Ok a new one just added. I looked at it and am if two minds
There is criteria for qualifying, and I know this is pre moratorium, but it does appear that it is a bonus cache to a series of caches if the same name 'week streak' and the 'challenge' is to find 10 challenges with the word 'week' in the title, so in essence find 10 of my other caches and you'll get this bonus one thrown in.
I am leaning towards down voting as it does seems cheeky way if getting your own caches found
Thoughts



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2020 11:48AM by Deepdiggingmole. (view changes)

My opinion is that the Challenge exceptions should be based on if the cache is a challenge or not. Not the quality of the challenge, not if it's the COs "solution" to a problem or anything like that. The question is "Is this a challenge?" not "Is this a good challenge?" or "Is this a challenge according to current guidelines?" or anything like that.

Is the agenda of this cache to get people to log COs other caches? Yes. Does this change the fact that it's a challenge-cache? Nope. In theory I can qualify for this without logging a single one of the COs other caches and for me this clearly makes it a challenge-cache. (I haven't doublechecked if there are any available, but that doesn't matter imho.)

@Pleu
This is why I asked, and opinions around this sort of thing are what is needed in order that the exception checkers (is that what we are called now, as opposed to moderators) can discuss the borderline challenges



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2020 09:19PM by Deepdiggingmole. (view changes)

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, I didn't intend that but it happens some times since I'm not a native-speaker of english and sometimes misses some nuances in wording etc because of this.

I was frustrated with the old list where I felt that there was a lot of downvotes on challenges that might have sucked or not followed the current guidelines but it was still very clear to me that they where challenges and this will of course also have been a factor in my choice of words. :)

I agree that discussion is good for making the list of exceptions as good as possible.

@Plue - no problem
However it raises an interesting point particularly around those that do not follow the current guidelines (and yet get published) I am aware of several that slipped through the reviewer net and got published - However, yes to all intents and purposes they would be called challenges as they have criteria etc etc. but in upvoting these - doesn't this mean they will end up on the challenge cache found lists under that challenge tab.
I have noted that many of these have checkers that were not requested of PGC, they were cloned from old pre-moratorium checkers. The reviewers on seeing the presence of the checker would be under the impression all was in order as they would believe PGC have been involved in the creation of the checker. For this reason the reviewer would not question the criteria and whether they follow current guidelines as it is believed by many that PGC do and will advise checker requests that do not comply and would not create a checker for those that don't.
Thus the cache gets published. If the reviewer had spotted the cloned checker and posed further questions about it they may/would have realised the criteria do not follow guidelines and the cache would never have been published and would never have appeared on the stats pages.
For me - I feel that we have a role in identifying only those challenge caches that will ultimately end up on the lists under that challenge cache tab.
For that reason - I personally downvote those that don't follow the guidelines even if they are in essence 'challenges'

Please note - This is not an attack on reviewers who have fallen foul of crafty challenge COs who find sneaky ways to get challenges published - The reviewers do a sterling job but not all are into challenge caches themselves and can easily be hoodwinked

@Deepdiggingmole

My opinion is "a challenge is a challenge is a challenge". Even if it shouldn't have been published because it doesn't follow the current guidelines it is still a challenge. I don't think a downvote solves the problem there. IMHO a NA-log explaining why you feel it's against the guidelines so that a reviewer can take a look would be better. And that faulty challenges are archived and locked would probably be a better solution for challenges that should have not been published. (This opinion is based on that these faulty challenges are caught early in the life of the cache with just a few logs.)

I would also like to point out that the information above where you cast your vote on challenges have these lines: "Note that your vote shall not be based on today's Challenge guidelines but rather on the fact that the Geocache requires you to do something before/when logging it. You shall not take into consideration if it's a good challenge or not, neither if you like it as a challenge."

The whole reviewers-missing-things-during-review-part feel a bit off topic but my opinion on that is that it's reviewers that review caches and not the checker writers. PGC-checker writers does a great job in weeding out some challenges but most of the people that write the checkers are not reviewers and does not have all the guidance that reviewers have about the guidelines. There are challenges published last month (and probably this month even if I don't know of any examples) with freshly written checkers that are very clearly against the guidelines. Because, I repeat, most of the people that writes the challenge checkers are not reviewers and don't have that guidance from HQ.

If this system should be as "safe" as possible from faulty challenges then the only checker-writers would have to be reviewers that have an interest in challenges. I don't know who all the checker-writers are but I have a pretty good knowledge of reviewers interested in challenges and as far as I know then there would be exactly one person writing all the checkers. The list of exceptions should also only be voted on by reviewers with an interest in challenges to be as correct as possible and I don't know what people that have the voting rights here but if the reviewer that writes challenge checkers also have voting right then that would be two people. For obvious reasons that would not work.

Again, not my intention to sound harsh or pick a fight or anything.

Quote "IMHO a NA-log explaining why you feel it's against the guidelines so that a reviewer can take a look would be better. And that faulty challenges are archived and locked would probably be a better solution for challenges that should have not been published" - yes, that only get the cache archived and is something separate from this group - but that cache will still appear on the challenge list of those few that found it.

(Again my opinion) I dispute the fact that reviewers have a better knowledge of challenge cache guidelines - many reviewers are not interested in challenge caches and so rely on the simple things - is there a checker, is there criteria, is the word challenge in the title - all simple to see and as I said a few rely on seeing the checker as a standard that the challenge must be OK
I would say that there is a lot of knowledge around the guidelines among PGC personnel, script writers and moderators included. I have come across reviewers who were not aware of the intricacies of the guidelines and soley relied on the presence of a checker.

I do understand your 'a challenge is a challenge is a challenge' consideration, and I guess as we will have to agree to disagree, a handful of these exceptions will have split opinions

cheers

@Deepdiggingmole

If it was a challenge when they logged it, it should be in their list of logged challenges so I still don't see why that's a problem.

I would prefer if you read my whole comment before answering. :) I did not say that all reviewers have better knowledge of the challenge guidelines. I said that the people that write challenge checkers and are not reviewers by definition can not have all the information about the challenge guidelines and therefor they will not make correct judgements on all challenge checker requests. That's it. I didn't say that reviewers in general have a better knowledge. I am painfully aware of the problem with reviewers that publish anything with a checker, trust me on that. This does not change the fact that the checker writers are 1) also humans and 2) doesn't have all the information. The checker writers also miss things, that's my only point here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2020 11:56AM by Pleu. (view changes)