Jump to content

Is it OK to solve a puzzle by the "back door"?


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Topic:

Is it OK to solve a puzzle by any means other than the means the puzzle author intended for it to be solved?

 

Initially, I will be on the "pro" side of the issue:

 

Technically, "finding" a cache has been defined as physically locating the cache and signing the log book.

 

Alternative methods of locating standard caches appear to be acceptable, i.e. locating them without using a GPSr.

 

Many puzzles, by design or by "oops", have more than one useable solution.

 

Ostensibly, the purpose of puzzles is to exercise the mind and call forth creativity and unique thinking. Such unique thinking is the essence of finding an alternative solution.

 

A find is a find. Witness the typical "stashnote", "Congratulations you have found it, intentionally or by accident..."

 

Therefore, it should not be considered "cheating" to find a puzzle cache by an alternative method such as number crunching, gleaning clues from logs, or "hacking" to name a few.

 

Anecdotal example:

I was asked to help maintain a multicache where the coordinates were calculated from a plaque. I was given the preliminary cache page and I had to actually find the cache. The owner asked if I thought it could be done without visiting the plaque. From the plaque coordinates, some simple math, and a map showing limits of public land in the area, I was able to get it down to two possible points. One of them was correct.

 

I claimed FTF on it after it had been published for two weeks. I did go to the plaque and verify my work.

 

(Please feel free to debate ANYTHING relative to the topic- even the merits of jigsaw versus interlocking puzzles. I have learned my lesson.) :laughing:

Link to comment

I'll take a shot at this one. (No, not a cheap shot. Just this one bad joke.)

 

Lets see if I have the gist of it.

 

Pro side says if you sign the log it is a find.

 

Con side says if you didn't solve the puzzle you violated an alternative logging requirement.

 

If that is the simple version then I'll say a find is a find.

UNLESS, solving the puzzle was listed as a requirement on the cache page.

Link to comment

If you find the container, you found the cache and should be able to claim the log. I'd love it if every cacher solved my puzzles the way I "mean them to be solved" just as I'd love cachers to follow the same neat trail to some of the caches I've set.

 

However, neither of those things are going to happen...someone will brute force a solution, ask a previous finder for the solution, or just get lucky and find my puzzle cache maybe. Just as people may come from 5 different directions than what I "intended" to seek a regular geocache. I don't care either way...you found my cache, signed the log, now log your smiley.

 

I suppose some owners could get REALLY anal and demand that you solve their puzzle their way before you can "claim" a smiley and in the gc.com way of thinking, the owner has the ultimate say on what counts on their caches. I don't condone ever requiring an extra condition on logging a "found" on a geocache...sign the log, it's a "find" to me.

Link to comment

If you find the container, you found the cache and should be able to claim the log. I'd love it if every cacher solved my puzzles the way I "mean them to be solved" just as I'd love cachers to follow the same neat trail to some of the caches I've set.

 

However, neither of those things are going to happen...someone will brute force a solution, ask a previous finder for the solution, or just get lucky and find my puzzle cache maybe. Just as people may come from 5 different directions than what I "intended" to seek a regular geocache. I don't care either way...you found my cache, signed the log, now log your smiley.

 

I suppose some owners could get REALLY anal and demand that you solve their puzzle their way before you can "claim" a smiley and in the gc.com way of thinking, the owner has the ultimate say on what counts on their caches. I don't condone ever requiring an extra condition on logging a "found" on a geocache...sign the log, it's a "find" to me.

 

Everything you said. Like you said, the owner of the cache can stipulate that finders have to solve the puzzle on his or her cache. Until then,, you find the cache and sign the log, you get the find! :laughing:

Link to comment

as long as you don't just get the answer from someone then all is fair as far as i'm concerned.

 

i try to resolve any multi without actaully doing the whole trip just to see if i can, i then nearly always do the full walk anyway. just adds to my enjoyment.

 

if the log book is signed then it's a find. what ever makes it fun do it. :laughing:

Link to comment

Unless the cache page says that solving the puzzle is the only acceptable way to get the coordinates, then any method you use, including asking a previous finder for the final coords, is okay.

