Coordinate checkers are no good

[+Puppy Dawg]

I've noticed that coordinate checkers are compromising puzzles. The main thing is, people just plug in coordinates that are .1 mile from the nearest cache until they get a success message. Just wondering if other places are noticing similar trends.

[+Arrow42]

I've noticed that coordinate checkers are compromising puzzles. The main thing is, people just plug in coordinates that are .1 mile from the nearest cache until they get a success message. Just wondering if other places are noticing similar trends.

 

What are you talking about?

[+Puppy Dawg]

I'm talking about those websites where you plug in your answer and see if you have the right coordinates. Like Evince or Geochecker.

[+BlueDeuce]

That would be quite a feat to hit the coordinates, and a fuzzy solution is just that - fuzzy.

 

Do you have an example?

[+Puppy Dawg]

Yes I do. I looked at the map of what people had guessed, there were huge blobs of solutions everywhere that was .1 mile from the nearest cache.

[+BigWhiteTruck]

Yes I do. I looked at the map of what people had guessed, there were huge blobs of solutions everywhere that was .1 mile from the nearest cache.

 

I can't see the cache page, but are you merely assuming that the guess method works? Did anyone actually write in the logs that they guessed and guesses with the coordinate checker until they found the answer?

[+BlueDeuce]

Yes I do. I looked at the map of what people had guessed, there were huge blobs of solutions everywhere that was .1 mile from the nearest cache.

 

I've never thought geochecker was anything more than a courtesy. You know, solve the puzzle, check your answer. There's certainly no requirement that you offer it. If you don't want to allow that short cut then you did the right thing by removing it. (Personally I'd take off the reference that people can't use geochecker)

Edited August 16, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+Arrow42]

I think one of the geo-checkers offers the CO the ability to limit the number of guesses per hour.

[+Knight2000]

grumble, grumble, grumble.

 

If people are going to play battleship then they deserve the silly smiley. That seems to be a pretty tall order.

 

PS: Chew up a Maggie, not a PN-40!

Edited August 16, 2009 by Knight2000

[+Arrow42]

Yes I do. I looked at the map of what people had guessed, there were huge blobs of solutions everywhere that was .1 mile from the nearest cache.

 

Not much of an example... we can't see the huge blob and the cache doesn't even link to geocehcker.

 

On a side note, your initial coords can be a mile or two away if it makes you feel better.

[+BlueDeuce]

Yes I do. I looked at the map of what people had guessed, there were huge blobs of solutions everywhere that was .1 mile from the nearest cache.

 

Not much of an example... we can't see the huge blob and the cache doesn't even link to geocehcker.

 

On a side note, your initial coords can be a mile or two away if it makes you feel better.

 

Going by what I think is the solution I could see how people would have an idea of where it's at and then look for the nearest cache there and use that radius. Yeah it's likely a long shot but again you don't have to offer a geochecker.

Edited August 16, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

I think one of the geo-checkers offers the CO the ability to limit the number of guesses per hour.

 

EVINCE does that. If you make one mistake it delays your next attempt by five minutes. If you blow the second try it takes something like eight hours before you can make another attempt. It is frustrating when it turns out that you miskeyed rather than made a mistake in the puzzle. But it is still better to use EVINCE than it is to make an unrealized mistake and walk into someone's backyard while following the little arrow on the GPS. (Lesson learned: the GPS is not always right and we are not as smart at puzzles as we think we are.)

 

Carolyn

Edited August 16, 2009 by Steve&GeoCarolyn

[Clan Riffster]

I think it's much ado about nothing. I hide caches for folks to find them. This also applies to my puzzle caches. If folks want to find them by solving the puzzle, great. If folks want to come up with their own solution, that's great too. For your cache, I would think that solving it with your intended method would be a heck of a lot easier than pecking in some 2500 possible coordinate combinations to cover a .1 mile area. Heck, if someone went through all that trouble to solve one of mine, I'd pat them on the back, not chastise them.

