Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
DudleyGrunt

Question on Puzzle Caches

Recommended Posts

I'm curious about any limitations of the sources of information collection in order to solve a puzzle cache.

 

Without going into detail, I'm considering a little bit of a different puzzle cache. I was wondering whether the Groundspeak community understands there to be any limitations where I can require people to go to get information to solve the puzzle.

 

The cache page itself will not specifically direct them anywhere, but they will need to figure out where to get the information and then use specific resources to get to the specific location(s) to get it.

 

Is this vague enough?

Edited by DudleyGrunt

Share this post


Link to post

I'm curious about any limitations of the sources of information collection in order to solve a puzzle cache.

 

Without going into detail, I'm considering a little bit of a different puzzle cache. I was wondering whether the Groundspeak community understands there to be any limitations where I can require people to go to get information to solve the puzzle.

 

The cache page itself will not specifically direct them anywhere, but they will need to figure out where to get the information and then use specific resources to get to the specific location(s) to get it.

 

Is this vague enough?

 

According to the guidelines:

 

"The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page."

Share this post


Link to post
Is this vague enough?

If you plan to make the puzzle this vague I doubt it can be published, let alone found.

Share this post


Link to post

According to the guidelines:

 

"The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page."

 

It'll fit those guidelines.

 

Do the "no solicitation" guidelines limit my options? No money would have to be spent to retrieve the information.

Share this post


Link to post

According to the guidelines:

 

"The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page."

 

It'll fit those guidelines.

 

Do the "no solicitation" guidelines limit my options? No money would have to be spent to retrieve the information.

 

There are caches that involve people going into libraries and such to obtain certain information... but I'm not exactly sure how they worked it out to fit into the guidelines. In that case, I would ask your local reviewer ahead of time to see what they consider to be kosher.

Share this post


Link to post
Is this vague enough?

If you plan to make the puzzle this vague I doubt it can be published, let alone found.

 

The cache will be solvable, but like many puzzles I've looked at perhaps not immediately clear what you need to do. Some examination, thought and research would allow the cacher to figure out what to do.

 

I just don't want to give it away here.

 

I'll hazard a guess that this will be the first of its kind. As such, it will likely engender some discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

Others have pointed you to the guidelines, and told you to contact your local reviewer. Without more details, we can't say more. And ultimately, what we say won't matter. All that really matters is what your local reviewer says.

 

A "first of its kind" puzzle is good. But if I were creating a "first of its kind" puzzle, I'd be even more careful to work closely with my reviewer. When someone posts a Needs Archived log because you've done something they've never seen before, you want your local reviewer to think "Oh, we discussed that beforehand and it's okay", rather than "What? He never told me that! Where's the Archive button?"

Share this post


Link to post

And don't be too disappointed if your cache first isn't found at all, then a few finds dripple in and all of a sudden it looks almost like a park&grab.

Share this post


Link to post
The cache will be solvable, but like many puzzles I've looked at perhaps not immediately clear what you need to do. Some examination, thought and research would allow the cacher to figure out what to do.

Part of the challenge of some puzzles is to be able to find the puzzle. With a lot, they are right there in plain view, but for some, you may not see anything right off the bat.

Edited by Skippermark

Share this post


Link to post
Is this vague enough?

If you plan to make the puzzle this vague I doubt it can be published, let alone found.

 

The cache will be solvable, but like many puzzles I've looked at perhaps not immediately clear what you need to do. Some examination, thought and research would allow the cacher to figure out what to do.

 

I just don't want to give it away here.

 

I'll hazard a guess that this will be the first of its kind. As such, it will likely engender some discussion.

 

Oh, I've got some pretty obtuse puzzle caches. :) (I'll e-mail you one.) Found once last August. Three people have solved it. It' completely off the wall. But it is solvable if you can figure out the puzzle! Hee hee hee.

Share this post


Link to post

Is this vague enough?

No, you cannot use a Geocaching.com listing to promote another listing service, nor require that a geocacher sign up for an account on another listing service or find a cache listed on another listing service, in order to log a find on a Geocaching.com listing.

 

Next question?

Share this post


Link to post
Is this vague enough?

 

Why beat around the bush? Your puzzle would require people to find caches on three other listing services.

 

It's kind of sad that you're openly proclaiming your intent on another site but playing dumb, so to speak, about it on this one.

Share this post


Link to post

And don't be too disappointed if your cache first isn't found at all, then a few finds dripple in and all of a sudden it looks almost like a park&grab.

the P&G would be when it hits the phone a friend networks!

Share this post


Link to post

Is this vague enough?

No, you cannot use a Geocaching.com listing to promote another listing service, nor require that a geocacher sign up for an account on another listing service or find a cache listed on another listing service, in order to log a find on a Geocaching.com listing.

 

Next question?

 

Would this also apply to a cache requiring finds on Waymarking in order to log the cache?

Share this post


Link to post

It has already been stated that Challenge Caches can require logging Waymark visits.. I expect that puzzle solutions could require involving Waymarking which is not a competitive caching site, is owned by Groundspeak, and does not require a separate account.

Team Taran

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, I hadn't responded sooner. I dont' make on these forums much and hadn't gotten (or seen) reply notifications, witch I thought I'd set.

 

niraD - I don't agree that what my fellow cachers think doesn't matter. It may not matter to some, but I'd rather discuss things with fellow cachers first in an effort to flesh out what I want to do. Then, when I know what I want to do, if I can't make it work on a particular site, I can go elsewhere with it, if that is the best option.

 

A&T - Since Groundspeak frowns on even mentioning other sites, it's sort of necessary to be a bit vague. The other sites aren't afraid of acknowledging each other. I guess your note on the other forum wasn't as tongue-in-cheek as I'd thought. Despite the vagueness, I have been attempting to decide exactly what I can and can't do and have no desire to provide any false information to my reviewer when it comes time to publish the cache.

 

Keystone - the users would not have to log any other caches or even log into any other site. As I'm envisioning it now, they'd be able to figure the coordinates of three other stages / containers where they would collect information to find the final cache (on GC.com) as with any other puzzle cache.

 

The only different thing would be that these other stages would also be their own caches on the other sites. I know there are there are plenty of caches on two of the other sites that are "crosslisted" on Groundspeak. To my understanding Groundspeak does not forbid crosslisting caches on other sties. That is pretty much the same thing as my 3 intermediate stages.

 

One way to not have to worry about any of this would be make one of the other sites the final and the GC.com cache simply one of the ones caches along the way. However, it seemed sort of natural to have the GC.com cache the ultimate find as they are the one that stands apart from the others. I'm not sure there are any GC guidelines that would / could prevent me from requiring some one on site X, Y, or Z from finding a GC cache in order to log a cache on Site X.

 

Of course, I could also fully acknowledge and concede to GC's desire to not play well with others by leaving them out of it all together, but then it would seem a bit incomplete.

 

HD / TT - the difference, of course is that Waymarking is part of the Groundspeak family and therefore would be acceptable.

 

Thanks to everyone else, as well for you input.

Edited by DudleyGrunt

Share this post


Link to post

Of course the other sites wouldn't complain. They'd be getting free advertising on their biggest competitors dime. GC.com doesn't need the advertising at the smaller sites. Everyone there knows they exists.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm referring to their general policies / guidelines, whether in their forums or on their cache pages. Two of the three, even have links on their cache pages to find the nearlest caches on other sites.

 

They also don't mind mentions of the other "alternative" sites. Though, I'd think, they would have more to lose from people discussing Groundspeak than Groundspeak would have from people mentioning them.

 

Believe it or not some people make it to site X, Y, or Z as their first caching site. If the first site you come across is Site X and it has 10,000 caches wold-wide, and you read a post than mentions GC.com with it's 1 million plus caches, you just might be tempted to move over here.

 

I think it's just more of a philosophy than anything else.

Edited by DudleyGrunt

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would only HELP Groundspeak, as it seems the perception of GS lately seems to be (at least in what I see) that they are a bit of a "bully" when there's absolutely no reason for them to be. Dudley hit it on the head in his last post.

Share this post


Link to post
I think it would only HELP Groundspeak, as it seems the perception of GS lately seems to be (at least in what I see) that they are a bit of a "bully" when there's absolutely no reason for them to be. Dudley hit it on the head in his last post.

 

I fail to see where Groundspeak is being a bully. If anything, the general tone of some of the alternative sites hasn't changed much since I first discovered them a few years ago...that tone being the angst of disgruntled cachers complaining about Groundspeak on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post

Of course the other sites wouldn't complain. They'd be getting free advertising on their biggest competitors dime. GC.com doesn't need the advertising at the smaller sites. Everyone there knows they exists.

This comment and a couple others earlier in this chain show the real problem here. The philosophy of Groundspeak is that people should only participate in one geocaching site, and that one should be Groundspeak's. They have come to see it solely as a business competition, not recognizing that many people participate in more than one subset of geocaching, and that what I do on other sites doesn't have any impact on their profits, since I'm still a member here. That attitude has cost them money by creating a vibe here that makes people consider the other options. They certainly don't need the advertising, but some businesses recognize the benefits of a good public image.

Share this post


Link to post
I think it would only HELP Groundspeak, as it seems the perception of GS lately seems to be (at least in what I see) that they are a bit of a "bully" when there's absolutely no reason for them to be. Dudley hit it on the head in his last post.

 

I fail to see where Groundspeak is being a bully. If anything, the general tone of some of the alternative sites hasn't changed much since I first discovered them a few years ago...that tone being the angst of disgruntled cachers complaining about Groundspeak on a regular basis.

 

1. It doesn't really matter if they are being a bully, if they are being perceived as acting like one by enough people. I'm not sure that is the word I'd use, but I do think it's become less about providing a service to geocachers and more about the business.

 

2. We all have our own perspectives on things, but it is the forums here that I have found to be way too negative. For that reason, I don't come here often. I have 8 or so other caching forums that I use and they largely meet my needs. I rarely see any bashing of Groundspeak / GC.com in the forums of the "alternate" caching sites. Expressing a difference of opinion with the Lily Pad isn't necessarily unusual and it should be expected for folks to compare and contrast the different sites.

 

Of course the other sites wouldn't complain. They'd be getting free advertising on their biggest competitors dime. GC.com doesn't need the advertising at the smaller sites. Everyone there knows they exists.

This comment and a couple others earlier in this chain show the real problem here. The philosophy of Groundspeak is that people should only participate in one geocaching site, and that one should be Groundspeak's. They have come to see it solely as a business competition, not recognizing that many people participate in more than one subset of geocaching, and that what I do on other sites doesn't have any impact on their profits, since I'm still a member here. That attitude has cost them money by creating a vibe here that makes people consider the other options. They certainly don't need the advertising, but some businesses recognize the benefits of a good public image.

 

Thanks for the comments, SF! You know I use four caching sites, myself, and they all have good and bad points. I think very few people realize that one of these "alternative" sites is only a few months younger than GC.com AND that GC.com was NOT born on May 3, 2000.

Edited by DudleyGrunt

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...