Mystery/Puzzle Cache questions

[+3trae3]

I am a brand new cacher, and have only been caching since Easter weekend. Thus far I have logged only traditional caches. I am wanting to branch out and take on some puzzle/mystery caches. However, when I look at some cache profiles on the website, I am often unsure/unclear about exactly how to even start the puzzle. Many times I cannot seem to figure out what the CO is even asking for or where the "puzzle/mystery" is. Any suggestions? On some of the cache listings the puzzle is specifically stated, but on many I have looked at it is not. Is there some "experienced" knowledge that more seasoned cachers have that tips them to what they are actually looking for or trying to solve?

[+lumbricus]

...Is there some "experienced" knowledge that more seasoned cachers have that tips them to what they are actually looking for or trying to solve?

 

Start with a low D rating.

No matter how long you are caching there will be mysteries you feel like the first day. Sometimes I have no idea how to solve a D3 mystery.

[+Panther&Pine]

Start with the ones that make sense to you, for example I have one with botany as the theme (you are more then welcome to look at it ans solve, or ask me questions) because I know a bunch about botany.

The first step is to find the D/T of the puzzle and stick to the lower Difficulty ones, then figure out the theme.

The best person to ask about specific puzzle is the person who created it.

[+J Grouchy]

There are so many ways to "hide" the coordinates, from standard ciphers and translations to hiding them in the source code to the really creative and "lateral thinking" puzzles. You can't really ask in here for help on a specific puzzle, but a lot of times you can message a previous finder or even the CO for additional hints or suggestions on solving the puzzle. There are also lots of resources frequently posted in here linking to "Puzzles 101" type caches that are good introductory courses for solving puzzles.

[+niraD]

Here are some general puzzle tips (based in part on a puzzle-solving class event presented by The Rat a while ago):

 

Identify the theme. Check the cache title, the hint, the HTML source, the graphics (including names/URLs), any links (including URLs), whatever is at the posted coordinates, etc. If you can figure out the theme, then you should look for numbering systems that are associated with that theme (zip codes, athletes’ jersey numbers, episode numbers, product codes, etc.).

 

Around here, coordinates will have 15 digits, and will look like "N 37° xx.xxx W 122° xx.xxx". So when I'm solving a nearby puzzle, I look for a group of 15 things, and then I look for ways to get the digits 37xxxxx122xxxxx from them. In general, I look for ways to get the number 37 (or the digits 3 and 7) from something near the beginning of the puzzle, and the number 122 (or the digits 1, 2, and 2) from something near the middle of the puzzle. (Of course, you'll need to adjust this for the coordinates near you.)

 

Other useful resources include:

Puzzle Solving 101 Series (bookmark list)

Puzzle Shortcuts Series (bookmark list)

Solving Puzzle Caches (online article)

How Do I Solve All These $@! Puzzle Caches? (tutorial-style puzzle cache)

Puzzle FUNdamentals (archived event cache) and the Puzzle FUNdamentals resources on the GeocacheAlaska! education page

The GBA's Puzzle Cache FAQ (for puzzle designers, but useful for understanding how puzzle caches work)

 

If you’re interested in extremely challenging puzzles, then consider the online discussions of Venona’s ACTIVITIES in the GBA forums. The puzzles for this annual event are very challenging, intended to be solved by multiple people working together online. (You'll need to register on the GBA site to view these forum threads.)

Overview: Venona's 2011 ACTIVITIES

Overview: Venona's 2012 ACTIVITIES

[+kunarion]

Many times I cannot seem to figure out what the CO is even asking for or where the "puzzle/mystery" is. Any suggestions? On some of the cache listings the puzzle is specifically stated, but on many I have looked at it is not.

For many of the Puzzles, figuring out what to do is the puzzle. I enjoy the ones that I can figure out with a little thought. But some are just nasty, requiring the reading of the CO's mind (a needle-in-a-haystack hide in the form of a word problem). Since I can't always tell which it is, I sometimes rely on cacher friends to send me an email -- "Did you solve XX yet? I'm going on a cache run this weekend". The email may be translated as "Even you could figure this one out" (OK, they're just telling me it's easier than I expect ).

