Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
beny258

Challenge cache type

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

These are challenge  caches in my area. They've decreased by about a third since the moratorium. Note the power trails of challenge caches. 

 

If they gave challenge caches their own icon, in my area guaranteed this would double, if not quadruple. Many of the people left playing here, are into stats/grid-filling/icon-collecting and providing caches for those numbers collectors. 

 

One of the best reasons for the forums here to exist is that they give people who are committed to keeping people from Having Fun The Wrong Way a place to vent harmlessly.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

This I find is the big dilemma when creating a challenge cache. For pre-qualifiers there's no challenge so it's essentially just a traditional, even the bookwork we used to have to do to tabulate our qualifying finds has been automated by the checkers. But at the other end of the scale are those who'll never have a hope of qualifying and for those they're just ignore-list fodder. Streak challenges will be easiest for new players since they'll have a high proportion of local unfound caches, whereas for someone like me who's exhausted all the close-hanging fruit, the travel would be prohibitive for anything more than a few days. Most other challenges, the grid-filling, calendar-filling and find-x-caches-with-these-qualities ones especially, become easier with time in the game. When creating a new challenge, finding that sweet spot to set the bar so it's challenging but not too challenging for players in the region is tricky.

 

My Slow Cooked challenge seems to have been reasonably successful, with a good mix of pre-qualifiers and those who've worked on qualifying amongst its 18 finders, but my Nemophilist challenge looks like being a dismal failure with its only two finders (both in the week after publication last October) being easy pre-qualifiers who came up from Sydney to find the physical cache. Curiously there've been over a hundred positive checker runs on that one but only those two have turned into finds.

I qualify for Slow Cooked, but with Nemophilist I still need four more for Agility. I have plenty of caches for the others, in a couple of cases, thousands more than needed. I am not much of a tree climber.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I qualify for Slow Cooked, but with Nemophilist I still need four more for Agility. I have plenty of caches for the others, in a couple of cases, thousands more than needed. I am not much of a tree climber.

 

I'm not much of a tree-climber either so my only caches in trees are in hollows at ground level and I've only found 17 with the tree-climbing attribute. Few of the T4s around here are in trees, most get that rating from the ruggedness of the hike. Which might be why so few of the Nemophilist qualifiers are interested in making the find, either they're put off by the T4 hike to GZ, all their qualifying T4s having come from tree-climbs, or they don't want to drive to this out-of-the-way corner of the Central Coast and spend a few hours hiking just for one smiley.

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

 

I would suggest that you read the challenge cache guideline once again because most of yours examples aren't publishable.

 

 

Doesn't matter. I want to list a challenge cache I'll find something else.

It is like a "normal" geocache. If your place is too close to another geocache one you'll hide it somewhere else. (I want to place my cache here as it is a beautiful place. Impossible? I hide it somewhere else just to hide one. Sounds incorrect to you? Same for challenges.)

 

But to end this discussion for me: I don't care what happens. I didn't want to say anything against challenge caches I just wanted to give this one thing that might speak against a new icon. Just an idea what might happen and what I wouldn't like. As I am going to fulfill several of the upcoming challenges I hunt them - +1 for me so yeah! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, frostengel said:

Doesn't matter. I want to list a challenge cache I'll find something else.

It is like a "normal" geocache. If your place is too close to another geocache one you'll hide it somewhere else. (I want to place my cache here as it is a beautiful place. Impossible? I hide it somewhere else just to hide one. Sounds incorrect to you? Same for challenges.)

 

Maybe I'm the odd one out, but for me the location always drives the cache, not the other way around. I've never thought I want to hide a cache now find somewhere to put it, rather in the course of my ramblings and poring over satellite images, I occasionally see somewhere that I think might make an interesting cache and then set about coming up with a cache theme inspired by the location. If it turns out I can't put a cache there, either because it's too close to another or there are permission problems, the cache is shelved. I might reuse some of my ideas in a later cache but at its core that later cache will still be driven by its own location. For example, the criterion for my Nemophilist Challenge (agility, endurance, sure-footedness, watchfulness and awe) were all inspired by aspects of the journey to GZ. A different location would have resulted in quite a different challenge cache or, more likely, not even a challenge cache at all. My first inkling that the location might spawn a challenge was when I was scrambling over the rocks thinking about how challenging the hike is.

 

So a separate icon for challenge caches isn't going to make me rush out and hide more challenges, in fact as a CO it wouldn't make any difference at all. The benefits of a separate icon come as a seeker, allowing challenges to be more visible on the map and more easily included or excluded from searches.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe I'm the odd one out, but for me the location always drives the cache, not the other way around.

 

And that's exactly what I wanted to say. There is the place, the mystery idea, the multi stage you want to show - and then there is the cache. That's the way it should be in my eyes so we totally agree here.

Unfortunately many cachers think other way round - they want to hide a cache (traditional, mystery, multi ...) and then they go to find the place, create the riddle .... That's the way it shouldn't be.

 

Sorry, if my post didn't say that - it should have but perhaps my language is too limited to express myself.

 

Then  I wanted to translate this into the challenge cache idea:

good challenge idea => challenge cache

versus

challenge cache => any idea just to have one

 

Perhapt that makes my post more understandable. Sorry for any misunderstanding!

Jochen

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/2/2020 at 8:32 PM, The Leprechauns said:

So yeah, I love challenge caches.  And among other reasons for not monkeying with them, switching challenges to their own cache type will cause me to become UNqualified for many challenges I'm qualified for today.  Retroactive changes are hard.  Who would spade through them and make the edits?  Cache owners cannot change their cache type after publication, and a robot cannot simply change the type for every mystery cache with the word "challenge" in the name, because there are plenty of those that are not true challenge caches (e.g. "My Puzzle Challenge").

 

Changing type has a far deeper problem.

More than half of all published challenges pre-date the moratorium with the substantial rule changes it brought. It's roughly 16,000 pre-date and 13,000 post-date. 

 

The old are grandfathered Mystery.   Many of them would not meet the current guidelines; based on text or numbers, anything time limited, all location restrictions not currently allowed (DeLorme, radius, blackout, state park etc) date restricting finds, reviewers, benchmarks, trackables,  etc. The list of what couldn't fall under a new type is huge. What then? they stay grandfathered as Mystery and the others change type? What a mess.

 

 Search, all Mystery with keyword Challenge - some old challenges don't have this text, and some mystery not-challenge do - however you'll see about 29,000 total  https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?ot=4&types=8&kw=challenge

search with filter pre 21 April 2015 https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?ot=4&types=8&kw=challenge&pbd=2015-04-21

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

 

Changing type has a far deeper problem.

More than half of all published challenges pre-date the moratorium with the substantial rule changes it brought. It's roughly 16,000 pre-date and 13,000 post-date. 

 

The old are grandfathered Mystery.   Many of them would not meet the current guidelines; based on text or numbers, anything time limited, all location restrictions not currently allowed (DeLorme, radius, blackout, state park etc) date restricting finds, reviewers, benchmarks, trackables,  etc. The list of what couldn't fall under a new type is huge. What then? they stay grandfathered as Mystery and the others change type? What a mess.

 

 Search, all Mystery with keyword Challenge - some old challenges don't have this text, and some mystery not-challenge do - however you'll see about 29,000 total  https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?ot=4&types=8&kw=challenge

search with filter pre 21 April 2015 https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?ot=4&types=8&kw=challenge&pbd=2015-04-21


I understood that Project-GC is already maintaining a list of Challenges.  (I’ve no idea how accurate it is, but I assume it uses the combined knowledge of the community to regulate.)  Why couldn’t this be used to recategorise all existing Mystery/Challenges as a new Challenge type?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, IceColdUK said:


I understood that Project-GC is already maintaining a list of Challenges.  (I’ve no idea how accurate it is, but I assume it uses the combined knowledge of the community to regulate.)  Why couldn’t this be used to recategorise all existing Mystery/Challenges as a new Challenge type?

Because this is how they filter for them:

Quote

This is a map of all caches of the type Unknown cache and that has a name containing the word Challenge. This means that there will be some matches that actually aren't challenge caches on the map.

 

Edited by TmdAndGG
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/4/2020 at 3:23 PM, frostengel said:

 

On 7/3/2020 at 12:27 PM, frostengel said:

Just two examples:

 

1) When the virtual caches (1.0) were given to some geocachers I heard several cachers complain as those cachers were allowed to have a virtual icon but not them.

2) Many German (not only us!) cachers are unable to create a Wherigo cache (me too!) but they want to own one (not me, as along as I don't have an idea and the knowledge to make one). In the recent years many "reverse wherigos" have been published - and with many I mean MANY. It's a cartrdige that can be used by any cacher without any knowledge about wherigos; the basic idea is to find the cache and the cartridge only tells you the distance to the box. The creator made it so everyone can make his own "reverse Wherigo" so many cachers do that. I have taken a look in my Wherigo founds: 38/119 (about 1/3) of the wherigos is such a reverse cache. And it's getting more and more.

 

These aren't related to challenge caches and are different situations, especially your first example.  These don't prove or disprove your point that a new icon will result in a flood of "new" challenges in your area so that COs can have that new icon in their collection of caches they have placed.  All they show is that COs complained about not getting a virtual.   In fact, the first one was extremely limited in number and your area wasn't flooded with new virtuals but held in check by the limited release.    The 2nd point is closer in scope but a new icon challenge will be hard to flood the area due to duplicate challenges not being permitted as well as the senseless challenges being pretty much removed from the list of challenges that could be created.  You're not addressing the points, only bringing up ancillary points that neither prove nor disprove your suggestion that your area will get flooded with challenges if a new icon is introduced.

 

On 7/4/2020 at 3:23 PM, frostengel said:

I don't know what will happen but I can assume. And I think (!) that more challenges will come and - and that is the main problem! - the quality will decrease.

 

How do you know they will decrease the quality of the challenges that are published?  Since they can't be duplicate challenges that means that any new challenges will be different.  I'm sure some will not be very good but I'm betting that some will be good.  You seem to believe that ALL of them will be worse.  Why aren't you making this argument about traditional caches?  These caches FAR outnumber all the other cache types combined yet more and more are coming out.  Some are bad, some are not very good, some are OK, some are good, and some are great.  Why do you assume that all of them will be below an acceptable level?  Again, you go to the worst case scenario.  As to your "supporter" you quoted, there's no way she can "guarantee" that the numbers will double or quadruple unless she's the one that decides to flood the area with new challenges.  She's doing the same thing you are - going straight to the worst case scenario.  There's no acknowledgement of the possibility that a best case scenario will come about (NO new challenges published) or anything up to the worst case scenario - anywhere from 1 to whatever number you might believe is the worst case scenario.  The worst case scenario is a possibility but it's much more likely that it will fall somewhere in between best and worse case.

