what reviewers may say were you to raise the issue with them):

- If it's an easy challenge, you could ask go and ask N cachers to qualify before publishing, and it shouldn't be an issue. Send the list and they'll publish it.

- If you can't find or easily get N cachers to qualify for the challenge, it's probably not a reasonable challenge for your region, and that'll support their decision to deny it.

- Pre-qualifying for a challenge cache should matter as much to a cacher as beta testing a puzzle or field-work cache matters. That typically means they'll log the find after the FTF is claimed.

I don't agree with your reasoning for this being "a non-issue".

-- Whether a challenge is "easy" or not, plenty of cachers would have difficulty finding N qualified cachers if they don't use Facebook and doesn't attend many events. 'Networking' to ask cachers whether they qualify and/or to find beta-testers is not a non-issue for plenty of cachers.

-- A prospective CCO's inability to find qualified cachers doesn't mean that the challenge is "probably not a reasonable challenge for your region". Just because the prospective CCO can't 'Find' qualified cachers doesn't mean that qualified cachers don't exist in their region.

-- If beta-testing a CC means that a cacher is 'out of the running' for FTF, then plenty of cachers may not choose to participate because they play the FTF side game and don't want to disqualify themselves from a potential FTF attempt.

If the point of the clause is to present the challenge as reasonable attainable in the eyes of the local reviewer[team], then we should either be able to easily find qualified users, or be able to 'beta test' and obtain qualified users, in order to publish it.

We should be able to, but can we? How does a prospective CCO "easily find qualified users"? This is a bit rhetorical, as I don't think a prospective CCO can "easily" accomplish this. I suppose it would be easy for challenge based strictly on find count, but hopefully that isn't the only type of CC that gets published.

Have your Ontario Reviewers provided any guidance, beyond Facebook or events, regarding how to find the required 10 qualified users? The only other option I can think of is to look up individual cachers using PGC, but even there a cacher is limited to 10 checker runs each day unless they pay for PGC Membership.

4.6k · June 2, 2016

It'll be interesting to see if challenge caches amount to ~1% of all submissions going forward.

3.5k · June 2, 2016

The rule was written in the Help Center page you linked to. The old guidelines were not presented in a numbered list format, the way the new guidelines are presented. The 'unwritten rule' was actually written in the 2nd section from the top of the page:

But this part was not there

Challenge cache criteria

must come from information broadly available on Geocaching.com such as on the statistics page, cache placement dates, types, attributes, souvenirs, etc.

It seems to me that the new challenges only allow a subset of for what badges are available at project-gc/badgegen but nothing beyond that which is of a different spirit. In the "beyond that" area there have been the only challenge caches that I found interesting.

I suppose we are interpreting the guideline text (#4 in new guidelines) differently. To me, the "must come from information broadly available on Geocaching.com such as on the statistics page, cache placement dates, types, attributes, souvenirs, etc." portion is just an elaboration of the "must be verifiable through information on Geocaching.com" portion.

Both bullets seem to be saying the same thing - that challenges must rely on data available from geocaching.com. The 1st bullet just includes some examples such as on the statistics page, cache placement dates, types, attributes, souvenirs, etc., which still leave a lot of room for expansion via the "etc" part.

In any case, I believe that challenges like 'counties' or other geographical areas are still allowed. My belief is based on discussion of such challenges in the PGC forums, Guideline #12 (Finding a discrete number in a specified area, e.g. some reasonable number of EarthCaches in France would be publishable.), and post-moratorium publications such as this and this.

6.1k · June 2, 2016

How does a prospective CCO "easily find qualified users"? This is a bit rhetorical, as I don't think a prospective CCO can "easily" accomplish this. I suppose it would be easy for challenge based strictly on find count, but hopefully that isn't the only type of CC that gets published.

Of course "easy" is subjective, but once your checker is created for your CC (or alternatively find another existing checker for the same type of challenge), then choose a selection of local cachers who you think might qualify, and then run the checker against those users until you think you've found enough to satisfy the reviewers. This will take about a second to check each cacher, but considering a previous comment about there being a limit of 10 checks per 24 hours per user (if you're not a paying customer), you may have to spread the checks over a number of days.

June 2, 2016

Quick question for any Reviewer watching this: Is it possible to lock the challenge cache requirements to prevent cache owners from changing the requirements after a challeng cache is posted. We had the problem in my area where a CO changed the challenge requirements after publication to prevent someone from qualifing. Thanks in advance.

