Challenges - did they pass the test?

[+thebruce0]

Basically, "patterns" and "shapes" are very tightly judged now as arbitary user-defined regions. It's hard to make those out of county borders (or the next-below-province equivalent). It's not hard to make those using coordinate grid systems.

There are a number of states (e.g., Iowa, Kansas) where county lines are almost laid out in rectangular grids. Or where there are enough counties that it doesn't matter what shape they are. Creating "patterns" and "shapes" from counties in those states is just as easy as creating "patterns" and "shapes" from USGS quadrangles, pages in the DeLorme books, or other regions used by now-grandfathered location-based challenge caches.

 

Were challenge caches like the Bay Area Quadrangle Challenge or the many DeLorme challenges really causing problems? Or are they really getting swept up in a misdirected attempt to block challenge caches based on "patterns" and "shapes"?

=/ note I also said the size. Look I can't put a finger on an exact reason. I'm just speculating multiple possible factors that influenced their decision to allow counties but no other boundary systems.

If some state has small enough counties in a small enough region to be able to form a user-defined 'shape' from select regions to qualify for in some manner, then try publishing it - see if it'll pass. I'm guessing not, because the intent is to form a shape. If at any point you try to require an arbitrary shape/pattern, with anything, it'll get denied. If you want a boundaries smaller than states/provinces, counties are allowed. If you want to require a list of certain counties, that may pass, if it doesn't appear that your intent is to depict a shape.

 

Really it's just two limitations to keep in mind (as I think we all understand):

* No user-defined patterns or shapes or regions.

* No boundaries allowed other than 1.Country 2.State/Province/Equivalent 3.Counties/Equivalent

 

I hate that it ridiculously cuts down on creative challenge ideas, but they probably just decided on the easiest route moving forward. I can understand that, even though it bugs me

[+frinklabs]

* No boundaries allowed other than 1.Country 2.State/Province/Equivalent 3.Counties/Equivalent

 

A simple explanation might be that these boundaries are often marked by signs, unlike almost all the arbitrary delineations.

 

In retrospect, I sure wish I'd taken the time for a photo at all of the official Ontario census division signs when I did that epic (for me) Challenge. I certainly remember driving by some of the further-flung ones.

[+thebruce0]

In retrospect, I sure wish I'd taken the time for a photo at all of the official Ontario census division signs when I did that epic (for me) Challenge. I certainly remember driving by some of the further-flung ones.

I'm nearing completion of that one. Just a couple more counties to go (and yep, the further flung ones, and one or two with very sparse caches away from civilization). Nabbed a whole bunch on my recent 2700km road trip loop. Now just have to get far east and W/N of Ottawa

I published a few challenges post-moratorium requiring qualification within a few closely knit counties too (like fizzy or year grid), so select counties is allowed (just not if you're forming some arbitrary shape).

[+brendan714]

So... isn't it about time challenge caches receive a new icon?

Given that they are still being published almost a year and a half after their return, I assume they've passed the test?

[+hzoi]

3 hours ago, brendan714 said:

So... isn't it about time challenge caches receive a new icon?

Given that they are still being published almost a year and a half after their return, I assume they've passed the test?

I didn't realize that getting their own icon was part of the test.  In fact, since they didn't get one after the rules were changed and the moratorium was lifted, I'm pretty sure it wasn't.

[+thebruce0]

Nope. Rather, the fact merely that they're still around is evidence that they "passed".

Whether they'll be improved or promoted to anything more than they are now - that was never promised or hinted at.

[+brendan714]

Quote

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

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

I don't know, this paragraph made it sound like it was certainly on the table.  

Edited November 2, 2017 by brendan714

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, brendan714 said:

So... isn't it about time challenge caches receive a new icon?

Given that they are still being published almost a year and a half after their return, I assume they've passed the test?

Does anyone care anymore? There are so few of them now, I don't think being able to distinguishing them on the map is very interesting any longer.

