Challenges

[Walkingadventure]

Funny on the timing for that and a new puzzle creation.

Following the signals from space.

[BeccaDay]

So maybe I’m a little late to the game here but it looks like the challenges are now seperate from the geocache finds. Good to see! I don’t mind them so much when they’re recorded in that way. I completed two of them and accepted another one. Not sure if I truly like the concept or not but glad that they’re seperate now.

Not all who wander are lost. -J.R.R. Tolkien

[-cheeto-]

I would encourage others to “vote down” any challenges you see pop up near you that are not “location-based”. Even saying “in such and such a city” is not at specific coordinates. If this is to look or work even remotely close to the virtuals of the past, these need to be things to find at locations.

[gotta run]

As I read more postings, not just here but on gc forums and Facebook, it’s fascinating to hear about challenges not being “real” geocaching. For years now every time a situation has come up where some cachers have argued for issues of “standards”–whether they be tours, solve sharing, I don’t like puzzles, cache quality, cache location–others have loudly proclaimed “Cache the way you want. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. It’s just a game, get over yourselves.”

Interesting that some of those same “do what you want” people are now complaining about challenges not belonging in the game.

Pot, meet kettle?

On the Left Side of the Road...

[zuma]

@gotta run wrote:

As I read more postings, not just here but on gc forums and Facebook, it’s fascinating to hear about challenges not being “real” geocaching. For years now every time a situation has come up where some cachers have argued for issues of “standards”–whether they be tours, solve sharing, I don’t like puzzles, cache quality, cache location–others have loudly proclaimed “Cache the way you want. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. It’s just a game, get over yourselves.”

Interesting that some of those same “do what you want” people are now complaining about challenges not belonging in the game.

Pot, meet kettle?

This is getting way off topic, but I do think that the stubborn insistence by Groundspeak to dilute what geocaching is defined as, is at the root of the problem. Groundspeak wants eyeballs, and they think this is going to be interesting to the next generation and attract eyeballs. But it is not geocaching, at least by the way that I define geocaching.

Yet, since they are nearly the only game in town when it comes to geocaching, they feel they have the ability to redefine what geocaching is. Time will tell. It will be interesting to see if Garmin can use this major stumble by Groundspeak to become more competitive.

z

[-cheeto-]

@zuma wrote:

It will be interesting to see if Garmin can use this major stumble by Groundspeak to become more competitive.
z

Is it really a “major stumble”. I don’t think so.

In fact I don’t think this dilutes anything. You can still go out and hide and publish and find geocaches all you want.

Find counts are one’s own personal business. A person can choose to log a cache. They can choose to log a “geocaching challenge”. They could have chose to log an event or a virtual or an Earthcache Or not. And even before logging they can choose whether to go find anything.

This game is bound to change as time goes along. It has since it’s inception.

I don’t think adding this feature is going to matter to most. In fact most would read all these pages here (and elsewhere) of discussion and just laugh and shake their heads.

Despite the naysayers and picketers, people are starting to do them.

It’s a game! Let’s play it.

(ps. I would much rather do the geocaching challenges that are starting to get created than go find another magnetic keyholder on another guard rail. But for some, the road-side guard rail is their favorite place to visit. Hmm.. interesting what some think can “dilute” geocaching.)

[Team Deejay]

The one change I would like to see would be to prevent challenges from being logged (or accepted) for 24 hours after they are listed. This will give people to vote down the non-location based challenges before people log them. This is “supposed” to be like virtuals. It is not supposed to be like Locationless and it is certainly not supposed to be a “Take a picture of your cat” contest.

[CodeJunkie]

I would think GC.com would be able to institute a “Hold” / “Block”, etc. that is automatic based on peer review. A delay before logging would be good, but the flagging should allow for “reasons”. If it receives “x” flags for specific issues they could block it before it ever becomes viable.

In my opinion these should also be classified as “historical”, “Educational”, etc. The classifications could also be “peer reviewed”. I know this may lead to some getting blocked, but it would certainly allow the better to float to the top.

[GetMeOutdoors]

I agree with that, CJ. But moreso, there should be more direction/purpose given & communicated to the challenges. I have to make some assumptions as I say this but if challenges are supposed to replace virtuals, based on the “Good” virtuals I’ve seen, the guidelines should enforce (if not strongly encourage) a historical purpose, point out a special place of interest like a structure, or memorial, or (in the interest of the “Go somewhere, Do something description on the homepage”) engage in an action that seeks to explore one of the aforementioned areas. – even though I personally think this “morph” of the principle extends beyond the bounds of my definition of geocaching. Actually, even if the challenges program were modified according to my suggestions, it still wouldn’t be geocaching IMHO.

My only hang up is that I want the stats to be separate from the caching stats just like the waymarking site is. I hear the points about the “play the way you want” but cummon – we have to draw the line somewhere or the game of “GEOCACHING” loses all meaning. Maybe I’m a new catcher and work hard to complete my first 100 caches. In my excitement I celebrate with fellow cachers who share my excitement. Then I find someone who logged 100 “Challenges” in 3 days while sitting at home on the couch, by performing some stupid stunt, or by “taking a picture of my cat”. If a person wants to make a hobby out of that then THAT’S FINE, but please don’t compare it to the person who worked hard for his or her first 100 caches – on the field, through the weeds, solving the puzzles. They’re not the same hobbies.

[gotta run]

@GetMeOutdoors wrote:

Maybe I’m a new catcher and work hard to complete my first 100 caches. In my excitement I celebrate with fellow cachers who share my excitement. Then I find someone who logged 100 “Challenges” in 3 days while sitting at home on the couch, by performing some stupid stunt, or by “taking a picture of my cat”. If a person wants to make a hobby out of that then THAT’S FINE, but please don’t compare it to the person who worked hard for his or her first 100 caches – on the field, through the weeds, solving the puzzles. They’re not the same hobbies.

When did this game become a competition?

Again, I’m going to compare this to other discussions. Take puzzles. We argued back and forth about how it was “unfair” for those who had enguinely solved puzzles to have their finds “diluted” by puzzle bus tours where the solves were just handed out.

And puzzle-solving proponents were told, time and again, Why does it matter to you? This isn’t a competition, your stats are your own, etc etc etc.

This is absolutely no different, whether or not groundspeak counts challenges as bona fide finds.

But the funny thing is, I’m seeing some of the exact same people who were on the “what does it matter” side now decrying the existence of challenges.

Use the same logic. If you don’t like challenges, “Just say NO to challenges.” Don’t compare your stats to anyone elses. Don’t worry about what anyone else does. Voila.

NOTE: This is not directed personally at GMO, it just happened to be a convenient quote to pull.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Trekkin and Birdin]

My gut level reaction initially was “you’re kidding? These count?” That was just my reaction, and even at that point in time, it really mattered not, I was just surprised by that fact. More and more, we’re finding for ourselves anyway, that this is supposed to be fun. If getting guardrails is fun, so be it. If hanging off the side of a cliff is fun, more power to you. We embrace some aspects of the game and are getting better all the time at walking away from others. In the end, it is just that…a game. Every time I see people get fired up about things of this nature…whether it involve geocaching, scrapbooking, photography or storytelling….all hobbies where I’ve seen other passionate arguments about things that mostly don’t mean a thing…I stop and think…why can’t we all get this fired up and do something about those things that DO matter?

[Team Deejay]

I really think that the visceral reaction was the result of challenges being pre-sold as the replacement for virtuals. People were all excited about all the great virtuals they had found in the past, and expecting similar options for the future. Now they see all the couch potato challenges and other similar silliness and are disappointed in the results. Including them in the find count is just adding insult to injury.

I had hoped, like so many others, that it would have worked out to be something special. Instead, we get challenges to act silly, drink beer, file complaints, support various causes, etc., with very little involving special PLACES, which is really what this is supposed to be about. Of course, had we actually thought about what most of the geocaches we find today are like, we would have realized that those same people putting out guardrail and terrace hides are listing challenges, so we would have expected a similar ratio of quality to junk. While I do think Groundspeak could have done a better job of anticipating this and putting in better controls and documentation, the fault truly lies with the people actually listing (and logging) the bad challenges.

[GetMeOutdoors]

Dave, that is a very helpful and well articulated assessment. Thank you 🙂

[Team Honeybunnies]

Interestingly, I think the idea that challenges should be separate from GC.com is a mistake. I think it is a big reason that Waymarking was DOA. The other reason would be the listing of all those McDonalds… Yeah that’s right, the idea of geocaching jumping the shark has been discussed before. I would have liked to see those Waymarking stats integrated into or at least easily linkable from our geocaching profiles. I think it’s possible that I missed out on something interesting because I wasn’t interested in hopping to another site and navigating another format.

Once the Wild West atmosphere has settled, I think challenges have a chance to be something equally interesting. They will only be as good as the imaginations of the placers and finders. If we want it to be “Order a Big Mac at the McDonalds at 4th and Main in Waco, TX” it can be, or it can be “Greet the sunrise at Otter Cliffs, Acadia NP”.

We will be trying them, but only as a supplement to our geocaching experience. I’d at least recommend to keep an open mind and see what develops.

[Team Honeybunnies]

Just scrolled through the Show Us Your Landmarks challenge and saw two that we loved, the Sgt. Floyd Monument in Sioux City, IA and the Eiffel Tower in Paris, TN. Then there were the obvious backyard pictures. Some will get it and some won’t…

[Author]

Posts