 

If you're generally a super-genius at unusual "puzzles" and are having trouble with one or two , look for such caches that have lots of finds, lots of Favorite points, and logs that mention how much fun the puzzle is.

[7rxc]

Yep! That bit about fun "and logs that mention how much fun the puzzle is" is the kicker.

 

It is your individual threshold for fun. Mine would be quite different, but it is still fun to me... until it is NO longer fun. Also consider that 'fun' does not mean 'easy' in all cases. I for one like to stretch my mind from time to time, but alas it is a lot less elastic than it used to be, but there are good days too!

 

Doug 7rxc

[+kunarion]

I for one like to stretch my mind from time to time, but alas it is a lot less elastic than it used to be, but there are good days too!

I tried one thing today that I've never done before; I wrote to a Cache Owner and got a Puzzle fixed. I can't even figure out the puzzle, yet could see the typo. If it were part of the puzzle, that changes everything. But it was an error. For a tough puzzle, it's especially tough to figure out the mistakes, or weird formatting or whatever, which aren't actually part of the puzzle.

Edited May 9, 2014 by kunarion

[+Team Microdot]

 

I tried one thing today that I've never done before; I wrote to a Cache Owner and got a Puzzle fixed. I can't even figure out the puzzle, yet could see the typo. If it were part of the puzzle, that changes everything. But it was an error. For a tough puzzle, it's especially tough to figure out the mistakes, or weird formatting or whatever, which aren't actually part of the puzzle.

 

Have done this several times now as puzzle mistakes - especially on more complex ones - are quite common. I've made one or two mistakes myself too - one of which I spotted before anyone had even worked out the basis of the puzzle (I think) but a couple of typo's in others which thankfully someone caught for me.

 

There's always a danger when constructing complex puzzles of making mistakes and it's something of a relief when FTF goes and you know it all works as intended.

 

One strategy is to have a beta tester who is happy to forego First To Find / has little or no vested interest in solving the puzzle as they'll never collect the cache i.e. someone who lives a long way from GZ.

[7rxc]

 

I tried one thing today that I've never done before; I wrote to a Cache Owner and got a Puzzle fixed. I can't even figure out the puzzle, yet could see the typo. If it were part of the puzzle, that changes everything. But it was an error. For a tough puzzle, it's especially tough to figure out the mistakes, or weird formatting or whatever, which aren't actually part of the puzzle.

 

Have done this several times now as puzzle mistakes - especially on more complex ones - are quite common. I've made one or two mistakes myself too - one of which I spotted before anyone had even worked out the basis of the puzzle (I think) but a couple of typo's in others which thankfully someone caught for me.

 

There's always a danger when constructing complex puzzles of making mistakes and it's something of a relief when FTF goes and you know it all works as intended.

 

One strategy is to have a beta tester who is happy to forego First To Find / has little or no vested interest in solving the puzzle as they'll never collect the cache i.e. someone who lives a long way from GZ.

A puzzle owner should be required to have it vetted. Too easy to see what you want to see and ignore other points of view, or simply make errors in logic etc. On this site, I've been involved in verifying that puzzles can be solved (the better option to giving advice, solutions etc. as we all know), Beta testing puzzles before publication, Alpha testing during development, and just plain solving ones I will likely never actually search for due to distance and so forth. Yes, there are many I'm still stuck on, and lots more that while not first to solve, have been in the first few solutions. I remember one from Finland, where the CO was wondering why it wasn't being found... actually it turned out to be a fairly standard concealment of the coordinates... many here found them in fairly quick order... but the REASON it was failing, was that the 'correct' coordinates were wrong by over 200 km... no one else picked that up, least of all the owner. Fixed that quickly he did. Sadly that puzzle still seems to turn people away as they deem it unsolvable, when it is only that way in appearance.

 

As Ku said earlier, finding out WHAT the puzzle is, IS the puzzle in many cases. And in others the trick to it is forcing oneself to A: Relax and don't get overwhelmed by the apparent complexity and B: Not letting yourself get stuck on one path to a solution. To stay open minded, as well as willing to stop, clear the slate and try another route. Think of a maze with many ways to go (or not), false paths are everywhere in a good puzzle.