[+brendan714]

24 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Does anyone care anymore? There are so few of them now, I don't think being able to distinguishing them on the map is very interesting any longer.

"The idea of a challenge cache icon or attribute earned significant support from the community. "

[+thebruce0]

4 hours ago, brendan714 said:

Quote

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

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

I don't know, this paragraph made it sound like it was certainly on the table.  

I don't know, that bolded red sentence made it sound like the only promise was to re-evaluate the continued existence of challenge caches after a year.  But hey, that's just what I took from it.  I'm just glad they're not shut down.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

11 hours ago, dprovan said:

18 hours ago, brendan714 said:

So... isn't it about time challenge caches receive a new icon?

Given that they are still being published almost a year and a half after their return, I assume they've passed the test?

Does anyone care anymore? There are so few of them now, I don't think being able to distinguishing them on the map is very interesting any longer.

I wasn't aware that a lot of them were archived when the moratorium went into into place or when the new guidelines for challenge caches were established.  It was my understanding that all challenge caches that pre-existed the moratorium and guideline change were grandfathered.  The rate at which new challenge caches may have declined but that wouldn't result in fewer challenge caches.  

[+igator210]

12 hours ago, dprovan said:

Does anyone care anymore? There are so few of them now, I don't think being able to distinguishing them on the map is very interesting any longer.

Visit the GeoChecker forum at Project-GC. Challenges are still being created.

[+hzoi]

17 hours ago, brendan714 said:

Quote

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

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

I don't know, this paragraph made it sound like it was certainly on the table.  

I take back my earlier post.  That paragraph is about a new icon, and yes, "we will strongly consider adding a new icon or attribute for challenge caches" is a stronger statement than I recall.

That said, I suspect we'd see an attribute and not an icon -- we've seen several attributes added over the last ten years, but apart from the limited exception of the GPS Adventure Maze, the only new icons I've seen in the past decade have all been related to events: 10 Years!, Mega, Giga, Block Party, Lost and Found Celebration.  My money's on attribute, if any change is made.

edit to add: ok, I left out Wherigo, introduced in 2008.  Yes, there's precedent of a new icon in the last ten years for a non-event cache type other than the GPS Adventure Maze.  No, I don't think that changes my analysis that a new attribute would be more likely than a new icon.

Edited November 3, 2017 by hzoi

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, igator210 said:

Visit the GeoChecker forum at Project-GC. Challenges are still being created.

I never said otherwise. I just think there's much less interest in them. There are many fewer published in my area which used to be a hotbed for challenge caches, so I don't think there would be much point in making them easier to identify. When people used to ask for an icon every other week, it made sense because challenge caches were all the rage, but today they're no longer much of a factor among the cache flora. I can't help but think that someone asking for a challenge cache icon today would be doing it more out of habit than because they actually still felt a need.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

6 hours ago, igator210 said:

Challenges are still being created.

I never said otherwise. I just think there's much less interest in them.

I suspect that's because it's harder to create them. Most cache owners won't put in the effort. Around my area challenge owners would carry a sackful of pill bottles and use up a whole trail plunking them down to create dozens, sometimes 100s caches for a challenge PT trail. It would take maybe a couple of days to create a challenge PT and submit. That has stopped. I'm pretty sure it's because an owner will more likely have to set aside at least an hour to create checkers for each challenge cache, and what's the point of creating one or two challenge caches when the real point is to encourage caching for numbers. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by L0ne.R
grammar

[+igator210]

Without curating the entire list, in the United States there are around 11,000 active challenge caches, with 1000 of them created this year.. There are about 3300 active Wherigos in the United States with about 400 created this year.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

7 hours ago, igator210 said:

Challenges are still being created.

I never said otherwise. I just think there's much less interest in them.

I suspect that's because it's harder to create them.

