Jump to content

What Irks you most?


avroair
Followers 50

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BendSinister said:

I'm not sure of the scale of the threats to the Geocaching business model this stuff aims to prevent, but when it impinges so drastically on what I see as a natural extension of cache maintenance (of caches placed in the almost continuous six year period when I was paying for Premium membership) it feels a little petty and aggressively punitive.

 

There was a significant, widespread spam attack that exploited the message center.  The restriction was put in place rather quickly as part of ending that emergency.  Message Center functionality was cut off totally for a period of time while this band-aid was coded.

 

Here is a link to one of the many discussions for this horrible spam attack.

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
On 1/23/2022 at 8:13 PM, Keystone said:

There was a significant, widespread spam attack that exploited the message center.  The restriction was put in place rather quickly as part of ending that emergency.  Message Center functionality was cut off totally for a period of time while this band-aid was coded.

 

I guess the followup question to that then would be is there a better way to incorporate an anti-spam measure that doesn't dramatically reduce the friendliness of communication between users?

Maybe not... or, go premium... :P

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

Gotta like a thread that's going on 10 years old :D

 

My recent Irk is Challenge caches that don't have a checker link on the page even though someone kindly created one post publishing and this is obvious to the CO since the last dozen founds reference it.

 

OK maybe a 4 on a scale of 10 but my Doctor told me I should avoid irks so I am starting out small :mellow:

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 1/28/2022 at 11:23 PM, Goodgulf said:

My recent Irk is Challenge caches that don't have a checker link on the page even though someone kindly created one post publishing and this is obvious to the CO since the last dozen founds reference it.


Similarly frustrating:  Challenge caches that desperately need a checker, often because they require you to tally points for a long list of caches that you may or may not have found, which requires clicking on every one in the list that you aren't 100% sure you *haven't* found.

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Frustrating caching experience yesterday. I hit three trails, all of which happened to have caches from the same CO.

 

One trail deliberately had Not Chosen for the size on all 10 hides and said nothing about the containers. The descriptions made it clear this was deliberate to be more "challenging." There was at least some variance in D-rating.

 

The other two trails had all caches listed as Small, though some were actually Micros. A variety of screwtop containers. All similarly rated (D2). No hints. Perhaps 1/3 were at the base of a tree, tucked into the roots where I would expect to find such containers because it limits their accident movement. About 1/3 were tucked under or against logs. The rest seemed to be in random locations; moved or deliberate I wasn't always sure. The undergrowth, often thorny and with large amounts of pine straw, made searching for thumb-to-fist-sized containers a bit frustrating. At several locations my Garmin experienced a lot of signal bounce and limited accuracy despite limited tree cover (mostly widely spaced pines).

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
On 1/29/2022 at 5:23 AM, Goodgulf said:

Gotta like a thread that's going on 10 years old :D

 

My recent Irk is Challenge caches that don't have a checker link on the page even though someone kindly created one post publishing and this is obvious to the CO since the last dozen founds reference it.

 

OK maybe a 4 on a scale of 10 but my Doctor told me I should avoid irks so I am starting out small :mellow:

Installing the Project GC userscript is a great aid, it adds a link to the checker, even when the CO does not. :)

image.png.8c6637914aed47d1553b18861c900920.png

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 1/29/2022 at 3:23 PM, Goodgulf said:

My recent Irk is Challenge caches that don't have a checker link on the page even though someone kindly created one post publishing and this is obvious to the CO since the last dozen founds reference it.

I haven't noted that from memory, but it would definitely irk me too.... 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Vooruit! said:

Installing the Project GC userscript is a great aid, it adds a link to the checker, even when the CO does not. :)

 

 

I'll second and add a new one

An older puzzle cache that has no checker and the co is long gone with most of the logs thanking the CO for help.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, MNTA said:

An older puzzle cache that has no checker and the co is long gone with most of the logs thanking the CO for help.

