Crowdsource your puzzle design

[+Viajero Perdido]

Hi Everyone.

 

I found a rather cool idea for a puzzle cache in another town (original here), and brought it back to my own town (with credit where due), and it seems to have taken off. Here's the basic idea:

 

• Cachers post questions as notes on the cache page. Questions must be such that the owner can answer with a simple Yes or No.
• Questions must be meaningful to all.
• No more than three questions per cacher.
• Owner answers no more than one question per day.

So the owner simply provides a hide and posts the skeleton of a puzzle (as above), and other cachers design the puzzle.

 

We've done this four times now in my own town, and it's fascinating to see the puzzles they've designed; especially numbers three and four. Many of the questions are puzzles within the puzzle!

 

I thought it would be a simple matter of Is it west of here?, Is it north of there?, until it was narrowed down to a small searchable box (hence the name, Binary Search). But nooo, our locals are much more devious than that. It's amazing what some determined FTF hunters can dream up...

 

Anyway, I offer the idea up for grabs to anybody who wants to give it a try; it seems to be a lot of fun for all involved.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Hi Everyone.

 

I found a rather cool idea for a puzzle cache in another town (original here), and brought it back to my own town (with credit where due), and it seems to have taken off. Here's the basic idea:

 

• Cachers post questions as notes on the cache page. Questions must be such that the owner can answer with a simple Yes or No.
• Questions must be meaningful to all.
• No more than three questions per cacher.
• Owner answers no more than one question per day.

So the owner simply provides a hide and posts the skeleton of a puzzle (as above), and other cachers design the puzzle.

 

We've done this four times now in my own town, and it's fascinating to see the puzzles they've designed; especially numbers three and four. Many of the questions are puzzles within the puzzle!

 

I thought it would be a simple matter of Is it west of here?, Is it north of there?, until it was narrowed down to a small searchable box (hence the name, Binary Search). But nooo, our locals are much more devious than that. It's amazing what some determined FTF hunters can dream up...

 

Anyway, I offer the idea up for grabs to anybody who wants to give it a try; it seems to be a lot of fun for all involved.

 

I did a puzzle like this a few years ago and it was great fun. In my case, I was collaborating with someone else that lived close to the the final location while I live about 300 miles away. We were the first to solve, and my collaborator was the FTF on the cache, and I got second on it. It was at a location where I would be spending a couple of days on the way to Maine. I asked a specific question that the CO chose not to answer publicly as it would have given too much away. The puzzle itself was rated at 5 stars and was quite elegant.

[+tweetiepy]

WOW the example you posted in is practically in my backyard! - pretty close to my place - unfortunately, it's been archived before we discovered caching, but i like the idea - I see a lot of familiar names on the log

 

I hope someone around here does another like that one - I could actually solve it...

[+Viajero Perdido]

I did a puzzle like this a few years ago and it was great fun.

 

Links to similar puzzles would be most appreciated. Thanks!

[+Condorito]

Sounds interesting, I might suggest it to the geocaching community near me, see if anyone wants to create one...

[+akkatracker]

Very interesting.

Will make one myself.

[kanchan]

Thanks for sharing the idea. I should create one like that!

[+Viajero Perdido]

Post links! But maybe wait until FTF, unless you want questions from the whole darn internet.

[kanchan]

Post links! But maybe wait until FTF, unless you want questions from the whole darn internet.

 

Too sad. It was just rejected by our local reviewer.

 

Hi kanchan,

 

Thanks for the submission, but I'm afraid that your cache concept is no longer acceptable under the current Guidelines. In a nutshell, all the information that is needed to derive the coordinates, should be available on the Listing page at the time of Publication. Such question and answer type of Listings didn't always work out so well, and are no longer allowed.

 

Sorry,

Nomex

Northern California Volunteer Reviewer

[+Viajero Perdido]

Doh!!!

[+CanadianRockies]

Too sad. It was just rejected by our local reviewer.

