Fizzy eligibility ("old caching dates")

[+PathfinderMark]

According to Geocaching.com I have filled my Fizzy Grid (finally).  HOWEVER, I am finding that most of the Fizzy Challenges, at least in my area (I live in Maryland), have cut off dates.  That is, caches created after the publication date of the cache (2007 for example in Kentucky), are not counted in the grid.  2007 is a LONG time ago.  

 

Any idea WHY Fizzy challenges have that rule and WHY that rule is "allowed" by HQ?  Its been a LONG time since 2007/2013, 2015 (whatever date used).  Why does it matter when the D/T cache was published?  

 

Thanks for any help you can give.  

[+niraD]

15 minutes ago, PathfinderMark said:

According to Geocaching.com I have filled my Fizzy Grid (finally).  HOWEVER, I am finding that most of the Fizzy Challenges, at least in my area (I live in Maryland), have cut off dates.  That is, caches created after the publication date of the cache (2007 for example in Kentucky), are not counted in the grid.  2007 is a LONG time ago.  

 

Any idea WHY Fizzy challenges have that rule

The rule was intended to prevent people from completing the grid using caches listed with bogus difficulty/terrain ratings, using caches listed specifically to help people complete the grid.

 

15 minutes ago, PathfinderMark said:

and WHY that rule is "allowed" by HQ?

It is allowed because such challenge caches are grandfathered. (The Help Center article Challenge caches uses the term "legacy caches".) They met the guidelines for challenge caches that were in place at the time they were published, and are allowed to continue even though they do not meet the current guidelines for challenge caches.

[+MNTA]

Ask the CO if this is still being enforced as new rules do not allow this requirement. Spot check a few of the previous finders. Personally I'd ignore that requirement and log but if they choose to reject meh no biggie. Or you can simply ignore.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I've seen a few of those too. It made a lot of sense when those fizzy challenges originally came out in the 2007-2010 time period. Thus was before Project GC or the API (GSAK did exist though). Challenge caches of any kind were also far less common then.

 

I agree 10-15 years later such a restriction is an annoyance. I'm not sure what a Fizzy Difficulty typically was in 2007, but with that restriction it's effectively a D5.

 

Not just the bookkeeping, but the rarity of some combos. In the USA, there are only 39 active caches rated 5/1 and published before July 1, 2007. That's approaching Jasmer difficulty. I wonder how many really should be D5?

 

Other rare combos before that date:

4.5/3.5 - 40

5.0/4.5 - 31

5.0/3.5 - 25

[+PathfinderMark]

Yeah, its kinda depressing.  I spent years attempting to get my Fizzy filled so that I could be eligible.  But I guess I never checked the nuance rules.  I started geocaching in 2007,  but really began serious caching in 2010, but only last year finished the frizzy (4.5/3, 4.5/3.5,  5/1 were my last ones).  Now I have it but "legally" don't have any fizzy challenges I'm eligible for.

 

Of my 12000+ finds, only about 6100 were published before July 2, 2007, and of the missing boxes, no remaining find are available within 1,000 miles (1800 km).  Guess I'll have to consider logging them and posting the grid image from my profile instead of the project-gc checker (since that one doesn't clear me).  I wish there was a better solution (that COs updated stuff as time changed for example)

[+Michaelcycle]

6 hours ago, PathfinderMark said:

Yeah, its kinda depressing.  I spent years attempting to get my Fizzy filled so that I could be eligible.  But I guess I never checked the nuance rules.  I started geocaching in 2007,  but really began serious caching in 2010, but only last year finished the frizzy (4.5/3, 4.5/3.5,  5/1 were my last ones).  Now I have it but "legally" don't have any fizzy challenges I'm eligible for.

