|
Post by SSO JOAT on Aug 21, 2011 0:44:10 GMT -9
Figured we might start a thread on the new Challenge caches launched by GroundSpeak last week. These can be placed by individual Premium members at a rate of one per day, though the person placing them does not retain ownership of the cache. They become "community property" after being published. There are two types. One requires you to go to a location and do something. The other requires you to go to a location and take a picture. All individual Challenges must be location specific. Here is the first Challenge published in Soldotna... Catch the World Record King SalmonThere are also "locationless" challenge caches, but these owned and published only by GroundSpeak themselves. These versions are similar to the above, but they do not go with a specific location. You are to go out and complete the stated challenge at an appropriate location near you. Here is an example of a "Worldwide Challenge" that can be completed by anyone, anywhere... 10,000 Fewer Pieces of LitterA few months ago, there was much dialog with CapraHircus about Challenges for a "Clean Sweep" of finding all caches within an area. This new challenge system is exactly what will allow such a thing. I've already started drafting a Puzzle Capital sweep challenge, though it won't be for a clean sweep, but for a percentage. I'll probably push that to publish in the morning. Thoughts on some good challenges to put in Alaska? BTW, these potentially open up some previously prohibited lands to "virtual caches". A great concept, though I find it ironic how much negative reaction to this whole idea is rolling around in the national forums. I think it's awesome and look forward to creating a whole series of virtual caches for the Kenai "cache-free" zones!!!
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Aug 21, 2011 9:43:03 GMT -9
An update on the Challenge Cache rules this morning... Challenges that require finding other geocaches are not allowed. Thus the concept of using this as a means for logging the "clean sweep" of a cache area won't be allowed.
Each Challenge must be at a specific location and require a photo or "fun action/task" at that location. GS has it's hands full archiving Challenges that don't meet these requirements, which seems to indicate that some type of formal approval or reviewer process is needed when publishing Challenges.
It's a rapidly developing new aspect of the game, so we'll see how it plays out in the days ahead.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Aug 21, 2011 10:54:21 GMT -9
An update on the Challenge Cache rules this morning... Challenges that require finding other geocaches are not allowed. Thus the concept of using this as a means for logging the "clean sweep" of a cache area won't be allowed. Each Challenge must be at a specific location and require a photo or "fun action/task" at that location. GS has it's hands full archiving Challenges that don't meet these requirements, which seems to indicate that some type of formal approval or reviewer process is needed when publishing Challenges. It's a rapidly developing new aspect of the game, so we'll see how it plays out in the days ahead. "Challenge caches" which require finding some combination of caches are still allowed. The new "Challenges" are the new version of the location specific Virtuals. Any Premium Member of Geocaching.com can submit a challenge. Only Groundspeak will issue locationless "Challenges." Yes, the Groundspeak Lackeys are working on a review process. I completed CX1 by going through the Snoqualmie Iron Horse Trail Tunnel on Friday evening. It's a 2.3-mile long railroad tunnel that's part of a rails to trails system.
|
|
|
Post by tomanoble on Aug 22, 2011 12:26:42 GMT -9
Does this sound llike a fun addition to geocaching or what? I like this idea! New way to "cache" in on things I would normally do. Can't wait to see what is available.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Aug 23, 2011 0:12:14 GMT -9
It seems like GS is going to have to institute some kind of reviewer system for these Challenges since they are probably having to spend more time going around and archiving challenges that don't meet the guidelines than it would take for a reviewer to glance it over to ensure it meets the challenge guidelines first.
For instance, of the 4 challenges published in Anchorage so far, only 2 of them meet the requirements of a challenge. Namely, a challenge must be specific to a single location... the published coordinates of the challenge. You can't make a challenge that asks people to do something just any old place. Those would be worldwide challenges and can only be created by GroundSpeak. There's a suggestion box for worldwide challenges online.
People need to think of a challenge just like a traditional geocache, but instead of opening a box and signing a log when they get there, they need to take the requested photo or perform the requested task. Then they come back and log it just like any other geocache.
The other thing that is causing problems (or perceived problems, based on the national forums chatter) is when new challenges are put on top of an existing geocache. For example, one of Anchorage's 4 challenges is an exact duplicate at the exact spot of an existing cache. So you visit that one cache site and you get 2 smilies for doing only 1 cache, because you get to log it twice (once on each listing). This "numbers padding" tactic is really getting some heated debate over the control and review of challenges.
So, just like you wouldn't place a second traditional cache on top of an existing one, folks shouldn't be placing a duplicate challenge cache on top of an existing cache of another type.
While I think some refinement of the way they publish and list challenges is in order, I can see some great potential around placing challenges, in a no-impact manner, within formerly cache free zones, such as KNWR and some of the Parks.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Aug 23, 2011 9:10:15 GMT -9
Scott's right on all points.
I haven't determined the origin of the "Take a Hike" and "Floating on Water" challenges. They appeared to be locationless challenges based in Anchorage, but are being logged all over the world.
The "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" challenge is dropped on top of the preexisting "Chocolate Waterfall" virtual cache with the same photo requirement.
"Good Dog" is at the location of a former webcam site, so it's not doubled up.
Groundspeak is considering removing the challenge count from one's overall cache find count, similar to how benchmarks are tracked on one's profile.
Knowing that is why I've been testing things out by logging the local challenges and seeing how the system works.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Aug 23, 2011 16:11:30 GMT -9
I've done some Challenges - quirky fun, most of them.
I enjoyed the ones at the Fremont event. I've logged a couple based on prior experiences as well as ones I did 'real time'. I too agree with Scott on some of the issues/bugs to be worked out.
These offer great possibilities for those areas 'closed' to caching now!
|
|
|
Post by tomanoble on Aug 26, 2011 21:54:25 GMT -9
I also tink there is a lot of fun to be had with the new Challenges sector Geocaching.com has introduced. My biggest question to date is how does one accept a challenge he/she has already met? Or in other words logging previously done feats as completing a challenge one accepted after they completed the task. I think the rules should be changed so that one has to complete the task AFTER accepting the challenge.
And they should NOT count as Finds. Because you did not FIND anything! Yo may have accomplished something and learned something and even had fun doing it, but was it geocaching? Or just geocaching related? If these count as finds why not Benchmarks or Waymarks?
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Aug 26, 2011 22:30:47 GMT -9
The challenge caches are logged on the honor system. This is a game, not a comptetion. Log stuff how you think it should be logged and don't worry about how others do it.
Challenges don't count as finds. They are logged separately, similar to benchmarks. However, I'll argue this one all day long. If an Earthcache, virtual, webcam, loctionless, and event all count as a "find", then a challenge most certainly should as well.
It's about the location, not the box. A properly written challenge should tell you to go to a specific location just like a traditional cache does. The only difference is that you take a picture or perform a specific task rather than sign a logbook. I feel that the challenges bring the focus back to the location. People go out and find containers all day long without ever really stopping to look around at the location. And then you have thousands of containers placed and poor locations.
I admit that I fell by the wayside for awhile and have a number of hides that are all about the container and not the location. I've decided to try and get out of that rut and focus more on the locations. Many of my puzzle finals were placed just for a spot to hide the logbook with most of the consideration given to an accessible location with the right coordinate patterns to fit the puzzle. I've actually recieved a few complaints from finders that they were miffed by the hide after spending all the effort to solve the puzzle. It's got me to thinking...
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Sept 5, 2011 14:11:51 GMT -9
The challenge caches are logged on the honor system. This is a game, not a comptetion. Log stuff how you think it should be logged and don't worry about how others do it. Challenges don't count as finds. They are logged separately, similar to benchmarks. However, I'll argue this one all day long. If an Earthcache, virtual, webcam, loctionless, and event all count as a "find", then a challenge most certainly should as well. It's about the location, not the box. A properly written challenge should tell you to go to a specific location just like a traditional cache does. The only difference is that you take a picture or perform a specific task rather than sign a logbook. I feel that the challenges bring the focus back to the location. People go out and find containers all day long without ever really stopping to look around at the location. And then you have thousands of containers placed and poor locations. I admit that I fell by the wayside for awhile and have a number of hides that are all about the container and not the location. I've decided to try and get out of that rut and focus more on the locations. Many of my puzzle finals were placed just for a spot to hide the logbook with most of the consideration given to an accessible location with the right coordinate patterns to fit the puzzle. I've actually recieved a few complaints from finders that they were miffed by the hide after spending all the effort to solve the puzzle. It's got me to thinking... Well put. I like anything that reminds us of 'Location Location Location'. The best logs I receive from cachers on my hides are from the caches hidden at exquisite locations - either grand views or "I never knew this place existed" kind of locations.
|
|