 

Hi kanchan,

 

Thanks for the submission, but I'm afraid that your cache concept is no longer acceptable under the current Guidelines. In a nutshell, all the information that is needed to derive the coordinates, should be available on the Listing page at the time of Publication. Such question and answer type of Listings didn't always work out so well, and are no longer allowed.

 

Sorry,

Nomex

Northern California Volunteer Reviewer

Many puzzle caches require information not provided on the listing page but rather obtained from an Internet search, a library book, or local waypoints. I've also seen numerous "unknowns" that say something like "the cache is somewhere within 50 metres of the posted coordinates. Happy hunting."

 

I submitted one of these types of caches this afternoon and will be curious to see if it is published. Or maybe this is just another one of those hidden guideline violations that 99.98461% of cache creators are supposed to magically know.

Edited May 11, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+AdventureRat]

Too sad. It was just rejected by our local reviewer.

 

Hi kanchan,

 

Thanks for the submission, but I'm afraid that your cache concept is no longer acceptable under the current Guidelines. In a nutshell, all the information that is needed to derive the coordinates, should be available on the Listing page at the time of Publication. Such question and answer type of Listings didn't always work out so well, and are no longer allowed.

 

Sorry,

Nomex

Northern California Volunteer Reviewer

Many puzzle caches require information not provided on the listing page but rather obtained from an Internet search, a library book, or local waypoints. I've also seen numerous "unknowns" that say something like "the cache is somewhere within 50 metres of the posted coordinates. Happy hunting."

 

I submitted one of these types of caches this afternoon and will be curious to see if it is published. Or maybe this is just another one of those hidden guideline violations that 99.98461% of cache creators are supposed to magically know.

 

Being a big puzzle fan, I loved the concept when I first read this topic, however I immediately began to wonder how a reviewer could justify publication under the current guidelines. The response from Nomex just leaves me more confused. I get the impression that a reviewer crossed the line when the first cache of this type was published, and then Groundspeak decided to let it go for a while as an unadvertised experiment, which they have now decided to bring to an end. I'd really be interested in seeing more of the history behind the evolution of this puzzle type from a Groundspeak/reviewer point of view.

[+Viajero Perdido]

They may be concerned with people playing Battleship, placing "hides" they never intend to publish, purely for a proximity check to narrow down the location of the cache. A potential waste of the reviewer's time.

 

My reviewer did express this concern (it happened). What I did with my most recent two puzzles of this style was to post a note (down at the bottom of the logs, where it's in full view during gameplay), discouraging cachers from playing that trick because the reviewers are wise to it. To my knowledge, it hasn't happened again.

[+St.Matthew]

I suspect that there is a way around it (sort of). You create some legitimate puzzle, where one could presumably come up with actual coordinates, AND you give locals another way to find... by asking questions about coordinates and location.

[+Sat down]

I had one published today.... Thanks for the idea. I'll be interested to see how it pans out!

 

Here is the link to my cache

Edited May 12, 2013 by Sat down

[+AdventureRat]

I had one published today.... Thanks for the idea. I'll be interested to see how it pans out!

 

Here is the link to my cache

 

First off, let me reiterate, I do like this cache type.

 

However, Nomex and the reviewer that published this new cache are obviously not on the same page. One believes that it is not acceptable under the current guidelines and the other does.

[kanchan]

I suspect that there is a way around it (sort of). You create some legitimate puzzle, where one could presumably come up with actual coordinates, AND you give locals another way to find... by asking questions about coordinates and location.

Nice idea! But I'm afraid that any legitimate puzzles I can create will be solved by local puzzle addicts in no time, or at least before the puzzle is solved in the "alternative" method.

 

But if I can come up a 25-star puzzle idea, I will give it a try!

[+hobgoblinkiteflier]

Sounds like fun. I will see if I can get one published in my area and let you know how it goes.

[kanchan]

St.Matthew's idea worked out! Thank you!

 

Please feel free to post questions if you like. I got no reaction from local cachers so far.

