MnGCA Home MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   User listUser list   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Challenge Cache guidelines
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pfalstad
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Feb 2006

Posts: 1015

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bflentje wrote:
It's amazing, all of the struggles I see our local cachers going through in trying to publish a challenge that is considered reasonable. Here's a classic inconsistency in the guidelines and just ticks me off.

If this is any more reasonable than some of the challenges that have been turned down..

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3H33W

I don't see what's wrong with this one, other than it's really hard, but we have some pretty difficult challenges in our area too. Did you hide a challenge that was rejected for being unreasonable? (Or, um, do you know of someone in your area that had a challenge rejected?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bflentje
Geocacher


Joined: 29 May 2006

Posts: 4061

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pfalstad wrote:
bflentje wrote:
It's amazing, all of the struggles I see our local cachers going through in trying to publish a challenge that is considered reasonable. Here's a classic inconsistency in the guidelines and just ticks me off.

If this is any more reasonable than some of the challenges that have been turned down..

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3H33W

I don't see what's wrong with this one, other than it's really hard, but we have some pretty difficult challenges in our area too. Did you hide a challenge that was rejected for being unreasonable? (Or, um, do you know of someone in your area that had a challenge rejected?)


Thanks for making it MY problem rather than a reviewer inconsistency. No, but someone I know pretty well had a rejected challenge. And I am whining on their behalf because that challenge wasn't nearly as "unreasonable" as this one here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pfalstad
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Feb 2006

Posts: 1015

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bflentje wrote:
pfalstad wrote:
bflentje wrote:
It's amazing, all of the struggles I see our local cachers going through in trying to publish a challenge that is considered reasonable. Here's a classic inconsistency in the guidelines and just ticks me off.

If this is any more reasonable than some of the challenges that have been turned down..

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3H33W

I don't see what's wrong with this one, other than it's really hard, but we have some pretty difficult challenges in our area too. Did you hide a challenge that was rejected for being unreasonable? (Or, um, do you know of someone in your area that had a challenge rejected?)

Thanks for making it MY problem rather than a reviewer inconsistency. No, but someone I know pretty well had a rejected challenge. And I am whining on their behalf because that challenge wasn't nearly as "unreasonable" as this one here.

Not saying it's your problem, I'm just curious what it was, since I've seen some pretty "unreasonable" challenges get approved here. I know that different reviewers have very different ideas about how strictly to enforce the guidelines.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bflentje
Geocacher


Joined: 29 May 2006

Posts: 4061

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pfalstad wrote:
Not saying it's your problem, I'm just curious what it was, since I've seen some pretty "unreasonable" challenges get approved here. I know that different reviewers have very different ideas about how strictly to enforce the guidelines.


I meant to add Confused I am not that worked up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNMizzou
Geocacher


Joined: 23 Feb 2005

Posts: 713

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I almost wonder if it sort of got in under the radar a little bit, considering that reviewer is probably up to their eyeballs in MOGA related stuff? It does seem like it would be a very very small pool of "qualified" cachers, which I thought Groundspeak was trying to get away from with the challenge caches.

I don't really have a problem with it per se, other than it does seem to send mixed messages about what they'll accept and reject. Perhaps challenges like this of a "narrower" scope could be allowed on a regular basis if they are marked SOC, since in theory those are going to be your more die hard cachers to begin with?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rosebud55112
Geocacher


Joined: 03 May 2008

Posts: 137

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to the info posted on that cache page, there may be as many as 9 cachers currently eligible for the challenge. One local name, Trekkin' and Birdin', is among that group, while lagrac and EskoClimber are among the next 16 possibles (each needing to find Fizzy Challenges in a few more states) to be eligible.

If I missed any other local names, I apologize.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bflentje
Geocacher


Joined: 29 May 2006

Posts: 4061

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rosebud55112 wrote:
According to the info posted on that cache page, there may be as many as 9 cachers currently eligible for the challenge. One local name, Trekkin' and Birdin', is among that group, while lagrac and EskoClimber are among the next 16 possibles (each needing to find Fizzy Challenges in a few more states) to be eligible.

If I missed any other local names, I apologize.


A full fizzy in 13 different states? Obviously possible. But not very likely. I want to see the proof as according to the instance I know of here locally, the burden of proof was on the cacher looking to create the challenge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bflentje
Geocacher


Joined: 29 May 2006

Posts: 4061

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rosebud55112 wrote:
According to the info posted on that cache page, there may be as many as 9 cachers currently eligible for the challenge. One local name, Trekkin' and Birdin', is among that group, while lagrac and EskoClimber are among the next 16 possibles (each needing to find Fizzy Challenges in a few more states) to be eligible.

If I missed any other local names, I apologize.


First of all, what does "81 + 17 Fizzy Challenge Caches Found" mean? Secondly, part of what is considered reasonable is not only how many national cachers might qualify, also considered is how close are these cachers to said challenge. So no matter how you try to justify it, there is still an inconsistency in the review process.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pfalstad
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Feb 2006

Posts: 1015

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm still dying to know the specifics of what challenge got rejected by our reviewers here for being too hard, considering some of the ridiculous ones that they've published. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rosebud55112
Geocacher


Joined: 03 May 2008

Posts: 137

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bflentje wrote:
rosebud55112 wrote:
According to the info posted on that cache page, there may be as many as 9 cachers currently eligible for the challenge. One local name, Trekkin' and Birdin', is among that group, while lagrac and EskoClimber are among the next 16 possibles (each needing to find Fizzy Challenges in a few more states) to be eligible.

If I missed any other local names, I apologize.


First of all, what does "81 + 17 Fizzy Challenge Caches Found" mean? Secondly, part of what is considered reasonable is not only how many national cachers might qualify, also considered is how close are these cachers to said challenge. So no matter how you try to justify it, there is still an inconsistency in the review process.


I agree with you, Bart. I was pointing out (poorly, I guess) that 9 people worldwide indicates it is not particularly "nonexclusive", nor is this one that is likely to grow significantly in numbers eligible,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Trekkin' and Birdin'
Geocacher


Joined: 22 Oct 2008

Posts: 125

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, I'll dive in on this one, since it looks like our name is in the ring, so to speak.

First of all....we enjoy challenges, we enjoy well roundeds, but it seems like with all else in geocaching, stuff begins to accumulate as the hunger for such stuff is out there. There are so many challenges now, and many of them are redundant, in our opinion. Doesn't stop us from getting them if they're in our path, but we rarely "chase" any of this stuff anymore. A phenomenon we've noticed as the fizzy challenge popularity has increased is a larger number of caches with desirable ratings being placed, whether they really warrant those ratings or not. Again, if they're in our path, we take 'em, but won't go far out of our way for such stuff. We appreciated the challenge involved in being able to log the original in California, as most of the toughies, due to the date cutoff, were the "real deal."

We didn't know about this challenge, as we don't set notifications for anything. So we had no idea about those "standings." Wow. I think they are dependent on who uses the "My Geocaching Profile." For instance, I'm fairly certain alamogul probably could meet this one, but they aren't on that list. We have found 10 different state well roundeds. Since retirement, we've enjoyed a fair amount of travel and will look to see if any of these are close to our intended route. Many states now have multiple variants of the challenge...two times, three times, only traditionals, that kind of stuff. The related web page link at the top of the cache listing takes you to a bookmark list that is used to harvest all those fizzy finds. We have to find about 12 more specific caches to be able to claim 13 times around the block.

We, too, have thought that the burden of proof for a cache like this revolved around whether the cache owners themselves could qualify. There are plenty of inconsistencies we've seen. We own two for Wisconsin that are similar to KB's weird stuff and old stuff. We'd wanted to require finds on all such caches, but were told it had to be about half of a list, to allow for choice. Yet we see new challenges get published that require finds of a complete list and so on. I guess it just depends on many factors. We have other things to worry about beyond caching inconsistencies, but do understand the frustrations when these inconsistencies appear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 34

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really don't want to stir the pot here, but I'll offer a couple of comments.

Remember, the guidelines are just that: guidelines. Reviewers receive some direction from Groundspeak on the interpretation of the guidelines, and there's a consensus among most reviewers about parts of them, but in the end the reviewer has to apply his/her knowledge about the cache, guidance received, and the guidelines themselves to make a decision. Thus you're going to see inconsistencies among the reviewers as reviewers aren't machines - they're making decisions based on a number of human factors.

Trekkin' and Birdin' wrote:
We, too, have thought that the burden of proof for a cache like this revolved around whether the cache owners themselves could qualify.


That is one of two ways to demonstrate the attainability of a challenge:

http://support.groundspeak.com//index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

guidelines wrote:
Reviewers may ask the cache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.


Keep in mind that even this has a relative word in it: substantial. This also doesn't even mention the geography issue (which is still something that is taken into consideration).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Trekkin' and Birdin'
Geocacher


Joined: 22 Oct 2008

Posts: 125

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your insight. I will say that both Wisconsin reviewers maintain a pretty consistent approach to reviewing, and it seems that their guidelines are similar to what we've seen here. There is no way I'd want to take on your job, and thank you and all reviewers for doing so. Without your time and efforts, we'd have no game to play, consistent or not! Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 34

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trekkin' and Birdin' wrote:
Thanks for your insight. I will say that both Wisconsin reviewers maintain a pretty consistent approach to reviewing, and it seems that their guidelines are similar to what we've seen here.


Gat R Done and myself will often discuss caches that fall inside the gray area - usually we use each other as the first step to determine if a cache is publishable in the guidelines or not. If we're not sure between us then we'll often talk to some other reviewers and/or get some insight from Groundspeak. Hopefully we're producing a consistent product for Minnesotans as well. There's naturally going to be some difference from state to state, but it's one of our goals to be consistent within the state.

We're always interested in respectful feedback from others about the review process, good or bad.

To that note, there's also a process in place, in the guidelines, to appeal a decision that we've made, and I encourage people to use it if they don't agree with us. It's easier for everyone involved if you email the reviewer first to state your case - sometimes the reviewer missed an important fact that otherwise made a cache publishable. If we still don't agree with you then I encourage people to appeal the decision to Groundspeak. Groundspeak tries to take in both the cachers point of view as well as the reviewers point of view and apply the guidelines. While I don't keep track, I am guessing about half of the caches that have been appealed to Groundspeak since I started publishing have been published in the end, and about half have not. Like I tell folks, it's a learning process for both the cacher and the reviewer, regardless of the outcome.

One way that I'd suggest to NOT complain about your cache not being published is to not rant about it here or on another forum - doing so just causes both sides to dig in their heels. The respect in the process goes both ways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bflentje
Geocacher


Joined: 29 May 2006

Posts: 4061

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MN.Fruitcake wrote:
There's naturally going to be some difference from state to state, but it's one of our goals to be consistent within the state.


I wouldn't ever knock what you do. I wouldn't suggest you're in the wrong, ever. But inconsistencies (mostly between states) is usually what sets me off.

Know how many caches I did this weekend located within Iowa cemeteries? I did a cache in Ottumwa where when I was signing the log, a BNSF train was flying by within 30' of the cache. And if I counted the amount of caches I found with would traditionally would be construed as vandalism, I'd need the fingers and toes of everyone here in the forums.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Geocaching Cache Icons, Copyright 2009, Groundspeak Inc. All rights reserved. Used with Permission.