Return of challenge caches

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.

Interesting, I fulfill the criteria for all three challenges, but my qualifying caches for <0m are not 2m or 3m below sea level, but rather at sea level Windlicht (Street view) and Woodpecker (Aerial view).

Considering that outside the USA STRM3 is used with 90m horizontal resolution it is easy to see that elevation data can't be inch-perfect especially in steeper terrain.

So <0m will often include caches that are +1m and more depending on how the surrounding area is shaped.

If the challenge criteria is 'find a cache <0m according to project-gc that uses STRM3 (or STRM1 in USA)' then it would be OK for me to log this cache.

Only too bad for them who visited a really deep cave where the cache is far below sea level, but the surface is above sea level.

I would not log a challenge cache that requires 'find a cache below sea level' as I have not found a cache below sea level yet (well, I found the poor remains of a cache a few meters below sea level, but the logbook was gone, so only DNF).

7.5k · June 2, 2016

So the controversy is whether it's "reasonable" to ask a CCO to ask people to pre-qualify for an easy challenge.

The question is whether it's reasonable to ask people you don't know to pre-qualify for a challenge cache that may never exist. Since it isn't, then it's unreasonable to force someone to do that.

Once again, there are many "what ifs" in this scenario. All this back and forth over theories is hot air.

You've hit the nail on the head: because of "what if someone published an unachievable challenge cache", you've reached the absurd conclusion that it's reasonable to demand 10 people have already qualified for the cache. And you've even reduced the problem to it being an easy challenge which a reviewer should have no reason to question to begin with.

That you've come this far should make you reconsider whether the original "reasonably attainable" was a good idea to being with. Does what it achieves really warrant the kinds of rules and requirements it's led you to invent?

2k · June 2, 2016

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.

I really hope other reviewers in other areas use more common sense and stay away from a hard target of 10 who pre-qualify. I think CR's reviewer did so when publishing the newest challenge there, as they are not even close to 10.

This inconsistency among reviewers is part of what caused the moratorium because potential CC COs pointed to other challenges that were published (even though previous publication does NOT ensure current publication) as proof that their challenge was valid and should be published. Looking at Ontario on the map, it's pretty obvious that the majority of the caches are located in the southern 1/3 of the province. Even though it's not a cache dense area (except in a few locales), I generally understand why they opt to have 10 as a hard target, but I still think that will severely limit the options cachers have when putting out new challenges, especially ones that might eventually become attainable by quite a few cachers once they put their minds to it.

3.1k · June 2, 2016

So the controversy is whether it's "reasonable" to ask a CCO to ask people to pre-qualify for an easy challenge.

The question is whether it's reasonable to ask people you don't know to pre-qualify for a challenge cache that may never exist. Since it isn't, then it's unreasonable to force someone to do that.

And the Challenge cache you're asking people to find might not be so easy. The "Month-streak of Unknowns" is not an easy challenge (although it obviously can be attained by a reasonable number of determined cachers). If I had needed to get even three people to pre-qualify, then I'm not sure I ever would have created that challenge. I generally feel uncomfortable imposing on people, and many geocachers don't particularly like solving puzzles or doing a 30-day streak.

The "Month-streak of Unknowns" is a great challenge for those who enjoy that kind of thing; not so wonderful for those who don't.

22k · June 3, 2016

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.

I really hope other reviewers in other areas use more common sense and stay away from a hard target of 10 who pre-qualify. I think CR's reviewer did so when publishing the newest challenge there, as they are not even close to 10.

This inconsistency among reviewers is part of what caused the moratorium because potential CC COs pointed to other challenges that were published (even though previous publication does NOT ensure current publication) as proof that their challenge was valid and should be published. Looking at Ontario on the map, it's pretty obvious that the majority of the caches are located in the southern 1/3 of the province. Even though it's not a cache dense area (except in a few locales), I generally understand why they opt to have 10 as a hard target, but I still think that will severely limit the options cachers have when putting out new challenges, especially ones that might eventually become attainable by quite a few cachers once they put their minds to it.

Remember that a challenge that might be "easy" in one area could be "hard" in another area. Let's use Wherigo caches as an example. A challenge to find a Wherigo cache 10 days in a row presumably would be easy in North Carolina, home of Ranger Fox (the king of Wherigo). But in Southwest PA, there are only 10 active Wherigo caches and it would require hundreds of miles of travel to find one of them each day. I would not publish that challenge in my review territory.

It would be wise to embrace the inconsistency, which allows for flexibility among regions. If I start hearing things like "but this Wherigo challenge was published in North Carolina" on a regular basis, I will want the moratorium back. (Remember, I'm pro-challenge cache as a player, and I own three of them.) So, don't be that guy.

3.5k · June 3, 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."

...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 would contend that what is "reasonable" should be based not just on region, but also on the type of challenge. Some challenges can be easy, but require forethought, so cachers in the region may not have qualified for it yet because they hadn't thought to actually do it. CR's 'Month of Mysteries' challenge as an example.

Let's also consider a nonexistent (AFAIK) challenge to 'Have a 3-day streak where you find at least 1 traditional cache on day-1, at least 1 multi cache on day-2, and at least 1 mystery cache on day-3. It's okay to find other caches and other cache types on these days.'. This seems like an 'easy' challenge to me, and likely would be easy for many cachers to complete. A beginner cacher could complete this challenge in 3 days with just 3 finds if they plan their caching, but it's unlikely they would complete this challenge by happenstance unless they have a lot of finds and often cache for 3 days in a row (ie, they're not just 'weekend warriors'). I posit that this type of 'forethought' challenge shouldn't have the same 'show that X cachers have already pre-qualified' requirement as a challenge that can be completed by sheer numbers (ie, 'Find 200 multi caches').

It would be great if we could avoid debate about whether this type of cache would be publishable. The point of this made-up example is to discuss whether 'easy' challenges that require forethought (planning cache finds) should be held to the same pre-qualified standard as 'easy' challenges that don't require forethought. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is going to end up in a roundabout semantic argument, so I'll just state my position as this: It's not reasonable to apply the same pre-qualified requirement to a 'numbers' challenge as to a 'forethought' challenge.

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.

"oh wait" what? Are you saying that the only challenges that should be publishable are those that are 'easy' for cachers to qualify for?

q: does that 10-checks-per-day limit count for checking other users on one checker or just your own stats on multiple checkers?).

The 10-per-day is for how many times a cacher runs checkers, regardless of which username is being checked and regardless of which checker is being run. I suspected it, but also just confirmed it. I ran various checkers against 10 different usernames and then got this message when I tried again:

Error As a non paying member of Project-GC you are only allowed to run 10 challenge checkers per 24 hours. You have exceeded that.

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."

This type of rationale, along with other comments in this thread, makes me doubt that a meaningful dialogue can develop between us.

The skillset required to place the physical cache container for a CC is very different from the skillset required to 'find qualified cachers'. If you're not able to see that, then I don't know what else to say.

3.5k · June 3, 2016

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.

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.

-3

It's great that you consider it 'easy' to ask other cachers to pre-qualify for a challenge. You've already stated that you think finding 10 is a "non-issue" and "shouldn't be a problem" I think it would be difficult for a cacher to ask others if:

-- The prospective CCO is shy.

-- The prospective CCO doesn't attend a lot of events.

-- The prospective CCO is not 'on Facebook'.

-- The prospective CCO knows several cachers by meeting them at FTF's, but those cachers don't want to pre-qualify because they want to attempt the FTF if the CC is published and their ethics preclude them from accepting 'headstarts'.

What if the prospective challenge spans a month or a year. Would Reviewers want to allow a prospective CCO to 'hold' a hiding spot for that long while they wait for other cachers to pre-qualify for the challenge?

------------------------------

If excluding a segment of cachers from being eligible to create challenge caches is a goal of the new CC framework, then 'finding cachers who qualify' is another step (along with having a checker and pre-qualifying) towards that goal. Exclusions will mean less CC submissions though, so the end result will be less Reviewer workload and that may be the preferred outcome. Or maybe there will be more cachers paying for PGC membership so they can get unlimited checker runs, which might also be a preferred outcome and somehow compensate PGC for taking on the challenge checker responsibility - although the checker writers/taggers won't see that membership revenue because they are volunteers.

9k · June 3, 2016

The question is whether it's reasonable to ask people you don't know to pre-qualify for a challenge cache that may never exist. Since it isn't, then it's unreasonable to force someone to do that.

Why isn't it? What rule is there that says it's unreasonable to ask someone you don't know (presuming you've exhausted everyone you do know), yet who might be interested (because caching), if they'd like to have some fun? Presuming your challenge is fun, yes?

You've hit the nail on the head: because of "what if someone published an unachievable challenge cache", you've reached the absurd conclusion that it's reasonable to demand 10 people have already qualified for the cache.

But you're presuming the reviewers will demand 10 qualifiers in an unreasonable situation based on your opinion vs theirs (hard+achievable+brand new idea+list demanded). So many factors involved in making such a situation possible, and numerous assumptions. So how can one potentially negative outcome be used as justification that reviewers should not be given the right to make subjective judgements, at all, about what is reasonable for a region?

You can come up with endless possibilities and assume that reviewers will make "unreasonable" judgements just because you don't like the fact that they can. Even if they might not. You need examples. Cases. Evidence. Until then, it's all conjecture, and why once again this is going round in circles.

Also, "what if someone published an unachievable challenge cache" won't happen because if it's published, that means the reviewers deemed it's reasonable.

And you've even reduced the problem to it being an easy challenge which a reviewer should have no reason to question to begin with.

I've come at the problem from multiple angles; an easy challenge is only one context. If it's an easy challenge and common idea, it's unlikely the reviewers will request a qualifier list. If it's an easy challenge but a new idea, then if they do request it shouldn't be a problem to get that list. If it is a problem to get that list then it's probably not a reasonable challenge to their mind. If it's an easy challenge and they don't request a list, then no problem.

That you've come this far should make you reconsider whether the original "reasonably attainable" was a good idea to being with. Does what it achieves really warrant the kinds of rules and requirements it's led you to invent?

I would think (hope, since I want to see CC's continue) that most challenge submissions will indeed be considered reasonable, and not push the limit so much that reviewers get excessive pushback if/when they feel they need to request a list of qualifiers. Nowhere does it says reviewer will, it says they might, which means if they feel the challenge needs a bit of extra evidence to support it as reasonable to their mind. I really don't see what's so hard about this to grasp. It's a simple concept - but the issue is whether we believe their judgement and standards will be reasonable or not for their region; and we don't yet have a good sample set of what various region reviewers judge as reasonable (whether asking for a list or not).

