Is my puzzle getting more difficult?

March 9, 2011

I hid a puzzle cache a couple of years ago called Monday, April 6, 2009. I started it at 2.5 stars difficulty, but upped it to 3.5 on the advice of the experienced cacher who was the FTF. I later added a hint and dropped it down to 3 stars.

As time passes, it gets fewer and fewer finds. I suppose that could just come from the fact that those that want to figure out a puzzle will hit it early on, and most cachers don't go for puzzles of this difficulty. But I'm concerned that it actually gets harder to figure out as the title date fades into the past.

I seek the advice of experienced puzzlers. Should I raise the difficulty? Maybe I should add a further hint? I don't actually mind that it isn't getting found that often, but I don't want the difficulty rating to mislead anyone.

Do me a favor, and try to avoid spoiling the puzzle in replies. If you just must discuss the details of the puzzle, please e-mail me through the cache page rather than post that sort of thing here in public.

Thanks for your consideration.

18.9k · March 9, 2011

I'm not sure the lack of visitors has anything to do with the difficulty rating. On my lone puzzle - I got 6 or 7 finds in the first 6 months and only 3 or 4 in 3 years since. All but one of the finds is a local cacher.

I have sort of concluded that very few cachers persue puzzle caches while traveling and not all local cachers care to even try puzzle caches. But as a few new cachers enter the activity, a few locals decide to give it a shot.

5.2k · March 9, 2011

From just a quick look at the page, I'm guessing the puzzle requires researching some sort of event that took place in the listed cities on the given date, or statistics of the listed cities as of the given date. I can imagine how that information may get harder and harder to find, which might require upping the difficulty. I suppose at some point you might need to hint at the location of the data.

It seems to me the cache is still getting found on a regular basis, with perhaps a break over the last 3 months due to weather. Although during that bad weather a few people may have solved it but not yet found the cache.

I wouldn't worry about anything yet.

March 9, 2011

Thanks for the replies so far. I do think I'm probably over-worrying.

One thing I forgot to add is that the hide is not far from some of Seattle's other great puzzles and less than two miles from Groundspeak. It's find history would be no surprise in more out-of-the-way spots, but we don't lack cachers around here.

2.4k · March 9, 2011

My regular caches got a lot of finds to start with, and then with time they get fewer and fewer finds.

I think this is normal.

The locals find the caches near them right away, and then those farther away find them when they get to your area.

If your puzzle is date related, you might try pretending you don't know the answer and try to find the results that you need online. Or have some friends give it a try. The answers may get harder and harder to find as time goes on. Perhaps another hint or a link as the years pass.

5.7k · March 9, 2011

I remember looking at that one when we were in Seattle last summer. I think we solved it but just didn't get to it.

Our puzzle caches (as well as our multis, our letterboxes, and our earth caches) get found much less often than our traditionals. We hid a few puzzle caches and a few traditional caches on the same stretch of road on the same day here in Montgomery. To date, the puzzles have about half the finds of the traditionals.

Our puzzle caches in Germany were more popular, but still not found as often as our traditionals. I think the best example is from five of our caches down in Darmstadt. We hid three traditional caches and one (sudoku variant) puzzle cache in Darmstadt in September 2007, all within walking distance of the train station and all on the same path. We hid a fifth traditional cache a little further than the rest. We archived all five caches on the same day in July 2009. In order of distance from the train station, the find totals on the traditionals were 571, 469, 468, and 363. The puzzle cache got 138 finds.

Some folks like puzzles, others just like finding caches. Different strokes, different folks.

March 9, 2011

Count me as one who loves puzzles, and who was also surprised to see how rarely a lot of them are found. I enjoyed solving yours and think the rating is about right. No problems finding what was required, and I liked the way you had us use the required information. I'm always looking for puzzles for my blog on them (see it here) and I think yours would be a good one for 3/31/11. Happy puzzling, and if I ever get to Seattle, I'll be sure to try to get the smilie.

7.7k · March 9, 2011

I managed to solve the puzzle without accessing theme specific information, so even if the information becomes hard to find later on, it will still be solvable.

2k · March 9, 2011

hey, a puzzle I know! I found this one in April 2010. Yeah, puzzle probably gets a tad more difficult as time goes on, but its still solvable. Once the die hard puzzle folks get it done and the folks who are in their groups, most puzzles do not get many hits, unless you are one of the very rare ones that is widely talked about (ie Digi Code). Am sure it will get some more finds, but like many, not too many.

To answer your question, yes, but its still solvable.

There are other ones of its ilk in Seattle that are in the same boat.

1.1k · March 9, 2011

I ended-up w/ an extra digit on North coords, but I went through pretty quick. I like it. Not sure how you could solve w/o theme data. 2.5 w/ the hint 3-3.5 w/o

5.3k · March 9, 2011

I solved it a year ago without using the hint. Despite what I wrote in my log, I don't believe that the puzzle will get all that much harder with time. I would prefer that people set a difficulty and leave it; otherwise, the finders' stats get all screwed up. Don't mess with it. It is a fine cache.