June 2, 2016

Here's a "2-month-long Unknown-streak challenge." Now at 8 outliers.

Here's a Texas "month of Unknowns" challenge. Now at 9 outliers.

There's a 10th outlier in Oregon.

Month of Mystery Challenge (PMO), Austria, published on February 15, 2015. Only the FTF (top finder in Austria) claimed 'it just so happened we meet the criteria', but everyone else had at least partly to work on it, the cache now has 126 Found it.

This cache inspired people to keep on streaking. Most dropped doing at least one Unknown cache per day more or less soon (the very next day or up to 123 days). Not because there are no more (solved) Unknowns, but because it wasn't fun any more. And then switched to 'find at least one cache per day' (some interpret 'log one cache per day' is the subject of streak challenges) :cool: and kept this over one year and I know some went over to streaks like '31 days of Multi-caches' (which is far more challenging in my area). There are 6 cachers alone in my city that have/had (mixed) streaks going over more than 1000 days and around 40 over one year.

But if I would come up with a challenge '365 days streak of physical caches' (that is without events, earthcaches, virtuals and lab caches) I'm not convinced that too many would qualify without some work because there are only a few that had sort of stricter rules for themselves like 'one cache per day where a real existing an present cache has to be found and writing nick and date on the log is possible' (events are not really finds, but quite a large number of events helped people outlast unpleasant winter conditions and that there are only few new caches in winter, earthcaches can't be 'found' but can be logged whenever convenient, logpermissions on missing caches on a date where you need it etc.)

I suppose it wouldn't be easy to find 10 locals fulfilling the criteria without anouncing the challenge, only using the challenge-checker before publication. Well, it might be that a few days after publication this certainly would be easy, when some well-known geocachers are finished with 'adapting' their statistics. :cool:

If the challenge owner has to have fulfilled the challenge before publish, are then only cachers allowed to adopt a challenge cache if they also fulfill the challenge (before adopting) or is this rule only for the first owner?

3.5k · June 2, 2016

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

So now you can imagine a realistic scenario where one might

You're welcome

Some other examples where the 10-per-day limit may have an effect. It's up to you whether these scenarios are "realistic":

CCO gets more than 15 Found It logs on their owned CC's in a week. The CCO commits 1 or 2 nights each week to validate their owned challenge caches, but still can't check all new finds in a single session. They'd have to keep track of which new Finders have been checked or not and run the remainder during the next session.
Prospective CCO has to find qualified cachers and provide that list to their local Reviewer. If the prospective CCO doesn't use Facebook and/or doesn't know a lot of local cachers, then they might have to run checkers against random cachers in their area to see if those cachers qualify. They may have to check more than 10 local cachers to get a list long enough for what their Reviewer requires.
Prospective CCO has asked a PGC checker writer/tagger to create a checker for a proposed challenge. The prospective CCO hears that the checker is ready and runs the checker a few times "to make sure the challenge checker functions properly". Hopefully, the prospective CCO doesn't need 10 checker runs to validate the checker, but if the prospective CCO has already run other checkers that day then they may reach their 10-per-day limit before being able to validate their new checker.

Perhaps Project-GC anticipated an increased rise in PGC memberships, since some cachers may opt to pay for unlimited checker runs, and that influenced their decision to partner with GS in the checker requirement?

3.5k · June 2, 2016

How does a prospective CCO "easily find qualified users"? This is a bit rhetorical, as I don't think a prospective CCO can "easily" accomplish this. I suppose it would be easy for challenge based strictly on find count, but hopefully that isn't the only type of CC that gets published.

Of course "easy" is subjective, but once your checker is created for your CC (or alternatively find another existing checker for the same type of challenge), then choose a selection of local cachers who you think might qualify, and then run the checker against those users until you think you've found enough to satisfy the reviewers. This will take about a second to check each cacher, but considering a previous comment about there being a limit of 10 checks per 24 hours per user (if you're not a paying customer), you may have to spread the checks over a number of days.

Yeah, I mentioned the PGC option in the paragraph immediately following the one you quoted.