 

Getting to the final location by "phone a friend" methods removes some of the "fun" from the finder, but that's a choice he made. And since there's no real way to keep this from happening, I suppose the owner shouldn't try to police such a thing.

Link to comment

Unless the cache page says that solving the puzzle is the only acceptable way to get the coordinates, then any method you use, including asking a previous finder for the final coords, is okay.

I have a few puzzle caches and I do not have anything on the page saying you can not ask a previous finder for the final answer. To me that is just common sense.

 

If you can't solve it then I will gladly help you until you do. I did the puzzle for a little added fun and challenge. What added fun and challenge is there to just what we call in this area "Bubba" the final? It takes some of the fun away from the hider as well. I enjoy watching people scratch their heads trying to solve a few I have. Is the smiley that important that you have to ask someone for the final just to find it rather than do any of the work? These tend to be the same people who cheat at solitaire.

 

That being said if you were to stumble upon my cache by accident or brute force, then feel free to log it. I do not have a problem with that. I know of people here that will delete your log if you don't find X number of their other caches first and such. That is not legit in my book. As long as noone gave me the answer, and I found your cache, then my find is legit.

Link to comment

As it's primarily a real-world location game, if you find the cache and sign the log book in the real world then I think you have a right to claim the find.

 

1. If you simply obtained the coordinates of a mystery cache from someone else, that's between you and your conscience. If it was my cache I'd be a little disappointed if this happened very often, and eventually I'd take the hint and make the cache a traditional type (as cache seekers obviously aren't interested in my puzzle). I'd let any find stand, but I'd hope that the log is honest about the method employed.

 

2. If you obtained "unauthorised" hints which helped get you to the hidden location, again it's up to you whether you feel that the find was satisfactory.

 

3. If you short-cut the puzzle or multicache using a loophole that the cache owner has not anticipated - well done for using initiative. Claim an extra find point!

 

HH

Link to comment

"Solving" Puzzles by just getting the answer from someone else just robs oneself of enjoyment. That said I just "solved" a puzzle by internet researching the answer after I got frustrated doing it myself. It still took a few minutes and some creativity to find the correct answer on line though. Plus I still have to find the actual cache. As a new geocacher introduced by a friend from a long way away, I don't have the "phone a friend" options that some people reference in the logs. I say whatever it takes to make you happy in finding the cache is good enough. This is a totally self policing sport with no gain to be had from cheating.

Link to comment

I think it's perfectly acceptable to solve a puzzle (almost) any way you can. It's not exactly fair to say that you solved a crossword puzzle in the newspaper if you knew the answers were on the next page and you peaked a few times. But that's not exactly what we're talking about here. As long as you don't flagrantly violate the hider's intent or your own personal mores...

 

A couple years ago I was working on a multi. The coordinates for the first stage takes people to the public library. Though the cache page doesn't tell you that explicitly, I realized what it was and was able to use the library's online catalog to look up the information I needed for stage two without ever going to the library itself. The cache owner was okay with that as long as I didn't reveal any information in my log.

Link to comment

I have a few puzzle caches and I do not have anything on the page saying you can not ask a previous finder for the final answer. To me that is just common sense.

<snip>

What added fun and challenge is there to just what we call in this area "Bubba" the final?

<snip>

I agree. Asking Bubba for the answer to a puzzle so you don't have to solve it is cheap, and definitely removes the fun and challenge that the owner wanted to add to the cache.

 

But if someone does get the answer from Bubba, what are you (the cache owner) going to do about it?

 

There's nothing you can do to prevent it from happening, nothing you can do about it once it's done, and no way to determine if a finder skipped the puzzle at all unless he tells you about Bubba's help.

Link to comment

Generally a find is a find especially when you are solving a puzzle.

 

There is one place I disagree... when the puzzle is collecting information (especially from other caches). For instance, there is a cache in my area that require you to find 10+ other caches to find the final. I don't think you can claim the final if you dont find all the others. The Cache Across America series comes to mind here.

Link to comment

Generally a find is a find especially when you are solving a puzzle.

