Jump to content

Clarification on Challenges


PlantAKiss

Recommended Posts

Having been (unwillingly) away from caching for a few years, I've discovered there are new things that didn't exist when I was active before. So I'm trying to pick up the new language. But one thing I'm confused on are Challenge caches. I saw the posting on the ending of Challenge caches back in April. I don't know what the specifics were on those.

 

But I have noticed a number of caches in my area that say something like "30-day Challenge: 1 cache a day every day for 30 consecutive days" to be able to log a found it." "2 a day for 2 months", etc. The descriptions say you can look and post a note if you find it but not get the credit for the find (the smiley) unless you have met the requirements. Being just an average cacher with not a ton of free time I can't meet those requirements. I'm not even sure what a grid is. Anyway, are these Challenge caches? If not what makes them different? I've logged a note with a couple of them. While not a big deal, since I enjoy the journey more than numbers, it is a little bit irritating that I did the hunt, found the cache, and signed the log but...I can't log it--I did the things that geocaching requires for a find. It seems like these types of caches would encourage a lot of simply placed nanos which would allow people to find the great numbers of caches needed to meet the requirements. It's just a fact I can't cache every day. So I do what I can and enjoy it. Are these the retired Challenge caches or something totally different?

 

I must say, when I first started caching, things were much simpler. Get a GPS, download coords, go hunt, find a usually regular container with swag, sometimes trade, oftime not, write about your experience and sign the log and have fun. Now there are grids, and stats, events, and power trails, and challenges and things that seem to orient towards numbers finders, and, nano spew. :(

 

Anyway...what are the deprecated challenge caches?

Link to comment

Yes, those are examples of Challenge caches. They are an exception to the rule that you can log a physical cache as found online if you have signed the physical log.

 

The Help Center article may be useful:

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

 

And FWIW, the only caches on my ignore list are nearby challenge caches for which I expect I'll never complete the requirements.

Edited by niraD
Link to comment
But weren't they "retired?" The challenge caches I've seen were relatively newly placed.
You're thinking about Geocaching Challenges, which aren't the same thing as Challenge Caches.

 

Geocaching Challenges were an attempt to create something similar to virtual caches (or locationless caches), but without some of the problems that caused those types to be grandfathered (or archived/locked). And yes, the potential confusion between the existing Challenge Caches and the newfangled Geocaching Challenges was pointed out to TPTB at the time. After a while, Groundspeak decided that Geocaching Challenges were a failed experiment and removed all sign of them from the site.

 

Challenge Caches have existed since at least 2006, although they became more popular as time went on.

Edited by niraD
Link to comment

The smiley was once a way to record the caches you have found. Now it is a reward and a commodity. The pastime has "evolved" into a competitive game.

 

I enjoy finding challenge caches and in fact, have placed a few of my own. My goal is to provide a fun little challenge for the finder. I never thought about them adding or encouraging competition between players. Honestly though, it wouldn't matter whether challenge caches existed or not because people will always find a way to make make things competitive anyway.

 

For the OP,, don't be frustrated. Yes, many challenges require a person to log alot of spew for qualification but there are some out there placed to offer up a fun and interesting challenge for the finder. Like niraD, ignore the caches you don't like the looks of and go find the ones you like. The one thing you have going for you is that it's fairly easy to filter challenge caches out.

Link to comment

Ohhh Ok. I was just confused by the similarity in title. Yes, I already do ignore caches I don't like and hunt for the ones I do. When I first started caching, while not in the very earliest days of the game, it was still much simpler times--hide, hunt, find, log. Now there are badges and souvenirs and grids and things I don't know about or care about. I'm not really a gamer nor am I competitive. I liked geocaching for being outdoors, finding interesting things, getting exercise, taking photos, seeing cool containers. It was fun and STILL is! I just ignore the other stuff. I appreciate being allowed to sign a Challenge cache log but it does throw off my actual find count. If I find a cache and sign the log, I consider it a find. It's a minor annoyance and not really important since I'm since I'm "all about that hunt, 'bout that hunt, not numbers." I just know my find count will be a weeee bit higher than what's shown. No biggie. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate the info. :-)

Link to comment

I'd be OK with challenge caches if they adopted Frinklab's suggestion. It would still make the game fun for competitive people but allow those of us who want to hunt caches and not compete and have an accurate find count, that opportunity. A more inclusive way of playing rather than this boastful exclusionary style.

Link to comment

I'd be OK with challenge caches if they adopted Frinklab's suggestion. It would still make the game fun for competitive people but allow those of us who want to hunt caches and not compete and have an accurate find count, that opportunity. A more inclusive way of playing rather than this boastful exclusionary style.

 

Thanks for setting up my obligatory post!

 

My suggestion (for which I shamelessly keep plugging, in my always-be-closing way) is

 

[FEATURE] Challenge Stars

 

which would separate the completing of the challenge from the finding of the final container.

 

The practical upshot of which would allow the OP to post a Found It after signing the log.

 

At the risk of inciting another round of pedantry, I call this win-win.

Link to comment

Ohhh Ok. I was just confused by the similarity in title. Yes, I already do ignore caches I don't like and hunt for the ones I do. When I first started caching, while not in the very earliest days of the game, it was still much simpler times--hide, hunt, find, log. Now there are badges and souvenirs and grids and things I don't know about or care about. I'm not really a gamer nor am I competitive. I liked geocaching for being outdoors, finding interesting things, getting exercise, taking photos, seeing cool containers. It was fun and STILL is! I just ignore the other stuff. I appreciate being allowed to sign a Challenge cache log but it does throw off my actual find count. If I find a cache and sign the log, I consider it a find. It's a minor annoyance and not really important since I'm since I'm "all about that hunt, 'bout that hunt, not numbers." I just know my find count will be a weeee bit higher than what's shown. No biggie. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate the info. :-)

 

So, why not just carry on with what you are doing? It's the way YOU like to cache, so what difference does it make if other people like to play the game in a different way?

 

I've never understood the smug "I'm not about the numbers" stance. So what? Why does one need to proclaim their caching purity as if it's written on a tablet on some mountain that one shall not be "about the numbers"?

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

B.

