Jump to content

Requiring of mystery cache solution


turistahorsky
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Reviewer for Slovakia requires mystery cache solution with all values, without that he can´t publish any mystery cache. But in guidelines is written only "explanation of how the puzzle is solved" (in my opinion it is mean for example "use some mathematical function, google it or something like that not the whole solution with exact values). Am i understand this rule correctly?

Link to comment

Reviewer for Slovakia requires mystery cache solution with all values, without that he can´t publish any mystery cache. But in guidelines is written only "explanation of how the puzzle is solved" (in my opinion it is mean for example "use some mathematical function, google it or something like that not the whole solution with exact values). Am i understand this rule correctly?

 

A reviewer would need all the locations of stages, at least the physical, to assure the proximity guidelines are followed.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

Based on the quoted language a reviewer can ask for whatever level of detail they need in order to be comfortable that your mystery/puzzle cache solution (1) meets the listng guidelines, and (2) does not contain errors.

 

On the first point, an innocent-looking cryptology puzzle might resolve to a solution spelling out the words "email me for the actual coordinates" or providing the URL of a third-party website where the solver is expected to create an account or download software. So, your reviewer might ask for a step by step solution leading to the coordinates shown in the Hidden Additional Waypoint.

 

On the second point, I would hope that a puzzle cache creator would welcome the opportunity for a reviewer to double-check the calculations of the puzzle solution. I get big thank-you's from cache owners when I save them the embarrassment of a solution that resolves to incorrect coordinates.

 

The amount of detail requested of the cache owner may vary depending on the reviewer (puzzle cache expert vs. bad at puzzles), past history of the cache owner, complexity of the puzzle, etc.

Link to comment

The bottom line is that you should trust the reviewer's discretion, so go ahead and tell them whatever they want to know.

It is not only reviewer´s dicretion, but also about gc.com bugs. And finally reviewers see final coordinates, solving is explanation on cache listing and this reviewer logs as found it also mystery caches which were published by themselves (f.e. http://coord.info/GC3X2HH).

Link to comment

The bottom line is that you should trust the reviewer's discretion, so go ahead and tell them whatever they want to know.

It is not only reviewer´s dicretion, but also about gc.com bugs. And finally reviewers see final coordinates, solving is explanation on cache listing and this reviewer logs as found it also mystery caches which were published by themselves (f.e. http://coord.info/GC3X2HH).

 

Wow, you are faulting the reviewer because there are bugs on the web site and because he logged a find on a cache 3 days after he published it and after 3 other people found it. Since it appears you have something bigger bothering you perhaps you should contact Ground Speak directly rather than use a forum post.

Link to comment

Wow, you are faulting the reviewer because there are bugs on the web site and because he logged a find on a cache 3 days after he published it and after 3 other people found it. Since it appears you have something bigger bothering you perhaps you should contact Ground Speak directly rather than use a forum post.

Ya, it's a bit cheesy. We come down on folks logging a find for caches they helped hide saying "You didn't find anything". The bigger challenge for puzzle caches is the puzzle itself...They didn't solve anything. Perception is reality.

Link to comment

The reviewer needs to assure themselves the cache meets the guidelines. For puzzles, that means that it's solvable to cachers. Also, I've been very grateful for a fresh pair of eyes checking there aren't any errors in the puzzle.

 

And as for finding a cache they'd previously reviewed, remember reviewers are cachers too, and if they couldn't find a cache they'd reviewed, well they might not have very many caches to find!

Link to comment

And I don't have to worry about my reviewer darting out for a FTF on my puzzles. They live several hundred miles away in another state!

 

I do not think that the OP's concern is about the FTF aspect. There are puzzles where knowing the idea helps a lot and such an idea will not be forgotten within 3 days after the publish date.

 

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I do not think that the OP's concern is about the FTF aspect. There are puzzles where knowing the idea helps a lot and such an idea will not be forgotten within 3 days after the publish date.

I think you're right that the OP is worried in general about reviewers being handed an advantage other seekers won't have, but I say that reviewers deserve this rather minor reward should they decide to take advantage of it.

Link to comment

I do not think that the OP's concern is about the FTF aspect. There are puzzles where knowing the idea helps a lot and such an idea will not be forgotten within 3 days after the publish date.

I think you're right that the OP is worried in general about reviewers being handed an advantage other seekers won't have, but I say that reviewers deserve this rather minor reward should they decide to take advantage of it.

 

I do not think that having access to the full details of a puzzle solution can be seen as a minor reward. That could save cachers who want to clear out a certain series months of work.

 

I understand that the reviewers need to check whether the guidelines are met, but it appears to me that somehow mystery caches are treated more strictly than other caches types even though they are referred to as catch all type. Multi caches are much more flexible and this does not seem consistent to me. Some types of guideline violation will never be checkable by the reviewers - so asking too many details about the solution can be an overkill from my point of view.

 

Of course the reviewers have access to the final coordinates anyway, but most cachers are more reluctant giving away coordinates to other caches than giving away what they call hints. For example, if a reviewer gives away hints for puzzle solutions he/she never would have been able to solve, a borderline is crossed for me.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I do not think that having access to the full details of a puzzle solution can be seen as a minor reward. That could save cachers who want to clear out a certain series months of work.

A reviewer using the priviledged information to save themselves months of work should be ashamed of themselves. But I don't think a CO should worry about this unlikely yet harmless case.

 

Some types of guideline violation will never be checkable by the reviewers - so asking too many details about the solution can be an overkill from my point of view.

I do not think the information necessary for solving the puzzle is an unreasonable amount of detail. Furthermore, I don't think it hurts for puzzle creators to be asked to think about and explain what it would take to solve their puzzles.

 

Of course the reviewers have access to the final coordinates anyway, but most cachers are more reluctant giving away coordinates to other caches than giving away what they call hints. For example, if a reviewer gives away hints for puzzle solutions he/she never would have been able to solve, a borderline is crossed for me.

Giving this information to someone with no need to know would be an indiscretion well beyond what I would expect from a reviewer. Such a violation of trust should lead to a discussion of whether that particular reviewer should continue being a reviewer, not whether reviewers in general should be given this information.

Link to comment

I do not think that having access to the full details of a puzzle solution can be seen as a minor reward. That could save cachers who want to clear out a certain series months of work.

A reviewer using the priviledged information to save themselves months of work should be ashamed of themselves. But I don't think a CO should worry about this unlikely yet harmless case.

 

Personally, I'd guess that the probability that this is going to happen varies with the involved country.

 

I do know for example that there exist exams in the US with no proctor which would be unthinkable in most countries in Europe.

 

In my area a cache like your Modern music puzzle would degrade into a traditional for many after the first cacher who gives away solutions has found it. It would not have stayed with only 12 finders since 2012.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Some types of guideline violation will never be checkable by the reviewers - so asking too many details about the solution can be an overkill from my point of view.

I do not think the information necessary for solving the puzzle is an unreasonable amount of detail. Furthermore, I don't think it hurts for puzzle creators to be asked to think about and explain what it would take to solve their puzzles.

 

Of late, my reviewers have been asking for more information on how to solve some puzzles. I think this is a great idea! It keeps unsolvable puzzle caches from being hidden. Many puzzle types they recognize, so do not have to ask. (Though I doubt they solve them to make sure it is correct.) But I have gotten questions like: What kind of code is that? No problem. How to solve the puzzle from the given info? (Do this, then that, then this.)

The only problem I ran into was the reviewer asking how I expected cachers to read my mind? I didn't think it was impossible to figure out. The reviewer finally accepted that I thought it was solvable, and published it. It has had nine finds (which is not bad for a 5 star mystery).

So, yes. I think it is good that the reviewers are checking that mystery caches are solvable.

As to the reviewer finding the cache because s/he knows how to solve the puzzle? He or she could look at the final coordinates! No need to solve the puzzle. Most of the reviewers I work with are not nearby, though one or two have found a few of my caches.

Link to comment

I do know for example that there exist exams in the US with no proctor which would be unthinkable in most countries in Europe.