I really hope other reviewers in other areas use more common sense and stay away from a hard target of 10 who pre-qualify. I think CR's reviewer did so when publishing the newest challenge there, as they are not even close to 10.

You know how many unknown fizzies already exist? It's likely they didn't feel the challenge was unreasonable, and didn't feel it necessary to ask for a list. Remember, the guideline doesn't say reviewers will ask for a list. And, nor does it says reviewers will always ask for the same quantity of qualifiers. In Ontario, they seem to have decided on a static 10, according to their wiki. Could there still be exceptions? Sure.

This inconsistency among reviewers is part of what caused the moratorium because potential CC COs pointed to other challenges that were published (even though previous publication does NOT ensure current publication) as proof that their challenge was valid and should be published. Looking at Ontario on the map, it's pretty obvious that the majority of the caches are located in the southern 1/3 of the province. Even though it's not a cache dense area (except in a few locales), I generally understand why they opt to have 10 as a hard target, but I still think that will severely limit the options cachers have when putting out new challenges, especially ones that might eventually become attainable by quite a few cachers once they put their minds to it.

And I think they would reason that if it appears to be a challenge that can be attained reasonably even though no one has yet, they would decide whether it's still worth requiring a list of qualified users. To say that they will and thus the whole idea that they are allowed to is unfair, is very presumptous without evidence.

Remember that a challenge that might be "easy" in one area could be "hard" in another area. Let's use Wherigo caches as an example. A challenge to find a Wherigo cache 10 days in a row presumably would be easy in North Carolina, home of Ranger Fox (the king of Wherigo). But in Southwest PA, there are only 10 active Wherigo caches and it would require hundreds of miles of travel to find one of them each day. I would not publish that challenge in my review territory.

It would be wise to embrace the inconsistency, which allows for flexibility among regions. If I start hearing things like "but this Wherigo challenge was published in North Carolina" on a regular basis, I will want the moratorium back. (Remember, I'm pro-challenge cache as a player, and I own three of them.) So, don't be that guy.

Edited June 3, 2016 by thebruce0

9k · June 3, 2016

...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 would contend that what is "reasonable" should be based not just on region, but also on the type of challenge. Some challenges can be easy, but require forethought, so cachers in the region may not have qualified for it yet because they hadn't thought to actually do it. CR's 'Month of Mysteries' challenge as an example.

That challenge isn't a good example because it was published long ago and now has many qualifiers. Because of regional differences, we need practical, current examples, and actual results. We can theorize endlessly about possibilities, but there's no basis by which to judge what will happen until or unless it actually happens. Theoretical subjective judgements are not evidence that the system itself is broken. Find the breaks. Then present it as evidence.

Let's also consider a nonexistent (AFAIK) challenge to 'Have a 3-day streak where you find at least 1 traditional cache on day-1, at least 1 multi cache on day-2, and at least 1 mystery cache on day-3. It's okay to find other caches and other cache types on these days.'. This seems like an 'easy' challenge to me, and likely would be easy for many cachers to complete. A beginner cacher could complete this challenge in 3 days with just 3 finds if they plan their caching, but it's unlikely they would complete this challenge by happenstance unless they have a lot of finds and often cache for 3 days in a row (ie, they're not just 'weekend warriors'). I posit that this type of 'forethought' challenge shouldn't have the same 'show that X cachers have already pre-qualified' requirement as a challenge that can be completed by sheer numbers (ie, 'Find 200 multi caches').

Multiply those numbers by 100. Now ask if the reviewers would request a list of qualifiers for both, either, or neither. For this example, my guess is they wouldn't for the "easy" version, but would for the "hard" version. Hey, it's possible within the flexibility of judgement the reviewers have been granted by Groundspeak. On what grounds would you presume that they must and therefore will demand a list of 10 qualifiers for the quite obviously "easy" challenge example you cited?

It would be great if we could avoid debate about whether this type of cache would be publishable. The point of this made-up example is to discuss whether 'easy' challenges that require forethought (planning cache finds) should be held to the same pre-qualified standard as 'easy' challenges that don't require forethought.

Right. And we don't have any actual current example that they are being held to the same pre-qualified standard. So...

I'll just state my position as this: It's not reasonable to apply the same pre-qualified requirement to a 'numbers' challenge as to a 'forethought' challenge.

Ok, sure. So let's find out in time whether the reviewers will or won't.

Oh also, where'd that "easy" part disappear to?

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.

----

"oh wait" what? Are you saying that the only challenges that should be publishable are those that are 'easy' for cachers to qualify for?

...nnnno. I'm saying that if it's too much of a burden for me to find 10 others who qualify (whether it's practically hard, or I don't feel it's worth anyone's time to generate such a list), then the reviewers will probably interpret that to mean that it's not a reasonable challenge to publish...

q: does that 10-checks-per-day limit count for checking other users on one checker or just your own stats on multiple checkers?).

----

The 10-per-day is for how many times a cacher runs checkers, regardless of which username is being checked and regardless of which checker is being run. I suspected it, but also just confirmed it. I ran various checkers against 10 different usernames and then got this message when I tried again:

Error As a non paying member of Project-GC you are only allowed to run 10 challenge checkers per 24 hours. You have exceeded that.

Good to know!

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."

----

...The skillset required to place the physical cache container for a CC is very different from the skillset required to 'find qualified cachers'. If you're not able to see that, then I don't know what else to say.

I agree it's a different skillset. But per the rules of creating a geocache listing on geocaching.com, "skillset" doesn't come into play. If you place a physical cache, there are expectations and responsibilities; if you can't follow through, you shouldn't place. If you place a challenge cache, there are expectations and responsibilities; if you can't follow through, you shouldn't place. Those requirements were created by Groundspeak. Not everyone likes every rule or guideline; they can't make a unviersally praised set of rules for their listing service. We can debate and help flesh out what works and what doesn't, and they can then decide what's worth adopting, adjusting, correcting. My point was that GS had deemed it the reviewers' right to require a minimum set of pre-qualified users towards deciding if a challenge is publishable. So that has become part of the CCO's responsibility if they wish to publish a listing on this site.

And again from my perspective, the existence of that right given to the reviewers is necessary. To what degree the reviewers subjectively employ that in their region is where we may have problems and disagreements with TPTB. And we've already seen a few disputes arise about "10+1" being universally reasonable across all of Ontario.

I'd be completely on board with an overhaul for how Ontario reviewers decide what a "reasonably attainable" challenge looks like. I'm not completely on board with scrapping the mere allowance for regional reviewers to decide what's "reasonable".

9k · June 3, 2016

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.

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.

-3

It's great that you consider it 'easy' to ask other cachers to pre-qualify for a challenge. You've already stated that you think finding 10 is a "non-issue" and "shouldn't be a problem" I think it would be difficult for a cacher to ask others if:

1. The prospective CCO is shy.

2. The prospective CCO doesn't attend a lot of events.

3. The prospective CCO is not 'on Facebook'.

4. The prospective CCO knows several cachers by meeting them at FTF's, but those cachers don't want to pre-qualify because they want to attempt the FTF if the CC is published and their ethics preclude them from accepting 'headstarts'.

5. What if the prospective challenge spans a month or a year. Would Reviewers want to allow a prospective CCO to 'hold' a hiding spot for that long while they wait for other cachers to pre-qualify for the challenge?

1. Great opportunity to meet people. Also if they don't want to talk to people, even over text based means, what makes you think this will be a significant portion of people wanting to place challenges in the first place? Concepts aren't for everyone, just like owning a physical cache isn't for everyone. That's not a bad thing ya know. I'm ridiculously introverted, and when I was younger I was unbelievably shy. It's not the end of the world. And geocaching had a huge role in changing the social aspect of my life.

2. More like 1b, but event attendance isn't a significant part of being able to find qualifiers or reach out to prolific (and likely also friendly) cachers who might be very interested in helping qualify for a new challenge to get it published. Especially if it's easy

3. So?

4. FTF is a side game. If someone doesn't want to help me get a challenge published because they want to be FTF, I would never consider going to them for any form of pre-publish beta testing either. They'd likely also remain in the back of my mind as a not very helpful numbers-hound. Sure, it would be my loss if I found 9 and needed one more; this person. But hey, I might be willing to make a deal with them in some form. Who knows. Possibilities are endless.

5. Who knows. We don't have any current example of such a situation. Until it happens, I don't see a point in stating that it will.

If excluding a segment of cachers from being eligible to create challenge caches is a goal of the new CC framework, then 'finding cachers who qualify' is another step (along with having a checker and pre-qualifying) towards that goal. Exclusions will mean less CC submissions though, so the end result will be less Reviewer workload and that may be the preferred outcome. Or maybe there will be more cachers paying for PGC membership so they can get unlimited checker runs, which might also be a preferred outcome and somehow compensate PGC for taking on the challenge checker responsibility - although the checker writers/taggers won't see that membership revenue because they are volunteers.

Agreed. Except on the blue; we know that part of the new guidelines was to help streamline publishing; less work and headaches for reviewers. Part of that may be that it becomes more work for people on the 'edge pushing' grey area of subjective judgements of the guidelines, and thus they end up with fewer publishes (and less work for reviewers).

I don't see intentional exclusion of a segment of cachers as a goal. I see the additional work for people wanting to push the limit as a deterrent, and thus making an easier process for reviewers. And that to me seemed to be their goal in adjusting the CC concept. I for one never doubted that fewer challenges would get published after the moratorium; that seemed to be an inevitable result of what they said they'd hope to accomplish.

ETA: On the point of FTFs - you know a challenge can be published, and people may find it on day one even if it should take a month, because they already qualify? So someone who is asked to pre-qualify for a challenge in order to get it published could still log the FTF. Of course, it would be a matter of their personal ethic. And, "no one needs to know" that no one auto-qualified before the FTF(s) did. FTF really is all just a dramatic, often problematic, competitive side game. Certainly not a solid reason, imo, against the existence of reviewers' right merely to make subjective judgements about "reasonableness" which may include requesting a list of pre-qualifiers.

Edited June 3, 2016 by thebruce0

3.5k · June 3, 2016

...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 would contend that what is "reasonable" should be based not just on region, but also on the type of challenge. Some challenges can be easy, but require forethought, so cachers in the region may not have qualified for it yet because they hadn't thought to actually do it. CR's 'Month of Mysteries' challenge as an example.

That challenge isn't a good example because it was published long ago and now has many qualifiers. Because of regional differences, we need practical, current examples, and actual results. We can theorize endlessly about possibilities, but there's no basis by which to judge what will happen until or unless it actually happens. Theoretical subjective judgements are not evidence that the system itself is broken. Find the breaks. Then present it as evidence.

