Jump to content

Feedback: Fizzy Challenge Cutoff Date


Ranger Fox

Recommended Posts

The original Fizzy Challenge was placed and published in April 2007. I liked the challenge and completed it even though I believed I'd never have the chance to log it (I haven't). I completed it by August and placed the challenge in North Carolina. My journey was epic, considering how many far-away places I had to visit and what I was put through to find those caches. I never shut up talking about the stories I gained from doing those caches. Since I did all this early on, my NC Fizzy Challenge is one of the oldest or the oldest on the east coast, which is nice.

 

Those familiar with the Fizzy Challenge are aware it usually came with a cutoff date to prevent people skewing new caches' ratings to meet a rating that was rare in the area. I agree with this because my own journey to complete the challenge took me to some wonderful spots in my pursuit of these ratings--and I had to drive for several hours to get to some of them. I also continue to agree with a cutoff even moreso now because I've noticed cache ratings around my area have begun to skew. What would have been a 2.5 terrain rating in 2007 is now seen as a 3.5. I especially don't like that because it puts descending a ditch and walking across a log on par with some long mountain hikes I've done. The challenge isn't even close.

 

I am fully aware this cutoff date is a double-edged sword. For the past several years, I have been considering changing the cutoff requirement. However, I'd had people praise the early cutoff date, citing it as a badge of honor and what made the cache worthwhile. I am still worried that the cutoff date is now making the challenge far more difficult than was originally intended, and will one day make it almost impossible. Considering a rating skew I've seen over the past couple years, I'm hesitant to remove the cutoff date entirely because this will cheapen the accomplishment, not only of those completing the cache, but those who have completed it with the original date.

 

In preparation for celebrating 10 Years of Fizzy next year, I want to solve this issue in a way that restores the Fizzy Challenge to its original difficulty intent. I need to be fair to those who have previously completed the challenge and to those who would like to complete it.

 

 

Option #1 - Two Finds - I could keep the original cutoff date and allow an additional find for any date. Caches used for one qualifying list cannot be used on the other. Those who have previously logged a find must revisit the cache and sign it a second time. This seems the easiest, most sensible approach.

 

Option #2 - Wildcards - For each year my cache has been active, cachers earn a wildcard. Thus, my cache would currently have nine wildcards. A wildcard can be used to ignore the cutoff date for one cache. As time goes on and more caches from 2007 and earlier are archived, the wildcard system will help alleviate the increasing difficulty (impossibility) in locating a cache to attempt to find. It doesn't have to be set at one wildcard per year; if I choose this option, I'll come up with a formula.

 

Option #3 - Sliding Cutoff - As I'm worried about the rating skew, I could always try to circumvent it and say all caches before the cutoff are allowed, and all still-active caches at least three years old at the time of the Fizzy find are also allowed. This assumes poorly-rated caches also are not long-lived, which I know is a flawed assumption.

 

Option #4 - No Cutoff - I don't like this as it's not fair to those who have previously worked hard to accomplish the challenge. Therefore, I would not like to consider this option at this time.

 

 

I would like to ask the community for thoughtful, considerate opinions and other options I have not considered.

Link to comment

My preference would also be 4 but I do understand your reluctance to do that. And I do agree that ratings are not screwy and much of it probably has to do with challenges.

 

I think 3 would work, like you, I assume most of the poorly rated caches were short lived so one or two people could get their smile and are gone. By adding more years to the challenge, you are helping to fill in the caches that have been archived over time.

 

Making up numbers here...

In 09/2007, lets say there were 50 4.5/4.5 in the US. Now, there are many many less due to archival. From my home coords, there are now only 22 in a 440 mile radius. If you move the date to 09/2010, that number goes up to 66 in 485 miles. This gives a little bit more options when it comes to caches to find while at the same time not having so many of the mis-rated caches.

 

In another 5 years, maybe you have to extend it again.

 

TLDR: look at a couple of what you think are the hard T/D combos and see how many there are now and what it will be if you add 3 years and go from there.

Link to comment

I vote for option 4, as it's the simplest and most easily understood.

 

Same here. If I were a finder of this cache, I could care less if somebody had an easier time than I did. I don't see that "fair" plays here.

 

Please also note that if you change the cache too much, you may no longer have a compliant challenge as what was reviewed is not what is current, so you should talk with your reviewer about any changes you plan on making.

Link to comment

If it were me, I would go without a cutoff date. It's unfortunate that some people might game the challenge by posting caches with inaccurate ratings, but, on the other hand, it's good to encourage people to post caches that legitimately have interesting ratings. In general, I consider it overthinking challenge caches to worry about such things.