18.9k · March 9, 2011

I managed to solve the puzzle without accessing theme specific information, so even if the information becomes hard to find later on, it will still be solvable.

Sigh.....that why I don't do puzzle caches. I looked and I don't have a clue what to do, where to go, what to calculate or what to look up. No clue whatsoever.

3.3k · March 9, 2011

Thanks for the replies so far. I do think I'm probably over-worrying.

One thing I forgot to add is that the hide is not far from some of Seattle's other great puzzles and less than two miles from Groundspeak. It's find history would be no surprise in more out-of-the-way spots, but we don't lack cachers around here.

There are so many puzzles in the area and I only have so much time for solving them. After seeing you are in Seattle I had a look at the cache and very quickly understood what I needed to do to solve it. I would say your original difficulty rating was about right, especially with the excellent hint.

Lowering the difficulty rating should actually get more people to look at and try to solve your puzzle. I would bet that it you changed it to 2 stars you would get more finds.

Now I will have to find the cache when I am on the Seattle side of the lake!

1.2k · March 9, 2011

Well since you're in Seattle you're competing with a lot of other caches. I see 17 caches within 2 miles with 10 or more Favorite points. I know that's not everything, but if I've only got a day to spend your cache may not be on my list. Puzzles are usually done by a small percentage of cachers and most people who find it will be locals. I'm guessing that you're getting a few finds from new cachers and then a couple from out of town visitors.

I feel a 3 is a fine rating. It took a Google search and a minute to figure out the info needed. Then the hint quickly reveals what to do with that info. I think it is a cool and unique puzzle.

5.3k · March 9, 2011

Lowering the difficulty rating should actually get more people to look at and try to solve your puzzle. I would bet that it you changed it to 2 stars you would get more finds.

What makes you think that? If it were 2 stars I would not have even looked at it for my puzzle run in Seattle last summer.

Under-rating a puzzle cache does not, IMO, get you more finders. It just gets you annoyed people who can't solve the puzzle but think they should be able to easily.

March 10, 2011

I just wish there were more puzzle caches around here!! I enjoy them, and have given them a shot whenever someone mentions one in the Forums. I really like trying to solve them, and admire the creativity of some of the Owners. Although I have solved a few I doubt I will ever be able to hunt.

18.9k · March 10, 2011

I managed to solve the puzzle without accessing theme specific information, so even if the information becomes hard to find later on, it will still be solvable.

Sigh.....that why I don't do puzzle caches. I looked and I don't have a clue what to do, where to go, what to calculate or what to look up. No clue whatsoever.

ok - I actually managed to figure it out and confirmed the coords!!!! yipee!!

I still have no idea what you need to lookup though - solved it without looking a thing up - so agree with Chrysalides.

If a complete non-puzzle cacher like me could get it figured out in just under an hour with no looking things up - 3 sounds about right on the difficulty.

10.1k · March 10, 2011

Ah. You see, there are puzzles and there are puzzles. Some I put out to be evil. If you can solve them and find them, then go for them! But it doesn't bother me if no one does. Or if they have few finds. They're there to be challenging. I've got one that's almost five months without a solution. Oh, well. :rolleyes: Another that is ten months with one find. But I'm going to archive that one soon.

On the other fin, I also put out some very easy puzzles. I'll see people go through the local park, and find all the traditionals, and completely ignore the puzzles. Many people do just ignore all puzzles. I mean, how hard is this to solve?

7.7k · March 10, 2011

Under-rating a puzzle cache does not, IMO, get you more finders. It just gets you annoyed people who can't solve the puzzle but think they should be able to easily.

Can't agree more.

Rating a puzzle correctly, however, that can be a 10 page thread all on its own...

March 10, 2011

There are a bunch of puzzle caches near me. When I first started caching, I looked at those puzzles, had no idea what to do with most of them, so I ignored them and found 'actual' caches.

A year has passed, and I've become a better cacher, and a bit more obsessed about clearing out all the caches in my county. I've worked harder and solved a bunch of those puzzles. There are still some I haven't solved, but they will sit there til I do.

Changing the rating on them is not going to get me out there quicker. When the 'light bulb' goes off and I solve the puzzle, I'll go fetch it, regardless of the rating.

Not to mention what changing the rating does to those folks who are doing some sort of challenge cache and have to find so many caches of such a rating.

Edited March 10, 2011 by birder428

3.3k · March 10, 2011

Lowering the difficulty rating should actually get more people to look at and try to solve your puzzle. I would bet that it you changed it to 2 stars you would get more finds.

What makes you think that? If it were 2 stars I would not have even looked at it for my puzzle run in Seattle last summer.

Under-rating a puzzle cache does not, IMO, get you more finders. It just gets you annoyed people who can't solve the puzzle but think they should be able to easily.