 

On 7/4/2020 at 3:23 PM, frostengel said:

they will think of a "challenge" just to...

 

And it will have to be different enough from the challenges already published in the area in order to get published as well as meet the current guidelines that specify what can and cannot be done when creating a challenge.  It's not going to be as easy as publishing a traditional cache as anyone will have to get a checker made, provide a list of cachers who qualify, make sure that an existing challenge isn't already in the area, and then submit it for review and hope the reviewer agrees that all is fine in order to publish it.  Someone already said it but many of the examples in your post after this quote above aren't allowed.

 

23 hours ago, frostengel said:

 

23 hours ago, frostengel said:

Is this a useful challenge for everyone?

 

 

Why should a challenge appeal to everyone?  Let me phrase it slightly different because the analogy is the same.  Why should different types of caches appeal to everyone?  Not every cache appeals to everyone the same way so you can't use that logic as a point to raise in support of your claim that a new icon would flood the area with new, unappealing challenges.  Some people love multis while others despise them. Some people love puzzles while others despise them.  Some people love power trails while others despise them.  I don't see anyone calling for multis, puzzles, or power trails to be placed only to appeal to everyone.  That's an unrealistic expectation.

 

What makes a challenge "useful" anyway? Who determines that?  You?  Do you mean "useful" to you?

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, frostengel said:

There is the place, the mystery idea, the multi stage you want to show - and then there is the cache........Unfortunately many cachers think other way round - they want to hide a cache (traditional, mystery, multi ...) and then they go to find the place, create the riddle .... That's the way it shouldn't be.

 

9 hours ago, frostengel said:

Then  I wanted to translate this into the challenge cache idea:

good challenge idea => challenge cache

versus

challenge cache => any idea just to have one

 

This is the way it's ALWAYS been.  Some cachers hide caches because they want to hide caches and could care less about the location, the idea, or the container.  Some cachers want to hide caches because they have a great idea, a great container or a great location.  It's NEVER been an activity where all the caches have had a great location, a great idea, or a great hide.  There was never a "golden age" of caching.  That's a myth.  In the early days, although there were far less caches than there are now, there were bad caches, OK caches, and good caches.

 

Turkey Run Stash is the oldest unarchived cache in Indiana and has a great location along with a great container (an ammo can).  It was placed to bring you to the location, and the cache was a nice bonus.  Modoc Stash (oldest in South Carolina) is a nice hike in the woods (although apparently there's been some cutting or a fire somewhat recently).  I'm looking forward to kayaking out to Power Island (oldest in Michigan) in a couple weeks.  Geocache (oldest in Arizona) is a nice hike in the desert with an ammo can at the end.  These are examples of caches that are really good and tend to fit the mold of how you believe a cache should be placed.  

 

Mingo (oldest cache) isn't a great cache.  It's on the side of a road, just off an interstate exit.  Indiana's First (oldest in Indiana) isn't a great cache either.  It used to be an ammo can (something else now unless it's been replaced) but it's across from an airport with a short walk from parking.  Beaver Cache (oldest in Georgia) is just behind a neighborhood tennis court and pool along a property fence line.   They didn't hide these caches because they had a good idea or a good location.  They hid them because they wanted to hide a cache.  Unlike most of the caches published in the first couple years, these have managed to survive, not because they're great caches or great ideas or great containers (or some combination), but because they're old. 

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

All they show is that COs complained about not getting a virtual.

 

Please read exactly: they complained about others getting the rare icon.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

Please read exactly: they complained about others getting the rare icon.

 

And?  Virtuals are a much rarer type of cache than challenge caches are (although I'm not sure how much rarer).  Virtuals hadn't been allowed in how many years and now suddenly a small amount of them were made available to a limited group of cachers.  Of course they're complaining.  I'm guessing that more of the complaining was about who got one as well as the way in which they were rewarded rather than the fact that they got the virtual icon to add to their list of caches as a CO.  They weren't jealous of the CO for having that icon; they were jealous of the fact that they weren't chosen and someone else was.

 

You seem to think that having a rare icon available means that everyone will want one.  I know plenty of COs who have no interest in challenges, have never placed them and never will, even if it means that they can get a new icon to add to their list of owned caches.  Unless I can come up with some new challenge I've not thought of to date, I'm not going to publish one just to say I own a new icon cache.  I can think of some other cachers who will absolutely try to publish a new icon challenge but seeing as how they already have quite a few challenges out, they will be hard pressed to come up with an idea that's different enough to warrant publication.  I expect you'll get a bump in the number of new challenges published should this happen, above your current rate.  Some will be good while others will be bad and the rest will be just OK.  What is your current rate of challenge caches in your area?  What percent do they make up of ALL the caches in your area? What percent of the COs put out the challenges?

 

The only way I can see that you'll get a flood of new challenges published is if COs archive their old ones to make room for new ones.  Is cache saturation an issue in your area?  If so, that will limit new challenge caches as well.  You can't place very many if there aren't many places to hide a cache.

 

I'm not saying that your theory is wrong.  I'm saying that it is taking it to an extreme expectation rather than a realistic expectation.  The situation you're describing is a worst case scenario - everyone will want to hide one in order to get the icon and they're all going to be bad and low quality because they're more concerned about getting the icon than they are about the challenge itself.  I'm not saying that it's a best case scenario either - NO one will want to hide one.  It's all conjecture at this time (and an unlikely development as well) but a realistic expectation revolves around the notion that you will get a surge of new caches published and that some of those new challenges will be because the CO wants to add the icon to their hidden list of caches and some of those new challenges will be because someone wants to publish something that's new to the area.  A few of them will be great, some will be good, some will be OK, and some will be bad, just like the current challenges that are published.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TmdAndGG said:
6 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I assume it uses the combined knowledge of the community to regulate

Because this is how they filter for them:

Quote

This is a map of all caches of the type Unknown cache and that has a name containing the word Challenge. This means that there will be some matches that actually aren't challenge caches on the map.


Seems I assumed wrong.  Thanks for clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

You seem to think that having a rare icon available means that everyone will want one.  I know plenty of COs who have no interest in challenges, have never placed them and never will, even if it means that they can get a new icon to add to their list of owned caches.

 

Wherigos are a relatively rare icon but there are no restrictions on creating them. Yet in my whole state (New South Wales, Australia), there are only 23 cachers who have placed any. 16 of those have only placed the one and the highest number owned by a single CO is 5. There are a total of 34 wherigos in the state.

 

Even multis seem to have limited appeal, with only 432 COs owning the total of 980 in this state. In this part of the world at least, I can't see any evidence at all of a significant demand by COs to collect icons for the sake of having as many as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
 
Quote

 

  2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

All they show is that COs complained about not getting a virtual.

 

Please read exactly: they complained about others getting the rare icon.

 

 

Exactly. I think frostengel made it quite clear.

 

Before new virtuals were rewarded there were lots of comments about how much people loved virtuals and how much they wanted them back. When GCHQ brought back a limited number by rewarding 4000 of them, the immediate complaint was,  'I didn't get one, it's not fair.' The key issue was ownership. 

 

Many were asking for a chance to have a virtual, but they weren't saying 'I have this great spot for a virtual I want to bring people to'. 

 

They were upset that they could not be a virtual (icon) owner.

 

 

 

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Before new virtuals were rewarded there were lots of comments about how much people loved virtuals and how much they wanted them back. When GCHQ brought back a limited number by rewarding 4000 of them, the immediate complaint was,  'I didn't get one, it's not fair.' The key issue was ownership. 

 

Many were asking for a chance to have a virtual, but they weren't saying 'I have this great spot for a virtual I want to bring people to'. 

 

They were upset that they could not be a virtual (icon) owner.

 

You say many, but how many were really upset that they couldn't own one? In the grand scheme of things, amongst the hundreds of thousands of COs who own active caches, how many were upset enough that they voiced complaints? It doesn't take too many complainants to make a lot of noise on the forums and in places like FB. From what I recall, most of the complaints were about flaws in the selection process rather than I didn't get one and a lot of those issues were addressed in the second round of releases.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

'I didn't get one, it's not fair.' The key issue was ownership.

 

The key issue was NOT ownership.  It was about how that ownership was determined.  The thread you posted devolved into a, "Why did this cacher get one?  I have much better CO statistics than they do.  This is a kick in the teeth for those COs who have maintained their caches for a long time."  Yes, someone said kick to the teeth.  "It's a bit of a kick to the teeth of cache owners who have maintained caches for over ten years. "  

 

The second part was the main complaint that spurred the first part.  They thought the selection process wasn't fair because many of them felt they were worthier than someone else who was awarded the virtual.  The thread you posted only has 2 posts out of almost 350 (I went and reread the thread) where someone has said they wanted the opportunity to place a virtual cache.  Neither of those mentioned anything about getting a rare icon added to their CO tally as a reason for why they wanted to place a virtual.  No one in that thread said anything about any CO getting a new icon added to their CO list of caches owned.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

The key issue was NOT ownership.  It was about how that ownership was determined.  The thread you posted devolved into a, "Why did this cacher get one?  I have much better CO statistics than they do.  This is a kick in the teeth for those COs who have maintained their caches for a long time."  Yes, someone said kick to the teeth.  "It's a bit of a kick to the teeth of cache owners who have maintained caches for over ten years. "  

 

The second part was the main complaint that spurred the first part.  They thought the selection process wasn't fair because many of them felt they were worthier than someone else who was awarded the virtual.  The thread you posted only has 2 posts out of almost 350 (I went and reread the thread) where someone has said they wanted the opportunity to place a virtual cache.  Neither of those mentioned anything about getting a rare icon added to their CO tally as a reason for why they wanted to place a virtual.  No one in that thread said anything about any CO getting a new icon added to their CO list of caches owned.

I too thought it weird that beginners with hardly any experience (and possibly more likely to give up the game), got virtuals to publish. I wasn't too worried at the time personally though not to get a virtual to publish. I wouldn't mind a virtual now though, as I have thought of a couple of places to place them, where it's difficult to put physical caches.

