Re: Better output for not completed challenge

There are too many challenge checkers where the only output from a "not completed" outcome is just that, "not completed". It doesn't tell me how or why.

I would argue that it is at least as important to know why you failed a challenge and what you have to do to complete it, as it is is to know everything there is to know about a challenge you have completed.

I just checked https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC9RJTF/68069 (GC9RJTF - Challenge - 10,000 FP in 5 countries) and the output is not all bad, but it does not show me numbers for any other countries I have cached in. Maybe I should plan for a trip to Denmark and focus on FP if I go back to Japan, but the output does not help me.

Take https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC9R12W/68215 (GC9R12W - Challenge - All D on day 1-28) as an example.
Would it be possible to add a line for the DTs I am missing, with the text "Missing" on it?

An other example https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC9R1B7/67718 (GC9R1B7 - Challenge Full D/T in 3 unique months)
It is a lot of work to figure out what DTs I am missing in each month since the output only shows the combinations I have found.

These three are only examples and does not stand out in any way.
So is there anyway output messages for failed/not yet reached challenges could be more informative and help me towards completing the challenges?

Short answer: sort of.

The first thing to understand is how the Project-GC Challenge Checker system works.

The system is split into two separate "parts". First, there are scripts, which check for generic accomplishments such as "X finds of Y cache type". Then, there are tags, which associate actual challenge caches to scripts. For example, a tag might say that "for GC12345, use 'X finds of Y cache type' with X=100 and Y=Multi-cache". This makes scripts re-usable for multiple challenge caches -- we use the term "generic" to refer to this property.

In most cases, the output and formatting is controlled by the script, since there is (usually) no room in the tag configuration for such details. As a result, the more generic a script, the more "useless" the output becomes, since the script has to consider and support a wider variety of different outputs. And unfortunately, it can be challenging to update existing scripts without risking breaking other checkers in the system.

However, in some special circumstances, it is possible for there to exist "more helpful" scripts that provide better output. In that case, we could (with CO consent) move the checker to a "more helpful" script. But it is not guaranteed that there will be a "more helpful" script in the system.

In regards to the three particular checkers you linked, those use "Multiple test Checker (by Target.) enhanced" and "Multiple Test Checker v2", which are both very versatile (I imagine that a majority of Challenges use them). Unfortunately, as you point out, they don't have the greatest output.

Hilariously however, with the specific case of GC9R1B7 (which used "Multiple Test Checker v2"), it turns out that using "Multiple test Checker (by Target.) enhanced" instead would provide better output: see https://project-gc.com/Challenges/79553. If you'd like you can e-mail the cache owner and ask if they would like to swap the existing one (67718) for the one I just setup (79553).

I will look into GC9RJTF/68069 and GC9R12W/68215 in the morning to see if there is a "better" script but I will make no guarantees.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2023 07:56AM by Hügh. (view changes)