I think it's because they aren't as interesting with the new rules. There are a lot of COs in my area that went to a lot of trouble to create interesting challenge caches, so I don't think the problem of creating a checker would deter them. One, in particular, stands out: the CO did create a checker, a very elegant and complex checker that had great features to not only check compliance, but also show what other caches you could find to complete the challenge. But that challenge is not allowed under the new rules.

26 minutes ago, igator210 said:

Without curating the entire list, in the United States there are around 11,000 active challenge caches, with 1000 of them created this year.

I guess those numbers agree with my experience. In my area, challenges got really big for a couple years just before the moratorium. Your numbers would imply a 5K a year rate for those two years has collapsed to 1K this year.

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I guess those numbers agree with my experience. In my area, challenges got really big for a couple years just before the moratorium. Your numbers would imply a 5K a year rate for those two years has collapsed to 1K this year.

I don't see how 11,000 active challenge caches equates to 5000 a year for two years.  On a PT of challenge caches near me, roughly half of them are from 2007-2009, long before the two years just before the moratorium.

[Keystone]

9 hours ago, igator210 said:

Visit the GeoChecker forum at Project-GC. Challenges are still being created.

Agreed - the "Completed" forum is a good indicator of the volume (but not an exact indicator, due to self-service tagging).  The active forum gives a good idea of current volume (requests being proposed and worked on over the past week or two).  And don't forget to browse the forum where the "Archived - Impossible" checker request threads are moved.  The requests in that section can give the average geocacher a sense of (1) how geocachers don't read and follow the guidelines, and (2) why challenge cache reviews were occupying an inordinate amount of reviewer time -- one of the reasons leading to the moratorium and the narrower scope of "new" challenge caches.

In effect, the challenge checker writers are acting as a first screening review for challenge ideas.  This lowers the reviewers' workload, and I am grateful to the well-informed challenge checker writers for their partnership and assistance.

[+brendan714]

53 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Agreed - the "Completed" forum is a good indicator of the volume (but not an exact indicator, due to self-service tagging).  The active forum gives a good idea of current volume (requests being proposed and worked on over the past week or two).  And don't forget to browse the forum where the "Archived - Impossible" checker request threads are moved.  The requests in that section can give the average geocacher a sense of (1) how geocachers don't read and follow the guidelines, and (2) why challenge cache reviews were occupying an inordinate amount of reviewer time -- one of the reasons leading to the moratorium and the narrower scope of "new" challenge caches.

In effect, the challenge checker writers are acting as a first screening review for challenge ideas.  This lowers the reviewers' workload, and I am grateful to the well-informed challenge checker writers for their partnership and assistance.

 

3 hours ago, igator210 said:

Without curating the entire list, in the United States there are around 11,000 active challenge caches, with 1000 of them created this year.. There are about 3300 active Wherigos in the United States with about 400 created this year.

All of this said, it's time for HQ to stop living in the geocaching stone age and make a new icon!  It's looong overdue!

[+Isonzo Karst]

I could get  mildly behind a new attribute, (flaming hoop) but not a new cache type. Seems like even attribute is hardly important. People search for challenges using the (no longer new) search, type Mystery + Keyword Challenge, and some kind of area.   Seems like very few people use PQs to find caches now, which would be the primary usefulness of an attribute.    Oh, and a new attribute would mess up all the attributes challenges out there ;-)

Edited November 3, 2017 by Isonzo Karst

[+brendan714]

8 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

I could get  mildly behind a new attribute, (flaming hoop) but not a new cache type. Seems like even attribute is hardly important. People search for challenges using the (no longer new) search, type Mystery + Keyword Challenge, and some kind of area.   Seems like very few people use PQs to find caches now, which would be the primary usefulness of an attribute.    Oh, and a new attribute would mess up all the attributes challenges out there ;-)

In my opinion, part of the reason a challenge cache should get its own cache type is because it no longer resembles a mystery cache in any way, shape or form.  Challenge caches must either be at the posted coordinates or have final coordinates as a visible waypoint.  To even have challenge caches nested within mystery caches is misleading - as I recently found out the hard way.  I just recently published a challenge cache originally not at the posted coordinates (very common for most non-challenge mystery caches), yet it was rejected because of the 2nd sentence I wrote above.