 

There is one place I disagree... when the puzzle is collecting information (especially from other caches). For instance, there is a cache in my area that require you to find 10+ other caches to find the final. I don't think you can claim the final if you dont find all the others. The Cache Across America series comes to mind here.

The Cache Across America final is an ALR cache, and that's not the same thing as getting the coords for a puzzle cache some other way. They're pretty clear up front about the requirement to find all the other caches.

 

With ALR caches the description states what must be done, other than signing the log, in order to log the find. For puzzle caches, all that is required is that you sign the log.

Link to comment

I feel that the handling of the matter (i.e., whether such finds should be allowed) is entirely up to the discretion of the cache owner, and I also feel that if the cache owner feels really strongly that only finds achieved by completely solving the puzzle will count as legitimate finds, and if she/he plans to enforce that policy, then I believe that the cache onwer should indicate that rather explicitly on the cache listing page.

 

In our case, we have had cases where cachers employed brute-force solutions (in this case, painstakingly searching the entire potential hide area, an area covering several acres) to successfully find one of Sue's puzzle caches, and we allowed that find without hesitation, and in fact, we felt that the brute-force finder had done exemplary work in managing to find the cache (by the way, he was totally honest about his brute-force technique in his find log.) In fact, on one of Sue's later puzzle caches, she even offered cache hunters two different options on the cache listing page, where they could either:

  • hike many miles to a number of virtual stage spots to accrue the information needed to discover the waypoint coordinates for the final stage
  • or they could solve a complex and frustrating puzzle in order to discover the waypoint coordinates for the final stage, thus skipping the many miles of hiking

Obviously, I agree that if a person finds a puzzle cache or other type of riddle/special requirements cache simply by cheating, such as where a geofriend simply gave him/her the final stage waypoint coordinates at an event, then such finds should be disqualified as meaningless and frivolous.

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment

 

In our case, we have had cases where cachers employed brute-force solutions

 

I have one multi-cache where a finder employed brute force tactics. Unfortunatly, this multi required finding other stages in order to unlock a combo lock at the final stage. This particular finder became frustrated and ended up breaking the locking mechanism. I don't think this was probably the brute force you were talking about eh?

Link to comment

 

In our case, we have had cases where cachers employed brute-force solutions

 

I have one multi-cache where a finder employed brute force tactics. Unfortunatly, this multi required finding other stages in order to unlock a combo lock at the final stage. This particular finder became frustrated and ended up breaking the locking mechanism. I don't think this was probably the brute force you were talking about eh?

I hope you deleted his find since he deleted your lock. :laughing:

Link to comment

My 2 cents.

As long as you are totally honest about it in your log, I really don't care how you solve a puzzle cache, even if it is with Bubba's help.

 

Why? Because if you're honest about it, then it is written in your log, if its in your log, then anyone can see it. If anyone can see it, then obviously you are content with that as a find, so why the frig should I care?

 

If you are happy with having that find as part of your reputation, then why should I object?

Link to comment

As it's primarily a real-world location game, if you find the cache and sign the log book in the real world then I think you have a right to claim the find.

 

1. If you simply obtained the coordinates of a mystery cache from someone else, that's between you and your conscience. If it was my cache I'd be a little disappointed if this happened very often, and eventually I'd take the hint and make the cache a traditional type (as cache seekers obviously aren't interested in my puzzle). I'd let any find stand, but I'd hope that the log is honest about the method employed.

 

2. If you obtained "unauthorised" hints which helped get you to the hidden location, again it's up to you whether you feel that the find was satisfactory.

 

3. If you short-cut the puzzle or multicache using a loophole that the cache owner has not anticipated - well done for using initiative. Claim an extra find point!

 

HH

 

I agree with HH, with the exception of the extra find point. :laughing:

 

I have one puzzle cache and actually found it interesting when one of the finders told me of an alternate method for solving it. I hadn't thought of that possibility, but it was every bit as valid as my intended way in my book.

Link to comment

as long as you don't just get the answer from someone then all is fair as far as i'm concerned.

 

i try to resolve any multi without actaully doing the whole trip just to see if i can, i then nearly always do the full walk anyway. just adds to my enjoyment.

