Puzzle Caches

[+BCandMsKitty]

All of which would indicate there needs to be a new category for field puzzles, rather than lumping them in with "unknown" or "mystery"

Problem solved!

[+J Grouchy]

All of which would indicate there needs to be a new category for field puzzles, rather than lumping them in with "unknown" or "mystery"

Problem solved!

 

I'd rather see challenges have their own type and puzzles all be grouped together...those with a field puzzle and those with a puzzle on the cache page to solve to get coordinates (or both).

[+Team Microdot]

You won't find it written in a guideline anywhere, but for me a sensible distinction would be:

 

- For field puzzles which need no advanced preparation or special tools: List as a Traditional or Multicache (if the cache or first stage is also at the posted coordinates).

 

- For field puzzles which require advanced preparation and/or special tools: List as a mystery/puzzle.

 

The reason being: whilst reading the cache page in advance is always a good idea, cachers generally expect to be able to find Trads and Multis without special preparation. (Unless it has a 5* rating which also indicates it could require special equipment).

 

This seems like a very sensible idea

[+Team Microdot]

Hide what you like. Diversity is a good thing.

 

I enjoy puzzles, and consider them a great way to pass time when I cannot cache (winter storms in particular are a great time to work on puzzles, I think). I often jokingly refer to cache puzzles as my "continuing education", although it really isn't much of a joke. I've learned (or at least been exposed to) a great many things over the course of my few years of caching, and that is never a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.

 

Ditto

 

I like to see a geochecker because, although I'm willing to go after a puzzle based only on my solution (and indeed some of the more thrilling finds came that way), the further I need to travel from home the more I like to be sure I'm not wasting time and gas.

 

I too like to see a geochecker - especially on distant puzzles and puzzles for which I could easily derive numerous sets of plausible coordinates. I'm quite happy to check a few local locations on a 'hunch' but there's a limit to that. Although often the lack of a geochecker can be a sign that you don't need one - because the solution will be sufficiently explicit that you'll know when you have it.

 

What I dislike is the kind of puzzle that basically boils down to a game of "guess what I'm thinking". I'm not saying the path to the solution needs to be immediately obvious or easily discerned, just that the path needs to exist. This is one reason I'm not a huge fan of vigenere type ciphers that require a passphrase, too often it becomes nothing more than guessing what the password is (there are certainly exceptions to this statement, some of them caches that I've enjoyed tremendously, but those were "done right" in my eyes).

 

Agree here too - there's a difference between a real puzzle and a guessing game and sometimes differentiating between the two can be a difficult balancing act for the CO. I suppose that's a fundamental part of the art of puzzle setting - including just the right number and type of clues to make the puzzle challenging without being too easy.

 

Another thing I mostly dislike is red herrings. Those are OK on easier puzzles, but the harder the puzzle the less I like them. When it comes to a puzzle that is already going to take a great deal of time and effort to solve, muddying the water any more than needed is just mean. Multiple red herrings are even worse. In general I think that the use of red herrings to make a puzzle harder is the same as using soft coordinates to make a cache harder.

 

I've seen very, very simple puzzles buried under mountains of herring - to the point where I've felt deflated by the actual solution and that it really wasn't worth the effort.

[+J Grouchy]

Hide what you like. Diversity is a good thing.

 

I enjoy puzzles, and consider them a great way to pass time when I cannot cache (winter storms in particular are a great time to work on puzzles, I think). I often jokingly refer to cache puzzles as my "continuing education", although it really isn't much of a joke. I've learned (or at least been exposed to) a great many things over the course of my few years of caching, and that is never a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.

 

Ditto

 

I like to see a geochecker because, although I'm willing to go after a puzzle based only on my solution (and indeed some of the more thrilling finds came that way), the further I need to travel from home the more I like to be sure I'm not wasting time and gas.

 

I too like to see a geochecker - especially on distant puzzles and puzzles for which I could easily derive numerous sets of plausible coordinates. I'm quite happy to check a few local locations on a 'hunch' but there's a limit to that. Although often the lack of a geochecker can be a sign that you don't need one - because the solution will be sufficiently explicit that you'll know when you have it.

 

What I dislike is the kind of puzzle that basically boils down to a game of "guess what I'm thinking". I'm not saying the path to the solution needs to be immediately obvious or easily discerned, just that the path needs to exist. This is one reason I'm not a huge fan of vigenere type ciphers that require a passphrase, too often it becomes nothing more than guessing what the password is (there are certainly exceptions to this statement, some of them caches that I've enjoyed tremendously, but those were "done right" in my eyes).

 

Agree here too - there's a difference between a real puzzle and a guessing game and sometimes differentiating between the two can be a difficult balancing act for the CO. I suppose that's a fundamental part of the art of puzzle setting - including just the right number and type of clues to make the puzzle challenging without being too easy.

 

Another thing I mostly dislike is red herrings. Those are OK on easier puzzles, but the harder the puzzle the less I like them. When it comes to a puzzle that is already going to take a great deal of time and effort to solve, muddying the water any more than needed is just mean. Multiple red herrings are even worse. In general I think that the use of red herrings to make a puzzle harder is the same as using soft coordinates to make a cache harder.

 

I've seen very, very simple puzzles buried under mountains of herring - to the point where I've felt deflated by the actual solution and that it really wasn't worth the effort.

 

In my limited experience, it has been difficult to find the right balance of difficulty in puzzle creation. I tend to avoid the usual ciphers that allow people to copy/paste text into some online tool that will spit out the answer. Instead, I like creating puzzles that require a different way of looking at the text or image to derive the solution. My problem has been that apparently these only attract particular cachers and, in the case of my two most recent puzzles, are more difficult than I ever intended them to be. As a puzzle maker, it can be tough to look at it through the eyes of someone who is having to solve it. I look at these things and know exactly what method is used to solve it...so it's almost impossible for me to "UN-see" it.

 

My most recent one - a pi-themed puzzle - was actually intended to be figured out fairly quickly. I expected to get an FTF the same day it was published, but here we are after two weeks and nobody has even solved it yet. The solution is pretty straightforward, in my opinion...no red herrings or anything requiring them to read my mind...yet for some reason folks haven't caught on. If I didn't want anyone to solve them, I'd be all about bragging...but the reverse is actually true. Maybe my difficulty is coming up with useful hints that don't give the game away...

[+Oxford Stone]

I'm a fan of puzzles, but there are plenty which are beyond me. I don't ignore them in case I get help / inspiration though. I've put out 5 of my own - 1 you have to do some google research about what is the world's oldest continually used (association) football ground; 1 is cryptic indications of local pubs (then number of letters in name); the other 3 are ways in which a colour, letter or town name can be represented by numbers... getting a reasonable number of FPs traffic not much lower than the surrounding trads.

As mentioned above, puzzles with more than one possible answer = badly thought out!

[+On a Dragons Wings]

absolutely hate puzzle caches. Usually just pass them by. My mind is not geared to figure out most of them and I find it frustrating to work on them and never figure them out and not be able to get help from the CO. I do intend to do my own though which will give all the puzzle lovers in the area something to chew on. I figure that the way my mind works puzzles, they will be in my position trying to figure out my train of thought.

 

Personally if the site outlawed puzzle caches it would not bother me in the least.

[+Team Microdot]

In my limited experience, it has been difficult to find the right balance of difficulty in puzzle creation. I tend to avoid the usual ciphers that allow people to copy/paste text into some online tool that will spit out the answer. Instead, I like creating puzzles that require a different way of looking at the text or image to derive the solution. My problem has been that apparently these only attract particular cachers and, in the case of my two most recent puzzles, are more difficult than I ever intended them to be. As a puzzle maker, it can be tough to look at it through the eyes of someone who is having to solve it. I look at these things and know exactly what method is used to solve it...so it's almost impossible for me to "UN-see" it.

 

My most recent one - a pi-themed puzzle - was actually intended to be figured out fairly quickly. I expected to get an FTF the same day it was published, but here we are after two weeks and nobody has even solved it yet. The solution is pretty straightforward, in my opinion...no red herrings or anything requiring them to read my mind...yet for some reason folks haven't caught on. If I didn't want anyone to solve them, I'd be all about bragging...but the reverse is actually true. Maybe my difficulty is coming up with useful hints that don't give the game away...

 

I've had similar experiences - puzzles intended to be simple seem to have taken longer to solve than more complex puzzles.

 

Thinking about it now, I wonder if that's because those more complex puzzles include a greater number of smaller steps toward the solution whereas the simpler ones include fewer incremental steps leading in the right direction?

 

I suppose it's a simpler task to climb a ladder with closely spaced rungs than one where the rungs are widely spaced?

[+redsox_mark]

 

I've had similar experiences - puzzles intended to be simple seem to have taken longer to solve than more complex puzzles.

 

 

Creating good puzzles and assessing the "difficulty" is tricky.

 

There are all sorts of puzzles of course, but from my experience there are two main types of puzzle difficulty:

 

1. Ones where it is fairly clearly defined what you need to do, but doing it is difficult. (E.g. a puzzle I solved recently which involved use of calculus; which I had not used in some time).

 

2. Ones where the difficulty is "seeing" what the puzzle is. Either finding something hidden, or figuring out what the owner was thinking by piecing together clues.

 

And of course some puzzles use a combination of both.

 

The challenge with "type 2" is getting the balance right so there is a logical link and the solver doesn't need to read the owners mind - without making it too obvious.

[+J Grouchy]

 

I've had similar experiences - puzzles intended to be simple seem to have taken longer to solve than more complex puzzles.

 

 

Creating good puzzles and assessing the "difficulty" is tricky.

 

There are all sorts of puzzles of course, but from my experience there are two main types of puzzle difficulty:

 

1. Ones where it is fairly clearly defined what you need to do, but doing it is difficult. (E.g. a puzzle I solved recently which involved use of calculus; which I had not used in some time).

 

2. Ones where the difficulty is "seeing" what the puzzle is. Either finding something hidden, or figuring out what the owner was thinking by piecing together clues.

 

And of course some puzzles use a combination of both.

 

The challenge with "type 2" is getting the balance right so there is a logical link and the solver doesn't need to read the owners mind - without making it too obvious.

 

I'm not interested in solving complicated math, therefore I never create puzzles that involve it. I also don't really enjoy the typical ciphers since there are any number of online tools that involve simply copy/pasting the text into a form and having the answer spit out a fraction of a second later. I've received a number of emails from folks detailing the insane amount of work they've put into solving my puzzles and I can't help but shake my head over how they tend to over-complicate things. I get that folks DO create puzzles that involve that sort of work, but I almost worry my simple solutions will disappoint them when they finally get it.

[+Team Microdot]

 

2. Ones where the difficulty is "seeing" what the puzzle is. Either finding something hidden, or figuring out what the owner was thinking by piecing together clues.

 

....

 

The challenge with "type 2" is getting the balance right so there is a logical link and the solver doesn't need to read the owners mind - without making it too obvious.

 

Here's a question...

 

Puzzles evolve over time, often as setters solve puzzles which rely on a particular method and then add their own twist to that method and use it to publish puzzles of their own - and this evolution might extend to several generations...

 

A potential solver who finds the first puzzle in the evolution chain will have a better chance of solving the one at the end of that chain - if they work through them in sequence, building knowledge / skill incrementally as they go along.

 

That being the case, should a puzzle setter be expected to include sufficient clues/logic in every puzzle to facilitate a 'standalone solve' - or is it OK to expect people to identify and work through the evolution chain?

[+dprovan]

That being the case, should a puzzle setter be expected to include sufficient clues/logic in every puzzle to facilitate a 'standalone solve' - or is it OK to expect people to identify and work through the evolution chain?

A chain of puzzles building on each other sounds fine to me. I prefer if the chain is explicit so I know what path to follow, but I've also dealt with puzzles where the first step was locating the previous link or the last step was locating the next link. But a covert chain can quickly get into the mind reading area, particularly if local knowledge is required.

[+kunarion]

absolutely hate puzzle caches. Usually just pass them by. My mind is not geared to figure out most of them and I find it frustrating to work on them and never figure them out and not be able to get help from the CO. I do intend to do my own though which will give all the puzzle lovers in the area something to chew on. I figure that the way my mind works puzzles, they will be in my position trying to figure out my train of thought.

 

Personally if the site outlawed puzzle caches it would not bother me in the least.

I've made two Puzzle caches, and they are designed the way I'd like to find one. One thing that I'd like is, if there are typos or something odd about the way the puzzle is formatted on the cache page, that the oddness is part of the puzzle, not merely CO sloppiness.

 

Several of my caches are the kind I generally can't find. Maybe a little cathartic or therapeutic. Maybe it gives me a chance to analyze them closely. One of mine a lot of extra time for me to find, every time I visit (and I placed it there ).

Edited March 31, 2014 by kunarion

[+Team Microdot]

That being the case, should a puzzle setter be expected to include sufficient clues/logic in every puzzle to facilitate a 'standalone solve' - or is it OK to expect people to identify and work through the evolution chain?

A chain of puzzles building on each other sounds fine to me. I prefer if the chain is explicit so I know what path to follow, but I've also dealt with puzzles where the first step was locating the previous link or the last step was locating the next link. But a covert chain can quickly get into the mind reading area, particularly if local knowledge is required.

 

I wasn't necessarily thinking of an explicit chain.

 

The chain might just be number of puzzle caches by a particular CO over a period of time which might be connected in some ways and different in others.

 

Or the chain might be caches by various CO's, each influenced by a previous puzzle in local radius.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

That being the case, should a puzzle setter be expected to include sufficient clues/logic in every puzzle to facilitate a 'standalone solve' - or is it OK to expect people to identify and work through the evolution chain?

Jeez, that is the poster child of requiring cachers to read the COs mind. I think a puzzle needs to stand on it's own.

[+Team Microdot]

That being the case, should a puzzle setter be expected to include sufficient clues/logic in every puzzle to facilitate a 'standalone solve' - or is it OK to expect people to identify and work through the evolution chain?

Jeez, that is the poster child of requiring cachers to read the COs mind. I think a puzzle needs to stand on it's own.

 

Is it though? And can a puzzle stand completely on its own, or do we have to assume some appropriate knowledge, or the ability and means to find it, from the seeker?

 

In the scenario I had in mind there's a chain of caches which evolve, one from the other - typically geographically close to one another although not necessarily by the same CO. There's a ladder of progression with a number of rungs. Solved in sequence each of these puzzles steers the seeker roughly in the general direction of the solution of the next.

 

I imagine this scenario crops up frequently, as nearby cachers seek to solve each other's puzzles and come up with similar new ideas as they go, which they then publish themselves...

 

One might argue that a puzzle that stands completely on its own, based on some unkindred concept might actually fall more into the read my mind category than the chain of differing, individual puzzles which have evolved naturally as a function of the logical thought processes of those solving / setting them? That sort of puzzle might actually be your poster child

[+NYPaddleCacher]

That being the case, should a puzzle setter be expected to include sufficient clues/logic in every puzzle to facilitate a 'standalone solve' - or is it OK to expect people to identify and work through the evolution chain?

A chain of puzzles building on each other sounds fine to me. I prefer if the chain is explicit so I know what path to follow, but I've also dealt with puzzles where the first step was locating the previous link or the last step was locating the next link. But a covert chain can quickly get into the mind reading area, particularly if local knowledge is required.

 

I wasn't necessarily thinking of an explicit chain.

 

The chain might just be number of puzzle caches by a particular CO over a period of time which might be connected in some ways and different in others.

 

Some caches owners develop a common style. There was a local cacher that put out quite a few puzzle caches. Pretty much all of them had a clue in the description. Some times it was a play on words and other times she would include a sentence that seemed to make sense in the description,but would contain a word or phrase, when when used in a search engine would provide a big clue. I learned that when solving any of her puzzle to google words and phrases on the cache page.

 

 

[medoug]

If a traditional comes along with a fields puzzle icon and many favourite points, I'm warned and in most cases decide not to go there.

 

Cezanne

 

Really?!? That's the first time I've heard of someone specifically avoiding caches with many favorite points. I'm glad that you really enjoy the 90%+ of other caches which are so lame that they don't merit any favorite points.

[+Ma & Pa]

Another idea is to create puzzle in a topic that is of interest to you.

 

I am an Oldie and love music from the late 1950's and early 1960's. So over time, I have created a number of puzzles involving songs from that era.

 

Here is the instructions from one of the cache pages

 

Answer the following questions related to some of the 50's & 60's singing groups in our series on the Bouctouche trail. The answers may be on the cache pages, or you may have to use your memory or Google. You only need the numerical part of the answers

 

Here are some of the caches

 

SINGING BY THE NUMBERS http://coord.info/GC3K3RF

 

MATH AND MUSIC http://coord.info/GC3KYM5

 

GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS http://coord.info/GC3DNBN

 

Singing Groups in Bouctouche http://coord.info/GC451GM

 

Where the boys are http://coord.info/GC3F71P

[+Oxford Stone]

Couple of comments re connected caches -

 

My 3 puzzles in my home town, each contains a hint to the enxt on the log paper. Just my way of boosting traffic.

 

I've helped my Finnish caching buddy / colleague solve 3 out of 4 increasingly hard music puzzles (near a music college) - I think it was one on chords or harmonies that was beyond us. Intervals and so on, not so bad.

 

Nearest unsolved puzzle to my office, if I looked up how to do bookkeeping (accounting) I might be able to do it. http://coord.info/GC1N2MY just never felt the urge...

[+Twentse Mug]

All of which would indicate there needs to be a new category for field puzzles, rather than lumping them in with "unknown" or "mystery"

Problem solved!

 

THere is an attribut for it already.

[+niraD]

All of which would indicate there needs to be a new category for field puzzles, rather than lumping them in with "unknown" or "mystery"

Problem solved!

I'd rather see challenges have their own type and puzzles all be grouped together...those with a field puzzle and those with a puzzle on the cache page to solve to get coordinates (or both).

Yeah, I think there's a clear difference between challenge caches and other mystery/puzzle caches. I'm not sure how clear the line between "field puzzles" and "solve at home" puzzles is. Some of my favorites have involved both a "solve at home" puzzle on the cache page and one or more "field puzzles" to get to the final location. Edited April 4, 2014 by niraD

[+Roman!]

I'm not a fan of puzzles, when a new one comes out I'll give it 5 minutes and if I don't solve it I won't try again. Creating a puzzles as opposed to a traditional will ensure less traffic and the harder you make it the less you will get.

 

For every person not fond of puzzle caches you'll find another that loves them so if you enjoy creating them then do so for you will never please all of the cachers all of the time no matter what cache you place.

[+Shadowrhen]

I've solved several puzzle caches in my area. I've spent anywhere from a few minutes to a month working them, either alone or with my caching partner or co-workers. I attempt them because I enjoy the challenge, ciphers, and learning new techniques. Some puzzles are awesome and a thrill to solve!

 

There are common problems with puzzle caches that deter geocachers new to them and may cause veteran geopuzzlers to give up on them or overshare them. They are problems that can be prevented by the CO during puzzle creation, posting, and maintenance.

 

1. Provide a good Description and valid Clue as to the starting point. Often the cacher appears expected to just read the CO's mind and know where to start. This is very difficult, especially if the solution involves an obscure technique that most people would never figure out on their own. I've solved at least two math puzzles like this.

 

2. Provide a Geochecker. It's very frustrating to be working different angles of a puzzle and not be able to check the work. One of the last puzzles I did involved two wasted trips before I found the right location.

 

3. CO's should not ignore requests for assistance. The better the Description and Clue, the fewer requests for assistance. I will attempt to work a puzzle on my own first which will involve studying the puzzle and researching online. I'll then ask for help from others close to me. If still stuck, I'll email the CO detailing what I've done so far and ask for guidance in getting on the right track. Sometimes a CO won't respond. That leaves me with not solving the puzzle, asking another cacher who has already found it for a clue, or asking folks in a puzzle forum for assistance. If a cacher can't get assistance from the CO, they will ask someone else or walk away from it.

 

4. If the same questions get asked or same problems arise, maybe the Description needs to be clarified. Update the page as needed.

 

5. It may be disappointing to some cachers to spend a lot of time solving a difficult puzzle only to find the cache is a film canister LPC. All that work for what amounts to a regular cache? I can understand why many cachers don't mess with them. Any Favorites points offered are for the puzzle and not the cache. Often the cache is not as stellar as the puzzle. Balancing the two would be a good idea. Actually, using a Puzzle to protect a good cache idea can be used instead of or in addition to setting it as Premium.

 

These are my suggestions after spending a lot of time on geopuzzles. I think that if you're going to put forth the effort into building it, it should be a good one that is enjoyed and lasts. Also would be nice if the "How to Solve Puzzle Caches" were its own forum instead of buried discussions within the general forums. Puzzle creation and solving really is its own thing that I think is worthy of its own section at GS.

[+Don&Betty]

I have had a dozen or so 5-star puzzle caches in place around Jackson, Michigan, USA for several years which are unique and mostly mathematical in nature. “Your Own Birthday” cache is an easy one and very popular. “Equality of the Sexes” is kind of tough, though it’s all simple algebra. It’s an algebraic proof that any female is the equal of any male. Any local math teacher would love to look at it with you.

 

Three are chess problems, one conventional, but the other two are original and unique in that you have to checkmate 16 invisible kings, or even 16 invisible maharajas, who can move either as a king or as a knight, and who can attack you if you give them a chance. You don’t have to be a chess pro to solve it, but they will keep you caught up in it for several evenings. Get some help from one or two of your local chess club members. They’ll love it.

 

Most of the puzzles involve geometric shapes. You must first deduce where the corners are, then convert the corner to corner distances to coordinate differences. It’s not rocket science, so the directions are about always N, S, E or W. Some involve using Google Earth to find features, distances and coordinates. Again, the math is usually just converting distances to angles and vice versa.

 

I frequently like to present the puzzle in as few words as possible. It’s amazing sometimes how few words and numbers it takes to define precisely, within 5-6 feet, where in the whole world the cache is hidden.

 

I invite all of you out there to copy them if you like, for geocache hides of your own in your own neighborhood, first solving them as is, then changing the input numbers so the math will produce your new local hide location instead of my original one, and giving credit to Don&Betty as the original author of course. I don’t include in this invitation any offer, though, to help you do any of this, either the solution or the conversion to your new hiding place coordinates. You’re on your own on that.

 

Find them listed under "Don&Betty" here: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=Don%26Betty&submit4=Go

 

I'd like to add one more condition to your copying these puzzles. In order to keep track of how many "versions" of these there may be out there in the world over the years to come, in case any of you take me up on this, please don't change the basic name, but instead, just append a date-stamp number to the original name in this manner: "Original Name yymmdd," Note that the date expressed this way, year first, then month, then day, is a chronological number, always getting bigger, not changing back from the 12th month to the 1st month each year, and it won't repeat for 100 years. So, if you named yours with the date you submitted it, chances are nobody else will submit one that same day. Thanks for doing this

 

Also, please contact me if you do copy one, so I can watch to see how it is received in your neighborhood. I expect these puzzles may add to your geocaching reputation. Some people around here have been known to call me, "the one who shall not be named." Thanks.

 

Good luck.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Don&Betty

[+SmallsKC]

I absolutely love a good puzzle cache. I look forward to checking out your puzzles, Don&Betty.

 

Our very first cache we placed is a puzzle cache that has to be solved at home. It is not an easy one for most who have attempted to solve it. I have had many people email me for help (one after she had already spent 40 hours on it!). While I don't give specific hints on the puzzle, it do look at how they are attempting to solve it to see if they are on the right track to begin with and go from there to help them without giving away too much. There are a few different elements of our puzzle that make it difficult, not just solving it, but I designed it that way. I wanted it to be very challenging. Once people are on the right track to solving it they really enjoy it. Also, my husband made the container and it is large enough for swag items and it is a fun, creative container. In addition, the cache is hidden in a nice location that people enjoy. I wanted to make sure the location and container were both quality and well thought out. I figured if people were going to go through the time and effort to solve the puzzle, I wanted to give them a nice location and quality cache container to find. I wanted the whole "experience" to be enjoyable.

 

As far as travelers not liking puzzle caches, that isn't always the case. I have had some out of town visitors solve the puzzle knowing they would be in town at a later date and wanted to be able to find it while they were in town.

 

Those who do not enjoy puzzle caches do not have to attempt this one and I knew many would pass it by which is completely fine with me. Some may think it is too complicated but they don't HAVE to do it. It is as simple as that. If you want to put out puzzle caches, go for it. Those who enjoy them will attempt them, those who hate them, will ignore them. As difficult as ours is, we have gotten favorite points from 80% of the people who have solved and found it.

 

If you are curious about out puzzle you are welcome to check it out:

Experiment 626

Edited April 23, 2014 by SmallsKC

[+geodarts]

For every person not fond of puzzle caches you'll find another that loves them so if you enjoy creating them then do so for you will never please all of the cachers all of the time no matter what cache you place.

 

That high of a percentage like puzzles?

 

For myself, I started out doing most of the puzzles that came along, but after I was urged to expand my math repertoire to trigonometry, spent an inordinate time looking at pixels and programming, followed one too many paths that required a complete leap of faith based on what a person might possibly be thinking . . . I soon realized that my life was happier without them. It seemed they are either busy work or required far more time than I was willing to spend for a cache. Other non-traditional caches are far more satisfying to me. Every once in a while though, I will come across one despite all my best efforts to the contrary and end up solving it.

 

There are some things that I consider puzzling - I would rather think about those things than puzzle over a puzzle. Still, I have to agree that if you enjoy creating them, you will find people who will solve them. And if you put together a creative puzzle that does not make unfounded leaps, you might attract fans who will look forward to them.

Edited April 23, 2014 by geodarts

[+Harry Dolphin]

As far as travelers not liking puzzle caches, that isn't always the case. I have had some out of town visitors solve the puzzle knowing they would be in town at a later date and wanted to be able to find it while they were in town.

 

What has surprised me, concerning my GeoArt puzzle series (my brother-in-law dared me to put one out!), is the number of foreigners who go for it! Well, visitors to NYC do like to find a cache in NJ to color in the state... The series is 24 mystery caches. Mostly fairly easy, but three really tough ones. The walk to find them all is probably eight to ten miles round trip. But visitors from several foreign countries, on vacation, have taken a day out to try to find them all! I'm impressed!

[+Team Hugs]

5. It may be disappointing to some cachers to spend a lot of time solving a difficult puzzle only to find the cache is a film canister LPC. All that work for what amounts to a regular cache? I can understand why many cachers don't mess with them. Any Favorites points offered are for the puzzle and not the cache. Often the cache is not as stellar as the puzzle. Balancing the two would be a good idea. Actually, using a Puzzle to protect a good cache idea can be used instead of or in addition to setting it as Premium.

 

I'll confess that most of my hides are rather ordinary, even the ones with puzzles attached. Some of that is just my own lack of creativity on physical cache placement; that may improve over time, I suppose.

 

But I will note that sometimes, especially with puzzle caches, the nature of the puzzle may put constraints on the range of coordinates where a cache can be placed. I've had some ideas for puzzle caches that more-or-less dictated a non-"interesting" placement.

 

[+niraD]

5. It may be disappointing to some cachers to spend a lot of time solving a difficult puzzle only to find the cache is a film canister LPC. All that work for what amounts to a regular cache? I can understand why many cachers don't mess with them. Any Favorites points offered are for the puzzle and not the cache. Often the cache is not as stellar as the puzzle. Balancing the two would be a good idea. Actually, using a Puzzle to protect a good cache idea can be used instead of or in addition to setting it as Premium.

I'll confess that most of my hides are rather ordinary, even the ones with puzzles attached. Some of that is just my own lack of creativity on physical cache placement; that may improve over time, I suppose.

 

But I will note that sometimes, especially with puzzle caches, the nature of the puzzle may put constraints on the range of coordinates where a cache can be placed. I've had some ideas for puzzle caches that more-or-less dictated a non-"interesting" placement.

Also, some puzzle cache owners like to use in-theme locations. The available in-theme locations can also limit the possibilities for "interesting" hides.

 

And I know some puzzle cache owners who deliberately choose "uninteresting" hide locations, to leave "interesting" hide locations available for non-puzzle caches.

[+-CJ-]

I tried to answer the initial question in this thread and it seems to me now that I've got no distinct answer to it.

 

I usually omit all puzzle caches in my PQs when going abroad. The reason is that I wish to get as much interesting from my trip as I'm able. Cannot imagine myself walking in Rome or Munich or Tokio for the first time in my life and wasting my time on solving puzzles just to grab another nano in the city. There's so many interesting places to see, the weather is great, and... well, it's an outdoor game, isn't it? Another reason is that many puzzles involve knowledge of local language. With cache description in Finnish I still can use Google Translate or other tools of this sort to get some understanding of what the owner is talking about. For a puzzle, this method may not work because typically it's not enough to understand the idea - it's necessary to pay attention to details and I definitely don't want to waste hours on a task that isn't completely clear to me.

 

I enjoy simple field puzzles and am neutral towards puzzles that require spending time in front of my computer. My work is computer related, I used to spend all day working, and all I need is a breath of fresh air, not another couple of hours with my laptop. It happens however that the majority of puzzles I've met was of this very type. What I'm not fond of is the artificial edge that can be easily seen in many puzzles. The interesting part is to understand a task, to find a solution and to celebrate your victory with the help of a geochecker tool. The formal (often not that interesting) part is to go outdoors and grab the cache. This edge becomes even more clear when the cache location is not interesting at all. It is against my understanding of geocaching as of an outdoor treasure hunting game that brings me to some great places.

 

This may sound as a wave of criticism but I'm tolerant to people who choose their own style within the game. Actually, when I played at the national website I owned many field puzzles, including really hard ones, like a chess game in woods, or a steganography multi-step puzzle, or a cache based on a movie when one has to act like the main character and choose different playing scenarios. So, I don't place myself in ranks of "puzzle haters"

[+Team Microdot]

5. It may be disappointing to some cachers to spend a lot of time solving a difficult puzzle only to find the cache is a film canister LPC. All that work for what amounts to a regular cache? I can understand why many cachers don't mess with them. Any Favorites points offered are for the puzzle and not the cache. Often the cache is not as stellar as the puzzle. Balancing the two would be a good idea. Actually, using a Puzzle to protect a good cache idea can be used instead of or in addition to setting it as Premium.

 

It may be disappointing to some puzzle cache owners who spend a lot of time creating a difficult puzzle only to find that the coordinates are traded or handed out for free and their cache becomes just part of a yet another numbers run and they get dull-as-ditch water cut-and-paste log.

 

I can understand that many cachers don't mess with puzzles - but still want the smiley - and probably don't award favourite points because for them that cache was nothing special and anyway, awarding FP's requires more effort than hitting CTRL+V one more time. Often the cache is just as stellar as the puzzle - or certainly just as good as the regular trad it is effectively converted to by the above practices - but the effort is not reciprocated. Balancing the two is often a thankless task. Actually, using a puzzle to protect a good cache idea can be just as much a waste of time - for all the above reasons.

 

Here endeth the moan.