Cheating on puzzles?

[+JPreto]

It is simple. It is called a PUZZLE cache. It requires the owner to SOLVE something. If you obtained coordinates by other means than it is CHEATING. Grow a pair and just admit you cheated to log a cache.

Ok... imagine a multi cache that is a puzzle but, there is a spoiler picture of the final location and you know the place and are pretty sure where that place is. You go there directly skipping all the 8 phases of the multi. Is this cheating?

 

For me it is just wanting your smile (WIGAS) and not enjoying the 8 step locations that the CO prepared for those who are willing to find the treasure (cache). There are a lot of other ways to get your smile, this is just one of them.

 

In any case the problem here is ethics, not rules or guidelines breaching... Is it ethical to find a multi/mystery cache without going through all the steps and solving them? No, it isn´t for me... can you do it... yes you can!

[+narcissa]

Sorry - I'm afraid we still disagree on that score - and I'm OK with that.

 

You have yet to explain how anyone is actually advantaged or disadvantaged. The fact that something annoys you doesn't make it cheating.

 

No - I don't.

 

Yes we have no bananas.

[+J Grouchy]

I don't consider geocaching a game...

 

I think the problem here is that too many people consider geocaching a "game".

 

Groundspeak seem to think it's a game too - http://www.geocaching.com/guide/default.aspx

 

They can call it whatever they want, doesn't make it a game in my opinion. GS uses the term in its most generic sense as a marketing term. I suspect it wouldn't have the same impact if they said "geocaching is a global GPS treasure hunting pastime" or "...treasure hunting hobby".

 

To me, though, when you say something is a "game", I assume there is an opponent and a reward for besting that opponent.

There's an interesting post I found that sort of goes into greater detail. It talks mostly about digital gaming, but I think the point is valuable:

 

I define this thing -- a game -- as "a system of rules in which agents compete by making ambiguous decisions." Note that "agents" don't necessarily have to both be human, one is often the system (as in a single-player game). But the "ambiguous decisions" part is really crucial, and I am here to argue that it's the single most important aspect in a game.

...

 

And here's another way to look at the whole "ambiguous decision" thing -- this is what makes games special and interesting: even when you won, there was always room for you to have won by more, and you're not sure how. In contests, you always know how -- hit the moles even faster when they appear next time. There's no ambiguity about what you should be doing. In puzzles, if it's solved, it's solved. There may be different ways to solve the puzzle, but all solutions are equal. This feeling of "I wonder how I could improve" is what's so magical and amazing about games. In a way, games ask us to rise to our unknown theoretical highest level of ability, and this is really valuable.

 

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/167418/what_makes_a_game.php

Edited June 18, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+niraD]

Is logging individually the caches found in group a cheating?

 

Technically, one person finds the cache, so only he/she has found it, right?

That depends how your group plays the game. Some groups play three musketeers style, where the whole group declares victory as soon as any one person spots the cache. Other groups play huckle buckle beanstalk style, where everyone gets a chance to find the cache and those who find it avoid spoiling it for those who haven't.

[+JBnW]

 

Ok... imagine a multi cache that is a puzzle but, there is a spoiler picture of the final location and you know the place and are pretty sure where that place is. You go there directly skipping all the 8 phases of the multi. Is this cheating?

 

By you? Probably not. By the person who posted the spoiler photo? Yes, and the CO does have the right to delete the spoiler photo(s) or other spoiler information posted in a log. The offending finder would be allowed to repost their find without the spoiler information.

[+narcissa]

 

Ok... imagine a multi cache that is a puzzle but, there is a spoiler picture of the final location and you know the place and are pretty sure where that place is. You go there directly skipping all the 8 phases of the multi. Is this cheating?

 

By you? Probably not. By the person who posted the spoiler photo? Yes, and the CO does have the right to delete the spoiler photo(s) or other spoiler information posted in a log. The offending finder would be allowed to repost their find without the spoiler information.

 

Yes, the picture can/should be deleted if the owner thinks it's a spoiler but if it was posted out of cluelessness, it seems harsh to call that person a "cheater" when it was really just a mistake.

 

That really gets back to the essential thing that I find problematic about this "cheating" business - it's a pretty strong accusation to launch at someone who likely doesn't have any ill intent and isn't gaining any actual advantage.

[+JBnW]

 

Ok... imagine a multi cache that is a puzzle but, there is a spoiler picture of the final location and you know the place and are pretty sure where that place is. You go there directly skipping all the 8 phases of the multi. Is this cheating?

 

By you? Probably not. By the person who posted the spoiler photo? Yes, and the CO does have the right to delete the spoiler photo(s) or other spoiler information posted in a log. The offending finder would be allowed to repost their find without the spoiler information.

 

Yes, the picture can/should be deleted if the owner thinks it's a spoiler but if it was posted out of cluelessness, it seems harsh to call that person a "cheater" when it was really just a mistake.

 

That really gets back to the essential thing that I find problematic about this "cheating" business - it's a pretty strong accusation to launch at someone who likely doesn't have any ill intent and isn't gaining any actual advantage.

It's not the "gaining" of advantage, it's the "giving" of advantage that is being missed, and Groundspeak has been very clear on this for years. Don't post spoilers. It doesn't really matter if the posting was intentional or accidental or what.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's all down to the "you only cheat yourself" adage isn't it?

In the last 24 hours I've, far from the first time, "short circuited" a couple of very long multis by just massaging in numbers / squinting at the penultimate stage. Cheating?

