First cache difficulty

[+RuberyBlue]

Hi,

 

I placed my first cache this weekend and, feeling it was in one of those obvious locations, didn't add a hint to the cache page (GCYG1R).

 

It has received its FTF visit but also had an earlier DNF followed by a further two DNFs. I'd much prefer to have a challenging cache than the usual 'walk up and there it is' type but where do I draw the line?

 

Do I:

 

- Hold fire and leave it as it is (it can be found!)

- Wait for a few more DNF's before adding a hint

- Or do I (based on three DNF) break cover and add a hint now?

 

Is caching meant to be simple or am i alienating local cachers?

 

RuberyBlue

Keep right on!

[Deego]

Maybe the difficulty needs to be a bit higher than 1.5 . Its up to You how hard you make it and some people like the challenge of a tougher cache.

 

I would leave it till the weekend and see what happens then.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Deego

[+CrazyL200]

Maybe the difficulty needs to be a bit higher than 1.5 . Its up to You how hard you make it and some people like the challenge of a tougher cache.

 

I would leave it till the weekend and see what happens then.

 

Ditto

[+purple_pineapple]

Maybe the difficulty needs to be a bit higher than 1.5 . Its up to You how hard you make it and some people like the challenge of a tougher cache.

 

I would leave it till the weekend and see what happens then.

 

Ditto

 

As has been said…

 

I would also keep in mind how many likely hiding places there are at the coords, and that coords are only really going to give a finder a 10m radius circle to search in at the best of times. I don’t know what its like for tree cover round there, but obviously that would increase it! Cache size is relevant too…

 

I suppose I’m saying that on open moorland, I wouldn’t expect a hint if there is one tree at the cache site and the cache is an ammo. However if I was in a dense wood looking for a micro (hush Pharisee! ) I would expect some kind of decent hint, cos my searching radius could be about 30 metres. Either that or a difficult rating of 5*!

[+Bear and Ragged]

As the above have said.

Would only add, are the DNF's from experienced cachers, or from cachers with only a few finds?

 

G

 

edit.

Just checked, maybe the Difficulty needs to be higher?!

 

GCYCWT also has no clue, but gets found!

Edited October 2, 2006 by KandG

[+Sensei TSKC]

Caching is not meant to be easy, it is meant to be enjoyable.

 

It's your cache and if you don't wish to put a hint then don't. As such, increase the difficulty by 1/2 a star or so to reflect this.

 

Cache setters hide caches so that they are found by other cachers and not all and sundry (muggles). Sounds like it is a good hide. Well done.

 

Oss!

[+alma]

exactly the same thing happened to me with one of my caches and now everyone is finding it so my advice is to hang fire.

[+Jackplug]

I have two caches that are quite hard to find. I have put A note on the web page that if a cacher logs DNF and request at hint one will be sent to them, as personally two visits to the same cache is enough.

So i would hold fire for A bit I think that some cachers see DNF logs as A challenge?

[+Aerodyme]

I have two caches that are quite hard to find. I have put A note on the web page that if a cacher logs DNF and request at hint one will be sent to them, as personally two visits to the same cache is enough.

So i would hold fire for A bit I think that some cachers see DNF logs as A challenge?

 

Jack,

I've received your hint thanks but am still none the wiser! Give me a bit of time and I might get there in the end, cheers!

My personal thoughts are that it is more satisfying to find a cache that involves some thought/effort than one where you simply walk to the location and spot the hiding place straight away. I would also suggest that there should always be a hint, but not one that simply tells you where the cache is...just a little tip to nudge the finder in the right direction

[+Kabuthunk]

I'd say to add the hint. If people want more difficulty they can just... not decrypt the hint, not reading it. If someone is stuck but really wants to find it, then at least they have a hint.

[+Tharagleb]

I really prefer low-difficulty caches to have hints. There is nothing that is more maddening than going to a 1.5 cache and not being able to find it. A small hint that confirms the suspect location, such as "stone wall", "roots", "near ground" etc. can make all the difference between having a good time and having a bad time.

[+Bill D (wwh)]

I'd give a hint. As others have said, no-on has to read it. I hate caches where I'm really struggling to find it and there's no hint...!

[+OldNickCov]

I'd give a hint. As others have said, no-on has to read it. I hate caches where I'm really struggling to find it and there's no hint...!

 

Having looked at the cache logs I'd say give it a bit longer. I don't know these woods, or how dense the cover is, but the cache is getting found.

 

I spent ages early on in caching making four visits (before finding it) to a cache in a much smaller wood close to my journey to and from work. This cache had a clue, which while accurate was virtually no help, unless you already knew were the cache was. You've already given information as to where the cache is in the general description which should confirm that the searcher is in the right sort of area - beyond that there's a danger that either the clue doesn't help, and is frustrating, or is so totally obvious that it takes away the fun of the search.

 

(Oh, and it will become easier to find as the 'cacher's trail' gets more worn)