 

if the log book is signed then it's a find. what ever makes it fun do it. :laughing:

If I didn't happen to be with someone else while they solved it I'd not have any puzzle cache finds.

And since I'm not that much of a icon ho I'm okay with that. I have publicly in the on-line logs acknowledged and thanked the person who had actually solved it and haven't had a hiders reject my find yet.

Link to comment

My 2 cents.

As long as you are totally honest about it in your log, I really don't care how you solve a puzzle cache, even if it is with Bubba's help.

 

Why? Because if you're honest about it, then it is written in your log, if its in your log, then anyone can see it. If anyone can see it, then obviously you are content with that as a find, so why the frig should I care?

 

If you are happy with having that find as part of your reputation, then why should I object?

I had a 4 stage multi that covered a new 6 mile bicycle path through the woods. Two of our local finders noted in their log that by consulting maps they had managed to do all the stages without walking more than about a half mile total. I don't mind that they did it, but I wish they hadn't put it in the log. Only one person looked for it after that...

Edited by hukilaulau
Link to comment

Topic:

Is it OK to solve a puzzle by any means other than the means the puzzle author intended for it to be solved?...

 

I think this falls into the Additional Logging Requirment arena. The difference being the Additional work is up front before you can even go find the cache. So the same rules apply. You can use any means you want to find the cache. You should try to comply with the owners wishes (solve the puzzle). The owner can (and perhaps should?) delete any logs from finders who didn't solve the intended puzzle. The owner can also say "hey, it's a puzzle, however you solved the puzzle good job". At the curtain call it's the owners choice.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I have a few puzzle caches and I do not have anything on the page saying you can not ask a previous finder for the final answer. To me that is just common sense.

<snip>

What added fun and challenge is there to just what we call in this area "Bubba" the final?

<snip>

I agree. Asking Bubba for the answer to a puzzle so you don't have to solve it is cheap, and definitely removes the fun and challenge that the owner wanted to add to the cache.

 

But if someone does get the answer from Bubba, what are you (the cache owner) going to do about it?

 

There's nothing you can do to prevent it from happening, nothing you can do about it once it's done, and no way to determine if a finder skipped the puzzle at all unless he tells you about Bubba's help.

I have choosen to do nothing basically, other than speak out locally about it. Many of us have spoken out about it. We were of the assumption that grown men cheating something simple could be "guilted" into honesty. I mean why cheat? You are never going to win since it isn't a competition. Sadly some others have had caches ruined by our local cheat emailing them unsolicited finals and good hides in hopes to get the answers for another cache. A trade if you will. It is funny though in a sad kind of way. Once one of this small group finds a really hard hide or puzzle, you just sit back and watch the other couple run out and find it in the next few days.

Link to comment

Topic:

Is it OK to solve a puzzle by any means other than the means the puzzle author intended for it to be solved?...

 

It's true I suck at puzzles, but I get a super thrill when I am able to successfully brute force the final of a pesky puzzle cache. 'Round these parts I've even aquired a bit of a reputation for sniffing out caches. I actually signed the log on a particularly irksome puzzle cache yesterday, after playing a hunch. I had a pretty good idea what park the cache was in and knew where the other two caches in that same park were. We got pretty lucky tho, when we noticed some telling bootprints in the snow. We stepped off the boardwalk and sure 'nuff there sat a nice big 50 cal ammo can. We were back in the car w/i fifteen minutes and that was only because we stopped to admire the scenery.

 

Should that find count? Heck YES!

Link to comment

When I cached in Central Florida, there was a cacher named Jetskier who thought he was poor at solving puzzle caches (or just didn't like solving them). Instead of solving the puzzle itself, he utilized cache logs, clues in the description, extensive knowledge and research of the terrain, and gallons of logic to narrow down the possibilities. Then he simply went out and found the cache. Over and over again. Locally, his handle became a verb ("I Jetskiered that cache"). I never met him, but I greatly respected his ability. I've even poorly imitated it once or twice. The skill and effort he spent in going through the back door was likely often greater than that needed for a natural puzzler to work the puzzle.

Link to comment

(Please feel free to debate ANYTHING relative to the topic- even the merits of jigsaw versus interlocking puzzles. I have learned my lesson.) :laughing:

No changes to the current system are needed at this time. No, wait...wrong thread.

