indeliblemind

In terms of "starting over" I meant more along the lines of if you did a 5 mile hike for stage one and finished it and did another 5 miles for stage 2, but couldn't finish that, you would expect that you could go back to stage 2 without having to repeat the first 5 mile hike to stage one. It was more about being able to pick up where you left off. That said, I suppose I was also encompassing the idea that a cache at the end of a 10 mile hike should tell you if you need something to complete it rather than wait for you to get there and make you repeat the hike. I get the impression that's not popular either.

Thanks again to everyone for their input! I think we're having an important conversation about what Geocaching means to different people, which is a big consideration both when hiding and when deciding what caches to go after. I'm getting the feeling that the "different strokes for different folks" argument is really important, which means no cache can be for everyone. Along those lines, I really liked Wolfpack01 point that when you find an LPC for the first time, it's really awesome. So maybe experience plays into whether a cache is "good" for someone. It seems there is plenty of room for all kinds of caches in the world, but if I'm reading all the comments right, the single most important part of hiding a challenging cache is setting the appropriate expectations. I can see how this is really difficult, because balancing that with mystery to make a cache harder precludes giving away too much. It would also appear that "starting over" is relatively unpopular. If a cache has multiple stages, I'm getting the impression people would prefer the option to pick up where they left off, or enough resources to complete something on site without having to restart (if, say, it was at the end of a 10 mile hike). I'm in that camp, so I may be placing too much weight on it, but I think that's a good thing to note. Then there's the issue of being a cache that requires (or is largely accomplished) through a "tips network". I can understand why and how people do this, but for me a cache designed with this in mind is flawed. Sure, the most extreme version is banned (where it's impossible without a tip), but I think a cache that is significantly easier because of a tip is flawed too. I feel like a cache's secrets should either be so essential to it that no one would share (just like we don't all post pictures of where every cache is) because it would ruin the fun, or they should be provided in the hints or description for everyone. I'm for a level playing field. I think necessary equipment falls into this category, though how "necessary" a tool is probably subjective based on the cache. A couple other thoughts: No worries there. I'm not interested in banning anything and I hope no one else is either. As it stands, I find the restrictions in place to be more than enough and I'd rather a slew of hard caches I'm not into than to have people stop experimenting. We need more creative caches, not fewer. This really struck me as incredible (I got all sentimental when I read it). I'd never considered that prolonging a cache would create a friendship, and frankly I think that's beautiful. In many ways, that's what caching is about too. Now I just wonder if there was a way to make a cache where you could more directly encourage that... Like you have to meet someone new to complete it... Though I have no idea how that would work. This is a brilliant point and again, something I hadn't consciously acknowledged. I like the labeling solution. Yet, I have a nagging feeling that it would require a pretty good reason to do that, otherwise it's just a tactic to thwart many cachers, much like a cache that requires a tip network. Great point, and well taken. I can't imagine creating or maintaining a cache I didn't like. It's just too much work. But does that eliminate the goal of making other cachers happy? Is there something inherently wrong with striving to make something that lots of people really like? Isn't that something ever CO is doing by hiding and sharing something in the first place? I guess I'm curious if there's a spectrum where on one end a cache is designed to be populist and strives to be good for most, on the other end it's elites and with that the challenge gives the cacher the feeling of being in that select group. Somewhere on that spectrum is the level of frustration, but I'm learning a lot from all the comments and I think I got the idea wrong. It's not the level, it's the type. And I'm beginning to get the feeling the type is something a cacher should be made aware of ahead of time to make an educated decision whether to make the attempt. Which leads me to... What about those of us who enjoy solving difficult puzzles, finding caches with brilliant camouflage, hiking to remote locations, etc.? Should these kinds of caches not exist just because most people can't (or won't) find them? Sure, caches should be designed to be found, but that does not mean that they should always be designed to be found by everyone. As I mentioned at the beginning, I think this might be the crux of the discussion. While it's clear not every cache can be great for everyone, should that be a goal? Beyond the built in icons and a good description, how does a CO most effectively reveal enough, but not too much, to allow people to self-select what caches are right for them? Or maybe it's on the cache designer to find a way to hand any cacher everything they need, yet still thwart an easy log. Maybe that's the art of the hide. One last question: What role do hints play in all of this?

Ambrosia I love your candor and I certainly know where you've been. Thanks for being a grounding voice and reminding us all in the thread that having a bad time of it is no one in particular's fault.

dprovan and NYPaddleCache, thanks for the thoughtful input. I wish there was a way to "like" your posts because they get to the heart of what I'm looking for: insightful opinions from others on what makes a cache great (or not-so0great) for each of you. The idea here was to do my absolute best as to not malign a great cache. I don't want to be a forum troll and I'm not interested in bagging on a cache that doesn't deserve it. And this one doesn't, even if it didn't stack up at the top of my list. The difficulty was well outlined (though I have thoughts on that, it's a different subject) and I'm more than willing to take responsibility for tackling it in one go, which it implies is not likely. Wow, I wish I had your way with words when I started this thread. That's EXACTLY what I wanted to know. Going back to the aforementioned anonymous cache, it has an incredible reputation. Someday, I want to create caches that people adore that much. But since I found myself frustrated, I wanted to know what others thought and if I was just a complete outlier, or others had found cache hiding techniques frustrating (and why). I think that's a fascinating point, and one worth exploring. In fact, it goes right along with the multiple trips question. I've never been part of a tips network, and I'm curious if people think that's helpful or another form of "spoiler", especially since withholding information can be what makes a cache challenging.