 

Of my 12000+ finds, only about 6100 were published before July 2, 2007, and of the missing boxes, no remaining find are available within 1,000 miles (1800 km).  Guess I'll have to consider logging them and posting the grid image from my profile instead of the project-gc checker (since that one doesn't clear me).  I wish there was a better solution (that COs updated stuff as time changed for example)

Your solution to failing to meet the requirements for logging does not square with who you profess to be in your profile. You have cached in every state but Alaska and Hawai'i and you have found more than 50 caches in many of those states. If you had "checked the nuance rules" ie., read the cache page fully first, you could easily have fulfilled the current requirements for the Maryland Fizzy, GC16QQZ, which had an original cut-off date of 4JULY08. The CO has advanced that 5 years to 4July13. (As an FYI the cut-off date is not the only additional requirement, the 81 caches must contain 9 specified cache types in keeping with the original Fizzy Challenge GC11E8N.)

Dated restricted Fizzy are difficult (I planned and worked very hard and it took a long time to complete and log the original) but so are lots of other old (and even some new) challenges. When I finished I was exhilarated! That is not the feeling you will have if you log a cache without meeting the requirements.

You recently logged a challenge that required 25 EarthCaches in 25 states. Not surprising, ECs are something you enjoy and I suspect you travel mostly by car but I doubt I will ever meet that requirement. Maybe the CO could lower the number to the 18 states where I do have ECs? Ok, so that was sarcasm. 

I would rather you got the feeling of logging a Fizzy Challenge legitimately so I did some research. Here are two Fizzys that you do meet the requirements for that for a traveler like you would surely be considered local:

GC799TJ and GC98CHJ

Good luck and keep chipping away on that Maryland Fizzy, it's a nice climb to GZ.

 

As for Alaska and Hawai'i, go, you'll never forget them (be sure to visit the Big Island and take the train from Anchorage to Fairbanks to really experience both )

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Michaelcycle

[+PathfinderMark]

Hey Michaelcycle,

Note I said consider -- as suggested by another blogger.  Truth be told, consider is about as far as it gets....

 

What tools have you found easiest to search for caches published before a certain date?

 

Thanks for the two fizzy #s "close by" that I do qualify for

 

[Keystone]

1 hour ago, PathfinderMark said:

What tools have you found easiest to search for caches published before a certain date?

 

It's easy to search from the Geocaching.com homepage.  Just select a date range and the D/T combination you are missing.

 

You can also search from the homepage to find Fizzy Challenges for which you are qualified, without the date restriction.  Search parameters would include "Mystery" cache type, Cache Name includes "Fizzy", and Hidden date of 2016 or later (when the current rules on date restrictions came into effect).  You can then limit this geographically, like to a distance from your home coordinates, or just in the USA or just in State X.

 

If you run this search you will also discover the many "Fizzy Variant" challenges, such as Double/Triple/etc. Fizzy, a Fizzy of just micros, a Fizzy of just Mystery Caches, etc.

Edited July 11, 2022 by Keystone

[+JL_HSTRE]

23 hours ago, Michaelcycle said:

You recently logged a challenge that required 25 EarthCaches in 25 states. Not surprising, ECs are something you enjoy and I suspect you travel mostly by car but I doubt I will ever meet that requirement. Maybe the CO could lower the number to the 18 states where I do have ECs? Ok, so that was sarcasm. 

 

The big difference is that regardless of how many Earthcaches an Earthcache Challenge requires any Earthcache qualifies. Most Challenge Caches become easier over time.

 

Date restrictions on Fizzys means as time passes the challenge becomes more difficult, not less.

 

Jasmer is an obvious exception but the date requirements are an inherent part of the challenge. A Fizzy without a date requirement is still a Fizzy.

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

A Fizzy without a date requirement is still a Fizzy.

Is it? Or is it just a 9x9 grid challenge?

[Keystone]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

Is it? Or is it just a 9x9 grid challenge?

This is a fair point, since the original Fizzy Challenge has a hidden date restriction, as well as a cache type requirement.

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Most Challenge Caches become easier over time.

 

Only if the number of caches meeting the criteria increases over time. My region has been in decline for some years now, with far fewer caches than when I started in 2013. Back then, there were well over a hundred new caches published each year but now we're lucky to get a dozen or so, with archivals now outstripping new placements by a good margin. Most of the decline has been in urban hides as they're often short-lived due to muggling or changing urban landscape, but recent natural disasters like the 2019 fires and the repeated widespread flooding since then have taken their toll on bushland hides too.

[+JL_HSTRE]

7 hours ago, niraD said:

Is it? Or is it just a 9x9 grid challenge?

 

I consider Fizzy and 9x9 grid challenge synonymous, even if the first Fizzy Challenge was more restrictive.

 

Others may disagree.

[+fizzymagic]

I have asked the hider of the original Fizzy Challenge to move the date requirement several times.  He has said no.  I respect that.  It's his cache and, since it's grandfathered, he gets to set the rules.

 

Me, I kinda like the "fizzy" branding on all 9x9 challenges! 

[Keystone]

43 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

Me, I kinda like the "fizzy" branding on all 9x9 challenges! 

 

As well you should!  It's a shame that fewer and fewer people know the true history behind the original Fizzy challenge.  It is just another geocaching buzzword to many geocachers.  In the modern age when statistics can be sliced and diced every which way, it's hard to relate to the early days.  FindStats was groundbreaking in its time, because nothing else like it was in the statistics space.  Your work deserves to be memorialized, even by challenge cache hiders who may not even realize that they're doing so!

Edited July 12, 2022 by Keystone

[+dprovan]

On 7/9/2022 at 9:05 PM, niraD said:

The rule was intended to prevent people from completing the grid using caches listed with bogus difficulty/terrain ratings, using caches listed specifically to help people complete the grid.

Yes, this is a good explanation. And I see the point and agree that anyone with an existing fizzy should be allowed leave the restriction in place. But, personally, I think it's controlling to the point of being obnoxious. In particular, I object to the fact that this prevents correctly rated newer caches just because they're newer. The idea that this prevents incorrectly rated caches from being used seems petty to me.

[+Isonzo Karst]

4 hours ago, dprovan said:

The idea that this prevents incorrectly rated caches from being used

 

The oldest 5/5 I have is a 2002 Locationless. ;-)    Hard to say about D on many of those,  lots of research, some luck and potentially some travel to get to them. But the T on that on, ("....roadside attractions") a 1.5.

Age no guarantee of good ratings. Looking at my pre 2008 finds, I sure see a lot of nonsense. Mostly in the form D ratings. Tough hike climb  rated 4.5 (probably not really that tough) but that part's okay. Then the find rated 4. It's an ammo can. Once you get to GZ, find maybe a 2, tops.

 

Now that there's an attribute for Challenge cache, I speculate that the way to restrict Fizzy caches in hopes of more honest ratings is to exclude any cache with that attribute. After that, it's kind of crap shoot. Some will be okay, and others not so much.

[+Michaelcycle]

8 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

As well you should!  It's a shame that fewer and fewer people know the true history behind the original Fizzy challenge.  It is just another geocaching buzzword to many geocachers.  In the modern age when statistics can be sliced and diced every which way, it's hard to relate to the early days.  FindStats was groundbreaking in its time, because nothing else like it was in the statistics space.  Your work deserves to be memorialized, even by challenge cache hiders who may not even realize that they're doing so!

In case this discussion has energized some geocachers to check their stats and start planning a trip to GC11E8N the place where it is hidden, Big Basin Redwoods State park (California's oldest state park, 1902) was burned over 97% of its acreage during the CZU fire in 2020. The cache has been disabled since that time. Kealia recently posted that limited reopening of the park is scheduled for 22July22 but access to GZ will not be available. The CO is watching and will replace/repair the cache when it is accessible. The good news is that the redwoods have survived for the most part and their presence will still be a fitting reward for anyone who succeeds in undertaking this challenge.