A puzzle for everybody — You're the puzzle maker!? (GC4BTZ0)

[+The_Incredibles_]

I had one published today.... Thanks for the idea. I'll be interested to see how it pans out!

 

Here is the link to my cache

 

First off, let me reiterate, I do like this cache type.

 

However, Nomex and the reviewer that published this new cache are obviously not on the same page. One believes that it is not acceptable under the current guidelines and the other does.

 

Maybe I should try one here to see what our reviewer does.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

These puzzles are different from the one that I was thinking of. For the one I did which involved the CO answering yes/no questions, the questions were not asked to narrow down the location of the cache but to figure out how a "real" puzzle could be solved. Instead of questions like "is the cache located north of highway 25?" questions like "is the number of words in the description relevant?" were used to determine how to solve a puzzle. One still had to solve a really elegant puzzle to determine the coordinates for the cache.

 

I suspect that the difference between the types of caches being discussed here and those that require someone to go on the internet and search web sites for information required to solve a puzzle is that these caches are dependent upon the cache owner responding and once the CO is away from a computer (I assume that the CO sleeps) any questions posted won't be answered. A puzzle which requires an internet search can be solved any time, as long as the site or sites which have the necessary information are up.

 

[+St.Matthew]

St.Matthew's idea worked out! Thank you!

 

Please feel free to post questions if you like. I got no reaction from local cachers so far.

A puzzle for everybody — You're the puzzle maker!? (GC4BTZ0)

 

Sure. Always a pleasure to help out. Sending you a PM.

[+St.Matthew]

.

Edited May 16, 2013 by St.Matthew

[+fizzymagic]

Anyway, I offer the idea up for grabs to anybody who wants to give it a try; it seems to be a lot of fun for all involved.

 

I believe the "fun" of these puzzle types is mainly for the hider. I cannot understand what fun it would be for the seekers, who mainly just have to wait while the CO answers poorly-thought-out questions slowly.

 

But that just may be me.

 

Sadly, this thread resulted in just such a cache in my area. Luckily, I can just ignore it for a month or so.

[+Viajero Perdido]

I believe the "fun" of these puzzle types is mainly for the hider. I cannot understand what fun it would be for the seekers, who mainly just have to wait while the CO answers poorly-thought-out questions slowly.

I think it's the people designing the puzzle, the ones collaborating and asking the questions and hoping for FTF, that are having the most fun. That's the definite sense I got, being the hider/enabler of four such caches. (I'd vote for hider having the second-most amount of fun; still a hoot but I miss being part of all the scheming.)

 

I keep getting asked, when's the next one?

Edited May 16, 2013 by Viajero Perdido

[+fizzymagic]

I believe the "fun" of these puzzle types is mainly for the hider. I cannot understand what fun it would be for the seekers, who mainly just have to wait while the CO answers poorly-thought-out questions slowly.

I think it's the people designing the puzzle, the ones collaborating and asking the questions and hoping for FTF, that are having the most fun. That's the definite sense I got, being the hider/enabler of four such caches.

I can see that if there were collaboration, it might be fun. However, you provided no way to help people collaborate on the questions; there is nothing to prevent somebody from blocking everyone else out for three days with stupid or useless questions. I guess I don't see the fun in that. YMMV, however.

[+Viajero Perdido]

I think the max-three-questions rule nudges people into collaborating, and consider it one of the most brilliant features of the original design.

 

Also, in my town at least, people (teams) have crafted questions that don't give it all away to people who come to the game later; that is, it doesn't boil down to a simple question like, is it inside these four close boundaries? Instead they've crafted questions that don't make the earlier questions moot; you have to go through them all. I can see why; the people who've worked toward an FTF want to preserve their advantage. I've seen trick questions to throw other people off the trail, and more.

 

It's fascinating to see how the game evolves. It's like a sociology experiment.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Viajero Perdido

[+fizzymagic]

I can see why; the people who've worked toward an FTF want to preserve their advantage. I've seen trick questions to throw other people off the trail, and more.