My first T5 I couldn't do the Playfair cipher but noticed the cache was back-referenced in another of the CO's caches, and took a lucky punt. Cheating? Messaged another recent finder of the cache, but he'd not done the other one - he'd simply mapped the day's caches of a prolific cacher who'd found it and got lucky too! Cheating?

A fiendish series of 5 puzzles, 3 of them the answers along a road but with a gap... hint to hard puzzle "low metallic"... looked under railing, there's the cache. no idea how to solve the puzzle. Cheating?

Exchanging large or small hints with other cachers - cheating?

Logging puzzle caches (and the odd tree climb where he didn't tuch the cache) for Oxford Stone Junior, just gone 5 years old - cheating?

Tricky nano in Oxford, multiple DNFs but happened to see some toher cachers get it so logged too. Cheating?

My conscience is clear on all of the above. What I wouldn't do is traipse round a mega event queueing up to log caches, easy or hard, found / retrieved by someone else. Part of the beauty of cacing is that we can all play it our way.

I should stress that I love solving or setting a good puzzle - and indeed a good multi, nothing like the satisfaction of doing it properly - but sometimes unorthodox means are called for. I'm just a bunch of contradictions, aren't I?

 

The short answer to all but your first question is yes.

 

But I'd really prefer to explore the other end of the spectrum - how we can easily convey our respect for other CO's when we don't explicitly know what matters to them and to what degree and hopefully geodarts will be along soon to continue that exploration

 

I'm not geodarts, but I hope you don't mind if I offer my opinion.

 

 

If we don't know explicitly what matters to a CO regarding their motivation for creating a certain type of cache or their reaction to how some might choose to "find" their cache, it seems to me that the easiest way to convey our respect to cache owners, in general, is to play the finder game in a manner that is likely to be objectionable to the smallest number it COs. In an earlier message, Toz posted an admittedly incomplete list of reasons why a CO might create a puzzle cache. No matter what the motivation might be, I can't imagine how "solving the puzzle yourself, then finding the cache, signing the log, replacing cache as hidden, then writing about your experience in a a log that thanks the CO for placing the cache" could be objectionable by anyone.

 

Now, I totally understand that it's unrealistic that every finder of a puzzle cache will have solved the puzzle on their own, but there are several ways how a finder might respond to a cache owner that has hidden a puzzle cache.

 

As someone wrote in another thread recently "you don't have to find every cache". Ignoring the cache is a perfectly viable option, but if someone feels it's too much effort to solve the puzzle cache on their own, but still wants to find the cache, there are several options.

 

1. Ask the cache owner for a hint. This is, to me, would be the least objectionable to the cache owner. If the owner has created a 4 star difficulty puzzle, it's *supposed* to be difficult. Asking the cache owner for a hint conveys respect to the owner because you're still allowing the owner to decide whether or not and how much of a hint to provide. Personally, when I've been asked for a hint on any of my puzzle I was happy to respond and would even provide the out-right solution if someone asked for it.

 

2. Collaborate with another cacher (or anyone else, for that matter) that has not previously solved the puzzle to come up with a solution. I've done this many times and as long as both parties try to contribute equally it's a fun way to solve a puzzle and don't feel that it any way disrespects that cache owner.

 

3. Brute force (guess) the location without actually solving the puzzle. If you can do it, more power to you. I can't imagine that this would bother many cache owners, and for those that it does, it probably happens infrequently enough that most wouldn't care.

 

4. Ask for hints from someone that has already solved the puzzle. As a cache owner, I would prefer that someone needing a hint, would ask me first rather than have someone else decide how big of a hint to provide (especially, on a high difficulty rated puzzle), but I also realize that not all caches owners are responsive in a timely manner.

 

5. Join another cacher on the hunt that has already solved the puzzle. Okay, it happens, and I can understand that if you're out caching with a friend for the day and they want to find a puzzle cache they solved, you're probably not going to wait in the car while they head off down a trail to find the cache. On the other hand, I read logs and have seen quite a few from the same people, gloating about finding all the puzzle caches in the area (including several with high difficulty rating) and also mentioning that they couldn't solve the puzzle and were glad their friend had done it.

 

6. Contact another geocacher that has solved the puzzle and ask for the solution. Personally, I don't fault the asker as much as I do those that will just give away the coordinate to any puzzle (no matter how they obtained the coordinate).

 

7. Post the solution to a puzzle cache on a public web site. Personally, as a CO I probably wouldn't take any action if someone did any one did 1-6 in the list (though, #6 is marginal) but would archive any of my puzzle caches in an instant if someone posted the solution on a public website.

 

Every CO is probably going to draw the line somewhere as to whether or not someone decides to choose one of the options above and how they're going to respond. The further down the list one goes indicates, to me, how much getting that smiley is compared to conveying respect to the cache owner. I believe that the most important aspect to this game, hobby, whatever is the community. When getting that smiley becomes more important than playing the game in a manner that splinters the community (e.g. insulting cache owners when all they're trying to do is improve the game by placing unique and interesting caches), then, as far as I'm concerned, we've got a problem.

 

 

[+JPreto]

 

Ok... imagine a multi cache that is a puzzle but, there is a spoiler picture of the final location and you know the place and are pretty sure where that place is. You go there directly skipping all the 8 phases of the multi. Is this cheating?

