Lame Hints

[Grawp]

Does anyone else feel the same as us about the encrypted hints on a cache page?

 

Surely they should be HINTS not a method for stating the obvious.

 

Things like .... "It's by a tree" for a cache in a forest. "It's REALLY small" for a cache that has already been defined as a nano-cache, "Under a rock" in a field containing about a thousand rocks. And so on.

 

After we've spent a lot of time looking, we resort to decrypting the clue, only to find that it re-states the obvious. Anger and frustration is the result.

 

Use the encrypted hint to provide additional CLUES to assist the player in finding the cache.

 

Simple? I guess not ...........

[+GlobalRat]

Surely they should be HINTS not a method for stating the obvious.

 

or for a fundamental requirement to finding the cache... if I need a hanglider to get to a cache.. tell me in the cache page not in the friggin additional hints.

 

The level of the clue is up to the owner and has a direct relationship to the difficulty rating. It could be cryptic or obvious and will depend on the theme of the cache.

 

Don't quite get the Gbb rnfl sbe bar hints either. Now you know what it looks like

 

"Under a rock" in a field containing about a thousand rocks

 

At least it discounts the willow tree 12m away

 

Oh well, on to a happier 2007.

[+vespax]

I agree, but feel guilty about this for some reason...

[Grawp]

Seeing the lame hints makes me wonder whether the VERY explicit hints I give to some of my caches are what the players are looking for.

 

Take Glenholme #2 for example. VERY poor coverage, so VERY explicit hints. Maybe I should have just said "By the river"!

 

Or Mpiti Falls - "Somewhere by the Mpiti Waterfall"

 

On the other hand, some are very obvious from the description and the co-ordinates - there is an OBVIOUS hiding place. In this case - in plain text, in the description: "No additional hints required".

Edited January 1, 2007 by Grawp