 

But then, of course, it's not a Fizzy challenge anymore since, in my opinion, the cutoff date is integral to a Fizzy. I'm not personally worried about people that feel gypped because they found it while the cutoff was in place, although I can sympathize, but I do recognize that limiting it to old caches is an important feature. So if I wanted to keep it a Fizzy, I guess I'd go with something like #3, although I wouldn't make it sliding, I'd just do a once in a lifetime jump to open up the challenge to caches hidden in the modern era without implying that the date would ever be advanced again.

 

But on a different tack, I'd be worried that any change would leave it open to re-review and would result in it losing it's grandfather status. Logically that doesn't make much sense, but GS seems on a campaign to stamp out challenge caches, and a traditional Fizzy Challenge is inherently out of compliance with the current restrictions.

Link to comment

Thanks for asking.

 

If you'd asked me this question six to ten years ago, I would've said "keep the restrictions." My views have changed:

 

1. The ship sailed a long time ago on skewed ratings. There are so very many caches now compared to 2007. The placement of any one mis-rated cache cannot be causationally linked to a Fizzy Challenge as much as in the past. (For that matter, there are lots more Fizzy Challenges, too.)

 

2. With a date restriction, your challenge actually becomes harder to achieve over time, because qualifying caches get archived over time.

 

3. Nowadays, it's all about the automatically generated statistic grids and charts generated by GSAK FindStatsGen and by Project-GC. I look at my grid and it's full. Yay, me! But I don't qualify for your challenge, because some of my high terrain/difficulty finds were hidden later than the cutoff. The pretty, convenient and colorful automated grids become useless. It's then a painful bookkeeping exercise to distinguish between my "NC Fizzy Challenge finds," my "PA Fizzy Challenge Finds" (which also has a date restriction) and any other Fizzy Challenge that doesn't have a date restriction. I am highly likely to seek out a Fizzy Challenge with no date restriction, whereas I'm equally likely to skip yours (and I visit North Carolina fairly regularly).

 

4. Because of the ready availability of automatically generated grids, some Fizzy Challenge owners are no longer enforcing the stated date restrictions. They just look at the grid and call it good.

 

5. It's just a whole lot easier for both the finder and challenge cache owner if there are no date restrictions. As a challenge cache owner, I WANT people to find my challenges and not skip them as too much of a pain. I came to this realization as the co-owner (under a shared account) of the PA DeLorme and PA All Counties Challenges. We had a rule that one could not use the same cache to qualify for both challenges. We were trying to encourage an entirely separate roadtrip for each challenge, or at least a longer stop in each county/map grid instead of just a park 'n grab at an interstate exit. But when the new challenge cache guidelines came out earlier this year, we agreed that we'd drop the restriction. It was a pain to check and enforce.

 

So, I recommend that you drop the date restriction entirely. If you did that, I'd likely find your challenge during a future trip to North Carolina. If you want to keep the date restriction, consider hiding an entirely separate Fizzy Challenge with no date restriction. That one would get more new visitors, and the "sanctity" of finds on the original challenge would not be violated.

Link to comment

Well, if you were hiding the challenge today, it could no longer have a date restriction. I understand the intent for having it is to keep finders (and more to the point, hiders) honest, of course -- heck, there's a current thread out with some ridiculously inflated D/T ratings on events.

 

I am not sure I support changing the original challenge, as it is still relatively attainable. On the one hand, yes, it's more difficult than it used to be -- but on the other hand, it is a 5/5. Prospective finders are on notice that it won't be easy.

 

One could also argue that, although the challenge as it currently stands is grandfathered, by changing the rules, you subject it to the new rules and therefore cannot have a date restriction. I guess you'd need a ruling from Groundspeak on that one, I'm not sure the rules really contemplate changing the rules on a previously grandfathered challenge.

 

Perhaps a companion cache would be more apropos -- keep the original NC Fizzy as is, and hide a new NC fizzy nearby with no date restrictions. Assuming that your reviewer agrees that these are different enough so that this doesn't violate the challenge proximity rule.

Link to comment

I was originally a fan of the date restriction, but, like many others in my area, I have changed my mind. I think the challenge is difficult enough as it is. We've asked the owner of the original challenge to change the date restriction but he does not seem inclined to do it.

 

It has some side-effects that are perhaps not obvious. I have a 4.5/5 cache near me that I placed just before the challenge came out that I feel honor-bound to keep alive, for example.

 

If I were to suggest a change to the Fizzy Challenge, I would exclude challenge caches, as they are frequently rated completely inappropriately. Indeed, when I finally finished the challenge myself, I took it as a point of pride that I used no challenge caches.

Link to comment

5. It's just a whole lot easier for both the finder and challenge cache owner if there are no date restrictions. As a challenge cache owner, I WANT people to find my challenges and not skip them as too much of a pain. I came to this realization as the co-owner (under a shared account) of the PA DeLorme and PA All Counties Challenges. We had a rule that one could not use the same cache to qualify for both challenges. We were trying to encourage an entirely separate roadtrip for each challenge, or at least a longer stop in each county/map grid instead of just a park 'n grab at an interstate exit. But when the new challenge cache guidelines came out earlier this year, we agreed that we'd drop the restriction. It was a pain to check and enforce.

This reminds me of a 6th alternative the OP didn't mention: encouraging people to follow the date restriction without requiring them to, or perhaps only encouraging them to avoid using caches with inaccurate ratings planted for the sole purpose of helping with Fizzy Challenges. Some people consider this no different from not having a restriction, but I consider it the best of both worlds: the challenge has the date restriction for people that like it, and it doesn't for people that don't want it to. And it allows people in between, that would enjoy following the spirit of the date restriction even if they don't find it convenient to follow the letter of it.

 

That occurs to me because in The Leprechauns example, it allows the challenge to "have" a "no duplicates" restriction -- in the form of an unenforced encouragement -- while absolving the COs from actually having to check: if the seeker wants to avoid duplicates, he gets to do all the work to make sure he's avoided duplicates.

Link to comment

I was originally a fan of the date restriction, but, like many others in my area, I have changed my mind. I think the challenge is difficult enough as it is. We've asked the owner of the original challenge to change the date restriction but he does not seem inclined to do it.

 

It has some side-effects that are perhaps not obvious. I have a 4.5/5 cache near me that I placed just before the challenge came out that I feel honor-bound to keep alive, for example.

 

If I were to suggest a change to the Fizzy Challenge, I would exclude challenge caches, as they are frequently rated completely inappropriately. Indeed, when I finally finished the challenge myself, I took it as a point of pride that I used no challenge caches.

It's nice to hear similar views from the Challenge's namesake. Whose opinion matters more than yours? (Well, maybe Kealia....)

 

Intellectually, I am totally with you on excluding Challenge Caches from one's Fizzy Grid. I have six slots in my personal Fizzy grid filled with caches that I regard as overrated for either difficulty or terrain, and two of the six are Challenge Caches. (As clarified recently, it's highly recommended that the terrain rating for a challenge cache to reflect the actual conditions at the cache site, leaving the challenge qualifications to affect only the difficulty rating.)

 

Unfortunately, unless and until Challenge Caches are given their own separate cache type or cache attribute, this restriction would not be enforceable under the current challenge guidelines.

Link to comment

Option #1 - Two Finds - I could keep the original cutoff date and allow an additional find for any date. Caches used for one qualifying list cannot be used on the other. Those who have previously logged a find must revisit the cache and sign it a second time. This seems the easiest, most sensible approach.

 

Option #2 - Wildcards - For each year my cache has been active, cachers earn a wildcard. Thus, my cache would currently have nine wildcards. A wildcard can be used to ignore the cutoff date for one cache. As time goes on and more caches from 2007 and earlier are archived, the wildcard system will help alleviate the increasing difficulty (impossibility) in locating a cache to attempt to find. It doesn't have to be set at one wildcard per year; if I choose this option, I'll come up with a formula.

 

Option #3 - Sliding Cutoff - As I'm worried about the rating skew, I could always try to circumvent it and say all caches before the cutoff are allowed, and all still-active caches at least three years old at the time of the Fizzy find are also allowed. This assumes poorly-rated caches also are not long-lived, which I know is a flawed assumption.

 

Option #4 - No Cutoff - I don't like this as it's not fair to those who have previously worked hard to accomplish the challenge. Therefore, I would not like to consider this option at this time.

 

I would like to ask the community for thoughtful, considerate opinions and other options I have not considered.

 

I with Option #4, but not because I disagree with anything you've said. It is my opinion that all challenges should single dimensional. Either complete the Fizzy, or not. Ratings changes are something the population as a whole will never agree on.

Link to comment

It's a good old challenge cache. I vote to keep it as it is. And put out a new, easier version nearby. (Without date restrictions.)

I've worked long and hard for the 81 squares, without restrictions. Including walking to the island when the reservoir was low, swamp tromping, driving two hours for a rare rating, &c. But I was not considering date restrictions. Yes, some DT ratings were bizarre, even on old caches. Would I work for yours, if it were closer? Probably not. Those 5 terrain are are too tough for me. I don't kayak. (Though I did tromp through a swamp for a kayaking cache, and had to sit on a log with my flippers in the very cold water for a 5 terrain.)

Qualifying caches are disappearing (like Jasmer challenges), but it's a venerable old challenge. Keep it. (And don't expect a lot more finds.)

Link to comment

I support Kealia's decision. We can just have variations (i.e., distinct challenge caches) of it that don't have the cutoff, if we like, and I think that's how our local community handled it. My favorite variant is this, which doesn't allow any trads or unknowns.

 

P.S. I didn't have any intention to exclude challenge cache finds, but I just checked my list for the original WRC, and I didn't have any challenge caches. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
I am fully aware this cutoff date is a double-edged sword. For the past several years, I have been considering changing the cutoff requirement. However, I'd had people praise the early cutoff date, citing it as a badge of honor and what made the cache worthwhile

As a cacher I don't so much compete with others as I do myself, it's of little interest that someone else had a harder/easier time with completing a challenge. I still complete challenges now not publishable on GC.com for my own interest (and to my own standards often the same or harder than published), we all deserve our own adventures.

 

However I do empathize that meeting increasingly harder demands may improve the challenge experience for some, and changing or lowering the requirements may be perceived as undermining the achievement of others.

 

If you want to keep the date restriction, consider hiding an entirely separate Fizzy Challenge with no date restriction. That one would get more new visitors, and the "sanctity" of finds on the original challenge would not be violated.

 

There is no perfect answer here, but I am leaning to the Leprechauns suggestion of keeping the original cache the same and then create a new "10 Year anniversary" fizzy challenge... maybe it will inspire others to try more restrictive versions!

Link to comment

Well, if you were hiding the challenge today, it could no longer have a date restriction.

You should re-read those guidelines. They prohibit the "Find Date" from being used as part of challenge requirements, but they do not have any such restrictions on the use of "Placement Date." You cannot create a challenge that says, "Only those caches found after Jan. 1, 2013, qualify." You still can create a challenge that says, "Only those caches published before Jan. 1, 2013, qualify." EDA: Think Jasmer Challenge.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Well, if you were hiding the challenge today, it could no longer have a date restriction.

You should re-read those guidelines. They prohibit the "Find Date" from being used as part of challenge requirements, but they do not have any such restrictions on the use of "Placement Date." You cannot create a challenge that says, "Only those caches found after Jan. 1, 2013, qualify." You still can create a challenge that says, "Only those caches published before Jan. 1, 2013, qualify." EDA: Think Jasmer Challenge.

 

Wasn't the evolution of making challenges harder and crazy, the cause of all of the reviewer intervention, which caused the moratorium? Even if that is not the case, why would you create a challenge that gets progressively impossible (for many) over time. :blink:

Link to comment

Well, if you were hiding the challenge today, it could no longer have a date restriction.

You should re-read those guidelines. They prohibit the "Find Date" from being used as part of challenge requirements, but they do not have any such restrictions on the use of "Placement Date." You cannot create a challenge that says, "Only those caches found after Jan. 1, 2013, qualify." You still can create a challenge that says, "Only those caches published before Jan. 1, 2013, qualify." EDA: Think Jasmer Challenge.

Yeah, you're right. I interpreted too much into the wording. I thought I remembered talk of placing such restrictions, but yes, clearly there would be no new Jasmer challenges allowed if there was a prohibition on restricting finds based on publication date.

Link to comment

Wasn't the evolution of making challenges harder and crazy, the cause of all of the reviewer intervention, which caused the moratorium?

The (main) official reason for the challenge cache moratorium was that proposed challenges were creating too many Groundspeak appeals. For several years before the moratorium, there were guidelines that placed restrictions on how hard ("attainable by a reasonable number of [local] cachers") and crazy ("simple, and easy to explain, follow and document") challenges could be.

 

Of course, there were the occasional hard/crazy challenges that slipped through. Volunteer reviewers are humans and thus can interpret guidelines differently and (oh, my!) even make mistakes. It's those exceptions you're more likely to hear about rather than the many more reasonable challenge caches that were published.

 

Even if that is not the case, why would you create a challenge that gets progressively impossible (for many) over time. :blink:

Some of us actually enjoy challenging challenges. If I consider a particular challenge to be impossible for me, then I can simply add it to my Ignore List. Not a big deal.

Link to comment

Personally, I feel like unless the statistic can be 100% objectively accurate (in this case, the D/T ratings reflect real and actual difficulty and terrain to any reasonable person), the challenge is meaningless. I don't see the Fizzy grid as a meaningful statistic since it's virtually impossible to verify it's accuracy on a cache-by-cache basis. But then, all those folks who just want to fill in another grid likely don't care THAT much about such things...

 

But then, I don't even feel the Jasmer can be verifiably accurate. Even an honest and necessary cache container replacement, in my own opinion, means the actual placement date no longer is accurately reflected on the cache page.

 

This fact is one reason I choose not to participate in many of the grid challenges.

Link to comment

Sorry a little off topic..

Personally, I feel like unless the statistic can be 100% objectively accurate (in this case, the D/T ratings reflect real and actual difficulty and terrain to any reasonable person), the challenge is meaningless. I don't see the Fizzy grid as a meaningful statistic since it's virtually impossible to verify it's accuracy on a cache-by-cache basis. But then, all those folks who just want to fill in another grid likely don't care THAT much about such things...

J Grouchy, I have to respectfully disagree. As I stated previously I cache and complete challenges for myself. To categorically assume everyone who works towards or completes a challenge as a dishonest, cheating, throwdowner, system gamer, all about the numbers cacher (I'm paraphrasing) is disingenuous and disrespectful. There are many who still hold to a sense of honour and frankly we don't need (nor care) for someone to "100% objectively evaluate" our results because we already hold ourselves to high standards.

Link to comment

 

Even if that is not the case, why would you create a challenge that gets progressively impossible (for many) over time. :blink:

Some of us actually enjoy challenging challenges. If I consider a particular challenge to be impossible for me, then I can simply add it to my Ignore List. Not a big deal.

 

For someone with 15K finds, or in the case of the OP, over 70K finds there are probably a lot of challenges for which one qualifies without finding another cache, thus there is little need for adding (which can only done one cache at a time) to an ignore list.

 

However, for someone that lives in an area with a lot of difficult challenge caches, and only has a small number of finds or is a casual geocacher not interested in challenges, they would be the ones with the burden of adding all those difficult challenges to an ignore list. It may be many years before they qualify of some of these difficult challenges.

 

In other words, nearly impossible challenges aren't an issue for those that want to do very difficult challenge but create a burden for those that don't.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Sorry a little off topic..

Personally, I feel like unless the statistic can be 100% objectively accurate (in this case, the D/T ratings reflect real and actual difficulty and terrain to any reasonable person), the challenge is meaningless. I don't see the Fizzy grid as a meaningful statistic since it's virtually impossible to verify it's accuracy on a cache-by-cache basis. But then, all those folks who just want to fill in another grid likely don't care THAT much about such things...

J Grouchy, I have to respectfully disagree. As I stated previously I cache and complete challenges for myself. To categorically assume everyone who works towards or completes a challenge as a dishonest, cheating, throwdowner, system gamer, all about the numbers cacher (I'm paraphrasing) is disingenuous and disrespectful. There are many who still hold to a sense of honour and frankly we don't need (nor care) for someone to "100% objectively evaluate" our results because we already hold ourselves to high standards.

 

No idea how you interpreted what I said as a slight against how anyone caches. Thing is, there is so much inaccuracy built into the system, it's 100% impossible to be 100% accurate. Can you personally verify that every cache you count on your Fizzy grid is completely accurate with regards to the terrain and/or difficulty? No. I'd say there is A LOT of subjectivity already built in. Then add in other factors like, yes, falsely inflating/deflating those ratings...and even transposition errors where the D and the T may have been intended to be swapped. It happened to me once, so I know it CAN happen. So no, it's not anything at all to do with your "high standards"...because it's something you cannot control AT ALL.

 

Same with the Jasmer stuff. Mingo, the "oldest active cache", has been replaced (maybe even multiple times). Personally, I regard each replacement as THE END of a cache and the 'placed on' date becomes meaningless. AS I STATED, it is my own opinion and I know most people do not agree with this stance...but to me, if I go find Mingo, I know that I'm not finding the cache that was put there over 16 years ago, so that little spot on my Jasmer grid is a false and meaningless statistic.

 

So maybe I have my OWN "high standards"...can you live with that?

Link to comment

Personally, I feel like unless the statistic can be 100% objectively accurate (in this case, the D/T ratings reflect real and actual difficulty and terrain to any reasonable person), the challenge is meaningless. I don't see the Fizzy grid as a meaningful statistic since it's virtually impossible to verify it's accuracy on a cache-by-cache basis. But then, all those folks who just want to fill in another grid likely don't care THAT much about such things...

 

But then, I don't even feel the Jasmer can be verifiably accurate. Even an honest and necessary cache container replacement, in my own opinion, means the actual placement date no longer is accurately reflected on the cache page.

 

This fact is one reason I choose not to participate in many of the grid challenges.

Just curious. What in the stats can be 100% objectively accurate and meaningful? Geographic jurisdiction? I have seen some Multicaches listed in one country with the final cache located in another country, for which one could obtain the needed information for the final location without visiting the first stage. Cache type? Some Unknown caches are considered as Multicaches, or even Traditional caches in other communities. I think the only thing you can control yourself is the find count and the find date?

 

To me, objectivity isn't that important -- I enjoy working towards subjective goals too. I care if I'm having fun, not if my goals is objective. Geocaching is just a hobby, and there's no performance appraisal at the end of the fiscal year. I do understand some people enjoy being strict, though.

Link to comment

Even if that is not the case, why would you create a challenge that gets progressively impossible (for many) over time. :blink:

Some of us actually enjoy challenging challenges. If I consider a particular challenge to be impossible for me, then I can simply add it to my Ignore List. Not a big deal.