 

It's a battle of the minds. If the hider isn't clever enough to force a finder to go a certain route, then the hider loses the contest. It's fair.

 

As for making a phone call to a previous finder...that's not just a puzzle-cache issue. That's just not playing the game.

Link to comment

I willingly give hints to my mystery caches. How much of a hint depends on the cacher. (If you're not a puzzle-cacher, you get a much easier clue...)

People have brute forced one of my mystery caches. So, I learnt to put the parking coords a bit further away. :laughing: Did one that required visiting five regular caches. 'Add the total to the given coordinates...' That describes a very nice diagonal line that crosses - The encrypted name of the cache! We did four of the five anyway.

I was just told that for my 'take the numbers off the monument' mystery, that 'obviously' the first three digits would be 'xyz'. Out of 34 finders, only one person thought of that! I've seen others with obvious anwers, or diagonal lines. The cache is at W 74 so, for 7A, I'm safe to assume that 'A' = 4!

It is obvious, on some of my tougher ones, that finders have had/asked for help from other finders. No ALR. Find the cache, sign the log, get the smiley. Have I asked for help from other finders? Okay. On rare occasion. :laughing:

It is all in how you play the game, I guess. Is it required to solve the puzzle? Or to sign the log?

Link to comment

I honestly prefer that people try to solve my puzzles. I will help anybody that needs some help as long as they show some effort. I think many people give up way too easily. The other thing I like to see is teamwork. If someone can't solve a puzzle by themselves then team up with some others! Teamwork adds an element of fun that a lot of caches don't have! :laughing:

Link to comment

To summarize so far, it seems to be the consensus that any way you find it is OK, EXCEPT if someone just GIVES you the coordinates. (That is OK also as far as claiming the find, but CLASSLESS)

 

I too, would consider simply asking someone for the coordinates to be "cheating" and it is my tendency to applaud "thinking outside the box" so I agree with the "extra points" for solving it in an unusual way (which, when combined with a crisp U.S. Dollar will get you a cup of coffee in MOST convenience stores- at least in Indiana).

 

There haven't been many "cons" weighing in on this...

Link to comment

I think it's up to the individual what makes each person happy and satisfied with their finds. I worked a puzzle cache where I tried very hard to get it. Found that my final coordinates were way off. However, as I reread the logs, I got a very curious feeling that I knew where the cache was from vague comments. I went there and found it. I didn't work the puzzle correctly but I got to the cache. I would have preferred to get the puzzle 100% correct but I also prefer to find the cache and not have it be a DNF because I can never figure it out completely on paper. My two cents.

Link to comment

as long as you don't just get the answer from someone then all is fair as far as i'm concerned.

 

i try to resolve any multi without actaully doing the whole trip just to see if i can, i then nearly always do the full walk anyway. just adds to my enjoyment.

 

if the log book is signed then it's a find. what ever makes it fun do it. :laughing:

If I didn't happen to be with someone else while they solved it I'd not have any puzzle cache finds.

And since I'm not that much of a icon ho I'm okay with that. I have publicly in the on-line logs acknowledged and thanked the person who had actually solved it and haven't had a hiders reject my find yet.

 

don't get me wrong, that wasn't what i meant. i have gone along with others to solve puzzles that i wouldn't have a hope with on my own.

i meant that you don't even try to solve the puzzle at all and just get the co-ords from someone. i have been given so many clues by either previous finders or the setter to make it a given that i would solve it but i don't just ask for the answer! :laughing:

 

but at the end of the day that's me... i play the game my way and others play it theirs. as long as you don't cause damage then carry on.

Link to comment

Topic:

Is it OK to solve a puzzle by any means other than the means the puzzle author intended for it to be solved?

 

Initially, I will be on the "pro" side of the issue:

 

Technically, "finding" a cache has been defined as physically locating the cache and signing the log book.

 

Alternative methods of locating standard caches appear to be acceptable, i.e. locating them without using a GPSr.

 

Many puzzles, by design or by "oops", have more than one useable solution.

 

Ostensibly, the purpose of puzzles is to exercise the mind and call forth creativity and unique thinking. Such unique thinking is the essence of finding an alternative solution.

 

A find is a find. Witness the typical "stashnote", "Congratulations you have found it, intentionally or by accident..."

 

Therefore, it should not be considered "cheating" to find a puzzle cache by an alternative method such as number crunching, gleaning clues from logs, or "hacking" to name a few.

 

Anecdotal example:

I was asked to help maintain a multicache where the coordinates were calculated from a plaque. I was given the preliminary cache page and I had to actually find the cache. The owner asked if I thought it could be done without visiting the plaque. From the plaque coordinates, some simple math, and a map showing limits of public land in the area, I was able to get it down to two possible points. One of them was correct.

 

I claimed FTF on it after it had been published for two weeks. I did go to the plaque and verify my work.

 

(Please feel free to debate ANYTHING relative to the topic- even the merits of jigsaw versus interlocking puzzles. I have learned my lesson.) :laughing:

 

Here's my take -

Puzzels are meant to be solved but many puzzels can have several paths that lead to the same point. IF you place a puzzle cache in a park and there is only one logical place to put the cache, then it's not much of a puzzle. Here's an example taken from history -

 

Many years ago, as punishment for misbehavior, a math teacher made a class add up the numbers between 1 and 100, before they could leave for the day. The students all began furiously scribbling on paper, 1+2 = 3 + 3 = 6 + 4 = 10, etc.

 

One student, Gauss was his name, wrote a single number on a piece of paper, and left. The number - 5050 and left.

 

The formula young Gauss discovered when trying to add the numbers 1-100, goes n(n+1)/2, which is (100*101)/2, or 5050. He found it by discovering that 100+1=101, 99+2=101, 3+98=101...50+51=101. He found out that by wrapping the numbers around, that is adding (100-1) and (1-100) together, he would get the number 100 at every term. He then multiplied 100 times the number of terms, and got his answer, when dividing it by 2, because he had added twice the sum he wanted. Hence the sum of all integers between 1 and 100 is 101*50=5050.

 

referenced by: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=51...p;lastnode_id=0

I remembered the story, they explained it, I corrected the bad math....anyway...

 

Obviously Gauss did not follow the expected path. He found a shortcut and was eating pop tarts at home before his classmates had gotten to 435 + 30...Not literally pop tarts since this happened I believe in the 1920's or so, but you get my point...He found a shorter path.

 

I would say it's up to the cache hider and puzzle creator to make sure there are no shortcuts, and if (s)he gets outsmarted, then good for the finder. Saying in the requirements "You have to do it the way I do it" is just arrogance - a "my way of the highway" kind of attitude. It's like a job making you fill out redundant forms because that's just the way it's done.

 

--MGb

Link to comment

Not literally pop tarts since this happened I believe in the 1920's or so, but you get my point...He found a shorter path.

The story you relate is the most famous, but certainly not the only, Carl-Gauss-child-prodigy anectdote, and it's a good illustration of your point. However, I feel duty-bound to point out that it's even less likely that young Carl had a pop tart when he got home--that story likely happened around 1790. However, there is evidence that he used his MacBook to get the answer. ;)

Link to comment

Not literally pop tarts since this happened I believe in the 1920's or so, but you get my point...He found a shorter path.

The story you relate is the most famous, but certainly not the only, Carl-Gauss-child-prodigy anectdote, and it's a good illustration of your point. However, I feel duty-bound to point out that it's even less likely that young Carl had a pop tart when he got home--that story likely happened around 1790. However, there is evidence that he used his MacBook to get the answer. :)

 

Well, what's a couple hundered years between friends??? At least I cited my source...My English teacher wife would be so proud...

 

And really, It doesn't matter whether he ate pop tarts or not....What really matters is how many FTF's he got b/c he got to leave so much earlied than the others.

 

--MGb

Link to comment

Not literally pop tarts since this happened I believe in the 1920's or so, but you get my point...He found a shorter path.