But hopefully even when the exam is monitored, the proctor is still trusted, isn't he? That strikes me as analogous to what we're talking about.

 

Although more interesting is that your observation suggests that people in other areas think of finding geocaches as exams that are important to pass no matter how, while the geocachers I know tend to see such cheating as s dumb way to spoil ones own fun.

Link to comment

But I have gotten questions like: What kind of code is that? No problem. How to solve the puzzle from the given info?

 

For me there is a difference between answering this question and spelling out all details.

 

Moreover, for a multi cache the issue whether is it is solvable has to be answered over time by the finders anyway. The same could work for puzzle caches as

well.

 

As to the reviewer finding the cache because s/he knows how to solve the puzzle? He or she could look at the final coordinates! No need to solve the puzzle. Most of the reviewers I work with are not nearby, though one or two have found a few of my caches.

 

In comparatively small countries like the Czech republic or Slovakia the situation is different.

 

Looking at the final coordinates is something else than pretending in the log to have solved the puzzle which some cachers might even think that they have done and in many cases they will certainly have made a contribution, but it often makes a huge difference whether one has a tiny extra bit of information available or not.

Looking at the coordinates is usually associated with a much higher mental barrier than making use of information how to solve a puzzle.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Although more interesting is that your observation suggests that people in other areas think of finding geocaches as exams that are important to pass no matter how, while the geocachers I know tend to see such cheating as s dumb way to spoil ones own fun.

 

There are many cachers out there who do not enjoy solving puzzles at all. So they are not spoiling their own fun, but rather the fun of some cache owners.

They either want to clear out some radius, enjoy the outdoor part or simply want to score a found it log for a cache that has not many finders and which has some kind of prestige

due to its difficulty.

Link to comment

Personally, puzzles are not my thing. But I do find puzzle caches every so often. I will not find a puzzle cache (if I know any inside info about it as a reviewer) if it's not a puzzle that I can personally solve myself or by directly working with a friend on it.

 

Also, it would be extremely poor form for me to share info or final coords with other cachers that I received because of my super reviewer powers. I would expect that if I did so, I wouldn't be working for Groundspeak much longer after that. :anibad:

Link to comment

There are many cachers out there who do not enjoy solving puzzles at all.

 

So don't solve them - put them on the ignore list.

 

So they are not spoiling their own fun, but rather the fun of some cache owners.

 

Probably true in the early stages. Until those cache owners reach the point where they decide to stop wasting their time coming up with new puzzles - and then those who love puzzles do in fact have their fun spoiled - so it's not just the CO's who are affected.

 

They... simply want to score a found it log for a cache that has not many finders and which has some kind of prestige due to its difficulty.

 

Rendering the prestige they seek absolutely worthless while at the same time diminishing it for those who put the effort in to win it fair-and-square.

Link to comment

My cache find for yesterday may have been influenced by this thread and the "Law Enforcement Encounters" thread.

 

I sincerely hope that a wait of more than six years was enough to cleanse the taint of impropriety. At least the cache owner thought so, in a nice email he sent to thank me for finding the cache and writing an old-school log.

 

If I wanted to cheat, I wouldn't look at the pre-publication information about how to solve the puzzle. I'd look at the final coordinates in the hidden Additional Waypoint. I choose to do neither, of course. That said, there is no getting around the fact that this information needs to be provided to the reviewer.

Link to comment

There are many cachers out there who do not enjoy solving puzzles at all.

 

So don't solve them - put them on the ignore list.

 

I was not referring to my personal point of view.

 

So they are not spoiling their own fun, but rather the fun of some cache owners.

 

Probably true in the early stages. Until those cache owners reach the point where they decide to stop wasting their time coming up with new puzzles - and then those who love puzzles do in fact have their fun spoiled - so it's not just the CO's who are affected.

 

I agree once again and I use this argument often, but it does not help to convince those who think that is is ok to visit as many puzzle caches as they want to do without having dealt with the puzzle. They have nothing to lose as they do not care if no puzzle caches are hidden in the future.