 

Yep, and I'll add even more recent puzzles with active COs where every log says they either got help from the CO or a previous finder. Sometimes I wonder if there's a competition to create the most unsolvable puzzles. Puzzles that only make sense after you've solved them are a bit like hints that only make sense after you've found the cache.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment

‘Community’ maintenance.
-Throwing down a container because you can’t find one, especially when it’s just hidden. 
-Stealing stainless steel cache containers by ‘replacing them with a bigger one’

 

Edited by Ry Dawg
  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Ry Dawg said:

‘Community’ maintenance.
-Throwing down a container because you can’t find one, especially when it’s just hidden. 
-Stealing stainless steel cache containers by ‘replacing them with a bigger one’

 

Yesterday I ran into this. A 5/1.5 the hint was a hide style by an older cacher and knew immediately what to search for I spent 5 minutes looking for a small stick sitting in a hole to be extracted. When I realized I'm standing over a fake rock. Reading the logs looks like it's been that way for a couple of years. CO is no longer active and his other remaining unarchived cache down the street was a ziplock bag in the drainage ditch covered by mud. Filed NM on both of them.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, MNTA said:

Yesterday I ran into this. A 5/1.5 the hint was a hide style by an older cacher and knew immediately what to search for I spent 5 minutes looking for a small stick sitting in a hole to be extracted. When I realized I'm standing over a fake rock. Reading the logs looks like it's been that way for a couple of years. CO is no longer active and his other remaining unarchived cache down the street was a ziplock bag in the drainage ditch covered by mud. Filed NM on both of them.


If it wasn't for the inactive CO I would have asked if you were caching where I was yesterday: stick in a small hole (in a larger tree)... in the rain. (That ziplock, ugh!)

Link to comment
On 1/28/2022 at 11:23 PM, Goodgulf said:

Gotta like a thread that's going on 10 years old :D

 

My recent Irk is Challenge caches that don't have a checker link on the page even though someone kindly created one post publishing and this is obvious to the CO since the last dozen founds reference it.

 

 

Agreed... on both.

I just did a challenge cache exactly like that: CO still very active, checker findable on Project GC, but NO LINK so I did it all by "hand"/analog before I remembered I could search by GC number. SIGH.
 

Link to comment
On 3/20/2022 at 12:18 PM, CCFwasG said:

 

Agreed... on both.

I just did a challenge cache exactly like that: CO still very active, checker findable on Project GC, but NO LINK so I did it all by "hand"/analog before I remembered I could search by GC number. SIGH.
 

If its an older challenge (Pre Checkers), the CO might not even be aware that a checker exists, or know how to link it to the cache page. I've seen a several checker requests that start with "This isn't my challenge, but can a checker be made for...."

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, igator210 said:
On 3/20/2022 at 12:18 PM, CCFwasG said:

 

Agreed... on both.

I just did a challenge cache exactly like that: CO still very active, checker findable on Project GC, but NO LINK so I did it all by "hand"/analog before I remembered I could search by GC number. SIGH.
 

If its an older challenge (Pre Checkers), the CO might not even be aware that a checker exists, or know how to link it to the cache page. I've seen a several checker requests that start with "This isn't my challenge, but can a checker be made for...."

 

If you install the Project-GC browser script, it will add any associated PGC checker into the sidebar of the cache listing, even if the CO hasn't added the checker to the description. Extremely handy. Some listings may have multiple checkers associated with it. No need to manually search the GC any more.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, MNTA said:

COs that Say they did maintenance but didn't

 

I reckon you can put a lot of that down to OM being the default log type for owned caches. I've been caught out a few times when I was so focussed on what I was writing in the log I forgot to change the type from its default. Someone from HQ mentioned recently that default log types were going to be removed in the next iteration of the logging page and for me that can't come soon enough.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 1/28/2022 at 10:23 PM, Goodgulf said:

Gotta like a thread that's going on 10 years old :D

 

My recent Irk is Challenge caches that don't have a checker link on the page even though someone kindly created one post publishing and this is obvious to the CO since the last dozen founds reference it.

 

OK maybe a 4 on a scale of 10 but my Doctor told me I should avoid irks so I am starting out small :mellow:

 

Glad your irk level is only a 4 as I have some old challenge caches that have no checkers on them. :) 

 

Personally, I feel there is too much hand holding going on in geocaching these days! For me, having to figure out whether I qualify for completion of a challenge cache is just another part of the challenge. Imo, the addition of a checker should be left up to the cache owner.

 

Yes, I'd say this is my irk for the day. :anibad:

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
On 4/3/2022 at 1:18 PM, Mudfrog said:

 

Glad your irk level is only a 4 as I have some old challenge caches that have no checkers on them. :) 

 

Personally, I feel there is too much hand holding going on in geocaching these days! For me, having to figure out whether I qualify for completion of a challenge cache is just another part of the challenge. Imo, the addition of a checker should be left up to the cache owner.

 

Yes, I'd say this is my irk for the day. :anibad:

 


I pretty much agree on the hand-holding thing but there have been a few Challenge caches I either did or wanted to do that were so complex in their requirements that it would take hours and hours to figure out. I admit I love Project GC for those. :-) But some are basic and not needed!

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CCFwasG said:


I pretty much agree on the hand-holding thing but there have been a few Challenge caches I either did or wanted to do that were so complex in their requirements that it would take hours and hours to figure out. I admit I love Project GC for those. :-) But some are basic and not needed!

 

 

As a challenge owner I found it a bit of a Catch 22. In order to set the qualification bar at a reasonable level so it wouldn't be either too easy or too arduous for the bulk of cachers in its catchment area, I had to do all the qualification-checking by hand on a list I made of thirty or so "typical" cachers before I was happy enough with the settings to submit it to Project-GC to have a checker created. I didn't mind doing it, it was part of the fun in creating that challenge (GC8DQXK), but with players now able to hide their finds and stats from everyone else it could be harder next time.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

... but with players now able to hide their finds and stats from everyone else it could be harder next time.


I am one who hides my stats, but can finds be hidden?? I used to wait a long time to log because ... reasons.

p.s. your challenge is interesting but one I'd never attempt simply because so many COs don't bother with attributes (so I don't do attribute challenges for that reason, though might change my mind one day...). Example: recently found one with a significant hike, to a view (in the name!) and it had zero attributes at all! And YES the no attributes thing irks me... I am sure it does you too! ;-) 

Edited by CCFwasG
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

p.s. your challenge is interesting but one I'd never attempt simply because so many COs don't bother with attributes (so I don't do attribute challenges for that reason, though might change my mind one day...). Example: recently found one with a significant hike, to a view (in the name!) and it had zero attributes at all! And YES the no attributes thing irks me... I am sure it does you too! ;-) 

 

I'm pretty sure our reviewer has said somewhere that he won't publish a cache without any attributes at all, and looking back through my more recent finds, most have half a dozen or more set. The smallest number of attributes on any of my hides is five, and that's on a couple of traditionals alongside a section of the Great North Walk.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm pretty sure our reviewer has said somewhere that he won't publish a cache without any attributes at all.... 

He won't (whoever our reviewer is at the moment I guess?) - I submitted a listing once, forgetting to set the attributes, and he held it up until they were done....

  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, lee737 said:

He won't (whoever our reviewer is at the moment I guess?) - I submitted a listing once, forgetting to set the attributes, and he held it up until they were done....

This is appropriate only for those attributes where Geocaching HQ has asked the Reviewers to "enforce" proper use of the attribute.  Examples include Wheelchair Accessible, UV Light Required, and Challenge Cache.  Other than the required attributes, usage is optional and the Reviewer's role is limited to "suggesting" that attributes might help the cache page.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Keystone said:

This is appropriate only for those attributes where Geocaching HQ has asked the Reviewers to "enforce" proper use of the attribute.  Examples include Wheelchair Accessible, UV Light Required, and Challenge Cache.  Other than the required attributes, usage is optional and the Reviewer's role is limited to "suggesting" that attributes might help the cache page.