Outsmarting the puzzle maker is the whole object regardless of the type.

 

Sherlock Holmes is probably the classic puzzle solver... sees everything, examines everything, makes mental notes (paper would help me, I'm known to be a bit forgetful), draws conclusions, examines them all, and often drops lines of thought in favour of better ones... and oh yes, always gets the correct solution eventually.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Team Microdot]

A puzzle owner should be required to have it vetted.

 

By whom? Who decides who is adequately qualified to vet puzzles?

 

I know that some reviewers sometimes ask for a guide to the solution to be posted in a note before they'll publish the puzzle - but not all, not always and, with all due respect, some of the puzzles around today can be too complex / can require too much of a reviewer's time for them to give a cast-iron guarantee that a puzzle is solvable. I suspect that the best they can do sometimes is to verify that the puzzle is solvable according to the description of the solving process offered by the CO and free of obvious errors.

 

Too easy to see what you want to see and ignore other points of view.

 

Yes and no.

 

A common description for this type of phenomenon is confirmation bias - our tendency to pick out and amplify that which supports our observations / assertions / beliefs and to dismiss or devalue that which does not support them. I think it's entirely possible though for people to be more objective and less subjective about their own puzzles if they put their mind to it and to carry forward feedback from solvers into their subsequent puzzle design processes.

 

I think part of the art of the puzzle creator is they ability to include sufficient, adequate clues to allow a person of reasonable intelligence who is willing to invest adequate resources in solving the puzzle a fair chance of doing so, while maintaining a satisfying degree of challenge - and that can be a fine balance to achieve.

 

As Ku said earlier, finding out WHAT the puzzle is, IS the puzzle in many cases. And in others the trick to it is forcing oneself to A: Relax and don't get overwhelmed by the apparent complexity and B: Not letting yourself get stuck on one path to a solution. To stay open minded, as well as willing to stop, clear the slate and try another route.

 

I can easily subscribe to these views - some sound advice

 

Think of a maze with many ways to go (or not), false paths are everywhere in a good puzzle.

 

Not sure I agree with this one though - a perfectly good puzzle can be completely ruined by too many false paths - or red herrings if you prefer. And I'd have to say that there's nothing worse than a weak puzzle that's been jacked up with red herrings to 'make it more challenging' - I like to at least find some wheat after I've sifted through all the chaff - not more chaff.

 

Outsmarting the puzzle maker is the whole object regardless of the type.

 

Not quite how I see it. All to often the logical conclusion of puzzle setters and solvers trying to outsmart each other is the unsolvable puzzle - the guessing game - the mind read - which ends up being no fun for either party and all too often ends up on the scrap heap like a failed experiment.

 

To my mind the relationship between setter and solver actually benefits more from a certain degree of symbiosis, where the challenge is at - or just slightly above - the abilities of those being challenged the net result is more fun for everyone

[7rxc]

A puzzle owner should be required to have it vetted.

 

By whom? Who decides who is adequately qualified to vet puzzles?

 

I know that some reviewers sometimes ask for a guide to the solution to be posted in a note before they'll publish the puzzle - but not all, not always and, with all due respect, some of the puzzles around today can be too complex / can require too much of a reviewer's time for them to give a cast-iron guarantee that a puzzle is solvable. I suspect that the best they can do sometimes is to verify that the puzzle is solvable according to the description of the solving process offered by the CO and free of obvious errors.

 

Vetting in my context was meant to mean, have it checked by someone (or more) other than yourself. The skill levels can be from novice to expert as far as I'm concerned, but whether in Alpha or Beta testing mode, it is helpful to all to do that. I've been to far to many puzzles with glaring errors, and tested a few more. I figure that it is doing the reviewer a favour too, they won't have to deal with many complaints about the puzzle, and if mentioned in the pre publication stages, could be a big help if the reviewer isn't a strong puzzler. To be honest I suspect that most have a fair bit of experience there themselves, however. Very simple puzzles should be easy to vet or at least check over. The harder the puzzle, the stronger the vetting. It should include both the puzzle itself and finding the container too, since errors can occur at any stage.

However I agree that it should not be a major effort, just adequate to the cache in question.

The cache owner should do most of the work, and then let his tester try it. Then correct if it turns out to be either impossible, or harder / easier, too many problems etc.

 

Too easy to see what you want to see and ignore other points of view.

 

Yes and no.

 

A common description for this type of phenomenon is confirmation bias - our tendency to pick out and amplify that which supports our observations / assertions / beliefs and to dismiss or devalue that which does not support them. I think it's entirely possible though for people to be more objective and less subjective about their own puzzles if they put their mind to it and to carry forward feedback from solvers into their subsequent puzzle design processes.

 

I think part of the art of the puzzle creator is they ability to include sufficient, adequate clues to allow a person of reasonable intelligence who is willing to invest adequate resources in solving the puzzle a fair chance of doing so, while maintaining a satisfying degree of challenge - and that can be a fine balance to achieve.

 

Face Pareidolia is another example of this. That is seeing things like faces in inanimate objects. Faces are common, but you can imagine anything you want to see. Puzzlers can use this both directions of course. See what you want to see or not see what you don't want to see. On Tomnod, people were seeing aircraft wreckage everywhere, and much of it very real, but it seems much was seeing what they expected or wanted to see. It was often clear that what they were looking at was simply NOT what they thought it was. But that is another tale.

Razzle Dazzle camouflage works the same way, so garish the mind/eye set simply rejects the image as valid.

 

I fully agree that puzzle setting/creating is part art, part science, and often not as good as it could be.

 

As Ku said earlier, finding out WHAT the puzzle is, IS the puzzle in many cases. And in others the trick to it is forcing oneself to A: Relax and don't get overwhelmed by the apparent complexity and B: Not letting yourself get stuck on one path to a solution. To stay open minded, as well as willing to stop, clear the slate and try another route.

 

I can easily subscribe to these views - some sound advice

 

Okay, I try to be helpful, not always sucessful, typing in real time is difficult sometimes.

 

Think of a maze with many ways to go (or not), false paths are everywhere in a good puzzle.

 

Not sure I agree with this one though - a perfectly good puzzle can be completely ruined by too many false paths - or red herrings if you prefer. And I'd have to say that there's nothing worse than a weak puzzle that's been jacked up with red herrings to 'make it more challenging' - I like to at least find some wheat after I've sifted through all the chaff - not more chaff.

 

Again I agree. There should not be an excess, but done well a few false turns or simply options can work to make one think. I remember one where the result was simply between two locations, both valid solutions, but the information was there to figure out which was the true location and that one passed the checker.

 

Outsmarting the puzzle maker is the whole object regardless of the type.

 

Not quite how I see it. All to often the logical conclusion of puzzle setters and solvers trying to outsmart each other is the unsolvable puzzle - the guessing game - the mind read - which ends up being no fun for either party and all too often ends up on the scrap heap like a failed experiment.

 

To my mind the relationship between setter and solver actually benefits more from a certain degree of symbiosis, where the challenge is at - or just slightly above - the abilities of those being challenged the net result is more fun for everyone

 

Yes, being challenged is a good part of it. Myself I'll tackle anything, but time can be limited. On the other hand, I consider it terrible if I let the puzzle setter outsmart me, don't you. They can beat me on advanced math types though, but I have just enough skill at seeing things differently to make up for that on other types that fool many. Going back to vetting again, that process helps keep the lid on excessive caches, IMHO.

 

Anyway, nice to have this chat, I hope the OP gets something from it.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+niraD]

A puzzle owner should be required to have it vetted.

By whom? Who decides who is adequately qualified to vet puzzles?

Vetting in my context was meant to mean, have it checked by someone (or more) other than yourself.

But if this vetting of puzzles is going to be required, then how will we determine whether the required vetting has taken place, unless we have some standard for who is (or is not) adequately qualified to vet puzzles?

 

If I tell the reviewer that my wife vetted my puzzle, then is that adequate? Does that fulfill the required vetting of my puzzle?

 

Please understand that I am not arguing against vetting/alpha-testing/beta-testing/prechecking puzzles. I'm just trying to understand how you expect this required vetting to play out in practice.

[+popokiiti]

The very first puzzle I solved was by left-clicking and holding down while I moved the mouse around.....and there were the co-ords! Laboriously wrote them down, then as it was way back when, printed out the cache sheet.

There, large as life, were the "hidden" coordinates! I could have saved a lot of time and frustration. Other puzzles leap out at me, but most remain very obscure. A lot of caching friends save puzzles to solve in the winter months.

Edited May 11, 2014 by popokiiti

[7rxc]

A puzzle owner should be required to have it vetted.

By whom? Who decides who is adequately qualified to vet puzzles?

Vetting in my context was meant to mean, have it checked by someone (or more) other than yourself.

But if this vetting of puzzles is going to be required, then how will we determine whether the required vetting has taken place, unless we have some standard for who is (or is not) adequately qualified to vet puzzles?

 

If I tell the reviewer that my wife vetted my puzzle, then is that adequate? Does that fulfill the required vetting of my puzzle?

 

Please understand that I am not arguing against vetting/alpha-testing/beta-testing/prechecking puzzles. I'm just trying to understand how you expect this required vetting to play out in practice.

 

I'd be happy with it being checked by your wife... assuming she has some approriate skills... reading and some simple logic / math would be adequate. A hard puzzle might or might not require someone else. A vetter should be capable of finding the cache as well if they are testing the whole thing beyond the puzzle. As far as HOW, probably not more than how they deal with permissions. Adequate or Explicit box. If the reviewer tries it and finds any holes in the puzzle (or cachers later on for that matter) it would be about the same to explain why as lack of permission. Only repercussion would be disabling until it worked. It might make a reviewer leery of the CO if it became normal for them to submit puzzles that were flawed in some manner. I doubt that my Finland example would pass today simply because of the 2 mile/3.2 km rule on coordinates for example when it was published. That should have been caught by the CO, probably should have been caught by a vetter, was caught when the CO came to the forums for help making it 'right'.

 

Anyway, I would gladly rephrase my original comment to "should be vetted by someone else before submission" if that works better for everyone. BTW I think that it applies to any cache to some degree. Someone should be able to find a cache with the posted coordinates (or solution). There are many out there with 'soft' coordinates. That is something that new COs need to learn about, some the hard way. And I'm not talking about ones with deliberately 'soft' coordinates, just the ones made with one 'mark' and then posted. People now advise strongly about averaging, some mention doing it over several discrete visits to the site over days or at least hours, then trying to duplicate the results. Vetting there avoids the temptation to simply go where you put it. I expect that many experienced cachers do averaging and testing automatically, I know on my one cache that I averaged over 4 days almost a year from 1st to last, and the last 3 had at least two sessions each. Still not happy with the coordinates, but it was found without problem by the FTF... with my extra hints available. When the snow is gone I'm going to check them again another year later. Maybe with another vet as well. And NO I don't expect that kind of effort as normal, it's quite a walk/climb to get up there. It's a navigation point, and a good pre conditioning walk for anyone going after my FTFs two caches further up above.

 

Hope that helps. Basically I think that caches should work as offered, and fixed before publication if at all possible. Helps to take the load off anyone else.

 

Doug 7rxc

[7rxc]

The very first puzzle I solved was by left-clicking and holding down while I moved the mouse around.....and there were the co-ords! Laboriously wrote them down, then as it was way back when, printed out the cache sheet.

There, large as life, were the "hidden" coordinates! I could have saved a lot of time and frustration. Other puzzles leap out at me, but most remain very obscure. A lot of caching friends save puzzles to solve in the winter months.

And I would guess that it is (since then) almost the first thing you do while reading a puzzle for the first time, even before reading the page. The AHA! method of learning is proably the best way to not forget lessons.

There are other basics as well, and most are well covered in NiraD's famous listing for beginners (for those that have not read and explored it.) I'm pretty sure you would have.

 

As for winter solving of puzzles... Yep that is my standard, hopefully there will be some in range as spring begins... soon... had some short lived snow today up here in between days of sun. Not many new caches of any type yet. Just a few 'impossible' to find ones from last year, now a few fewer. I need to update a few that had really bad coordinates a bit... they were findable last year... IF you were used to older GPS's with 2 decimal points not 3..ha. and low EPE levels.

 

Doug 7rxc