[+mrbort]

And here's the really important thing about coordinate checkers that the OP has completely missed: The links are provided by the cache owner precisely so that others can check their solutions. If they're worried about battleship nothing forces them to put the final answer coordinates in the checker and place a link to that specific coordinate checker on the cache page. It's a calculated decision by the CO to allow people to ensure that they have the right answer before going on a wild goose chase.

 

Quick edit to add on a reread Blue Deuce has already mentioned that it's optional.

Edited August 16, 2009 by mrbort

[+Puppy Dawg]

This thread was created to see if this is noticed in other regions, not have a debate about coord checkers.

[+Puppy Dawg]

EVINCE does that. If you make one mistake it delays your next attempt by five minutes. If you blow the second try it takes something like eight hours before you can make another attempt. It is frustrating when it turns out that you miskeyed rather than made a mistake in the puzzle. But it is still better to use EVINCE than it is to make an unrealized mistake and walk into someone's backyard while following the little arrow on the GPS. (Lesson learned: the GPS is not always right and we are not as smart at puzzles as we think we are.)

 

Carolyn

 

OK, I've put that up, good to know. I'll start using it instead of Geochecker.

[+Bear and Ragged]

The co-ords on the cache page can be up to 2 miles from the actual cache.

 

You've put the false co-ords in the sea...

Leaves very little in the way of land based co-ordinates to have to search!

[AZcachemeister]

Certainly any cacher would attempt to use the most expedient means available to arrive at the correct co-ordinates and dispatch your cache with all possible speed.

 

It seems I need to review the guidelines for puzzle caches. I thought that puzzles requiring the solver to download a third-party program to solve the puzzle were not allowed. Perhaps the distinction is if it were a SPECIFIC third-party program?

[+Prime Suspect]

I'm talking about those websites where you plug in your answer and see if you have the right coordinates. Like Evince or Geochecker.

You obviously haven't ACTUALLY tried this on evince, have you?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hmmm... I actually did that on Geochecker. Geochecker allows the options: Exact or close. This one allowed 'close'. For the one I dd this with, the exact coords could not be deduced easily from the puzzle. Geochecker allows a certain number of tries before it times you out for 'strong arming'. After the time out, I did find the exact coords. Haven't found the cache yet...

Lots of geocachers do not use Geochecker. And puzzle solvers harass them for that. You are not required to use it. Reminds me, I have to put Geochecker on my latest evil mystery cache...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This thread was created to see if this is noticed in other regions, not have a debate about coord checkers.

 

I've used another geochecker that does *not* restrict the number of guesses. One one of my puzzles some of the numbers are harder to figure out than others. The geochecker I've used will display a map of "guesses" and it's pretty clear which digits those that are trying to solve the puzzle are having trouble with. Frankly, I'm considering archiving the cache and republishing it as a traditional. It's an ammo can hidden along interesting trail that not a lot of people seem to know about yet it very rarely found despite the fact that it's a relatively easy puzzle. I think I rated it a 2.5 and don't think it's any more difficult than that. I've solved plenty of 4 star and 5 star puzzles so I have a pretty good idea how it should be rated.

[+Puppy Dawg]

I'm talking about those websites where you plug in your answer and see if you have the right coordinates. Like Evince or Geochecker.

You obviously haven't ACTUALLY tried this on evince, have you?

Post #16.

[+TexasGringo]

<The main thing is, people just plug in coordinates that are .1 mile from the nearest cache until they get a success message.>

 

By the time you play around with that....you might as well just figure it out and go to it.

[+Lil Devil]

I think for a well-designed puzzle cache, the checkers are not needed. A good puzzle will reveal the coordinates without any doubt, when you have solved it correctly. In most cases, steganography is a good example. If you've solved it, you get the coords, no doubt about it. A coord checker only ends up providing an alternate way to solve the puzzle.

[knowschad]

I've noticed that coordinate checkers are compromising puzzles. The main thing is, people just plug in coordinates that are .1 mile from the nearest cache until they get a success message. Just wondering if other places are noticing similar trends.