This doesn't make any sense.  If it has an entirely different set of hiding rules, it should have its own icon!

[+Isonzo Karst]

The Mystery category is the "catch-all" cache type.  For years a cache with an ALR (additional logging requirement, like "log in haiku", or "email me with codeword from log book", "or must find a cache of each D/T combo") had to be listed as a Mystery. Many were Traditional (as challenge caches are now)  but the ALR moved them into the Mystery category. Which is how what are today's Challenge caches came to be in the Mystery category.

Anyway, I'm opposed to a new cache type, not that my opposition matters much ;-) 

Edited November 3, 2017 by Isonzo Karst

[+hzoi]

On 11/3/2017 at 7:33 PM, brendan714 said:

In my opinion, part of the reason a challenge cache should get its own cache type is because it no longer resembles a mystery cache in any way, shape or form.

Well, sure.  You haven't been around long enough to have experienced caches that involved an ALR (additional logging requirement); these are now either optional or gone.  When more of them existed, they worked exactly like challenge caches, because challenges were just a subtype of ALRs -- challenge caches simply involve finding caches, rather than other ALR tasks, like taking a photo of a construction site.

Challenge caches are now the only ALR-type caches allowed to remain, as you can see from the Help Center article linked above.  Unless and until a new icon is created, it makes perfect sense to keep them under the icon they've always had.

edit: apparently, I glossed right over Isonzo Karst's post.  Ah, well.  Mine has links so I'm keeping it.

Edited November 6, 2017 by hzoi

[+dprovan]

On 11/3/2017 at 4:33 PM, brendan714 said:

In my opinion, part of the reason a challenge cache should get its own cache type is because it no longer resembles a mystery cache in any way, shape or form.  Challenge caches must either be at the posted coordinates or have final coordinates as a visible waypoint.

I see it the opposite way. The key element of a mystery cache is that you have to look at the cache page before you really know what you'll have to do to claim the find whether it's solve a puzzle, meet a requirement, find other caches, or whatever. That's always been true for challenge caches, and now it's even more true because not only do you have to look at the description, you have to run the checker to see if you qualify.

The thing about being at the posted coordinates has never been a distinction, since puzzle caches are sometimes at the posted coordinates but require the puzzle solution to access the log. If anything, challenge caches now look more like that than ever.

[+brendan714]

Regardless of the past, ALRs, etc, the truth is that a new icon "earned significant support from the community".  Clearly geocachers want it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

10 hours ago, brendan714 said:

Regardless of the past, ALRs, etc, the truth is that a new icon "earned significant support from the community".  Clearly geocachers want it.

I don't know if all geocachers want it, but clearly a lot to and, to me, there just doesn't seem much if any downside (other than developer/designer time required to implement it) for creating one.

I finally got my 3rd challenge cache (there were a couple of local ones created pre-moritorium) a month or so ago (a find caches in 25 or more countries) in Denmark.  Whenever I travel I usually look at the puzzle cache icons on the map to see if there may be some I want to solve before I visit the area.  A challenge cache icon would make it much easier to see which of those ? icons are challenges.  

[+AnnaMoritz]

A new icon would affect mostly people that are interested in and already working on challenges, if existing geocaches also change their Icon. Others won't mind.

Every challenge that aks for anything related to Unknown caches might be affected. People who fullfilled the critera before might end not qualifying any more.

Easy if you now miss an D5/T4 Unknown geocache, there might be one out there you can visit instead.

But qualifications for strike challenges based on Unknowns (there are al lot of older challenges out there where people work hard on) might be ruined forever, you can't go now back in time and find another Unknown for a day in 2016.

Also qualification for certain (older) 'fill your calendar with cache type'(s)' challenges might be affected. With bad luck you have to start again from the beginning and wait another year if the geocache you visited yesterday now isn't an Unknown any more, but something else.

A way to avoid these problems would be to require existing challenges that had some Unknown cache criteria (not the old ones where you could exclude Challenge caches despite being labelled as Unknowns) to accept also Challenge Caches that originally were Unknowns before and visited before the date when the icon was changed. That would require all affected listings and challenge checker scripts to be rewritten.

[+frinklabs]

Keep all the icons the same -- just badge the ones that are for caches that also include a challenge component.

Maybe even make the badging proportional to the difficulty of the challenge:

[FEATURE] Challenge Stars

[+Voltgloss]

How about giving Challenge Caches their own icon - but keeping them as a subtype of Mystery Caches?  Like how Events, CITOs, Megas, and Gigas are all subtypes under "All Event Cache Types" on your profile.

There's precedent for this, as there's already one subtype of Mystery Caches that has its own icon but still falls under "All Mystery Cache Types":  Geocaching HQ.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

49 minutes ago, frinklabs said:

Keep all the icons the same -- just badge the ones that are for caches that also include a challenge component.

Maybe even make the badging proportional to the difficulty of the challenge:

[FEATURE] Challenge Stars

That wouldn't do anything to make challenge caches distinguishable from puzzle caches.  The relative merit of your challenge stars proposal is unrelated to having a new icon.  Either feature could be implemented independently.

[+frinklabs]

If the objective of the new icon is to make Challenges discrete from Mysteries (as per the OP), then the Challenge Stars fulfills this requirement.   Distinguishing them would be done by filtering for the number of Challenge Stars.   A Mystery cache with no Challenge Stars is just that -- A Mystery cache.

Retroactively, none of the extant icons need change, to preserve stats.   Current Challenges in the Mystery category would have a Challenge Star quantity assigned, hopefully in proportion to the difficulty of the Challenge.

Going forward, more options are now available.   New Challenges where the container is at the published location can be published as a Traditional with >0 Challenge Stars.   The possibility of publishing a Challenge which also requires a Mystery to solve is now available.  In this scenario, the Difficulty is actually related to the Mystery and not the Challenge (which is conflated in the current system).

[+fbingha]

For my habits, I wish challenge caches had their own icon to differentiate from standard puzzles. Puzzles I can do, many challenge caches I can not qualify for since I don't find that many caches. Challenge caches are fundamentally different from mystery caches and should be categorized separately in stats and by identifiable icons.

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, fbingha said:

For my habits, I wish challenge caches had their own icon to differentiate from standard puzzles. Puzzles I can do, many challenge caches I can not qualify for since I don't find that many caches. Challenge caches are fundamentally different from mystery caches and should be categorized separately in stats and by identifiable icons.

You have opportunity to separate them and quite easily, because challenge caches has title "challenge". The next step is to convince the stats makers about the importance of the separated number of challenges.

[+niraD]

9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

You have opportunity to separate them and quite easily, because challenge caches has title "challenge".

Except that there are non-challenge caches that include the word "challenge" in their title.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

You have opportunity to separate them and quite easily, because challenge caches has title "challenge". The next step is to convince the stats makers about the importance of the separated number of challenges.

The change to the guidelines required the inclusion of challenge in the title (but PQ criteria does not allow searching for a string in the cache name). It did not, however, prohibit the inclusion of "challenge" in a cache title when it's not a challenge cache.

 

[+fbingha]

15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

You have opportunity to separate them and quite easily, because challenge caches has title "challenge". The next step is to convince the stats makers about the importance of the separated number of challenges.

Please don't spend any more time attempting to dissuade my belief that the icons should be different for mysteries and challenges. Frankly, I don't care about the stats.

I open map, I want to see different icons, I don't want to hover over icons and look for "Challenge". My desire, my right to hope it will happen. 

Edited November 7, 2017 by fbingha

[+arisoft]

41 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

The change to the guidelines required the inclusion of challenge in the title (but PQ criteria does not allow searching for a string in the cache name). It did not, however, prohibit the inclusion of "challenge" in a cache title when it's not a challenge cache.