For someone with 15K finds, or in the case of the OP, over 70K finds there are probably a lot of challenges for which one qualifies without finding another cache, thus there is little need for adding (which can only done one cache at a time) to an ignore list.

I can safely say there are plenty of challenge caches on my Ignore List (even with 15K+ finds under my belt). Numbers aren't the only thing when it comes to challenges caches, especially the more difficult ones.

 

However, for someone that lives in an area with a lot of difficult challenge caches, and only has a small number of finds or is a casual geocacher not interested in challenges, they would be the ones with the burden of adding all those difficult challenges to an ignore list. (Emphasis added.)

There currently are 42 mystery caches with the word "challenge" in their titles within 100 miles of Ithaca, New York. And that includes fairly easy challenges, like finding 50 caches. I'm sorry, but ignoring those caches just doesn't seem like a huge burden to me. Certainly not when compared to any Ithaca geocachers who aren't interested in the 1,256 non-challenge mystery caches (or the 650 multi-caches) within 100 miles of the city.

Link to comment

Personally, I feel like unless the statistic can be 100% objectively accurate (in this case, the D/T ratings reflect real and actual difficulty and terrain to any reasonable person), the challenge is meaningless. I don't see the Fizzy grid as a meaningful statistic since it's virtually impossible to verify it's accuracy on a cache-by-cache basis. But then, all those folks who just want to fill in another grid likely don't care THAT much about such things...

 

But then, I don't even feel the Jasmer can be verifiably accurate. Even an honest and necessary cache container replacement, in my own opinion, means the actual placement date no longer is accurately reflected on the cache page.

 

This fact is one reason I choose not to participate in many of the grid challenges.

Just curious. What in the stats can be 100% objectively accurate and meaningful? Geographic jurisdiction? I have seen some Multicaches listed in one country with the final cache located in another country, for which one could obtain the needed information for the final location without visiting the first stage. Cache type? Some Unknown caches are considered as Multicaches, or even Traditional caches in other communities. I think the only thing you can control yourself is the find count and the find date?

 

To me, objectivity isn't that important -- I enjoy working towards subjective goals too. I care if I'm having fun, not if my goals is objective. Geocaching is just a hobby, and there's no performance appraisal at the end of the fiscal year. I do understand some people enjoy being strict, though.

 

Kind of gets to the heart of the matter, really. All this quibbling over the rules of this challenge and fretting over how to implement it. So on the one hand you have something that cannot be 100% verifiable and trying to apply rules to its use, taking what little fun there might have been to begin with and throwing it out the window.

 

So I do agree that very little of this stuff can be objectively accurate.

Link to comment

Personally, I feel like unless the statistic can be 100% objectively accurate (in this case, the D/T ratings reflect real and actual difficulty and terrain to any reasonable person), the challenge is meaningless. I don't see the Fizzy grid as a meaningful statistic since it's virtually impossible to verify it's accuracy on a cache-by-cache basis. But then, all those folks who just want to fill in another grid likely don't care THAT much about such things...

 

But then, I don't even feel the Jasmer can be verifiably accurate. Even an honest and necessary cache container replacement, in my own opinion, means the actual placement date no longer is accurately reflected on the cache page.

 

This fact is one reason I choose not to participate in many of the grid challenges.

Just curious. What in the stats can be 100% objectively accurate and meaningful? Geographic jurisdiction? ... Cache type?

The short answer is: none.

 

Even a "find" isn't 100% objectively accurate. Are challenge cache owners expected to visit every cache that is claimed as a "find" and verify that the geocacher's name is on the log book? And if it is, how do the challenge cache owners know it wasn't the geocacher's friend who wrote that name while the geocacher was at home sitting in their arm chair?

 

Under a "100% objectively accurate standard," all challenges are "meaningless."

Link to comment

all challenges are "meaningless."

 

Pretty much...which is why I no longer really have an interest since they eliminated name-based challenges from being published. Those were really the only ones I had any interest in. I may at some point grab the 366 day challenge since I actually HAVE cached on 366 days of the year and I can personally confirm this. What I CANNOT personally ever confirm is whether that D4.5/T4.0 cache well and truly qualifies under that specific rating. Those numbers are virtually meaningless...an almost arbitrary rating set by someone who may or may not have the same interpretation of the ratings as me. I also cannot ever personally confirm that a cache listed for June 2001 was actually the same container placed in June 2001. I CAN confirm when I found a cache and that's all that matters. It doesn't matter that others cannot confirm I found on that date.