Link to comment

Ohhh Ok. I was just confused by the similarity in title. Yes, I already do ignore caches I don't like and hunt for the ones I do. When I first started caching, while not in the very earliest days of the game, it was still much simpler times--hide, hunt, find, log. Now there are badges and souvenirs and grids and things I don't know about or care about. I'm not really a gamer nor am I competitive. I liked geocaching for being outdoors, finding interesting things, getting exercise, taking photos, seeing cool containers. It was fun and STILL is! I just ignore the other stuff. I appreciate being allowed to sign a Challenge cache log but it does throw off my actual find count. If I find a cache and sign the log, I consider it a find. It's a minor annoyance and not really important since I'm since I'm "all about that hunt, 'bout that hunt, not numbers." I just know my find count will be a weeee bit higher than what's shown. No biggie. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate the info. :-)

 

So, why not just carry on with what you are doing? It's the way YOU like to cache, so what difference does it make if other people like to play the game in a different way?

 

I've never understood the smug "I'm not about the numbers" stance. So what? Why does one need to proclaim their caching purity as if it's written on a tablet on some mountain that one shall not be "about the numbers"?

 

 

B.

 

One can be "about the numbers" but when the numbers game interferes with those who do not want to play for the numbers, therein lies the problem. We can't enjoy this pastime the way we want to, we can't fully use the tools the Groundspeak provides to organize our finds, we can't toggle those finds on/off on the GC maps. We can't have a genuine list of all of the caches we've found.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Ohhh Ok. I was just confused by the similarity in title. Yes, I already do ignore caches I don't like and hunt for the ones I do. When I first started caching, while not in the very earliest days of the game, it was still much simpler times--hide, hunt, find, log. Now there are badges and souvenirs and grids and things I don't know about or care about. I'm not really a gamer nor am I competitive. I liked geocaching for being outdoors, finding interesting things, getting exercise, taking photos, seeing cool containers. It was fun and STILL is! I just ignore the other stuff. I appreciate being allowed to sign a Challenge cache log but it does throw off my actual find count. If I find a cache and sign the log, I consider it a find. It's a minor annoyance and not really important since I'm since I'm "all about that hunt, 'bout that hunt, not numbers." I just know my find count will be a weeee bit higher than what's shown. No biggie. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate the info. :-)

 

You're like me in that i don't cache for smiley count. But at the same time, i want my find count that i do have to be correct. I've signed a few challenge cache logs that i don't qualify for (it's possible i never will) but i never thought that doing this would mess up my stats in any way. These are not traditional caches. Locating the physical cache and signing its logsheet is just one part of claiming a found it on a challenge cache. We still have to meet the challenge and log it online before it becomes a statistical find.

Link to comment

"So, why not just carry on with what you are doing? It's the way YOU like to cache, so what difference does it make if other people like to play the game in a different way?"

Knew it was coming. There is always a pot stirrer in every post.

 

""So, why not just carry on with what you are doing?"

I DO! That's what I just said. I was not being smug --you read that into it. I don't care if others go for the challenge. More power to them! I spoke about MY opinions for MY caching style and what I like. I ignore caches I'm not interested in. But like I said, by fulfilling a cache requirement but not being allowed to log a find throws off count. I can live with it but I don't understand the reason behind it. Why can't I log a proper find and the others log and proclaim how many caches they found in a row or whatever? Maybe get a certificate or trophy for their accomplishments. I've made it clear I could never meet the challenge. I'm not in a race. Maybe others are...I dunno.

 

Yes, Mud Frog, since a count is KEPT, it would be nice to be able to look at it and see where I am...without having to think back...OH, I did find X cache, and Y cache and Z cache so my find is 100 and add 3. :rolleyes:

 

I did two numbers caches tonite...LPCs. I got 2 smileys out of it. Wheee!

 

I wish I had some of that caching purity you mentioned. I'm the one in the minority plodding along with a cache here or there while being trampled by the herds running for badges and souvenirs and full grids and whatever else weird things are out there now. :laughing:

 

I really just wanted to know if there were two different types of Challenge caches and the answer was, yes there are!

Link to comment

But like I said, by fulfilling a cache requirement but not being allowed to log a find throws off count. I can live with it but I don't understand the reason behind it. Why can't I log a proper find and the others log and proclaim how many caches they found in a row or whatever? Maybe get a certificate or trophy for their accomplishments. I've made it clear I could never meet the challenge. I'm not in a race. Maybe others are...I dunno.

 

 

I don't want to drag this on as you've got your answer, but Mudfrog answered this point quite clearly I think. These aren't traditional caches. If you haven't met the conditions the challenge requires, you haven't fulfilled the cache requirements. You may have found a container, but you have not completed what is needed to log it as found.

 

Opinion about Challenge caches in general is split. Some love them, some hate them, some want them changed.

 

Cachers who like challenge caches aren't necessarily focussed on number of finds. They just like the idea of this different type of cache which requires some geocaching related task to be completed in addition to finding the container.

 

There are challenge caches which can be done (qualified for) with a single find - a popular one is a "Resuscitator Cache" - where you need to find a cache which has not been found or a long time (generally a year). This is one such example.

 

It is however true that the more you geocache, the greater the chance that you will qualify for challenge caches in general. Many of them are based on raw numbers (e.g find 100 caches in a day). And even something like the "Resuscitator Cache" - someone who has found 10,000 caches will be more likely to qualify (without specifically trying), than someone with 100 finds.

Link to comment

There are challenge caches which can be done (qualified for) with a single find - a popular one is a "Resuscitator Cache" - where you need to find a cache which has not been found or a long time (generally a year). This is one such example.

 

Can you think of another challenge cache type that only requires one find?

 

 

It is however true that the more you geocache, the greater the chance that you will qualify for challenge caches in general. Many of them are based on raw numbers (e.g find 100 caches in a day). And even something like the "Resuscitator Cache" - someone who has found 10,000 caches will be more likely to qualify (without specifically trying), than someone with 100 finds.

 

There is also the case of an area where Challenge caches have become so common that people start creating a series of caches specifically defined in order to satisfy certain challenge types. Want to complete the fizzy challenge? There's a series of caches in Ontario created that has most, if not all of the D/T combos.

 

As you said, the opinion on challenge caches is split, but the general popularity of challenge caches is highly regional. I could probably count the number of challenge caches within 50 miles from me (which includes a couple of medium size cities) on one hand while in other areas there are large series of challenge caches are created and series of caches which are created specifically to meet the criteria for various challenge caches (e.g. a series of caches which start with each letter of the alphabet).

Link to comment

 

Can you think of another challenge cache type that only requires one find?

 

 

Here is one CC1 - The Environmental Cacher (Challenge)

 

I agree with you though that challenges which only require one find are rare. However there are many challenge caches which can be met with a small number of finds - but of course they need to be very specific finds. E.g. a challenge to find 8 icons in a day. That was my point, that many challenge caches are available to cachers with a small number of finds.

 

Here is one that only requires 2 finds The Grind House "Challenge" Series No. 29

 

I also agree with you that you will find cachers setting caches to help meet challenges in the area (e.g. giving them specific names, or D/T ratings). And there are challenge caches which require a specific number of challenge caches. And there are series of challenge caches.

Link to comment

There are challenge caches which can be done (qualified for) with a single find - a popular one is a "Resuscitator Cache" - where you need to find a cache which has not been found or a long time (generally a year). This is one such example.

Can you think of another challenge cache type that only requires one find?

An Insult to All Challenge Caches, which I think is a particularly good example to bring up in this context.

 

A Challenge of Resolve, although as I understand it, this one couldn't be published today.

Link to comment

I appreciate the non-judgemental discussion (so far). Thank you.

 

As luck would have it, yesterday I was FTF on a Challenge Cache (there has been a series of these micros placed in a park I go to a lot). It took me many hours hunting on a cold day for this "micro in the woods." There were 3 DNFs by previous cachers. But I was persistent and didn't give up. This is only my second FTF EVERRR!! So it was very satisfying personally to be able to sign on that FTF line for all the work I put into it. But it is disappointing I can neither log the find nor get "credit" for the FTF in my stats--so rare for me. The CO allows you to post a note and I did (as I have on the previous two of his challenges I found). But my mini-accomplishment FTF will never show up on my record. :-/ I am still thrilled! But with these types of caches, I will have to just remember or write it down somewhere how many finds/FTFs I have that are not logged. I'd really like my stats to be accurate without having to keep part of them on paper.

 

My experience with Challenge caches is limited so I don't know all the different types of requirements. The ones I have looked for require different combinations of 1, 2 caches found every day for 1, 2, 3, 6 months. So I recognize that these caches aren't for the average cacher--they are for those people who have the free time to be able to meet the requirements of high numbers. I can see how some Challenges could be created that don't require so much time or travel but other skills. And I can see how some people COULD just go bananas trying to come up with all kinds of crazy things to make the logging requirements difficult which just doesn't seem like "geocaching" TO ME.

 

There are MANY caches that I won't be able to do...I don't swim well, don't own a kayak, can't climb a rock wall or afford to hire a helicopter, etc. I get that. However, at least if I DID manage to climb a rock wall or swim a river and find a cache, I could log the find for my accomplishment with the hunt.

 

Not that anyone cares, I know, but my PERSONAL *****OPINION****** is: if you need all this fancy stuff to maintain interest in geocaching, stay at home and play video games where you get the fancy stuff to keep it interesting. I think the original "treasure hunt" idea is just the bee knees all on it's own! Didn't people just LOVE geocaching before all this other stuff came along?? /* end of opinion */ I will cache on in my simplistic way and others can cache on in their ways. To each his or her own. But I think having caches that prevent stats on GC.com from being accurate does SUCK. /* Oh a little more opinion sneaked in there. */

 

I have been working on placing a new cache anyway so maybe I'll make it a Challenge that has a requirement of finding ONE cache...including the one just found. (I thought of that before reading the above posts.) That would be a challenge that would be possible for most cachers including beginners, occasionals, youngsters, average Joes/Josephines and the "elite" equally to hunt for and be able to log.

 

BTW, I wish Challenge caches had their own icon because every time I see that big question mark I think it's a puzzle cache. :unsure: And I DO avoid puzzles!

 

Opinion about Challenge caches in general is split. Some love them, some hate them, some want them changed.

 

I guess you can "LOG" me :laughing: in the hate 'em cagory or change 'em category. Just saying'.... Hopefully I'll come across some Challenges that will give me a different perspective.

 

ROFL at the Insult to All Challenge Caches! That is hilarious!

Edited by PlantAKiss
Link to comment

BTW, I wish Challenge caches had their own icon because every time I see that big question mark I think it's a puzzle cache. :unsure: And I DO avoid puzzles!

I was just wondering how much correlation there is between puzzle cachers and cachers that like challenge caches. I think challenge caches are fine for just the opposite reason you hate them: I look at all question marks. When they're puzzle caches, I can either solve the puzzle or I can't. When they're challenge caches, I either meet the challenge or I can't. No difference because I'm already expecting to not be able to find plenty of question marks.

Link to comment

BTW, I wish Challenge caches had their own icon because every time I see that big question mark I think it's a puzzle cache. :unsure: And I DO avoid puzzles!

 

I'd like to see them get their own attribute and moved to the puzzle category. I understand why people would like a Challenge type...but I really worry that that will open up more flood gates to people who love collecting cache types. I've already got 3 challenge cache power trails near me and about 400 challenge caches within 100 km. Give them their own category icon and I bet that number will at least double.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I appreciate the non-judgemental discussion (so far). Thank you.

...

But with these types of caches, I will have to just remember or write it down somewhere how many finds/FTFs I have that are not logged. I'd really like my stats to be accurate without having to keep part of them on paper.

First, you don't need to track your "found" challenge caches on paper. As a premium member, you can create a bookmark list to serve that function.

 

Second, you (like everyone else) are allowed to be judgmental. You've judged your challenge cache find count to be inaccurate, based on your personal definition of "find." Meanwhile, lots of other geocachers have judged challenge cache finds to be accurate, based on Groundspeak's definition of finds.

 

I suppose I could define an EarthCache "find" as just showing up at the posted coordinates and not needing to send the CO the answers to their questions. Then I could judge Groundspeak's find count to be inaccurate in that regard. But that would be rather like judging Major League Baseball's strike out statistics to be inaccurate because I disagree with the size of their strike zone.

Link to comment

Very interesting read on the "Challenge Stars" subject. Thanks for the link Frinklabs!

 

I'm glad to know I'm not alone in my thinking. And bear in mind while Challenge caches have been around for a while they are new to me since I have been back caching after a long gap. So I'm surprised at the "you can find it but not log a find" deal. It seems counter to what Geocaching is all about.

 

In a puzzle cache you need to solve a puzzle to find the cache. I don't want to put my time there and I'm not good at it. So I read some of them...and go on by because I know I can't find the cache because I can't get the coords. The Challenge caches I've done have said "You're welcome to hunt and log a note." So I did just that (the FTF was really the stab in the heart). I thought ALRs were disallowed but Challenges are all about ALRs. Maybe you could meet the Challenge, prove it and the CO send you the coords to the cache. But really I don't get "you have to have found 200 caches every month for 3 months and then I'll allow you log my micro in the woods." :unsure:

 

I did see a comment by someone about Challenge caches motivating people to go out and find more caches. Just a note on that--the fact that someone might not have huge numbers of cache finds does NOT necessarily reflect interest, dedication to, enjoyment of or motivation to go out caching. MANY MANY people are like me 1) having responsibilities that prevent caching every day and 2) not having the MONEY to drive and/or fly around the country or world geocaching. Those of you who CAN do that are very lucky!! That's pretty cool that you can. So Challenge caches don't motivate me hunt more...they make me feel bad that I CAN'T play more. It's the eternal "some have" and "some don't" thing. So just don't judge a person's motivation or enjoyment in caching to the numbers. People have jobs, kids, illnesses, school, lack of money and all sorts of real life things that prevent being able to meet some?/alot? of these Challenges.

 

I guess over all I'm not competitive and hung up on people admiring my "grid." (That sounds dirty... :lol: ). I just want to work for what I find, have fun finding it, and have my basic stats correct.

 

I've enjoyed reading the opinions and suggestions on the topic though. Food for thought...

-------

 

FYI on the Premium member thing...I WAS a Premium member at one time. But I'm unemployed, uninsured, have no income, in school. I cannot justify spending the money on that at this time. It's not because I don't support it. If I can EVER get a job, I hope to once again be a Premium member (although I'd never put a PMO down.).

Edited by PlantAKiss
Link to comment
I suppose I could define an EarthCache "find" as just showing up at the posted coordinates and not needing to send the CO the answers to their questions.

 

But answering the questions about an Earth cache is to prove to the CO that you have actually BEEN THERE, is it not? I proved I found a cache by signing the log book. By signing the log, obviously I've been there. I don't see the correlation. ??? I followed the "rules" by the CO. I didn't LOG a find. I did find it. And I was still first to find it. Can't make that evaporate. If I'm not allow to hunt for a Challenge cache, that's fine but put that in the "rules" and I won't hunt for or log a note.

Link to comment

Not that anyone cares, I know, but my PERSONAL *****OPINION****** is: if you need all this fancy stuff to maintain interest in geocaching, stay at home and play video games where you get the fancy stuff to keep it interesting. I think the original "treasure hunt" idea is just the bee knees all on it's own! Didn't people just LOVE geocaching before all this other stuff came along?? /* end of opinion */

 

Perfectly valid opinion, of course.

 

For me, I don't need Challenges... or Puzzles... or Wherigos for that matter. I would still geocache if there were only Traditionals. But I like these other aspects. I don't like all challenge caches, and some I think are silly. But overall, I think they add something positive (just my opinion).

 

I do understand the feelings against them, especially if there are a lot of them in an area, and if they are hard to obtain. I'm not very keen on "big number" challenges - e.g. find 5000 caches. For a new cacher, or someone who caches only occasionally, those caches are for all practical purposes unobtainable and can be discouraging.

Link to comment

PlantAKiss wrote:

As luck would have it, yesterday I was FTF on a Challenge Cache (there has been a series of these micros placed in a park I go to a lot). It took me many hours hunting on a cold day for this "micro in the woods." There were 3 DNFs by previous cachers. But I was persistent and didn't give up. This is only my second FTF EVERRR!! So it was very satisfying personally to be able to sign on that FTF line for all the work I put into it. But it is disappointing I can neither log the find nor get "credit" for the FTF in my stats--so rare for me.

 

I don't mean to give you a hard time but i am wondering why you went for this challenge cache. Sure it was fun and satisfying being able to find the container but you already knew that you couldn't legitmately log it as found. Because of your feelings towards challenge caches, you brought the disappointment upon yourself.

 

There are MANY caches that I won't be able to do...I don't swim well, don't own a kayak, can't climb a rock wall or afford to hire a helicopter, etc. I get that.

 

Why not just ignore these like you do other caches that you're not able to do or are not interested in?

Link to comment
I suppose I could define an EarthCache "find" as just showing up at the posted coordinates and not needing to send the CO the answers to their questions.

But answering the questions about an Earth cache is to prove to the CO that you have actually BEEN THERE, is it not? I proved I found a cache by signing the log book. By signing the log, obviously I've been there. I don't see the correlation. ???

Answering EarthCache questions primarily demonstrates you understand the earth science lesson associated with that EarthCache. Ideally, the questions would be such that you couldn't answer them without actually being at the specified location, but that's often not true. If you wanted someone to show they were at the actual location, requiring a photo with the geocacher in the foreground would be a better way (but such a requirement isn't permitted any longer).

 

In any case, Groundspeak doesn't simply want you to "find" the EarthCache location. They want you "find" the location AND learn an earth science lesson. Just like for a challenge cache, Groundspeak wants you to sign the physical log AND complete the challenge's requirements. It's not as simple as finding a traditional, but lots of Groundspeak caches aren't as simple as finding traditionals.

 

You have your own definition of "find," and that's okay. But "find" has many different contexts. In the context of Groundspeak challenge caches, a "find" involves more than simply signing a physical log.

 

I don't expect Groundspeak to display hundreds of different "find" statistics to satisfy everyone's personal preferences. Just like I don't expect the National Football League to keep statistics on the hundreds of different ways individuals could define a "pass completion."

Link to comment

There is also the case of an area where Challenge caches have become so common that people start creating a series of caches specifically defined in order to satisfy certain challenge types. Want to complete the fizzy challenge? There's a series of caches in Ontario created that has most, if not all of the D/T combos.

Here's a local, blatant challenge-helper:

0, Orange, Winter, Jello, Snail, Xena

It has:

-The number 0

-A colour

-A season

-A food

-An animal

-An "X" word

 

There are several local Challenge caches where this cache could be used to fill in a tougher gap in the requirements.

 

They really missed out on an opportunity by not rating it a 1/4.5, though. :laughing:

Link to comment

@ Mudfrog, I knew someone would say that as it is the simple answer to every questioning of a "rule" or guideline. Reasonable question and simple answer: In my Caching Life Part I I had found all the caches in this particular park. In Caching Life Part II, there are several new ones. I'd like to find ALL the caches in this park including the new ones I hadn't seen before. Since the CO said you could hunt for them and log a note, I went for it for the fun of the hunt. If I can't figure out puzzle coords, then I CAN'T look for the cache. If I can't climb a rock face, then I CAN'T look for that cache. If someone sticks a micro out in the woods with posted coords and instruction of being able to post a note if found...then I CAN look for that. And I probably will. I don't LIKE every cache I go for but you don't know if you'll like it or even find it until you go for it.

 

I'm not questioning the CO's right to make a Challenge cache. I'm just wondering how Challenge caches enhance geocaching. Seems to me (being old school) 1) its an ALR which I thought was disallowed and 2) that's ultimately what it's all about (hide, hunt, find, log). Unless one is disallowed from looking for/making any log for a Challenge cache where you don't meet the ALR, I personally feel it's a find deserving of being counted. What's good about a cache where only certain people can log "found it"? I don't see where that is an enhancement. I guess I see caching as a game anyone can play. I don't understand what is cool about a cache that excludes a find when its hunted for, found, and signed. I don't get what makes that a good thing but I don't make the rules. I'll certainly abide by a Challenge "rule" but that doesn't mean I have to LIKE it and that I can't question it. I'm sure there are Challenge caches out there that are less exclusionary. Maybe even some wheelchair challenges?

 

Just as aside since the joke was on me...after yesterday's FTF, I hunted for and found another Challenge cache by the same person. But...I am too short to reach it!!!! lol And don't think I didn't TRY to find a "tool" to help me! Only log I found that I could carry had a black widow spider under it soo....nothin' doing! So on that one, I actually couldn't sign the log even though I found it. Payback! :lol: (I've got to figure out some way to get it. Tall cache hiders--think about us shorties out there!)

 

In the context of Groundspeak challenge caches, a "find" involves more than simply signing a physical log.

Then disallow signing the log and logging anything online unless you meet the ALR. Simple.

Link to comment

[quoteHere's a local, blatant challenge-helper:

0, Orange, Winter, Jello, Snail, Xena

It has:

-The number 0

-A colour

-A season

-A food

-An animal

-An "X" word]

 

That is one of the things I see in the negative column for Challenges is the creation of caches simply to meet a Challenge requirement. Why increase the potential for crappy caches hidden with no real purpose other than fulfilling a logging requirement? (You get that anyway without encouragement.) "Challenge: you can log a find after you have found 50 Gladware container caches." "Challenge: you can log this find after you find 1,000 nanos in a parking lot on a metal sign."

Link to comment

@ Mudfrog, I knew someone would say that as it is the simple answer to every questioning of a "rule" or guideline. Reasonable question and simple answer: In my Caching Life Part I I had found all the caches in this particular park. In Caching Life Part II, there are several new ones. I'd like to find ALL the caches in this park including the new ones I hadn't seen before. Since the CO said you could hunt for them and log a note, I went for it for the fun of the hunt. If I can't figure out puzzle coords, then I CAN'T look for the cache. If I can't climb a rock face, then I CAN'T look for that cache. If someone sticks a micro out in the woods with posted coords and instruction of being able to post a note if found...then I CAN look for that. And I probably will. I don't LIKE every cache I go for but you don't know if you'll like it or even find it until you go for it.

 

I'm not questioning the CO's right to make a Challenge cache. I'm just wondering how Challenge caches enhance geocaching. Seems to me (being old school) 1) its an ALR which I thought was disallowed and 2) that's ultimately what it's all about (hide, hunt, find, log). Unless one is disallowed from looking for/making any log for a Challenge cache where you don't meet the ALR, I personally feel it's a find deserving of being counted. What's good about a cache where only certain people can log "found it"? I don't see where that is an enhancement. I guess I see caching as a game anyone can play. I don't understand what is cool about a cache that excludes a find when its hunted for, found, and signed. I don't get what makes that a good thing but I don't make the rules. I'll certainly abide by a Challenge "rule" but that doesn't mean I have to LIKE it and that I can't question it. I'm sure there are Challenge caches out there that are less exclusionary. Maybe even some wheelchair challenges?

 

Just as aside since the joke was on me...after yesterday's FTF, I hunted for and found another Challenge cache by the same person. But...I am too short to reach it!!!! lol And don't think I didn't TRY to find a "tool" to help me! Only log I found that I could carry had a black widow spider under it soo....nothin' doing! So on that one, I actually couldn't sign the log even though I found it. Payback! :lol: (I've got to figure out some way to get it. Tall cache hiders--think about us shorties out there!)

 

In the context of Groundspeak challenge caches, a "find" involves more than simply signing a physical log.

Then disallow signing the log and logging anything online unless you meet the ALR. Simple.

 

Imo, this situation is one of those where a simple answer works. Believe me, i'm as old school as it gets and agree that geocaching has changed quite a bit since i first started back in 2002. I've voiced my negative opinions here on what i think of some of these changes.

 

One of the changes i dislike is when gc.com started allowing power trails. For the most part, these promote quantity over quality and at the same time, encourage competetion. Power trails are not a problem for those who like them but if you're a person who doesn't, goodluck on avoiding them. Challenge caches have nothing on these. :o

Link to comment

I don't even know what a power trail is but from the sound of it, I don't think I'd like it. Maybe there needs to be an old school trail...place regular hides in interesting places and go on long walks and hunt for a FOUND or DNF, log it and head to the next cool place. Stop, have a picnic. Chat about how cool the hide was or how clever the container. Then skip on down the trail to the next ammo can. La dih dah la dih dah! And at the end of the day we straggle home tired after the long hikes talking about how fun the day was and log our 6 finds for the day. Now that's POWER! lol But I'd love it!

 

This has certainly been eye opening and enlightening about the things new to me. I think I like caching the way I do it. It suits me. And I've manage to kill many hours here that should have gone to my JQuery final even though I don't understand what the assignment is. *sigh* No more caching for a while.... When this semester is over I can relax a LITTLE and maybe get some more caches I can't log a find on! lol It's SO COLD in here...51! It will be hard to get up. Think I'll sleep in my clothes. I'll dream of following the yellow brick road and finding cool tricky cache containers all the way to Oz while the flying monkeys drop DNF bombs all around......zzzzzzzz

Link to comment

There is also the case of an area where Challenge caches have become so common that people start creating a series of caches specifically defined in order to satisfy certain challenge types. Want to complete the fizzy challenge? There's a series of caches in Ontario created that has most, if not all of the D/T combos.

Here's a local, blatant challenge-helper:

0, Orange, Winter, Jello, Snail, Xena

It has:

-The number 0

-A colour

-A season

-A food

-An animal

-An "X" word

 

There are several local Challenge caches where this cache could be used to fill in a tougher gap in the requirements.

 

They really missed out on an opportunity by not rating it a 1/4.5, though. :laughing:

 

I call these "Attention Whore" caches

Link to comment

There is also the case of an area where Challenge caches have become so common that people start creating a series of caches specifically defined in order to satisfy certain challenge types. Want to complete the fizzy challenge? There's a series of caches in Ontario created that has most, if not all of the D/T combos.

Here's a local, blatant challenge-helper:

0, Orange, Winter, Jello, Snail, Xena

It has:

-The number 0

-A colour

-A season

-A food

-An animal

-An "X" word

 

There are several local Challenge caches where this cache could be used to fill in a tougher gap in the requirements.

 

They really missed out on an opportunity by not rating it a 1/4.5, though. :laughing:

 

I call these "Attention Whore" caches

 

When we placed that cache, it was a tongue in cheek idea. Mostly for the fun of it. It isn't even close to where most people like to cache so you would have to drive for quite a distance to track it down.

 

We do love Challenge caches though and we have several of our own. We enjoy them because it gives some people a new way to play the same game. It's a different way to have fun.

Link to comment

I'd be OK with challenge caches if they adopted Frinklab's suggestion. It would still make the game fun for competitive people but allow those of us who want to hunt caches and not compete and have an accurate find count, that opportunity. A more inclusive way of playing rather than this boastful exclusionary style.

 

Thanks for setting up my obligatory post!

 

My suggestion (for which I shamelessly keep plugging, in my always-be-closing way) is

 

[FEATURE] Challenge Stars

 

which would separate the completing of the challenge from the finding of the final container.

 

The practical upshot of which would allow the OP to post a Found It after signing the log.

 

At the risk of inciting another round of pedantry, I call this win-win.

 

I really fail to see the need for this. By the same logic, every multi should have the final cache coords listed on the page so that people who don't like finding a bunch of waypoints first can just go straight for the final.

 

The way I see it, feeling the need to find and log a challenge cache, when there are so many other trads, multis, etc out there to find instead, without completing the challenge, and needing to get the smiley for it, is really just being about the numbers.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

Ohhh Ok. I was just confused by the similarity in title. Yes, I already do ignore caches I don't like and hunt for the ones I do. When I first started caching, while not in the very earliest days of the game, it was still much simpler times--hide, hunt, find, log. Now there are badges and souvenirs and grids and things I don't know about or care about. I'm not really a gamer nor am I competitive. I liked geocaching for being outdoors, finding interesting things, getting exercise, taking photos, seeing cool containers. It was fun and STILL is! I just ignore the other stuff. I appreciate being allowed to sign a Challenge cache log but it does throw off my actual find count. If I find a cache and sign the log, I consider it a find. It's a minor annoyance and not really important since I'm since I'm "all about that hunt, 'bout that hunt, not numbers." I just know my find count will be a weeee bit higher than what's shown. No biggie. Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate the info. :-)

 

You're like me in that i don't cache for smiley count. But at the same time, i want my find count that i do have to be correct. I've signed a few challenge cache logs that i don't qualify for (it's possible i never will) but i never thought that doing this would mess up my stats in any way. These are not traditional caches. Locating the physical cache and signing its logsheet is just one part of claiming a found it on a challenge cache. We still have to meet the challenge and log it online before it becomes a statistical find.

 

Ah, but you chose GS as the listing service of the caches you found and you chose them to keep a record of your finds and that means they define the find. Your find count is correct according to GS. If you want your find count to be correct according to you either create your own listing service or stats page.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I'd be OK with challenge caches if they adopted Frinklab's suggestion. It would still make the game fun for competitive people but allow those of us who want to hunt caches and not compete and have an accurate find count, that opportunity. A more inclusive way of playing rather than this boastful exclusionary style.

 

I've changed my mind about being OK with challenge caches even if the Frinklab's suggestion were adopted, although if they must exist the Frinklab's star system is the best win-win idea proposed.

 

Being the recipient, over the last few months, of many cut n paste logs from people trying to qualify for a challenge, as a cache owner of IMO (and reflected by FPs) quality unique-icon-caches I have experienced too often why challenge caches are a bad idea.

 

They encourage cachers to treat good caches like they don't matter on an individual basis. What matters most is that the non-traditional cache (or high D/T cache) helped the finder qualify for a challenge. The logs reflect that. "Met up with a bunch of cachers for another exhausting day of caching. Our goal was to find enough qualifying caches for the 10-10-10 Challenge cache."

 

The 10-10-10 challenge requires 20 caches (10 unique Icons, 5 of each whole number difficulty and 5 of each whole number terrain rankings) to be logged in 10 days or less (no duplicates - each cache can only be used to qualify for one of the criteria).

 

Rarely do you see a challenge cache that doesn't promote caching for the numbers. It's always, find a LOT of caches in a short period of time. If CCs are really about challenging people to try new things then finding a couple of tree climbing caches, or 5 multis, or 5 puzzles or 2 high terrain caches should suffice. Why does it need to be 50 multis in one day? This pushes people to do things like share final coordinates in order to accomplish the numbers.

Link to comment

I'd be OK with challenge caches if they adopted Frinklab's suggestion. It would still make the game fun for competitive people but allow those of us who want to hunt caches and not compete and have an accurate find count, that opportunity. A more inclusive way of playing rather than this boastful exclusionary style.

 

I've changed my mind about being OK with challenge caches even if the Frinklab's suggestion were adopted, although if they must exist the Frinklab's star system is the best win-win idea proposed.

 

Being the recipient, over the last few months, of many cut n paste logs from people trying to qualify for a challenge, as a cache owner of IMO (and reflected by FPs) quality unique-icon-caches I have experienced too often why challenge caches are a bad idea.

 

They encourage cachers to treat good caches like they don't matter on an individual basis. What matters most is that the non-traditional cache (or high D/T cache) helped the finder qualify for a challenge. The logs reflect that. "Met up with a bunch of cachers for another exhausting day of caching. Our goal was to find enough qualifying caches for the 10-10-10 Challenge cache."

 

The 10-10-10 challenge requires 20 caches (10 unique Icons, 5 of each whole number difficulty and 5 of each whole number terrain rankings) to be logged in 10 days or less (no duplicates - each cache can only be used to qualify for one of the criteria).

 

Rarely do you see a challenge cache that doesn't promote caching for the numbers. It's always, find a LOT of caches in a short period of time. If CCs are really about challenging people to try new things then finding a couple of tree climbing caches, or 5 multis, or 5 puzzles or 2 high terrain caches should suffice. Why does it need to be 50 multis in one day? This pushes people to do things like share final coordinates in order to accomplish the numbers.

+1

Link to comment

 

Rarely do you see a challenge cache that doesn't promote caching for the numbers. It's always, find a LOT of caches in a short period of time. If CCs are really about challenging people to try new things then finding a couple of tree climbing caches, or 5 multis, or 5 puzzles or 2 high terrain caches should suffice. Why does it need to be 50 multis in one day? This pushes people to do things like share final coordinates in order to accomplish the numbers.

[/size][/font]

 

Rarely?

 

We have/had 283 challenges in the state of Washington. Sure there are some challenges that require #s in a daily basis (17 of the 283), a monthly (4), a week (1), a year (3). That is 25 on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis, probably up to 30 if you count other oddballs. So 30 out of 283 that require you to finish them in a period of time. Then there are streak challenges which could be argued for the numbers and if you are looking at just caching totals, like total # of finds, you can find those but I can find a huge # of challenges that have nothing to do with raw numbers, or worrying about finishing in a specific period of time. Course, a cache requiring you to find 50 earth caches total is just promoting earth caches, not making you do it in a week or month, just asks you to go out there and find earth caches, at your speed.

 

For example, challenges in my state with no time restraints...

Washington Delorme, County Grid Challenges (Skagit, Snohomish, Kitsap, Island, Spokane, Pierce, Thurston, King), finding caches in 50 different state parks, finding the 25 or so oldest caches in the state, finding old caches in general, finding caches on 2 dozen different islands, finding caches in rest stops, finding caches near lighthouses, hiking 50,000 feet of elevation, hiking 100 miles, complete the triad of caching, find caches from 50 different charter members, find night caches, find caches in 4 different geotours, taking pictures while caching, find caches in 120 different cities and towns in our state, find a cache in every county in our state, finish the Fizzy with caches in Washington, and find caches in cemeteries. Then there are all the challenges that you have to find ones with various names. No rush for those.

 

Anyway, there are a ton of challenges out there. If one hates all challenges, one hates them. If one hates certain kinds of challenges, then there are probably many out there one might like. I personally do not like blackout challenges anymore and streak ones bore me (despite once having done 400 days), but there are many I do like. Folks should not hate all challenges because there are some they do not like. I do not hate all traditional caches because some are placed lamely in a Walmart parking lot.

 

Personally I would agree with you, if there was a challenge saying find 50 multis in a day, that would promote sharing final coordinates, but we do not have that one and if we did, I would just hit ignore.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

 

Being the recipient, over the last few months, of many cut n paste logs from people trying to qualify for a challenge, as a cache owner of IMO (and reflected by FPs) quality unique-icon-caches I have experienced too often why challenge caches are a bad idea.

 

They encourage cachers to treat good caches like they don't matter on an individual basis. What matters most is that the non-traditional cache (or high D/T cache) helped the finder qualify for a challenge. The logs reflect that. "Met up with a bunch of cachers for another exhausting day of caching. Our goal was to find enough qualifying caches for the 10-10-10 Challenge cache."

 

 

(Disclaimer - I generally like Challenge Caches)

 

As challenge caches generally require finding caches to meet the qualification (unless you already qualify), yes that will result in cachers seeking out caches which they might otherwise not have. And yes they may seem to treat them like they don't matter (if that is how their logs read). But I don't think challenge caches encourage this.

 

I own a couple of Wherigo caches, and sometimes finders will mention they found it as part of finding a number of icons in a day. But they have so far always said something about my cache too. They don't get found that often, and I'm happy if someone finds them and enjoys them - whatever the reason.

 

I heard an interview on a UK based geocaching podcast recently, with a cacher who has been active since 2001. He commented on the recent renewed interest in some of his older caches - because of date placed challenges. He seemed genuinely pleased at the renewed interest in his caches.

 

So I don't think it's all bad.

Link to comment

It does seem that most parts of North America have not yet been affected by challenge caches. But in some areas where challenge caches are very popular it is reflected in the logs of non-traditionals. For those cache owners who have been negatively affected by challenge caches, it would be decent and courteous if we could opt out of the challenge game. Perhaps a different coloured icon (see image) to indicate that it can't be counted towards qualifying for a challenge. It's not fair to force cache owners to participate in the challenge game. I'd like to keep my puzzles and multi but if this trend in my area continues I'll republish them as PMO traditionals.

 

28e9b516-e15e-4a7f-8318-dadb750bfe9e.gif

 

Link to comment

 

Personally I would agree with you, if there was a challenge saying find 50 multis in a day, that would promote sharing final coordinates, but we do not have that one and if we did, I would just hit ignore.

 

As a finder I would ignore it too, but as a cache owner I can't ignore it.

Link to comment

 

Rarely do you see a challenge cache that doesn't promote caching for the numbers. It's always, find a LOT of caches in a short period of time. If CCs are really about challenging people to try new things then finding a couple of tree climbing caches, or 5 multis, or 5 puzzles or 2 high terrain caches should suffice. Why does it need to be 50 multis in one day? This pushes people to do things like share final coordinates in order to accomplish the numbers.

[/size][/font]

 

Rarely?

 

We have/had 283 challenges in the state of Washington. Sure there are some challenges that require #s in a daily basis (17 of the 283), a monthly (4), a week (1), a year (3). That is 25 on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis, probably up to 30 if you count other oddballs. So 30 out of 283 that require you to finish them in a period of time. Then there are streak challenges which could be argued for the numbers and if you are looking at just caching totals, like total # of finds, you can find those but I can find a huge # of challenges that have nothing to do with raw numbers, or worrying about finishing in a specific period of time. Course, a cache requiring you to find 50 earth caches total is just promoting earth caches, not making you do it in a week or month, just asks you to go out there and find earth caches, at your speed.

 

For example, challenges in my state with no time restraints...

Washington Delorme, County Grid Challenges (Skagit, Snohomish, Kitsap, Island, Spokane, Pierce, Thurston, King), finding caches in 50 different state parks, finding the 25 or so oldest caches in the state, finding old caches in general, finding caches on 2 dozen different islands, finding caches in rest stops, finding caches near lighthouses, hiking 50,000 feet of elevation, hiking 100 miles, complete the triad of caching, find caches from 50 different charter members, find night caches, find caches in 4 different geotours, taking pictures while caching, find caches in 120 different cities and towns in our state, find a cache in every county in our state, finish the Fizzy with caches in Washington, and find caches in cemeteries. Then there are all the challenges that you have to find ones with various names. No rush for those.

 

Anyway, there are a ton of challenges out there. If one hates all challenges, one hates them. If one hates certain kinds of challenges, then there are probably many out there one might like. I personally do not like blackout challenges anymore and streak ones bore me (despite once having done 400 days), but there are many I do like. Folks should not hate all challenges because there are some they do not like. I do not hate all traditional caches because some are placed lamely in a Walmart parking lot.

 

Personally I would agree with you, if there was a challenge saying find 50 multis in a day, that would promote sharing final coordinates, but we do not have that one and if we did, I would just hit ignore.

 

I found one recently the OP would qualify for, it's called the No-No Challenge and it requires the finding of exactly ZERO caches: GC4MJXT.

 

I think the beautiful thing about this game is that we can modify it to fit our own preferences. You don't like Challenge caches? Don't do Challenge caches. I love them, so I seek them out. The idea of speed-caching a 1500+ Power Trail where you move containers sounds like a complete insult to the game, in my opinion, but I'm not about to insist we ban Power Trails.

 

And I'm a little surprised by this notion of a CO wanting to force people to avoid his caches as part of a challenge...that sounds very much like somebody imposing his own rules on the entire community.

Edited by blackdog7
Link to comment

They encourage cachers to treat good caches like they don't matter on an individual basis.

 

"Good" is subjective. For some cachers, individual caches don't matter very much. That's just a reality of the game. It's not reasonable to expect every finder to treat your cache like a super special snowflake.

Link to comment

They encourage cachers to treat good caches like they don't matter on an individual basis.

 

"Good" is subjective. For some cachers, individual caches don't matter very much. That's just a reality of the game. It's not reasonable to expect every finder to treat your cache like a super special snowflake.

 

It's not about my super special cache, it's about being forced into the numbers game. I feel very strongly that the game is devolving and challenge caches are the tipping point. I don't want to contribute to a cache type that promotes quantity over quality. But my caches are forced to participate in the challenge game and contribute to the degradation of a game I loved.

Link to comment

They encourage cachers to treat good caches like they don't matter on an individual basis.

 

"Good" is subjective. For some cachers, individual caches don't matter very much. That's just a reality of the game. It's not reasonable to expect every finder to treat your cache like a super special snowflake.

 

It's not about my super special cache, it's about being forced into the numbers game. I feel very strongly that the game is devolving and challenge caches are the tipping point. I don't want to contribute to a cache type that promotes quantity over quality. But my caches are forced to participate in the challenge game and contribute to the degradation of a game I loved.

 

A find is a find is a find.

Link to comment

I don't even know what a power trail is but from the sound of it, I don't think I'd like it. Maybe there needs to be an old school trail...place regular hides in interesting places and go on long walks and hunt for a FOUND or DNF, log it and head to the next cool place. Stop, have a picnic. Chat about how cool the hide was or how clever the container. Then skip on down the trail to the next ammo can. La dih dah la dih dah! And at the end of the day we straggle home tired after the long hikes talking about how fun the day was and log our 6 finds for the day. Now that's POWER! lol But I'd love it!

 

This has certainly been eye opening and enlightening about the things new to me. I think I like caching the way I do it. It suits me. And I've manage to kill many hours here that should have gone to my JQuery final even though I don't understand what the assignment is. *sigh* No more caching for a while.... When this semester is over I can relax a LITTLE and maybe get some more caches I can't log a find on! lol It's SO COLD in here...51! It will be hard to get up. Think I'll sleep in my clothes. I'll dream of following the yellow brick road and finding cool tricky cache containers all the way to Oz while the flying monkeys drop DNF bombs all around......zzzzzzzz

You have my vote for the old school trail! I tried one power trail nearby and it was not for me. To each his own, but to me a cache that does not take me to somewhere interesting or spark my interest is not worth finding. The one power trail I tried was obviously placed to increase finds and I found it boring and monotonous.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...