Re: New checker GC7F86Q

Requesting a checker for a new challenge cache; GC7F86Q
VT 100 Virtual Reward Challenge

Requirements: 100 Virtuals, including not less than 5 Virtuals from Vermont
AND not less than 50 "Virtual Rewards", meaning any Virtual placed after August 23, 2017.
Thank you

Here is the link to the checker https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC7F86Q/30327
You are still short of the Virtual Rewards and you can only publish this challenge when you have fulfilled it.

Please confirm that this is the checker you require

I will need to have it edited so I can publish sooner. I will need some time to work on this.

Ok let me know later on this request which figure I have to place for the Virtual Rewards

New requirements for VT 100 virtual challenge:

At least 100 Virtuals, including not less than 5 Vermont virtuals, and not less than 5 Virtual Rewards in 5 different states, or countries. In other words, someone can qualify with 5 VR from 5 different US states, or countries. I qualify for this as I have 4 VR in 4 different US states plus one in Canada.

Thank you

Here is the link to the checker https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC7F86Q/30799

Special thanks to sumbloke for storting out the problems

Please confirm that this is the checker you require

What is the situation with this checker, is the challenge going to be published or can it be cancelled?

Please do not cancel it. The checker is fine. The reviewer has stated I must get ten people to prequalify before he will publish, which is ridiculous, as he doesn't use this standard for others.. I requested an appeal through his superior, and he has failed to respond. Perhaps you know who I should speak with. this is a new reviewer, with his own interpretations of things. It is very off putting.

It is normal that you show that at least 10 local cachers can fulfill the challenge

vogelbird Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is normal that you show that at least 10 local
> cachers can fulfill the challenge

That would be realistic but it seems that the "appealing by a reasonable number of cachers" is interpreted so that they must qualify before publishing, which makes the challenge no so challenging at all.

Imagine if they had this rule before the 234 NH challenge, or the 251 Vermont challenge, requiring 10 people to have found a cache in each town of the state BEFORE the challenge could be published. Ridiculous. It was the published challenges that made me want to attempt those feats, which I did, over several years. It was the reviewer who thinks 10 is a reasonable number. I am in the frozen north, I don't see 10 cachers in a year unless I go to events. Your interpretation, or direction, was that I had to qualify before you'd do the checker. I did that, in a few weeks. You gave me the checker. Now he has I think intentionally set out a new standard that cannot be met. Meanwhile, he has published challenges in NH that are much harder than mine to do, requiring travel not to 5 states but dozens of states. Can you give me someone's name so I can appeal this. It is simply wrong that some challenges are arbitrarily denied any chance of even being published, because of one new guy's whim.

It is not a new standard your reviewer is following the reviewers notes which tell that a challenge must be fulfilled by 10 cachers in an area. The area Vermont might extent beyond the bourders of this State because it is a relative small State.
So Quebeck, Ontario, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine might also be considered.
But there are still not sufficient cachers because for the Canadian Cachers on the country counts and for the Virtual rewards there are not many people which go above 4 States or Provinces

Also I noticed that 5 vituals in Vermont is a problem for many cachers

Also the guidelines state that

Quote
A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify.

5 virtuals in VT in not a problem for most local cachers. We have 8 of them, and all are easily attainable. The new part of my challenge was meant to be to incorporate the new VRs. There are some in ME, NH, QC, MA, RI, not to mention many other places people who travel get to easily. I picked up one at the airport in Chicago last month. I don't see this as a difficult challenge, but a fun one that would encourage virtual fans to find a few.

Arisoft says it well, and much differently than my reviewer did. He required me to find ten cachers who already qualified. Moreover, those ten cachers had to be within 100 miles of placement. This was clear to me that the prequalification meant it would never be done, and that was his intention.

There are two things in the wording of that last line I want to highlight. A reviewer MAY. Not must. It is not required, it is discretionary. So my reviewer in his discretion gave me an insurmountable task. Next, it says ask for list of cachers who qualify. Not may wish to qualify in the future, but who already qualify. This is for a challenge to encourage our cachers to go find some of the new virtual rewards. We have none in Vermont, and may never get one. So how do I get people within 100 miles (in Vermont), to prequalify? Do I have to advertise on the web, please do these things so I can get this challenge published? Ridiculous. Once you publish a challenge, our cachers will want to try for it. It shouldn't have to be the other way around-- make them qualify before it is published.

I cannot do what my reviewer requires, but I could do what Arisoft suggests. I held an event last weekend, and several of my fellow cachers were interested. None have prequalified. So how do I get my reviewer to accept people who just tell him they would like to do the challenge?

You can appeal to http://support.groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=request
Clearly state
* Your Geocaching Username
* The GC code
* The name of the cache
* The location of the geocache (country/region)
* The reviewer (s) with whom you have had contact
* Which guideline does your reviewer think it does not meet?
* Briefly explain why you think this cache should be published in its current form.

Thank you, those are both excellent suggestions.

> I cannot do what my reviewer requires, but I could
> do what Arisoft suggests. I held an event last
> weekend, and several of my fellow cachers were
> interested. None have prequalified. So how do I
> get my reviewer to accept people who just tell him
> they would like to do the challenge?

You can ask them to e-mail to the reviewer that they would welcome the challenge.

Reviewers are afraid to accept a challenge that someone does not like. In the worst case, the headquarters can rebuke if "secret codes" are not followed. It is also known that some reviewers hate challenges generally and and bring it up in this way.

Vogelsong:
The reviewer states he will publish this if the qualification for the Virtual Reward part is changed from 5 VRs from 5 different states or countries, to 5 VRs from anywhere. This is makes no difference to me. I qualify for this also.

So, to recap, the challenge is not less than 100 virtuals, of which 5 must be in Vermont and 5 must be VR, from anywhere.

thanks if you can make this change to the checker.

CarriVT

The checker is adjusted to 100 virtuals, of which 5 must be in Vermont and 5 must be VR, from anywhere.

Thank you. Also thanks to Arisoft.

This same question is in mind in many others. The question is no longer about the status of a single release, but is a systemic error throughout the process.

I suggest that you find 10 geocachers who give a statement that they feel the challenge to be appealing and attainable. The guideline says only that the CO must meet the challenge requirements before publishing.