Link to comment

Thinking back on this and looking at my finds, I realized I essentially quit looking for WRC/Fizzy challenges after getting my first one, the Maryland WRC, back during our first stint here in Virginia. I'd looked forward to logging it ever since I found out about challenge caches, back in 2007-2008 when we were still in Germany. But it actually got frustrating because, for a while, it was tough keeping our grid full due to cache owners changing ratings on old caches. So I've done a total of two of the original WRC challenges -- Georgia's date restriction is more forgiving, so I was able to requalify for that one more easily and grab it during one of the many drives I did between Montgomery (where we then lived) and my folks' place in Atlanta.

 

I qualify for Virginia's and may hit it when I head back out that way in my bid to qualify for the Virginia city and county challenges. I don't qualify for the NC WRC challenge in question here, though I know I would have at one time. Looking at my stats, we would need three more finds to (re-)qualify for the NC challenge. Most candidates are over 100 miles away. In the BC (before child) era, I'd've gone for them in a heartbeat. But in the AD (after daughter) age, I'm not as motivated to do so.

 

Perhaps that's why I've favored the county and Delorme challenges -- I don't need to worry about difficulty, terrain, or age, just location.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

Personally, I feel like unless the statistic can be 100% objectively accurate (in this case, the D/T ratings reflect real and actual difficulty and terrain to any reasonable person), the challenge is meaningless. I don't see the Fizzy grid as a meaningful statistic since it's virtually impossible to verify it's accuracy on a cache-by-cache basis.

The challenge is about filling the grid. Whether a cache filling a slot in the grid is actually that difficult is irrelevant to the challenge.

 

Thinking that what's important is the actual difficulty instead of the rated difficulty is something like seeing a challenge requiring some number of caches with "California" in the title and thinking caches not actually in California shouldn't count.

Link to comment

Option #1 - Two Finds - I could keep the original cutoff date and allow an additional find for any date. Caches used for one qualifying list cannot be used on the other. Those who have previously logged a find must revisit the cache and sign it a second time. This seems the easiest, most sensible

 

I don't personally think a Non-moving physical cache can really be Found twice.

Revisit and sign a second time seems mostly a way to justify 2 finds on the same cache. I would not do it.

 

Option #2 - Wildcards - For each year my cache has been active, cachers earn a wildcard. Thus, my cache would currently have nine wildcards. A wildcard can be used to ignore the cutoff date for one cache. As time goes on and more caches from 2007 and earlier are archived, the wildcard system will help alleviate the increasing difficulty (impossibility) in locating a cache to attempt to find. It doesn't have to be set at one wildcard per year; if I choose this option, I'll come up with a formula.

 

Seems reasonable, if a bit complex.

Option #3 - Sliding Cutoff - As I'm worried about the rating skew, I could always try to circumvent it and say all caches before the cutoff are allowed, and all still-active caches at least three years old at the time of the Fizzy find are also allowed. This assumes poorly-rated caches also are not long-lived, which I know is a flawed assumption.

 

Likewise reasonable, a bit simpler.

 

You don't like Option 4, so no comment.

 

I'll offer Option 5. Leave "as is" for some more years. Then, archive and start over.

I will mention that you may not be able to have another Jasmer under the new rules, if there are already several around. So I'd check with a reviewer prior to archiving

 

My player account owns some Challenges that won't be published under new rules, as well as some tough caches with changing conditions.

All still quite doable, but if they get too tough (or possibly too simple, as regards the non-challenges), I'd rather archive them for the sake of those who found them as they were.

Link to comment

Even if that is not the case, why would you create a challenge that gets progressively impossible (for many) over time. :blink:

Some of us actually enjoy challenging challenges. If I consider a particular challenge to be impossible for me, then I can simply add it to my Ignore List. Not a big deal.

For someone with 15K finds, or in the case of the OP, over 70K finds there are probably a lot of challenges for which one qualifies without finding another cache, thus there is little need for adding (which can only done one cache at a time) to an ignore list.

I can safely say there are plenty of challenge caches on my Ignore List (even with 15K+ finds under my belt). Numbers aren't the only thing when it comes to challenges caches, especially the more difficult ones.

 

However, for someone that lives in an area with a lot of difficult challenge caches, and only has a small number of finds or is a casual geocacher not interested in challenges, they would be the ones with the burden of adding all those difficult challenges to an ignore list. (Emphasis added.)

There currently are 42 mystery caches with the word "challenge" in their titles within 100 miles of Ithaca, New York. And that includes fairly easy challenges, like finding 50 caches. I'm sorry, but ignoring those caches just doesn't seem like a huge burden to me. Certainly not when compared to any Ithaca geocachers who aren't interested in the 1,256 non-challenge mystery caches (or the 650 multi-caches) within 100 miles of the city.

 

The last time I looked there were only 3 mystery caches with challenge in the title within 50 miles. I don't normally do a PQ with a radius of 100 miles but this isn't about me. My point still stands. It's easy for someone that wants to do challenge caches to proclaim that it's simple to ignore them because they aren't the ones that have to do anything.