CR's challenge is an example of a challenge that requires forethought, so it doesn't matter when it was published. It's an example of a challenge where "cachers in the region may not have qualified for it yet because they hadn't thought to actually do it". That's why it had few qualifiers when it was published, but now it has several qualifiers. It's being used as an example of that type of 'forethought' challenge. It has nothing to do with CC guidelines. This is going to go around in tapping circles, so I'm done here.

Let's also consider a nonexistent (AFAIK) challenge to 'Have a 3-day streak where you find at least 1 traditional cache on day-1, at least 1 multi cache on day-2, and at least 1 mystery cache on day-3. It's okay to find other caches and other cache types on these days.'. This seems like an 'easy' challenge to me, and likely would be easy for many cachers to complete. A beginner cacher could complete this challenge in 3 days with just 3 finds if they plan their caching, but it's unlikely they would complete this challenge by happenstance unless they have a lot of finds and often cache for 3 days in a row (ie, they're not just 'weekend warriors'). I posit that this type of 'forethought' challenge shouldn't have the same 'show that X cachers have already pre-qualified' requirement as a challenge that can be completed by sheer numbers (ie, 'Find 200 multi caches').

Multiply those numbers by 100. Now ask if the reviewers would request a list of qualifiers for both, either, or neither. For this example, my guess is they wouldn't for the "easy" version, but would for the "hard" version. Hey, it's possible within the flexibility of judgement the reviewers have been granted by Groundspeak. On what grounds would you presume that they must and therefore will demand a list of 10 qualifiers for the quite obviously "easy" challenge example you cited?

Nothing in my quoted text says that I presume a list of qualifiers will be demanded. That entire section was my comment that "'forethought' challenge shouldn't have the same 'show that X cachers have already pre-qualified' requirement as a challenge that can be completed by sheer numbers". It wasn't a question or an argument. It was a statement.

It would be great if we could avoid debate about whether this type of cache would be publishable. The point of this made-up example is to discuss whether 'easy' challenges that require forethought (planning cache finds) should be held to the same pre-qualified standard as 'easy' challenges that don't require forethought.

Right. And we don't have any actual current example that they are being held to the same pre-qualified standard. So...

Again, nothing in my quoted text says that "they are being held to the same pre-qualified standard". It was a position statement. These semantic games make me not even want to "discuss whether 'easy' challenges that require forethought (planning cache finds) should be held to the same pre-qualified standard as 'easy' challenges that don't require forethought". It's just not worth it. I need to go print out a bunch of EC's for this weekend anyway.

I'll just state my position as this: It's not reasonable to apply the same pre-qualified requirement to a 'numbers' challenge as to a 'forethought' challenge.

Ok, sure. So let's find out in time whether the reviewers will or won't.

Oh also, where'd that "easy" part disappear to?

'Easy' was removed from both the 'forethought' and 'numbers' portions. My position is the same whether a challenge is easy or hard, by whatever standard one wants to use to determine that. Just to cover my bases:

-- It's not reasonable to apply the same pre-qualified requirement to an easy 'numbers' challenge as to an easy 'forethought' challenge.

-- It's not reasonable to apply the same pre-qualified requirement to a hard 'numbers' challenge as to a hard 'forethought' challenge.

-- It's not reasonable to apply the same pre-qualified requirement to an easy 'numbers' challenge as to an hard 'forethought' challenge.

-- It's not reasonable to apply the same pre-qualified requirement to a hard 'numbers' challenge as to a easy 'forethought' challenge.

It's great that you consider it 'easy' to ask other cachers to pre-qualify for a challenge. You've already stated that you think finding 10 is a "non-issue" and "shouldn't be a problem" I think it would be difficult for a cacher to ask others if:

1. The prospective CCO is shy.

2. The prospective CCO doesn't attend a lot of events.

3. The prospective CCO is not 'on Facebook'.

4. The prospective CCO knows several cachers by meeting them at FTF's, but those cachers don't want to pre-qualify because they want to attempt the FTF if the CC is published and their ethics preclude them from accepting 'headstarts'.

5. What if the prospective challenge spans a month or a year. Would Reviewers want to allow a prospective CCO to 'hold' a hiding spot for that long while they wait for other cachers to pre-qualify for the challenge?

1. Great opportunity to meet people. Also if they don't want to talk to people, even over text based means, what makes you think this will be a significant portion of people wanting to place challenges in the first place? Concepts aren't for everyone, just like owning a physical cache isn't for everyone. That's not a bad thing ya know. I'm ridiculously introverted, and when I was younger I was unbelievably shy. It's not the end of the world. And geocaching had a huge role in changing the social aspect of my life.

2. More like 1b, but event attendance isn't a significant part of being able to find qualifiers or reach out to prolific (and likely also friendly) cachers who might be very interested in helping qualify for a new challenge to get it published. Especially if it's easy

3. So?

4. FTF is a side game. If someone doesn't want to help me get a challenge published because they want to be FTF, I would never consider going to them for any form of pre-publish beta testing either. They'd likely also remain in the back of my mind as a not very helpful numbers-hound. Sure, it would be my loss if I found 9 and needed one more; this person. But hey, I might be willing to make a deal with them in some form. Who knows. Possibilities are endless.

5. Who knows. We don't have any current example of such a situation. Until it happens, I don't see a point in stating that it will.

1. I didn't say that shy people "will be a significant portion of people wanting to place challenges". My point is that those shy people would find it difficult to find pre-qualifiers. Even if shy people are not "a significant portion", then that doesn't mean their position is irrelevant. And I'm not sure how their shyness has any bearing on "Concepts". I don't see any reason to assume that shy people can't come up with good challenge concepts.

2. Events are one way for cachers, especially new cachers, to meet other cachers. In this forum, new cachers are advised to attend events in order to meet other cachers.

3. Events is one way for cachers, especially new cachers, to meet other cachers. In this forum, new cachers are advised to join a local FB group in order to meet other cachers in their geographic area.

4. If a prospective CCO falls into category 1 or 2 or 3, then FTF attempts may be the only time they meet other cachers.

5. Just to be clear, I didn't state "that it will" happen either.

OT: Interesting in the same paragraph (4) you said you "would never consider going to them", but a couple sentences later you "might be willing to make a deal with them in some form".

3.1k · June 3, 2016

...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 would contend that what is "reasonable" should be based not just on region, but also on the type of challenge. Some challenges can be easy, but require forethought, so cachers in the region may not have qualified for it yet because they hadn't thought to actually do it. CR's 'Month of Mysteries' challenge as an example.

That challenge isn't a good example because it was published long ago and now has many qualifiers. Because of regional differences, we need practical, current examples, and actual results. We can theorize endlessly about possibilities, but there's no basis by which to judge what will happen until or unless it actually happens. Theoretical subjective judgements are not evidence that the system itself is broken. Find the breaks. Then present it as evidence.

CR's challenge is an example of a challenge that requires forethought, so it doesn't matter when it was published. It's an example of a challenge where "cachers in the region may not have qualified for it yet because they hadn't thought to actually do it". That's why it had few qualifiers when it was published, but now it has several qualifiers. It's being used as an example of that type of 'forethought' challenge. It has nothing to do with CC guidelines. This is going to go around in tapping circles, so I'm done here.

Yes, our "A Month of Unknowns Challenge" is a good example of the kind of challenge that requires forethought. I'm fairly sure no other local geocacher had pre-qualified for this challenge. (Such a creature might exist out there in the wilds but hasn't gotten around to finding this challenge yet.) I'm positive that none of the 22 current finders had pre-qualified (as their logs will attest).

And, yes, I think it's unwise for reviewers to apply some magical number of pre-qualifiers to both "forethought" challenges and "numbers" challenges, because doing so makes it much harder for some good "forethought" challenges to run the gauntlet and get published. In all likelihood, fewer of these good "forethought" challenges will get published, and I believe the geocaching community loses in such a situation. Apply some good common sense when judging whether a "forethought" challenge is "attainable to a reasonable number of cachers," and the geocaching community wins.

Even better, in my view, would be for reviewers to apply good common sense to both "forethought" and "numbers" challenges. Suppose a local area had one geocacher with 15,000+ total finds, 10 geocachers with numbers in the 14,000s, 15 geocachers with numbers in the 13,000s, etc.

Would it really be so terrible if a reviewer published a "Find 15,000" numbers-type challenge? I prefer challenges (even numbers challenges) where I can strive to achieve a goal rather than looking at the goal in the rear-view mirror and simply checking off yet another smiley. By applying common sense and publishing a 15,000-finds challenge (which only the owner has qualified for) rather than rotely publishing a 14,000-finds challenge (which 10 other geocachers already have achieved), the reviewer is giving 10 more geocachers something to strive for.

I'd like to see the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline eliminated. But if Groundspeak is going to impose that subjective guideline on its reviewers, then I think reviewers should try to make the best of a bad situation. Use good judgment to publish challenges that make geocaching even more fun for even more people.

I believe that attempting to magically convert the subjective "reasonable number of cachers" guideline into something more objective (by replacing good judgment with pre-qualifiers) is destined to make a bad situation even worse.

Edited June 3, 2016 by CanadianRockies

6.8k · June 3, 2016

Remember that a challenge that might be "easy" in one area could be "hard" in another area.

Agreed.

Let's use Wherigo caches as an example. A challenge to find a Wherigo cache 10 days in a row presumably would be easy in North Carolina, home of Ranger Fox (the king of Wherigo). But in Southwest PA, there are only 10 active Wherigo caches and it would require hundreds of miles of travel to find one of them each day. I would not publish that challenge in my review territory.

Well, but in that example you use your own judgement and do not rely on how many local cachers might have pre-qualified. I guess that in the area of Ranger Fox hardly anyone would already qualify for such a challenge cache (assuming that no such things exists already).

One stream of the debate here is about whether it is reasonable if reviewers require a list of local cachers that already qualify with say 10 or more cachers on it.

Are there situations where you would require such a list and then make your decision on the basis of whether or not the list is provided?

22k · June 3, 2016

Are there situations where you would require such a list and then make your decision on the basis of whether or not the list is provided?

Yes. This is a useful control to limit "look what I did" challenge caches and "elite club members only" challenge caches.

Depending on the challenge, I would consider people who were close to completing the challenge as well as those who already qualify. In this regard, Project-GC Challenge Checkers which output the geocacher's details of progress are far more useful than checkers that output a simple yes/no answer.

9k · June 3, 2016

CR's challenge is an example of a challenge that requires forethought, so it doesn't matter when it was published. It's an example of a challenge where "cachers in the region may not have qualified for it yet because they hadn't thought to actually do it". That's why it had few qualifiers when it was published, but now it has several qualifiers. It's being used as an example of that type of 'forethought' challenge. It has nothing to do with CC guidelines. This is going to go around in tapping circles, so I'm done here.

Indeed. Circles, as I said. Because it's all arguing hypotheticals with no basis in actual current examples. I initially brought up the issue of not-yet-qualified challenges, so I wasn't denying the existence of those. It's hypotheticals now, because can you think of a challenge that requires a task someone may not have yet done? It was different years ago. Regardless, let's say someone did. Why is it a given that reviewers will judge it to require a list of pre-qualifiers? There's no basis to assume that, let alone use it as evidence towards removal of the reviewers' responsibility to judge it as reasonable or not. And that's my point.

Let's also consider a nonexistent (AFAIK) challenge to 'Have a 3-day streak where you find at least 1 traditional cache on day-1, at least 1 multi cache on day-2, and at least 1 mystery cache on day-3. It's okay to find other caches and other cache types on these days.'. This seems like an 'easy' challenge to me, and likely would be easy for many cachers to complete. A beginner cacher could complete this challenge in 3 days with just 3 finds if they plan their caching, but it's unlikely they would complete this challenge by happenstance unless they have a lot of finds and often cache for 3 days in a row (ie, they're not just 'weekend warriors'). I posit that this type of 'forethought' challenge shouldn't have the same 'show that X cachers have already pre-qualified' requirement as a challenge that can be completed by sheer numbers (ie, 'Find 200 multi caches').

----

Multiply those numbers by 100. Now ask if the reviewers would request a list of qualifiers for both, either, or neither. For this example, my guess is they wouldn't for the "easy" version, but would for the "hard" version. Hey, it's possible within the flexibility of judgement the reviewers have been granted by Groundspeak. On what grounds would you presume that they must and therefore will demand a list of 10 qualifiers for the quite obviously "easy" challenge example you cited?

----

Nothing in my quoted text says that I presume a list of qualifiers will be demanded. That entire section was my comment that "'forethought' challenge shouldn't have the same 'show that X cachers have already pre-qualified' requirement as a challenge that can be completed by sheer numbers". It wasn't a question or an argument. It was a statement.

Ok, so what's the point? We don't have evidence that reviewers are requiring the same qualifier list for both types of challenges. If they do, then we can look at why in that particular case. Otherwise, it's all conjecture.

Again, nothing in my quoted text says that "they are being held to the same pre-qualified standard". It was a position statement. These semantic games make me not even want to "discuss whether 'easy' challenges that require forethought (planning cache finds) should be held to the same pre-qualified standard as 'easy' challenges that don't require forethought". It's just not worth it. I need to go print out a bunch of EC's for this weekend anyway.

See what I mean? Circles.

'Easy' was removed from both the 'forethought' and 'numbers' portions. My position is the same whether a challenge is easy or hard, by whatever standard one wants to use to determine that. Just to cover my bases:

-- It's not reasonable to apply the same pre-qualified requirement to an easy 'numbers' challenge as to an easy 'forethought' challenge.

-- It's not reasonable to apply the same pre-qualified requirement to a hard 'numbers' challenge as to a hard 'forethought' challenge.

-- It's not reasonable to apply the same pre-qualified requirement to an easy 'numbers' challenge as to an hard 'forethought' challenge.

-- It's not reasonable to apply the same pre-qualified requirement to a hard 'numbers' challenge as to a easy 'forethought' challenge.

To make sure I've got the context right: "Numbers challenge" = purely additive, easier for veterans, harder for beginners. "Forethought challenge" = sequence of tasks that are unlikely to have occurred whether veteran or beginner.

Because there are so many other regional factors in determining whether a challenge that falls under either of these classes is "reasonable", I can't support a blanket statement ('easy' and 'hard' have to subjective judged btw) that judging them under the same challenge standards is unreasonable.

It's great that you consider it 'easy' to ask other cachers to pre-qualify for a challenge. You've already stated that you think finding 10 is a "non-issue" and "shouldn't be a problem" I think it would be difficult for a cacher to ask others if:

1. The prospective CCO is shy.

2. The prospective CCO doesn't attend a lot of events.

3. The prospective CCO is not 'on Facebook'.

4. The prospective CCO knows several cachers by meeting them at FTF's, but those cachers don't want to pre-qualify because they want to attempt the FTF if the CC is published and their ethics preclude them from accepting 'headstarts'.

5. What if the prospective challenge spans a month or a year. Would Reviewers want to allow a prospective CCO to 'hold' a hiding spot for that long while they wait for other cachers to pre-qualify for the challenge?

----

1. Great opportunity to meet people. Also if they don't want to talk to people, even over text based means, what makes you think this will be a significant portion of people wanting to place challenges in the first place? Concepts aren't for everyone, just like owning a physical cache isn't for everyone. That's not a bad thing ya know. I'm ridiculously introverted, and when I was younger I was unbelievably shy. It's not the end of the world. And geocaching had a huge role in changing the social aspect of my life.

2. More like 1b, but event attendance isn't a significant part of being able to find qualifiers or reach out to prolific (and likely also friendly) cachers who might be very interested in helping qualify for a new challenge to get it published. Especially if it's easy

3. So?

4. FTF is a side game. If someone doesn't want to help me get a challenge published because they want to be FTF, I would never consider going to them for any form of pre-publish beta testing either. They'd likely also remain in the back of my mind as a not very helpful numbers-hound. Sure, it would be my loss if I found 9 and needed one more; this person. But hey, I might be willing to make a deal with them in some form. Who knows. Possibilities are endless.

5. Who knows. We don't have any current example of such a situation. Until it happens, I don't see a point in stating that it will.

----

1. I didn't say that shy people "will be a significant portion of people wanting to place challenges". My point is that those shy people would find it difficult to find pre-qualifiers. Even if shy people are not "a significant portion", then that doesn't mean their position is irrelevant. And I'm not sure how their shyness has any bearing on "Concepts". I don't see any reason to assume that shy people can't come up with good challenge concepts.

2. Events are one way for cachers, especially new cachers, to meet other cachers. In this forum, new cachers are advised to attend events in order to meet other cachers.

3. Events is one way for cachers, especially new cachers, to meet other cachers. In this forum, new cachers are advised to join a local FB group in order to meet other cachers in their geographic area.

4. If a prospective CCO falls into category 1 or 2 or 3, then FTF attempts may be the only time they meet other cachers.

5. Just to be clear, I didn't state "that it will" happen either.

1. But portion of the community is a factor. GS is very unlikely to bend over backwards to make sure a small segment is happy. Of course, that's their decision to make. If challenge cache submission are already a tiny portion of geocaches overall, why would they consider "shyness" a factor in deciding whether requesting people to provide a list of pre-qualifiers is not "reasonable"?

2. 3. Yep. Sure. How's that relevant to locating users who qualify, and how does not attending events make it not possible to contact users requesting help for challenge qualification? Heck, prospective Eachcache owners have to get explicit permission from land owners to list an Earthcache there; that guideline should be scrapped because what if that person is why? Unsocial behaviour and shyness aren't good reasons. At least GS hasn't considered them to be sufficient reasons to alter the guidelines.

4. See above.

5. In which case, once again, we can theorize endless situations that may or may not be good. But where does that get us until we have evidence that it is an issue? By saying that because it might happen, therefore it should be changed, you are effectively saying it will happen so things should be changed before it does. This whole strand of the discussion is about ending reviewers' right to judge "reasonableness" entirely, not the degree by which they judge. And the arguments so far have all been "it might happen, therefore this is a Bad Thing".

OT: Interesting in the same paragraph (4) you said you "would never consider going to them", but a couple sentences later you "might be willing to make a deal with them in some form".

Publishing a challenge:

* PersonX has displayed a lack of helpfulness previously for beta testing. In the future, they won't be on my list of people to ask for help.

* PersonX has said they might help "if" (eg perhaps they be allowed to FTF, if they do get to it first, despite beta testing; or I help them likewise in a future request, whatever). I might consider taking the deal in order to publish the challenge, or a future challenge.

Apply some good common sense when judging whether a "forethought" challenge is "attainable to a reasonable number of cachers," and the geocaching community wins.

Yes. And what evidence is there that reviewer will not do so? The clause only says they "may" employ some level of their judgement to deem a challenge reasonable.

I'm all for throwing out our "reviewers should"s and "I want to see"s in regards to how reviewers employ the guidelines. But I haven't really seen evidence that the system is broken, only that some reviewers' judgements themselves are considered unreasonable - such as, region-by-border instead of proximity, or 10 explicit pre-qualifiers in all contexts. The problem in those cases is not that reviewers can make judgements, but by what standards they decide what is reasonable for a region.

Depending on the challenge, I would consider people who were close to completing the challenge as well as those who already qualify. In this regard, Project-GC Challenge Checkers which output the geocacher's details of progress are far more useful than checkers that output a simple yes/no answer.

Completely agreed, especially from one who likes to track progress and use results to locate targets. A checker that not only checks but provides process and progress is FAR more helpful. And now, for publishing, also quite helpful when submitting requirements to (ie, attempting to convince) reviewers.

Edited June 3, 2016 by thebruce0

4.6k · June 3, 2016

A checker that not only checks but provides process and progress is FAR from helpful.

Is it just me, or is that back-to-front? :unsure:

2k · June 3, 2016

Remember that a challenge that might be "easy" in one area could be "hard" in another area. Let's use Wherigo caches as an example. A challenge to find a Wherigo cache 10 days in a row presumably would be easy in North Carolina, home of Ranger Fox (the king of Wherigo). But in Southwest PA, there are only 10 active Wherigo caches and it would require hundreds of miles of travel to find one of them each day. I would not publish that challenge in my review territory.

It would be wise to embrace the inconsistency, which allows for flexibility among regions. If I start hearing things like "but this Wherigo challenge was published in North Carolina" on a regular basis, I will want the moratorium back. (Remember, I'm pro-challenge cache as a player, and I own three of them.) So, don't be that guy.

Bolded for a question. The Jasmer challenge requires travel (hundreds of miles). Would you or any other reviewer publish a Jasmer challenge if it were submitted in any area that currently doesn't have a 100% Jasmer nearby?

I'm really not trying to be "that" guy. I understand that some regions are cache dense while others are not, meaning that those with less caches will inevitably be behind the 8 ball when it comes to some types of challenges, both for publication as well as completion. I'm hoping that the inconsistency in the regions doesn't swing toward a direction that applies a limiting application of the guidelines (i.e. Ontario's hard target of 10 pre-qualifiers) to an area that is more cache dense, both with cachers and caches.

9k · June 3, 2016

A checker that not only checks but provides process and progress is FAR from helpful.

----

Is it just me, or is that back-to-front?

lol oops. yes. fixed.

7.5k · June 3, 2016

That challenge isn't a good example because it was published long ago and now has many qualifiers.

That makes it a perfect example: we can see now that the cache is reasonably attainable, so requiring a demonstration that enough people already qualified before publication would have returned a false negative.

Agreed. Except on the blue; we know that part of the new guidelines was to help streamline publishing; less work and headaches for reviewers.

If they really want to streamline publishing and make it less work and fewer headaches for reviewers, they should just eliminate this subjective restriction and stop worrying about the fact that some people will place challenge caches that are impossible or elitist.

4.8k · June 3, 2016

If they really want to streamline publishing and make it less work and fewer headaches for reviewers, they should just eliminate this subjective restriction and stop worrying about the fact that some people will place challenge caches that are impossible or elitist.

Tough choice. Remove guidance that appears to be regionally specific (i.e. number of qualifying caches and number of Users that are either close to meeting or already have met the Challenge), and run the risk of spending time answering or ignoring complaints from the Community.

OR

Deal with one cache owner to bring a Challenge into some semblance of a reasonable goal that at least a handful of Users can achieve.

Sounds like a Koboyashi Maru type of problem.

June 3, 2016

Remember that a challenge that might be "easy" in one area could be "hard" in another area. Let's use Wherigo caches as an example. A challenge to find a Wherigo cache 10 days in a row presumably would be easy in North Carolina, home of Ranger Fox (the king of Wherigo). But in Southwest PA, there are only 10 active Wherigo caches and it would require hundreds of miles of travel to find one of them each day. I would not publish that challenge in my review territory.

Bolded for a question. The Jasmer challenge requires travel (hundreds of miles). Would you or any other reviewer publish a Jasmer challenge if it were submitted in any area that currently doesn't have a 100% Jasmer nearby?

It depends (stock answer, I know).

There is a big difference between those though. The Jasmer doesn't have a time aspect to it so its not like you can mess it up. With under represented cache types, their publication rate is so low that if you get say 6 days into the challenge and screw up, you not only have to start over, but you might have screwed yourself out of doing it because you no longer have those 6 to use.

Another real world example would be earthcaches. Last year had a single day souvenir and a summer souvenir based on them. At an event I attended, there were people who had to drive hundred plus miles to get to the closest unfound earthcache.

This is one of the reasons so many time based challenges were an extra headache to do.

To your specific question of Jasmer being published not near caches needed to qualify it, yes, there are some reviewers who would say no (I would be one if I were reviewing in a country that didn't have them all). The NZ version doesn't include months not available in NZ. I have been told (not checked mind you and that makes it hearsay), that there are some European versions that took those limitations into account. Now whether that is reviewer telling them to or they are just being forward thinking cache owners who want to make challenges their locals can find with out trans-continental flights, that I can't say.

Edited June 3, 2016 by OReviewer

9k · June 3, 2016

That challenge isn't a good example because it was published long ago and now has many qualifiers.

That makes it a perfect example: we can see now that the cache is reasonably attainable, so requiring a demonstration that enough people already qualified before publication would have returned a false negative.

No reviewer has yet requested a qualifier list to publish a challenge such as this.

Can you provide an example?

Agreed. Except on the blue; we know that part of the new guidelines was to help streamline publishing; less work and headaches for reviewers.

If they really want to streamline publishing and make it less work and fewer headaches for reviewers, they should just eliminate this subjective restriction and stop worrying about the fact that some people will place challenge caches that are impossible or elitist.

Obviously they felt that was not a worthwhile alternative. For whatever reason, likely details we are not privvy to. And the reviewers must also have supported GS's decision.

1.3k · June 3, 2016

If they really want to streamline publishing and make it less work and fewer headaches for reviewers, they should just eliminate this subjective restriction

I say again

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

A rating system frees the reviewer from having to make any subjective decisions; those are left up to the CCO when they rate their challenge at publication.

2k · June 3, 2016

Remember that a challenge that might be "easy" in one area could be "hard" in another area. Let's use Wherigo caches as an example. A challenge to find a Wherigo cache 10 days in a row presumably would be easy in North Carolina, home of Ranger Fox (the king of Wherigo). But in Southwest PA, there are only 10 active Wherigo caches and it would require hundreds of miles of travel to find one of them each day. I would not publish that challenge in my review territory.

Bolded for a question. The Jasmer challenge requires travel (hundreds of miles). Would you or any other reviewer publish a Jasmer challenge if it were submitted in any area that currently doesn't have a 100% Jasmer nearby?

It depends (stock answer, I know).

There is a big difference between those though. The Jasmer doesn't have a time aspect to it so its not like you can mess it up. With under represented cache types, their publication rate is so low that if you get say 6 days into the challenge and screw up, you not only have to start over, but you might have screwed yourself out of doing it because you no longer have those 6 to use.

Another real world example would be earthcaches. Last year had a single day souvenir and a summer souvenir based on them. At an event I attended, there were people who had to drive hundred plus miles to get to the closest unfound earthcache.

This is one of the reasons so many time based challenges were an extra headache to do.

To your specific question of Jasmer being published not near caches needed to qualify it, yes, there are some reviewers who would say no (I would say be one if I were reviewing in a country that didn't have them all). The NZ version doesn't include months not available in NZ. I have been told (not checked mind you and that makes it hearsay), that there are some European versions that took those limitations into account. Now whether that is reviewer telling them to or they are just being forward thinking cache owners who want to make challenges their locals can find with out trans-continental flights, that I can't say.

I keep forgetting to specify when asking for or clarifying a point. I meant in the US for the Jasmer. I fully understand that for Europe and other countries who might not have access to all the months and years needed, that it's not feasible. I also think that specificity is what is driving a lot of this back and forth between thebruce0 and I. I'm focusing more on a larger aspect and he's stipulating his replies based on his Ontario area rather than on a larger scope (at least I think that's where the disconnect is coming from).

Thanks for the response. I guess the next question to any reviewer would be if they would publish a Jasmer challenge in a US state (or even a Canadian province) that currently doesn't have one close in proximity?

June 3, 2016

Thanks for the response. I guess the next question to any reviewer would be if they would publish a Jasmer challenge in a US state (or even a Canadian province) that currently doesn't have one close in proximity?

Again, I think the Jasmer is a bad example because it is time proved acceptable challenge that people are interested in and want to attain.

That said, I don't believe there to be one in Alaska; because there is only one (I think) cacher who could publish it under the new guidelines. If the Alaskan reviewer said to that person No, it is too unattainable based on what caches are available up there (IE, its not just a couple that state doesn't have, it appears to be missing a lot of early months), I would support them. Same goes for Hawaii.

I definitely think that some challenge caches can/should be reviewed regionally whereas others should be reviewed globally (or much larger regionally, continentally for example). I think Jasmer is one that would be more under the global review than local but I can see where hard lines can and should be made.

An example I often throw out (no longer publishable under the new guidelines) is 1k finds in a day. I would have no problem with this being published near the ET trail or something like that where it is attainable at least once (if not twice) but I would never publish it in say PA/DE where I review because there just isn't the density stock to be able to do that. EVEN the ET trail runs into the issue of if you've done enough of them not 1k in a day, there might not be enough left to qualify. There should never be caches published that a certain segment CAN'T be qualify for (and I don't mean because the can't/won't climb a tree, etc).

Edited June 3, 2016 by OReviewer

6.8k · June 3, 2016

To your specific question of Jasmer being published not near caches needed to qualify it, yes, there are some reviewers who would say no (I would say be one if I were reviewing in a country that didn't have them all). The NZ version doesn't include months not available in NZ. I have been told (not checked mind you and that makes it hearsay), that there are some European versions that took those limitations into account. Now whether that is reviewer telling them to or they are just being forward thinking cache owners who want to make challenges their locals can find with out trans-continental flights, that I can't say.

There are Jasmer challenge caches in Europe which require all months, e.g. this cache

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4M0BZ_jasmer-challenge?guid=65917b4e-f2d2-4d18-b6df-fd726379ac86

and I say why not? I will never fulfill the conditions (and they do not appeal to me), but I do not need to find every cache.

Many cachers go on transcontinental flights anyway.

2k · June 3, 2016

That challenge isn't a good example because it was published long ago and now has many qualifiers.

That makes it a perfect example: we can see now that the cache is reasonably attainable, so requiring a demonstration that enough people already qualified before publication would have returned a false negative.

No reviewer has yet requested a qualifier list to publish a challenge such as this.

You're focusing solely on the aspect that a challenge like this currently doesn't exist, so we can't determine if it's publishable because we have no data. You're correct in that point. This is strictly a hypothetical situation (with a real challenge published before the new guidelines were in place) that goes to show that the hard target could be considered a faulty construct in regard to any future challenge cache submissions in your area. This cache, had it been submitted post-moratorium and based upon the Ontario guidelines, would not have gotten published because it hasn't met the hard target of 10 who already qualify. It's been shown, based on the # of finders (albeit in a different area) since publication, that it was indeed possible for a reasonable number of cachers to achieve this challenge.

What if someone in Toronto or Ottawa submitted this challenge but not enough people qualified at the time of submission? There are MORE than enough unknown caches in both cities that this could be done pretty easily but no one has thought to do it (I don't know if that's truly the case or not) because no one even considered streaking with puzzles only. In your opinion, based on the current Ontario guidelines, do you believe the reviewers should come off their hard target of 10 pre-qualifiers and publish the cache because there are more than enough caches in the area to allow a cacher to reach the challenge, such that a reasonable number of cachers could eventually accomplish this challenge?

June 3, 2016

There are Jasmer challenge caches in Europe which require all months, e.g. this cache
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4M0BZ_jasmer-challenge?guid=65917b4e-f2d2-4d18-b6df-fd726379ac86

and I say why not? I will never fulfill the conditions (and they do not appeal to me), but I do not need to find every cache.

Many cachers go on transcontinental flights anyway.

And so what? He asked if there were reviewers who would say no. I answered. Of course there are reviewers who would say yes. That wasn't his question.

6.8k · June 3, 2016

There are Jasmer challenge caches in Europe which require all months, e.g. this cache
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4M0BZ_jasmer-challenge?guid=65917b4e-f2d2-4d18-b6df-fd726379ac86

and I say why not? I will never fulfill the conditions (and they do not appeal to me), but I do not need to find every cache.

Many cachers go on transcontinental flights anyway.

And so what? He asked if there were reviewers who would say no. I answered. Of course there are reviewers who would say yes. That wasn't his question.

As you mentioned examples outside of the US where not all months are required, I thought I could provide an example where all months are required.

The situation that some reviewers say yes and some say no and their difference in opinion is not solely based on the difference between the review areas is in my opinion one of the issues

with challenge caches which has not changed by the new guidelines.

June 3, 2016

The situation that some reviewers say yes and some say no and their difference in opinion is not solely based on the difference between the review areas is in my opinion one of the issues with challenge caches which has not changed by the new guidelines.

Agree completely with this statement.

3.1k · June 3, 2016

Even better, in my view, would be for reviewers to apply good common sense to both "forethought" and "numbers" challenges. Suppose a local area had one geocacher with 15,000+ total finds, 10 geocachers with numbers in the 14,000s, 15 geocachers with numbers in the 13,000s, etc.

Would it really be so terrible if a reviewer published a "Find 15,000" numbers-type challenge? I prefer challenges (even numbers challenges) where I can strive to achieve a goal rather than looking at the goal in the rear-view mirror and simply checking off yet another smiley. By applying common sense and publishing a 15,000-finds challenge (which only the owner has qualified for) rather than rotely publishing a 14,000-finds challenge (which 10 other geocachers already have achieved), the reviewer is giving 10 more geocachers something to strive for.

Are there situations where you would require such a list and then make your decision on the basis of whether or not the list is provided?

Yes. This is a useful control to limit "look what I did" challenge caches and "elite club members only" challenge caches.

Depending on the challenge, I would consider people who were close to completing the challenge as well as those who already qualify.

Now that's what I'm talking about. If reviewers are going to be burdened with the subjective "reasonable number of cachers" guideline, then they should use that subjectivity in helpful ways.

If the 15,000+ cacher in my above example had 72,488 finds, then the reviewer should use their good judgement to determine what an enjoyable goal might be for those cachers with fewer than 15,000 finds. Maybe a nice goal would be 15,000, but I also could see reasons to lean towards 16,000 or 17,000 or even 20,000. It probably shouldn't be 70,000. And it probably shouldn't be capped at 14,000 (which a magical number of pre-qualifiers might dictate). Use good judgment, based on geocaching experience. A reasonable reviewer might simply accept whatever goal the challenge cache owner opted for, as long as it was no higher than, say, 20,000. But if the owner submitted a goal higher than 20,000, then a reasonable reviewer might want to exercise some good judgment and nudge them towards a lower figure.

Although subjectivity can be a big burden and create major problems, it also has some minor advantages. Reviewers should make the best out of a bad situation and use those advantages.

Edited June 3, 2016 by CanadianRockies

4.8k · June 3, 2016

To your specific question of Jasmer being published not near caches needed to qualify it, yes, there are some reviewers who would say no (I would say be one if I were reviewing in a country that didn't have them all). The NZ version doesn't include months not available in NZ. I have been told (not checked mind you and that makes it hearsay), that there are some European versions that took those limitations into account. Now whether that is reviewer telling them to or they are just being forward thinking cache owners who want to make challenges their locals can find with out trans-continental flights, that I can't say.

There are Jasmer challenge caches in Europe which require all months, e.g. this cache

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4M0BZ_jasmer-challenge?guid=65917b4e-f2d2-4d18-b6df-fd726379ac86

and I say why not? I will never fulfill the conditions (and they do not appeal to me), but I do not need to find every cache.

Many cachers go on transcontinental flights anyway.

Same argument could be made that a cacher on travel could target a Jasmer or other U.S.-centric Challenge while they are traveling. After all, folks make a special trip (aka "pilgrimage") to the last remaining APE cache.

That being said, I could see a Reviewer going either way on the issue. People travel a lot these days, and making a special trip to pick up the required Jasmer caches makes as much sense to me as making a special trip to a lonely stretch of highway in Nevada to pick up a couple thousand caches/film cannisters in a cache run.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Touchstone

2k · June 3, 2016

Again, I think the Jasmer is a bad example because it is time proved acceptable challenge that people are interested in and want to attain.

I actually think it's a great example because it brings into focus so much of what has been discussed here and in the other thread that ran before the announcement came out. How about we assume that no one has ever considered completing the Jasmer and it's a brand new challenge being submitted for publication under the new guidelines.

The requirements to complete the challenge are extremely objective and easy to get a checker written. It's a particularly difficult challenge because it involves travel to get those few hard to locate months, regardless of where you're located. The post-moratorium guidelines are sincerely tested by this particular challenge.

4. Source of Criteria

- Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are plenty of qualifying caches to meet the challenge at the time of publication.

Is 4 August 2000 caches "plenty" of qualifying caches? 7 July 2000 caches?

5. Standard for Criteria

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

Is this challenge truly attainable by a reasonable number of cachers in a given area? There are 3 or 4 local cachers who have logged mine as complete and the rest are out of state finders. There are some areas where this might be easier to come up with 10 pre-qualifiers (per the Ontario guidelines) but it's my guess that many areas would fall short. This challenge, applied to all the subjective portions of the guidelines, falls short in many areas and passes in a few areas. As such, would it ever get published under the guidelines we have right now? Personally, I don't think so because it wouldn't be attainable to a reasonable number of cachers (I'm sure it would appeal to many), there wouldn't be many who were pre-qualified (per the Ontario and other regions who might use that standard) to get it published, there aren't truly "plenty" of caches to choose from to complete the Jasmer, and as far as I can tell, there's not a single state that has all the qualifying caches needed to complete the challenge. So many strikes against it and the only thing to support this challenge is the fact that GS believes the following: "We love how challenge caches encourage people to set fun goals and expand their caching horizons. "

I enjoy doing challenges because they push me to do exactly what GS states. It would be a shame to see new challenges fail to get published because something that might not be considered attainable AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION, actually becomes reasonably attainable as more people work to complete the challenge. It's my assumption that reviewers might use the pre-qualifier point in order to determine if a cache is deemed difficult and therefore not attainable to a reasonable number. That might shoot down some pretty neat challenges (like the Jasmer, if it hadn't been done yet) that could eventually, over time, become attainable to a reasonable number of cachers.

June 3, 2016

Remember that a challenge that might be "easy" in one area could be "hard" in another area. Let's use Wherigo caches as an example. A challenge to find a Wherigo cache 10 days in a row presumably would be easy in North Carolina, home of Ranger Fox (the king of Wherigo). But in Southwest PA, there are only 10 active Wherigo caches and it would require hundreds of miles of travel to find one of them each day. I would not publish that challenge in my review territory.

It would be wise to embrace the inconsistency, which allows for flexibility among regions. If I start hearing things like "but this Wherigo challenge was published in North Carolina" on a regular basis, I will want the moratorium back. (Remember, I'm pro-challenge cache as a player, and I own three of them.) So, don't be that guy.

Probably a bad example to use, but based on the new challenge rules regarding time limits, that Wherigo challenge wouldn't be allowed anyway, since 10 days is a hard time limit.

An idea I had for a challenge cache, a 7x7 (7 different cache types from 7 different GC code time periods in a single day, i.e. GC..., GC1..., GC2....) would also not be allowed, as it is based on a time limit and GC codes, both of which are no longer allowed for challenges.

3.1k · June 3, 2016

Remember that a challenge that might be "easy" in one area could be "hard" in another area. Let's use Wherigo caches as an example. A challenge to find a Wherigo cache 10 days in a row presumably would be easy in North Carolina, home of Ranger Fox (the king of Wherigo). But in Southwest PA, there are only 10 active Wherigo caches and it would require hundreds of miles of travel to find one of them each day. I would not publish that challenge in my review territory.

It would be wise to embrace the inconsistency, which allows for flexibility among regions. If I start hearing things like "but this Wherigo challenge was published in North Carolina" on a regular basis, I will want the moratorium back. (Remember, I'm pro-challenge cache as a player, and I own three of them.) So, don't be that guy.

Probably a bad example to use, but based on the new challenge rules regarding time limits, that Wherigo challenge wouldn't be allowed anyway, since 10 days is a hard time limit.

An idea I had for a challenge cache, a 7x7 (7 different cache types from 7 different GC code time periods in a single day, i.e. GC..., GC1..., GC2....) would also not be allowed, as it is based on a time limit and GC codes, both of which are no longer allowed for challenges.

The essential difference is that Keystone's Wherigo example is a "streak" challenge, which is acceptable under the new guidelines: "Maintaining a finds streak, at least one find per day, up to 365 days". Not acceptable: "Time-limited caching: as in some number of finds per day, week, month, or year. Example, Busy Day, 50 finds in a day, 500 finds in a month, etc."

7.5k · June 3, 2016

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?

I trust GS, and I think they do a remarkable job, which makes it all the worse that I can't escape concluding that they've decided that challenge caches are the problem, so control is the only solution even when that leads to unresolvable contradictions:

People don't like challenges that forbid using past finds? Then don't allow date restrictions since that prevents meeting challenges by searching your database. Some people don't like challenges that are database searches? Then forbid caches based on looking up information in the database at all. Result? People that don't like this or that lose both this and that, and people that enjoyed both and weren't complaining about either get neither.

Worried about newbies getting put off by very difficult challenges? Then restrict how difficult a challenge can be. People are worried about people planting bad caches to help satisfy challenges? Then forbid challenges based on cache name. Result? The very challenges that are most approachable by newbies are outlawed, so they're put off by challenges, anyway. And, of course, people that weren't complaining about anything lose both very challenging challenges and just for fun name based challenges.

Basically, since the underlying opinion seems to be that challenge caches are, in some fundamental way, bad, whenever anyone says they don't like something about them, GS tries to prevent it. This doesn't make sense to begin with -- the people that don't like certain challenges don't have to do them whether they're there or not -- but the sad part is that when they get grief, they blame challenge caches instead of the restrictions.

But despite these obvious pitfalls, I no longer have any hope that GS will stop to consider whether the cure is worse than the disease because I can't shake the impression that GS sees challenge caches as the disease with no redeeming features other than the fact that some people enjoy them.

7.5k · June 3, 2016

If they really want to streamline publishing and make it less work and fewer headaches for reviewers, they should just eliminate this subjective restriction and stop worrying about the fact that some people will place challenge caches that are impossible or elitist.

Tough choice. Remove guidance that appears to be regionally specific (i.e. number of qualifying caches and number of Users that are either close to meeting or already have met the Challenge), and run the risk of spending time answering or ignoring complaints from the Community.

OR

Deal with one cache owner to bring a Challenge into some semblance of a reasonable goal that at least a handful of Users can achieve.

Sounds like a Koboyashi Maru type of problem.

Even when you put it like that, the answer still seems obvious: deal with the one oddball instead of trying to restrict everyone else, thus ensuring plenty of other arguments that aren't worth the time.

But the even easier answer, which more and more is striking me as the right one, is to not even worry about the challenge cache that nobody can achieve. There are all kinds of challenge caches in my area that I'll never achieve. Why should anyone care if there's one or two challenge caches that make 6 digit cachers like Alamogul feel the same way as the rest of us? Yes, such a cache is pointless, but it just makes the CO look stupid, it doesn't really impact the rest of us.

7.5k · June 3, 2016

No reviewer has yet requested a qualifier list to publish a challenge such as this.

Can you provide an example?

I don't much care what has been done, but if you think a qualifier list should never be required, then we agree.

If we keep the reasonably attainable requirement (which I no longer think is a good idea), then I don't mind the guidelines suggesting the possibility of the reviewer asking for a list as means of justifying an otherwise dubious reasonableness, although I still wish the language were a little clearer so people wouldn't read it as an absolute requirement as some in this thread seem to have done.

If they really want to streamline publishing and make it less work and fewer headaches for reviewers, they should just eliminate this subjective restriction and stop worrying about the fact that some people will place challenge caches that are impossible or elitist.

Obviously they felt that was not a worthwhile alternative. For whatever reason, likely details we are not privvy to. And the reviewers must also have supported GS's decision.

Yes, obviously, but I question the decision and ask that at least a few of those details be aired so we can all see the justification. As far as I can see, it seems like a huge amount of burden on all sides just to keep a few CCOs from making themselves look like buffoons.

7.5k · June 3, 2016

There is a big difference between those though. The Jasmer doesn't have a time aspect to it so its not like you can mess it up. With under represented cache types, their publication rate is so low that if you get say 6 days into the challenge and screw up, you not only have to start over, but you might have screwed yourself out of doing it because you no longer have those 6 to use.

But I don't get it. The problem you're pointing out is that someone that really wants a particular challenge can make a mistake which renders the challenge impossible. (It doesn't, really, but never mind that.) So your solution is to prevent the cache from being published so they'd never even have the chance? I can't imagine that the geocachers impacted by this "problem" would agree with your solution since they thought the challenge was interesting enough to try. Meanwhile, the other geocachers that would have succeeded think your decision stinks on the face of it.

This failure of logic seems to be lurking behind almost all of the "solutions" requiring restrictions.

Another real world example would be earthcaches. Last year had a single day souvenir and a summer souvenir based on them. At an event I attended, there were people who had to drive hundred plus miles to get to the closest unfound earthcache.

Yet the souvenir was put out, anyway. Why? Because GS recognizes that not everyone has to get everything. (And never mind all those geocachers that did drive hundreds of miles and were so proud of themselves that they told you all about it. And I agree with them: what an achievement!)

Same argument could be made that a cacher on travel could target a Jasmer or other U.S.-centric Challenge while they are traveling. After all, folks make a special trip (aka "pilgrimage") to the last remaining APE cache.

That being said, I could see a Reviewer going either way on the issue. People travel a lot these days, and making a special trip to pick up the required Jasmer caches makes as much sense to me as making a special trip to a lonely stretch of highway in Nevada to pick up a couple thousand caches/film cannisters in a cache run.

You start out with a really good argument for leaving the decision to the CCO. But then you turn around and support the idea that the reviewer can reject it based on personal opinion. How many inconsistencies have to come up before you question your assumptions?

Edited June 3, 2016 by dprovan

2k · June 3, 2016

Yes, obviously, but I question the decision and ask that at least a few of those details be aired so we can all see the justification. As far as I can see, it seems like a huge amount of burden on all sides just to keep a few CCOs from making themselves look like buffoons.

To add to dprovan's second point of emphasis from above, we're also talking about a category of caches that makes up less than 1% of all caches submitted for publication and in that small percentage, we're talking about an even smaller percentage that many would consider unreasonable to attain. I believe the days of new and interesting challenge caches are long gone and what we've been seeing (as well as what we're going to be seeing) are all just iterations of what has come before. I hope to be proven wrong, but there's only so much that can be done with the guidelines as they are.

6.8k · June 3, 2016

Same argument could be made that a cacher on travel could target a Jasmer or other U.S.-centric Challenge while they are traveling. After all, folks make a special trip (aka "pilgrimage") to the last remaining APE cache.

That being said, I could see a Reviewer going either way on the issue. People travel a lot these days, and making a special trip to pick up the required Jasmer caches makes as much sense to me as making a special trip to a lonely stretch of highway in Nevada to pick up a couple thousand caches/film cannisters in a cache run.

You start out with a really good argument for leaving the decision to the CCO. But then you turn around and support the idea that the reviewer can reject it based on personal opinion. How many inconsistencies have to come up before you question your assumptions?

Actually, I think that what Touchstone wrote just reflects once again that with the current guidelines a lot of subjectivity is involved. One can neither blame a reviewer that publishes a certain challenge cache in area A nor blame a reviewer who rejects it in the same area. I wonder whether that's what GS wanted to achieve.

Edited June 3, 2016 by cezanne

9k · June 3, 2016

You're focusing solely on the aspect that a challenge like this currently doesn't exist, so we can't determine if it's publishable because we have no data. You're correct in that point. This is strictly a hypothetical situation (with a real challenge published before the new guidelines were in place) that goes to show that the hard target could be considered a faulty construct in regard to any future challenge cache submissions in your area.

Exactly. And so I'm extending it to say that's almost certainly not sufficient support for retracting the reviewers' right to judge 'reasonable' subjectively by region.

This cache, had it been submitted post-moratorium and based upon the Ontario guidelines, would not have gotten published because it hasn't met the hard target of 10 who already qualify.

Correction: Would not have been published if the reviewers deemed it necessary to require their 10 qualifiers minimum. The difference being, how would they judge a challenge that, conceptually, no one has done yet? That would depend upon whether they felt it was "easy" or "too difficult". If the former, they probably would ask for the list. If the latter, they just might, if they felt it was reasonable to ask - that is, would they be willing to let the challenge sit in the queue until the CCO potentially produced a list of pre-qualifiers, especially if it would take a month for people qualify? Would that be reasonable? We don't know, we haven't seen a reviewer make that call either way yet.

We can chat about past challenges and what might happen with them now, but it's all entirely conjecture.

Why doesn't someone just try submitting a challenge that falls into this hypothetical situation? Then we'll find out soon enough.

What if someone in Toronto or Ottawa submitted this challenge but not enough people qualified at the time of submission? There are MORE than enough unknown caches in both cities that this could be done pretty easily but no one has thought to do it (I don't know if that's truly the case or not) because no one even considered streaking with puzzles only. In your opinion, based on the current Ontario guidelines, do you believe the reviewers should come off their hard target of 10 pre-qualifiers and publish the cache because there are more than enough caches in the area to allow a cacher to reach the challenge, such that a reasonable number of cachers could eventually accomplish this challenge?

In my opinion, not as a reviewer, if I saw that there were more than plenty of unknowns in the greater region, and I believed that a vast majority of the regional community hadn't already found most of them, I likely wouldn't ask for a list because it seemed reasonable to me already.

So if I did ask because it was on the line, it would be because I wouldn't feel that if the CCO couldn't provide the list quickly, then it wouldn't be that much hassle to attain a list - whether because near-qualifiers were submitted, or because the length of streak seemed reasonably short (30 days, imo, would be lengthy). Since at this point we already assume I believe the regional landscape 'reasonable' for the challenge, I would feel that if the CO wouldn't want to produce the list for whatever reason, then the CO is deciding the challenge isn't worth their time, and sadly it wouldn't get published.

But if I believed the regional landscape to be 'unreasonable' for the challenge, then I may lean towards asking the CCO for a list. If they could defend the position that getting people to qualify for the amount of time would greatly delay publishing, I might be convinced to forgo the list.

But, if I felt the challenge was far too unreasonable for the region, I might either deny it outright, or request a list knowing that the CCO would be extremely hard-pressed to produce it. But, if the CCO did produce it regardless, and met the minimum requirement, even over the necessary time (let's say the 30 days), then I would publish it. Minimum 'reasonably attainable' requirements met.

...but this is all my subjective judgement based on how I might carry out the reviewer guidelines. And I'm not a reviewer.

Another way to put it:

If after a typical challenge submission I wasn't already convinced that the challenge was "reasonable" for my region (by whatever standard I personally judge), then I would put it back to the CCO with the agreed upon minimum regional requirement in order for them to defend it, to convince me, as "reasonable" for the region. I wouldn't be personally required to always ensure the standard is met for every single listing equally. That's not how I read the "reasonably attainable" process the guidelines outline for the review process. And that's what I've been attempting to explain in past comments.

That standard comes into play as a static threshold in Ontario IF the reviewer decides it has come to that point. What people seem to think is that because Ontario reviewers have set a 10-qualifier minimum, that every single challenge cache submitted will be required to have 10 pre-qualifiers, completely skipping any "common sense" a reviewer may have while considering the listing before coming to the point of asking for a list (or not). Nowhere does it say reviewers will request a list of qualifiers. Only that they may [~ if they deem it necessary].

Is this challenge truly attainable by a reasonable number of cachers in a given area? There are 3 or 4 local cachers who have logged mine as complete and the rest are out of state finders. There are some areas where this might be easier to come up with 10 pre-qualifiers (per the Ontario guidelines) but it's my guess that many areas would fall short. This challenge, applied to all the subjective portions of the guidelines, falls short in many areas and passes in a few areas. As such, would it ever get published under the guidelines we have right now? Personally, I don't think so because it wouldn't be attainable to a reasonable number of cachers (I'm sure it would appeal to many), there wouldn't be many who were pre-qualified (per the Ontario and other regions who might use that standard) to get it published, there aren't truly "plenty" of caches to choose from to complete the Jasmer, and as far as I can tell, there's not a single state that has all the qualifying caches needed to complete the challenge. So many strikes against it and the only thing to support this challenge is the fact that GS believes the following: "We love how challenge caches encourage people to set fun goals and expand their caching horizons. "

Agreed. If the challenge included say May 2000, and a reviewer felt that month was far below 'reasonable', they might suggest reducing the required period by a couple of months to make it reasonable. Or, provide a wildcard to use in place of one or few months. There are options.

I trust GS, and I think they do a remarkable job, which makes it all the worse that I can't escape concluding that they've decided that challenge caches are the problem, so control is the only solution even when that leads to unresolvable contradictions:

People don't like challenges that forbid using past finds? Then don't allow date restrictions since that prevents meeting challenges by searching your database. Some people don't like challenges that are database searches? Then forbid caches based on looking up information in the database at all. Result? People that don't like this or that lose both this and that, and people that enjoyed both and weren't complaining about either get neither.

Well if you trust GS, then you trust that they made the call based on a reasonable analysis of the data they received during the moratorium - the vast majority of which we don't know. If you don't trust GS, it's easier to claim that they're making a bad decision. It hurts when we lose stuff we love... but, maybe it would hurt more of us if it didn't change. It seems GS felt that this was the best solution moving forward, for this next period time, rather than allowing what has now been limited.

Basically, since the underlying opinion seems to be that challenge caches are, in some fundamental way, bad, whenever anyone says they don't like something about them, GS tries to prevent it. This doesn't make sense to begin with -- the people that don't like certain challenges don't have to do them whether they're there or not -- but the sad part is that when they get grief, they blame challenge caches instead of the restrictions.

Actually the way I understand GS's sentiment about challenges is not that they're bad, but that the process for reviewing was causing more problems and headaches and outweighing the benefits of the concept as it existed. If they felt challenges were "bad" (outweighed the "good") then we would no longer have them.

I don't much care what has been done, but if you think a qualifier list should never be required, then we agree.

I don't think it should never be required. I think it should be required if the reviewer is not already convinced that the challenge is "reasonable". It's the hard-line that must be crossed if the reviewer doesn't willing let the challenge through.

If we keep the reasonably attainable requirement (which I no longer think is a good idea), then I don't mind the guidelines suggesting the possibility of the reviewer asking for a list as means of justifying an otherwise dubious reasonableness, although I still wish the language were a little clearer so people wouldn't read it as an absolute requirement as some in this thread seem to have done.

Perhaps that's the issue. Even though the guideline clearly say "may be asked", people are assuming that they will be asked.

To add to dprovan's second point of emphasis from above, we're also talking about a category of caches that makes up less than 1% of all caches submitted for publication and in that small percentage, we're talking about an even smaller percentage that many would consider unreasonable to attain.

The moratorium was enacted because the small portion of a small portion of cases was an enormous cause of frustration. So the result was a reactive alteration to guidelines that may well affect what we see published moving forward (this was expected, predicted). A tradeoff GS was willing to take. Whether this alteration is successful in the next year or not, we'll see.

I believe the days of new and interesting challenge caches are long gone and what we've been seeing (as well as what we're going to be seeing) are all just iterations of what has come before. I hope to be proven wrong, but there's only so much that can be done with the guidelines as they are.

This, this I can fully agree with.

(especially if I can't sufficiently defend the challenge idea I'm attempting to publish which I formulated working entirely within the updated written guidelines, yet still raised a flag for concern, requiring me to adjust it slightly, and is still being deliberated upon by the reviewers)

3.1k · June 3, 2016

CR's challenge is an example of a challenge that requires forethought, so it doesn't matter when it was published. It's an example of a challenge where "cachers in the region may not have qualified for it yet because they hadn't thought to actually do it". That's why it had few qualifiers when it was published, but now it has several qualifiers. It's being used as an example of that type of 'forethought' challenge. It has nothing to do with CC guidelines. This is going to go around in tapping circles, so I'm done here.

Indeed. Circles, as I said. Because it's all arguing hypotheticals with no basis in actual current examples. I initially brought up the issue of not-yet-qualified challenges, so I wasn't denying the existence of those.

Actually, I believe I initially brought up the issue of not-yet-qualified challenges, when I mentioned our "Month-streak of Unknowns" challenge way back in Post #23: "That's why I was able to get our 'A Month of Unknowns Challenge' published even though probably nobody in the area (other than us) had found a month's worth of consecutive Unknowns before this challenge appeared."

----------

Why is it a given that reviewers will judge it to require a list of pre-qualifiers? There's no basis to assume that, let alone use it as evidence towards removal of the reviewers' responsibility to judge it as reasonable or not.

You've recently changed your position on this issue. But, in the past, you've certainly given readers of this thread plenty of reason to assume that Ontario reviewers will judge "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" by requiring a list of pre-qualifiers. See the following three examples:

Well, you see, that is exactly what our Ontario reviewers are requiring. A list of 10 users who already qualify, in addition to the CO who must already qualify. And that is their bar for "reasonably attainable" in our region.

And they measure "reasonably attainable" (the Groundspeak requirement) in our region by having evidence that at least 11 people including the CO have qualified. If 11 have qualified, then to their minds, that is "reasonably attainable". No point in quarrelling with me about how they interpret that subjective guideline.

...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?

----------

Apply some good common sense when judging whether a "forethought" challenge is "attainable to a reasonable number of cachers," and the geocaching community wins.

I'm all for throwing out our "reviewers should"s and "I want to see"s in regards to how reviewers employ the guidelines. But I haven't really seen evidence that the system is broken, only that some reviewers' judgements themselves are considered unreasonable - such as, region-by-border instead of proximity, or 10 explicit pre-qualifiers in all contexts. The problem in those cases is not that reviewers can make judgements, but by what standards they decide what is reasonable for a region.

Subjectivity can be a problem because it creates situations where reviewers' opinions can differ with Challenge cache submitters' opinions. That can result in time-consuming back-and-forth email exchanges between those reviewers and submitters. If the problem isn't settled at that level, then submitters might appeal reviewer decisions to Groundspeak.

According to Groundspeak HQ: "Challenge caches can also be very difficult to publish due to the large amount of subjectivity involved relative to other geocaches. While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ."

If you eliminate those subjective guidelines whose costs exceed their benefits, then you eliminate these kinds of burdens/problems.

9k · June 3, 2016

Actually, I think that what Touchstone wrote just reflects once again that with the current guidelines a lot of subjectivity is involved. One can neither blame a reviewer that publishes a certain challenge cache in area A nor blame a reviewer who rejects it in the same area. I wonder whether that's what GS wanted to achieve.

If that happened to me - one reviewer denied it while another approved it, in the same area, then I would take it to appeals.

Although, if it was approved first, it wouldn't be denied later. If it was denied first, then approved, then why would I go to appeals?

The only time I'd go to appeals is if I felt the reviewer really, truly, had no way to defend the judgement in light of having no guideline support for it (if not making an irrefutably bad judgement). I'm not sure I can see reviewer-vs-reviewer in one region actually happening...

It feels to me more like going to the your other parent when one has already told you "No". The parent'll usually say "listen to your mother/father" to remain unified (and maybe, maybe, they'll chat about it amongst themselves a bit more without you, before going to bed )

2k · June 3, 2016

The moratorium was enacted because the small portion of a small portion of cases was an enormous cause of frustration. So the result was a reactive alteration to guidelines that may well affect what we see published moving forward (this was expected, predicted). A tradeoff GS was willing to take. Whether this alteration is successful in the next year or not, we'll see.

So as CR has suggested in their above post, just get rid of the subjectivity portion of the guidelines, thereby eliminating the issue that was one of the leading causes for the moratorium in the first place. Will that mean there will be some crazy challenges that only a few people may qualify for? Probably, but we don't need to find everything. Some of them might even be denied under other guideline provisions that aren't tied to subjective viewpoints. Some of the guidelines addressed some of the issues, but as GS has said, subjectivity caused most of these issues. They opted to keep subjectivity in the guidelines, which really didn't solve anything in that regard.

4.8k · June 3, 2016

Why should anyone care...

That does beg the question nicely.

3.1k · June 3, 2016

Can anyone tell me why Groundspeak's new Challenge cache guidelines allow one person to create a "find at least one cache per day for 30 days" streak challenge but don't allow a second person to create a "find at least 10 caches during any 30-day stretch" time-limited challenge?

If it's any help, here's what Groundspeak's blog had to say:

Time-limited challenges are not permitted. For example, “Find 500 caches in a month” or “Find 10 different icons in a day.” The aim here is at least two-fold. First, these challenges encouraged people to hurry to find caches in a short time period. That’s something a majority of survey respondents said they didn’t like about challenge caches. And it’s not something we wish to encourage. Second, we’ve seen a lot of people creating Events and/or CITOs only to add an icon to the area for “Busy Day” challenges. That’s not at all the spirit for which those activities are intended.

Edited June 4, 2016 by CanadianRockies

7.5k · June 3, 2016

Well if you trust GS, then you trust that they made the call based on a reasonable analysis of the data they received during the moratorium - the vast majority of which we don't know.

I can fully trust GS without thinking they are perfect. I'm sure they're being very sincere about working in our best interests. I just think they're making a mistake by missing the big picture.

Actually the way I understand GS's sentiment about challenges is not that they're bad, but that the process for reviewing was causing more problems and headaches and outweighing the benefits of the concept as it existed.

I wish! If they thought it was the process for reviewing, they might consider questioning the process. Instead, they keep adding restrictions even though restrictions are the part of the process that's causing the trouble.

If they felt challenges were "bad" (outweighed the "good") then we would no longer have them.

Allow me to remind you of the "we have no plan B" comment, which makes no longer having challenge caches a very real possibility they are considering. Will it have to come to that before it occurs to you that having a few stupid challenge caches among a bunch of fun challenge caches is a much better situation than having no challenge caches at all?

I don't think it should never be required. I think it should be required if the reviewer is not already convinced that the challenge is "reasonable". It's the hard-line that must be crossed if the reviewer doesn't willing let the challenge through.

If it were a hard line, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The moratorium was enacted because the small portion of a small portion of cases was an enormous cause of frustration.

Can't you see? That tiny portion didn't cause any trouble at all. Rejecting that tiny portion is what caused all the frustration. Your statement is a perfect example of what I was talking about a couple paragraphs above: you question the challenge caches but ignore the problems caused by the process.

9k · June 3, 2016

So as CR has suggested in their above post, just get rid of the subjectivity portion of the guidelines, thereby eliminating the issue that was one of the leading causes for the moratorium in the first place. Will that mean there will be some crazy challenges that only a few people may qualify for? Probably, but we don't need to find everything. Some of them might even be denied under other guideline provisions that aren't tied to subjective viewpoints. Some of the guidelines addressed some of the issues, but as GS has said, subjectivity caused most of these issues. They opted to keep subjectivity in the guidelines, which really didn't solve anything in that regard.

Ok then, I'll just say this - tell Groundspeak this. Ask them. Request it of them. Why won't you just scrap the subjective aspects of the guidelines and let the challenge caches fly?

I'm 99.9% positive they have solid reasons, and as much as we'd hate it, they're not obligated to reveal every detail about the decision or justify it to us. It may be in their best interest to avoid an uprising, but I honestly don't see a major geocaching community uprising happening - just a small segment of a segment of the community, mostly in this thread, who feel it worth the time to make a big clatter (which is not to say nothing being discussion here has value or is worth their consideration).

It comes back to - do you trust Groundspeak's judgement? If not, well there be nuttin else to say. If you do, then you trust their reasons to be sound, even if we don't like the result (just like a parent saying 'no you can't have candy' - may well be a sound judgement, even if the kid doesn't like it)

Edited June 3, 2016 by thebruce0

7.5k · June 3, 2016

Why should anyone care...

That does beg the question nicely.

How does asking the question beg the question? Really, I expect better of you. Just answer the question if you have an answer. Don't pretend I'm being illogical to ask.

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