 

At least you can get a list and a map using this criteria https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?types=8&kw=Challenge but not PQ. Technically it is possible to extract all needed information from the map but you need a sophisticated tool for that.

 

[+frinklabs]

1 hour ago, fbingha said:

Please don't spend any more time attempting to dissuade my belief that the icons should be different for mysteries and challenges. Frankly, I don't care about the stats.

I open map, I want to see different icons, I don't want to hover over icons and look for "Challenge". My desire, my right to hope it will happen. 

So if the map had icons that looked like the mock up below, that'd be ok?

 

[+fbingha]

52 minutes ago, frinklabs said:

So if the map had icons that looked like the mock up below, that'd be ok?

 

Groundspeak isn't going to make the map more complicated by having a star on various challenge subtypes. Using that super hero icon to cover all official challenges would get thumbs up for me, regardless if the underlying challenge involves a multi cache or a letterbox or a puzzle on top of the challenge.

[+thebruce0]

 

1 hour ago, fbingha said:

Groundspeak isn't going to make the map more complicated by having a star on various challenge subtypes. Using that super hero icon to cover all official challenges would get thumbs up for me, regardless if the underlying challenge involves a multi cache or a letterbox or a puzzle on top of the challenge.

Agreed; the other option would be to have the Challenge Cache type primary, but indicate whether the physical cache component is Traditional/Multi/Mystery/LB/etc.

However, the intent of providing the challenge star 'component' was that it would be optional on top of the base cache type, to address the concern from not-challenge-fans that they should be able to log them found without having to qualify ("I found it, I signed it, why I can't I log it found online?"), therefore keeping the cache listing type the same as the others meant they could get their "Letterbox" find or whichever, without having to deal with challenge ALRs.

So, the diagram above, which includes all those 'complicated' icons can be avoided with a mere profile option: "I don't want to see Challenge Caches".

Then, all those exclusive Challenge caches (which the COs have locked to requiring qualification) can be automatically ignored, hidden from view, and if qualifying is left as optional, then they'd be seen solely as the base cache icons as always. Poof, no more challenges on the map.

But, if someone wants to do challenge caches, they can see which caches have an associated challenge component - they can find the cache and finish step 1, but won't earn the challenge 'stars' until they also demonstrate they qualify (eg, via Project-GC confirmation).

 

The Challenge Cache icon addresses the concern of easily identifying and filtering in or out challenge caches, the attribute IMO is more relevant. It's probably the best compromise at the moment, but it still misses a couple of the complaints that have arisen over the years about Challenge Caches (as discussed in the thread).  And that's how the 'challenge stars' idea was born and evolved.

[+fbingha]

During the heated debate of the moratorium, I was a big proponent of make the change that anyone can log a challenge cache as found at GZ, having a separate system for those who wish to complete the actual challenge. Groundspeak really seems uninterested in that approach so I just want challenges identified differently than mystery caches on the map now.

Edited November 8, 2017 by fbingha

[+NYPaddleCacher]

13 hours ago, fbingha said:

14 hours ago, frinklabs said:

So if the map had icons that looked like the mock up below, that'd be ok?

 

Groundspeak isn't going to make the map more complicated by having a star on various challenge subtypes. Using that super hero icon to cover all official challenges would get thumbs up for me, regardless if the underlying challenge involves a multi cache or a letterbox or a puzzle on top of the challenge.

Agreed.  Just move that super here icon next to the Wherigo icon and git rid of icons with the stars and it all makes sense.  As Bruce0 suggest, clicking on any of the icons to the right of the vertical bar would remove all caches of that type from the map.  Because it would be a real cache type it could be a filter on the search page and in pocket queries.  An attribute could only be used in pocket queries. 

[+noncentric]

On 11/7/2017 at 4:07 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

I don't know if all geocachers want it, but clearly a lot to and, to me, there just doesn't seem much if any downside (other than developer/designer time required to implement it) for creating one.