Again, I respect the cache, regardless of how much fun I did or did not have. I placed a link to this forum in my log because I know people watch the log, they are the geocaching elite in some respects and I think everyone's opinion is important. I'm not claiming that this cache did a bad job or was more or less than it promised to be. I'm not trying to hate on it, on the creator, on the CO or anyone who likes the cache, which is why I've done my best not to mention or allude to it more than absolutely necessary. That said, inherent to geocaching and any type of puzzle is an element of frustration. I wanted to discuss when that works or doesn't, starting off with people's opinions on caches that require multiple trips. I apologize if I haven't been clear about that.

To follow up on jsarche I want to be clear that the cache I'm referencing is listed as extremely difficult and lists the possible need for multiple trips. It is certainly rated appropriately and does a lot to make it clear how hard it is. It is also extremely popular and that's why I did it. I'm in no way saying the cache is bad and though I left an honest log that it ultimately didn't pan out for me, I came to the forums to find out why. So I really, really appreciate the comments of others who have done the cache and please don't take my questions as a referendum on this cache and I hope you don't feel like you have to defend it. In fact, I'm learning a lot reading through others perspectives. CanadianRockies comparison to LPCs gave me a lot to consider (not every cache is fun for everyone at every stage of their caching lifetime). It would seem that setting expectations for a cache is a big part of it, yet I remain curious: how does someone both set expectations and keep the mystery? To follow up on wimseyguy, I just want to mention again, I'm not trying to complain and I agree, with that kind of popularity, there's clearly something unique about that cache. But I don't want the thread to be about a specific cache. So I'd love to hear from anyone who's done that kind of thing what makes it enticing or enjoyable. And what are the limits to that (if any)?

I really appreciate everyone's input! Thanks for helping me think this through! To clarify what I'm getting at, I guess as a new cache hider I want to maximize the fun my cachers have. I really appreciate the notes about the guideline from rehcacoeG and I'm realizing that my term "valid" might be misleading (or downright wrong). I guess I'm not getting at "is it possible/legal/within the TOS" but rather, "Does it work? Enhance enjoyment of the cache? Do others specifically seek this kind of experience?" Along those lines, I should also clarify the repetitiveness that I'm referenceing. I was trying to be cagey and avoid giving anything away should anyone try and figure out the cache through this forum. So, for the sake of preserving that cache's mystery, imagine that for whatever reason you had to do 200 pushups to get to the cache. You get there and to get your first clue, it tells you you have to wear orange. But you're wearing blue. So you have to leave and get an orange shirt and come back, do 200 push ups again, and then it tells you you have to have a fishing rod. So you leave... get one... come back... more pushups... next clue. And so on. That's the kind of "fail" that I meant. That it's impossible to continue without leaving. Clearly, I'm not a huge fan of that. However, I'm just one guy. So what I'm interested in is others' perception of that kind of obstacle. Would you pursue it? When would you give up? How much effort/how many times? what would make it worthwhile? Just the cache and log? Saying you did it? Or would it need something more? And ultimately, what kinds of frustration result in a devilishly fun cache and what kinds spoil the adventure?

EDIT: I'm not sure how to change the title, but I realized the terms "failure" and "valid" are misleading. This topic was meant to be about the role of frustration in a cache/mystery/puzzle, how much, under what circumstances and what people enjoy or don't. I intended to kick it off with the idea of a CO forcing multiple trips and what that accomplishes. Thanks for reading! ---------------------- I’ve often come across caches where there is key information intentionally withheld to make a cache harder. Sometimes, those are mysteries where the information is buried in a puzzle or a midpoint cache, but that’s not what I’m getting at. I mean using a lack of information as a barrier to entry, with no way to find out the information until you’re already there and no way to get the needed information or tools without leaving and coming back. I recently completed a cache that requires cachers to go a long way to get started and specifically leaves out (and the community avidly enforces that logs not include) a list of equipment needed to complete it until they are well into the cache. This forces cachers to begin the cache, find out they are ill equipped, leave to get supplies and start again. This happens a couple times, for a couple different items if you don’t make significant effort to spoil the cache for yourself ahead of time. So my question is: Is it a valid effective or fun challenge/obstacle/puzzle in geocaching to make a cache unachievable on a first attempt? And by extension, is it reasonable to ask cachers to repeat portions of a cache and at what point does it hurt the enjoyment and purpose of a cache? Finally, what role does this play when safety and stealth are jeopardized by forcing this repetition?