Jump to content

time limited challenge caches


blacktownman
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

i and many ppl i know think that rule 9 in challenge caches "time limited caches" specifically "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. (new 2016)" should be removed as these kinds of challenge caches are fun and i also have 2 caches that this rule stops me from releasing these caches. i know there able to be done in a timely fashion because me and 2 friends also qualify for this cache so we know there able to be done. we put them togeather just after the challenge caches were stopped for the year. plz get rid of the rule stopping me and many others from publishing these caches.  all the other rules i agree with for challenge caches

Link to comment
1 hour ago, katrinundgerwin said:

The absolutly best part in the challenge guideline (past moratorium) is this restriction!

Time based challenges have since been replaced by time based souvenirs. Instead of find xx in yy time for a challenge cache you can now find xx in one week for a souvenir. :ph34r:.

I don't change my caching behavior for a challenge so the one's I don't like I just ignore. I don't want to get rid of them as others might like them. Nobody gains anything by the restrictions but some lose.

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, blacktownman said:

i and many ppl i know think that rule 9 in challenge caches "time limited caches" specifically "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. (new 2016)" should be removed as these kinds of challenge caches are fun

You may be right that 100 caches per day is fun to find, Especially in a group and with proper preparing and aftercare. :ph34r:

Cache owners may think otherwise because rushing has nasty side effects that increase the need for maintenance.

But hey! Who will deny looking for even 1000 caches in a day? There is no need for special challenge cache for that - just your imagination is the limit.

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

You will see very mixed responses here.    Before the 1 year hiatus, many enjoyed challenges and wanted them to continue as is, others hated them and wanted them stopped completely.

We are left with a compromise.

Personally, I would have let challenges continue as they were.    And personally, the time limited caches aren't my favourites.    I do enjoy ones like This one which has a small number of caches (7 in this case) over a reasonable time (6 days in this case); but they have to start with specific letters etc.    i'm less keen on "Find 200 caches in a day".    

The one restriction I dislike the most is this one.

"Challenges based on geographic areas other than countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent). For example, user-defined mapping polygons, latitude/longitude, radius, etc. "

Map based challenges are some of my favourites.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, irisisleuk said:

Yeah, really love receiving those "Another find to fulfill the xxx-challenge of x caches within one day/week, thanks to all cache owners"- logs!

No worse than all the "out caching today with Charlie,  Pete  and Fred.  We found lots of caches.  Thanks to all owners" logs.

Some people will write crappy logs whatever the situation.

Link to comment

I'm not a fan of challenges in general - there is always going to be those who set unrealistic goals.  For me it takes the fun out of it. The new guidelines are an improvement. One of the issues I have is that the harder ones still affect the saturation guidelines. 

There are some near me in a beautiful park/open space that are like find 20,000 caches. Obviously they rarely get logged yet they are taking up spots that could be better utilized (in my humble opinion) to guide people to nature trails. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
10 hours ago, blacktownman said:

plz get rid of the rule stopping me and many others from publishing these caches.

To refresh, here is the explanation provided when the challenge cache moratorium ended:

"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."

Nothing has changed since the end of the moratorium that would cause us to reconsider that guideline.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Rock Chalk said:

To refresh, here is the explanation provided when the challenge cache moratorium ended:

"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."

Nothing has changed since the end of the moratorium that would cause us to reconsider that guideline.

And yet Groundspeak is endorsing time based challenges for souvenir's as stated earlier in this thread. I agree that this is one of the worst rules. Just prior to the moratorium, I was working on a series of what I called "weekend" and "one" day challenges depending on difficulty. I had just completed and "X" and an "H" on my grid in one day (although, I was going to make them 2-day challenges), with, coincidently enough, the help of "rock chalks" duck island caches and was preparing to make several challenges. Any horizontal line one day challenge, any vertical line one day challenge, as well as the "x" and "large H" two-day or weekend challenge.

Now days Groundspeak wants everyone to just fall into qualifying for challenges, instead of them being their namesake of a "challenge" Recently our new local reviewer advised cachers that at least 5 people had to pre-qualify for a challenge before approving it. Ridiculous. I liked doing them myself and then "challenging" others complete it as well. Part of the fun with time challenges for me and many others I know, is that you have to do a bit a research and find an area that will work, with backups, possible emails with the CO or locals  prior to the fun of actually accomplishing something you set out to do. Not just check your personal amassed stats and see if you already qualify.

Edited by M 5
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, M 5 said:

Now days Groundspeak wants everyone to just fall into qualifying for challenges, instead of them being their namesake of a "challenge" Recently our new local reviewer advised cachers that at least 5 people had to pre-qualify for a challenge before approving it. Ridiculous. I liked doing them myself and then "challenging" others complete it as well.

There was a cache published around here a few years ago that wasn't a challenge cache but the CO listed a bunch of  accomplishments related to geocaching and asked users to list their accomplishments in their log (not a ALR).  It came across as "look at everything I've done...how well do you stack up?"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, irisisleuk said:

Yeah, really love receiving those "Another find to fulfill the xxx-challenge of x caches within one day/week, thanks to all cache owners"- logs!

6 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

No worse than all the "out caching today with Charlie,  Pete  and Fred.  We found lots of caches.  Thanks to all owners" logs.

Some people will write crappy logs whatever the situation.

We're seeing that a lot lately.  Awesome caches with unique features or great views, and only "caching with..." the names of each other are mentioned.  Odd...

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
8 hours ago, arisoft said:

You may be right that 100 caches per day is fun to find, Especially in a group and with proper preparing and aftercare. :ph34r:

Cache owners may think otherwise because rushing has nasty side effects that increase the need for maintenance.

But hey! Who will deny looking for even 1000 caches in a day? There is no need for special challenge cache for that - just your imagination is the limit.

+1

As one of a number of COs in this area who had a group of long-time pm cachers in a hurry (most mentioned  their find count only "our 60th today!"  in their log...), and having to head out en masse  to fix/replace them afterwards,  I agree.

Some even wrote on the container, not in it.  Sheesh...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Rock Chalk said:

 

Nothing has changed since the end of the moratorium that would cause us to reconsider that guideline.

And while there is nothing I can point to to argue this point, now that it has been over a year since the rule changes, it might be insightful to revisit the community to see if any additional changes should be made. This could be the relaxation of certain rules and the tightening of other rules.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, on4bam said:

I don't change my caching behavior for a challenge so the one's I don't like I just ignore. I don't want to get rid of them as others might like them. Nobody gains anything by the restrictions but some lose.

On the other hand, I do change my behavior if I'm interesting in the challenge, but I still agree with you completely: I can just ignore the ones that don't seem worth changing my behavior for. I think all these restrictions were losses with no redeeming value.

2 hours ago, Rock Chalk said:

To refresh, here is the explanation provided when the challenge cache moratorium ended:

"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."

Nothing has changed since the end of the moratorium that would cause us to reconsider that guideline.

I agree that GS's attitude is cast in concrete, so there's no use complaining anymore. But I can still point out that these two points boil down to "some people don't like them, so no one can have them."

51 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

There was a cache published around here a few years ago that wasn't a challenge cache but the CO listed a bunch of  accomplishments related to geocaching and asked users to list their accomplishments in their log (not a ALR).  It came across as "look at everything I've done...how well do you stack up?"

While I feel no need to brag, I see no reason to be concerned about other people that have a need to brag. I can easily ignore them, although normally I find it amusing to see how needy people can be.

23 minutes ago, igator210 said:

And while there is nothing I can point to to argue this point, now that it has been over a year since the rule changes, it might be insightful to revisit the community to see if any additional changes should be made. This could be the relaxation of certain rules and the tightening of other rules.

While your logic is sound, I think GS is entirely convinced that all the restrictions currently in place are the best thing since sliced bread, so a revisit would do nothing but close holes where they accidentally left room for people to have fun wrong.

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, M 5 said:

And yet Groundspeak is endorsing time based challenges for souvenir's as stated earlier in this thread. I agree that this is one of the worst rules.

I'm not aware of any souvenir that requires finding more than one cache in a single day (most are find a single cache in region X, attend an event this weekend, find a multicache sometime this week, find any cache on Leap Day, etc.).  The current "Mary Hyde" souvenir requirements have been so easy to meet that I don't think they promote the "numbers run" concern that underlies the "time limited challenge" guideline.  Can you point to a souvenir that requires "number chasing" within a single day?  I may have overlooked one.

Quote

Just prior to the moratorium, I was working on a series of what I called "weekend" and "one" day challenges depending on difficulty. I had just completed and "X" and an "H" on my grid in one day (although, I was going to make them 2-day challenges), with, coincidently enough, the help of "rock chalks" duck island caches and was preparing to make several challenges. Any horizontal line one day challenge, any vertical line one day challenge, as well as the "x" and "large H" two-day or weekend challenge.

That is what I call a "look what I did!" challenge.  Creating grid art patterns isn't really a geocaching-related accomplishment.

Quote

Now days Groundspeak wants everyone to just fall into qualifying for challenges, instead of them being their namesake of a "challenge" Recently our new local reviewer advised cachers that at least 5 people had to pre-qualify for a challenge before approving it. Ridiculous. I liked doing them myself and then "challenging" others complete it as well. Part of the fun with time challenges for me and many others I know, is that you have to do a bit a research and find an area that will work, with backups, possible emails with the CO or locals  prior to the fun of actually accomplishing something you set out to do. Not just check your personal amassed stats and see if you already qualify.

You should write and thank your new reviewer, a friend of mine, for being far more flexible and accommodating than the average reviewer.  Worldwide, most reviewers use "10 local area geocachers" as the rule of thumb for measuring whether a challenge meets the guideline requirement of appealing to a significant number of geocachers.  (They can either be qualified already, or very close to qualifying.)  If the challenge cache owner and his best friend are the only two people within 100 miles of the challenge cache location who have found 2,000 multicaches, that challenge theme wouldn't be very popular in Oklahoma.  It might be just fine in Nordrhein-Westfalen, where multicaches are far more common.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But I can still point out that these two points boil down to "some people don't like them, so no one can have them."

I think their argument goes a little beyond that.

The "it’s not something we wish to encourage" part and the "not at all the spirit [...] intended" part indicate at least some consideration for the type of behavior these challenges encourage, and whether that behavior is good for geocaching as a whole.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, niraD said:

I think their argument goes a little beyond that.

The "it’s not something we wish to encourage" part and the "not at all the spirit [...] intended" part indicate at least some consideration for the type of behavior these challenges encourage, and whether that behavior is good for geocaching as a whole.

Meh. I see your point, but I don't think it goes much beyond saying the powers that be don't like them instead of saying that some people in general don't like them. I don't buy the claim that the cited behaviors are bad for geocaching in general even before I reflect on the fact that there aren't really enough challenge caches for them to happen to happen often enough to worry about.

There's nothing deadly about people stretching to find more caches in a day than they otherwise would. It only makes sense when you say "I don't want to do that, so no one else should want to do that."

And I see nothing wrong with publishing the occasional cache to make it easier to satisfy a requirement, either. In fact, you'd think publishing new caches would be considered a fundamentally good thing. That part about being bad that people publish events to help satisfy busy day challenges makes no sense at all unless you apply a prejudice that someone that likes challenge caches will only publish bad caches to help people satisfy a challenge requirement. That idea particularly gets in my craw because one of the best challenge caches I ever did was specifically designed to encourage people to publish caches to help everyone meet the requirement, and those caches were some of the best caches planted in the area while that challenge cache was active.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeattleWayne said:

What's the difference between that and "TFTC!"?

At least you know they are working on a challenge, and have a goal?  Other than to just log a find ... I don't always but I do try to mention something about the find, the day, who I was with, why we were at the particular location ... I enjoy reading all that from others on my own caches and on those I am searching for.  

Of course, if those are all Cut N Pastes, well, it's almost as pointless as TFTC!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

I have always said that, provided the CO has qualified for the challenge, then anything should be allowed.   If you, or I,  don't want to go for it, fine.  If someone else does, why deny them the challenge.

For sure, FOR SURE! I never understood the "i don't like that cache and it should be abolished" mentality. A person can make the choice to skip a cache if they don't like it. And please, they shouldn't go to whining that it upsets them that they see it on a map or that it's taking up space for a park and grab.:rolleyes:

Link to comment

I miss the challenge caches that you had to find a cache with a certain word in the title.  Like one I have signed that you have to find 50 caches that has "End of the road" in the title. Whenever I am out caching and I see a cache has "End of the road" in the title I am definitely going to go look for it!  I will almost feel bad when I hit 50 and don't need to seek them out.

I like fishing so whenever I see fishing or fish in the title I go for it.  I was planning on making a challenge to find X number of caches with the word fish or fishing in the title. They ended it quickly so I was never able to set it up.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Keystone said:

I'm not aware of any souvenir that requires finding more than one cache in a single day (most are find a single cache in region X, attend an event this weekend, find a multicache sometime this week, find any cache on Leap Day, etc.).  The current "Mary Hyde" souvenir requirements have been so easy to meet that I don't think they promote the "numbers run" concern that underlies the "time limited challenge" guideline.  Can you point to a souvenir that requires "number chasing" within a single day?  I may have overlooked one.

 

In a single day? No, the current souvenir promotion does not require that.

In a single week? Yes, this weeks souvenir requires an individual to find a minimum of 3 caches in a 7 day period. Not only does it require finding a minimum of 3 caches within 7 days, it requires find those caches in specific 7 days out of the entire years. Additionally, it requires having those caches logged by a very specific day. This weeks souvenir is a timed related challenge with an addition logging requirement. As a challenge cache, this would not be allowed.

One current restriction on challenge caches is that ANY time related requirements are not allowed.

I'm not making the argument that time related challenges should be magically allowed again. It can be argued that if I don't like this weeks souvenir I can skip it. But, that is the same argument people have made for challenge caches if they don't like them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, igator210 said:

In a single day? No, the current souvenir promotion does not require that.

In a single week? Yes, this weeks souvenir requires an individual to find a minimum of 3 caches in a 7 day period. Not only does it require finding a minimum of 3 caches within 7 days, it requires find those caches in specific 7 days out of the entire years. Additionally, it requires having those caches logged by a very specific day. This weeks souvenir is a timed related challenge with an addition logging requirement. As a challenge cache, this would not be allowed.

One current restriction on challenge caches is that ANY time related requirements are not allowed.

I'm not making the argument that time related challenges should be magically allowed again. It can be argued that if I don't like this weeks souvenir I can skip it. But, that is the same argument people have made for challenge caches if they don't like them.

I agree with you that the Mary Hide souvenirs are time related "challenges".   But they don't require a large number of caches in a short time.  They are designed (in my view) mainly to encourage new cachers to try new things, and to promote the "friends" feature.   They are, by design, very easy for regular cachers to meet.   

One of the problems with challenges is how to define and review them.   If they were to say "Time limited challenges are allowed as long as they don't require cachers to hurry and find a lot of caches in a short period" then it would be hard for reviewers as they would have to make judgements about what is too much.   

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

I agree with you that the Mary Hide souvenirs are time related "challenges".   But they don't require a large number of caches in a short time.  They are designed (in my view) mainly to encourage new cachers to try new things, and to promote the "friends" feature.   They are, by design, very easy for regular cachers to meet.   

One of the problems with challenges is how to define and review them.   If they were to say "Time limited challenges are allowed as long as they don't require cachers to hurry and find a lot of caches in a short period" then it would be hard for reviewers as they would have to make judgements about what is too much.   

Nevertheless, a challenge requiring exactly the same as the Mary Hyde souvenir would not get published because of the time limit.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Nevertheless, a challenge requiring exactly the same as the Mary Hyde souvenir would not get published because of the time limit.

Right. But actually the Mary Hyde Promo isn't a Challenge Cache. It's just a promo. Having that said: the guidelines are not valid here. ;-)

Hans

Edited by HHL
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, igator210 said:

In a single week? Yes, this weeks souvenir requires an individual to find a minimum of 3 caches in a 7 day period. Not only does it require finding a minimum of 3 caches within 7 days, it requires find those caches in specific 7 days out of the entire years. Additionally, it requires having those caches logged by a very specific day.

If you're referring to the Mary Hyde Week 4 souvenir, then the text I bolded above is incorrect. There is no '3 cache minimum' for this week's souvenir.

 

On 8/9/2017 at 10:27 PM, blacktownman said:

plz get rid of the rule stopping me and many others from publishing these caches.  all the other rules i agree with for challenge caches

I suspect that this type of attitude contributed to the moratorium being enacted.  Plenty of people think that rules/guidelines should revolve around their specific needs/desires.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, igator210 said:

I'm not making the argument that time related challenges should be magically allowed again. It can be argued that if I don't like this weeks souvenir I can skip it. But, that is the same argument people have made for challenge caches if they don't like them.

I've pretty much ignored the whole Mary Hyde promotion because I'm not at all interested in promotional souvenirs.   I had a small friend list before the promotion and only found out recently that is essentially my "friends league".   One person on my friends lists has been fairly active. I found a couple a couple of caches while on a work trip to NYC last week and that was enough to trigger the awarding of a week 3 souvenir.   If if one does "skip it", it's almost impossible not to get a souvenir unless you don't find any caches at all.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If if one does "skip it", it's almost impossible not to get a souvenir unless you don't find any caches at all.

For the Mary Hyde promotion, there is a very possible option.  Just wait until after noon (UTC) on Wednesday of the following week before logging the finds.  The souvenir for each week is awarded the Wednesday following the promo week, so the cacher could avoid the unwanted souvenir by waiting until after 12pm (UTC) Wednesday to log the find.  This summer's souvenirs aren't like other souvenirs, such as country souvenirs, that award the souvenir whenever the task is completed.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

I agree with you that the Mary Hide souvenirs are time related "challenges".   But they don't require a large number of caches in a short time.

If there's a certain minimum number that's OK, why isn't that number allowed in challenge caches?

Quote

They are designed (in my view) mainly to encourage new cachers to try new things, and to promote the "friends" feature.   They are, by design, very easy for regular cachers to meet.

Challenge caches also encourage new cachers to try new things, so why do you celebrate it and used it as an excuse for souvenirs but not give challenge caches the same credit for doing the same thing? There's no getting around it really: the only difference is that GS defines souvenirs. COs aren't good enough to make those decisions.

Quote

One of the problems with challenges is how to define and review them.   If they were to say "Time limited challenges are allowed as long as they don't require cachers to hurry and find a lot of caches in a short period" then it would be hard for reviewers as they would have to make judgements about what is too much.

This is the accepted justification, but I continue to find it unconvincing. Yes, there's no good way to restrict challenge requirements, but I claim the conclusion is that you shouldn't bother to limit challenge requirements any more than you should try to limit terrain challenges or puzzle solving challenges. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, dprovan said:
Quote

They are designed (in my view) mainly to encourage new cachers to try new things, and to promote the "friends" feature.   They are, by design, very easy for regular cachers to meet.

Challenge caches also encourage new cachers to try new things, so why do you celebrate it and used it as an excuse for souvenirs but not give challenge caches the same credit for doing the same thing? There's no getting around it really: the only difference is that GS defines souvenirs. COs aren't good enough to make those decisions.

Well, the Mary Hyde souvenirs are certainly more aimed to 'new cachers' than challenge caches.  Plenty of 'new cachers' don't even know what challenge caches are. Heck, if they are using the app and haven't paid for Premium, then they won't even be able to view CC's.  I don't think comparing CC's to the Mary Hyde souvenirs is really a fair comparision. The souvenirs are awarded for doing something and doesn't require the cacher to go to a specific place, find the specific cache, and sign the log of that specific cache.  The souvenirs are available worldwide, so cachers can get it even if there isn't a relevant CC in their vicinity.  CC's are an entirely different animal.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Well, the Mary Hyde souvenirs are certainly more aimed to 'new cachers' than challenge caches.

Well, first of all, I disagree. The Mary Hyde souvenirs emphasize geocaching.com friends, and new cachers will rarely have any friends.

But beyond that, I fell in love with challenge caches because when I was starting out, they introduced me to different ways of looking at geocaching that really expanded my appreciation of the game in a way far beyond what souvenirs can do. That includes the simple challenges that I could easily achieve, the stretch challenges that made me adapt my geocaching goals to achieve the goal, and, yes, even the ridiculously hard challenges that I will never, ever be able to achieve in my lifetime even if I wanted to.

27 minutes ago, noncentric said:

I don't think comparing CC's to the Mary Hyde souvenirs is really a fair comparision.

I was only comparing them because someone else was saying souvenirs filled the void left by challenge caches being neutered. I definitely agree they're different: souvenirs are very limited and have little appeal, while challenge caches offered a simple, concrete geocaching reward -- a find -- backed by a wide range of possibilities for challenges, or at least they did until GS eliminated the flexibility that made challenge caches so interesting.

My point wasn't to compare them. My point was that if you consider them comparable, then you should treat them with equal respect.

Link to comment

The very distinct difference between Challenge Caches and a Mary Hyde type promotion is that one restricts the ability to "find" geocaches, the other does not. Groundspeak has created a promotion that encourages the finding of caches in a certain time frame. If I do not meet the requirements of the promotion, that does not prohibit me from finding even one single cache. 

Prior to the adjustment of the challenge cache guidelines, a hider could place any number of caches in their area, set whatever guidelines they desired for those caches, and basically limit the ability of other cachers in their area to find those caches. 

We can debate the good or bad of the new challenge cache restrictions all day... but I believe that trying to compare those restrictions to a Mary Hyde type promotion is as Apples to Oranges Off Topic as you can get. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mvhayes1982 said:

Prior to the adjustment of the challenge cache guidelines, a hider could place any number of caches in their area, set whatever guidelines they desired for those caches, and basically limit the ability of other cachers in their area to find those caches. 

Hadn't really thought about it that way, probably because I didn't live in areas with scads of challenge caches, but I've seen them and yes, that's a very accurate way to describe it.  Put that way, it 's much easier to justify the limitations. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, mvhayes1982 said:

Prior to the adjustment of the challenge cache guidelines, a hider could place any number of caches in their area, set whatever guidelines they desired for those caches, and basically limit the ability of other cachers in their area to find those caches.

Can you point to some examples? I never saw anything like that and I can't imagine anyone wanting to do anything like that. And if a CO did do that, I can't believe a few friendly "please don't do that, it's stupid" from members of the community wouldn't bring the CO to his senses. Furthermore, before the moratorium, there were already guidelines in place the prevented most forms of targeted requirements.

And even then, if I set aside my doubts and assume what you're describing really is a problem, I still say, "So what?" Just a few more caches I'd ignore because they're so dumb. The impact -- if there really is any -- isn't worth the cost of decimating all the legitimate challenge caches published with no such problem. What particularly upsets me is that people like you are always imagining examples like this, so regardless of whether they ever existed anywhere, challenge caches were wiped out in my area even though we never saw any problems with challenge caches at all. It stinks.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, dprovan said:
4 hours ago, mvhayes1982 said:

Prior to the adjustment of the challenge cache guidelines, a hider could place any number of caches in their area, set whatever guidelines they desired for those caches, and basically limit the ability of other cachers in their area to find those caches.

Can you point to some examples?

Before April 3, 2009, the guidelines included the statement:

"Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find."

These Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs) were prohibited in the April 3, 2009, revision to the guidelines. The language still exists in the current guidelines:

Quote

Logging of All Physical Geocaches

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish such tasks. This is a guideline change that applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

  1. Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.
  2. Edit the text of your cache listing and, if necessary, contact a reviewer to change the cache type.
  3. Cease deleting logs based on ALRs.

And yes, the ALRs in place at the time were pretty much "whatever the cache owners desired".

Edited by niraD
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Can you point to some examples? I never saw anything like that and I can't imagine anyone wanting to do anything like that. And if a CO did do that, I can't believe a few friendly "please don't do that, it's stupid" from members of the community wouldn't bring the CO to his senses. Furthermore, before the moratorium, there were already guidelines in place the prevented most forms of targeted requirements.

And even then, if I set aside my doubts and assume what you're describing really is a problem, I still say, "So what?" Just a few more caches I'd ignore because they're so dumb. The impact -- if there really is any -- isn't worth the cost of decimating all the legitimate challenge caches published with no such problem. What particularly upsets me is that people like you are always imagining examples like this, so regardless of whether they ever existed anywhere, challenge caches were wiped out in my area even though we never saw any problems with challenge caches at all. It stinks.

Looked at a new cache (current guidelines) that requires finding a cache with certain numbers of attributes.  The only one I fell short of was "100 'May need wading' attributes."  And that's with more than 6000 finds!  Yes.  I realize that it is not 'number of caches in a time span'.  So, it is still possible to create some very difficult challenges using the new guidelines.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Can you point to some examples? I never saw anything like that and I can't imagine anyone wanting to do anything like that. And if a CO did do that, I can't believe a few friendly "please don't do that, it's stupid" from members of the community wouldn't bring the CO to his senses. Furthermore, before the moratorium, there were already guidelines in place the prevented most forms of targeted requirements.

And even then, if I set aside my doubts and assume what you're describing really is a problem, I still say, "So what?" Just a few more caches I'd ignore because they're so dumb. The impact -- if there really is any -- isn't worth the cost of decimating all the legitimate challenge caches published with no such problem. What particularly upsets me is that people like you are always imagining examples like this, so regardless of whether they ever existed anywhere, challenge caches were wiped out in my area even though we never saw any problems with challenge caches at all. It stinks.

I'm not sure if this fits the bill, but here's a challenge cache geo-trail: https://www.geocaching.com/map/#?ll=43.18859,-80.11943&z=13

It pretty much blocks any other caches on that rail-to-trail.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
9 hours ago, niraD said:

These Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs) were prohibited in the April 3, 2009, revision to the guidelines. The language still exists in the current guidelines:

I was thinking he meant the recent adjustments to challenge caches that wiped them out after last year's moratorium, not the historic act of outlawing ALRs which was before my time and, as far as I know, had little or nothing to do with challenge caches. I, for one, have no problem with the prohibition against arbitrary ALRs.

 

9 hours ago, TriciaG said:

I'm not sure if this fits the bill, but here's a challenge cache geo-trail: https://www.geocaching.com/map/#?ll=43.18859,-80.11943&z=13

It pretty much blocks any other caches on that rail-to-trail.

No, that really doesn't fit any bill. Someone could just as easily have filled that trail with impossible puzzle caches or any other kind of stupid cache no one wants to find.

(And that specific example is particularly interesting because there are several traditional caches along that trail, so what you're actually complaining about is that they can't be stuffed together a tenth of a mile from each other because the challenge caches are doing that.)

Link to comment
18 hours ago, noncentric said:
19 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If if one does "skip it", it's almost impossible not to get a souvenir unless you don't find any caches at all.

For the Mary Hyde promotion, there is a very possible option.  Just wait until after noon (UTC) on Wednesday of the following week before logging the finds.  The souvenir for each week is awarded the Wednesday following the promo week, so the cacher could avoid the unwanted souvenir by waiting until after 12pm (UTC) Wednesday to log the find.  This summer's souvenirs aren't like other souvenirs, such as country souvenirs, that award the souvenir whenever the task is completed.

I didn't spend any time investigating the criteria for finding and logging them as I just wasn't interested.  A couple of years ago I was traveling to a couple of states in which I had not yet found a cache.  I wanted to add those states so I found a couple of caches while I was there and also got a couple of the 31 days in August souvenirs as a result.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Joshism said:

Time-based challenges were some of the most problematic in encouraging not only rushed behavior, but also outright faking of logs (intentionally logging on the wrong date, if not outright bogus finds).

I'm so glad that's all fixed then (see Found it = Didn't find thread). :ph34r:

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Joshism said:

Time-based challenges were some of the most problematic in encouraging not only rushed behavior, but also outright faking of logs (intentionally logging on the wrong date, if not outright bogus finds).

Something's wrong when there's a campaign to stamp out "rushed behavior". Who cares if someone wants to do things fast for a day?

Fake logs are dumb and even annoying, but I think most of them have no relation to timed challenge caches.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, dprovan said:

No, that really doesn't fit any bill. Someone could just as easily have filled that trail with impossible puzzle caches or any other kind of stupid cache no one wants to find.

(And that specific example is particularly interesting because there are several traditional caches along that trail, so what you're actually complaining about is that they can't be stuffed together a tenth of a mile from each other because the challenge caches are doing that.)

Ha! You uncovered my error! To find the challenge cache run, I hid all but Unknown caches on the map. I did notice a couple "holes" in the trail but didn't connect them with trads that I had hidden. Oops! :lol:

Link to comment
On 10/08/2017 at 11:59 PM, Mudfrog said:

For sure, FOR SURE! I never understood the "i don't like that cache and it should be abolished" mentality. A person can make the choice to skip a cache if they don't like it. And please, they shouldn't go to whining that it upsets them that they see it on a map or that it's taking up space for a park and grab.:rolleyes:

People can easily set challenges for themselves with no limits, and yet there is incessant whining about the end of challenge caches. Why is that whining okay?

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...