Some downsides have already been noted in this thread (dev/design time, messed up stats, and becoming unqualified for a previously "found" CC because Unknown cache count decreases) - but what I haven't seen mentioned is the logistical difficulty of moving CC's to that new icon. After all, if the purpose of the new icon is to reliably identify CC's, then all CC's would need their icon changed.

An announcement could be sent to all cachers (via newsletter, forums, FB, Blog), to say there is a new icon and all CC CO's should update their caches - but there are plenty of cachers that don't receive/read these communications. If cachers don't update their caches, then the new icon won't be effective. So then GS would need to run a search on Mystery+"Challenge" and send a direct communication (email and message) to CC CO's to change their caches. GS would then need to follow up after a prescribed amount of time to look for stragglers. Then what?  I guess GS/Reviewers could TD those CC's that haven't been changed, but only after reviewing the cache description to make sure it's not a 'non-challenge cache that happens to have Challenge in the cache name'. There would need to be another round of review after the TD's to Archive any remaining stragglers. Seems like a bit of work.

I think an Attribute would require less resources, especially if it remains optional, but some cachers will still complain that some CC's are showing up in their PQ results because the CC CO's didn't add the attribute. I feel like the cat is already out of the bag on this one.

 

On 11/6/2017 at 5:40 PM, brendan714 said:

Regardless of the past, ALRs, etc, the truth is that a new icon "earned significant support from the community".  Clearly geocachers want it.

Some, maybe even many, geocachers wanted a new icon - but that feedback was before the revised CC rules were announced. It makes sense for cachers to want a CC icon when there are many CC's out there and it's believed that more will be created. But the rate of CC's has lowered considerably since the new rules and so I'm not sure the feedback from back then is still valid now. Maybe another survey is in order, not just about the icon/attribute issue, but also to gauge how cachers feel about CC's now that the post-moratorium guidelines are in place.

 

On 11/3/2017 at 8:49 AM, hzoi said:

I take back my earlier post.  That paragraph is about a new icon, and yes, "we will strongly consider adding a new icon or attribute for challenge caches" is a stronger statement than I recall.

That said, I suspect we'd see an attribute and not an icon -- we've seen several attributes added over the last ten years, but apart from the limited exception of the GPS Adventure Maze, the only new icons I've seen in the past decade have all been related to events: 10 Years!, Mega, Giga, Block Party, Lost and Found Celebration.  My money's on attribute, if any change is made.

edit to add: ok, I left out Wherigo, introduced in 2008.  Yes, there's precedent of a new icon in the last ten years for a non-event cache type other than the GPS Adventure Maze.  No, I don't think that changes my analysis that a new attribute would be more likely than a new icon.

In regards to the new icon precedents. Did any of those new icons get assigned to caches that were published before the new icon was created? I mean, it's one thing to create a new icon and then publish caches with that new icon - it's something else to create a new icon and then retroactively apply that new icon to caches that were published in the past.

[+noncentric]

On 11/3/2017 at 2:48 PM, Keystone said:

On 11/3/2017 at 5:05 AM, igator210 said:

Visit the GeoChecker forum at Project-GC. Challenges are still being created.

Agreed - the "Completed" forum is a good indicator of the volume (but not an exact indicator, due to self-service tagging).  The active forum gives a good idea of current volume (requests being proposed and worked on over the past week or two).

To be fair, some of the requested/completed/impossible Checker Requests in the PGC Forum are for pre-moratorium CC's. I find that Forum as being a good metric of what types of challenges can/cannot be published, but not such a good metric of how popular CC's currently are.

 

On 11/7/2017 at 7:56 AM, Voltgloss said:

How about giving Challenge Caches their own icon - but keeping them as a subtype of Mystery Caches?  Like how Events, CITOs, Megas, and Gigas are all subtypes under "All Event Cache Types" on your profile.

