Removing the "challenge" from a "challenge cache"

[+J Grouchy]

So, I own a single challenge cache. It's also a puzzle cache that requires people to identify images associated with specific movies in order to obtain the coordinates. It was really just set up as a challenge to expand the "movie theme" I gave the puzzle and hiding location and wasn't meant to present a true "challenge" to people.

 

I was wondering if anyone saw an issue with me just editing out the "challenge" requirements and making it a straight puzzle cache. It doesn't change the cache type since it involves a real puzzle...all it does is eliminate an additional requirement and open it up to more people.

 

So...is it "stuck" as a true challenge or is it acceptable to just delete that part of the description and remove "challenge" from the name?

[+MartyBartfast]

If I was someone who had found it I would probably want it to stay as a Challenge cache. I think removing that part substantially changes the cache and therefore it would be better to archive the current incarnation, and relist it as a straight puzzle.

[Rock Chalk]

If it was me, I'd archive and re-list it. In fact, I'm thinking about doing the same thing with one of my own caches.

 

To me, the essence of the cache changes enough when the challenge aspect is removed that I prefer the idea of starting fresh with a new listing.

[+The A-Team]

If I was someone who had found it I would probably want it to stay as a Challenge cache. I think removing that part substantially changes the cache and therefore it would be better to archive the current incarnation, and relist it as a straight puzzle.

^This

 

While you could probably change it to just a puzzle cache without any problem from the reviewer/Groundspeak side, such a fundamental change is really enough to make it a different cache and it should be archived.

 

As an example, a cache not far from me was recently converted from a "gadget" cache to a run-of-the-mill container. The cache received many Favourite Points as a gadget cache, so now it's a run-of-the-mill cache with an unusually high number of FPs and logs that don't make any sense to someone not familiar with its history. In such a case, the listing should have been archived and a new listing submitted.

[+J Grouchy]

Thanks for the replies. My only concern with archiving it and re-listing it is how the reviewer might balk at me archiving and immediately trying to publish what essentially is the exact same cache.

[+MartyBartfast]

Thanks for the replies. My only concern with archiving it and re-listing it is how the reviewer might balk at me archiving and immediately trying to publish what essentially is the exact same cache.

 

I think if you explain about the challenge component in a reviewer note on the new cache it should be OK.

[+DanOCan]

Double post but this one had a spelling error.

Edited April 26, 2016 by DanOCan

[+DanOCan]

Naturally, your reviewer would have the final word on the matter, but I see nothing wrong with simply removing the challenge and leaving it as just a puzzle cache.

[Keystone]

Thanks for the replies. My only concern with archiving it and re-listing it is how the reviewer might balk at me archiving and immediately trying to publish what essentially is the exact same cache.

 

I think if you explain about the challenge component in a reviewer note on the new cache it should be OK.

Agreed. As a reviewer I would only "balk" if the archive/republish cycle took place within three months of the initial publication date (reference the "cache permanence" guideline -- a/k/a the "anti-churning" clause about temporary caches). That can't possibly be the case here since the challenge cache must have been published prior to April 2015.

 

As a player I would like to have the challenge cache preserved as part of my history. Among other things, if I found your challenge cache, I'd want for it to count towards a "meta challenge" that required me to find 50 challenge caches. Don't drop me to 49 by editing your description to remove the challenge aspect!

[+GeoBain]

Thanks for the replies. My only concern with archiving it and re-listing it is how the reviewer might balk at me archiving and immediately trying to publish what essentially is the exact same cache.

 

Since this is a concern for you, you could shoot the reviewer an email explaining what you are planning and why before you archive just to be on the safe side. But it really shouldn't be a problem.

[+thebruce0]

I was just about to say, then Keystone said exactly what I was going to. =P

 

In my own words, I don't think there'd be a problem removing the challenge component and leaving it as a puzzle - the physical hasn't changed, and (I presume) no data will change aside from the listing description (and ideally the title won't change) and the less responsibility you as the CO have.

 

I would add a note and disclaimer in the description with the date and explanation about what changed, so that as a player I can still refer to it as a qualifier for any challenge-related challenges.

 

Or to put it another way, I think the only people who would be upset with the change would be A] people who really wanted to do the challenge component (they still can if they want, but it's no longer necessary), and B] people who feel they did all that extra work to log it found and now no one else has to do the same amount of work (and those are typically more competitive people who care about how other people play the game even if it doesn't affect them).

Edited April 27, 2016 by thebruce0

[+J Grouchy]

I was just about to say, then Keystone said exactly what I was going to. =P

 

In my own words, I don't think there'd be a problem removing the challenge component and leaving it as a puzzle - the physical hasn't changed, and (I presume) no data will change aside from the listing description (and ideally the title won't change) and the less responsibility you as the CO have.

 

I would add a note and disclaimer in the description with the date and explanation about what changed, so that as a player I can still refer to it as a qualifier for any challenge-related challenges.

 

Or to put it another way, I think the only people who would be upset with the change would be A] people who really wanted to do the challenge component (they still can if they want, but it's no longer necessary), and B] people who feel they did all that extra work to log it found and now no one else has to do the same amount of work (and those are typically more competitive people who care about how other people play the game even if it doesn't affect them).

 

So you think making the challenge component "optional" would be a better compromise?

[+thebruce0]

So you think making the challenge component "optional" would be a better compromise?

 

Could be. There are numerous "unchallenges" out there; simple traditionals that recommend attempting a themed challenge, but qualifying is not required to log the find. Don't see why not.

[+The Jester]

Another point to think on, if you relist the same puzzzle, those who prviously found it get a 'free' smilie (no work) for logging it again. It depends on how you feel about 'number hounds' and your stance on the oft quoted "how can you find something, when you know where it is?" Not saying one way or the other, just something to think on.

[+dprovan]

Or to put it another way, I think the only people who would be upset with the change would be A] people who really wanted to do the challenge component (they still can if they want, but it's no longer necessary), and B] people who feel they did all that extra work to log it found and now no one else has to do the same amount of work (and those are typically more competitive people who care about how other people play the game even if it doesn't affect them).

I'm not convinced anyone would be upset one way or the other, but I would prefer it be relisted. If I'd found it, I wouldn't be upset about other people having one less hurtle than I did, but, nevertheless, I found a different cache than they did, so it should have a different identity.

 

Another point to think on, if you relist the same puzzzle, those who prviously found it get a 'free' smilie (no work) for logging it again. It depends on how you feel about 'number hounds' and your stance on the oft quoted "how can you find something, when you know where it is?" Not saying one way or the other, just something to think on.

I was about to mention this as another positive to consider. It makes me sad to consider that some COs would think this is a negative. No one finding a puzzle cache with a challenge attached is doing it for the numbers.

[+thebruce0]

I'm not convinced anyone would be upset one way or the other, but I would prefer it be relisted. If I'd found it, I wouldn't be upset about other people having one less hurtle than I did, but, nevertheless, I found a different cache than they did, so it should have a different identity.

Yeah I'd agree if it was physical, or a puzzle. Existence of a challenge ALR? *shrug* for me that's not as big an issue. Admittedly it may be for other people.

Edited April 28, 2016 by thebruce0