 

Unfortunately, also Groundspeak is on the side of such cachers. GS does not even require any longer that the individual cachers who claim a found it log sign the log or have it signed in their name. It is perfectly ok that large groups invent a team name for just one day and then say 20 cachers claim a find for all caches that have been logged on that day with the newly invented team name even though it is clear that not all of them can have been at all involved caches (which are not simple caches or powertrail like caches and all of which have a large log book and not a small sheet where one could argue with saving space in the log book). Anyone could claim to have been part of the team as there is no need to mention their aliases in the log any more.

So not only that the puzzles are not any longer solved by many visitors of puzzle caches, but also it is not any longer obligatory to visit the cache in person. Just log as Team X on day A, as Team Y on day B etc and decide later how many people want to profit from such logs for their individual accounts.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

There are many cachers out there who do not enjoy solving puzzles at all.

 

So don't solve them - put them on the ignore list.

 

I was not referring to my personal point of view.

 

I wasn't referring to you personally :)

 

So they are not spoiling their own fun, but rather the fun of some cache owners.

 

Probably true in the early stages. Until those cache owners reach the point where they decide to stop wasting their time coming up with new puzzles - and then those who love puzzles do in fact have their fun spoiled - so it's not just the CO's who are affected.

 

I agree once again and I use this argument often, but it does not help to convince those who think that is is ok to visit as many puzzle caches as they want to do without having dealt with the puzzle. They have nothing to lose as they do not care if no puzzle caches are hidden in the future.

 

But I did get the impression from your earlier post that you thought it was only the puzzle CO who suffered and I wanted to illustrate how I thought there were others who suffered also.

 

Unfortunately, also Groundspeak is on the side of such cachers.

 

I'm not sure that's the case - I think it's just something GS chooses not to get involved in.

 

In any case - I think we've wandered off-topic quite some distance - sorry 'bout that :o

 

Back on topic - I'm all for reviewers verifying that puzzles are solvable before publication as it's not unheard of round here for people to deliberately put out puzzles which can't be solved just so they hand the coords to and have the cache found by only their friends :mad:

Link to comment

There are many cachers out there who do not enjoy solving puzzles at all. So they are not spoiling their own fun, but rather the fun of some cache owners.

I don't understand those cachers, but I do understand they exist. But I think it's misguided for a CO to get their fun out of how infrequently their caches are found. If they have a hard puzzle and they know not many people will be able to solve it, why do they let people getting the solution without solving it diminish their enjoyment and pride? When you think about it, that's the same kind of numbers based logic that's driving the fake solvers to begin with.

 

But beyond that, let's not forget the topic: you think reviewers are feeding such cachers solutions? If that's true, it's a much bigger problem.

 

I sincerely hope that a wait of more than six years was enough to cleanse the taint of impropriety.

Perhaps, but I'm still keeping an eye on you to make sure it isn't only 5 years next time.

Link to comment

But I think it's misguided for a CO to get their fun out of how infrequently their caches are found.

 

Assuming that's what's actually going on, of course.

 

If they have a hard puzzle and they know not many people will be able to solve it, why do they let people getting the solution without solving it diminish their enjoyment and pride? When you think about it, that's the same kind of numbers based logic that's driving the fake solvers to begin with.

 

I think it is fairly common for people who have invested considerable time and effort to produce something for a particular purpose to find it being adulterated or debased somewhat unpleasant.

 

It's certainly no more misguided than placing a very easy to find roadside cache that requires no effort to find and then taking pleasure in how frequently it is found.

 

Perhaps there's a middle ground which isn't 'misguided' - but I certainly don't know where that is :huh:

 

Many puzzle setters work hard to produce puzzles which are solvable with effort (a big factor in the enjoyment of setting them in the first place) - only to find that some want the smiley but can't be bothered to invest the required effort. I think it's more likely to be this lack of reciprocal effort which puts puzzle setters off bothering, and that the sky is the limit when it comes to numbers of finders - provided those finders have invested the proper amount of effort.

Link to comment

But beyond that, let's not forget the topic: you think reviewers are feeding such cachers solutions? If that's true, it's a much bigger problem.