I would support this idea, and I think I even mentioned it in one of the many challenge cache threads last year, but it would need to be Searchable to appease the cachers that want to be able to include/exclude them. Currently, the sub-types aren't selectable in the Search Filters. I'm not saying that all sub-types would need to become options in the Search Filters (no need to have an HQ checkbox), but a checkbox for the CC sub-type would need to be added.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2 hours ago, noncentric said:

On 11/7/2017 at 7:07 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

I don't know if all geocachers want it, but clearly a lot to and, to me, there just doesn't seem much if any downside (other than developer/designer time required to implement it) for creating one.

Some downsides have already been noted in this thread (dev/design time, messed up stats, and becoming unqualified for a previously "found" CC because Unknown cache count decreases) - but what I haven't seen mentioned is the logistical difficulty of moving CC's to that new icon. After all, if the purpose of the new icon is to reliably identify CC's, then all CC's would need their icon changed.

Perhaps if the goal was to "better" identify challenge caches rather than to identify CC's with 100% accuracy than the feature might be more palatable.  when considering a feature request that attempts to solve a problem, if it provides a a measurable improvement I think it's worth considering even if it doesn't completely eliminated the problem.  Even if only 70% (pulling a number out of a hat) used the new icon that's better than relying on keyword searching (and getting false positives) to identify challenge caches.

[+thebruce0]

5 hours ago, noncentric said:

An announcement could be sent to all cachers (via newsletter, forums, FB, Blog), to say there is a new icon and all CC CO's should update their caches - but there are plenty of cachers that don't receive/read these communications. If cachers don't update their caches, then the new icon won't be effective.

That did come up in various 'challenge icon' threads. To me, it's just like a new attribute. Caches that could use it to identify say a treeclimb won't have the icon until the CO adds it. So most old treeclimb listings won't be identified as such. Effectively, IF they release some form identifier (type icon, attribute, whatever) then old listings would be grandfathered and encouraged to be edited/moved to the proper format.  That in itself could prove a logistical challenge for HQ programmatically supporting grandfathered challenge listings and new-structure challenge listings.

 

6 hours ago, noncentric said:

I think an Attribute would require less resources, especially if it remains optional, but some cachers will still complain that some CC's are showing up in their PQ results because the CC CO's didn't add the attribute. I feel like the cat is already out of the bag on this one

Yep and all this has been discussed in that infamous (and well fleshed out) thread that one user shameless keeps plugging

[+brendan714]

7 hours ago, noncentric said:

Maybe another survey is in order, not just about the icon/attribute issue, but also to gauge how cachers feel about CC's now that the post-moratorium guidelines are in place.

Sure.  Let's do it.  While we're at it, let's see what members think about a power trail attribute.  Or what members think about recent site updates.  Or what members think about anything for that matter.

[+hzoi]

10 hours ago, noncentric said:

In regards to the new icon precedents. Did any of those new icons get assigned to caches that were published before the new icon was created? I mean, it's one thing to create a new icon and then publish caches with that new icon - it's something else to create a new icon and then retroactively apply that new icon to caches that were published in the past.

No, and good point, which lends itself to my conclusion that a new icon is unlikely.  (Unless you count individual event icons that get changed to mega and then giga when the numbers justify it.)

- Adevnture maze was its own thing

- Wherigo was its own thing

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I agree that to be useful, the icon for the new challenge cache type would need to changed for the existing CC's. However, this does not necessarily mean that we need to update the cache type on the listing. We only have to make it appear to have changed in some key areas. Specifically, search lists and the map.

So, let's create a new cache type for challenges. Going forward, all CC's would be this new type. And, for the existing CC's, we alter the icon on the map based on the Puzzle+"Challenge" rule. This would give the appearance that I believe most cachers are looking for, without all of the hassle of retroactively altering any existing cache listings.

Is it perfect? No, because Puzzle+"Challenge" is not perfect. But it would cover a large number of the existing CC's.