 I think virtuals are often wasted though, when they are placed in places heavy with other caches. They would be better placed in remote places, where there are no or very few caches. The CO doesn't need to live near them, as there is no physical cache to service. Tourist spots with no caches would be good for them. Although they would work on remote hard to get to places too (Mt Everest type places, though that has an Earth cache), very few people would get to enjoy them though in those sorts of places.

Share this post


Link to post

 

4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 This is a kick in the teeth for those COs who have maintained their caches for a long time.

 

In that thread it turns out that many of those COs were not actually maintaining those caches. They had strings of  DNFs, NMs, no OMs, reviewer notes and disables. 

 

I see that you were rewarded a Virtual. And looking at your stats I'd say well deserved. You have a reasonable amount of hides that you look after without getting a reviewer involved. You even check your caches just to check if they're still in good order. 

 

4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

The second part was the main complaint that spurred the first part.  They thought the selection process wasn't fair because many of them felt they were worthier than someone else who was awarded the virtual.  The thread you posted only has 2 posts out of almost 350 (I went and reread the thread) where someone has said they wanted the opportunity to place a virtual cache.  Neither of those mentioned anything about getting a rare icon added to their CO tally as a reason for why they wanted to place a virtual.  No one in that thread said anything about any CO getting a new icon added to their CO list of caches owned.

 

The anti-algorithm talk and  'why don't I get to own a virtual' protests spoke volumes. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I too thought it weird that beginners with hardly any experience (and possibly more likely to give up the game), got virtuals to publish.

 

Really? There were 21 Virtual Rewards 1.0 caches published in NSW (there are none in the ACT, by the way), these are the statistics of their owners. Note the high number of FPs per hide in each case:

 

Joined   Finds   Hides   FPs

  2009    3990      123   1647

  2013    1781        60     635

  2013      298          8     186

  2011    2323       27      272

  2011    2447       63    1700

  2005    4820       16      396

  2010      349         5      242

  2012      245         5      218

  2007  17197    146      958

  2014    7018    108      727

  2006  10730      91      244

  2004  10492   138     1146

  2015    2648      22      358

  2011      446      34      296

  2011    2302     15       173

  2011  22912     84    1094

  2013    2170     32      698

  2011    8384     66    1714

  2013    1743     21      339

  2007    6986     30      638

  2010   1674      14      275

 

I don't see any beginners with hardly any experience in amongst that lot. Many of them are stalwarts of the game and in my opinion were worthy recipients, far more worthy than the likes of me.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Really? There were 21 Virtual Rewards 1.0 caches published in NSW (there are none in the ACT, by the way), these are the statistics of their owners. Note the high number of FPs per hide in each case:

 

Joined   Finds   Hides   FPs

  2009    3990      123   1647

  2013    1781        60     635

  2013      298          8     186

  2011    2323       27      272

  2011    2447       63    1700

  2005    4820       16      396

  2010      349         5      242

  2012      245         5      218

  2007  17197    146      958

  2014    7018    108      727

  2006  10730      91      244

  2004  10492   138     1146

  2015    2648      22      358

  2011      446      34      296

  2011    2302     15       173

  2011  22912     84    1094

  2013    2170     32      698

  2011    8384     66    1714

  2013    1743     21      339

  2007    6986     30      638

  2010   1674      14      275

 

I don't see any beginners with hardly any experience in amongst that lot. Many of them are stalwarts of the game and in my opinion were worthy recipients, far more worthy than the likes of me.

I can't go back to the first round and check how many finds they had at the time, but I seem to remember some with very few finds. Is that their number of finds now after a couple or so of years has passed, or the number of finds they had when they published their virtual?

I would still consider finds in the three figures not many finds. I didn't publish my first cache until I had found more than 800 caches, and still considered myself at the time, a beginner then.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I can't go back to the first round and check how many finds they had at the time, but I seem to remember some with very few finds.

 

I recall a couple examples like that being whined about in the forums.

 

I also recall those examples turning out to be the secondary accounts (i.e., not the accounts where they logged finds or listed hides) of volunteers who received virtual rewards because of their volunteer status.

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, niraD said:

being whined about in the forums

Basically I considered I was commenting on what was said before, not whining (as it appears you are inferring).  At the time I didn't care at all that I didn't get a virtual cache.

 

"I too thought it weird that beginners with hardly any experience (and possibly more likely to give up the game), got virtuals to publish."

 

Yes I thought it weird. Hardly a whine.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I can't go back to the first round and check how many finds they had at the time, but I seem to remember some with very few finds. Is that their number of finds now after a couple or so of years has passed, or the number of finds they had when they published their virtual?

I would still consider finds in the three figures not many finds. I didn't publish my first cache until I had found more than 800 caches, and still considered myself at the time, a beginner then.

 

Those are the current find counts. Remember you live in an area with lots of caches so it's easy to get thousands of finds without having to travel far. The entire Central Coast region has only 552 caches and there are many other regions with far fewer, and in those a few hundred finds would be a fair achievement especially if there are a fair mix of cache types and D/T ratings amongst them. It took me six years to get to 1000 finds and it will likely be at least a decade before I get to 2000 at my current rate, as most of my finds now are at least an hour's travelling from home. This was my D/T grid after 20 finds:

image.png.763df0e71e61b00a8c499af771a8942b.png

 

If I recall correctly, the selection algorithm for the virtual rewards 1.0 focussed mainly on hides, including percentage favourite points and aggregated CHS as two of the documented factors. Rewarding people with lots of finds would have just handed them out to those with easy access to power trails and saw the virtuals placed in regions that already have lots of caches.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Basically I considered I was commenting on what was said before, not whining (as it appears you are inferring).  At the time I didn't care at all that I didn't get a virtual cache.

 

It appears another person was implying that you were whining.  You, perhaps, inferred that implication.

 

Common mistake.  Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/2/2020 at 9:53 PM, barefootjeff said:

By the same reasoning, puzzle caches should have the final coordinates visible for those who just want a smiley for finding the container, with a separate "Solved It!" log for those who solve the puzzle. Or the same for multis, where you can just go straight to the final for your +1 or visit all the waypoints so you get your extra "Visited Waypoints!" log.

 

No, because as I said, there is no ALR for a puzzle cache. You don't have to solve the puzzle to log the cache found if you signed the log. You DO have to qualify for a challenge cache, even if you've signed the log. (and this is why that thread is constantly linked in these discussions, because the same points keep coming up and rehashed, even though they've already been addressed)

 

On 7/3/2020 at 9:12 AM, coachstahly said:

think about the perspective of those who don't care about (puzzle caches, multis, or Wherigos) and just want to find geocaches.  They can't see why they should have to (solve a puzzle, find multiple stages, or play an online virtual cartridge) to qualify for a final stage just to log the geocache they want to find.

 

They don't have to solve a puzzle or find multiple stages or play an online virtual cartridge in order to log the geocache they want to find.

They do have to qualify for a challenge cache they want to find.

That's the definition of the ALR which only exists for challenge caches, and that's why the argument and suggestion applies only to challenge caches.

 

On 7/3/2020 at 3:40 AM, The Jester said:

There can be several reasons why an accidental find can never be logged.  Archived & locked or an unpublished cache (a friend did that looking of one of mine years ago, scored a nice ammo can that never did get listed) are two cases where they can never be logged

 

Those are entirely different cases to a cache that is in good, findable, loggable condition. NO cache that's archived and locked can be logged. An unpublished cache can be logged once it's published. But once a cache is in good standing and equally findable like other caches, the Challenge Cache is the ONLY physical one with an ALR to "find it, sign it, log it online"

 

 

On 7/3/2020 at 3:40 AM, The Jester said:

So we need to consider those who don't like the rules.  Really?

 

I've always stood in the middle. We don't NEED to consider people who don't like the rules. But why MUST they be pushed aside? Why not discuss? That's why there was a thread to discuss - not dismiss - ideas.  Whether I agree with an idea or not, why not discuss merits? I've already said (numerous times) I'm fine with the challenge system as it is -- BUT there are issues and complaints from people that raised an issue, a quandry, so why not work through it and see if there is a solution that can make more people happy, rather than just dismissing them outright? In some threads I often help by providing workarounds to problems - but I realize that a workaround isn't always a solution which the OP may have been hoping for a discussion towards. The forums can be filled with very strong voices both for or against certain things. The forums would be much more welcoming if more were willing to discuss than deride or dismiss.

 

On 7/3/2020 at 4:05 AM, The Jester said:

I'm with Jeff, the whole point of a Challenge Cache is to challenge people to take on the task(s) needed to qualify.  Separate that from the cache hide and you have ruined it. 

 

Again, it's not separate from the cache hide. It's distinguishing the ALR from the cache hide. All recognition for completing the challenge is still provided, but now it's as a distinct automated statistic. Yep, we can track our challenge completions right now if we want, but it's all combined with an almost arbitrary distinction, and you have to do it manually. And people who don't like challenges have to track their own challenge-cache-signed-but-not-qualifieds in the same way.  Their argument (not ours) is to ask why there is no mechanism for recognizing - as with all the other physical caches - that they found it and signed it, yet can't log it online?  It's easy to dismiss that argument, but why dismiss?  Discussion led to the proposed feature, which as I've often said, likely will never come to fruition; yet that dismissive attitude continues over to that idea.

 

Perhaps, personally, I'd rather hear people say "I don't like the idea" than "There is no problem."  You know the saying how it feels worse to be completely ignored than bullied? Same kind of idea :P People with problems express their concerns, and being hand-waved away is more of an insult than at least being listening to and seeing if there's a way.

 

On 7/4/2020 at 11:03 AM, L0ne.R said:

If they gave challenge caches their own icon, in my area guaranteed this would double, if not quadruple. Many of the people left playing here, are into stats/grid-filling/icon-collecting and providing caches for those numbers collectors. 

 

Yep, agreed. I'm not an advocate for challenges having "their own icon" per se, but for a solution that allows people who hate challenges and want to ignore them that would allow them to still find and log all such caches as if they were regular physical caches (with no recognition for challenge qualification); while allowing people who do love challenges the opportunity to still qualify for them, find their host caches, and receive due statistical recognition -- neither of whom affect each others' "way of playing the game".

The only people who would be affected are cache owners who do not want people to be able to log a challenge cache online without qualifying. But if the challenge mentality switched to challenge recognition rather than merely physical cache logging smilies, then that would be addressed.  Cache finds on physical caches could then actually mean "caches found" and challenge stats would show actual challenge-specific qualifications.  We all know how many threads there are arguing about what a "Find" actually means :P

 

We see a similar attitude still around with souvenirs - hiding them isn't enough; some people want the ability to delete them outright from their profile. Similarly, people who find challenge caches may not want recognition for completing the challenge, but want it recorded that they found the cache. There may be workarounds, but why not discuss a system benefits everyone?

 

On 7/4/2020 at 8:16 PM, Lynx Humble said:

With the fact they needs to be different from neighboring one it's pretty unlikely their numbers would raises that much.

I checked some of the challenge and holy cow with my 12 000 finds I wouldn't be able to qualify for most of it.... I am surprised that your Reviewer allow that.

I run the number for Nova Scotia we have 67 challenges for 22 008 caches (including 153 lab) = 0,3%

 

Ontario is wild with challenges. Many are fairly average, but there are quite a few advanced well-rounded and high-count challenges as this local community has quite a number of very advanced geocachers and those who are willing to travel great distances to qualify and to go geocaching, thus finding qualifying geocachers isn't all that hard. Our reviewers have had to deal almost literally with 'hell' given the size and scope of the Ontario "region" and how much people want to push the limits. Our region has requirements specific to us, and the reviewers do an amazing job.

 

And in case there's still any doubt about my love for challenge caching, we recently launched a new challenge caching podcast for which I'm a host. I'm 100% fine if the system continues as is. Personally, it doesn't bother me. But I recognize that the system can still be improved. And hopefully in a way that can be a benefit to everyone, and still provide great - potentially more - experiences for the entire community.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/5/2020 at 4:17 PM, TmdAndGG said:
On 7/5/2020 at 12:43 PM, IceColdUK said:


I understood that Project-GC is already maintaining a list of Challenges.  (I’ve no idea how accurate it is, but I assume it uses the combined knowledge of the community to regulate.)  Why couldn’t this be used to recategorise all existing Mystery/Challenges as a new Challenge type?

Because this is how they filter for them:

Quote

This is a map of all caches of the type Unknown cache and that has a name containing the word Challenge. This means that there will be some matches that actually aren't challenge caches on the map.

 

 

Yep. That's why I keep two bookmark lists for all challenge caches in Ontario. Post-moratorium - easy. Pre-moratorium - notsoeasy. There may be geocaches published in both that are not challenges while having "challenge" in the title, and there may be published pre-moratorium that do not qualify as a "challenge" today.  The only way to guarantee seeing all challenge caches available (assuming a human has verified them all) is a custom List.  However, the outliers are few and far between. But they're there. IIRC, I think I could count on one hand the number of outliers in Ontario.  PGC provides an almost-perfect source to find active challenge caches, post-moratorium, and a decent way pre-moratorium (those that have had checkers created for them, combined with the imperfect search for "challenge" Unknowns)

 

 

Edited by thebruce0
clarified grammar
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Again, it's not separate from the cache hide. It's distinguishing the ALR from the cache hide. All recognition for completing the challenge is still provided, but now it's as a distinct automated statistic. Yep, we can track our challenge completions right now if we want, but it's all combined with an almost arbitrary distinction, and you have to do it manually. And people who don't like challenges have to track their own challenge-cache-signed-but-not-qualifieds in the same way.  Their argument (not ours) is to ask why there is no mechanism for recognizing - as with all the other physical caches - that they found it and signed it, yet can't log it online?  It's easy to dismiss that argument, but why dismiss?  Discussion led to the proposed feature, which as I've often said, likely will never come to fruition; yet that dismissive attitude continues over to that idea.

 

Sorry for highlighting part of your response, but it's the piece that caught my eye. Actually, no, you don't have to track challenges manually nor do you have to track the signed but not yet qualifieds manually. Both of these are nicely tracked on Project-GC for paying members. If you're serious about challenges then the Project-GC tools for challenges are essential.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, JustFindingOurWay said:

Sorry for highlighting part of your response, but it's the piece that caught my eye. Actually, no, you don't have to track challenges manually nor do you have to track the signed but not yet qualifieds manually. Both of these are nicely tracked on Project-GC for paying members. If you're serious about challenges then the Project-GC tools for challenges are essential.

 

They track them the same way - because there is no manner to track them automatically.  Any that are stored in PGC as challenge caches - yes. But apart from that, they need to be flagged as challenge caches outside HQ's database because there is no "challenge cache" property.  So, sure, you could rely on PGC to give you those results, or do it yourself; both ways are just as effective. It's manual somewhere, and that's the point.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yep, agreed. I'm not an advocate for challenges having "their own icon" per se, but for a solution that allows people who hate challenges and want to ignore them that would allow them to still find and log all such caches as if they were regular physical caches (with no recognition for challenge qualification); while allowing people who do love challenges the opportunity to still qualify for them, find their host caches, and receive due statistical recognition -- neither of whom affect each others' "way of playing the game".

The only people who would be affected are cache owners who do not want people to be able to log a challenge cache online without qualifying. But if the challenge mentality switched to challenge recognition rather than merely physical cache logging smilies, then that would be addressed.  Cache finds on physical caches could then actually mean "caches found" and challenge stats would show actual challenge-specific qualifications.  We all know how many threads there are arguing about what a "Find" actually means :P

 

 

I'm not sure if you're suggesting there be a separate statistic on the Statistics page showing Challenges Qualified, but I imagine if there was there'd be a sudden flurry of trivial challenge caches so people could bolster that statistic.

 

I guess I still don't get why people need to be able to log finds on challenge caches as if they were just traditionals. When I look at the map of the Watagan Mountains I see those two challenge caches catching my eye, luring me, niggling me with their question Are you up to the challenge? If they became yellow smileys just from finding the container, like all the other containers I've found, they would lose that mystique of the beckoning siren. The all-or-nothing of challenge caches has a psychological appeal that a separate qualification statistic wouldn't have.

 

image.png.7031eb0ec0e58f55172448027d6843fa.png

 

Maybe if there was a way of differentiating found-but-not-qualified challenges from other finds on the map, but, um, wouldn't that upset those that just want to log finds the containers without bothering with the challenges?

Share this post


Link to post

No, because as I said, there is no ALR for a puzzle cache. You don't have to solve the puzzle to log the cache found if you signed the log. You DO have to qualify for a challenge cache, even if you've signed the log. (and this is why that thread is constantly linked in these discussions, because the same points keep coming up and rehashed, even though they've already been addressed) 

They don't have to solve a puzzle or find multiple stages or play an online virtual cartridge in order to log the geocache they want to find.

They do have to qualify for a challenge cache they want to find.

That's the definition of the ALR which only exists for challenge caches, and that's why the argument and suggestion applies only to challenge caches.

 

Do you realize how silly that sounds?  "They don't have to ..."  Those caches aren't at the listed co-ords.  Sure, they can get the final co-ords from cheat sites, friends or somewhere else, but that means someone did all the work for them. Too bad for them, but they can't find someone else to qualify for them, they'll have to do the work themselves - but they'd rather have HQ take away the work.  And that attitude I will be dismissive about.

 

 

Those are entirely different cases to a cache that is in good, findable, loggable condition. NO cache that's archived and locked can be logged. An unpublished cache can be logged once it's published. But once a cache is in good standing and equally findable like other caches, the Challenge Cache is the ONLY physical one with an ALR to "find it, sign it, log it online"

 

So, what?  That's part of what makes it a Challenge Cache.  You take away that mechanic and it's a completely different critter.  Other cache types are similar, you take away the mechanic that makes them 'unique' and it's just another trad with stars.
Oh, and let's look at "equally findable" - that is meaningless.  Not all caches are "equally findable" - SCUBA, high terrain, tree climbing are just a few things that make a cache unequally findable.  Making it a Challenge Cache is just one more piece of a cache that makes it unequally findable.
My point, which I realize wasn't clear, is that there are reasons why an accidentally found cache container can't be logged, aside from it being a Challenge Cache, so sometimes you'll just have to suck it up and not log it.  And that's the problem, the ones that want to be able to log any cache aren't willing to.

 


I've always stood in the middle. We don't NEED to consider people who don't like the rules. But why MUST they be pushed aside? Why not discuss? That's why there was a thread to discuss - not dismiss - ideas.  Whether I agree with an idea or not, why not discuss merits? I've already said (numerous times) I'm fine with the challenge system as it is -- BUT there are issues and complaints from people that raised an issue, a quandry, so why not work through it and see if there is a solution that can make more people happy, rather than just dismissing them outright? In some threads I often help by providing workarounds to problems - but I realize that a workaround isn't always a solution which the OP may have been hoping for a discussion towards. The forums can be filled with very strong voices both for or against certain things. The forums would be much more welcoming if more were willing to discuss than deride or dismiss.

 

I'm only dismissive (as you call it) because I've been thru the whole discussion, I was part of the original thread, I've looked at the so call solution and have come to the conclusion it's a waste of time.  He (the originator of the idea) wants to sign any cache.  He wants to remove one mechanic (qualify and log) and replace it with another mehanic (stars) and change a cache type to something else.  Why go after just one mechanic of one type of cache, if he wants to sign any cache then let's change all mechanics that define a cache (puzzles, multi stages, cartridges, labs app) and make them all signable anytime and add the mechanic of stars for the puzzle/stages/cartridge/etc..  It's the same basic idea: remove the unique mechanic and replace it with "stars".

 

 

Again, it's not separate from the cache hide. It's distinguishing the ALR from the cache hide. All recognition for completing the challenge is still provided, but now it's as a distinct automated statistic. Yep, we can track our challenge completions right now if we want, but it's all combined with an almost arbitrary distinction, and you have to do it manually. And people who don't like challenges have to track their own challenge-cache-signed-but-not-qualifieds in the same way.  Their argument (not ours) is to ask why there is no mechanism for recognizing - as with all the other physical caches - that they found it and signed it, yet can't log it online?  It's easy to dismiss that argument, but why dismiss?  Discussion led to the proposed feature, which as I've often said, likely will never come to fruition; yet that dismissive attitude continues over to that idea.

 

 "Distinguishing the ALR from the cache hide" IS seperating the qualification requirement from the cache hide.  An "automated statistic" is not the same, so "all recognition for completing the Challenge" is NOT provided.

 

 

Perhaps, personally, I'd rather hear people say "I don't like the idea" than "There is no problem."  You know the saying how it feels worse to be completely ignored than bullied? Same kind of idea :P People with problems express their concerns, and being hand-waved away is more of an insult than at least being listening to and seeing if there's a way.

