Jump to content

Challege Caches rejected - not enough qualified


The Snowdog

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gill & Tony said:

Please explain how the existence of your challenge stars would eliminate these restrictions.

By  letting the CO rate the difficulty of the Challenge, the onus on having to qualitatively assess its viability based on information provided by the CO is removed from the reviewer. 

Like the D and T ratings.  Imagine if the reviewers were asked to accept/reject submissions based on the assumption that a "reasonable" number of cachers had to be able to find that evil hide or achieve that tree climb?

Link to comment
14 hours ago, on4bam said:

A challenge to having found caches in xx countries would be easy if near an airport for instance (Found one near CPH, Copenhagen, where you needed 20 countries) but near impossible if placed in a farmland area with no tourism.

There is another find caches in N countries (Challenge: 25 Countries - De Berejstes Klub) challenge cache in Copenhagen.  It's not near the airport, but it's only a 15 minute train ride from the airport then a 10 minute walk.  I don't think a challenge cache like that necessarily needs to be an airport, but that it's located in a city where a lot of geocachers might travel (which typically means it's got an international airport).  I actually got my 25th country that morning by taking the train over to Malmo, Sweden (i wish I could have spent more time there), then changing trains back at the airport to downtown Copenhagen. 

Although I've found a few caches close to the airport  while traveling, only in a few cases were they the only caches I found in the country.  I, have, however found quite a few by using public ground transportation from the airport.  

Link to comment
8 hours ago, frinklabs said:

By  letting the CO rate the difficulty of the Challenge, the onus on having to qualitatively assess its viability based on information provided by the CO is removed from the reviewer. 

Like the D and T ratings.  Imagine if the reviewers were asked to accept/reject submissions based on the assumption that a "reasonable" number of cachers had to be able to find that evil hide or achieve that tree climb?

Under the current system, the CO does rate the difficulty of the challenge.  What is the difference?  The required checker also rates the difficulty based on the number of people who qualify.  Why add another layer of complexity?

Link to comment
On 11/21/2017 at 5:30 PM, on4bam said:

There T5/4.5/4 caches I think of as " rude intrusions taking up room on the map" as I will never do them. Are they next to go?

If they're honestly T4+ caches, then I'm not sure that they qualify as "intrusions", as any other cache placed there would likely also be a T4+.   They're only taking up space on the map for other T4+ caches.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Team Hugs said:

If they're honestly T4+ caches, then I'm not sure that they qualify as "intrusions", as any other cache placed there would likely also be a T4+.   They're only taking up space on the map for other T4+ caches.

I don't get that. You can place a cache 3m up a tree or at the base. One is T4 or T4.5, the other one is T1.5, the coordinates are the same.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Team Hugs said:

If they're honestly T4+ caches, then I'm not sure that they qualify as "intrusions", as any other cache placed there would likely also be a T4+.   They're only taking up space on the map for other T4+ caches.

I don't think that is necessarily so.  A cache placed up a tree or half way up a cliff is taking up space around the base of the tree or the base of the cliff.

Link to comment

Here's a thought.  New challenge caches are required to have a challenge checker.  The challenge checker has a difficulty rating expressed as a percentage.  This rating is calculated based on the number of people who have qualified for the challenge.

Would it make sense to assume that any challenge rated below (say) 75% is deemed to be appealing so there is no need to provide a list of people?

Edited by Gill & Tony
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

Here's a thought.  New challenge caches are required to have a challenge checker.  The challenge checker has a difficulty rating expressed as a percentage.  This rating is calculated based on the number of people who have qualified for the challenge.

Would it make sense to assume that any challenge rated below (say) 75% is deemed to be appealing so there is no need to provide a list of people?

Good idea, but the checker rating is only calculated after the cache has been published and typically takes a few weeks to collect enough data for it to display anything.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Good idea, but the checker rating is only calculated after the cache has been published and typically takes a few weeks to collect enough data for it to display anything.

Ah!.  I hadn't realised that.  Maybe, if the idea was adopted, Project-GC could be persuaded to do a first-pass analysis as part of the checker build.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:
16 hours ago, frinklabs said:

By  letting the CO rate the difficulty of the Challenge, the onus on having to qualitatively assess its viability based on information provided by the CO is removed from the reviewer. 

Like the D and T ratings.  Imagine if the reviewers were asked to accept/reject submissions based on the assumption that a "reasonable" number of cachers had to be able to find that evil hide or achieve that tree climb?

Under the current system, the CO does rate the difficulty of the challenge.  What is the difference?  The required checker also rates the difficulty based on the number of people who qualify.  Why add another layer of complexity?

 

A cache's D rating is supposed to be for the difficulty of the hide.

The layer of complexity already exists and the extant system does not accommodate it.

Challenges are the only exception to the ALR rule.   That ALR should have a metric (and its own log type).

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, frinklabs said:

 

A cache's D rating is supposed to be for the difficulty of the hide.

The layer of complexity already exists and the extant system does not accommodate it.

Challenges are the only exception to the ALR rule.   That ALR should have a metric (and its own log type).

Actually, the Help Centre says:

Quote

We recommend that the difficulty rating be based on the challenge, the terrain rating on the challenge cache location. (new 2016)

 

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
1 hour ago, frinklabs said:

A cache's D rating is supposed to be for the difficulty of the hide.

Just Plain Wrong.

The new Hiding guidelines do not mention difficulty or terrain rating, but the Help Center article does. It states that the difficulty should be based on:

Quote

Effort needed to solve and find the cache and logbook at GZ.

Clearly, puzzle cache difficulties are to be based on the difficulty of the puzzle, and D for traditionals on the difficulty of finding the cache container.  Since a challenge cache is a variant of a mystery or puzzle cache, the D rating should be based upon the difficulty of meeting the challenge requirements.

Now, there is an ongoing argument about the terrain ratings for challenge caches.  Maybe that is what you were thinking of. That issue is less clearly-defined.

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

the D rating should be based upon the difficulty of meeting the challenge requirements.

This is true unless the hide is more difficult then the challenge. Not to long ago I made Wherigo and I didn't mean for the hide to be difficult.  Or the Wherigo. Turns out the hide is for some reason almost impossible to find.  Even though I say where to look in the cartridge.  I hated to do it but I had to up the D rating.  I don't want people to think the Wherigo is going to be difficult but the hide needed the D to be upgraded.  Now I need to go replace the hide so it is easier to find and then I might make the same hide somewhere else with a high D rating as it is obviously crazy hard to find.

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...