The story you relate is the most famous, but certainly not the only, Carl-Gauss-child-prodigy anectdote, and it's a good illustration of your point. However, I feel duty-bound to point out that it's even less likely that young Carl had a pop tart when he got home--that story likely happened around 1790. However, there is evidence that he used his MacBook to get the answer. :)

 

Well, what's a couple hundered years between friends??? At least I cited my source...My English teacher wife would be so proud...

 

And really, It doesn't matter whether he ate pop tarts or not....What really matters is how many FTF's he got b/c he got to leave so much earlied than the others.

 

--MGb

Not to mention that Gauss was only 10 when he did that! :D
Link to comment

Is it OK to solve a puzzle by any means other than the means the puzzle author intended for it to be solved?

 

Yes and no.

Watch out. You might get a sore bottom sitting on that fence. :D:D

 

Really? :D I thought it covered it pretty well.

 

Oh, my teachers always have to request that I 'show my work'. A cache owner might ask the same thing.

 

Sorry.

 

 

:)

Link to comment

My 2 cents.

As long as you are totally honest about it in your log, I really don't care how you solve a puzzle cache, even if it is with Bubba's help.

 

Why? Because if you're honest about it, then it is written in your log, if its in your log, then anyone can see it. If anyone can see it, then obviously you are content with that as a find, so why the frig should I care?

 

If you are happy with having that find as part of your reputation, then why should I object?

I had a 4 stage multi that covered a new 6 mile bicycle path through the woods. Two of our local finders noted in their log that by consulting maps they had managed to do all the stages without walking more than about a half mile total. I don't mind that they did it, but I wish they hadn't put it in the log. Only one person looked for it after that...

 

Without doing the research, and looking through your profile, I'd say that what you have there is a poorly planned multi. Learn from it. Next multi you place, make it so that this isn't an option.

 

I *might* have been tempted to ask the finder to be a bit more circumspect about how they 'cheated', if you felt is ruined the experience for others.

Link to comment
I think sbell has it right. Nobody knows how you found the cache, and it's nobody's business. This is something I do for fun, not for any other reason, and I don't care what anyone else thinks about how or why I cache. If I signed the log, I found the cache, and that's the end of that.

 

That is an intersting view ... seems to show no consideration, respect or thanks to the owner who went to all the trouble to put the cache there in the first place so you can as you put it "Nobody knows how you found the cache, and it's nobody's business. This is something I do for fun, not for any other reason, and I don't care what anyone else thinks about how or why I cache. If I signed the log, I found the cache, and that's the end of thatdon't care what anyone else thinks about how or why I cache.".

 

Well I am glad you don't do my caches, because I don't put my caches out for some cacher to come along and do what he or she likes. My caches are there for both my enjoyment and the cachers who find them, enjoyment. I would hope they are considerate enough to do my cachers within the spirit of my efforts in placing them and that they share there experience with me via their logs. That way hopefully we both get some enjoyment out my efforts in placing the cache in the first time and they do from their efforts in finding it.

 

I wonder if you played football or basketball or whatever, would you take the same view? Stuff everyone else, I play this game my way? Seems very sportsperson like, not.

 

Cheers

Andrew

Edited by Aushiker
Link to comment

I have solved a puzzle and sent email to the owner saying how wonderful the hint was when finally figured out...

 

information concealed to protect the inocent

Response: What hint

 

Me: You know, that thing with the <color>

 

Response: <color>??

 

Me: Yeah, how the <color> could be seen and worked with the <object>

 

Response: Now that was never intended, I have to say you found a clue from the fourth dimension

 

 

So finding something the creator missed is one thing, turning around and telling other cachers the solution is something else.

 

What really blows is when you find a solution to a puzzle and it is incorrect because the owner did not realize the puzzle has more then one solution and there is no way of knowing which is correct.

 

We stumbled on a puzzle in another state that, before the owner changed it, had over 50 possible solutions covering about a 3 mile area. Now that would not have been fun at all, but....

 

If I see something in a puzzle and it works, I go get a find. If I see something in a puzzle and it appears to work but is wrong.. I start over <_<

 

Stumble on solution? = Not bad

Answer given = Shame on both of you

 

Another way to think about it is this...

Is it unfair to use the internet to search for an answer I did not know? Or having a friend explain a formula?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...