That's just sad. I find it a little odd that you would perceive people intentionally trying to mislead others as "fun." Whatever.

[+mwellman]

We thoroughly enjoyed participating in two Binary Searches (III and IV)!

 

It was fun crafting questions that would help us narrow the search area while confounding any rivals. And only have three questions made you plan your questions very carefully. And then to find some allies who would help you?

 

Can't wait for Binary V!

[+KendraH]

St.Matthew's idea worked out! Thank you!

 

Please feel free to post questions if you like. I got no reaction from local cachers so far.

A puzzle for everybody — You're the puzzle maker!? (GC4BTZ0)

 

It was published around 9pm and got two questions that day, and another two before 6am the next day. How is that "no reaction"? With only one question answered per day, it seems more like overreaction to me. By the time many people saw the puzzle, four days were claimed already.

 

Eleven people are currently watching the puzzle. I think most people want to wait and see the answer to previous questions before asking new questions, but a few people are jumping the gun with poorly-thought-out questions, so we have to wait several days before learning anything new. Disallowing the same person from asking consecutive questions would help - that's what I thought "only one (1) at a time" meant.

Edited May 17, 2013 by KendraH

[kanchan]

How is that "no reaction"?

All that you mentioned have happened after my posting here.

 

I wonder why only mine is creating that much frustration than just a little bit of fun, while the precedents posted here have all been so successful.

 

Now I regret.

[+cachbefound]

I think the lack of fun comes from the fact that there's no real forum to support collaboration. What you seem to be doing is a duplication of our local V activities on a much smaller scale.

[+The North Star]

 

I wonder why only mine is creating that much frustration than just a little bit of fun, while the precedents posted here have all been so successful.

Tough crowd

Edited May 17, 2013 by The North Star

[+KendraH]

How is that "no reaction"?

All that you mentioned have happened after my posting here.

 

I wonder why only mine is creating that much frustration than just a little bit of fun, while the precedents posted here have all been so successful.

 

Now I regret.

 

I'm sorry - please unarchive it. I think it's a great idea! I was frustrated that some of the early questions didn't seem to be narrowing the search area in an efficient manner, but I think it will get better.

[+fizzymagic]

I wonder why only mine is creating that much frustration than just a little bit of fun, while the precedents posted here have all been so successful.

 

I'll try to be objective here, to analyze the situation quite apart from my own feelings about the puzzle.

 

If you put out a crowdsourced puzzle and tell people that they have the freedom to make the puzzle what they want, then it doesn't make sense to archive it because it didn't go the way you wanted it to.

But aside from that, I don't think this type of puzzle is a good fit for an area with a very large number of extremely smart puzzle solvers. There are two reasons for that.

 

First, if you try to pit yourself against very smart people, they are going to figure out a way to beat you. I have experienced this several times in my years of doing geocaching puzzles. If you can accept being "beaten," then by all means make it a them-against-me contest. If you want to win, then you are set up for failure. I have learned (somewhat painfully) to enjoy the ways in which very smart puzzle solvers find solutions to my caches that I never considered. I have seen many other COs, though, that get very upset when somebody figures out a clever end-run around their puzzle.

 

Second, when you pit cachers against each other (which seems to be the primary intent of this kind of puzzle) they will come up with unexpected ways to beat each other. In this case there was an alternate puzzle on the cache page. A completely rational way for a cacher to try to be FTF would be to intentionally slow down the solution of the 20-questions puzzle while working on the other one. It's my impression that this scenario is, in fact, what happened.

 

Look, there is nothing wrong with a puzzle concept that doesn't go exactly the way you planned. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with putting out a puzzle that a lot of people don't like, or that is mainly for the amusement of the CO. I've done both. For example, my Mind your Master was like that. I put it out mainly to see if I could design a puzzle that could not be leeched. It was for my amusement. Turns out some people liked it, so I have left it out. My Neutrino cache is not particularly popular, but I like it, so I leave it up.

 

I don't think that a less-than-enthusiastic response from a few people should be enough to archive a cache. Yes, I did not like the puzzle, and I was willing to say so. Yes, others seemed to be trying to frustrate that puzzle and it didn't evolve the way the CO wanted. But, like it or not, that is exactly what happens when you choose to be the CO for this kind of cache.

[kanchan]

I learned a lot, and will try not to repeat the same mistake. Thanks.

[+hobgoblinkiteflier]

I tried to set one in my area, but my reviewer rejected it

 

The reason they gave was that all the information needed to solve the puzzle should be on the page and that depending on the questions you might end up being able to find the cache without using a GPS.

 

Oh well, it was worth a try. Perhaps I could make up the list of devious questions and answers myself...

[+wimseyguy]

Oh well, it was worth a try. Perhaps I could make up the list of devious questions and answers myself...

That should work as it would then become a logic puzzle, and not 'guess where my cache is'.

[+CanadianRockies]

My binary search cache (GC4BRV3) was approved and has been found. People seem to have enjoyed it so far, even non-FTFers.

[+Ringrat]

My binary search cache (GC4BRV3) was approved and has been found. People seem to have enjoyed it so far, even non-FTFers.

 

Congrats!

Looks like this type of cache will go nowhere in BC. I checked with my reviewer before submitting anything and they consulted with other BC Reviewers and came up with the same answer as was received by others on this forum.

This was the reply:

Thank you for the email about a proposed cache you were considering based on GC11M17. I have consulted with the other BC Reviewers and the collective answer is:

 

***Unfortunately, this type of puzzle cache is no longer publishable, per the guideline: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#mystery

 

Mystery/Puzzle Caches

 

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

 

The information needed to solve the cache would not be on the cache page until a number of questions/answers were posted.***

 

I know this is not the answer you were looking for, but I really wanted to make sure the BC reviewers were all reading the cache and the guidelines with the same result. I am sure you realize the Listing Guidelines are frequently updated and just because a cache 'was published before' does not mean that it would be within the guidelines at the present time.

 

Cachin' Cricket

Volunteer Reviewer for geocaching.com

[+CanadianRockies]

My binary search cache (GC4BRV3) was approved and has been found. People seem to have enjoyed it so far, even non-FTFers.

Looks like this type of cache will go nowhere in BC. I checked with my reviewer before submitting anything and they consulted with other BC Reviewers and came up with the same answer as was received by others on this forum.

Ironically, the Volunteer Reviewer who published my puzzle lives in BC.

[+Ringrat]

Ironically, the Volunteer Reviewer who published my puzzle lives in BC.

 

Yep, I hosted their "coming out" event by accident.

 

That's ok, it leaves me able to focus on my other caches I'm working on for the Blitz.

[+AdventureRat]

I'm still bothered by the lack of consistency by the reviewers in regard to this type of cache. There doesn't appear to be any significant difference between the cache submissions that were approved and the ones that were denied, yet we have different results from different reviewers.

 

I'd really like to see some clarification from Groundspeak on this. It might also be nice (and potentially quite entertaining) to hear from some reviewers that have published or denied these types of caches recently. If you've been denying these types of caches based upon the guidelines, please try and theorize how other reviewers could possibly publish them based upon the same guidlelines. If you've been publishing them, please try to relate how they actually fit into the present guidelines.

 

Yes, you can read from this that I don't believe that they fit the guidelines, but I really like the concept just the same.

[+KendraH]

Yes, you can read from this that I don't believe that they fit the guidelines, but I really like the concept just the same.

 

Then why are you advocating spoiling the fun for those who were lucky enough to get approved?

 

The most likely result of bringing specific similar caches to the attention of the "powers that be" is that they will be archived. This happened with (non-puzzle) caches in a certain park in my area - people asked for "clarification" on why new caches couldn't be placed there when there were already existing caches in the area. Result - the existing caches all got archived. :-(

Edited May 24, 2013 by KendraH

[+Viajero Perdido]

It seems to me the guidelines leave room for interpretation.

 

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

 

1. Note the softer should.

2. Note also, all the information necessary will be available on the cache page, within a week or three. Does it have to be available on the date of publishing? That's left unsaid.

[+AdventureRat]

Yes, you can read from this that I don't believe that they fit the guidelines, but I really like the concept just the same.

 

Then why are you advocating spoiling the fun for those who were lucky enough to get approved?

 

The most likely result of bringing specific similar caches to the attention of the "powers that be" is that they will be archived. This happened with (non-puzzle) caches in a certain park in my area - people asked for "clarification" on why new caches couldn't be placed there when there were already existing caches in the area. Result - the existing caches all got archived. :-(

 

I'm not trying to spoil the fun for anyone, but luck shouldn't be a factor in getting a cache listing approved. I'd think that the people that are having their caches denied are far from impressed with the inconsistency in the review process.

[+fionat]

I asked our local reviewer today if they would publish a cache based on this idea, and the answer was no - the cache does not meet the guideline that the cache is findable on the date of publication, and it does not require GPS usage.

 

They also said that Groundspeak had spoken to the reviewers that have published these caches, and future caches won't be allowed (I hope this wasn't a result of my query ). Shame, it looks like the puzzles are generating a lot of interest.

[+CanadianRockies]

I asked our local reviewer today if they would publish a cache based on this idea, and the answer was no - the cache does not meet the guideline that the cache is findable on the date of publication, and it does not require GPS usage.

Like VP, I wasn't able to find anything in the guidelines that said the cache must be findable on the date of publication (other than that it must be hidden at the time you submit your listing). Maybe this is another case of a non-public guideline that 99.98461% of the cache creating population magically knows about.

 

Technically, they are findable and just require lots of searching in the early days within 3 kilometres of the posted coordinates.

[+KendraH]

Yes, you can read from this that I don't believe that they fit the guidelines, but I really like the concept just the same.

 

Then why are you advocating spoiling the fun for those who were lucky enough to get approved?

 

The most likely result of bringing specific similar caches to the attention of the "powers that be" is that they will be archived. This happened with (non-puzzle) caches in a certain park in my area - people asked for "clarification" on why new caches couldn't be placed there when there were already existing caches in the area. Result - the existing caches all got archived. :-(

 

I'm not trying to spoil the fun for anyone, but luck shouldn't be a factor in getting a cache listing approved. I'd think that the people that are having their caches denied are far from impressed with the inconsistency in the review process.

 

Whether you are trying or not, the end result of what you are advocating is to spoil the fun for everyone. At least be fully aware that that is what you are doing before you do it.

Edited May 24, 2013 by KendraH

[+AdventureRat]

Yes, you can read from this that I don't believe that they fit the guidelines, but I really like the concept just the same.

 

Then why are you advocating spoiling the fun for those who were lucky enough to get approved?

 

The most likely result of bringing specific similar caches to the attention of the "powers that be" is that they will be archived. This happened with (non-puzzle) caches in a certain park in my area - people asked for "clarification" on why new caches couldn't be placed there when there were already existing caches in the area. Result - the existing caches all got archived. :-(

 

I'm not trying to spoil the fun for anyone, but luck shouldn't be a factor in getting a cache listing approved. I'd think that the people that are having their caches denied are far from impressed with the inconsistency in the review process.

 

Whether you are trying or not, the end result of what you are advocating is to spoil the fun for everyone. At least be fully aware that that is what you are doing before you do it.

 

I figured that it would come to this ... my name forever branded as the one that brought the end of crowdsourced caches.

 

This seems like one of those situations where no one is really getting hurt, so why say anything, right? Whether you think that the guidelines forbid this type of cache or not doesn't matter. What does matter is that Groundspeak apparently (based upon fionat's post) doesn't intend to allow this type of cache to be published, and has taken action to try and ensure that this situation is treated the same for everyone. And yes, in this instance, everyone does mean everyone.