[Resolved] Checker request for GC2JT8X

Need a challenge checker for: GC2JT8X

Task: Have met the following conditions:

1) Have at least 45 finds over 45 consecutive days, each with a unique cache owner.
2) Include at least 8 different icons as part of this streak.

Clarifications - Yes, this is a grandfathered geocache. Possibly tricky part - you can find more than one cache per day and use any of the CO owner names as long as they have not been used for another cache in the streak.

Hopefully this makes sense. Thank you in advance!

No invite?

HAHAHA!! GC28!

I knew it had one

Well, this is the oldest requested checker that required a new script to be written... and you've been waiting a long while! Here you go:
https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC2JT8X/73058

This script is particularly hard to test for validity, because it's hard to determine what a 'best' streak is, if the user doesn't pass. The script will return if a user finds a unique-co-streak of 45 days, but then misses on the types (there's somebody who logged it that falls into this category - heartbreaking because they have 7 types). However, it won't tell you what your longest unique-co-streak is, if it's less than 45 days. For those with extremely long continuous streaks who don't pass this (ahem), the script would be in danger of timing out, so doing an exhaustive search isn't possible.

According to the script *MANY* users who are logging this challenge don't qualify, not even by the unique-co-streak (ie. without checking the types requirement). Unfortunately, almost nobody is posting their qualifying list, although some have said at least what their date range. I'd imagine they have made a bookkeeping mistake somewhere, as this is a really hard one to do manually, especially if a user has changed the 'placed_by' field in the cache. I've enabled the checker, but I'd appreciate if you could confirm that at least a few that are failing "actually" fail.

Please let us know, and respond. Thanks!

Hrmm... I had not checked the OG CO with the script, and it also says they don't qualify, and since they have a very explicit list, it's unlikely that they don't qualify. More likely that there's an error in the script somehow. So, I'll check that out and try to find the error, since it's a real test case... so, please hold.

Okay, I've rewritten a big chunk and re-enabled it. The OG CO now passes the new script, as do many others that failed the previous script.

There is a rare case, where it's possible that somebody passes the challenge, but the script reports a false-negative. Checking the unique-owner streak requirement is not particularly hard, but adding in the type restriction makes it very difficult. However, in this case it will print out that it is inconclusive the user has passed the challenge, and will report those streaks that the user has which are 45 days long and have all unique COs. It's highly unlikely that the user would have passed the type requirements in these streaks, but possible.

Note that there are still those that have logged it that the script reports failure (and not the condition listed above). Please verify that these are valid failures, and respond. Thanks!

Interesting - nicole-chicago wrote this - "The first day is April 1, 2022 and the list continues for next 45 days, until May 15, 2022. Total of 45 caches from 45 different COs. I have total of 9 types of caches (Tradi, Virtual, Letterbox, Mystery, Multi, Event, CITO, Community Celebration, and Earthcache). I found caches in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maine, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island)." I wonder if the pre-signing note is what is causing the false failure?

Yes, as I said, the script reports that several people do not qualify who have logged the cache. It's possible that there is an error in the script, although it is also possible that, they think they qualified but did not.

In this case the script does not think nicole-chicago has a 45 day streak with unique COs, regardless of the types. It could be that they are mistaken - for example, a CO can set the "hidden by" field to something other than their profile name, but the script checks only the user id, not the "hidden by" field. So, they inadvertently think they have qualified. So, if you could verify their streak manually, that would verify whether the script is working correctly (or not).

Thanks so much for verifying!! I assume the "Hider" is the actual cache owner, correct? If a cache gets transferred to another owner mid-streak, I am guessing that would give the checker fits.

If a cache gets transferred, the owner_id changes to whoever it was transferred to. So, it's possible that this would break a streak, where one previously existed. Which is kind of crappy if you passed the challenge, and then suddenly don't by no fault of your own, but there's no way in the checker to know that a cache was adopted. *Usually* they put "adopted by" in the "hidden by" field, but that's certainly not a requirement, so we can't reliably check that. We also don't know when the cache was transferred, so if it were transferred before they made the find, then that's their "fault". In fact, nicole-chicago has such a find (but it wouldn't have been a streak breaker):

2022-05-07 GC2KKT8 1635291 Elbus (Adopted by Wheels00) Traditional Cache

This is Wheels00's owner_id, not Elbus'.

Thanks so much for creating this, and then all the testing. It is much appreciated!

Sigh - the OCD couldn't leave this one alone.

(Although I hate using a logger who DNQ as example, sometimes having an example to verify is the best). The script it correct, nicole-chicago does not qualify. I'll show you exactly where their streak was broken, although again, I think it's because they were not aware that for some of their finds on May 18th actually had the same CO, because the "hidden by" field was changed. This is why we have checkers! :)

Here are their finds from May 17th - May 19th. Marked with a ** means that was the one 'chosen' for that day. X at the beginning of the line means it's disqualified, because the CO has already been used on a previous day:

(visitdate / gccode / owner_id / placed_by / type)
** 2022-04-17 GC1BC2W 1126187 GalenaFour Multi-cache
2022-04-17 GC45GT1 1126187 Kirk F Traditional Cache
2022-04-17 GC1ATX8 1126187 GalenaFour Traditional Cache
2022-04-17 GC2565M 1126187 Kirk F Traditional Cache
2022-04-17 GC15WPV 1126187 GalenaFour Multi-cache
2022-04-17 GC1AMWD 1126187 Kirk F Traditional Cache
2022-04-17 GC8Z044 1126187 Kirk F Unknown Cache
2022-04-17 GC3CJBY 1126187 Kirk F Multi-cache
2022-04-17 GC1JEYF 1126187 Kirk F Traditional Cache
2022-04-17 GC45GVW 1126187 Kirk F Traditional Cache
2022-04-17 GC4YJ68 1126187 Kirk F Traditional Cache
X 2022-04-18 GC137GD 1126187 GalenaFour Traditional Cache
X 2022-04-18 GC1748G 1126187 GalenaFour Traditional Cache
** 2022-04-18 GC8GD1J 15030882 Blacktop guy Traditional Cache
X 2022-04-19 GC7HAND 15030882 Blacktop guy Unknown Cache
X 2022-04-19 GC8Q4TF 15030882 Blacktop guy Unknown Cache
X 2022-04-19 GC8ZTR9 15030882 Blacktop guy Unknown Cache
X 2022-04-19 GC8GAB8 1126187 Kirk F Traditional Cache

Because "Kirk F" and "GalenaFour" are actually the same CO, it looks like they qualified, but they actually didn't. But in the challenge page, it does specifically say: The "Hider" is determined by whose name appears IN GOOGLE MAPS, or when you click on the hider's name at the top of the cache page. The name at the top of the cache page is irrelevant.(for example, this page says "Zordon the Conqueror").

So, it's pretty clear there's no exemption for making this mistake.