 

When someone comes with a "problem" personal to them (they can't sign every cache) and proposes a "solution" that cause problems for others, the discussion is pretty short.  They've had their say (and keep repeating it and repeating it) and are dismissive of anyone/thing not agreeing with it, so of course the response eventually becomes 'no, drop it' (which I can repeat as often as he can promote his "solution").

 

 

Yep, agreed. I'm not an advocate for challenges having "their own icon" per se, but for a solution that allows people who hate challenges and want to ignore them that would allow them to still find and log all such caches as if they were regular physical caches (with no recognition for challenge qualification); while allowing people who do love challenges the opportunity to still qualify for them, find their host caches, and receive due statistical recognition -- neither of whom affect each others' "way of playing the game".

 

"Statistical recognition" is not what challenge lovers are looking for.  I don't see the Stats showing how many Challenge Caches I've found. And BTW they don't want to ignore challenges, the want to covert them to trads so they can log them.  If they'd ignore them - like the rest of us have to with caches we don't like - then we wouldn't be having this conversation (again).

 

 

The only people who would be affected are cache owners who do not want people to be able to log a challenge cache online without qualifying. But if the challenge mentality switched to challenge recognition rather than merely physical cache logging smilies, then that would be addressed.  Cache finds on physical caches could then actually mean "caches found" and challenge stats would show actual challenge-specific qualifications.  We all know how many threads there are arguing about what a "Find" actually means

 

You aren't hearing some of us saying the statistical recognition (as you are defining it) is not what we are looking for (where is that Challenge stat, I still haven't found it) and so it would affect us as finders, not just cache owners.

 

 

I'm 100% fine if the system continues as is. Personally, it doesn't bother me. But I recognize that the system can still be improved. And hopefully in a way that can be a benefit to everyone, and still provide great - potentially more - experiences for the entire community.

 

If you can suggest a way that "can be a benefit to everyone" I'll listen.  But "challenge stars" is not that way.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yep, agreed. I'm not an advocate for challenges having "their own icon" per se, but for a solution that allows people who hate challenges and want to ignore them that would allow them to still find and log all such caches as if they were regular physical caches (with no recognition for challenge qualification);

 

So it's a possible solution that benefits a group of cachers who feel that they should be allowed to log every cache they can get their hands on and dislike challenges based solely on the premise that they signed the log so they should be able to log the find.  This, despite the fact that Groundspeak didn't get rid of challenge caches after the moratorium and recognizes them as a valid subset of caches that have an allowed additional requirement in order to claim a find.

 

One of the points raised about this suggestion of a new icon is that it will make challenges become even more about the numbers.  How does this alleviate this situation?  If anything, it creates even more of a numbers binge since all those cachers who complain about challenge caches and their inability to log them if they don't qualify would now be allowed to add to their total and not concern themselves about ever qualifying for the challenge because they got their +1.  How does that make a challenge cache better?  It just makes it like any other cache that any other numbers cacher would now be able to find.

 

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

BUT there are issues and complaints from people that raised an issue, a quandry, so why not work through it and see if there is a solution that can make more people happy, rather than just dismissing them outright?

 

While at the same time making other people unhappy in the process.  The challenge cache has been around for how long now?  It's always been a different subset and always had a different logging requirement, even after the moratorium.  After 12 years of existence (not sure of the exact timeline), it's suggested that challenge caches become nothing more than a traditional cache with a virtual "souvenir" added once you meet the stated challenge.  

 

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Again, it's not separate from the cache hide. It's distinguishing the ALR from the cache hide.

 

The online find of a challenge cache is predicated upon completing both parts - signing the log and qualifying for the challenge.  In simplest terms, that means that you need to do both A (sign) and B (qualify) to get C (a find) - A + B = C.  This suggestion, despite your protestations, separates/distinguishes this into two separate pieces since the second part, B, is no longer needed to claim C.    Instead of having to do A + B to get C, you now only need to do A.  A = C. B is now completely irrelevant to the action of claiming C.  B = D (a virtual reward/statistic).  You could even say that B = 0 since A + 0 = C. If B = 0 and B = D, then D = 0.  It's meaningless because it's no longer intrinsically tied to A or C.  It's been eliminated from the equation.  B becomes something that many don't even bother to try to fulfill because they only care about the +1 and not the challenge that was created.  

 

How is it truly a challenge cache when you don't even need to do the challenge any more?  You might as well consider getting rid of challenge caches if the finders of this "new" challenge cache don't actually have to do the challenges to log the find.  In many cases, they don't care about the challenge; they only care about being allowed to log a find on a cache they've signed.  You said it yourself - "that allows people who hate challenges and want to ignore them to still find and log all such caches as if they were regular physical caches".  With this suggestion, that's exactly what they've become.

 

If an automated virtual reward/statistic is given for completing a challenge, you might as well have the developers create a program that allows cachers to automatically compile all their challenge stats and post them to their profile.  Oh...... wait.  I'm pretty sure an API partner or two has already done this in some form or another, although not exactly in the manner described. That's what this suggestion would turn challenge caches into - a series of challenge badges to display on one's profile. Since I don't care about numbers and statistics for numbers and statistics sake, this is a meaningless reward.  I can see it now.  A new challenge cache series published on how many challenge stars you've earned.  

Edited by coachstahly
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

How is it truly a challenge cache when you don't even need to do the challenge any more?  You might as well consider getting rid of challenge caches if the finders of this "new" challenge cache don't actually have to do the challenges to log the find.  In many cases, they don't care about the challenge; they only care about being allowed to log a find on a cache they've signed.  You said it yourself - "that allows people who hate challenges and want to ignore them to still find and log all such caches as if they were regular physical caches".  With this suggestion, that's exactly what they've become.

 

I've seen this in unChallenges on traditionals. Most folks including myself just log them.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, The Jester said:

(thebruce0 wrote)The only people who would be affected are cache owners who do not want people to be able to log a challenge cache online without qualifying. But if the challenge mentality switched to challenge recognition rather than merely physical cache logging smilies, then that would be addressed.  Cache finds on physical caches could then actually mean "caches found" and challenge stats would show actual challenge-specific qualifications.  We all know how many threads there are arguing about what a "Find" actually means

 

You aren't hearing some of us saying the statistical recognition (as you are defining it) is not what we are looking for (where is that Challenge stat, I still haven't found it) and so it would affect us as finders, not just cache owners.

I agree, not only the cache owners would be affected. All those finders who like a challenge and work towards qualifying would be affected. Far more people than the few owners of them. I don't own any Challenge caches, but if I did and anyone could log them, I would archive the cache, as it would no longer be a Challenge cache, but just another Traditional. I would also stop going out of my way to log a (now not) Challenge cache. Challenge caches would then only exist in name. That would be sad.

As for a rubbishy souvenir; that would not do it for me. Meaningless. I would delete most of the souvenirs I have been awarded now if I could. The only ones that interest me are geographical ones; the rest...rubbish.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I guess I still don't get why people need to be able to log finds on challenge caches as if they were just traditionals

 

That's the great divide; that's the love/hate for ALRs.  People who just want to sign and log physical caches don't get why there needs to be an qualifying component just to log that you found the geocache. Goes both ways.

 

12 hours ago, The Jester said:

"They don't have to ..."  Those caches aren't at the listed co-ords.  Sure, they can get the final co-ords from cheat sites, friends or somewhere else, but that means someone did all the work for them. Too bad for them, but they can't find someone else to qualify for them, they'll have to do the work themselves - but they'd rather have HQ take away the work.  And that attitude I will be dismissive about.

 

I'm avoiding talking about attitudes because that's subjective and argumentative.  I'm speaking technically - One does not have to solve the puzzle in order to log the cache as found. One DOES have to qualify in order to log the cache as found.

 

12 hours ago, The Jester said:

That's part of what makes it a Challenge Cache.  You take away that mechanic and it's a completely different critter.

 

Exactly. Which is why we're not taking away the challenge mechanic. The proposed resolution is an evolution to the mechanic, not a removal of the mechanic. It's already a completely different critter.

 

12 hours ago, The Jester said:

I'm only dismissive (as you call it) because I've been thru the whole discussion, I was part of the original thread, I've looked at the so call solution and have come to the conclusion it's a waste of time.

 

Great. So you've said your point. If your only argument now is that you don't like it and it's a waste of time, then your only input to these discussions is necessarily dismissive. If your points are made in that thread, and they've been responded to, then instead of responding "it's a waste of time", direct people to your arguments in that thread, and they won't be rehashed and rebutted here, again. People can make their own decisions. As I said, I don't expect anything to happen or change, but the same exchanges are being rehashed, or simply dismissed because they're being rehashed.

 

12 hours ago, The Jester said:

Not all caches are "equally findable" - SCUBA, high terrain, tree climbing are just a few things that make a cache unequally findable.

 

Nope. they are "equally findable" because all they need is your caching name in the logbook. You don't HAVE to dive for a scuba yourself. You don't HAVE to climb sheer cliff, or a tree, or swim to an island, to log the cache as found. Regardless of how we feel about people who don't do what the CO intends cachers to do, you don't have to do that if your name is in the log. you DO have to qualify for a challenge cache. Once again, that is the definition of the Additional Logging Requirement - it is not equally "findable". I can't grasp why you're arguing that point.

 

12 hours ago, The Jester said:

He wants to remove one mechanic (qualify and log) and replace it with another mehanic (stars) and change a cache type to something else.

 

Nope again. The proposal is to allow the cache type to remain whatever is accurate to the physical cache type, and allow the find log to have a consistent meaning across physical cache types (found it, signed it, logged it online), and for challenge caches essentially provide a flag that the challenge is also qualified; and allow the D and T to have a consistent meaning across physical cache types allowing challenge difficulty to have its own rating (since that mixing was also a point of contention).  Both logging processes remain the same - if you qualify and found the cache, you post your Find log and state that you qualify. If you found the cache and don't care about challenges, you post your Find log. If you want to find caches and don't care about challenges, you suddenly have SO many more to find. If CO's want to keep the process identical so a cacher can't log the cache as found without qualifying, I even went so far as to suggest the owner have an option to make the challenge qualification required for the find.

The vast majority of the thread came through listening to complaints and issues with the current system, and molding and shaping a system that attempts to address them in a way that works for everyone, or as many as possible.

 

12 hours ago, The Jester said:

"Distinguishing the ALR from the cache hide" IS seperating the qualification requirement from the cache hide.  An "automated statistic" is not the same, so "all recognition for completing the Challenge" is NOT provided.

 

It's providing the option to make qualification a requirement. Functionally, the process is identical to the way it is now, except people who don't want to qualify can still find the geocache like any other geocache type (their argument) - but they don't get the challenge stat (which they don't care about) so there's no confusion or comparison to someone who did qualify and find the cache ('why should they get the find if they didn't qualify?').   "ALR" is a fuzzy exception in the current system. If challenges are distinguished and have a specific technical functionality, they're no longer an ALR exception, they are feature. And the whole system allows people to more easily search for AND ignore challenges across the board without impacting their basic geocaching experience (again based on working through their argument).

 

12 hours ago, The Jester said:

"Statistical recognition" is not what challenge lovers are looking for.  I don't see the Stats showing how many Challenge Caches I've found. And BTW they don't want to ignore challenges, the want to covert them to trads so they can log them.  If they'd ignore them - like the rest of us have to with caches we don't like - then we wouldn't be having this conversation (again).

 

Yep. And that's our typical response - just ignore what you don't like. That's dismissive. It's a workaround, but it's dismissive when it comes to seeing if there's a better way.  If you don't want to see if there's a better way, then the topic discussion isn't for you. Good to know if you don't like an idea, but your opinion has been noted. Some people do care about statistical recognition. If doing challenges, you're already deep into statistics as you have to work towards qualifying statistically. Not everyone wants to "flaunt" their stats, of course, and the feature doesn't require someone desire to flaunt their stats. But again, it distinguishes challenge-specific stats for a myriad of reasons, including finding and searching, displaying, and ignoring. All which are currently more difficult now because there's no inherent means to do it, only hacks and workarounds.

 

12 hours ago, The Jester said:

You aren't hearing some of us saying the statistical recognition (as you are defining it) is not what we are looking for (where is that Challenge stat, I still haven't found it) and so it would affect us as finders, not just cache owners.

 

I didn't say everyone wants recognition, nor that everyone would be required to show off recognition. There are multiple benefits to the proposed system, including allowing people who do want to display challenge stats being able to do so as a stats segment.  And yes, the feature has fingers in every aspect of geocaching, but nothing about the proposal removes any functionality for anyone. Don't like it? Continue geocaching as normal. Love it? Look at all the added features you can dive into or ignore.

 

12 hours ago, The Jester said:

If you can suggest a way that "can be a benefit to everyone" I'll listen.  But "challenge stars" is not that way.

 

Thank you for your input.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

This whole thread still makes me wonder why it's so difficult for some that a challenge cache has an ALR (fulfill the requirements) before they can get that +1. A lot of creativity already went away after the moratorium because "it was to hard to do bookkeeping" so now there's a one click checker. No one wondered about the people who don't mind or even like the bookkeeping in order to find out they qualified. So let's dumb down the whole system.

Now even that is not enough, some argue there should be a +1 even if the requirements are not fulfilled. What's next?

It's correct that for most caches the signature in the log is enough for that +1 but the ALR make a challenge cache a bit more special.

 

Let's just compare to, let's say, a gadgetcache where some special technique is needed to get to the log, is destroying the cache instead of opening the lock or other mechanism then accepted as "name is in the log so +1"?

 

Many of these discussions can be brought back to entitlement and dumbing down. That +1 should be had as easy as possible, some even defend divide and conquer and other methods where multiple cachers find different parts of trails and log with all names or team name.

Ignoring caches or cachetypes you (the generic "you") don't like is easy, there's no reason trying to have them changed because it' only takes away the fun for those who do like them.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Many of these discussions can be brought back to entitlement and dumbing down.

Sadly true.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, coachstahly said:

So it's a possible solution that benefits a group of cachers who feel that they should be allowed to log every cache they find according to the guidelines like all other physical geocaches can get their hands on and dislike challenges based solely on the premise that they signed the log so they should be able to log the find.  This, despite the fact that Groundspeak didn't get rid of challenge caches after the moratorium and recognizes them as a valid subset of caches that have an allowed additional requirement in order to claim a find.

 

Yes.  As mentioned above, the premise is the existence of the ALR which has no technical mechanic in the system, and only exists as an exception to the guidelines classified under "challenge geocache" which contains the identical mechanical setup as an Unknown cache type, with exceptions being entirely human-controlled (human reviewer require a checker to be included, human cachers require submission of proof of qualification, humans have to search and determine if a cache is a challenge cache)

 

12 hours ago, coachstahly said:

One of the points raised about this suggestion of a new icon is that it will make challenges become even more about the numbers.  How does this alleviate this situation?

 

No one said the proposal was perfect. Only that's open for discussion. The issue of caching for numbers exists currently. Appealing to prophecy as a reason not to do something isn't an argument really; it's something to consider - "will it" make it more about the numbers? Or could there be people who jump on board and make it more about the numbers? Discuss: Why is 'about the numbers' a universally bad thing to be stomped out? Or is it people who abuse a 'numbers' mentality to make the hobby worse for someone else? Challenge caches are already about the numbers, heavily, fundamentally. So if challenge caches became an official 'thing', how do we measure and balance the future potential benefits vs drawbacks? How do we currently address the attitudes that reduce overall game quality due to challenge caches, and how can we include or improve on that for what we think might happen if it becomes an official thing?  Discuss! (preferably in that other thread)

 

12 hours ago, coachstahly said:

The online find of a challenge cache is predicated upon completing both parts - signing the log and qualifying for the challenge.  In simplest terms, that means that you need to do both A (sign) and B (qualify) to get C (a find) - A + B = C.  This suggestion, despite your protestations, separates/distinguishes this into two separate pieces since the second part, B, is no longer needed to claim C.    Instead of having to do A + B to get C, you now only need to do A.  A = C. B is now completely irrelevant to the action of claiming C.  B = D (a virtual reward/statistic).  You could even say that B = 0 since A + 0 = C. If B = 0 and B = D, then D = 0.  It's meaningless because it's no longer intrinsically tied to A or C.  It's been eliminated from the equation.  B becomes something that many don't even bother to try to fulfill because they only care about the +1 and not the challenge that was created.

 

Sure, that's why the challenge stars are tracked.  The argument from the other side is that for every other physical cache, C (the find) is defined by A+B, find and sign.  The exception is the technically undefined challenge cache which inserts that Z qualify.  So if the Unknown cache type is A+B=C,  why must they also insert Z just to equate to C?  The feature proposal allows people who don't care about challenge caches to continue with all physical caches as A+B=C (and, A and B and C all mean the same thing consistently across the board).  For those who do care about challenge caches, they can continue with the challenge components, as A+B+Z=C+Z. And that 'algorithm' (as your analog) is applicable across the board. If a cache has zero to do with challenges, A+B still =C. If a cache has a challenge component, they can ignore Z and still work it out. For stats, now there's a distinction and the challenge component is trackable.

 

When we sign and find a hard puzzle cache, or very well camouflaged cache, we "earn" the D stars.

When we sign and find a tough terrain cache, we "earn" the T stars.

When we sign and qualify for a challenge cache, we "earn" the C stars.

That's the premise.

 

12 hours ago, coachstahly said:

How is it truly a challenge cache when you don't even need to do the challenge any more?

 

You do. The Find log means that the cache was found. Qualification indicates you completed the challenge. (whether or not you care about displaying that stat)

 

12 hours ago, coachstahly said:

If an automated virtual reward/statistic is given for completing a challenge, you might as well have the developers create a program that allows cachers to automatically compile all their challenge stats and post them to their profile.  Oh...... wait.  I'm pretty sure an API partner or two has already done this in some form or another, although not exactly in the manner described. That's what this suggestion would turn challenge caches into - a series of challenge badges to display on one's profile. Since I don't care about numbers and statistics for numbers and statistics sake, this is a meaningless reward.  I can see it now.  A new challenge cache series published on how many challenge stars you've earned.

 

If you don't like it, you don't have to do it. Just like souvenirs. Favourite points. And some other features developed over the years. Statistics displays LOADS of perspectives on one's caching habits. It wouldn't need to be anything more than another statistic. What you're proposing as an argument against this feature can be used as an argument to cancel statistics as a whole, because someone else "might" make their own way to play all about that and ruin the game for others. That already happens. Not everyone will without a doubt turn the game into numbers and not care about geocaching proper at all and ruin the game for everyone. The sky is not falling with this proposal. On the other hand, if you think there's a practical way the proposed system can be abused, then let's address it in a discussion rather than hurling elephants :P (and there's a good thread for that discussion)

 

12 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I can see it now.  A new challenge cache series published on how many challenge stars you've earned.  

 

There's a great point to raise for discussion.

So, my response would be, since challenges can't currently be based on other challenges currently, why can that not be in the guidelines? 'Challenges cannot be based on existing challenge statistics.' Done. :)

 

7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't own any Challenge caches, but if I did and anyone could log them, I would archive the cache, as it would no longer be a Challenge cache, but just another Traditional.

 

And this was addressed in the thread, as mentioned above. The CO could have the option to lock the qualification to the find so that people would have to still qualify to log the find. having the option there allows both cases to continue as is.

Case A: I want to provide a 'traditional' challenge. I hide a cache and attach a challenge. Flag it to only be findable once you qualify for the challenge. No difference to today.

Case B: I want to provide a themed geocache with a related optional challenge. I hide a wonderful cache providing its own great experience (gadget, location, puzzle, etc). I allow it to be found without qualification. More people can enjoy the cache, and those who enjoy challenges can earn the qualification if they want to.  And only one new physical cache is on the map.

 

In both cases A and B, people who qualify see that qualification in their stats. People who don't won't. Just as it is now, except people can ignore caches they can't (or choose not to) find, filter for challenges (in or out), or even see where challenges specifically are on the map. D and T will always be related to locating the physical container (brain or braun), and the difficulty of the "ALR" challenge won't be mixed in; no more searching the description for "the cache itself is more like a 1.5/1".

 

7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

As for a rubbishy souvenir; that would not do it for me. Meaningless. I would delete most of the souvenirs I have been awarded now if I could. The only ones that interest me are geographical ones; the rest...rubbish.

 

Aye, for every person who says they want a "new cache type" or "new attribute" or "new souvenir" -- or expresses dislike for any of those, there is a response (and not merely handwaving) in the thread.  And if you (in general) don't like it, that's fine. :)

 

If no one likes anything (or there's not enough like), then it won't move forward - and that's what I fully expect to happen :P  But all these points repeatedly raised have been worked through in that thread (and I'm regularly impressed that frinklabs keeps spotting them and inserting the link as an obligation, lol). But inevitably, the end result is typically silence or "I don't like it", and that's just fine. But it's great when a new point is raised that can further the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Let's just compare to, let's say, a gadgetcache where some special technique is needed to get to the log, is destroying the cache instead of opening the lock or other mechanism then accepted as "name is in the log so +1"?

 

It becomes a he-said-she-said. Was it destroyed before they got there? After? Who did it? What if 5 people show up and 1 person opens it? THAT is why the rule is name in the log to log it found. Otherwise it's an arbitration process. Yes it's ethically wrong to destroy a geocache just to earn the +1. But some would argue it's ethically wrong to stand at the base of the tree while someone else signs you in to earn that +1. So discussing the ethics isn't as fruitful as discussing technical merits and drawbacks to an idea. Being aware of how an idea could be abused is certainly valuable though, of course.

 

16 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Ignoring caches or cachetypes you (the generic "you") don't like is easy, there's no reason trying to have them changed because it' only takes away the fun for those who do like them.

 

Agreed. And I wouldn't want a system that only dumbs down.  The only reason I like the proposal is because it adds value to a certain aspect of the game while also addressing some of the 'dumbing down' suggestions to the current system.  Again, I'm fine with the current system. But I'm interested in ways that improve it for everyone - whether addressing things people don't like ('dumbing down' for some), or suggesting ideas that can add value for those who enjoy it (while not making it fundamentally worse for people who don't like change, or don't care to see any change).

 

19 minutes ago, on4bam said:

This whole thread still makes me wonder why it's so difficult for some that a challenge cache has an ALR (fulfill the requirements) before they can get that +1. A lot of creativity already went away after the moratorium because "it was to hard to do bookkeeping" so now there's a one click checker. No one wondered about the people who don't mind or even like the bookkeeping in order to find out they qualified.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. I loved the old system. I miss "bookkeeping" challenges. :(  I'm very glad they brought them back, even in the state they're currently in. Under these new guidelines though, there's a move towards automation (must be stats based, require PGC checker, etc) - but these are still manually required, and filtering for challenges is still a manual process. Is there room for improvement? I think so. I don't demand it, but I think so. :)

 

 

I don't really enjoy the current implementation of Adventure Labs (even though some can be amazingly creative), so I generally just don't do them (I've done a few and hidden them from stats). In their case, they aren't physical caches, they're not on the map, they can be ignored, they're effectively an add-on to the hobby. I'm not a fan of this odd crossover with every stage giving a +1 find, because similarly that's an "exception" to the definition of a "find" now (both by definition and the mechanics of that metric). So that's my biggest beef with them. Otherwise, ignoring them is easy and possible for me. Challenge Caches aren't nearly as separate and distinct as ALs; they're interwoven as physical geocaches with an arbitrary ALR. So in a sense, I can understand people's complaints about their current implementation.

I'm lucky to really enjoy challenge caches and be fine with their current implementation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I don't really enjoy the current implementation of Adventure Labs (even though some can be amazingly creative), so I generally just don't do them (I've done a few and hidden them from stats). In their case, they aren't physical caches, they're not on the map, they can be ignored, they're effectively an add-on to the hobby. I'm not a fan of this odd crossover with every stage giving a +1 find, because similarly that's an "exception" to the definition of a "find" now (both by definition and the mechanics of that metric). So that's my biggest beef with them. Otherwise, ignoring them is easy and possible for me. Challenge Caches aren't nearly as separate and distinct as ALs; they're interwoven as physical geocaches with an arbitrary ALR. So in a sense, I can understand people's complaints about their current implementation.

I'm lucky to really enjoy challenge caches and be fine with their current implementation.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, that with caches such as Adventure Labs with a find at each stage, that that mindset continues and some people now are wanting to get a find just for finding a Challenge cache, without qualifying. What next, demanding a find for each stage of a multicache!

 

If I find a Challenge cache without qualifying, I sign the log and then online log a Note of my find, and say I don't qualify now, but one day I hope to and then I will change it to a find. I am satisfied doing this, because my note makes a recognition that I found the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

If I find a Challenge cache without qualifying, I sign the log and then online log a Note of my find, and say I don't qualify now, but one day I hope to and then I will change it to a find. I am satisfied doing this, because my note makes a recognition that I found the cache.

Likewise.

But I see the merit in the observation that this is the only case where a find doesn't mean what it does in all the other physical cache types, and they want to be able to log it in the same way - they found the cache. The only reason we write a note instead of log it as a find is because of the ALR. Anyway, all of this is in that other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Case A: I want to provide a 'traditional' challenge. I hide a cache and attach a challenge. Flag it to only be findable once you qualify for the challenge. No difference to today.

Case B: I want to provide a themed geocache with a related optional challenge. I hide a wonderful cache providing its own great experience (gadget, location, puzzle, etc). I allow it to be found without qualification. More people can enjoy the cache, and those who enjoy challenges can earn the qualification if they want to.  And only one new physical cache is on the map.


Maybe I’m wrong but, if the option was available, would any CO choose B?

 

Why would you go to the trouble of defining a challenge but then make it optional?  Fairly sure I wouldn’t.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Case A: I want to provide a 'traditional' challenge. I hide a cache and attach a challenge. Flag it to only be findable once you qualify for the challenge. No difference to today.

Case B: I want to provide a themed geocache with a related optional challenge. I hide a wonderful cache providing its own great experience (gadget, location, puzzle, etc). I allow it to be found without qualification. More people can enjoy the cache, and those who enjoy challenges can earn the qualification if they want to.  And only one new physical cache is on the map.


Maybe I’m wrong but, if the option was available, would any CO choose B?

 

Why would you go to the trouble of defining a challenge but then make it optional?  Fairly sure I wouldn’t.

 

It's all been discussed in the thread. But since there's been no survey, and the 'audience' for the discussion is a minuscule fraction of the world community, who knows.  While it may be biased, all I can say for sure is at least 1 person may choose to make use of it if the option were available. Throw it into the mix of all the "options" that are available for creative geocache listings, and who knows what people might come up with, because they are able to.

 

 

But back to this thread's topic, a challenge cache type suggestion is regularly requested - arguably the most requested challenge caching update (and imo, has more chance of being implemented than challenge stars). But all the counters to that suggestion (as far as I can tell) have also been carried over and discussed in that thread. Like most any other often-raised topic in the forums, if there's a thread for it, at some point people just resort to linking to that thread rather than rehashing.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

That's the great divide; that's the love/hate for ALRs.  People who just want to sign and log physical caches don't get why there needs to be an qualifying component just to log that you found the geocache. Goes both ways.

 

 

I'm avoiding talking about attitudes because that's subjective and argumentative.  I'm speaking technically - One does not have to solve the puzzle in order to log the cache as found. One DOES have to qualify in order to log the cache as found.

 

 

Exactly. Which is why we're not taking away the challenge mechanic. The proposed resolution is an evolution to the mechanic, not a removal of the mechanic. It's already a completely different critter.

 

 

Great. So you've said your point. If your only argument now is that you don't like it and it's a waste of time, then your only input to these discussions is necessarily dismissive. If your points are made in that thread, and they've been responded to, then instead of responding "it's a waste of time", direct people to your arguments in that thread, and they won't be rehashed and rebutted here, again. People can make their own decisions. As I said, I don't expect anything to happen or change, but the same exchanges are being rehashed, or simply dismissed because they're being rehashed.

 

 

Nope. they are "equally findable" because all they need is your caching name in the logbook. You don't HAVE to dive for a scuba yourself. You don't HAVE to climb sheer cliff, or a tree, or swim to an island, to log the cache as found. Regardless of how we feel about people who don't do what the CO intends cachers to do, you don't have to do that if your name is in the log. you DO have to qualify for a challenge cache. Once again, that is the definition of the Additional Logging Requirement - it is not equally "findable". I can't grasp why you're arguing that point.

 

 

Nope again. The proposal is to allow the cache type to remain whatever is accurate to the physical cache type, and allow the find log to have a consistent meaning across physical cache types (found it, signed it, logged it online), and for challenge caches essentially provide a flag that the challenge is also qualified; and allow the D and T to have a consistent meaning across physical cache types allowing challenge difficulty to have its own rating (since that mixing was also a point of contention).  Both logging processes remain the same - if you qualify and found the cache, you post your Find log and state that you qualify. If you found the cache and don't care about challenges, you post your Find log. If you want to find caches and don't care about challenges, you suddenly have SO many more to find. If CO's want to keep the process identical so a cacher can't log the cache as found without qualifying, I even went so far as to suggest the owner have an option to make the challenge qualification required for the find.

The vast majority of the thread came through listening to complaints and issues with the current system, and molding and shaping a system that attempts to address them in a way that works for everyone, or as many as possible.

 

 

It's providing the option to make qualification a requirement. Functionally, the process is identical to the way it is now, except people who don't want to qualify can still find the geocache like any other geocache type (their argument) - but they don't get the challenge stat (which they don't care about) so there's no confusion or comparison to someone who did qualify and find the cache ('why should they get the find if they didn't qualify?').   "ALR" is a fuzzy exception in the current system. If challenges are distinguished and have a specific technical functionality, they're no longer an ALR exception, they are feature. And the whole system allows people to more easily search for AND ignore challenges across the board without impacting their basic geocaching experience (again based on working through their argument).

 

 

Yep. And that's our typical response - just ignore what you don't like. That's dismissive. It's a workaround, but it's dismissive when it comes to seeing if there's a better way.  If you don't want to see if there's a better way, then the topic discussion isn't for you. Good to know if you don't like an idea, but your opinion has been noted. Some people do care about statistical recognition. If doing challenges, you're already deep into statistics as you have to work towards qualifying statistically. Not everyone wants to "flaunt" their stats, of course, and the feature doesn't require someone desire to flaunt their stats. But again, it distinguishes challenge-specific stats for a myriad of reasons, including finding and searching, displaying, and ignoring. All which are currently more difficult now because there's no inherent means to do it, only hacks and workarounds.

 

 

I didn't say everyone wants recognition, nor that everyone would be required to show off recognition. There are multiple benefits to the proposed system, including allowing people who do want to display challenge stats being able to do so as a stats segment.  And yes, the feature has fingers in every aspect of geocaching, but nothing about the proposal removes any functionality for anyone. Don't like it? Continue geocaching as normal. Love it? Look at all the added features you can dive into or ignore.

 

 

Thank you for your input.

You do realize that you are being as dismissive yourself as you claim I/we are?  "You're opinion has been noted" & "then the topic discussion isn't for you" is dismissive.  Kettle say hi to pot.  You say that all the points have been discussed, addressed and answered, but I say they haven't been addressed in a way that is beneficial to all, just to those that want to find every cache.  So why does that give him the right to bring up his so called solution multiple times and a counter statement can't be raised in the same thread? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, The Jester said:

You do realize that you are being as dismissive yourself as you claim I/we are?

 

Pointing someone to a thread where old points have been addressed isn't being dismissive. 

 

6 hours ago, The Jester said:

You say that all the points have been discussed, addressed and answered, but I say they haven't been addressed in a way that is beneficial to all, just to those that want to find every cache.

 

Your point is essentially that the ones who want to find every cache simply have to such it up and accept the system as is. That's not furthering the discussion. It's a dead end. It's dismissing any effort to look into ways to make the game more enjoyable for them while not being less enjoyable for others. 

 

6 hours ago, The Jester said:

So why does that give him the right to bring up his so called solution multiple times and a counter statement can't be raised in the same thread?

 

If the topic has already been discussed in another thread, it's perfectly fine to direct people to that thread.  It happens all the time, and 'challenge cache type' requests are a dime a dozen; "duplicate" threads get closed so there isn't so much rehashing of past conversations, turning into meta-bickering about thread content.

Challenge Cache Type has been discussed and debated - merits and drawbacks - in the other thread, and numerous others. Has anyone contributed anything new to the discussion? Not that I've seen, just meta-level bickering. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Case A: I want to provide a 'traditional' challenge. I hide a cache and attach a challenge. Flag it to only be findable once you qualify for the challenge. No difference to today.

Case B: I want to provide a themed geocache with a related optional challenge. I hide a wonderful cache providing its own great experience (gadget, location, puzzle, etc). I allow it to be found without qualification. More people can enjoy the cache, and those who enjoy challenges can earn the qualification if they want to.  And only one new physical cache is on the map.

 

There's nothing to stop you from creating a Case B cache now. Just make it a traditional, describe the optional challenge in the description and include an honour roll where those who complete the optional challenge can be acknowledged. I've done a few like that where the CO gives brownie points to those who do something extra beyond just signing the log.

 

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

It's dismissing any effort to look into ways to make the game more enjoyable for them while not being less enjoyable for others.

 

What about the likes of me who would find optional-challenge challenge caches less enjoyable than at present, both from a CO's and a finder's perspective? Don't we count?

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

But I see the merit in the observation that this is the only case where a find doesn't mean what it does in all the other physical cache types, and they want to be able to log it in the same way - they found the cache. The only reason we write a note instead of log it as a find is because of the ALR.

 

This is the question that everything really boils down to when it comes to challenge caches.  Does the guideline that specifies a signature which then allows you to claim a find supersede the guideline of signing AND fulfilling the ALR in order to claim a find?  Those that don't like the ALR and want to be able to claim a find believe the guidelines, that define what a challenge cache is and what you have to do to be able to find it online, are wrong.  Those that like challenge caches and the way they're currently structured believe that the guidelines, that define what a challenge cache is and what you have to do to be able to find it online, are right.  

 

What does the company that writes the guidelines think about challenge caches?  "Geocaching HQ has long exempted challenge caches from this guideline because they can bring so many positives to the game." (5/25/16) "A challenge cache requires seekers to find an associated physical cache, and to find an additional set of geocaches as defined by the challenge owner."  

 

You can't refer to the guidelines as the reasoning behind why you should be allowed to claim a find on a challenge cache if you only sign the log if you also choose to ignore those same guidelines that state you have to to find the cache AND complete the ALR for a challenge cache.

 

I'm still unsure as to how much time is actually needed by TPTB in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes made to challenge caches.  Apparently 4 years isn't long enough, despite their own admitted point about strong support within the community as well as their agreement that there are good reasons to implement just such a change.

 

"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." (5/25/16)

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
22 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Case A: I want to provide a 'traditional' challenge. I hide a cache and attach a challenge. Flag it to only be findable once you qualify for the challenge. No difference to today.

Case B: I want to provide a themed geocache with a related optional challenge. I hide a wonderful cache providing its own great experience (gadget, location, puzzle, etc). I allow it to be found without qualification. More people can enjoy the cache, and those who enjoy challenges can earn the qualification if they want to.  And only one new physical cache is on the map.

 

There's nothing to stop you from creating a Case B cache now. Just make it a traditional, describe the optional challenge in the description and include an honour roll where those who complete the optional challenge can be acknowledged. I've done a few like that where the CO gives brownie points to those who do something extra beyond just signing the log.

 

Sure, that's an option, but it's no longer a Challenge Cache. We have a few of those 'unchallenges' around here as well.

 

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

What about the likes of me who would find optional-challenge challenge caches less enjoyable than at present, both from a CO's and a finder's perspective? Don't we count?

 

On the contrary, the idea was specific to include and keep them 'interesting' for those groups. Let's dial it back to what makes challenges enticing: Incentive.  What is your incentive for completing a challenge?  I see three basic options:

A: The "Find". The cache is on the map, and you want to log them found. If it's a challenge cache, then it's one extra 'hurdle' to overcome in order to get the smiley. Love'em or hate'em, you'll do the ALR to get that Find.  As a CO, you adhere strongly to the No Find Until You Qualify guideline, and may not understand how someone would want to log a find without qualifying; even feel they don't "deserve" the find if they don't qualify. The incentive is the smiley.

B: The Challenge. You don't care about the find or rules or numbers, you just enjoy the task. You'll complete challenges for the sake of the fun of the experience. If you can log it as found as well, great, if not, oh well. You're in it for the fun of the task, not the technicalities.  As a CO, you come up with a challenge you think is enjoyable and memorable. It's not so much about the challenge cache container itself as it is about the qualification task. It's not necessarily about some standard high statistic number as it is about the construction of the challenge, even combination of requirements to qualify, hoping that the task, primarily, will be the draw to the challenge.  The incentive is the experience.

C: The Numbers. You track your stats, you track your challenge completions.  Sometimes you check PGC for their challenge stats on your profile. You may try to seek out caches that keep your stats well rounded so that you can already qualify for as many challenges as possible. As a CO you may look for ways to create a challenge that is difficult for more people rather than so many being initially qualified; for ways to create 'well-rounded' statistical challenges (which incidentally get people geocaching in ways they may not regularly). The incentive is boosting or evolving statistics.

 

Unchallenges provide no incentive except for those who are hardline Challenge-oriented. They're not in it for any other reward than the experience of completing the tasks. That's why they're not as popular and many won't get so many people completing the task and finding the cache. People like incentives. Whether it's the Find or the Stats or whatever.

 

In the proposed system the incentive distinguishes the "Find" from the "Challenge" so that people who want that incentive can have it and there's no mixing of definitions, automating the system for a statistical metric, and still allows owners to decide if the incentive is the challenge itself (its rating), or the smiley (including the challenge rating).

My question is, why would an optional-challenge in the new system - which still provides incentive - be "less enjoyable"?  Do you enjoy the challenge? Or do you want a tangible incentive for completing it?  As a cache finder, you get the challenge recognition for completion. As a cache owner, you can provide a challenge for people who enjoy challenges, OR be a hardline CO who requires qualification for those who value the Find and the Smiley more.

 

The intent of the system is to make the incentive something specific to challenge caching without muddying it in with the generic "Find". It provides a more streamlined and tangible 'reward', while still giving people the options for how to 'play'.  That system allows the hobby to proceed just as it does today in practice, with expansion to allow additional ways to play.

 

If necessary the new system can easily mimic the old, and fix a couple of issues.

Currently: Create a challenge cache. Rate the D and T. Explain if there's a discrepancy with the D* because of the challenge difficulty. Cachers must qualify and find the cache to log a Find. Qualifying before finding may mean posting a note, then posting a find later; or finding before qualifying may mean the same, only the later Find posted doesn't mean the cache was found that date (this is the most common method around here and I'd bet the world; others would be posting nothing until both requirements are done, or editing a past log to a Find).

Proposed: Create a challenge cache. Rate the D, T, and C. Require qualification to log the Find. Cachers must then qualify and find the cache to log a Find. When qualified, post qualification. When found and signed, post a Find. Once both are posted, the system counts the challenge completed.

I don't see how this system makes the current challenge caching concept worse.

 

Benefit: * Difficulty and Challenge ratings are now distinct and clear. * Every challenge cache is technically classified as such, thus can be filtered, searched, organized, ignored. * One new statistic for Challenge ratings (which can be extended in who knows how many other creative ways). * The system can even separate out incomplete challenges (found/not qualified or qualified/not found). * Owners who wish to provide a cache for anyone to find without qualifying can still create a challenge with the cache for the full experience. * A Find log now consistently means "found it and signed it" for all physical cache types; out-of-date finds on challenge caches no more. Modifying past notes to Find logs no more. * People who want to ignore challenges will no longer see any challenges or stats, or caches with a qualification required. * Challenge Caches explicitly identifiable everywhere in the system.

"The old way" is still doable - as a finder, and as an owner. The only difference is now the challenge component is a tangible feature.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

This is the question that everything really boils down to when it comes to challenge caches.  Does the guideline that specifies a signature which then allows you to claim a find supersede the guideline of signing AND fulfilling the ALR in order to claim a find?  Those that don't like the ALR and want to be able to claim a find believe the guidelines, that define what a challenge cache is and what you have to do to be able to find it online, are wrong.  Those that like challenge caches and the way they're currently structured believe that the guidelines, that define what a challenge cache is and what you have to do to be able to find it online, are right.

 

No, they just don't like that they have to qualify for an additional logging requirement in order to log that the geocache was found. It's an inconsistency in definition due to the ALR exception. I haven't seen anyone say the "guidelines are wrong". They understand the concept of the ALR. They don't like that the Find doesn't actually mean Found when it comes to a challenge cache.

 

4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I'm still unsure as to how much time is actually needed by TPTB in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes made to challenge caches.  Apparently 4 years isn't long enough, despite their own admitted point about strong support within the community as well as their agreement that there are good reasons to implement just such a change.

 

I really don't expect much to change with challenge caches. Their efforts are more towards Adventure Labs, souvenir promotions, and likely some other very significant changes for the upcoming generation; more digital location-based style aspects to the hobby and whatnot.  I think they settled on a kind of middle ground for the new guidelines to assuage significant complaints, at least for a longer term. CC's have a strong, but kind of a niche, portion of the community as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×
×
  • Create New...