 

Wanna have some fun with geochecker? Try this cache

[Dinoprophet]

<The main thing is, people just plug in coordinates that are .1 mile from the nearest cache until they get a success message.>

 

By the time you play around with that....you might as well just figure it out and go to it.

Heck, you might as well go out and wander the entire area until you find it. It would still be faster, plus you'd get some exercise.

[+Von-Horst]

I've noticed that coordinate checkers are compromising puzzles. The main thing is, people just plug in coordinates that are .1 mile from the nearest cache until they get a success message. Just wondering if other places are noticing similar trends.

 

Never even thought about it until now!

 

Luckily, I don't think we have the cache density round here to make that a workable proposistion.

 

Slightly off-topic, but if someone has no life and wants to spend hours and hours plugging more-or-less random numbers into geochecker to 'earn' a smiley then where's the harm?

 

Is there any rule/guideline that says that a puzzle cache can ony be solved in a certain way?

 

Mike

[+rob3k]

The co-ords on the cache page can be up to 2 miles from the actual cache.

 

You've put the false co-ords in the sea...

Leaves very little in the way of land based co-ordinates to have to search!

 

I was about to say the same thing. Still seems like you'd have to get a bit lucky unless the cache is right near the shore on the nearest bit of land.

[+rjb43nh]

I've noticed that coordinate checkers are compromising puzzles. The main thing is, people just plug in coordinates that are .1 mile from the nearest cache until they get a success message. Just wondering if other places are noticing similar trends.

 

Wanna have some fun with geochecker? Try this cache

Nice puzzle! I like it!

[+bflentje]

Yes I do. I looked at the map of what people had guessed, there were huge blobs of solutions everywhere that was .1 mile from the nearest cache.

 

How does that make them no good?

[+bflentje]

I've noticed that coordinate checkers are compromising puzzles. The main thing is, people just plug in coordinates that are .1 mile from the nearest cache until they get a success message. Just wondering if other places are noticing similar trends.

 

Wanna have some fun with geochecker? Try this cache

 

Paul doesn't need any stroking here.. I can't believe his cache beet mine out. I am still sore about that.

[+fegan]

Wanna have some fun with geochecker? Try this cache

I love it!

 

Back to the original topic...

 

I have a few puzzle hides where I've used GeoChecker...it's better than answering all those e-mails asking for coordinate confirmation.

 

Sorry...you've got no leg to stand on GeoBigDog...

1. you don't have to include a geochecker on your page, that was your choice

2. it appears you've positioned the false coordinates to give very few options leading to brute force attempts (much easier in cache-saturated areas)

3. there are no rules as to how people solve a puzzle (they can follow the cache description or reverse engineer it)

 

Next!

[+WebChimp]

I've noticed that coordinate checkers are compromising puzzles. The main thing is, people just plug in coordinates that are .1 mile from the nearest cache until they get a success message.

 

Geocheckers are a valuable asset to the hobby. I've added them to all of my puzzle caches, so cachers can check their answers before coming this direction. It's just a courtesy.

 

As far as trying random solutions until you find one that works....... I don't know anyone who has that much time to waste. It would be quicker to solve the puzzle, no matter how hard the puzzle is.

 

Coordinate checkers ARE good

Edited August 19, 2009 by WebChimp

[knowschad]

I've noticed that coordinate checkers are compromising puzzles. The main thing is, people just plug in coordinates that are .1 mile from the nearest cache until they get a success message.

 

Geocheckers are a valuable asset to the hobby. I've added them to all puzzle caches, so cachers can check their answers before coming this direction. It's just a courtesy.

 

As far as trying random solutions until you find one that works....... I don't know anyone who has that much time to waste. It would be quicker to solve the puzzle, not matter how hard the puzzle is.

 

Coordinate checkers ARE good

 

They also tend to help people keep off of dangerous or private property.

