Re: GC6K641 Lonely Caches Challenge

This is a request for a checker to be produced based on Lonely Caches and using the calculation methods shown in the ProjectGC Stats (ie; calculated by dividing the age of the geocaches (in days) by the number of finds). Ideally I would like this to include archived caches.

The Challenge requirement would be to have found at least 10 caches with a score of 73 or more, though I may have to reduce the number required if archived caches aren’t included. This equates to an average of 5 finds a year.

I hope you will be able to oblige. Many thanks

As challenge checkers are based on your finds, and the finds of others are not available in the query. Thus a challenge checker cannot determine the length of time between finds.

Please read first: http://project-gc.com/forum/read?8,13

Many thanks. I am no IT expert but ProjectGC has the stats on each cache and its find frequency. Is it not possible to link into that?

If this is not feasible I will just have to drop the idea but there is a glimmer of hope in your link, which idicates a hope to have something by June. Would that help this type of Challenge?

This is what is writen on it

quote
The checkers does not have access to logs from others on the geocaches logged. Therefore a challenge to log a geocaches that hasn't been logged for one year isn't possible. We are however looking into solving this in the near future (June is expected). Details are yet to be determined.

So it might be possible in tne near future

Both

- must come from information broadly available on Geocaching.com such as on the statistics page, cache placement dates, types, attributes, souvenirs, etc.
- must be verifiable through information on Geocaching.com.

do NOT mention "project-gc.com", I'm afraid

Apologies Sumbloke but I would like to request changes to the parameters on this checker. By testing it out I have discovered that it is easier to qualify than I thought, so I would like to toughen it up by changing the parameters to >=100 on 12 found caches. I promise that there will be no more changes after that. Many thanks

OK. Thanks. I will watch for developments.

The other thing to consider is this is a very volatile measurement - it could change dramatically from one day to the next and a cacher who did qualify may suddenly find they no longer do. In this case a cache near/at where a Mega-event is being hosted can easily go from having very few finds to getting 300+ on that single day dramatically reducing its score. Ratings such as favourite points are not so bad as generally they only increase except in extreme cases.

Sorry for the delay in replying, I didn't spot the post when it appeared.

It isn't a problem for me if someone qualifies one day and then there are lots of finds because I think it will be extremely rare. Megas are very few and far between and, of course, it doesn't matter if they can show that they qualified when they claimed the cache. Having looked at the 170 caches which qualify in the NE area, the common theme is the remoteness of the cache or its high level of difficulty. My thinking behind the Challenge was to get cachers interested in some of these less visited caches.

It is possible to code I i understand the requirements correctly.
The checker has not access to other finds on a cache but have access to the number of finds on the cache.
if i understan correctly it is
(Cache age in days)/(number of total finds) >=73 on 10 found caches.
The start of the cache can be publish if it exist and else hidden date.

But how shall the value be calculated on archived caches?
You have access to last_find_date, last_archive_date,num_finds on the caches
Shall all days since the publication be included in the calculation? Then the challenge will be easy if you found a cache that had few finds and and was archived along time ago.

Or shall only days between publication and archive date be included?
Archived caches can still exist and be found so it the days between publication and latest of(archived,last_find_date) to be used?

Thank you for a positive answer. For live caches your logic is correct. For archived I would prefer number of finds between publication and archive date.

So it is clear the number of find used on archived will be total number of finds not only the finds between those dates

Apologies but I hadn't considered that aspect. It had better be number of finds between publication and archived dates. It will be cleaner and simpler that way.

That information is not available. Only the total number of finds can be used

OK. then back to your suggestion of days between publication and latest of(archived,last_find_date) . Sorry to cause you this hassle.

Cheers

I'm a bit confused. The heading to this thread says "Waiting for feedback" but I sent a reply yesterday - see above. Are you still waiting for something from me? Thanks

No you have answered everything.
I changed the statues But someone have to write a script

So then I would recommend contacting the reviewer whether the cache may be published (after having made the neccessary changes according to above) and then ask for the script. You could state that it is technically possible to write a checker but no one has done that and won't - until the reviewer says it is according to the guidelines. This hen and egg problem can and should be solved by the reviewer (challenge without a proper script, no script before challenge is accepted) from my point of view.

I am happy to say that the Reviewer for this area, DalesmanX has agreed that this Challenge is acceptable according to the guidelines and after he has consulted other reviewers. I would appreciate if you could now develop the checker. Thanks in advance. Norman

Good for your reviewer .... here in Ontario, Lonely Cache challenges are not allowed.
Carni

Here you go: http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC6K641/21718

About a year ago, the reviewer told me that they had received direction from Groundspeak that they were no longer allowed. It had something to do with someone finding a lonely cache, which prevents another cacher from finding that one for lonely points. It's like an FTF challenge he said. Once someone FTFs a cache, no one else can FTF that cache. I personally loved lonely cache challenges.
Carni

Strange that they are not allowed in Canada. Do you know why? Anyway, many thanks for providing the checker, I will test it out.

"Lonely cache" challenges are usually based on finding caches that hadn't been found for at least 6/12 months before your find. These are against the new guidelines, such as 14 Positive Challenge Criteria. The challenge you proposed is arguably against that guideline as well, but you've stated that you found a reviewer who has given it pre-approval.

I really don't understand why you think they violate rule 14? In fact I'd argue they are perhaps one of the most positive types of challenges as they encourage people to go out and find neglected caches that otherwise they wouldn't consider - a cache only becomes lonely if the other cacher's in the area also aren't considering a visit to it.

The challenge doesn't require you not to find any type of caches or punish you for finding different types, the only way it gets you to modify your caching strategy is to seek out additional caches (a positive).

Generally the criteria for these types of challenges is that the cache hasn't been found for at least 6 months (more commonly 1 year) and so it isn't a sensible strategy to say "I'll not find that one, perhaps everyone else will ignore it for the next 5 months as well", the only time it may dissuade you from picking up a cache is in in the most extreme of circumstances "one day left I'll take the gamble and wait till tomorrow", but that is also true for many other types of challenges "I'll leave that cache there so I can use it for my 365 streak tomorrow".

The reason I say it would be arguably against guideline 14 is the "Competition rather than achievement" part of the not acceptable listing.

In the more usual case, as soon as a cache hasn't been found for 6/12 months you're competing with other cachers to find it.

In this challenge variant, as soon as the average has ticked over the threshold, you're competing with other cachers to find it because potentially one more find will drop its average below the threshold.

The competition will be on the same day as a checker cant know who found it first only how logged it first online

A useful discussion. Going out of my way to find lonely caches doesn't prevent me from looking for other caches on my way. Indeed, caches shown as unfound for a long time are often missing and it is compensation for the trip if you can get other caches while in the area.

This is a duplicate posting because the way I posted it earlier it is lost in the middle of the thread.

Apologies Sumbloke but I would like to request changes to the parameters on this checker. By testing it out I have discovered that it is easier to qualify than I thought, so I would like to toughen it up by changing the parameters to >=100 on 12 found caches. I promise that there will be no more changes after that. Many thanks

Sorry, my reply doesn't seem to have gone through. I've adjusted the tag.