Return to Project-GC

Welcome to Project-GC Q&A. Ask questions and get answers from other Project-GC users.

If you get a good answer, click the checkbox on the left to select it as the best answer.

Upvote answers or questions that have helped you.

If you don't get clear answers, edit your question to make it clearer.

+3 votes
597 views

How does one go about tagging a Challenge cache that doesn't have "Challenge" in it's name?  

I made the checker, and it was working wonderfully - but my tag got disabled by admins because the cache referenced did not have the word Challenge in its name (GC11PZW) - It is an old Challenge, and it predates the GC Guidelines on naming conventions for Challenges.  Now the checker cannot be used. 

I tried the contact support option a few days ago, but haven't heard back (so i assume the decision stands)

Is there a way of making a challenge checker without tagging a cache?

in Miscellaneous by Juicepig (540 points)
Have you tried asking the cache owner if they mind editing their page and adding the word challenge at the end of the cache name? I realise their cache existed before Project GC but sometimes the simple option is worth exploring!
I know the CO - he's stubborn :)   I am certain that would not fly with him.
The fact that someone wrote a checker that matches all or most of the finders seems a reasonable check that it is indeed a challenge cache. This would complicate matters some where the results are time varying, (Jasmer for instance).

Also it would be nice if we could nail down when the word challenge became required.  Atleast then older caches would not required to meet a rule that they never had to meet.

3 Answers

+1 vote
As far as I know, the untagging is automatic, not done by an admin. The support option (i.e. me) has forwarded your question to someone who should know, but may have more pressing matters to handle right now. He'll get there eventually. ;)
by pinkunicorn (Moderator) (194k points)
+1 vote
As far as I know is that the owner of the cache has the possibility to change the cache name by putting (challenge) behind it in the cache name.

My request to a CO on a similar problem was solved this way and the checker was not disabled anymore.
by vogelbird (Expert) (56.5k points)
–1 vote
Like Juicepig wrote: not every CO is willing to change cachename to fit our naming rules.

I would again suggest a black- an a whitelist for not namingrule conformant caches.

A whitelist could contain challenges not containing the word "challenge" in its name. A blacklist could contain names of non-challenge-caches containing the word "challenge" (e.g. GC3WMYG et. al.).
by E.U.S.A.L (880 points)
The Challenge part in the name is reqired in the name of a challenge.
The requirerment was added to the guidelines 2011-03-08 and after 2010-04-27 (exisiting wayback machine shapshots)
I a challenge is published after that and does not have challenge in the name I would argue that it is not a challenge but a regular mystery cache will a Additional Loging Requirement(ALR) and they have been forbidden even for old caches (exept Virtual and earth). On challenges the requirement are not considers ALR
I would argue that a "challenge" published after 2011-03-08 without a challenge in then name is not a challenge cache and that the requirement in the text is a ALR and can be ignored. Just signing the log would be enough to log the found online.

On cache published before 2010-04-27 they would still be challenges without challenge in the name. And for caches between the dates it depens of the day the quidelins changed


But a blacklist and a whiste list would be nice.
Thanks for the details, Target.

The b+w lists would save ourself to check caches against guidelines and argue with stubborn owners.
The subject here is: how do we get challenges without the word challenge on the challenge map with a checker.

I think a b+w list following the guidelines is still open to interpretation.
I come across challenges which are outside the guidelines but fit into our checkers and are accepted by the local cachers.
 
A b+w list might be seen as a negative approach.

I still suggest to contact CO's and not presume stubborness before hand. The more checkers are made and the more they are used, the CO's might come around and see the advantages of a checker.

Sofar the reaction from CO's is very possitive only a few do not respond to my emails
...