[+9Key]

I think for a well-designed puzzle cache, the checkers are not needed. A good puzzle will reveal the coordinates without any doubt, when you have solved it correctly. In most cases, steganography is a good example. If you've solved it, you get the coords, no doubt about it. A coord checker only ends up providing an alternate way to solve the puzzle.

That's really painting a lot of puzzles with a wide brush. So you're saying that only good puzzles give the exact answer?

[+DanOCan]

2. it appears you've positioned the false coordinates to give very few options leading to brute force attempts (much easier in cache-saturated areas)

 

Actually, that would make for a pretty cool puzzle. "Find this cache using nothing but the coordinate checker and your knowledge of Geocaching.com cache placement guidelines." Would work fine 'til a neighboring cache owner decides to archive one his hides.

 

Anyway, on topic: I don't specifically know whether using "battleship" is common in this area. I have provided coordinate checkers on the majority of my puzzle caches but I don't really care how someone finds them so I haven't paid attention.

[+Puppy Dawg]

2. it appears you've positioned the false coordinates to give very few options leading to brute force attempts (much easier in cache-saturated areas)

 

Actually, that would make for a pretty cool puzzle. "Find this cache using nothing but the coordinate checker and your knowledge of Geocaching.com cache placement guidelines." Would work fine 'til a neighboring cache owner decides to archive one his hides.

 

Anyway, on topic: I don't specifically know whether using "battleship" is common in this area. I have provided coordinate checkers on the majority of my puzzle caches but I don't really care how someone finds them so I haven't paid attention.

Yes! Time to scope out a location...

[+Puppy Dawg]

Yes I do. I looked at the map of what people had guessed, there were huge blobs of solutions everywhere that was .1 mile from the nearest cache.

 

How does that make them no good?

 

Wanna have some fun with geochecker? Try this cache

I love it!

 

Back to the original topic...

 

I have a few puzzle hides where I've used GeoChecker...it's better than answering all those e-mails asking for coordinate confirmation.

 

Sorry...you've got no leg to stand on GeoBigDog...

1. you don't have to include a geochecker on your page, that was your choice

2. it appears you've positioned the false coordinates to give very few options leading to brute force attempts (much easier in cache-saturated areas)

3. there are no rules as to how people solve a puzzle (they can follow the cache description or reverse engineer it)

 

Next!

 

I've noticed that coordinate checkers are compromising puzzles. The main thing is, people just plug in coordinates that are .1 mile from the nearest cache until they get a success message.

 

Geocheckers are a valuable asset to the hobby. I've added them to all of my puzzle caches, so cachers can check their answers before coming this direction. It's just a courtesy.

 

As far as trying random solutions until you find one that works....... I don't know anyone who has that much time to waste. It would be quicker to solve the puzzle, no matter how hard the puzzle is.

 

Coordinate checkers ARE good

Post #16

[+patned]

That's really painting a lot of puzzles with a wide brush. So you're saying that only good puzzles give the exact answer?

 

In my opinion, yes. If you are going to give the wrong coordinates why waste time with a puzzle, just create a traditional with incorrect coordinates - serves the same purpose, and a lot easier.

[+baloo&bd]

Post #16

 

Post #10

[+mrbort]

Post #16

 

This is the second time you've stepped in as the topic police. The first you castigated me in Post #15 for discussing the topic title "Coordinate checkers are no good" and now you're rudely just forum shouting not that you've implemented a coordinate checker (which are now apparently good but we are quite discouraged from discussing that) but instead implying that all of those posters are so stupid that they didn't read your Post #16.

 

To me, you're not playing well with others in this topic; you post a topic with a declarative statement on a message board and then either try to dictate the flow of discussion by fiat or rudely attract readers to your post rather than being civil. Hence this response that I freely acknowledge uses the rude posting to make a point about civility in the forums and respect for what others are posting. If you open a topic on a discussion board, don't be shocked when discussion happens.