[+MNTA]

GS could change the rules to remove placement date requirement on all grandfathered caches just like the did to remove ALRs.

[+Michaelcycle]

4 hours ago, MNTA said:

GS could change the rules to remove placement date requirement on all grandfathered caches just like the did to remove ALRs.

All challenge caches, old and new, have logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion , Groundspeak should eliminate all challenge requirements because somebody doesn't like one requirement or another. That argument has already been debated and legislated 6 years ago.

I will also point out that the ALRs you are referring to were not part of challenge caches.

[+fizzymagic]

I had advance warning that the challenge was coming, so I hid a true 4.5 / 5 cache to help people qualify.  I keep it active for that very purpose.

[+Hügh]

Out of curiosity, I did some digging. Here is a table showing the number of active (as of now) caches, placed before 2007-04-06, for each D/T rating combination.

 

	1	1.5	2	2.5	3	3.5	4	4.5	5
1	8381	4920	2224	971	985	500	320	156	214
1.5	3019	12162	5575	2681	1843	849	439	178	208
2	2078	4888	9293	5137	5343	2363	1534	355	440
2.5	758	1940	1859	2635	1799	1070	575	152	162
3	701	1348	1507	1042	2198	1165	844	279	226
3.5	235	435	471	368	402	528	369	154	92
4	225	398	390	239	318	205	501	181	100
4.5	74	102	95	59	82	64	59	162	74
5	59	98	96	60	61	31	51	37	284

 

In addition, the (current) "oldest possible" D/T grid can be completed using only caches placed before April 10th, 2002; GC4B8A "Spy Ring" placed April 9th, 2002 is the oldest active cache rated 4.5/2.5. All other squares can be filled using older caches.

 

	1	1.5	2	2.5	3	3.5	4	4.5	5
1	2000-05-11	2000-06-03	2000-10-09	2000-05-12	2001-02-05	2001-06-20	2001-01-15	2001-04-03	2000-11-25
1.5	2001-04-05	2000-05-18	2000-10-01	2000-10-07	2000-06-03	2000-09-17	2001-04-12	2001-05-12	2001-06-03
2	2000-12-31	2000-09-09	2000-05-13	2000-06-04	2000-06-17	2000-06-21	2000-10-08	2001-02-11	2001-05-23
2.5	2001-01-20	2000-09-26	2001-01-15	2001-01-21	2001-02-04	2001-01-07	2001-02-17	2001-02-15	2000-07-17
3	2000-06-21	2000-11-04	2000-06-11	2001-02-03	2000-09-10	2001-01-03	2000-05-26	2000-11-25	2001-04-28
3.5	2000-07-16	2001-03-12	2001-01-02	2001-03-25	2001-02-10	2000-12-24	2001-01-27	2001-01-22	2001-07-06
4	2002-01-15	2000-11-24	2001-06-23	2001-01-14	2001-02-24	2001-02-24	2000-06-21	2000-10-08	2001-02-12
4.5	2002-02-07	2001-08-25	2001-10-07	2002-04-09	2001-06-16	2001-10-09	2001-04-11	2000-12-03	2001-06-10
5	2000-12-15	2001-08-22	2001-05-23	2001-10-11	2001-07-10	2001-07-21	2001-01-01	2001-06-23	2001-05-30

 

Anyone up for the challenge?

[+barefootjeff]

21 hours ago, Michaelcycle said:

On 7/13/2022 at 7:31 AM, MNTA said:

GS could change the rules to remove placement date requirement on all grandfathered caches just like the did to remove ALRs.

All challenge caches, old and new, have logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion , Groundspeak should eliminate all challenge requirements because somebody doesn't like one requirement or another. That argument has already been debated and legislated 6 years ago.

I will also point out that the ALRs you are referring to were not part of challenge caches.

 

Yep, the difficulty of all challenge caches can change over time, especially those that have a restrictive set of qualifying caches. Just last week, a new challenge cache was published here that requires 55 finds on caches within this Local Government Area (our equivalent of "county") with a terrain rating of 3.5 or higher. As of now there are 84 qualifying caches to choose from but there are older archived ones that longer-time players might have found and there'll likely be newer ones to come. However, if one looks closer, 30 of those 84 caches are owned by just two COs (one of them being me with 14). If either of us decided we're done with caching and archived all our caches it'd make it a much tougher challenge for anyone starting now, but if both of us did that, well hopefully that won't happen for a good while yet. On the other side of the coin, someone could just as easily come along and flood the LGA with T3.5s, making it much less challenging.

 

That variable difficulty is part and parcel of the challenge and, unless it reaches the point where the challenge becomes impossible to complete, maybe it should be embraced rather than legislated away.

[+K13]

At GeoWoodstock in Ft. Worth, I overheard a couple geocachers talking about how in their 200-some-odd finds that day, they had completed two full Fizzy Loops. I laughed out loud at that.   (There were a couple GeoArts that were placed prior to the events that had the false D/T ratings to bolster the egos of those grid fillers.)

 

That's why the old date and cache type restrictions should remain on those Challenges with one.

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, K13 said:

At GeoWoodstock in Ft. Worth, I overheard a couple geocachers talking about how in their 200-some-odd finds that day, they had completed two full Fizzy Loops. I laughed out loud at that.   (There were a couple GeoArts that were placed prior to the events that had the false D/T ratings to bolster the egos of those grid fillers.)

[+icezebra11]

tbbiker x 1000!

 

Just need that rare 5/3.5 to meet the original challenge. Have several qualifiers on my "must find" list but i need to get off the stick and commit to the necessary travel. 

[+PathfinderMark]

On 7/13/2022 at 5:22 PM, Hügh said:

Out of curiosity, I did some digging. Here is a table showing the number of active (as of now) caches, placed before 2007-04-06, for each D/T rating combination.

 

	1	1.5	2	2.5	3	3.5	4	4.5	5
1	8381	4920	2224	971	985	500	320	156	214
1.5	3019	12162	5575	2681	1843	849	439	178	208
2	2078	4888	9293	5137	5343	2363	1534	355	440
2.5	758	1940	1859	2635	1799	1070	575	152	162
3	701	1348	1507	1042	2198	1165	844	279	226
3.5	235	435	471	368	402	528	369	154	92
4	225	398	390	239	318	205	501	181	100
4.5	74	102	95	59	82	64	59	162	74
5	59	98	96	60	61	31	51	37	284

 

In addition, the (current) "oldest possible" D/T grid can be completed using only caches placed before April 10th, 2002; GC4B8A "Spy Ring" placed April 9th, 2002 is the oldest active cache rated 4.5/2.5. All other squares can be filled using older caches.

 

	1	1.5	2	2.5	3	3.5	4	4.5	5
1	2000-05-11	2000-06-03	2000-10-09	2000-05-12	2001-02-05	2001-06-20	2001-01-15	2001-04-03	2000-11-25
1.5	2001-04-05	2000-05-18	2000-10-01	2000-10-07	2000-06-03	2000-09-17	2001-04-12	2001-05-12	2001-06-03
2	2000-12-31	2000-09-09	2000-05-13	2000-06-04	2000-06-17	2000-06-21	2000-10-08	2001-02-11	2001-05-23
2.5	2001-01-20	2000-09-26	2001-01-15	2001-01-21	2001-02-04	2001-01-07	2001-02-17	2001-02-15	2000-07-17
3	2000-06-21	2000-11-04	2000-06-11	2001-02-03	2000-09-10	2001-01-03	2000-05-26	2000-11-25	2001-04-28
3.5	2000-07-16	2001-03-12	2001-01-02	2001-03-25	2001-02-10	2000-12-24	2001-01-27	2001-01-22	2001-07-06
4	2002-01-15	2000-11-24	2001-06-23	2001-01-14	2001-02-24	2001-02-24	2000-06-21	2000-10-08	2001-02-12
4.5	2002-02-07	2001-08-25	2001-10-07	2002-04-09	2001-06-16	2001-10-09	2001-04-11	2000-12-03	2001-06-10
5	2000-12-15	2001-08-22	2001-05-23	2001-10-11	2001-07-10	2001-07-21	2001-01-01	2001-06-23	2001-05-30

 

Anyone up for the challenge?

That is impressive statistics.  I still argue that as dates get further and further away from current time it becomes harder….much harder than when published IMHO.  I saw one fizzy that says “four years prior to the current year on such and such date.  That seemed equitable IMHO.

[+PathfinderMark]

On 7/14/2022 at 12:46 AM, niraD said:

Gag.  I like real grids….finally have one loop after 12 years of caching.

[+PathfinderMark]

On 7/10/2022 at 8:16 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

I've seen a few of those too. It made a lot of sense when those fizzy challenges originally came out in the 2007-2010 time period. Thus was before Project GC or the API (GSAK did exist though). Challenge caches of any kind were also far less common then.

 

I agree 10-15 years later such a restriction is an annoyance. I'm not sure what a Fizzy Difficulty typically was in 2007, but with that restriction it's effectively a D5.

 

Not just the bookkeeping, but the rarity of some combos. In the USA, there are only 39 active caches rated 5/1 and published before July 1, 2007. That's approaching Jasmer difficulty. I wonder how many really should be D5?

 

Other rare combos before that date:

4.5/3.5 - 40

5.0/4.5 - 31

5.0/3.5 - 25

Those combos are getting truly rare.  I may never find those…

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, PathfinderMark said:

Those combos are getting truly rare.  I may never find those…

 

On this side of the world, in all of New South Wales there are some pretty rare combinations of any age:

 

4.5/4.0 - 5 caches

4.5/1.0 - 7 caches

5.0/4.0 - 8 caches

 

After nine years in the game I still have five holes in my grid, although I see I found one of the rare 4.5/4.0s earlier this year on a group caching trip. I have no expectation or ambition to fill my grid any time soon, let alone qualify for any of the challenges that require multiple loops, which is probably just as well.

[+thebruce0]

On 7/13/2022 at 9:18 PM, K13 said:

At GeoWoodstock in Ft. Worth, I overheard a couple geocachers talking about how in their 200-some-odd finds that day, they had completed two full Fizzy Loops. I laughed out loud at that.   (There were a couple GeoArts that were placed prior to the events that had the false D/T ratings to bolster the egos of those grid fillers.)

 

That's why the old date and cache type restrictions should remain on those Challenges with one.

 

Yep, this.

 

On the flipside, I have no problem if someone places a legitimate (ymmv) grid of all 81 DTs for people to attempt to complete a fizzy in however short a time it would take. If the DTs are essentially 'accurate' (ie, not faked just to fill stats), I'm all for it.  There are already quite a few series around the world with some pretty arguably accurate DT ratings (there will always be disagreement about accuracy of "true" ratings, of course)

 

13 hours ago, PathfinderMark said:

That is impressive statistics.  I still argue that as dates get further and further away from current time it becomes harder….much harder than when published IMHO.  I saw one fizzy that says “four years prior to the current year on such and such date.  That seemed equitable IMHO.

 

Absolutely. Some like to say the hardest challenge to complete will to be the LAST person complete the California fizzy.  When there's only 1 more of a particular valid DT to find, and being the last person to find it.

It's getting that way with the jasmer grid. Currently 4 jasmers is the max based on active geocaches worldwide. And that will only shrink as the years go on and the 4 available for that month slowly get archived.  IMO, that makes the challenge all the more challenging and a much more satisfying accomplishment.