 

Of course, having a high number of finds does not mean you'll qualify for every challenge cache. However, having a high number of finds will mean that you'll qualify for a greater percentages of challenge caches than someone with very few finds.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

There currently are 42 mystery caches with the word "challenge" in their titles within 100 miles of Ithaca, New York. And that includes fairly easy challenges, like finding 50 caches. I'm sorry, but ignoring those caches just doesn't seem like a huge burden to me. Certainly not when compared to any Ithaca geocachers who aren't interested in the 1,256 non-challenge mystery caches (or the 650 multi-caches) within 100 miles of the city.

The last time I looked there were only 3 mystery caches with challenge in the title within 50 miles. I don't normally do a PQ with a radius of 100 miles but this isn't about me. My point still stands. It's easy for someone that wants to do challenge caches to proclaim that it's simple to ignore them because they aren't the ones that have to do anything.

And there are many places where the number of difficult puzzle caches far exceeds the number the difficult challenge caches, so my point still stands.

 

Perhaps, one day, Groundspeak will break out challenges and puzzles from the Unknown cache type and everyone more people will be happy.

Link to comment

There currently are 42 mystery caches with the word "challenge" in their titles within 100 miles of Ithaca, New York. And that includes fairly easy challenges, like finding 50 caches. I'm sorry, but ignoring those caches just doesn't seem like a huge burden to me. Certainly not when compared to any Ithaca geocachers who aren't interested in the 1,256 non-challenge mystery caches (or the 650 multi-caches) within 100 miles of the city.

The last time I looked there were only 3 mystery caches with challenge in the title within 50 miles. I don't normally do a PQ with a radius of 100 miles but this isn't about me. My point still stands. It's easy for someone that wants to do challenge caches to proclaim that it's simple to ignore them because they aren't the ones that have to do anything.

And there are many places where the number of difficult puzzle caches far exceeds the number the difficult challenge caches, so my point still stands.

 

And my point is that a large number of challenge caches in an area creates a burden for low numbers cachers if they don't want them showing up in their search/PQ results. The fact that there is another category of puzzle caches which are not challenge caches is irrelevant. It doesn't change the burden the cacher has adding challenge caches, one by one, to their ignore list at all.

 

 

Link to comment

Personally, I feel like unless the statistic can be 100% objectively accurate (in this case, the D/T ratings reflect real and actual difficulty and terrain to any reasonable person), the challenge is meaningless. I don't see the Fizzy grid as a meaningful statistic since it's virtually impossible to verify it's accuracy on a cache-by-cache basis.

The challenge is about filling the grid. Whether a cache filling a slot in the grid is actually that difficult is irrelevant to the challenge.

 

 

Exactly. So it, in essence, is completely meaningless beyond how many of the 81 squares you can check off. It no longer relates to ACTUAL difficulty or ACTUAL terrain...so the challenge is entirely separate from the original goal and achievement it is intended to represent.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

Exactly. So it, in essence, is completely meaningless beyond how many of the 81 squares you can check off.

Yes, and traditional caches are meaningless beyond signing the log.

 

It no longer relates to ACTUAL difficulty or ACTUAL terrain...so the challenge is entirely separate from the original goal and achievement it is intended to represent.

What do you mean, "no longer"? The challenge was written about the grid and dependent on the grid. That's the ACTUAL challenge. The difficulty of getting to and finding the individual caches was only incidentally related from the beginning.

Link to comment

Even if that is not the case, why would you create a challenge that gets progressively impossible (for many) over time. :blink:

Some of us actually enjoy challenging challenges. If I consider a particular challenge to be impossible for me, then I can simply add it to my Ignore List. Not a big deal.

 

I am a challenge junkie. But I also think there should be limits imposed on them. Yes, we have that going forward. But some grandfathered challenges should just disappear.. or be simplified.

Edited by bflentje
Link to comment

As the owner of the Arizona Well Rounded Cacher (Fizzy Challenge), this topic interests me greatly. The AZ Fizzy not only has a date restriction, but a geographical restriction as well. Thanks for starting this discussion.

Yours can't be getting any easier, either. There's at least one D/T combo out there for which there is only one remaining cache that qualifies.

 

Of course, the counter argument is, the restrictions distinguish the AZ WRC challenge from those that are less challenging.

 

Either way, though, if Princess Cache goes, you're going to have to at least adjust fire on what you allow for the 5/4 block.

Link to comment

I vote for option 4, as it's the simplest and most easily understood.

I agree. I finished the challenge but yet to get the final and it took a lot of work especially for the 4.5 ratings. Some friends went and got the final but I had to give them the bad news they didn't qualify because they didn't read the cut off date. Turns out a friend of theirs put out caches with inflated ratings just so they could qualify for the 81. Now they have to really go out and find them.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...