Challenge Cache Guidelines Update

[Todd300]

Actually, I think the local reviewers should enforce those rules. If you see a cache that does not comply with the rules, bring it up with the local reviewer and he’ll do something about it. If not, oh well.

[zuma]

@Todd300 wrote:

Actually, I think the local reviewers should enforce those rules. If you see a cache that does not comply with the rules, bring it up with the local reviewer and he’ll do something about it. If not, oh well.

I agree that we each have a role in making sure that everyone plays by the rules. That is easier said than done though, when those who place caches near railroad tracks, on bridges, on dams, require photos for ECs, and keep their ALRs going get a bit irritated when you tell them that there cache is not within the rules. Too many of just let it go.

And as far as the reviewers go, they are volunteers, who already contribute tons of time to the game that we all play, and I am not sure they can take on even more burdens on their time.

This is the essential problem with the Groundspeak business model. They expect volunteers to contribute 100% of their content, that is those of us who place caches provide all of their content. Plus they expect volunteers to police the system. I just think that if Groundspeak is going to be charging us to use content provided by others for free, they need to a better job of getting user input before they make changes.

zuma

[CodeJunkie]

@zuma wrote:

I just think that if Groundspeak is going to be charging us to use content provided by others for free, they need to a better job of getting user input before they make changes.

Just a different view from a techie / cacher perspective. I agree with many of Zuma’s points (i.e. our reviewers do A LOT for free, GS doesn’t always appear to appeal to the masses, etc.) These are just points to consider.

1) Does GS “charge”? They don’t “charge” unless you’re a premium member at which point you’re “buying” a stated service for a specific cost.
2) Why do they need to charge? They’re in the information business (or should be). They manage all the information which requires a ton of computing hardware. That’s the costs they need to cover.
3) Do they solicit user input? Absolutely, but at times they just need to make good business decisions. Google Maps was an obvious business decision that needed to be made quickly and primarily without much user input. Perhaps they could offer multiple pricing schemes in the future to address certain options like maps, amount of downloads, etc. Or maybe a micro-payment scheme where you pay some fractional amount for every log entered, file downloaded, page looked at, etc. (imagine google or wikipedia doing this?????)

I have some serious questions about the latest changes to challenges though. It appears they want to make it attainable for everyone so nobody gets excluded. I think this was actually them caving into the opinion of other cachers who demanded it. Examples: Some people aren’t capable (or are unwilling) to do 5/5 type caches. These people can choose to put them on their ignore list if they don’t want to see them. If I try to publish a challenge cache that requires the finder to have 25% of their finds be puzzles that’s not allowed because it excludes some users.

My opinion is so what. If they can’t (i.e. they don’t meet the requirements) or they are unwilling to meet the requirements then put it on the ignore list and move on.

I think this really speaks to something Groundspeak eluded to a while ago in a Podcacher Podcast that these aren’t really “Challenges”, but really “Achievements”. There’s a very subtle difference in my opinion, but I think that’s where they’re going with these changes. Achievement means reaching the goal. Challenge means are you willing to try it. (IMHO)

[Team Deejay]

@zuma wrote:

As owners of the game, Groundspeak has the right, maybe even an obligation, to change the rules as they see fit to protect the interests of the game long term. So, I dont have a problem with the new rules.

What I do have an issue with is the selective application of existing rules. For example, it has been a long time since the rule was made against ALRs, yet I still run across caches that have ALRs attached. It has been over 2 years since Earthcache owners were notified of the rule change that prohibits requiring a photo at the Earthcache site, yet demands for photos at Earthcaches are still common.

I archived or modified all of my ALR caches to comply with the rules. I dont require a photo at any of my Earthcaches because I recognize the need to live by the rules. So why should I have to comply with other people’s ALRs or post a photo at an Earthcache? The rules should be for every one, and I wish Groundspeak would do a better job of enforcing existing rules prior to dreaming up new ones.

zuma

Just so you know, we basically try to avoid going back and looking for violations like this. In the case of ALRs, when people complain, we will either convert the cache to a traditional or archive it depending on the owners preference. So, actually you don’t have to comply. If you choose not to comply and someone deletes your log, let Groundspeak know and they will take care of it.

[Team Deejay]

@CodeJunkie wrote:

I have some serious questions about the latest changes to challenges though. It appears they want to make it attainable for everyone so nobody gets excluded. I think this was actually them caving into the opinion of other cachers who demanded it. Examples: Some people aren’t capable (or are unwilling) to do 5/5 type caches. These people can choose to put them on their ignore list if they don’t want to see them. If I try to publish a challenge cache that requires the finder to have 25% of their finds be puzzles that’s not allowed because it excludes some users.

The issue with percentages is that the requirement becomes impossible to achieve without severely changing how one chooses to geocache. For example, let’s say that you have 5000 finds, and of those 200 are mystery caches. To get up to 25%, you would need to find 1400 mystery caches in a row, to the exclusion of all other types of caches. This would be effectively impossible. The same math applies for challenges calling for an average terrain or difficulty rating on finds. Once a finder has a significant amount of finds, it becomes nearly impossible to correct. These types of challenges were eventually categorized as “negative” challenges, because you had to NOT find a particular type(s) of cache(s) to achieve them.

The fact was that Groundspeak didn’t want people to have to NOT find a geocache to meet a challenge. You can still make a challenge for finding 1000 mystery caches if you want. You can still make a challenge for finding 100 5-star terrain caches if you want. Hard is ok, negative is not.

[gotta run]

@Team Deejay wrote:

In the case of ALRs, when people complain, we will either convert the cache to a traditional or archive it depending on the owners preference.

You have told me on at least two occasions that you will not change cache types after publication because it “messes up people’s stats.” Archive and republish is the only option.

So why the exception here? Or has the rule…guideline…whatever changed???

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Team Deejay]

@gotta run wrote:

@Team Deejay wrote:

In the case of ALRs, when people complain, we will either convert the cache to a traditional or archive it depending on the owners preference.

You have told me on at least two occasions that you will not change cache types after publication because it “messes up people’s stats.” Archive and republish is the only option.

So why the exception here? Or has the rule…guideline…whatever changed???

Groundspeak made this an explicit exception when they eliminated ALRs, because the old rules were not grandfathered in. I’m not aware of any other cases where we have asked people to change existing caches when the guidelines were changed.

[Author]

Posts