Challenge Caches - Time for an Upgrade

[+schmittfamily]

 

13 hours ago, brendan714 said:

It's just that in my experience, I find that my caches get more eyes, more people interested and hence more (legitimate) finds if they are in the city vs hidden out in the mountains. 

 

I don't agree with BarefootJeff that a challenge hide should reflect the challenge but you are making a trade off with where you placed your cache.

 

The climber challenge cache example given here is placed smack dab in the middle of a park that is perfect for new cachers.   All the nearby traditionals appear to be found multiple times a week by new geocachers when the weather is nice.  If you place a D5 challenge cache in a place that new geocachers flock to you can't really be surprised that some of them act like new geocachers.    

 

We love challenge caches and commonly work towards them - but one of the complaints about challenge caches is that COs monopolize prime geocache areas with difficult challenges.  I would say getting a bunch of invalid newbie logs is feedback that you may be doing that.       

[+CheekyBrit]

I see good points from both sides on this one. It'd rather frustrate the games history to split mystery caches into two types (people who've completed challenges involving numbers of mystery caches compromised, for example). But it would increase visual convenience and help avoid the premature logging of challenges.
I'm glad I'm not HQ having to manage that decision. I'll be happy to play the game either way it goes. If I were a gambling man, I'd imagine the challenge attribute is their best effort to compromise and that is what we'll have going ahead.

[+The Jester]

11 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

I pointed out that the 'rebuttle' was already discussed in that thread, therefore rather than duplicating that discussion in this thread once again, if there's anything to add to the exchange that's already been had, then that thread about challenge stars would probably be a better place to bring it up again.  But whatever, I mean if it is indeed new info coming out for discussion, and it's not directly related to the challenge stars subject of that thread, then sure, post it here about this topic. Maybe someone else will copy it to that thread if it's also relevant to challenge stars.  All I saw with that comment was leading to duplicating a same discussion strand again in this thread when it would be more about the subject of that thread. 

And my point, which is in line with yours, is finklabs should also keep the discussion in that thread, not bring it up in every Challenge Cache thread.  If he/she can bring it up "as a good idea", then others can respond with "no, it's not".

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, The Jester said:

And my point, which is in line with yours, is finklabs should also keep the discussion in that thread, not bring it up in every Challenge Cache thread.  If he/she can bring it up "as a good idea", then others can respond with "no, it's not".

 

Absolutely, I don't disagree. But if there's a reason attached to the "no it's not" which has already been discussed, and is begging a response, better not to duplicate discussion that's already been had. That was my intent for the comment. I do agree that simply posting "here's a solution -> thread" isn't all that helpful in the discussion as it links to a very extensive discussion covering innumerable points that ends essentially on differing opinions about what's feasible or reasonable. Nonetheless, if a point is made, and responded to, better to continue where it's most relevant, or bring something new to the table again where it's most relevant. For the sake of forum sanity, FWIW 

 

7 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

If I were a gambling man, I'd imagine the challenge attribute is their best effort to compromise and that is what we'll have going ahead.

 

Agreed, of all the options suggested, the attribute was about the best overall choice, imo. And when it comes to the OP's comment: "Why are challenge caches the only cache type for which you can't log a "found it" log when you found the cache and signed the logbook?" for the same reason that daisy chained geocaches (find one to find another) have limitations and have to be classified as a 'bonus' cache. The Mystery cache type has quite a few concepts that are 'unique' in some way, because it's a catch-all. Challenge Caches are unique in that they are the only physical geocache is allowed an ALR.  Now that we have an attribute, they are much easier to identify.  But, people who don't know what they are just need to be better informed... 

 

How does one inform a newbie about Earthcaches or Virtuals they log without sending answers because they thought they just needed to visit the location? Or Multis where they sign something at the first stage, or even think something is missing because there's no log there, but log it found anyway?  Almost any 'type' of cache that's not Traditional has an exception, a difference that newbies have mistaken. We as a community just need to remember to be helpful and kind to inform people, and hope they pick up on it for next time.

[+fizzymagic]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

How does one inform a newbie about Earthcaches or Virtuals they log without sending answers because they thought they just needed to visit the location? Or Multis where they sign something at the first stage, or even think something is missing because there's no log there, but log it found anyway?  Almost any 'type' of cache that's not Traditional has an exception, a difference that newbies have mistaken. We as a community just need to remember to be helpful and kind to inform people, and hope they pick up on it for next time.

 

Precisely.  All those types of caches have special considerations.  Pasting a huge disclaimer across a multi page, for example, that says YOU CANNOT LOG THIS CACHE AS FOUND ONLINE UNTIL YOU FIND THE FINAL CONTAINER would be annoying, to say the least.  If, as a CO, you want to hide a cache with those additional requirements, you need to be prepared to monitor logs.  Otherwise, hide a traditional.

 

From my experience, virtuals are the most difficult to own.  I've had a couple cases where someone logged a virt who did not send me answers and was quite threatening when I asked for them, did not receive them, and deleted the log.   And I only did that because it was stunningly obvious that the individuals in question had never been anywhere near the site.

 

OTOH, owning challenge caches has become less and less fun as Groundspeak has clamped down, so I don't know that I would go out of my way to hide one these days.

Edited March 23, 2021 by fizzymagic

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

they thought they just needed to visit the location

It's not only new cachers who do that. I have had logs from a cacher with almost 3,000 finds who does that. If she finds a cache she signs the paper log and logs the find, but if she can't find the cache she logs the find anyway, because she visited the spot after all . I have deleted some of her logs. The time she logged a cache of mine close to where I live, I went immediately to check, as I no longer trust her logs. That one she had found, so signed it. I have asked for proof of find before deleting the log (as I normally do), such as a description of the cache and hide, but she has never been able to describe them, because she never found the cache to know what it looks like.

After I found she did that, it explained to me why she got all forgetful and vague, when I asked her for some help with a cache I was having difficulty finding, and that I had logged a DNF on. For her DNF she logged a find , as is her habit. She must know what she does is wrong, because she never admits to not actually finding a cache.

[+thebruce0]

7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

For her DNF she logged a find

 

I've seen a number of logs that are Finds but the text implies DNF. Many happened with that recent 'bug' on the logging page default to a Find type, but it's also happened occasionally to me if in the app, muscle memory takes over and I flag it as a find but add a note that it's a dnf for when I compose. If I don't catch it it goes through as a Find. (I have eventually caught them all tho)

As a CO I will contact the user if that happens on one of my caches, but I've seen some on others in the midst of DNFs that never get fixed. AND I see it on caches say after a day of paddle-caching as a group, and you can see who just tags all the caches we pass by to log them all as found - either by 'finding' a cache that's on a trail next to the water, but not water accessible, which they thought was part of the set we found, or for a cache that no one could find but they flagged it anyway as a find.

 

Now, those are 'mistakes' (being charitable here), but intentionally logging a DNF as a Find is a whole different ballgame; that's intentionally misleading for others who attempt the cache, and the CO should certainly be on those loggers to fix their log. (just like Finders who don't yet qualify)

Edited March 23, 2021 by thebruce0

[+brendan714]

Yet another bogus log from another newbie cacher today.  That marks 3 now in 3 weeks - this is really starting to get ridiculous!  I wonder why this was never a problem in the past 5ish years some of my challenges have existed?

 

I'm not sure what else to do other than to make bogus posted coordinates.  

 

Maybe a stupid idea, but why not hide challenge caches from newbies until they have, say, 50 or 100 finds? 

[+thebruce0]

32 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

Maybe a stupid idea, but why not hide challenge caches from newbies until they have, say, 50 or 100 finds? 

It sounds good, but there's no rule saying someone can't find a cache and sign before qualifying. But, maybe more realistically, it could make sense to perhaps make Challenge Caches an "advanced" cache type for the official app, along with other higher D/Ts and types.  That might filter out the "I didn't know any better" newbies too...

 

Offsetting the challenge cache container from posted is also a good idea you could now. I did that for one of my challenge series. Make a geoart out of it (and put the geoart away from any road/trail access :P)

[+niraD]

16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But, maybe more realistically, it could make sense to perhaps make Challenge Caches an "advanced" cache type for the official app, along with other higher D/Ts and types. 

I'm confused. Aren't mystery/puzzle caches (and therefore, challenge caches) already an "advanced" cache type that Groundspeak's app shows only to premium members?

[+thebruce0]

tru tru. never mind

[+brendan714]

As an update to this thread:  In early April of this year I changed the posted coordinates of all my challenges which were experiencing trouble with newbies.  Rather than having the physical cache at the posted coordinates, I moved the posted coords to a bogus location and added a visible final waypoint to the page with cache coordinates also clearly indicated in the description.

Since then, I have received zero 'found it' logs by newbies who found the cache but do not qualify for the challenge.

I have received one or two newbie DNFs (likely cachers who go looking at my bogus coordinates and fail to read through the cache description).

 

So, it would appear that the problem is solved - hooray!

 

That said, I am still very strongly of the opinion that challenge caches should have a separate icon.  There are still many geocachers who don't understand the concept / rules of a challenge cache vs other mystery caches.  Taking challenge caches out of the "mystery" bin just makes logical sense to me as one small step in the right direction. 

 

Thank you to those who suggested helpful solutions ( @HoochDog @Isonzo Karst)