Puzzling Cache

[+1Lonerunner]

Hi! I am new to Geocaching. I have found 13 and I have one hide that was hidden on May 1st and approved yesterday. It is an "Unknown/mystery Cache with a Puzzle attribute. A guy says he "found it" but admits he only found one piece of the cache.....What about it?

[+The A-Team]

Hi! I am new to Geocaching. I have found 13 and I have one hide that was hidden on May 1st and approved yesterday. It is an "Unknown/mystery Cache with a Puzzle attribute. A guy says he "found it" but admits he only found one piece of the cache.....What about it?

How does the puzzle tie into the cache? Do you need to solve something to open the container, or to find the container? If someone was able to sign the log without doing what you intended, then I'd congratulate them for thinking outside of the box and finding a loophole, then close that loophole. I'm sure you wouldn't want to give away too much information here, but it's hard for us to give you any advice without seeing or knowing what it looks like.

[Pup Patrol]

Hi! I am new to Geocaching. I have found 13 and I have one hide that was hidden on May 1st and approved yesterday. It is an "Unknown/mystery Cache with a Puzzle attribute. A guy says he "found it" but admits he only found one piece of the cache.....What about it?

 

The finder says he signed the log. Sounds to me like he found the cache.

 

If there was more to do than find an ammo can with a log book in it, I would be confused as a finder. Once I see a log book, I assume that I've find the final cache.

 

It's up to you, of course, as the cache owner. But if you're saying that the finder didn't "complete" the puzzle, then you should contact the finder and have a discussion with him/her about it.

 

 

B.

[+lamoracke]

course, the rules say that a find is signing the log book (unless its a challenge cache). You can find a puzzle by random luck in the woods. Maybe it was not solved or found the intended way, but a signature is a signature, however it was found.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I don't see what the problem is here. Or why it's a mystery cache...

He found the cache, and signed the log book. What more are you expecting?

I've brute forced a few caches in my day. Sign log book. Get smiley. (Well, except for the CO who tore my signature out of the log book, and changed the hide. I do not search for any of his caches anymore.) Hey! I signed the log book. That is all that is required for a smiley. I do not have to do it the way you expect me to do it.

I don't see what the problem is here.

[+1Lonerunner]

The lock was picked using a key he had....it is in his post....the key was the puzzle attribute. I was told by the reviewer I had to make it an "Unknown/Mystery Cache" with puzzle attribute. I complied. I am not upset about it, just don't think it was a "find" if the parts to the puzzle are not found. Thanks.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

The lock was picked using a key he had....it is in his post....the key was the puzzle attribute. I was told by the reviewer I had to make it an "Unknown/Mystery Cache" with puzzle attribute. I complied. I am not upset about it, just don't think it was a "find" if the parts to the puzzle are not found. Thanks.

 

If what he did was solve the problem in a manner other than what you intended, well, all I can say is that you should expect that this will happen from time to time. Provided he didn't damage your physical cache, I don't really see a problem with that.

[+SwineFlew]

I don't see what the problem is here. Or why it's a mystery cache...

He found the cache, and signed the log book. What more are you expecting?

I've brute forced a few caches in my day. Sign log book. Get smiley. (Well, except for the CO who tore my signature out of the log book, and changed the hide. I do not search for any of his caches anymore.) Hey! I signed the log book. That is all that is required for a smiley. I do not have to do it the way you expect me to do it.

I don't see what the problem is here.

A find and a find as long the logbook is signed.

 

I am late into geocaching and I can see why GS keeps adding more and more guidelines to keep those power-trip CO in line.

 

There was a CO here that made a puzzle unsolvable and cachers were guessing where the final cache was and the CO was really mad. I guess the cachers were ripping up the area to find the cache, of what the CO said. I can solved part of the puzzle and got stumped like everybody else and I guess where the final was base on the finished part of the puzzle but didnt have the time to go out and search for it at the time. They didnt delete anyone logs but archived the puzzle.

 

I can see why there is a new guideline that you have to tell the reviewer how to solve the puzzle, step by step.

[+The A-Team]

There was a CO here that made a puzzle unsolvable and cachers were guessing where the final cache was and the CO was really mad.

If they didn't want it found, why did they hide it? Seems like a pretty pointless cache to me.

[+captnemo]

The lock was picked using a key he had....it is in his post....the key was the puzzle attribute. I was told by the reviewer I had to make it an "Unknown/Mystery Cache" with puzzle attribute. I complied. I am not upset about it, just don't think it was a "find" if the parts to the puzzle are not found. Thanks.

 

If what he did was solve the problem in a manner other than what you intended, well, all I can say is that you should expect that this will happen from time to time. Provided he didn't damage your physical cache, I don't really see a problem with that.

This happens now and then so email the finder with a congrats for the FTF and move on. Better yet go caching.

[+rosebud55112]

 

I can see why there is a new guideline that you have to tell the reviewer how to solve the puzzle, step by step.

 

Since when?

[Keystone]

 

I can see why there is a new guideline that you have to tell the reviewer how to solve the puzzle, step by step.

 

Since when?

Since April 24th, though the new guideline language simply memorializes something that reviewers could and did do anyway. Now we have something to point to when someone says "I don't want to tell you."

[+Walts Hunting]

He found it and signed the log. Obviously he didn't do it the way you wanted but he complied with all the froggies requirements.

[+jeffrae]

What bothers me more is that is sounds like the finder took some good swag and left lots of cheaper swag to equal the value.

[+rosebud55112]

 

I can see why there is a new guideline that you have to tell the reviewer how to solve the puzzle, step by step.

 

Since when?

Since April 24th, though the new guideline language simply memorializes something that reviewers could and did do anyway. Now we have something to point to when someone says "I don't want to tell you."

 

Wow, I didn't know that. My last couple of submissions must have been self-evident.

[Pup Patrol]

 

I can see why there is a new guideline that you have to tell the reviewer how to solve the puzzle, step by step.

 

Since when?

Since April 24th, though the new guideline language simply memorializes something that reviewers could and did do anyway. Now we have something to point to when someone says "I don't want to tell you."

 

Wow, I didn't know that. My last couple of submissions must have been self-evident.

 

Updated Guidelines:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=308

 

 

B.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[+Planet]

What bothers me more is that is sounds like the finder took some good swag and left lots of cheaper swag to equal the value.

Now how do you get that out of "took one item, left several more"??? And it took me a second but they left a O2it. That's a Round Tuit. Sounds like it's their signature item. Maybe someday I'll get a round tuit.

I don't really see much of a puzzle on the cache page. I guess you have to be there. But you did give the final coordinates to the cache.

Maybe they didn't have the cache page with them. Regardless, they signed the log. I'd be interested to see what the next finders do.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Planet