I say that because I believe most cachers choose to ignore a puzzle cache that is rated three stars or more. They expect them to be hard. A puzzle cache rated two stars or less is going to be looked at by more cachers because they expect it will not be overly difficult to solve. I suggest this puzzle is not overly difficult to solve since I hit on the correct solution method in a minute or so. I do not think I made a lucky guess or something simply clicked. I believe the cache page as constructed is well done and guides the willing cacher to a fairly quick solution. I would be quite surprised if very many cachers who chose to seriously attempt to solve this puzzle would not be able to do so. This is why I suggest it should be a two star difficulty rating. A higher rating suggests the puzzle is more difficult and many cachers will choose not to attempt a solution without taking a minute or two to read the cache page and reflect.

With all of this I guess I am saying I believe the puzzle in question is rated as being more difficult than it is, which is why there have been fewer finds than the CO/OP hoped for. One way to test my theory is to lower the difficulty rating and see if the find rate increases.

5.6k · March 10, 2011

I managed to solve the puzzle without accessing theme specific information, so even if the information becomes hard to find later on, it will still be solvable.

Sigh.....that why I don't do puzzle caches. I looked and I don't have a clue what to do, where to go, what to calculate or what to look up. No clue whatsoever.

ok - I actually managed to figure it out and confirmed the coords!!!! yipee!!

I still have no idea what you need to lookup though - solved it without looking a thing up - so agree with Chrysalides.

If a complete non-puzzle cacher like me could get it figured out in just under an hour with no looking things up - 3 sounds about right on the difficulty.

Seeing how it is close to home (relatively), I had to take a look. I have a suspicion what I would need to look up, but solved it with just the info on the page. Next time I'm up that way...

March 10, 2011

Thanks for the replies so far. I do think I'm probably over-worrying.

One thing I forgot to add is that the hide is not far from some of Seattle's other great puzzles and less than two miles from Groundspeak. It's find history would be no surprise in more out-of-the-way spots, but we don't lack cachers around here.

There are so many puzzles in the area and I only have so much time for solving them. After seeing you are in Seattle I had a look at the cache and very quickly understood what I needed to do to solve it.

Living in the area I had to take a look. WRASTRO hit the nail on the head, at least in our area. When I started I would travel far and wide for puzzles as there were so few around. Now there are so many, and more coming all the time. A quick count revealed 580 puzzle caches (260 unfound) from my home coordinates before I get to this one, lots and lots of them. I do not recall looking at your puzzle before, maybe I did, but I have now! Reading over the logs I soon had an idea and a little searching and work later I had the solution. Is it more difficult now? I would say no, just a lot of choices for everyone to pick from. Hope to add my name to the list of finders soon.

3.3k · March 10, 2011

There are a bunch of puzzle caches near me. When I first started caching, I looked at those puzzles, had no idea what to do with most of them, so I ignored them and found 'actual' caches.

A year has passed, and I've become a better cacher, and a bit more obsessed about clearing out all the caches in my county. I've worked harder and solved a bunch of those puzzles. There are still some I haven't solved, but they will sit there til I do.

Changing the rating on them is not going to get me out there quicker. When the 'light bulb' goes off and I solve the puzzle, I'll go fetch it, regardless of the rating.

Not to mention what changing the rating does to those folks who are doing some sort of challenge cache and have to find so many caches of such a rating.

Which puzzles do you try to solve first? The lower rated ones or the higher rated ones? The argument for not changing the rating to not affect some sort of a challenge cache is weak at best. A low percentage of cachers do challenges and a puzzle cache in a high density area is highly unlikely to affect anyone.

15.3k · March 10, 2011

Which puzzles do you try to solve first? The lower rated ones or the higher rated ones?

I try to solve the nearest ones first, but that's just me...

3.3k · March 10, 2011

Which puzzles do you try to solve first? The lower rated ones or the higher rated ones?
I try to solve the nearest ones first, but that's just me...

Me too, but I am a bit of a radius slave. :anicute:

2k · March 10, 2011

Which puzzles do you try to solve first? The lower rated ones or the higher rated ones?
I try to solve the nearest ones first, but that's just me...

Me too, but I am a bit of a radius slave.

Am a radius slave myself, but sometimes I find nice solvable clusters.

For example, Marysville has a bunch of nice GeoEskimo puzzles and some other easy ones. Lost Lake had some interesting ones and got like 20+ in 1 hike. Not sure where my next large solvable puzzle area is, if one exists (excluding PEACE, NUTS, and BUGZ of course) and anywhere from Hansville to Seattle to Redmond to Everett I have already done.

Edited March 10, 2011 by lamoracke

1.2k · March 10, 2011

Which puzzles do you try to solve first? The lower rated ones or the higher rated ones?

I look at all the puzzles around and solve what I can solve. Sometimes I see a 4 and have already solved one similar so it's really a 2 for me. Other times I see a 2.5 and have trouble. I'm doing pretty well of clearing out all the puzzles near home (I actually have all but one solved and that one requires a kayak). I am also working on finding all the puzzles in Charlotte.

5.3k · March 10, 2011

Which puzzles do you try to solve first? The lower rated ones or the higher rated ones?

The higher-rated ones.

Is my puzzle getting more difficult?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation