A question about Mystery Caches

[+Team Jeddell]

Hi,

 

I'm relatively new to caching and have started hiding some caches. This means I've had to read up on the guidelines towards caches and what is required. I found t he following under the Mystery/puzzle cache...

 

"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."

 

I came across this mystery cache on a visit to my folks place in South West WA : GC33447, The title being "A?".

 

My question is. How is this cache solvable by the information provided on the page? The only clue I see is 4 numbers with no other information.

 

I have visited and seen a lot of mystery caches and come up with the same question. Some people place pretty intricate coded messages on the page with no indication of what the actual cypher is. How is that solvable from the information on the page and how can they get around the guideline above?

 

Maybe I'm just not experienced enough.....

[+redsox_mark]

What that quote means is that solving the puzzle must not require the finder to go to a different specific website, download specific software, or contact the owner etc to solve it. (However, information on the web or some software could be useful and be used in solving it).

 

That doesn't mean it is going to be clear from the cache page. There are lots of ways to hide or encrypt the information. The finder/solver needs to use their knowledge, experience, and any tools they like to solve it.

[+kunarion]

I have visited and seen a lot of mystery caches and come up with the same question. Some people place pretty intricate coded messages on the page with no indication of what the actual cypher is. How is that solvable from the information on the page and how can they get around the guideline above?

You can dig through the page's source code, look for hidden inverse text, count pixels in a photo (or look for tiny cords), try everything and anything. Some are so obscure, you just have to wait for inspiration. All the information is available, it's somehow concealed as a weird "puzzle". Maybe you just have to know that there's a huge concrete "A?" sculpture in the town square.

 

Some people prefer a puzzle with structure they understand (like a crossword or sudoku). Some prefer one they've never seen before (the puzzle is figuring out... what the puzzle is).

 

And, if you'll check the example you posted, only 1 person found it after 2 years. The best way to get a nudge, is if everyone always asks the Cache Owner directly. That's the only way a Cache Owner will learn.

Edited June 1, 2013 by kunarion

[+T.D.M.22]

Hi,

 

I'm relatively new to caching and have started hiding some caches. This means I've had to read up on the guidelines towards caches and what is required. I found t he following under the Mystery/puzzle cache...

 

"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."

 

I came across this mystery cache on a visit to my folks place in South West WA : GC33447, The title being "A?".

 

My question is. How is this cache solvable by the information provided on the page? The only clue I see is 4 numbers with no other information.

 

That's all you see? There may be more info on the cache page that you can't see.

[+SSO JOAT]

Many of these types of "puzzles" fall into the category of "try to guess what I was thinking". They are generally junk puzzles with an occasional accidental solve. Many times, they are best placed on one's ignore list.

 

A real, good puzzle will have clues about everything you need to know scattered about on the page. And you will probably have to do some off-site research, which is perfectly fine. What needs to be on the page is enough info to steer you to your research to solve the puzzle.

[+Redfist]

Many of these types of "puzzles" fall into the category of "try to guess what I was thinking". They are generally junk puzzles with an occasional accidental solve. Many times, they are best placed on one's ignore list.

 

A real, good puzzle will have clues about everything you need to know scattered about on the page. And you will probably have to do some off-site research, which is perfectly fine. What needs to be on the page is enough info to steer you to your research to solve the puzzle.

 

For the puzzles with seemingly no data to offer... there is always data to offer.

 

Check the GC code.

Check the past trackables.

Check the CO's gallery.

Check the CO's finds.

Check the page's source code.

Check the hidden date.

Check the published date.

Check the title.

Check to see if the cachername listed on the page differs from the CO's name.

etc..

 

Keep checking...

[+Don_J]

Many of these types of "puzzles" fall into the category of "try to guess what I was thinking". They are generally junk puzzles with an occasional accidental solve. Many times, they are best placed on one's ignore list.

 

A real, good puzzle will have clues about everything you need to know scattered about on the page. And you will probably have to do some off-site research, which is perfectly fine. What needs to be on the page is enough info to steer you to your research to solve the puzzle.

 

For the puzzles with seemingly no data to offer... there is always data to offer.

 

Check the GC code.

Check the past trackables.

Check the CO's gallery.

Check the CO's finds.

Check the page's source code.

Check the hidden date.

Check the published date.

Check the title.

Check to see if the cachername listed on the page differs from the CO's name.

etc..

 

Keep checking...

 

Or, you can do what I do. Go find a traditional.

[+T.D.M.22]

Does the page say it's not at the posted co-ords?

Edited June 2, 2013 by T.D.M.22

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Have you tried visiting the posted coordinates to see if there's any clue at that location?

 

Edit to add: didn't see the post above mine before I wrote this.

Edited June 2, 2013 by nonaeroterraqueous

[+T.D.M.22]

Have you tried visiting the posted coordinates to see if there's any clue at that location?

 

Edit to add: didn't see the post above mine before I wrote this.

 

I actually have a cache (or two) like that.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I've never seen one like that, but I've always thought it would be the best way to do a puzzle cache.

[+Viajero Perdido]

I have a variety of puzzles with essentially nothing on the cache page, and the solutions are all different. I really like this genre.

 

All inspired by SPUZM, which I thought was brilliant once I figured it out. (It used to be harder.)

[nonaeroterraqueous]

All inspired by SPUZM, which I thought was brilliant once I figured it out. (It used to be harder.)

 

Yeah, that's a very blank page. Surprisingly easy to solve, though.

[AZcachemeister]

Many of these types of "puzzles" fall into the category of "try to guess what I was thinking". They are generally junk puzzles with an occasional accidental solve. Many times, they are best placed on one's ignore list.

 

A real, good puzzle will have clues about everything you need to know scattered about on the page. And you will probably have to do some off-site research, which is perfectly fine. What needs to be on the page is enough info to steer you to your research to solve the puzzle.

 

For the puzzles with seemingly no data to offer... there is always data to offer.

 

Check the GC code.

Check the past trackables.

Check the CO's gallery.

Check the CO's finds.

Check the page's source code.

Check the hidden date.

Check the published date.

Check the title.

Check to see if the cachername listed on the page differs from the CO's name.

etc..

 

Keep checking...

 

Or, you can do what I do. Go find a traditional.

 

Of course that would be AFTER putting the obtuse puzzle on your IGNORE LIST.

 

I have about eight to ten hours a year available for puzzle cache solving. They're piling up...actually they're getting archived faster than I can solve them.

[+Sagefox]

 

For the puzzles with seemingly no data to offer... there is always data to offer.

 

Check the GC code.

Check the past trackables.

Check the CO's gallery.

Check the CO's finds.

Check the page's source code.

Check the hidden date.

Check the published date.

Check the title.

Check to see if the cachername listed on the page differs from the CO's name.

etc..

 

This type of puzzle is my very least favorite. Way down the list. Even below the types I hate.

 

Wading through source code is a real drag, especially when the solution is not in the source code. The first few of this type can be interesting but after that... get me outta here!

[+fizzymagic]

This type of puzzle is my very least favorite. Way down the list. Even below the types I hate.

 

I have to agree, mostly. I have seen a couple good "where's the puzzle?" puzzles, and I liked one enough that I put another out like it, but for the vast majority, the puzzle turns out to be a lame exercise in what we in my area call "moon logic."

 

"Moon logic" is where you have to read the mind of the CO to solve the puzzle. I'm sure it makes the hiders feel smart, but IMO it is more frequently evidence of somebody who is not original enough to make a good puzzle.

 

Making an impossible puzzle is trivially easy. If it is taking people months to solve your puzzle, chances are pretty good that it is a bad puzzle.

[+J Grouchy]

This type of puzzle is my very least favorite. Way down the list. Even below the types I hate.

 

I have to agree, mostly. I have seen a couple good "where's the puzzle?" puzzles, and I liked one enough that I put another out like it, but for the vast majority, the puzzle turns out to be a lame exercise in what we in my area call "moon logic."

 

"Moon logic" is where you have to read the mind of the CO to solve the puzzle. I'm sure it makes the hiders feel smart, but IMO it is more frequently evidence of somebody who is not original enough to make a good puzzle.

 

Making an impossible puzzle is trivially easy. If it is taking people months to solve your puzzle, chances are pretty good that it is a bad puzzle.

 

Ditto. I'm all for puzzles...and perhaps I'm just a simple caveman...but I like opening the page and seeing a puzzle to solve. Either a graphic or a description. I've put out three puzzles so far and each time I've agonized over how much to put in or give away with regards to what the solvers need to do. I like it to catch their interest and make them think...but be difficult enough to actually turn some folks off. One of my puzzles is Premium only, so reading the audit logs shows me just who is most intent on solving it. Those with one or two visits usually tell me who plans to try for it. I know puzzles are not for everyone, so my goal is to attract those that really enjoy them without dumbing it down too much. For me, creating them is as much a learning exercise as solving them is, so hopefully in the future I can create some more memorable ones.

 

Actually...for me, making them work with the places I want to hide them is the hardest part. On my latest one, I actually had to move the cache from its ideal spot because of some construction work. Finding a new spot was tricky and necessitated rethinking the hide.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

This type of puzzle is my very least favorite. Way down the list. Even below the types I hate.

 

I have to agree, mostly. I have seen a couple good "where's the puzzle?" puzzles, and I liked one enough that I put another out like it, but for the vast majority, the puzzle turns out to be a lame exercise in what we in my area call "moon logic."

 

"Moon logic" is where you have to read the mind of the CO to solve the puzzle. I'm sure it makes the hiders feel smart, but IMO it is more frequently evidence of somebody who is not original enough to make a good puzzle.

 

Making an impossible puzzle is trivially easy. If it is taking people months to solve your puzzle, chances are pretty good that it is a bad puzzle.

 

I agree with yo on the "moon logic." People seem to make stuff up, and solving it requires trying all sorts of differnet things until you get lucky.

 

There was a recent puzzle, that I was able to brute force through logic. Turns out the symbols were from a coding system that the CO explains in the cache. Not a single bit of information as to the type of code used. Alsmost everyone who solved it brute forced it.

 

When I use a coding system, I like to have the cache title, or some of the text basically point you in the right direction, without spelling it out. My cache "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" has everything you need in the listing to figure which cipher I am using.

 

I have a few "Twisted Tales" puzzles (such as the now archived "Bunny Rabbit Picnic" which is the hardest of hte lot) that don't appear to have a puzzle in them. A couple of the easier ones have clues in the title or it's obvious where to start.

 

And then I have one that is still unsolved after 6 months. I am sure there are people that will look at it and know immedaitely how to solve it. Others will have no clue. And I actually provide the coordinates to the cache. Sort of.

[+SSO JOAT]

Some examples of how to make solvable puzzles are included here...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=3e9b65ac-aebb-465f-9cb1-095a64292485

 

[+MountainWoods]

This type of puzzle is my very least favorite. Way down the list. Even below the types I hate.

 

Wading through source code is a real drag, especially when the solution is not in the source code. The first few of this type can be interesting but after that... get me outta here!

Yep. It's time that would be better spent trying to figure out the Voynich Manuscript.

[AZcachemeister]

 

Yep. It's time that would be better spent trying to figure out the Voynich Manuscript.

 

OH, what a co-incidence!

Run Away!

[+Redfist]

 

Yep. It's time that would be better spent trying to figure out the Voynich Manuscript.

 

OH, what a co-incidence!

Run Away!

 

I enjoyed that one...

[+Redfist]

All inspired by SPUZM, which I thought was brilliant once I figured it out. (It used to be harder.)

 

Yeah, that's a very blank page. Surprisingly easy to solve, though.

 

It doesn't have a checker, but I'm 99.9% sure I know the solution.

[+MountainWoods]

 

Yep. It's time that would be better spent trying to figure out the Voynich Manuscript.

 

OH, what a co-incidence!

Run Away!

Looks like a bunch of pictures. Is that what a puzzle cache is? I wouldn't know where to begin.

Guess I'll just keep looking for Tupperwear in the woods and leave the online games to others.

[+etphoneme2plz]

WOW, that would be a really hard puzzle for me to figure out! lol Wouldn't even attempt it! I thought the puzzle caches close to me were hard.... I did a REALLY cute Bingo puzzle cache last weekend... Not too hard at all....

[+Redfist]

WOW, that would be a really hard puzzle for me to figure out! lol Wouldn't even attempt it! I thought the puzzle caches close to me were hard.... I did a REALLY cute Bingo puzzle cache last weekend... Not too hard at all....

 

Some are obvious (the approach at least), some are brutally hard and most are in between.

 

What I *wish* we had, although too late, is a separate difficulty rating for puzzles. When you see a difficulty rating on puzzles, you never know how much is meant to be the puzzle solve -vs- a tricky hide.

[+J Grouchy]

WOW, that would be a really hard puzzle for me to figure out! lol Wouldn't even attempt it! I thought the puzzle caches close to me were hard.... I did a REALLY cute Bingo puzzle cache last weekend... Not too hard at all....

 

Some are obvious (the approach at least), some are brutally hard and most are in between.

 

What I *wish* we had, although too late, is a separate difficulty rating for puzzles. When you see a difficulty rating on puzzles, you never know how much is meant to be the puzzle solve -vs- a tricky hide.

 

If you go through the rating system checklist, I believe they generally rate anything involving a puzzle at 3 or higher...though some are easy enough that even a 3 is generous.