 

I do not think that it happens systematically and necessarily with a bad intent, but I'm sure it happens that reviewers and the cachers who go caching with them profit from the fact that they

have easily available information on puzzle caches that they do not enjoy to solve. For many puzzles it is impossible to forget some clues that one gets told during the review process.

 

Personally, I would have preferred to stay with a system like it worked in the early days of geocaching in Europe where the reviewers were living far from their review area.

 

Of course it depends on the personal cacher ethics - those reviewers who always have shared their knowledge about caches with their environment will not stop to so because they became reviewers and typically they will also not be able to distinguish clearly between information they obtained during the review process and what they learnt at events or other places etc

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Cezanne, you are making serious ethical allegations, couched in terms like "I am sure" and other absolutes. If you have specific examples (cache names, reviewer names, information disclosed and players who received it) then that information should be forwarded privately to Geocaching HQ. If you are just speculating then please clarify.

 

In ten years of reviewing, I have had no trouble avoiding all of the behavior which you are "certain" is occurring. While it's hard to measure when I've sufficiently "forgotten" the details of a cache review, I can say with certainty that I've never shared any inside information with any other geocacher. It's a pretty bright line.

Link to comment

Although more interesting is that your observation suggests that people in other areas think of finding geocaches as exams that are important to pass no matter how, while the geocachers I know tend to see such cheating as s dumb way to spoil ones own fun.

 

There are many cachers out there who do not enjoy solving puzzles at all. So they are not spoiling their own fun, but rather the fun of some cache owners.

They either want to clear out some radius, enjoy the outdoor part or simply want to score a found it log for a cache that has not many finders and which has some kind of prestige

due to its difficulty.

 

Suppose a cache owner, after placing a few puzzle caches, decides that having others give away the solution defeats the point of creating a puzzle cache and subsequently decides to archive their puzzle caches and not submit any more. If someone enjoys doing puzzle caches, wouldn't that spoil their fun as well?

 

 

Link to comment

I think it is fairly common for people who have invested considerable time and effort to produce something for a particular purpose to find it being adulterated or debased somewhat unpleasant.

I guess this is the part I really don't understand. The puzzle isn't being adulterated or debased, it's simply being ignored by that subset of cachers. It's still the same wonderful, entertaining, and challenging puzzle it's always been for the kind of people the CO created it for. Why would the CO care what those other twits do?

 

It's certainly no more misguided than placing a very easy to find roadside cache that requires no effort to find and then taking pleasure in how frequently it is found.

At the risk of distracting the conversation, this does seem to be another disconnect between me that the other side of this question: yes, I see being thrilled about providing something people can succeed at as being much different that being thrilled about how impossible it is for people to succeed at solving a puzzle. The high number of finders is, in fact, a measure of the number of people enjoying the cache, but a low number of finders doesn't tell you anything about whether a puzzle is a good one, since a stupid puzzle can be just as hard to solve as a brilliant one.

 

Suppose a cache owner, after placing a few puzzle caches, decides that having others give away the solution defeats the point of creating a puzzle cache and subsequently decides to archive their puzzle caches and not submit any more. If someone enjoys doing puzzle caches, wouldn't that spoil their fun as well?

It certainly would, which is why I'm so keen on making sure puzzle cache creators keep in mind the fun they are providing so they don't worry about the people that they see as not having fun the right way.

Link to comment

I think it is fairly common for people who have invested considerable time and effort to produce something for a particular purpose to find it being adulterated or debased somewhat unpleasant.

I guess this is the part I really don't understand. The puzzle isn't being adulterated or debased, it's simply being ignored by that subset of cachers. It's still the same wonderful, entertaining, and challenging puzzle it's always been for the kind of people the CO created it for. Why would the CO care what those other twits do?

 

It is being debased. The puzzle and the cache are a package. Logging the cache without solving the puzzle is less than the CO intended.

 

It's certainly no more misguided than placing a very easy to find roadside cache that requires no effort to find and then taking pleasure in how frequently it is found.

At the risk of distracting the conversation, this does seem to be another disconnect between me that the other side of this question: yes, I see being thrilled about providing something people can succeed at as being much different that being thrilled about how impossible it is for people to succeed at solving a puzzle. The high number of finders is, in fact, a measure of the number of people enjoying the cache, but a low number of finders doesn't tell you anything about whether a puzzle is a good one, since a stupid puzzle can be just as hard to solve as a brilliant one.

 

Correct - unsolvable puzzles are very easy to construct - and it's an awful lot easier to do that than to construct one which escapes the instant solve but does unfold neatly and logically when sufficient effort of the correct type is applied. Constructing the latter is part of the challenge / fun in puzzle setting and it's that effort which is wasted by people obtaining the coords by other means and then logging the cache.

 

It's not different really than the expectation / appreciation of good logs in return for an above average cache placement.

 

A reviewer being given the opportunity to see how a puzzle is meant to unfold prior to publication is one way that unsolvable puzzles / guessing games might be avoided. Indeed the benefit of that outside perspective might actually lead to a better finished product :)

Link to comment

Cezanne, you are making serious ethical allegations, couched in terms like "I am sure" and other absolutes. If you have specific examples (cache names, reviewer names, information disclosed and players who received it) then that information should be forwarded privately to Geocaching HQ. If you are just speculating then please clarify.

 

So here comes the clarification you definitely deserve. Let me start with pointing out that due to cultural differences what I wrote about is nothing that would make sense to report to Geocaching HQ.

 

The type of behaviour that I had in mind about sharing hints and informations about caches hidden by someone else is very common in some countries and seen as part of comradery among fellow

cachers by maybe at least 50% of all cachers - in such an environment what I wrote above cannot be referred to serious ethical allegation any longer.

The reviewers are normal cachers. It would be pretty unrealistic to expect that they become different persons and change their caching behaviour completely just because they became reviewers. If it was normal for them to ask other cachers who have found a cache before them for help and answering such questions of cachers in case they have already found a cache, then they will continue to do so. I'm sure that in many cases some people hand out hints or solutions to mystery caches they have visited. but have not solved the puzzles on their own from the beginning to the end cannot even recall the sources where they got hints from. So of course the information the reviewers have available are only a small part of the problem and what I described above would happen anyway. This does not change my opinion that there are situations and regions where I would prefer if the reviewers do not get told all the details.

 

I believe you that you have saved several puzzle cache owners from mistakes but I do not know a single such case that happened in my country. I think there are way too many mystery caches and way too few reviewers. Moreover, there are certainly puzzles that go well beyond the capacities of most cachers (I do not exclude myself - nobody can be a specialist in all areas) even if they get told the approach. So there will be quite a number of puzzles where the reviewers even if they had the time never would be able to check the correctness.

 

There exist quite a number of puzzle caches in my area where at least 90% of the finders (often more) admit that they could not have found the solution without help. I have solved some of those puzzles (without help) and chose to ignore others. Those that I solved are clearly solvable and I have no reason to think that the other ones I ignore are not solvable. It is as easy as that: Not every puzzle is for everyone and sometimes without the proper background one would need to invest months into a cache and I do not think that this worth the effort (that might differ from person to person). I do not mind of course if the hider of a cache hands out help, but I'm clearly against hints and solutions that are handed over from finder to finder, regardless of whether the finder is a reviewer or not. I do have a cache where I know that as soon as it gets found by the first cacher who is not keeping the solution as a secret and hands hints over in a way that is uncontrollable for me, I will archive that very cache. I have not hidden a single cache to allow others just to find one additional container. If they are just interested into searching plastic containers, my caches are not the right ones for them and as Groundspeak in my point of view is not doing enough to help puzzle cache owners archival is the only ultimate response in the end.

 

 

 

In ten years of reviewing, I have had no trouble avoiding all of the behavior which you are "certain" is occurring. While it's hard to measure when I've sufficiently "forgotten" the details of a cache review, I can say with certainty that I've never shared any inside information with any other geocacher. It's a pretty bright line.

 

I have no doubt that what you write above is 100% true. As I said before it appears to me however that there are cultural differences between different countries that also play a role in geocaching. Moreover, the density of non traditionals is higher in many European countries than in North America making the temptation higher for those who try to circumvent the way a cache is intended.

Link to comment

Cezanne, you are making serious ethical allegations, couched in terms like "I am sure" and other absolutes. If you have specific examples (cache names, reviewer names, information disclosed and players who received it) then that information should be forwarded privately to Geocaching HQ. If you are just speculating then please clarify.

 

The reviewers are normal cachers. It would be pretty unrealistic to expect that they become different persons and change their caching behaviour completely just because they became reviewers. If it was normal for them to ask other cachers who have found a cache before them for help and answering such questions of cachers in case they have already found a cache, then they will continue to do so. I'm sure that in many cases some people hand out hints or solutions to mystery caches they have visited. but have not solved the puzzles on their own from the beginning to the end cannot even recall the sources where they got hints from. So of course the information the reviewers have available are only a small part of the problem and what I described above would happen anyway. This does not change my opinion that there are situations and regions where I would prefer if the reviewers do not get told all the details.

 

 

It's a big assumption for you to think that a reviewer cannot change their caching habits after becoming a reviewer. I am very conscious about my position as a reviewer, and have changed multiple habits because of it. This includes sharing hints on caches that I have either published or have looked at reviewer info for some reason.

Link to comment

It is being debased. The puzzle and the cache are a package. Logging the cache without solving the puzzle is less than the CO intended.

To say it is "debased" means that the value to the seekers that solve the puzzle and the CO's appreciation of the seekers that solve the puzzle are eliminated because someone else is doing something else.

 

Constructing the latter is part of the challenge / fun in puzzle setting and it's that effort which is wasted by people obtaining the coords by other means and then logging the cache.

Exactly my point: the effort is wasted by those people. It would be every bit as much wasted by them if they ignored the cache altogether because they couldn't solve the puzzle.

 

Don't get me wrong: I think people that cheat to get coordinates are doing something wrong headed, but what I don't get is why the CO cares that they're doing something wrong headed. The more I think about it, the more I'm reminded of the classic line from Big Bang Theory: "I had to leave, they were having fun wrong."

 

A reviewer being given the opportunity to see how a puzzle is meant to unfold prior to publication is one way that unsolvable puzzles / guessing games might be avoided. Indeed the benefit of that outside perspective might actually lead to a better finished product :)

In the back of my mind, I'm thinking about the reviewer being able to give input on the puzzle -- I was very amused when someone let slip that the reviewer asked them, essentially, "How the heck is anyone supposed to figure out that? Read your mind?", since I've solved a few puzzles like that -- but I definitely don't want anyone to think that that's why the reviewers should have this information.

Link to comment

Another post from cezanne based on supposition rather than fact. This borders on mud-slinging, and it would be prudent for you to discontinue this line of discussion.

 

Like Cascade Reviewer just said, reviewers do alter their behavior. The do's and don'ts, the lines that cannot be crossed are all covered during our introductory training. The same training and the same standards apply worldwide.

Link to comment

It would be pretty unrealistic to expect that they become different persons and change their caching behaviour completely just because they became reviewers.

On the contrary, that's exactly what I expect from people put in a position of power. I hope the reviewers in your area take your concern seriously and make sure the things you're afraid of are not happening.

 

On the other matters, I am very sorry to hear that the local caching culture puts such a low value on puzzles. I see now that the main problem with the widespread nature of this behavior is that people that would otherwise enjoy solving the puzzle have come to think that it's normal to get the answers from someone else, instead.

 

But I want to point out that some of the people you seem upset with, those getting help from others, in particular, may still appreciate and enjoy your clever puzzle even though they didn't solve it personally from the ground up.

 

Furthermore, some of the most fun I've had with puzzles caches came while I worked together with others to solve the puzzle. I'm not sure how you feel about me if I find your cache even though someone else in the group was the one to make the key discovery.

Link to comment

It is being debased. The puzzle and the cache are a package. Logging the cache without solving the puzzle is less than the CO intended.

To say it is "debased" means that the value to the seekers that solve the puzzle and the CO's appreciation of the seekers that solve the puzzle are eliminated because someone else is doing something else.

 

No. It doesn't mean that at all, at least not according the any dictionary definitions I've ever read.

 

Constructing the latter is part of the challenge / fun in puzzle setting and it's that effort which is wasted by people obtaining the coords by other means and then logging the cache.

Exactly my point: the effort is wasted by those people. It would be every bit as much wasted by them if they ignored the cache altogether because they couldn't solve the puzzle.

 

As the effort in setting the puzzle is expended by the CO I would say that it's the CO's effort that is wasted, not the other way around.

 

Don't get me wrong: I think people that cheat to get coordinates are doing something wrong headed, but what I don't get is why the CO cares that they're doing something wrong headed. The more I think about it, the more I'm reminded of the classic line from Big Bang Theory: "I had to leave, they were having fun wrong."

 

So you think that people who cheat to get coordinates are doing something wrong headed, but that the CO should ignore it and carry on regardless so long as those wrong headed people are having fun?

 

I'd have to disagree. I'm all for creating fun for others - but not at the expense of my own.

Link to comment

As the effort in setting the puzzle is expended by the CO I would say that it's the CO's effort that is wasted, not the other way around.

So it comes down to this question: why is the CO's effort wasted if someone gets the coordinates through a back channel and finds the cache, yet that same effort isn't wasted if that same seeker simply ignores the cache and never finds it? The waste on the puzzle seems identical either way to me, and, in the first case, the one you're so down on, at least the CO's effort to hide the cache wasn't also wasted.

 

I'd have to disagree. I'm all for creating fun for others - but not at the expense of my own.

I guess this is the bottom line: I can't imagine thinking that someone somwhere doing something wrong headed has any bearing on my fun.

Link to comment

As the effort in setting the puzzle is expended by the CO I would say that it's the CO's effort that is wasted, not the other way around.

So it comes down to this question: why is the CO's effort wasted if someone gets the coordinates through a back channel and finds the cache, yet that same effort isn't wasted if that same seeker simply ignores the cache and never finds it? The waste on the puzzle seems identical either way to me, and, in the first case, the one you're so down on, at least the CO's effort to hide the cache wasn't also wasted.

 

I'd have to disagree. I'm all for creating fun for others - but not at the expense of my own.

I guess this is the bottom line: I can't imagine thinking that someone somwhere doing something wrong headed has any bearing on my fun.

 

Return=>Investment= :D

 

Return<Investment= :(

Link to comment

There is a simple solution for all of this and a great way to simplify the lives of reviewers....let puzzles go the route of challenge caches , get rid of them. They have little to do with geocaching other then going outside to find the final. Hours of computer searches ,puzzle solving, etc is the kind of thing most of us want to escape when we go out geocaching and the PC's take up space that could be occupied by real geocaches. Nothing wrong with liking to solve puzzles ....go for it, but for PC's, geocaching would be a better game without them.

Link to comment

There is a simple solution for all of this and a great way to simplify the lives of reviewers....let puzzles go the route of challenge caches , get rid of them.

 

While I tend to agree and think that Groundspeak should have grandfathered puzzles and kept virtuals, we would be missing out on all the associated angst with them.

 

I know enough about my reviewers so I would never ask them for cache information, whether it be for a puzzle final, multi, Wherigo, or letterbox. It would be far easier to get hints from another cacher, tag along on a puzzle run, or brute force the final. If a reviewer has inside information, it won't affect me regardless of whether I am seeking a cache or placing one.

Link to comment

....let puzzles go the route of challenge caches , get rid of them.

 

I think you're referring to challenges rather than challenge caches.

 

Challenge caches are very much alive - and rather popular too.

 

I'm thinking that the wise one from the Big Easy is on to something...Jumping through hoops or using GSAK to compile the data from your list of finds is just an ALR to claim a find on a regular cache. Get rid of the Challenge caches!

Link to comment

Some inappropriate and/or off topic posts have been hidden from view, along with a few replies quoting from those posts. If you replied to one of those posts and your reply is no longer visible, don't worry. The moderating team is simply keeping the conversation on-topic and respectful. Thanks!

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 4
×
×
  • Create New...