June 2, 2016

Quick question for any Reviewer watching this: Is it possible to lock the challenge cache requirements to prevent cache owners from changing the requirements after a challeng cache is posted. We had the problem in my area where a CO changed the challenge requirements after publication to prevent someone from qualifing. Thanks in advance.

No, or at least not in the way you are probably thinking. Locking a Listing page, locks the entire page, making edits impossible, and preventing Users from logging anything on the page.

A workaround would be to copy the text of the Description and saving it to one of the one or two Notes on the page that are automatically deleted/archived from the Listing page at the time of Publication.

In most cases, this sort of behavior gets reported by the Community, particularly from those folks that have been working on the Challenge, and feel as though the rug has been pulled out from under them. I've only dealt with a situation like this once, in our pre-moratorium world, and the conversation I had with the CCO resulted in the Listing getting Archived and resubmitted with the new Logging Requirements.

I don't see a lot of disagreements of this sort in my area.

3.1k · June 2, 2016

I'm pleased to see that, if Alberta's reviewers are using a magical number of pre-qualifiers, then they have set a low threshold. Our "Unknown Fizzy" challenge was published yesterday, even though I'm reasonably certain only one other Alberta geocacher has pre-qualified. But common sense indicates it should be "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers," since at least 2 Albertans are only 1 find away from completion, at least 12 Albertans are within 10 finds of qualifying, and at least 21 Albertans are within 18 finds.

This is another one of those challenges that is rather difficult to complete accidentally. Some 31 Albertans have found over 1,000 Unknown-type caches, and only one of them has pre-qualified. But if you enjoy Fizzy challenges and make a determined effort, then it isn't terribly difficult to complete an "Unknown Fizzy" challenge.

Edited June 2, 2016 by CanadianRockies

6.8k · June 2, 2016

I suppose we are interpreting the guideline text (#4 in new guidelines) differently.

I'm saying that in my opinion it leaves a wide room for being interpreted in different manners by different people (reviewers, cachers, ....) which is not a good thing.

In any case, I believe that challenges like 'counties' or other geographical areas are still allowed.

Could well be. What about elevation based challenges?

Is there any guarantee that all reviewers will answer such questions in the same manner?

One certainly needs a tool outside of gc.com to verify if one has found caches in certain counties which is another indication for me that the formulation of the guidelines is suboptimal.

9k · June 2, 2016

Tappity-tap, tap, TAP

Ok, we're done.

I had to laugh at "complete database": I'm not sure we've heard a single example. But either way, the fact that Groundspeak has given us no basis makes me perfectly comfortable in assuming they have no basis until they show us otherwise.

Well, to be fair, we don't have evidence either way. So it's half-empty/half-full. There's no basis. So do you trust Groundspeak, or no? They've cited reasons for the moratorium; issues with the listing submission and review process. We don't have any evidence of the ratio of published to non-published (or even edited-to-publish) listings. So... It's their word against their... reputation?

Except they added a bunch of restrictions the reviewers have to enforce even if those caches don't cause any trouble in their area, so the reviewers' right to decide is severely limited.

Sure, but they probably think it's "easier" on them. Subjectivity means personal judgements that can cause backlash. Lots of stress. If reviewers can just point to rules they abide by (whether by Groundspeak or by team decision within the bounds given them by GS), it may be a much easier 'job', even if now it's the team/region that gets the backlash instead of individual reviewers . I think we all predicted that post-moratorium, whatever changed would likely reduce the amount of challenge cache publishes. I think they'd have been blind not to realize that that additional pushback could cause some community headaches and annoyance, at least until people settle down and realize what is/isn't allowed. GS is taking a gamble with the new guidelines - make it easier for reviewers with some stricter guidelines and regional flexibility to decide local standards. If it doesn't work, we'll quickly find out.

The measuring stick is that there are at least 10 who qualify. That's how they know it's reasonably attainable by their judgement. If it's easy, then surely there are FAR more than 10 who already qualify. If they believe it to be "easy", they may not even ask for a list.

----

The bolded is what I take some issue with. The guidelines don't specify that it should already have been attained by anyone other than the CO - "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers."

...and, "Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify." The number is not provided. They let reviewers decide what is "reasonable" for their region.

I don't like the attained vs. attainable way in which the reviewers are applying it to each challenge. It's been attained so therefore it's attainable. Well... duh. Are there 10 in Ontario who have their Jasmer or Fizzy complete? If not, there's no way either of those two challenges would be published under the post-moratorium reviewer process because they're not attainable. Does that really make sense?

No, "reasonably attainable". As earlier, if a challenge is impossible, only then is it "unattainable". The threshold is what the Ontario reviewers consider to be "reasonably attainable". Regardless of when. They've decided that across the board, if 10 people + CO can or have attained the goal, then that is reasonable. If only 5 people qualify, or the CO is only willing to put the effort into providing 5 who qualify, then that, to the reviewers, measn the challenge is not "reasonable" for the region.

My friend's souvenir challenge, assuming it falls under the same guidelines as above (10 who already qualify), won't be published, even though over time, it will be attainable by quite a few as they work toward completing the challenge. Just because something doesn't meet the magical "10" does not mean that it's not reasonably attainable. I'll be interested to see what she has to say about it and the process she went through, assuming it gets published.

Right, and you've just hit the point that I said earlier about what I feel is the only real decent argument against their application of that list of qualifiers - if the challenge simply hasn't yet been done, even if it's very simple in concept. And I'd bet the reviewers would have the "common sense" to recognize a situation like that, and by their judgement, perhaps not require a list of 10 other users who have qualified. Who knows. That's just my guess. Maybe Ontario reviewers would be ridiculously strict and not allow it. We'll see.

As I keep saying: We don't have examples of these situations we're theorizing in order to determine if the reviewers, in those cases, employ what we consider to be reasonable judgement. Until then, this is all just hot air.

Perhaps it could have helped to use a system that would provide quantification of degrees of difficulty?

:drama:

I have to agree with this. I'm not a fan of a guideline that necessitates sourcing beta-testers. Having to find beta-testers seems like placing a 'networking' criterion for who can be a CCO. If a cacher doesn't use Facebook and/or doesn't attend a lot of events, then it would be difficult to find beta-testers. The potential CCO's ability to find beta-testers shouldn't have any bearing on the legitimacy of their proposed challenge.

Oh for sure. I wouldn't be a fan either of having to go out and find 10 others who qualify just to get it published, especially if it's not an easy challenge to for people to qualif... oh wait.

But you know the first place I'd start if I'm required to submit a list? PGC cacher stats - most finds in the region; run the checker and work down the list. If it's an easy challenge, minutes. If it's hard but "reasonable" (qualified by however many I'm asked for), maybe a few more minutes or a page or two of users (q: does that 10-checks-per-day limit count for checking other users on one checker or just your own stats on multiple checkers?). I can't find 10 others in Ontario? Ok - either my challenge is too difficult, or people just haven't done it yet. Looks like I'll either have to cede and change the challenge or give it up, or ask some friends if they'd like to prove that it is indeed "reasonable" and complete the challenge to get it published. Taking on that task is my own choice. If at that point I don't want to, it probably means the challenge is too difficult, or just not worth my (or others') effort to have published.

How does a prospective CCO "easily find qualified users"?

See above.

Just because the prospective CCO can't 'Find' qualified cachers doesn't mean that qualified cachers don't exist in their region.

"Just because a CO can't physically place the cache container at the posted coordinates doesn't mean the cache shouldn't be published."

...obviously part of creating a physical cache is having a container there to be found. I believe reviewers would say that part of creating a challenge is making sure it abides by their regional judgement of what they consider to be "reasonable" - so from now on if we want to create a challenge, we need to convince them it is in order for them to publish it; and if they ask for a list of qualified users as evidence because they have doubts, then Groundspeak supports that as a valid review process, and is thus part of our "responsibility" in creating a kind of challenge cache they would be happy to see listed in their database.

Is 10 reasonable or not in Ontario? That is where we may disagree with reviewers, or by what boundaries they consider "local" (eg, providing qualified users from the other end of the province, but not users just over the border in NY?)

My issue with the new guidelines isn't that the reviewers can make subjective judgements about what is reasonable - it's about whether or not their standard of "reasonable" is in fact reasonable. We need more citeable examples of published caches and denied caches to make that call.

ETA: I'm glad to see the Unknown challenge published in Alberta. Unfortunately it's not an example of a month-streak challenge of Unknowns published post-moratorium, but a completely "positive" fizzy grid completion of Unknowns.

Edited June 2, 2016 by thebruce0

3.1k · June 2, 2016

It looks like there's a lot of "outliers" out there.

Here's an updated list of some "Month of Unknowns" challenges (and their cousins). It's almost certainly incomplete.

Alberta, Canada - A Month of Unknowns Challenge

British Columbia, Canada - Dare to be Different: An Untraditional Challenge (Non-traditionals)

British Columbia, Canada - Just anOTHER Month: An Extended Challenge (60-day streak; Non-traditionals)

California, USA - A Puzzling Month (Challenge)

Maryland, USA - Non-Traditional One Calendar Month Challenge (Non-traditionals)

Michigan, USA - anOTHER Challenge (Non-traditionals)

Michigan, USA - anOTHER Challenge...Twice The Fun!!! (60-day streak; Non-traditionals)

Michigan, USA - Just anOTHER Challenge (Non-traditional)

Minnesota, USA - Challenge: MultiMonth (Multi-caches)

Minnesota, USA - Challenge: PuzzleMonth

Minnesota, USA - Non-Traditional 75 Day Streak Challenge (75-day streak; Non-traditionals)

Minnesota, USA - Random Challenges #1: 9-Day Letterbox Streak (9-day streak; Letterboxes)

Missouri, USA - C11: Mystery Month Challenge

Missouri, USA - C12: Mystery Month +30 Challenge (2-month-long streak)

New Hampshire, USA - 7 Day Multi Challenge (7-day streak; Multi-caches)

New Mexico, USA - "A Non-Traditional Month" Challenge (Non-traditionals)

New York, USA - MCTOA: Challenge: Mystery Month

Niederösterreich, Austria - Month of Mystery Challenge

Ohio, USA - The Mysterious Month Challenge

Ontario, Canada - anOther Ontario Challenge (Non-traditionals)

Ontario, Canada - ChallengED: anOTHER Lite One (15-day streak; Non-traditionals)

Ontario, Canada - How Many Stages Is It? 15 Day Challenge (15-day streak; Multi-caches)

Oregon, USA - A Month Streak of Mysteries Challenge

Oregon, USA - Month Streak of Waymarks Challenge (Waymarks)

Pennsylvania, USA - 2014 Non-Trad Cache Challenge - One whole month! (Non-traditionals)

Pennsylvania, USA - A Multi Challenge (10-day streak; Multi-caches)

Pennsylvania, USA - Non-Trad Cache Challenge #49 - 10 Unknown (10-day streak)

Pennsylvania, USA - Non-Trad Challenge: TP Style - 20X5 Streak (20-day streak; Non-traditionals)

South East England, UK - Let's Go Streaking ~ Challenge Cache ~ Multi 31 (Multi-caches)

South East England, UK - Let's Go Streaking ~ Challenge Cache ~ Unknown 31

South East England, UK - Let's Go Streaking ~ Challenge Cache ~ Unusual 15 (15-day streak; Non-Traditional/Multi/Unknown)

South East England, UK - Streaker Challenge #3: Unconventional Streak (10-day steak; Non-traditionals)

Texas, USA - Mystery Streak Challenge Cache: 5 Consecutive Days (5-day streak)

Texas, USA - Mystery Streak Challenge Cache:10 Consecutive Days (10-day streak)

Texas, USA - Mystery Streak Challenge Cache:15 Consecutive Days (15-day streak)

Texas, USA - Mystery Streak Challenge Cache:20 Consecutive Days (20-day streak)

Texas, USA - Mystery Streak Challenge Cache:25 Consecutive Days (25-day streak)

Texas, USA - Mystery Streak Challenge Cache:50 Consecutive Days (50-day streak)

Texas, USA - Mystery Streak Challenge Cache:100 ConsecutiveDays (100-day streak)

Thanks to everyone for providing extra examples.

Edited June 3, 2016 by CanadianRockies

3.1k · June 2, 2016

What about elevation based challenges?

Is there any guarantee that all reviewers will answer such questions in the same manner?

One certainly needs a tool outside of gc.com to verify if one has found caches in certain counties which is another indication for me that the formulation of the guidelines is suboptimal.

Here are three new elevation-type challenges: Below Sea Level Challenge, Head in the Clouds Challenge, Top o'the world to the depth of the sea challenge.

All three were published by the same reviewer.

Edited June 2, 2016 by CanadianRockies

3.1k · June 2, 2016

My friend's souvenir challenge, assuming it falls under the same guidelines as above (10 who already qualify), won't be published, even though over time, it will be attainable by quite a few as they work toward completing the challenge. Just because something doesn't meet the magical "10" does not mean that it's not reasonably attainable. I'll be interested to see what she has to say about it and the process she went through, assuming it gets published.

Right, and you've just hit the point that I said earlier about what I feel is the only real decent argument against their application of that list of qualifiers - if the challenge simply hasn't yet been done, even if it's very simple in concept. And I'd bet the reviewers would have the "common sense" to recognize a situation like that, and by their judgement, perhaps not require a list of 10 other users who have qualified.

Let's hope all reviewers exercise their good judgment in situations where some magical number indicates one thing but common sense indicates another.

But you know the first place I'd start if I'm required to submit a list? PGC cacher stats - most finds in the region; run the checker and work down the list. If it's an easy challenge, minutes. If it's hard but "reasonable" (qualified by however many I'm asked for), maybe a few more minutes or a page or two of users (q: does that 10-checks-per-day limit count for checking other users on one checker or just your own stats on multiple checkers?). I can't find 10 others in Ontario? Ok - either my challenge is too difficult, or people just haven't done it yet. Looks like I'll either have to cede and change the challenge or give it up, or ask some friends if they'd like to prove that it is indeed "reasonable" and complete the challenge to get it published. Taking on that task is my own choice. If at that point I don't want to, it probably means the challenge is too difficult, or just not worth my (or others') effort to have published.

Or it could mean that you don't have many friends, or your friends aren't particularly interested in your challenge, or...

I'm glad to see the Unknown challenge published in Alberta. Unfortunately it's not an example of a month-streak challenge of Unknowns published post-moratorium, but a completely "positive" fizzy grid completion of Unknowns.

The publication of the Unknown Fizzy challenge is a good indication that Alberta reviewers continue to apply common sense in determining if a challenge is "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" even if it has very few (e.g., one + owner) pre-qualifiers.

The "Month-streak of Unknowns" challenge meets the "positive" guideline because geocachers don't have to stop (or seriously reduce) finding caches that are unrelated to that challenge. For example, it doesn't require geocachers to stop finding non-Unknown caches for that month. That "positive" guideline has been around for years, and these "Month-streak of Unknowns"-type challenges continued to be published (we're up to 39 "outliers" now).

I know there's a Calgary cacher who has completed a month-long streak of Multi-caches and was planning to create a Challenge cache for that (until the moratorium occurred). So, maybe we'll soon have a post-moratorium example as well. I'd think that should convince you, but I suspect you'll tap dance some more and claim that a Multi-cache example isn't good enough because Multis are "positive" cache types while Unknowns are "negative" cache types. And when a "Month-streak of Unknowns" challenge gets published, you'll simply label it as yet another "outlier" caused by a renegade reviewer.

2k · June 2, 2016

I don't like the attained vs. attainable way in which the reviewers are applying it to each challenge. It's been attained so therefore it's attainable. Well... duh. Are there 10 in Ontario who have their Jasmer or Fizzy complete? If not, there's no way either of those two challenges would be published under the post-moratorium reviewer process because they're not attainable. Does that really make sense?

No, "reasonably attainable". As earlier, if a challenge is impossible, only then is it "unattainable". The threshold is what the Ontario reviewers consider to be "reasonably attainable". Regardless of when. They've decided that across the board, if 10 people + CO can or have attained the goal, then that is reasonable. If only 5 people qualify, or the CO is only willing to put the effort into providing 5 who qualify, then that, to the reviewers, measn the challenge is not "reasonable" for the region.

You've changed your tune based on an earlier post about 10 + CO having already qualified. There was no "can" in your previous reply to my post. If "can" is being used to determine whether or not a CC is publishable, then I have no problem because this removes the hard target and opens things up a bit more. However, it appears that's not the case in Ontario, as you stated in the same post above. It's the hard target of 10 that is the magical number. If the total is 9, then it's not publishable until that 10th person qualifies.

And I meant not publishable as a challenge because not enough people have qualified for those two challenges to be published, not unattainable. We all know they're reasonably attainable, but due to the magic of 10, they (Fizzy and Jasmer) wouldn't go through in Ontario if they didn't meet the hard target.

Edited June 2, 2016 by coachstahly

9k · June 2, 2016

No, "reasonably attainable". As earlier, if a challenge is impossible, only then is it "unattainable". The threshold is what the Ontario reviewers consider to be "reasonably attainable". Regardless of when. They've decided that across the board, if 10 people + CO can or have attained the goal, then that is reasonable. If only 5 people qualify, or the CO is only willing to put the effort into providing 5 who qualify, then that, to the reviewers, measn the challenge is not "reasonable" for the region.

You've changed your tune based on an earlier post about 10 + CO having already qualified. There was no "can" in your previous reply to my post. If "can" is being used to determine whether or not a CC is publishable, then I have no problem because this removes the hard target and opens things up a bit more. However, it appears that's not the case in Ontario, as you stated in the same post above. It's the hard target of 10 that is the magical number. If the total is 9, then it's not publishable until that 10th person qualifies.

I haven't changed a tune. It doesn't matter if someone qualifies before or after the publication for the purposes of finding the cache - it's only for the purposes of publishing does the CO need to have 10 users who already qualify.

Perhaps my wording could be adjusted (per the blue):

"If 10 people + CO can attain the goal, then that is reasonable." (referring merely to whether a challenge is considered reasonable)

"In order to publish, 10 people + CO must have already attained the goal." (referring explicitly to publish requirements)

Does that make more sense? The line between the two is just a matter of when people qualify. To publish, just have 10 who qualify beforehand.

And I meant not publishable as a challenge because not enough people have qualified for those two challenges to be published, not unattainable. We all know they're attainable, but due to the magic of 10, they wouldn't go through in Ontario.

Right, but what's the problem with finding 10? As I said earlier, is it because it's too hard to find 10? Probably not a reasonable challenge. Is it because simply no one has tried the goal before, yet you believe it to be easy? Finding 10 shouldn't be a problem. If you think it's worth publishing, asking 10 people to qualify shouldn't be a problem.

So the controversy is whether it's "reasonable" to ask a CCO to ask people to pre-qualify for an easy challenge. As far as my experience with Ontario reviewers, my guess would be they'd say that it should not be a problem. If we say it's "too much work" for to do that, then the challenge is probably not worth publishing. Alternatively, if we submit an easy challenge that no one has qualified for yet, and the reviewers right of the bat also consider it to be an easy challenge, they may not even ask for a list of 10 qualifiers. So, no problem.

Once again, there are many "what ifs" in this scenario. All this back and forth over theories is hot air. I can't say what Ontario reviewers will or won't do, nor can you, but I can guess based on past experience, and what we know of their current regional standards. And those regional standards may be quite different than another region.

Edited June 2, 2016 by thebruce0

21.9k · June 2, 2016

A number of posts have been hidden from view because they involved a tangential discussion among a small number of conversation participants. This is best suited for private messages or emails, especially if disparaging terms are used. See forum guideline #7, which ends with the following good advice: "Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general geocaching community."

Let's keep this thread focused on general questions about the return of challenge caches, worldwide. Thanks.

6.8k · June 2, 2016

Here are three new elevation-type challenges: Below Sea Level Challenge, Head in the Clouds Challenge, Top o'the world to the depth of the sea challenge.

All three were published by the same reviewer.

Thanks. That's interesting. I could only look at the third one and I noticed that the formulation is not saying that one should find one cache of each elevation segment according to the values obtained by PGC.

Strictly speaking the checker checks for something different than what the challenge asks for.

PGC (or rather the tools they use) is known for delivering inprecise values for the elevation in many cases. Many below zero caches according to PGC are at sea level to provide just one example (in the case of the challenge cache above it will make the challenge easier).

If someone is missing some intermediary values (and not highest or lowest), the hardest thing might be to find suitable caches on PGC. gc.com cannot be used for the search of course.

Edited June 2, 2016 by cezanne

3.1k · June 2, 2016

One certainly needs a tool outside of gc.com to verify if one has found caches in certain counties which is another indication for me that the formulation of the guidelines is suboptimal.

It looks like new county-based challenges also are being published: The Georgia County Cached Out Challenge, Wharton County's First Challenge - 50 Caches, Matagorda County's First Challenge - 100 Caches, Brazoria County Challenge - 300 Caches.

You should be able to view the first one. The other three (all in Texas) have pretty self-explanatory titles.

Return of challenge caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment