[B+L]

The Jester, on 26 June 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

And putting everybody who doesn't agree with you in some group with a derogatory title ("puritan", "control freak owner", etc.) is an even bigger indicator, and has gotten tiresome.

Mr. Namboku's use of such pejoratives apparently predates the forum guidelines and his name-calling has been grandfathered.

This post has been edited by B+L: 26 June 2012 - 09:49 AM

[tozainamboku]

CanadianRockies, on 26 June 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

The Jester, on 26 June 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

tozainamboku, on 26 June 2012 - 05:41 AM, said:

Challenge caches are the only caches where you have to do something beyond finding the cache and signing the log in order to log it as found online.

So what? Variation is the spice of life, if all caches were the same most people would leave the game.

+1. Vive la différence!

Earthcaches and most virtual caches also make you do something other than find a cache and sign a log.

What does it mean to "find" a non-physicial cache? EarthCaches and virtuals have always had "verification" requirements to prove the cache was "located". It theoretically corresponds to signing the log.

Of course to be consistent, I would argue that these requirements are no more of a requirement than signing the cache log. In fact many EarthCache and virtual owners accept someone's word that they were at the cache and "found" what ever was there, and don't delete logs. Even Groundpeak does not go after armchair logs except if they are obvious.

Now it is true that at one time Groundspeak allowed cache owners to make-up rules for logging a find online. Ultimately, this didn't work out well. However, TPTB decided that a "reasonable" geocaching related accomplishment could be used as an ALR, perhaps because these challenges are popular and because TPTB see them as promoting geocaching. However, TPTB have had to clarify what is "reasonable" a number of times already, just showing how hard it can be.

There is no doubt that these are different and that can lead to confusion among cachers when they become aware that other ALRs have not be grandfathered but are instead void and unenforceable. I am also trouble that Groundspeak has chosen to grandfather challenge that no longer meet the guidlelines, making it even more confusing.

As I have state several times, I comply with cache owners wishes and write a note when I find a challenge cache for a challenge that I haven't done or don't want to document. I certainly don't find an need to lie about meeting a challenge to claim a smiley. But I can sympathize with those cachers who want to log their finds.

[tozainamboku]

B+L, on 26 June 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

The Jester, on 26 June 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

And putting everybody who doesn't agree with you in some group with a derogatory title ("puritan", "control freak owner", etc.) is an even bigger indicator, and has gotten tiresome.

Mr. Namboku's use of such pejoratives apparently predates the forum guidelines and his name-calling has been grandfathered.

B+L's mangling of my name and trying to make this about some terms I use, instead of arguing the points is what is getting tiresome.

At first I was going to apologize to The Jester for lumping all challenge cache owners together. Instead I think I will just clarify why I used the term.

Clearly some, if not most, challenge cache owners are motivated because they enjoy accepting and achieving challenges, and they know that there are many others who feel the same way. They place the caches with the hope that others will enjoy doing the challenge and with the knowledge that someone who doesn't want to do the challenge or spend time documenting it, can either ignore the cache or post a note instead of a find if they 'must' look for it.

There are probably only a few who spend time thinking of diabolic challenges that have little appeal and are difficult to document. And I think, for the most part, Groundspeak and the reviewers have done an excellent job in approving only "reasonable" geocaching related challenges.

But that doesn't mean I don't have issues with challenges. First of all, I think there are better ways of putting forth challenges than using geocaches. These challenges evolved in the period when ALRs were allowed and so it was an easy way to go about it without Groundspeak needing to create any special infrastructure. The initial challenges were the ones like The Jester's where you emailed the owner for the final coordinates, presenting the list of caches you used to achieve the goal. From the start many reviewers were uncomfortable with this setup because it was an exception to the guideline about needing to contact the cache owner to solve a puzzle cache. There were also questions because some of these challenges were tied to a commercial product. Clearly, someone at Groundspeak liked the idea enough that it was decided that limited number of these challenges could be posted.

However, that was not enough for people who wanted to make their own challenges. I'm not sure there was much demand at first, but when the ALR guidelines were written to allow ALRS if the cache was listed as an unknown cache type, challenges became part of the flood of ALRs. By interpreting the challenges as simply ALRs where the cache was at the posted location but in order to log a find you had to convince the cache owner you met the challenge, volunteers had no problem publishing them. The flood gates were open and soon every conceivable geocaching statistic was being put out as challenge.

Now, for sure, many were interesting and conceivably enjoyable to do. But some ran into issues. Groundspeak soon banned challenges that involved hiding caches, based on guidelines for "breeder" caches with ALRs requiring a new cache be hidden. And for other challenges, either the hider had to show they had met the challenge or that a substantial number of cachers could meet the challenge. There is no doubt that some challenges were submitted with the same intent of many of the more esoteric ALRs - so the cache owner could delete someone's log.

But let's just talk about "reasonable" challenges where the cache owner intends to put forth a challenge some people might enjoy doing. My objection is the use of the online smiley as a reward. Now, this might not be how the owner views it. They seem to feel that the "challenge" is part of finding the cache just like solving a puzzle, climbing a tree, going on an overnight hike, or anything else that makes a cache difficult. The problem here is that if I manage to find one of these caches and sign the log by some means other than what the owner intended, most will agree that I can log a find online. Only the challenge cache retains the ALR flavor where I can still get my log deleted, even after I've signed the log. The physical cache logging guideline have to explicitly make this exception.

I'd prefer challenges where my reward for doing the challenge is the challenge itself. So far I haven't seen a convincing argument for using caches to promote challenge other that that is was has been done historically and the alternatives, so far, are less than satisfactory as a way to publicize the challenge.

I would not mind if there were a challenge type that didn't involve a cache. If you met the challenge you could log a "challenge" met. Whether or not it counted in your find statistics wouldn't matter to me, though I suspect that we would hear the same outcry as we did with Challenges.

[CanadianRockies]

tozainamboku, on 26 June 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

CanadianRockies, on 26 June 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

The Jester, on 26 June 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

tozainamboku, on 26 June 2012 - 05:41 AM, said:

Challenge caches are the only caches where you have to do something beyond finding the cache and signing the log in order to log it as found online.

So what? Variation is the spice of life, if all caches were the same most people would leave the game.

+1. Vive la différence!

Earthcaches and most virtual caches also make you do something other than find a cache and sign a log.

What does it mean to "find" a non-physicial cache? EarthCaches and virtuals have always had "verification" requirements to prove the cache was "located". It theoretically corresponds to signing the log.

Of course, it's merely your opinion that fulfilling an EarthCache's requirements corresponds to signing a challenge cache's log.

If all that was desired was proof that you had "located" an EarthCache, then a simple photograph would suffice. But EarthCaches usually cannot require photographs. So, what is the purpose of these EarthCache tasks? According to Groundspeak, "An EarthCache must include logging tasks which relate to - and help teach - the Earth Science lesson." Hmmm. Seems like something above and beyond simply finding the EarthCache location.

tozainamboku, on 26 June 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

I certainly don't find an need to lie about meeting a challenge to claim a smiley. But I can sympathize with those cachers who want to log their finds.

I think most of us realize by now that you can sympathize with just about any cacher who wants to log just about anything as a find on just about any type of cache. So, no news there.

This post has been edited by CanadianRockies: 27 June 2012 - 07:01 AM

[B+L]

tozainamboku, on 26 June 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

B+L, on 26 June 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

The Jester, on 26 June 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

And putting everybody who doesn't agree with you in some group with a derogatory title ("puritan", "control freak owner", etc.) is an even bigger indicator, and has gotten tiresome.

Mr. Namboku's use of such pejoratives apparently predates the forum guidelines and his name-calling has been grandfathered.

B+L's mangling of my name and trying to make this about some terms I use, instead of arguing the points is what is getting tiresome.

I'm not interested in arguing with you. I was merely commenting on The Jester's point. It is something of a mystery why you continue to be allowed to call people names. But do go ahead and use me as an excuse to keep it up. No one really expects anything different from you after all this time. TLDR; but I'm betting that you've failed to actually explain why you call people puritans and control freaks.

[WestSideDaddy]

tozainamboku, on 26 June 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

[...]
But let's just talk about "reasonable" challenges where the cache owner intends to put forth a challenge some people might enjoy doing. My objection is the use of the online smiley as a reward. Now, this might not be how the owner views it. They seem to feel that the "challenge" is part of finding the cache just like solving a puzzle, climbing a tree, going on an overnight hike, or anything else that makes a cache difficult. The problem here is that if I manage to find one of these caches and sign the log by some means other than what the owner intended, most will agree that I can log a find online. Only the challenge cache retains the ALR flavor where I can still get my log deleted, even after I've signed the log. The physical cache logging guideline have to explicitly make this exception.
[...]

So the primary objection to challenges is that if a cacher managed to brute force the cache or manages to find it and logged it not realizing it was a challenge that their log will be disallowed and they won't get the smiley?

Of course one doesn't really need to brute force a challenge cache as, in my experience, most of them are at the posted coordinates.

It also seems that it would be pretty difficult to log a challenge cache and not realize it was a challenge. Considering the guidelines require the word "CHALLENGE" in the title plus the big '?' icon on the top of the page, and the challenge rules in the text.

[tozainamboku]

WestSideDaddy, on 27 June 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

tozainamboku, on 26 June 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

[...]
But let's just talk about "reasonable" challenges where the cache owner intends to put forth a challenge some people might enjoy doing. My objection is the use of the online smiley as a reward. Now, this might not be how the owner views it. They seem to feel that the "challenge" is part of finding the cache just like solving a puzzle, climbing a tree, going on an overnight hike, or anything else that makes a cache difficult. The problem here is that if I manage to find one of these caches and sign the log by some means other than what the owner intended, most will agree that I can log a find online. Only the challenge cache retains the ALR flavor where I can still get my log deleted, even after I've signed the log. The physical cache logging guideline have to explicitly make this exception.
[...]

So the primary objection to challenges is that if a cacher managed to brute force the cache or manages to find it and logged it not realizing it was a challenge that their log will be disallowed and they won't get the smiley?

Of course one doesn't really need to brute force a challenge cache as, in my experience, most of them are at the posted coordinates.

It also seems that it would be pretty difficult to log a challenge cache and not realize it was a challenge. Considering the guidelines require the word "CHALLENGE" in the title plus the big '?' icon on the top of the page, and the challenge rules in the text.

So why not make the same argument for ALRs? The prior guidelines allowed cache owners to have additional logging requirements if they were stated on the cache page and the cache was listed as a mystery unknown. If they did they could require that post a picture of yourself standing on your head in order to log a find, or that you had to be a father (yes there was a cache like that).

Initially ALRs were tolerated because they asked you to do simple an straight forward thing, like writing your log in verse or posting a picture with the Groucho glasses in the cache. But people started to request things that weren't so simple to do, or that were not in everyone's ability of doing.

I think Groundspeak tried to work with reviewers to come up with acceptable guidelines for ALRs. Most likely one suggestion was that the activity at least be geocaching related. Clearly when TPTB decided to nullify all existing ALRs, these "geocaching related" activities (AKA, challenge caches) were exempted.

What has happened since, it that people have created more complicated challenges, and more that are not in everyone's ability to achieve. Some are, at least in my opinion, outright silly. The other issue is that some challenges get copied so there are now multiple challenges in the same area asking for the same or nearly the same thing. I've logged at least half a dozen streak challenges based on one time when I did a 100 day streak. Once again, like virtual caches and ALRs before, Groundspeak has had to tweak the guidelines to control what can be published as a challenge. And while it is their prerogative to grandfather challenges that don't meet the new requirements, it seems inconsistent with how they handled other ALRs.

While I personally feel that there are better ways to make challenge than by withholding smiIeys, I don't think is is likely that Groundspeak will do away with challenges, or even grandfather them. The know they are very popular, and I believe that TPTB also feel they promote geocaching. However, I do believe the guidelines will need to be tweaked again and again to deal with silly challenges or too many of the same challenge.