Suggestion: Time penalty for wrong multiple choice answer

[+GeoElmo6000]

Disclaimer: I'm not very much into lab caches or Adventures in general.  But this week I created a second account (basic member level) to find lab caches so that I could clear some Adventure bonus caches off my map.

 

The lab caches I did were multiple choice.  I actually went to the location, read the plaques, and correctly answered the questions... for the first four.  On the fifth one, I wanted to see what happened if I just clicked the answers from top to bottom.  Well, the correct answer was toward the bottom, but I could just click-click-click until I got the success result.

 

I read some of the reviews of this Adventure and noticed that people said they were just doing the Adventure from their cars.  But you couldn't actually see some of the answers to the questions from the street, so I suspect people were just driving close enough to unlock the stage and clicking until they got the correct answer.

 

So my suggestion: put a small time penalty (60 seconds perhaps) for an incorrect lab cache multiple choice answer.  IMO that small penalty would drive some people to take the time to find the correct answer.

[+Max and 99]

Those seem to be more common lately. If it's a non-sequential AL they can just go home and answer the questions afterwards. The penalty won't affect them, unless they want to answer the questions while there. 

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Max and 99

[+TommyGator]

3 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

So my suggestion: put a small time penalty (60 seconds perhaps) for an incorrect lab cache multiple choice answer.

I must disagree.  I've been to far too many AdLab stages where the question was either vaguely worded or did not reference a crystal clear and unambiguous answer---requiring multiple attempts until I finally worded (or spelled) the answer in the manner required by the CO, while standing directly in front of the object supposedly containing the answer..  That, by itself, was immensely frustrating.  Adding a time limit might just be another disincentive for doing AdLabs.  Unfortunately, guessing has become an integral part of AdLabbing, often the result of poor question design, or even by CO intent---which, without a review process or user feedback mechanism,  isn't going to change anytime soon, and may even get worse.

 

 

[+Max and 99]

6 hours ago, TommyGator said:

I must disagree.  I've been to far too many AdLab stages where the question was either vaguely worded or did not reference a crystal clear and unambiguous answer---requiring multiple attempts until I finally worded (or spelled) the answer in the manner required by the CO, while standing directly in front of the object supposedly containing the answer..  That, by itself, was immensely frustrating.  Adding a time limit might just be another disincentive for doing AdLabs.  Unfortunately, guessing has become an integral part of AdLabbing, often the result of poor question design, or even by CO intent---which, without a review process or user feedback mechanism,  isn't going to change anytime soon, and may even get worse.

 

 

Good points! I once completed an adventure lab where one of the locations had four multiple choice options and not one of them was correct. 

 

[+GeoElmo6000]

On 1/7/2023 at 11:23 PM, TommyGator said:

requiring multiple attempts until I finally worded (or spelled) the answer in the manner required by the CO

 

I was only talking about multiple choice questions.  You can just tap all the answers without reading the question within one second and get the right answer.

 

On 1/8/2023 at 5:26 AM, Max and 99 said:

I once completed an adventure lab where one of the locations had four multiple choice options and not one of them was correct. 

 

How is that even possible?  Are you sure you didn't tap the correct answer?  Unless, for example, someone put in two answers and selected the third as the correct answer.  But I'd hope that the UI would catch that or at least display a blank answer.

 

[+Max and 99]

20 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

How is that even possible?

I went to the location and determined the correct answer. None of the four multiple choice options matched the correct answer. Therefore, I had no choice but to keep guessing. 

It got fixed. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Max and 99

[+GeoElmo6000]

16 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I went to the location and determined the correct answer. None of the four multiple choice options matched the correct answer. Therefore, I had no choice but to keep guessing. 

It got fixed. 

 

So the lab accepted an answer, but it wasn't correct for the question.

[+Mausebiber]

On 1/8/2023 at 1:10 AM, GeoElmo6000 said:

So my suggestion: put a small time penalty (60 seconds perhaps) for an incorrect lab cache multiple choice answer.  IMO that small penalty would drive some people to take the time to find the correct answer.

 

Let me ask you this:

What do you gain by adding the 60 seconds, and what do you lose by just leaving it as it is?

Why are you so concerned how ALs are performed by someone else?

[+GeoElmo6000]

58 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Let me ask you this:

What do you gain by adding the 60 seconds, and what do you lose by just leaving it as it is?

Why are you so concerned how ALs are performed by someone else?

 

It's not about my gain, it's about improving the way multiple choice answer lab caches work.  As a cache owner and adventure owner I know that work goes into setting up caches and labs.  The intention of the adventure owner is to pass along some information to the finder.  With text based lab cache answers, the answer has to be written correctly in order to complete the lab, so the finder needs to take some effort to get that information.  With multiple choice based lab caches, the answer can be guessed in four or less taps on the screen in one second  when the finder is within range of unlocking the lab cache.

 

There are several adventures near me where people reported not even needing to leave their vehicles because they could answer the questions from their vehicles, even though the answers weren't visible from the street.

 

In my opinion the spirit of what the lab cache is intended to accomplish would be better with a small penalty for a wrong multiple choice answer, my reasoning being that may give the finder a little more motivation to actually find the answer if they're waiting some time for the question to unlock itself again.

 

I don't expect you to agree with me but those are my answers to your questions.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

 

Let me ask you this:

What do you gain by adding the 60 seconds, and what do you lose by just leaving it as it is?

Why are you so concerned how ALs are performed by someone else?

 

Why is every suggestion assumed to be self-serving for the person suggesting it? Can suggestions not just be for the good of the game? I can understand why they introduced multi-choice questions, because of all the problems arising from text-entry answers like owner's spelling mistakes, confusion over numbers (four or 4), punctuation mark encoding, etc., but multi-choice as it now stands has gone too far the other way. There's no longer a need to even look for the answer, you can just make at most four quick guesses and be on your way to the next smiley. A time penalty for incorrect choices would at least provide some encouragement to get out of the car and find the thing you're supposed to be finding.

 

Yes, it could be argued that some people simply guessing doesn't harm those who take the time to find the correct answer, or that those who use location spoofers to get inside the geofence don't harm those who actually go to the location, but it changes the nature of the game as a whole from outdoor exploration to just quick-scoring on a phone game. You could use the same argument to say that there should be a way of revealing the hidden waypoints of multis and puzzles so that those who just want to go straight to the cache and sign the logbook can do so, or that just visiting the parking waypoint should be enough to claim a find for those who don't want to do the hiking, climbing, paddling, swimming or whatever. Is that the direction the game should be going?

Edited January 12, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+Mausebiber]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Why is every suggestion assumed to be self-serving for the person suggesting it? Can suggestions not just be for the good of the game?

Who determines what's good for the game?  Is it you who wants to change current procedure to fit your needs, your idea how someone else should play this game?

What would you say, if most user's like it exactly as it is?  I don't know if this is true or not, do you know?

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

17 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Who determines what's good for the game?  Is it you who wants to change current procedure to fit your needs, your idea how someone else should play this game?

What would you say, if most user's like it exactly as it is?  I don't know if this is true or not, do you know?

 

 

I have no needs, it has nothing to do with me, my AL smiley count is zero. That was the point I was trying to make, why can't people make suggestions - not demands, just suggestions - about ways to improve the game without it having to be for their own personal gain?

[+Mausebiber]

Maybe I can't make myself clear.

You are saying: 

Quote

not demands, just suggestions - about ways to improve the game without it having to be for their own personal gain

 

If you want to improve the game, than YOU are not happy with the way it is.  Making a suggestion meas, I have an idea of improve, to make it better for everyone if you follow my idea it is for the advantage of everyone.

Is this really true?

[+barefootjeff]

16 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

If you want to improve the game, than YOU are not happy with the way it is.  Making a suggestion meas, I have an idea of improve, to make it better for everyone if you follow my idea it is for the advantage of everyone.

 

No, it has nothing to do with ME. It makes no difference to me whether or not people armchair log ALs, but I still think ALs would be a better game as a whole if players actually had to go outdoors, visit the location and find something in order to answer the questions. That's just my opinion, you are welcome to disagree with it and say why you think armchair logging makes it a better game, that's what discussions are for.

[+Mausebiber]

You still don't get my point. My last try:

 

Imagine there is something which is just perfect, you like it very much exactly the way it is.  Would you make a suggestion to change anything?  Probably not.

So, if someone makes a suggestion for improvement, quite obviously this person has the feeling it is not perfect this person does not like it the way it is.

 

Now I come back to the beginning of this discussion, why does this person think it is not OK the way it is, what difference does it make for this person if GS would add 60 seconds to any of the AL answers, why is this person so concerned about the way others playing this game?

 

I don't think that armchair logging is OK or makes the game better or worse, the way others playing, just does not effect me.  The way I geocaching has not changes very much over the years, regardless what others are doing.  One of the beauties of geocaching is, that I don't have to worry what other cachers are doing (unless they destroy locations or containers), they play it their way, I play it my way. 

[+GeoElmo6000]

33 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Now I come back to the beginning of this discussion, why does this person think it is not OK the way it is, what difference does it make for this person if GS would add 60 seconds to any of the AL answers, why is this person so concerned about the way others playing this game?

 

I answered these questions when you asked them already.

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Now I come back to the beginning of this discussion, why does this person think it is not OK the way it is, what difference does it make for this person if GS would add 60 seconds to any of the AL answers, why is this person so concerned about the way others playing this game?

 

One last try. There are benefits to multi-choice questions over text-entry questions, such as avoiding the problems caused by spelling mistakes, etc., but creators of ALs may be reluctant to use them because it turns the question into a quick-fire guessing game and defeats their reason for wanting people to explore that particular location. Adding a time penalty for incorrect multi-choce guesses could ease their concerns while not affecting those players who make the effort to find the correct answer. The result is a win for the community with a better experience for both owners and players. So I think the OP's suggestion is a good idea even though it doesn't affect me personally as I rarely play them and don't intend creating any more new ones.

[+Team Canary]

But, what about cases where there are answers that are different to the answer on the sign you are in front of, like one in Cronulla, but you have to Google it, and its still different. So many guesses.

 

Another one in the same town names the ship blah bah 111 not blah blah III!?!

 

Furstrating!!!

 

And then to be time limited by the wrong guesses for a bad answer. No, thanks!

 

[+GeoElmo6000]

28 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

But, what about cases where there are answers that are different to the answer on the sign you are in front of, like one in Cronulla, but you have to Google it, and its still different. So many guesses.

 

Another one in the same town names the ship blah bah 111 not blah blah III!?!

 

Furstrating!!!

 

And then to be time limited by the wrong guesses for a bad answer. No, thanks!

 

 

My suggestion is for multiple choice answers only, per the thread title.

[+Team Canary]

36 minutes ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

My suggestion is for multiple choice answers only, per the thread title.

 

Oops! The topic has deviated since then. My bad.

[+fizzymagic]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

One last try. There are benefits to multi-choice questions over text-entry questions, such as avoiding the problems caused by spelling mistakes, etc., but creators of ALs may be reluctant to use them because it turns the question into a quick-fire guessing game and defeats their reason for wanting people to explore that particular location. Adding a time penalty for incorrect multi-choce guesses could ease their concerns while not affecting those players who make the effort to find the correct answer. The result is a win for the community with a better experience for both owners and players. So I think the OP's suggestion is a good idea even though it doesn't affect me personally as I rarely play them and don't intend creating any more new ones.

 

I appreciate that you are trying in your way to make a suggestion that would make ALs "better" in some sense.  However a far larger problem with AL questions is the tendency of AL owners to ask questions that have nothing at all to do with the content of the AL, but are on.y there so that the player can prove they were on-site.   Getting to an interesting historical spot and having a question like "What is the stamp on the bolt holding the sign?" is far more annoying than multiple-choice questions.

 

On my list of improvements that could be made to ALs, improving multiple-choice answers is very far down the priority list*.  I am sorry, but my read on this thread is that those promoting the time penalties are doing so more to not let people "get away" with anything than they are with improving ALs, despite fervent denials to the contrary.

 

* Which I am more than happy to share, but which would veer this topic even farther off-course.

[+GeoElmo6000]

9 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

I am sorry, but my read on this thread is that those promoting the time penalties are doing so more to not let people "get away" with anything than they are with improving ALs, despite fervent denials to the contrary.

 

As the OP, I can tell you that's not my intention with suggesting this time penalty for multiple choice answers.  My only intention is to give the finder motivation to discover the information the lab cache creator wanted them to find.

[+fizzymagic]

6 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

As the OP, I can tell you that's not my intention with suggesting this time penalty for multiple choice answers.  My only intention is to give the finder motivation to discover the information the lab cache creator wanted them to find.

 

Then you agree with me that "give the number of the nearby telephone pole" questions are a big problem, right?  If so, then we're pretty much on the same page.  if not, then, frankly, I don't believe you.

 

IMO the irrelevant questions are a much bigger problem.

Edited January 13, 2023 by fizzymagic

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

 

Then you agree with me that "give the number of the nearby telephone pole" questions are a big problem, right?  If so, then we're pretty much on the same page.  if not, then, frankly, I don't believe you.

 

IMO the irrelevant questions are a much bigger problem.

 

Often times, particularly once you get away from urban areas, finding anything to ask an unambiguous question about is difficult. Conisder this vantage point which I considered worth bringing people to as a location in my Wreck of the Maitland AL:

 

 

I wanted to avoid questions that require local or specialised knowledge, such as identifying landmarks, species of plant or rock types, but when all the location has are plants, rocks and distant views there isn't much to ask about. In this case it was either "count the fence posts" or some words off the plaque that says who constructed the lookout. In the end I chose the latter, but it's not very relevant to the location and isn't why I'm bringing people to this spot.

 

What question would you have asked here? Or is this just a dumb place for an AL location?

[+TommyGator]

29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

What question would you have asked here? Or is this just a dumb place for an AL location?

Doesn't look dumb at all---I presume this is Maitland Bay, and there is probably a big backstory in your AL about the sinking of the Maitland.  I'd look up your AL if it weren't so cumbersome to do so---but if I were in the area, I'd be intrigued by the story and might appreciate a look-see at the places involved.

 

The purpose of the question is NOT to prove you were there, as that is the purpose of the geofence that prevents credit until your actual presence is registered (GPS spoofers notwithstanding).

 

You can easily ask a question from the text you provided in the write-up for that stage.  This would add to the adventure by causing the adlabber to actually read your excellent write-up rather than merely skip the write-up, travel to the location, and merely answer some irrelevant (to the story) question, and then move on to the next location.  As many have already found, there is little need to read the stage writeups since the only thing often necessary is to travel to the location and answer a question about how many bolts are on a sign, or something equally exciting.  Asking a question from your own text might actually draw someone's interest into the story that you were trying to tell.

 

Just my opinion.

[+barefootjeff]

6 minutes ago, TommyGator said:

Doesn't look dumb at all---I presume this is Maitland Bay, and there is probably a big backstory in your AL about the sinking of the Maitland.  I'd look up your AL if it weren't so cumbersome to do so---but if I were in the area, I'd be intrigued by the story and might appreciate a look-see at the places involved.

 

The purpose of the question is NOT to prove you were there, as that is the purpose of the geofence that prevents credit until your actual presence is registered (GPS spoofers notwithstanding).

 

You can easily ask a question from the text you provided in the write-up for that stage.  This would add to the adventure by causing the adlabber to actually read your excellent write-up rather than merely skip the write-up, travel to the location, and merely answer some irrelevant (to the story) question, and then move on to the next location.  As many have already found, there is little need to read the stage writeups since the only thing often necessary is to travel to the location and answer a question about how many bolts are on a sign, or something equally exciting.  Asking a question from your own text might actually draw someone's interest into the story that you were trying to tell.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Yes, it's Maitland Bay and the "final" location (it's non-sequential but the lay of the land makes this the last spot most people visit) is about finding a part of what's left of the shipwreck.

 

The Builder Guide says:

 

"Location answer: The answer(s) is a code that is found or deciphered at the Location to prove that the player was there. The player will enter the Location answer directly into the app to verify the find. Choose Location answers that are unique and discreet to prevent players from finding the answer online.

 

I don't think asking a question based on the location description in the AL itself would comply with this. In spite of HQ's efforts to prevent the use of location spoofers, people are still using them to defeat the geofence and the question then becomes a last line of defence. But even without that, I'd still like finders to have to do more than just get inside the fence, to actually find or do something at the location even if it's just getting a number off a pole or a name on a plaque, otherwise it's just a passive guided tour.

[+TommyGator]

7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The answer(s) is a code that is found or deciphered at the Location to prove that the player was there.

You are entirely correct.  The Builder Guide does indeed say that the question is to prove you were there----and disregards that the purpose of the geofence is to do the exact same thing.  Draw what conclusions from this that you might.

 

One might have thought that the purpose of the AL was to have an adventure related to the story---rather than to travel to a random location to complete a mundane task----but that is for others to philosophise about.

[+GeoElmo6000]

1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:

Then you agree with me that "give the number of the nearby telephone pole" questions are a big problem, right?  If so, then we're pretty much on the same page.  if not, then, frankly, I don't believe you.

 

Rude much? 

[+barefootjeff]

7 minutes ago, TommyGator said:

One might have thought that the purpose of the AL was to have an adventure related to the story---rather than to travel to a random location to complete a mundane task----but that is for others to philosophise about.

 

What the purpose of ALs are is a good question. The cynic in me says it's about boosting a player's smiley count by as much as possible with as little amount of time and effort, and that seems to be the case with some of them.

 

One of my other ALs, 5 Lands Walk, was meant to draw people to this awesome 10km coastal hike. The locations are at each of the 5 Lands and the questions based on the 5 Lands Walk signage telling a little of the history of each settlement, but as far as I can tell from those who've written a review (about half the participants), no-one has actually done any of the walk and instead have just driven to each of the car parks where the signs are. Getting back on-topic, If they'd been multi-choice questions (that wasn't an option when I created it), they wouldn't even have to get out of their car, just make at most four quick guesses and they can be on their way to the next easy smiley.

[+TommyGator]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If they'd been multi-choice questions (that wasn't an option when I created it), they wouldn't even have to get out of their car, just make at most four quick guesses and they can be on their way to the next easy smiley.

And many would undoubtedly appreciate that! 

I've seen that trend is already well underway---and sometimes by design, no less.

 

 

[+fizzymagic]

7 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

Rude much? 

 

I thought you would agree with me, given your rationale.  Stating the conditions under which I would believe you is not rude, IMO, unless I was triggering something.

[+fizzymagic]

7 hours ago, TommyGator said:

You are entirely correct.  The Builder Guide does indeed say that the question is to prove you were there----and disregards that the purpose of the geofence is to do the exact same thing.  Draw what conclusions from this that you might.

 

One might have thought that the purpose of the AL was to have an adventure related to the story---rather than to travel to a random location to complete a mundane task----but that is for others to philosophise about.

 

Exactly.  If the purpose of an AL is to get people to go to and learn about a location, then the pointless "prove you were there" questions do not further that goal.  Punishing everyone to prevent abuse by a tiny minority seems to be a theme of late.  I mean, seriously, detecting abuse is almost trivial.  And abuse would be pointless anyway, much like the behavior that the originator of this thread sought to prevent.

[+barefootjeff]

46 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

Punishing everyone to prevent abuse by a tiny minority seems to be a theme of late.

 

How is a time penalty of a minute or so on an incorrect multi-choice answer punishing anyone? If you find the answer at the location and pick the right option, you'd get the green light straight away. It would just slow down those who only want to make quick random guesses from their car and maybe encourage them to actually get out and take a look at the place the creator has brought them to. Who knows, they might like it and decide to stay a bit longer.

 

46 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

If the purpose of an AL is to get people to go to and learn about a location, then the pointless "prove you were there" questions do not further that goal.

I'd dearly love to know what sort of "learn about the location" question you'd ask at the example I gave a little earlier at the lookout above Maitland Bay. The only signage there is the plaque saying who built the lookout and the only thing you could unambiguously count would be the fenceposts.

 

I've abandoned a number of nice walks through the national parks here as potential ALs simply because there's no signage at all and no structures like fence posts or steps that could be counted, instead there's just rocks, trees, waterfalls and distant views. Those rocks, trees, waterfalls and distant views are still pretty amazing, though, and worth bringing people to, but physical caches aren't allowed there for various reasons. One such place was this spot along the Great North Walk that looks out over the Hawkesbury River:

 

 

The ranger hasn't allowed me to put a physical cache there but an AL set along that section of the walk would be great, if only I could come up with a reasonable unambiguous question, any question, that could be asked about that spot. There are no signs, no fenceposts (which is why I can't put a cache there), no constructed steps that could be counted or even numbers stamped on the heads of bolts (there are no bolts). It's just a beautiful natural (and perhaps even adventurous) spot that I'd like to show to the caching community here if I could, but ALs, even rubbish ones with dumb questions, simply don't work in places like this.

Edited January 14, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+fizzymagic]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The ranger hasn't allowed me to put a physical cache there but an AL set along that section of the walk would be great, if only I could come up with a reasonable unambiguous question, any question, that could be asked about that spot. There are no signs, no fenceposts (which is why I can't put a cache there), no constructed steps that could be counted or even numbers stamped on the heads of bolts (there are no bolts). It's just a beautiful natural (and perhaps even adventurous) spot that I'd like to show to the caching community here if I could, but ALs, even rubbish ones with dumb questions, simply don't work in places like this.

 

I honestly cannot understand what point you are trying to make.  It looks to me as if getting to the location/viewpoint you showed is a significant hike.  That's great.  Why, then, are you concerned about people doing it from their car?  Can they reach it by car?  Are you being forced to make the geofencing larger than the distance to the nearest road?  If not, then they have to be at the spot in order to answer the question, so, since your point was to bring them to the spot, what difference does the question even make?  And if the delay on a multiple-choice question was a minute or two, they can just continue on their way or start back down the trail, since the app will let them enter answers at any location once they have been to the spot.

 

If I were you, I would write something like "I call this viewpoint xxxx" in the stage description, and then ask "What do I call this viewpoint?" as the question.   Because, as you said, there is nothing around to make a question with, so you will be relying on the app requiring them to be at the location to be able to ask the question in any case.

 

Seriously.  How many people worldwide are going to fake their coordinates and make it seem like they were in your area just to get an AL stage?

 

And yes, I think that a delay after getting a wrong answer on multiple-choice will be perceived as a very unfriendly act on the part the AL owner.

 

But what completely gobsmacks me is that you would think that time penalties might somehow make your hiking AL better.  IMO, anything that makes it harder for owners to be jerks to the seekers is an improvement, and the suggestion is exactly the opposite.

 

There are already ALs out there where the owners have intentionally made the questions impossible to answer correctly.  So now imagine your time penalty is implemented.   I have no doubt somebody would think it a hoot to do a multiple-choice with 20 nonsensical multiple-choice answers just to force the seekers to wait around until they stumble on the right one.  What an improvement that would be.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:

If I were you, I would write something like "I call this viewpoint xxxx" in the stage description, and then ask "What do I call this viewpoint?" as the question.

 

What is a question like that supposed to achieve? You might as well just award the smiley the moment someone crosses the geofence and be done with it.

 

My understanding, from what's said in the Help Centre and the Builder Guide, is that the answer is supposed to be something you search for and find at the location, much like the logging tasks of EarthCaches and virtuals. Or finding a physical cache after you've reached GZ, then opening it and signing the logbook. That can be pretty punishing too if it's a nano concealed on a locomotive, but you don't have to do them all. The Builder Guide says "Choose Location answers that are unique and discreet to prevent players from finding the answer online" but the multi-choice questions with no restriction on guessing kind of defeats that, doesn't it?

[+Mausebiber]

Instead of constantly quoting Groundspeak you should start thinking about what you will find on site besides bridle posts and signs.

For example trees or other plants that are typical for this area. You describe several typical trees that can be found here, leaves, bark etc. and at the coordinates you ask which trees can be found here.

 

[+Mausebiber]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The Builder Guide says "Choose Location answers that are unique and discreet to prevent players from finding the answer online" but the multi-choice questions with no restriction on guessing kind of defeats that, doesn't it?

 

So, your solution is to add a time penalty?  Does it change anything, I don't think so. 

If people don't wont to get out of their car, they just sit some time waiting, with engine running, polluting the air, generating noise and making the neighborhood angry.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

So, your solution is to add a time penalty?

 

No, my solution is to not use multi-choice questions because it's way too easy to not even bother looking at the description or even the question and just make at most four quick guesses. But I support GeoElmo6000's suggestion of a time penalty. Puzzle checkers, including the inbuilt one on mystery cache pages, all have a time penalty if you make too many incorrect attempts, why is there no outcry about those?

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Instead of constantly quoting Groundspeak you should start thinking about what you will find on site besides bridle posts and signs.

For example trees or other plants that are typical for this area. You describe several typical trees that can be found here, leaves, bark etc. and at the coordinates you ask which trees can be found here.

 

 

Um, Groundspeak created the rules for this game and it seemed pretty clear to me that the suggestion to use the title of the location as the answer to the question was at odds with both the letter and spirit of those rules. On the ALs I've created, I've tried hard to make the answer unambiguous and easy to find, even if it's limited to the available signage and not particularly relevant to the attraction of the location or the AL's theme, and where possible I've tried to inject a bit of levity too. I want my ALs to be fun to do, not either like school lessons or, at the other extreme, an esay way to get free smileys. As far as I can tell from the limited information available to owners, the only ones who've had any trouble answering them have been those using location spoofers and Streetview.

 

I like your suggestion about the trees and, for the Hawkesbury River location, had thought of doing something similar with things that could or couldn't be seen from the vantage point. Most of those doing my ALs are visitors to the area so I have to avoid any local knowledge such as the names of hills, waterways, distant buildings, etc., and my knowledge of botany and geology is extremely limited. Once my application for the physical cache there has been formally rejected (if that ever happens), I might go back with fresh eyes and see if I can come up with anything that's easy, unambiguous and fun. If not, someone else can put an AL there if they want.

[+Mausebiber]

There is much more you could ask:

 

From the waypoint you have a wonderful view over the surrounding hills, the forest and the bay far down with the ocean. To get down to the water, it would take you another 30 minutes, a beautiful walk through the forest. Down there, you are at sea-level. what is the altitude right here.

Enter altitude, round up to the nearest 5 feet.

 

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

From the waypoint you have a wonderful view over the surrounding hills, the forest and the bay far down with the ocean. To get down to the water, it would take you another 30 minutes, a beautiful walk through the forest. Down there, you are at sea-level. what is the altitude right here.

Enter altitude, round up to the nearest 5 feet.

 

Nice suggestion, but...

 

This came up in another thread a few months ago. There's a GPS altitude error with sea level that varies depending on what part of the world you're in, due to the earth not being a perfect spheroid. Just going from memory, but around here the error is about 15 metres and, if I park my car right on the water's edge, that's pretty much what its navigation screen says the altitude is. I believe some GPSr models compensate for that but others don't, so really anything based on altitude here is a minefield.

 

Also, as far as I can see, the AL app doesn't display altitude anywhere and I don't think it's reasonable to assume all players will have an app or another device that does. It'd be much easier for the armchair logger, since they can just read the location's true altitude directly off a decent topographic map (about 100 metres).

 

I want my ALs to be fun, but with all the potential sources of error in altitude measurements, this sounds more tedious than fun and would probably result in a lot of trial-and-error guessing to come up with the "right" answer.

[+TommyGator]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

this sounds more tedious than fun and would probably result in a lot of trial-and-error guessing to come up with the "right" answer.

The precise argument against time penalties.  Poorly worded multiple choice questions can and do result in trial-and-error answers.

 

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I want my ALs to be fun

Yes.  A noble goal.  That's why penalties, which make ALs less fun (except, perhaps, for the CO), should not be considered.

[+Max and 99]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Also, as far as I can see, the AL app doesn't display altitude anywhere

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/379584-answers-to-questions-at-al-stage/

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Max and 99

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Also, as far as I can see, the AL app doesn't display altitude anywhere

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/379584-answers-to-questions-at-al-stage/

 

Thanks for that, yes I remember now going out to the Relics location in my Wreck of the Maitland AL, which is right at sea level, and having the app display my elevation as 30.4 metres.

 

 

I'm curious though why they're displaying it to a tenth of a metre, because with any satellite navigation system, altitude will be less accurate than horizontal position.

 

7 hours ago, TommyGator said:

The precise argument against time penalties.  Poorly worded multiple choice questions can and do result in trial-and-error answers.

 

Maybe if there was a time penalty it'd be an incentive for owners to be more careful with their question wording and to fix ambiguities that searchers discover. It's a pity that ALs don't provide any easy way for players to provide feedback to the owners. If a multi-choice question is so badly worded that the correct answer can't be readily found at the location, is allowing the searcher to find it by guesswork in just a couple of seconds the best way to fix that? As it is now, it's quicker to get the correct answer by guessing than it is to even read the question.

Edited January 15, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+Team Canary]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe if there was a time penalty it'd be an incentive for owners to be more careful with their question wording and to fix ambiguities that searchers discover. 

 

Since owners don't get feedback, how do they know?

 

I think you're optimistic that owners care about searchers. 

[+barefootjeff]

59 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

I think you're optimistic that owners care about searchers.

 

yeah, you're right of course. How silly of me.

[+Team Canary]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

yeah, you're right of course. How silly of me.

 

You learn who places good ones and then actively seek them out.

 

Hence, my last two finds on the Coast were yours and another two Favorite Points!

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, Team Canary said:

Hence, my last two finds on the Coast were yours and another two Favorite Points!

 

Thanks. One of those was starting to get pretty lonely.

[+fizzymagic]

21 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This came up in another thread a few months ago. There's a GPS altitude error with sea level that varies depending on what part of the world you're in, due to the earth not being a perfect spheroid. Just going from memory, but around here the error is about 15 metres and, if I park my car right on the water's edge, that's pretty much what its navigation screen says the altitude is. I believe some GPSr models compensate for that but others don't, so really anything based on altitude here is a minefield.

 

Almost 100% completely wrong.  There is no "GPS error."  There is something else, called the geoid, that GPS units correct for.  AFAIK, there exist no modern GPS units that do not correct for the geoid.  I find it extremely difficult to believe that your GPS does not include the geoid correction.  It's a quite simple correction to include in the elevation calculation.

 

21 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe if there was a time penalty it'd be an incentive for owners to be more careful with their question wording and to fix ambiguities that searchers discover.

 

Aha!  Another completely new "reason" to support penalties.  (aside: when somebody keeps inventing new reasons for a conclusion, it's a good  guess that they decided on the conclusion before thinking of the reasons....)

 

Feedback has not prevented owners from making impossible stages, misspelling answers, etc. etc. etc.  It defies reason to believe that penalizing seekers will somehow magically make a difference in the behavior of owners.

[+barefootjeff]

18 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

Almost 100% completely wrong.  There is no "GPS error."  There is something else, called the geoid, that GPS units correct for.  AFAIK, there exist no modern GPS units that do not correct for the geoid.  I find it extremely difficult to believe that your GPS does not include the geoid correction.  It's a quite simple correction to include in the elevation calculation.

 

So how do you explain this when I'm standing at the water's edge with the waves lapping over my feet?

 

 

Out of curiosity, I opened this screen in the app while having coffee at Ocean Beach this morning. Where I was sitting would have been about 5 metres above sea level yet the app was saying 35 metres. The phone I'm using it on is a Samsung Galaxy A52 so it's not just some el cheapo piece of junk and is likely to be a fairly common model used in these parts.

 

25 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

Feedback has not prevented owners from making impossible stages, misspelling answers, etc. etc. etc.  It defies reason to believe that penalizing seekers will somehow magically make a difference in the behavior of owners.

 

On the two occasions when I've offered feedback on such errors, they've been fixed almost immediately. One was a count-the-fenceposts question where the owner misread his notes and was out by 10, the other was a spelling mistake in a bird species that had to be identified from the sign at the location. Yes, I've only had very limited experience of ALs (33 completions) but I've yet to encounter one where the owner has deliberately tried to make it impossible to answer or has refused to fix mistakes like these when advised of them.

 

As an owner, I won't use multi-choice questions, even if they're more appropriate at a location than text entry, because, as it currently stands, it's much easier and quicker to just guess than to even read the question, let alone spend any time at the location looking for anything. We're not talking tens of minutes or hours; on most of the ALs I've done, it takes less than a minute to read the question and find the answer, so something comensurate with that is all I'm suggesting, even 30 seconds would be okay, just enough to stop guessing being the quickest, easiest and preferred way of doing a multi-choice AL stage. Is having to wait 30 seconds after a wrong answer such a cruel and inhumane punishment?

 

I don't know whether any other AL owners feel the same way and won't use multi-choice questions for that reason, but if it was addressed, maybe more would use them and thus avoid the problems of spelling errors, spelt numbers versus numerals, punctuation marks, etc. that plague text-entry answers. From my experience of those text-entry problems as a player, I'd be much happier with a multi-choice question even if I had to wait 30 seconds or a minute on the rare occasion I got it wrong on my first attempt.

 

If there are ALs that are so bad that the only way to complete any of the stages is by random guessing, and it sounds like there are a lot of those where you live, maybe it'd be better if players got frustrated at waiting and complained about them at events or on social media, rather than just going guess-guess-guess-guess, getting their 2-second smiley and quietly moving on. If nobody's bothered by them, they're unlikely to be fixed or discouraged.