Rating Puzzle Caches

[+Cyberclops]

When I am looking at puzzle caches it is unclear how much of the difficulty rating is due to the puzzle and how much is due to the way in which the cache is physically hidden.

 

For example, take a puzzle cache where the puzzle is extremely hard, but the cahce itself would be a 1 star difficulty without the puzzle. Conversely, take an extrememly well hidden cammoed micro cache that has a very simple puzzle attached to it. Or what about a cache that has a very difficult puzzle and is also well hidden.

 

To separate these two levels of difficulty, I suggest creating a third rating called "Puzzle". This could either only show up for puzzle caches, or it could be set to 1 for all non-puzzle caches.

[+Lil Devil]

I don't know how it is in other areas, but here in Northern California, 95% of the puzzles I have found were simple to find once the puzzle was solved. So I tend to think that the existing rating applies solely to the puzzle.

[+caderoux]

Clayjar's rating system - as linked to on the cache page at http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/ - seems to handle the rating pretty well:

 

See the bottom section:

 

How easy is it to find the cache?

 

Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious.

Cache could be in one of several locations. Hunter may have to look for a while.

Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location.

Cache likely requires special skills, knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days or trips to find

Finding this cache requires very specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment. This is a serious mental or physical challenge.

Please consider visibility, accessibility, and relative signal strength due to tree cover or other obstructions when answering this question.

[+NotThePainter]

When I place a puzzle I try to make the find super easy. Why? The hard part is solving the puzzle, not finding the cache. Also, if I've come up with a clever hide, I don't want to "waste" it on a puzzle, face it, hard puzzles are not visited all that frequently. Two of mine were last found in January.

 

Of course on a recent one some finders still had problems with it, I didn't make it that easy!

 

Paul

[+ODragon]

To separate these two levels of difficulty, I suggest creating a third rating called "Puzzle". This could either only show up for puzzle caches, or it could be set to 1 for all non-puzzle caches.

 

I made the same suggestion back in Sept 2005. I agree that there are puzzles that are easy to find once you do the puzzle part and others that aren't. Having an extra set of stars would be very helpful!

[+Prime Suspect]

A few puzzles are going to be difficult, no matter what. But most don't fall into that category. On my hardest puzzles, I had people emailing me with the correct solution within 5 minutes of it being posted, while others never figured them out. What rating would they get?

[+Cyberclops]

I don't know how it is in other areas, but here in Northern California, 95% of the puzzles I have found were simple to find once the puzzle was solved. So I tend to think that the existing rating applies solely to the puzzle.

I have found the same to be true, but the 5% ... what about them? Why can't you make a cache that has an involved puzzle and is well or creatively hidden ... a kind of double whammy?

 

I suppose I could include the decoupled difficulty rating in the details section of any puzzle caches I create, but this does not help unless everyone else follows suit, and it is not conducive to searches.

 

I suppose it's just wishfull thinking, but it what would it hurt?

[+caderoux]

The ratings are already kind of difficult to use except as a rough guide.

 

Say you did have two ratings - what difference would it make? Most puzzles take significant time to solve and require preparation - so you'll know the puzzle's difficulty long before you have to attempt to find it. If it then takes much longer at the site, the owner should add another star or so.

 

Using clayjar's system, most puzzles rate a 3 difficulty to start with.

 

There are some caches which have multis with puzzles at stages. These rate high on clayjar's scale and that would be good enough - taking them to a 4 or 5.

 

There's always going to be a question of what does difficult really mean for any puzzle? Sudoku puzzles are rated at different difficulty levels based on humans solving them. But a computer can solve these kind of logical constraint problems trivially.

 

Even with ordinary caches, difficulty could be related to getting to the site (separate from terrain), finding the cache, getting the cache open, requiring special equipment, etc. All these are kind of taken into account with the difficulty rating and clayjar's system does it pretty well.

 

I figure anything over a 3 and cachers need to read the description before heading to the cache site or at least before stepping out of the car.

[+SLO Trekker]

Since we are in the process of making some changes, I really think having a separate rating for the puzzle difficulty is a very good idea for mystery caches. Any chance we can get this added as a new feature?

[CoyoteRed]

Some puzzles are riddles and many require intuition. I've seen puzzles that require a single concept to solve. Once you get that concept then the rest is extremely easy. It's the discovering that obscure notion that's the problem. Who to you quantify the level of intuition one may need?

 

Then there are the hideous math or logic puzzles. Some folks are going to get these right off the bat and some simply never get it at all.

 

Next would be the definition of "puzzle" and where do you draw the line? Fill in the blanks at the first stage? Is that really a puzzle or only information gathering? See what I mean?

[+Knight2000]

When I am looking at puzzle caches it is unclear how much of the difficulty rating is due to the puzzle and how much is due to the way in which the cache is physically hidden.

 

For example, take a puzzle cache where the puzzle is extremely hard, but the cahce itself would be a 1 star difficulty without the puzzle. Conversely, take an extrememly well hidden cammoed micro cache that has a very simple puzzle attached to it. Or what about a cache that has a very difficult puzzle and is also well hidden.

 

To separate these two levels of difficulty, I suggest creating a third rating called "Puzzle". This could either only show up for puzzle caches, or it could be set to 1 for all non-puzzle caches.

I am dragging out an old thread. (Rather than start a new one.)

 

Our puzzle cache is a puzzle because of the need for finders to read the cache details. (Since some just take a waypoint and off they go.)

 

Even though we made the puzzle pretty easy- it has received less visits than our other caches.

 

I think if puzzle caches had a difficulty rating on the puzzle itself that some users may at least attempt the easier ones more often. Maybe a similar rating system for the puzzle caches?

* Easy. Most anyone can solve.

** Average. Requires moderate background work or time to decipher.

*** Challenging. An experienced puzzle cacher will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced puzzle cacher - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental challenge. Requires specialized knowledge or skills and at least one college course.

That is just an example.

 

I think more people would at least attempt puzzle caches if this were in place.

[+ePeterso2]

When I hide a puzzle cache, I rate the difficulty and terrain as though it were a traditional cache, then add a few stars or half-stars based upon the difficulty of the puzzle.

 

Of course, the amount of puzzle difficulty per half-star is completely subjective. It's really tough to say how "difficult" a puzzle is (or a traditional cache, for that matter) because "difficult" is a relative to the solver who attempts it.

 

I generally think of it from the opposite perspective: "What type of person is likely to be able to solve this quickly?"

 

So, the number of stars I add to the difficulty rating roughly corresponds to someone who ...

 

0.5 = ... is capable of reading the cache description

1.0 = ... has basic critical thinking and reasoning skills

1.5 = ... likes solving puzzles

2.0 = ... attempts to solve the local newspaper crossword puzzle every day

2.5 = ... solves the NYT crossword every day without looking up any words

3.0 = ... has cracked Kryptos, Beale (1 & 3), and Voynich

 

That's about right, I'd guess ...

 

-eP