[knowschad]

Oh, come on, guys! Just take a look at Post # 59 and it will all be settled.

Edited August 21, 2009 by knowschad

[+Puppy Dawg]

Post #16

 

This is the second time you've stepped in as the topic police. The first you castigated me in Post #15 for discussing the topic title "Coordinate checkers are no good" and now you're rudely just forum shouting not that you've implemented a coordinate checker (which are now apparently good but we are quite discouraged from discussing that) but instead implying that all of those posters are so stupid that they didn't read your Post #16.

 

To me, you're not playing well with others in this topic; you post a topic with a declarative statement on a message board and then either try to dictate the flow of discussion by fiat or rudely attract readers to your post rather than being civil. Hence this response that I freely acknowledge uses the rude posting to make a point about civility in the forums and respect for what others are posting. If you open a topic on a discussion board, don't be shocked when discussion happens.

Yeah, because I found one that works. I don't think a single post has been on topic. If I was a moderator, this thread would be closed and sinking off the radar.

[+mrbort]

Oh, come on, guys! Just take a look at Post # 29 and it will all be settled.

I'll admit I scrolled up thrice... and now have a few minutes of my life I'll never get back

[knowschad]

I don't know... it seems to me that all except my last have been right on topic. All about coordinate checkers, good or bad, why you might have though them bad, and how you could improve on the situation that made you think they were bad. Its been a good thread, all in all, I thought.

Edited August 21, 2009 by knowschad

[+mrbort]

Post #16

 

This is the second time you've stepped in as the topic police. The first you castigated me in Post #15 for discussing the topic title "Coordinate checkers are no good" and now you're rudely just forum shouting not that you've implemented a coordinate checker (which are now apparently good but we are quite discouraged from discussing that) but instead implying that all of those posters are so stupid that they didn't read your Post #16.

 

To me, you're not playing well with others in this topic; you post a topic with a declarative statement on a message board and then either try to dictate the flow of discussion by fiat or rudely attract readers to your post rather than being civil. Hence this response that I freely acknowledge uses the rude posting to make a point about civility in the forums and respect for what others are posting. If you open a topic on a discussion board, don't be shocked when discussion happens.

Yeah, because I found one that works. I don't think a single post has been on topic. If I was a moderator, this thread would be closed and sinking off the radar.

 

Well you're not and it's not. And I'm glad for the former and really don't care about the latter. Discussions (this is a discussion board) are conversations. They have ebbs and flows and tangentially related diversions. If we had been discussing ONLY whether we had seen that type of thing (no clarification allowed, no side discussions about your declaration that coordinate checkers are no good.. which was the title of the topic), it would have been fairly bland and uninformative. One posts a topic and unless the discussion strays massively from the initial topic title or post content, that's communication. Just because you didn't like the communication and it exposed an exceedingly poorly though out thesis, you want to stifle it. Maybe the digression about your topic police tactics will get the job done and this yammering will sink to the peaceful embrace of the other ill-conceived topics that grace the topic graveyard (until some random person in a year responds to the original post at least).

 

I'm glad that you found a checker that worked for you but you're not the boss of people who post in your thread. Hope it works for you because it seems like you have a lot of enthusiasm for the hobby and are thinking up some creative caches and a lot of possible improvements to the website.

[+Puppy Dawg]

....nevermind....

Edited August 21, 2009 by GeoBigDawg

[+paleolith]

Note that if you find two caches almost 3/10 miles apart, there's a 1/10 mile in the middle of the span between them where you can place another cache and block any new caches between the two. This kind of location choice would make battleship a lot more difficult.

 

It appears that the time limit in Evince is done by logging IP addresses. This is a poor way to handle it, since all users behind a single NAT appear to have the same IP address, and thus the time limits apply to the group. I can't actually try it right now, but Evince didn't place a cookie (which could be easily deleted or refused, so they are right not to bother), and I don't know of any other way they could do the timing.

 

Edward (who remembers drawing our own battleship grids with paper, pencil, and ruler)