None of those attributes.... and although I don't have the communication now, it didn't feel like a 'suggestion'..... more like a commandment... :)

Link to comment
On 2/15/2022 at 9:34 AM, barefootjeff said:

Yep, and I'll add even more recent puzzles with active COs where every log says they either got help from the CO or a previous finder. Sometimes I wonder if there's a competition to create the most unsolvable puzzles.


It is truly every log? I suspect people casually make that remark, but it'd never, ever be every log in my experience.

The appearance of "everyone needing assistance" seems an almost inevitable outcome of (i) cache placements remaining in place indefinitely, in combination with (ii) people being curious about (or even 'needing' to find) every cache in their area. The five or ten freaks (I use this term affectionately lol) who are most keen on harder puzzles are often energetic and independent solvers and they typically polish it off early. If harder puzzles were left in place for just the first 10 finders I suspect this perception would barely be a thing.

Given the near inevitably of many subsequent solvers seeking help (and there's nothing whatsoever wrong with this in the first place) I fear you might actually be pretty close to arguing that harder puzzles shouldn't exist, full-stop. :)

 

 

Edited by BendSinister
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, BendSinister said:

It is truly every log? I suspect people casually make that remark, but it'd never, ever be every log in my experience

Certainly can be. If the first finder got help from the CO, and everyone else got help at least from the CO or a friend, then every log can represent someone who didn't 100% solve the puzzle themselves.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Certainly can be.


Lots of things are possible, but I suspect that situation is not so common that any batch of logs mentioning the receipt of assistance is sufficient to warrant the word 'unsolvable' being dragged out, as above. I suspect everyone can probably name the occasional local puzzle that is widely perceived to be wholly impenetrable. I fear however that many are simply too quick to apply that label to caches they'd just prefer they didn't have to keep seeing on their local map. :)

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, BendSinister said:

Lots of things are possible, but I suspect that situation is not so common that any batch of logs mentioning the receipt of assistance is sufficient to warrant the word 'unsolvable' being dragged out, as above. I suspect everyone can probably name the occasional local puzzle that is widely perceived to be wholly impenetrable. I fear however that many are simply too quick to apply that label to caches they'd just prefer they didn't have to keep seeing on their local map. :)

 

Completely agree. However if it's "solved with the help of the CO" then it's not unsolvable. When I hear someone say it's 'unsolvable' that implies to me they believe that there is no solution, not that it's just super hard. Of course there could be sarcasm there, but around here when people refer to an unsolvable puzzle it's usually puzzles that have sat for years with no finds, or no finds implying the puzzle was solved (even with help).  No one (here at least) would refer to a puzzle with many find logs, all implying solved-with-help, to be 'unsolvable'.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, BendSinister said:

It is truly every log? I suspect people casually make that remark, but it'd never, ever be every log in my experience -- I usually have no clue whatsoever what a bunch of early solvers are doing before I see a 'found' log..

Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. I haven't been back for a few years, but last I looked, many if not most of one CO's puzzle caches were like this. And he had lots of puzzle caches. For a while, I ignored the implication and tried to solve some of them, but invariably it became clear that there was an unbounded number of things that might lead to a solution, so I stopped trying them hoping that I might someday stumble on the one that worked. I think the killer to me was the realization that I couldn't rule out two possibilities: an incorrect approach leading to a solution that looked correct, and the correct approach leading to a solution I couldn't tell was the solution.

 

But I understand your skepticism. I wouldn't believe that this could be common in any given area if I hadn't seen it for myself. What's the point of creating a puzzle cache that no one can solve?

 

6 hours ago, BendSinister said:

Given the near inevitably of many subsequent solvers seeking help (and there's nothing whatsoever wrong with this in the first place) I fear you might actually be pretty close to arguing that harder puzzles shouldn't exist, full-stop. :)

I don't consider these "harder". I consider them unsolvable. And, yes, I don't think unsolvable puzzles should exist, but when I say that, I'm only talking to COs, not to the people making up the rules. GS definitely should not put reviewers in the position of deciding whether a puzzle is unsolvable.

 

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Completely agree. However if it's "solved with the help of the CO" then it's not unsolvable. When I hear someone say it's 'unsolvable' that implies to me they believe that there is no solution, not that it's just super hard.

For me, "super hard" is the same as unsolvable when the successful approach can't be found in one lifetime. In that case, it makes no difference to me whether the CO gives me the answer or tells me which of the innumerable approaches to use.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, BendSinister said:

It is truly every log? I suspect people casually make that remark, but it'd never, ever be every log in my experience -- I usually have no clue whatsoever what a bunch of early solvers are doing before I see a 'found' log..

 

One that immediately comes to mind is a D4.5 puzzle created in 2014 and archived about 18 months later with 7 finds logged. The FTF said that he'd gotten help from the CO, one of my friends and I were the next two finders and we got several hints from the FTF and then the CO herself came around to give us a nudge when we were bamboozled by the final container placement. The next finder was the CO's father who admitted to having some inside knowledge. The remaining three finders also mentioned in their logs that they got help either from the CO or other finders. At a later event, the CO admitted that her goal at the time had been to create a puzzle no-one could solve and I think she succeeded.

 

Over the last couple of years, in part to keep us going during the COVID lockdowns, the small group of cachers I regularly hang out with has been working through some series of puzzle caches and I'm sure there were at least a couple where, on looking through the handful of finds logged, every one said they got at least a little help from someone. Sometimes, when given the nudge, I've thought "now why didn't I think of that?" but other times I've just shaken my head and moved on to the next one in the list.

Link to comment

barefootjeff's example is particularly interesting, as I have a feeling our neighbouring regions share similar reviewer standards (perhaps even the same reviewers on occasion) and, potentially, an overlapping pool of finders. I feel like our reviewers are actually rather good at probing genuinely unsolvable-or-close-to-unsolvable elements in puzzles regardless of whether or not it should be their responsibly. (Hi, if you're out there! It's true! I think you're very good at this!)

 

 

Edited by BendSinister
Link to comment
8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

No one (here at least) would refer to a puzzle with many find logs, all implying solved-with-help, to be 'unsolvable'.


It was a claim pretty much exactly of this nature that I was responding to in the first place. It's what piqued my curiousity!

Edit: it's possible I misinterpreted a geographical 'here' as an in-these-forums type of 'here.' :)

Edited by BendSinister
Link to comment
1 hour ago, BendSinister said:

barefootjeff's example is particularly interesting, as I have a feeling our neighbouring regions share similar reviewer standards (perhaps even the same reviewers on occasion) and, potentially, an overlapping pool of finders. I feel like our reviewers are actually rather good at probing genuinely unsolvable-or-close-to-unsolvable elements in puzzles regardless of whether or not it should be their responsibly. (Hi, if you're out there! It's true! I think you're very good at this!)

 

There were several aspects of that cache that I doubt would pass muster today but the Guidelines themselves and their interpretation was a bit different back in 2014. That said, there was a logical progression to it, sort of, if you thought laterally enough, ignored all the red herrings and were prepared to try almost anything when nothing else worked. My friend gave it an FP in spite of all his cursing and muttered obscenities while we were searching, so I guess to each their own.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, BendSinister said:

It was a claim pretty much exactly of this nature that I was responding to in the first place. It's what piqued my curiousity!

Edit: it's possible I misinterpreted a geographical 'here' as an in-these-forums type of 'here.' :)

 

heh, yeah, my geographical region.

Case in point: For a short time we had kind of a battle of puzzle makers, and high tech puzzlers. To the point that one cache required picking out every bit of hidden encoded data in unused bits of the PNG file specifications. This is a puzzle that likely only a handful of people might be able to solve, let alone figure out. Even so, myself and a couple others managed to actually solve it. To contrast, there have been a handful of publishes that have not yet been solved, and do not appear to be technical by any means. No hints have been given. One infamous one was archived I think a year or two ago. After a while people give up trying to solve them.  Are they unsolvable?

 

I may tweak my comment from earlier. There may be puzzles that do have a solution, but are presented so vague, requiring such a leap from description to solution, that it's virtually impossible to hit the bullseye when shooting arrows blindly. As demonstrated after years of being unfound and no forward nudging being given, I'd classify those as 'unsolvable'. :P

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
23 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Certainly can be. If the first finder got help from the CO, and everyone else got help at least from the CO or a friend, then every log can represent someone who didn't 100% solve the puzzle themselves.

 

Yep, when phones first started getting popular, PAFs were stupid-crazy... Many calling the CO or a friend who just solved it for help.

We had to ignore a FTF monster because he'd call every time a new cache of ours was out and asking whether "CJ found it yet..." on others.

We first found out by others when they started telling on themselves in their logs. 

Later, they became embarrassed enough (because of laughing pain-in-the-cans like me... ;), that they were careful not to mention it anymore.

Many years later, and we're still getting calls on caches we've found (because of COs long gone mostly). 

Calls I'll take - it could be an emergency.   But I only give hints.  If I even remember what they're talking about.  :D

I don't pay attention to texts or emails when out, so I might not find out until hours later at home.  

Link to comment
On 8/5/2022 at 7:12 PM, thebruce0 said:

Completely agree. However if it's "solved with the help of the CO" then it's not unsolvable. When I hear someone say it's 'unsolvable' that implies to me they believe that there is no solution, not that it's just super hard.

When I label a puzzle "unsolvable", I do not say that there is no solution at all (which shouldn't be possible for geocache puzzles anyway, because of the review), but that the solution is de facto impossible to reach without at least a minimum nudge from someone in-the-know (CO, previous finder). A "super hard" puzzle, OTOH, can be (and usually has been) solved without any help. For geocache puzzles, which have not yet been solved (i.e. no finds, no "solved it" notes), and for which I don't know the solution myself, I can not, by definition, make a judgement, whether it's unsolvable or "only" super hard. Of course there is no sharp boundary between the two categories. But I have seen puzzles, which definitely go to the "unsolvable" side, and also seen some, which remained unsolved for many months after publication, but turned out to be just "super hard".

 

I have nothing against super hard puzzles (I like them, actually ;)  ) ... but I don't like unsolvable ones at all. The main reason for the latter is not that they clutter my cache map - the Ignore List cares for this issue pretty well. But it irks me (even though it probably shouldn't) that COs of unsolvable ones tend to be proud of the fact, that they created a puzzle that no-one can figure out. I always say, that it's very difficult to design a super hard (but solvable) puzzle, but more or less trivial to create an unsolvable one. For the latter, you just need to drown the (already low) "signal" on your cache page (which points out the path to the solution) with an arbitrary amount of "noise". The "signal" is usually enough to satisfy the reviewer, but the extremely low signal-to-noise ratio of the listing can quickly render the puzzle unsolvable. This is especially easy since reviewers apparently have no problem, if the cachers have to outright guess parts of the path to the solution - it's enough that such a path exists. So the "signal" can by itself be effectively almost zero.

 

That said, a few words about puzzles, where essentially every finder's log mentions some sort of help (incl. the FTF getting help from the CO): These cases are very rare in my area, but they exist. Usually, when the first few finds have been logged, and they all say, that they got some help, and I still haven't figured it out, I also ask the CO for help (even though I like puzzles, I don't like being the "only" one left in the dark :rolleyes: ). In most cases, it turned out that the puzzle was not unsolvable, but just very hard. And created by a CO, who doesn't go with the idea of "no help before the FTF" ;) .

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, baer2006 said:

That said, a few words about puzzles, where essentially every finder's log mentions some sort of help (incl. the FTF getting help from the CO): These cases are very rare in my area, but they exist. Usually, when the first few finds have been logged, and they all say, that they got some help, and I still haven't figured it out, I also ask the CO for help (even though I like puzzles, I don't like being the "only" one left in the dark :rolleyes: ). In most cases, it turned out that the puzzle was not unsolvable, but just very hard. And created by a CO, who doesn't go with the idea of "no help before the FTF" ;) .

 

This is basically what I should have said in the first place. I don't really believe there are literally no recorded instances in the history of geocaching where there were zero independent solvers. That was obviously always going to be refutable given the squilions published. (Maybe I can blame posting at 1:30 AM for poor word choices.)


My point, insofar as I had one, was that some of the signs and symptoms casually ascribed to unsolvability might sometimes be a consequence of more benign conditions, often something like what's described here. Even the poster whose words I was querying in the first place described a more or less logical process being at least vaguely discernible in the innards of one of the worse offenders they'd seen.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
On 8/6/2022 at 3:10 PM, baer2006 said:

When I label a puzzle "unsolvable", I do not say that there is no solution at all (which shouldn't be possible for geocache puzzles anyway, because of the review), but that the solution is de facto impossible to reach without at least a minimum nudge from someone in-the-know (CO, previous finder)

And the only issue I have with that is that anyone who has difficulty solving a puzzle that hasn't been found yet could say it's "unsolvable". But really it's just that someone hasn't solved it yet. At what point does an unsolved puzzle become "unsolvable"? That's highly subjective.  I FTF'd a cache with a friend, 6 hours away in Ohio, which hadn't been solved for found in 5 years since it was published. The owner was getting razzed that it had no solution. Hate mail, all that stuff. We had looked at it, solved in within a week, and made plans that weekend to drive down and FTF it. His community thought we cheated or got hints. Nope. We told some friends about our adventure, and a few more started looking at the puzzle. No hints were given, but a couple more drove down to find it. Then we got blamed for telling people answers and passing the solution around. That happened not one iota.

 

Subjectivity can kill community. One person's "unsovable" is another person's "obvious". I won't call a puzzle unsolvable unless I disclaim that it seems to be unsolvable (mental leap puzzles, eg), or we know for a fact there isn't a solution (tho COs requiring to provide the solution or demonstrate how to solve the puzzle is a relatively new thing; old puzzles didn't have that requirement).

Link to comment
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And the only issue I have with that is that anyone who has difficulty solving a puzzle that hasn't been found yet could say it's "unsolvable". But really it's just that someone hasn't solved it yet.

Yes, exactly. And that's why I also said: "For geocache puzzles, which have not yet been solved (i.e. no finds, no "solved it" notes), and for which I don't know the solution myself, I can not, by definition, make a judgement, whether it's unsolvable or "only" super hard."

 

There are very few puzzles in my area, which I rate as "unsolvable", and I could do this only after I learned about the intended solution (from the CO, or finders who themselves got help from the CO).

Link to comment
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

(tho COs requiring to provide the solution or demonstrate how to solve the puzzle is a relatively new thing; old puzzles didn't have that requirement).

Depends on what you see as "relatively new". I created my first puzzle cache in 2008, and the first thing the reviewer asked was that I should sketch out the solution for him ;) .

  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
On 8/9/2022 at 7:53 AM, baer2006 said:

Depends on what you see as "relatively new". I created my first puzzle cache in 2008, and the first thing the reviewer asked was that I should sketch out the solution for him ;) .

I believe back then they were allowed to on judgment, but today they're required. But don't quote me on that.

Link to comment

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...
Followers 50
×
×
  • Create New...