 

By you? Probably not. By the person who posted the spoiler photo? Yes, and the CO does have the right to delete the spoiler photo(s) or other spoiler information posted in a log. The offending finder would be allowed to repost their find without the spoiler information.

 

Spoiler photo placed by the CO!!!!!!

[+giddeanx]

I don't consider geocaching a game or a test, so therefore there can be no "cheating". I consider it a pastime or a hobby...and who cheats on a hobby? If you like to knit and you are having a tough time with a particular stitch on a sweater you are making, so you take it to a friend who helps out - maybe even makes that particular stitch for you so you can complete the sweater - did you cheat? In the end, you have the sweater you want. You can point to the area that you had help on and know that you did not personally make that part. So? And what if you tell people you made the whole thing by yourself? Again...so?

 

I think the problem here is that too many people consider geocaching a "game". There are no winners or losers.

As long as Hide n' Seek is a game I would call Geocaching a game, but not in the scope that other people think of it. It's basically a game between two people. The hider and the cacher. Hey I hid this box can you find it? All other games that are played (numbers, FTF, etc.) are metagames.

[+narcissa]

It's not the "gaining" of advantage, it's the "giving" of advantage that is being missed, and Groundspeak has been very clear on this for years. Don't post spoilers. It doesn't really matter if the posting was intentional or accidental or what.

 

If you're going to call someone a cheater, then it does matter if it was intentional or not. A cache owner can delete a spoiler (or ask the cacher to change it) without accusations of cheating.

[+giddeanx]

 

Ok... imagine a multi cache that is a puzzle but, there is a spoiler picture of the final location and you know the place and are pretty sure where that place is. You go there directly skipping all the 8 phases of the multi. Is this cheating?

 

By you? Probably not. By the person who posted the spoiler photo? Yes, and the CO does have the right to delete the spoiler photo(s) or other spoiler information posted in a log. The offending finder would be allowed to repost their find without the spoiler information.

 

Yes, the picture can/should be deleted if the owner thinks it's a spoiler but if it was posted out of cluelessness, it seems harsh to call that person a "cheater" when it was really just a mistake.

 

That really gets back to the essential thing that I find problematic about this "cheating" business - it's a pretty strong accusation to launch at someone who likely doesn't have any ill intent and isn't gaining any actual advantage.

 

I take the same stance on cheating as fraud there has to be intent in it. There is by definition no way to accidentally commit fraud as there is no way to accidentally cheat.

[+Team Microdot]

I'm not geodarts, but I hope you don't mind if I offer my opinion.

 

Of course not - I wasn't trying to stifle anyone - although I can appreciate how it might have seemed that way, so apologies to anyone who thought I was.

 

I was just hoping to take the thread in a more positive direction and I could I saw one opportunity to do that

 

If we don't know explicitly what matters to a CO regarding their motivation for creating a certain type of cache or their reaction to how some might choose to "find" their cache, it seems to me that the easiest way to convey our respect to cache owners, in general, is to play the finder game in a manner that is likely to be objectionable to the smallest number it COs. In an earlier message, Toz posted an admittedly incomplete list of reasons why a CO might create a puzzle cache. No matter what the motivation might be, I can't imagine how "solving the puzzle yourself, then finding the cache, signing the log, replacing cache as hidden, then writing about your experience in a a log that thanks the CO for placing the cache" could be objectionable by anyone.

 

DING! We have a winner!

 

Simple, isn't it?

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this way

[+giddeanx]

 

Ok... imagine a multi cache that is a puzzle but, there is a spoiler picture of the final location and you know the place and are pretty sure where that place is. You go there directly skipping all the 8 phases of the multi. Is this cheating?

 

By you? Probably not. By the person who posted the spoiler photo? Yes, and the CO does have the right to delete the spoiler photo(s) or other spoiler information posted in a log. The offending finder would be allowed to repost their find without the spoiler information.

 

Spoiler photo placed by the CO!!!!!!

Using the word "Spoiler" is telling. What is it spoiling? Wouldn't all actions that give you extra information be spoilers? Maybe you aren't cheating; you are just spoiling your experience.

[+narcissa]

...I can't imagine how "solving the puzzle yourself, then finding the cache, signing the log, replacing cache as hidden, then writing about your experience in a a log that thanks the CO for placing the cache" could be objectionable by anyone.

 

I don't think anyone finds this objectionable, and in fact I think that regardless of the rest of the issue, most of us seem to agree that this is the preferable tactic.

 

It is, however, objectionable to call people "cheaters" if they don't adhere to your personal caching ethics.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

6 pages now?

 

Cheese Louise, when it's all over, in the grand scheme of life itself does it really matter either way?

[+bflentje]

 

Here's another question, if you are the CO of a puzzle and one cacher gives another cacher the coordinates are you going to get upset or worse yet, call out the other cachers?

 

If the two happen to visit a cache together and one has solved the puzzle and the other not, I'm not happy, but can understand what's going on. If someone gives away coordinates to my difficult caches it makes me angry and if this happens several times, my reaction will be archival. All my mystery caches have a homework part and a fieldwork part and those who only visit the final will neither see what I wanted to show them nor will they have anything interesting to report in their logs. The container in the end is the least important part of all my caches.

 

Unhappiness. Anger. And Archival. Interesting.

[cezanne]

 

Here's another question, if you are the CO of a puzzle and one cacher gives another cacher the coordinates are you going to get upset or worse yet, call out the other cachers?

 

If the two happen to visit a cache together and one has solved the puzzle and the other not, I'm not happy, but can understand what's going on. If someone gives away coordinates to my difficult caches it makes me angry and if this happens several times, my reaction will be archival. All my mystery caches have a homework part and a fieldwork part and those who only visit the final will neither see what I wanted to show them nor will they have anything interesting to report in their logs. The container in the end is the least important part of all my caches.

 

Unhappiness. Anger. And Archival. Interesting.

 

I'd say it's the natural consequence if caches where the container in the end is not at all interesting and everything of interest happens before and is skipped.

Then the caches are just used to increment the find count. In case I were interested in such logs, I could hide a series of guardrail traditionals.

 

Do you own mystery caches with multiple stages where visiting only the hideout location is completely boring and pointless?

Do lists/data bases with final coordinates for mysteries and multi caches exist in your area and are exchanged openly?

[+tozainamboku]

In an earlier message, Toz posted an admittedly incomplete list of reasons why a CO might create a puzzle cache. No matter what the motivation might be, I can't imagine how "solving the puzzle yourself, then finding the cache, signing the log, replacing cache as hidden, then writing about your experience in a a log that thanks the CO for placing the cache" could be objectionable by anyone.

But in my list I called this reason "wanting people jump through hoops in order to get a smiley". While I didn't call it objectionable, I did indicate that I thought this was a character flaw on the part of the puzzle owner, indicating a sadistic streak and extending to sanctimony when someone logs a find without solving the puzzle themselves.

 

Now in your list you indicated that you only really had problems when the solution was posted on a "cheat" site, although your are "marginally" bothered by someone giving out coordinates to a friend.

 

I think I understand why a person who has created a puzzle may be bothered by these activities, but I still find the expectation that you can prevent this, or even that you can shame people who share coordinates, unreasonable. When some puzzle owners complained about cheat sites, Groundspeak changed the TOUs to forbid publishing puzzle spoilers anywhere without the cache owners permission. I suspect that Groundspeak got a letter from the EFF telling them they couldn't forbid what people post on other websites so the TOUs now only forbid spoilers on Groundspeak websites. I still find the whole idea of trying to stop peoeple from sharing answers to puzzles a fool's errand. The natural human tendancy is to help others. Since the point of geocaching is to find caches, not to solve puzzles, it seems reasonable that someone who likes to solve puzzles may share the answers. They may not even intend to search for the cache themselves, but feel that it's a nice thing to help someone who doesn't like puzzles earn a smiley. Some people want to equate sharing of puzzle answers with sharing answers on an exam. This seems misplaced. Officially, there's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so it's silly to get one's knickers in a twist over whether the puzzle was solved by the person logging an online find.

[+L0ne.R]

But in my list I called this reason "wanting people jump through hoops in order to get a smiley". While I didn't call it objectionable, I did indicate that I thought this was a character flaw on the part of the puzzle owner, indicating a sadistic streak and extending to sanctimony when someone logs a find without solving the puzzle themselves.

 

If a CO really wants to control others and make them jump through hoops, plant a challenge cache. You get to control other cacher's find count. Way less anxiety about people cheating or sharing. And you get the pleasure of deleting finds while laughing maniacally.

 

 

[+narcissa]

But in my list I called this reason "wanting people jump through hoops in order to get a smiley". While I didn't call it objectionable, I did indicate that I thought this was a character flaw on the part of the puzzle owner, indicating a sadistic streak and extending to sanctimony when someone logs a find without solving the puzzle themselves.

 

If a CO really wants to control others and make them jump through hoops, plant a challenge cache. You get to control other cacher's find count. Way less anxiety about people cheating or sharing. And you get the pleasure of deleting finds while laughing maniacally.

 

And if you want to *force* people to visit different waypoints, you can always try this method:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC994A_keychase

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In an earlier message, Toz posted an admittedly incomplete list of reasons why a CO might create a puzzle cache. No matter what the motivation might be, I can't imagine how "solving the puzzle yourself, then finding the cache, signing the log, replacing cache as hidden, then writing about your experience in a a log that thanks the CO for placing the cache" could be objectionable by anyone.

But in my list I called this reason "wanting people jump through hoops in order to get a smiley". While I didn't call it objectionable, I did indicate that I thought this was a character flaw on the part of the puzzle owner, indicating a sadistic streak and extending to sanctimony when someone logs a find without solving the puzzle themselves.

 

I agree, and don't think that a cache owner that creates a cache primarily to make people jump through hoops isn't making a positive contribution to the game. However, I also think that cache owners that just want to make people jump through hoops are very rare, I don't think that supporting sharing puzzle solutions as a general practice due to the actions of a few cache owners that seem to have forgotten that a primary reason for this game is to have fun helps the game either.

 

 

Now in your list you indicated that you only really had problems when the solution was posted on a "cheat" site, although your are "marginally" bothered by someone giving out coordinates to a friend.

 

 

True, and I don't expect that everyone else would share my belief in at which point in the list of options it becomes bothersome either.

 

 

I think I understand why a person who has created a puzzle may be bothered by these activities, but I still find the expectation that you can prevent this, or even that you can shame people who share coordinates, unreasonable.

 

 

I think it's unrealistic to think that it can be prevented as well. I'm not suggesting that there is some sort of solution that is going to be make everyone happy. Like any other aspect of this game that some find objectionable, it's unrealistic to expect that a certain aspect of the game that one finds objectionable can be eliminated entirely. Just as an example, some people have spoken out against logs which only consist of a TFTC. If anyone of them expect that TFTC logs can be eliminated entirely, they're living in a dream world. However, I bet that a lot of them feel that if the number of TFTC logs could be reduced, the game would be better. No, we're never going to stop people from sharing answer to puzzles, but if we can reduce that practice, then I think we can improve the game.

 

Over the past few years there have been several aspects/trends which have, IMHO, degraded my enjoyment of the game. I'm not asking to be blissfully happy, but wouldn't mind seeing some marginal improvement.

 

 

 

[+Roman!]

In an earlier message, Toz posted an admittedly incomplete list of reasons why a CO might create a puzzle cache. No matter what the motivation might be, I can't imagine how "solving the puzzle yourself, then finding the cache, signing the log, replacing cache as hidden, then writing about your experience in a a log that thanks the CO for placing the cache" could be objectionable by anyone.

But in my list I called this reason "wanting people jump through hoops in order to get a smiley". While I didn't call it objectionable, I did indicate that I thought this was a character flaw on the part of the puzzle owner, indicating a sadistic streak and extending to sanctimony when someone logs a find without solving the puzzle themselves.

 

I agree, and don't think that a cache owner that creates a cache primarily to make people jump through hoops isn't making a positive contribution to the game. However, I also think that cache owners that just want to make people jump through hoops are very rare, I don't think that supporting sharing puzzle solutions as a general practice due to the actions of a few cache owners that seem to have forgotten that a primary reason for this game is to have fun helps the game either.

 

 

Now in your list you indicated that you only really had problems when the solution was posted on a "cheat" site, although your are "marginally" bothered by someone giving out coordinates to a friend.

 

 

True, and I don't expect that everyone else would share my belief in at which point in the list of options it becomes bothersome either.

 

 

I think I understand why a person who has created a puzzle may be bothered by these activities, but I still find the expectation that you can prevent this, or even that you can shame people who share coordinates, unreasonable.

 

 

I think it's unrealistic to think that it can be prevented as well. I'm not suggesting that there is some sort of solution that is going to be make everyone happy. Like any other aspect of this game that some find objectionable, it's unrealistic to expect that a certain aspect of the game that one finds objectionable can be eliminated entirely. Just as an example, some people have spoken out against logs which only consist of a TFTC. If anyone of them expect that TFTC logs can be eliminated entirely, they're living in a dream world. However, I bet that a lot of them feel that if the number of TFTC logs could be reduced, the game would be better. No, we're never going to stop people from sharing answer to puzzles, but if we can reduce that practice, then I think we can improve the game.

 

Over the past few years there have been several aspects/trends which have, IMHO, degraded my enjoyment of the game. I'm not asking to be blissfully happy, but wouldn't mind seeing some marginal improvement.

 

One of my friends got a nasty email from another cacher about a note he posted on a cache (the cacher was not the CO of the cache where the note was posted)

 

A few weeks later he found a cache owned by the person who sent the email so although his logs are almost always good this time he just posted TFTC, he quite quickly got another email about how inconsiderate and rude he was.

 

If someone wants to post TFTC, that's their business and there can be lots of reasons why the choose to do so, at least you know the cache is still there.

 

Too many people worry too much about how others play the game, you'd think they were all a bunch of children.

[+Team Microdot]

I still find the whole idea of trying to stop peoeple from sharing answers to puzzles a fool's errand. The natural human tendancy is to help others. Since the point of geocaching is to find caches, not to solve puzzles, it seems reasonable that someone who likes to solve puzzles may share the answers.

 

What about 'sharing answers' by giving away information in a found log? Would you say that's reasonable? Would it be a fools errand to try to remove them?

[+narcissa]

I still find the whole idea of trying to stop peoeple from sharing answers to puzzles a fool's errand. The natural human tendancy is to help others. Since the point of geocaching is to find caches, not to solve puzzles, it seems reasonable that someone who likes to solve puzzles may share the answers.

 

What about 'sharing answers' by giving away information in a found log? Would you say that's reasonable? Would it be a fools errand to try to remove them?

 

It's explicitly against the terms of service to do that.

[+Team Microdot]

I still find the whole idea of trying to stop peoeple from sharing answers to puzzles a fool's errand. The natural human tendancy is to help others. Since the point of geocaching is to find caches, not to solve puzzles, it seems reasonable that someone who likes to solve puzzles may share the answers.

 

What about 'sharing answers' by giving away information in a found log? Would you say that's reasonable? Would it be a fools errand to try to remove them?

 

It's explicitly against the terms of service to do that.

 

Wow - that was fast!

 

The question still stands though.

[+Roman!]

I still find the whole idea of trying to stop peoeple from sharing answers to puzzles a fool's errand. The natural human tendancy is to help others. Since the point of geocaching is to find caches, not to solve puzzles, it seems reasonable that someone who likes to solve puzzles may share the answers.

 

What about 'sharing answers' by giving away information in a found log? Would you say that's reasonable? Would it be a fools errand to try to remove them?

 

It's explicitly against the terms of service to do that.

 

Wow - that was fast!

 

The question still stands though.

 

Why would it be a fools errand to remove them? The CO has every right to delete the log and if the person keeps relogging the solution then they can be reported to GS and possibly get a time out.

[+Team Microdot]

I still find the whole idea of trying to stop peoeple from sharing answers to puzzles a fool's errand. The natural human tendancy is to help others. Since the point of geocaching is to find caches, not to solve puzzles, it seems reasonable that someone who likes to solve puzzles may share the answers.

 

What about 'sharing answers' by giving away information in a found log? Would you say that's reasonable? Would it be a fools errand to try to remove them?

 

It's explicitly against the terms of service to do that.

 

Wow - that was fast!

 

The question still stands though.

 

Why would it be a fools errand to remove them? The CO has every right to delete the log and if the person keeps relogging the solution then they can be reported to GS and possibly get a time out.

 

For the reasons cited in the original post.

[+Roman!]

I still find the whole idea of trying to stop peoeple from sharing answers to puzzles a fool's errand. The natural human tendancy is to help others. Since the point of geocaching is to find caches, not to solve puzzles, it seems reasonable that someone who likes to solve puzzles may share the answers.

 

What about 'sharing answers' by giving away information in a found log? Would you say that's reasonable? Would it be a fools errand to try to remove them?

 

It's explicitly against the terms of service to do that.

 

Wow - that was fast!

 

The question still stands though.

 

Why would it be a fools errand to remove them? The CO has every right to delete the log and if the person keeps relogging the solution then they can be reported to GS and possibly get a time out.

 

For the reasons cited in the original post.

 

It breaks GS rules so a person persisting in doing so can get banned so no, it's not a fools errand to delete spoiler logs.

[+Team Microdot]

I still find the whole idea of trying to stop peoeple from sharing answers to puzzles a fool's errand. The natural human tendancy is to help others. Since the point of geocaching is to find caches, not to solve puzzles, it seems reasonable that someone who likes to solve puzzles may share the answers.

 

What about 'sharing answers' by giving away information in a found log? Would you say that's reasonable? Would it be a fools errand to try to remove them?

 

It's explicitly against the terms of service to do that.

 

Wow - that was fast!

 

The question still stands though.

 

Why would it be a fools errand to remove them? The CO has every right to delete the log and if the person keeps relogging the solution then they can be reported to GS and possibly get a time out.

 

For the reasons cited in the original post.

 

It breaks GS rules so a person persisting in doing so can get banned so no, it's not a fools errand to delete spoiler logs.

 

But it's a means of trying to stop people sharing answers to puzzles - which is their natural human tendency to help others which - according to the original post - is a fool's errand

[+narcissa]

But it's a means of trying to stop people sharing answers to puzzles - which is their natural human tendency to help others which - according to the original post - is a fool's errand

 

Regardless, it's against the terms of service to do that.

 

I tend to see it more as a "no spoilers" idea where it's nice to preserve the puzzle for those who do intend to solve it themselves. That's not a fool's errand at all.

[+Roman!]

I still find the whole idea of trying to stop peoeple from sharing answers to puzzles a fool's errand. The natural human tendancy is to help others. Since the point of geocaching is to find caches, not to solve puzzles, it seems reasonable that someone who likes to solve puzzles may share the answers.

 

What about 'sharing answers' by giving away information in a found log? Would you say that's reasonable? Would it be a fools errand to try to remove them?

 

It's explicitly against the terms of service to do that.

 

Wow - that was fast!

 

The question still stands though.

 

Why would it be a fools errand to remove them? The CO has every right to delete the log and if the person keeps relogging the solution then they can be reported to GS and possibly get a time out.

 

For the reasons cited in the original post.

 

It breaks GS rules so a person persisting in doing so can get banned so no, it's not a fools errand to delete spoiler logs.

 

But it's a means of trying to stop people sharing answers to puzzles - which is their natural human tendency to help others which - according to the original post - is a fool's errand

 

Trying to stop people from sharing coordinates is a fools errand, trying to stop them from sharing them in logs on geocaching.com is not as it can very easily be stopped.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Roman!

[cezanne]

Now in your list you indicated that you only really had problems when the solution was posted on a "cheat" site, although your are "marginally" bothered by someone giving out coordinates to a friend.

 

I also have the much larger issue with "cheat sites" - they are anonymous and coordinates get spread in a much broader manner than if someone has to ask a friend or a previous finder of each cache he wants to find personally and separately. Moreover, in my experience those who use cheat sites much more frequently skip stages, do not read cache descriptions and ignore everything what is asked for there (e.g. no visits in the night, extra waypoints to avoid trespassing etc).

 

Officially, there's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so it's silly to get one's knickers in a twist over whether the puzzle was solved by the person logging an online find.

 

I do not care at all about numbers, neither mine nor for anyone else.

I have the much greater issue with the fact that users that just get the final coordinates typically had no look at the cache description and have in most cases no idea what the cache is about. If the final happens to be an ammo can in a scenic location, this is not a big issue. In case of caches where the container is just there because Groundspeak does not allow virtual caches, it is unfortunate for the cache if many cachers only visit the final. The logs will not properly account for what the cache is about and this is certainly misleading and annoying. To add on top, cachers who use cheat lists will typically not admit this in their logs which makes it hard to set the logs in the right light. (Note the issue here is not whether these people increased their find count.)

 

For me the formulation if I had wanted that someone visits my cache as traditional, I would have hidden one, comes quite close to how I feel, but not because I want someone to jump through hoops, but to become prepared for the cache (but not in the sense of an exam in school).

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

Trying to stop people from sharing coordinates is a fools errand, trying to stop them from sharing them in logs on geocaching.com is not as it can very easily be stopped.

 

No, it can't be stopped. One can delete logs, but the logs have already been sent out to the watchers.

[+SwineFlew]

I knew this thread will get the best out of some people. To puzzle owners that hate puzzle coordinates sharing, relax and you will live longer. You know, stress does kill. Just a game.

[+JPreto]

Trying to stop people from sharing coordinates is a fools errand, trying to stop them from sharing them in logs on geocaching.com is not as it can very easily be stopped.

 

No, it can't be stopped. One can delete logs, but the logs have already been sent out to the watchers.

 

Maybe the guy logged the coordinates by mistake... I once heard this one!

[+Roman!]

I knew this thread will get the best out of some people. To puzzle owners that hate puzzle coordinates sharing, relax and you will live longer. You know, stress does kill. Just a game.

 

People can't even agree if this is a game or not, how do you expect them to agree with you?

[+SwineFlew]

I knew this thread will get the best out of some people. To puzzle owners that hate puzzle coordinates sharing, relax and you will live longer. You know, stress does kill. Just a game.

 

People can't even agree if this is a game or not, how do you expect them to agree with you?

You don't. They will die off because they take things too serious. For those that just have fun tend to live longer in life.

[+funkymunkyzone]

It's all down to the "you only cheat yourself" adage isn't it?

In the last 24 hours I've, far from the first time, "short circuited" a couple of very long multis by just massaging in numbers / squinting at the penultimate stage. Cheating?

My first T5 I couldn't do the Playfair cipher but noticed the cache was back-referenced in another of the CO's caches, and took a lucky punt. Cheating? Messaged another recent finder of the cache, but he'd not done the other one - he'd simply mapped the day's caches of a prolific cacher who'd found it and got lucky too! Cheating?

A fiendish series of 5 puzzles, 3 of them the answers along a road but with a gap... hint to hard puzzle "low metallic"... looked under railing, there's the cache. no idea how to solve the puzzle. Cheating?

Exchanging large or small hints with other cachers - cheating?

Logging puzzle caches (and the odd tree climb where he didn't tuch the cache) for Oxford Stone Junior, just gone 5 years old - cheating?

Tricky nano in Oxford, multiple DNFs but happened to see some toher cachers get it so logged too. Cheating?

My conscience is clear on all of the above. What I wouldn't do is traipse round a mega event queueing up to log caches, easy or hard, found / retrieved by someone else. Part of the beauty of cacing is that we can all play it our way.

I should stress that I love solving or setting a good puzzle - and indeed a good multi, nothing like the satisfaction of doing it properly - but sometimes unorthodox means are called for. I'm just a bunch of contradictions, aren't I?

 

The short answer to all but your first question is yes.

 

 

My short answer to all is NO. I wouldn't necessarily do all those methods but I wouldn't have problems if others used those methods, even to find my caches.

 

As many have said, the great thing about geocaching is that we all do it a little differently and have fun doing it. Your list is a good example of that and of the things we love about geocaching. You are very much into geocaching and you use ingenuity to figure out a solution to a problem. You have to be a dedicated geocacher to work out a solution using the hints, the descriptions, other logs and even other caches by the CO. The fact that you worked stuff out with other cachers is one of the things that I love about cacheing.

 

I highlighted one sentence of yours as it reminds me of what happened on one of our Micro Logic (ML) puzzle caches. I hid 5 ML caches on a newly discovered trail. Many were able to solve 4 of them but had problems getting the West coords for the fifth cache (ML143). There was clearly a gap on the trail, so armed with the coords for the other 4 and the North coords, cachers tried to locate the cache. First of all they tried putting guesses in the geochecker. We started to see the incorrect guesses climbing into the hundreds on the geochecker but eventually green lights appeared. Others walked the trail and using the info they had, managed to locate the cache.

 

Some figured out the answer to the West coords, others used one of the methods I mentioned above, and others went out with groups of cachers who had the solution or who wanted to walk the line together to locate it. The geochecker has nearly 700 false guesses at this time.

 

No matter which method they used it was all OK with me. And a bonus was the great logs with the stories of their solving, their hike, their searching , their caching groups, etc.

 

Here is the cache.

 

http://coord.info/GC40B1F

 

.

 

.

 

Ma & Pa - Like you, I'm stoked when people solve my puzzles in ways like you have described above. For me, the one single way of solving a puzzle I think is not above board is by simply being handed the coords or trading puzzle final coords. For the finds you described, I'm sure you got interesting and fun to read logs, but my bet is that none of them said "XXXX gave me the final coords for this cache so it was easy. TFTC". While you might not get worked up over it, or even care, I'm willing to bet you'd be less excited about reading that than the other fun and interesting ways people managed to get to the final.

 

That's certainly how I would feel, and if that's a character flaw on my part (as has been pointed out to me in this thread) then so be it - I'm not a robot.

[+Ma & Pa]

It's all down to the "you only cheat yourself" adage isn't it?

In the last 24 hours I've, far from the first time, "short circuited" a couple of very long multis by just massaging in numbers / squinting at the penultimate stage. Cheating?

My first T5 I couldn't do the Playfair cipher but noticed the cache was back-referenced in another of the CO's caches, and took a lucky punt. Cheating? Messaged another recent finder of the cache, but he'd not done the other one - he'd simply mapped the day's caches of a prolific cacher who'd found it and got lucky too! Cheating?

A fiendish series of 5 puzzles, 3 of them the answers along a road but with a gap... hint to hard puzzle "low metallic"... looked under railing, there's the cache. no idea how to solve the puzzle. Cheating?

Exchanging large or small hints with other cachers - cheating?

Logging puzzle caches (and the odd tree climb where he didn't tuch the cache) for Oxford Stone Junior, just gone 5 years old - cheating?

Tricky nano in Oxford, multiple DNFs but happened to see some toher cachers get it so logged too. Cheating?

My conscience is clear on all of the above. What I wouldn't do is traipse round a mega event queueing up to log caches, easy or hard, found / retrieved by someone else. Part of the beauty of cacing is that we can all play it our way.

I should stress that I love solving or setting a good puzzle - and indeed a good multi, nothing like the satisfaction of doing it properly - but sometimes unorthodox means are called for. I'm just a bunch of contradictions, aren't I?

 

The short answer to all but your first question is yes.

 

 

My short answer to all is NO. I wouldn't necessarily do all those methods but I wouldn't have problems if others used those methods, even to find my caches.

 

As many have said, the great thing about geocaching is that we all do it a little differently and have fun doing it. Your list is a good example of that and of the things we love about geocaching. You are very much into geocaching and you use ingenuity to figure out a solution to a problem. You have to be a dedicated geocacher to work out a solution using the hints, the descriptions, other logs and even other caches by the CO. The fact that you worked stuff out with other cachers is one of the things that I love about cacheing.

 

I highlighted one sentence of yours as it reminds me of what happened on one of our Micro Logic (ML) puzzle caches. I hid 5 ML caches on a newly discovered trail. Many were able to solve 4 of them but had problems getting the West coords for the fifth cache (ML143). There was clearly a gap on the trail, so armed with the coords for the other 4 and the North coords, cachers tried to locate the cache. First of all they tried putting guesses in the geochecker. We started to see the incorrect guesses climbing into the hundreds on the geochecker but eventually green lights appeared. Others walked the trail and using the info they had, managed to locate the cache.

 

Some figured out the answer to the West coords, others used one of the methods I mentioned above, and others went out with groups of cachers who had the solution or who wanted to walk the line together to locate it. The geochecker has nearly 700 false guesses at this time.

 

No matter which method they used it was all OK with me. And a bonus was the great logs with the stories of their solving, their hike, their searching , their caching groups, etc.

 

Here is the cache.

 

http://coord.info/GC40B1F

 

.

 

.

 

Ma & Pa - Like you, I'm stoked when people solve my puzzles in ways like you have described above. For me, the one single way of solving a puzzle I think is not above board is by simply being handed the coords or trading puzzle final coords. For the finds you described, I'm sure you got interesting and fun to read logs, but my bet is that none of them said "XXXX gave me the final coords for this cache so it was easy. TFTC". While you might not get worked up over it, or even care, I'm willing to bet you'd be less excited about reading that than the other fun and interesting ways people managed to get to the final.

 

............

 

 

Thank you for your response. You are correct on all points. The logs showed the various methods cachers used to get the coords and/or the cache. They are all fun to read and very gratifying to me.

 

Some of the cachers who got the cache without solving the actual puzzle expressed an interest in how to solve the actual puzzle. I provided them with a link to a similar puzzle cache of ours that could help. I have recently been giving that link to cachers who ask me for help.

 

Interestingly one of the FOUND LOGS is a poem.

 

This puzzle was not like the rest.

Took forever to clue into the west.

Even visited an obvious area.

But failed to find; such hysteria.

So go back to the drawing board

And try an avenue unexplored.

Success with the checker so grand

And today it was the cache in hand.

 

.

,

[+Roman!]

It's all down to the "you only cheat yourself" adage isn't it?

In the last 24 hours I've, far from the first time, "short circuited" a couple of very long multis by just massaging in numbers / squinting at the penultimate stage. Cheating?

My first T5 I couldn't do the Playfair cipher but noticed the cache was back-referenced in another of the CO's caches, and took a lucky punt. Cheating? Messaged another recent finder of the cache, but he'd not done the other one - he'd simply mapped the day's caches of a prolific cacher who'd found it and got lucky too! Cheating?

A fiendish series of 5 puzzles, 3 of them the answers along a road but with a gap... hint to hard puzzle "low metallic"... looked under railing, there's the cache. no idea how to solve the puzzle. Cheating?

Exchanging large or small hints with other cachers - cheating?

Logging puzzle caches (and the odd tree climb where he didn't tuch the cache) for Oxford Stone Junior, just gone 5 years old - cheating?

Tricky nano in Oxford, multiple DNFs but happened to see some toher cachers get it so logged too. Cheating?

My conscience is clear on all of the above. What I wouldn't do is traipse round a mega event queueing up to log caches, easy or hard, found / retrieved by someone else. Part of the beauty of cacing is that we can all play it our way.

I should stress that I love solving or setting a good puzzle - and indeed a good multi, nothing like the satisfaction of doing it properly - but sometimes unorthodox means are called for. I'm just a bunch of contradictions, aren't I?

 

The short answer to all but your first question is yes.

 

 

My short answer to all is NO. I wouldn't necessarily do all those methods but I wouldn't have problems if others used those methods, even to find my caches.

 

As many have said, the great thing about geocaching is that we all do it a little differently and have fun doing it. Your list is a good example of that and of the things we love about geocaching. You are very much into geocaching and you use ingenuity to figure out a solution to a problem. You have to be a dedicated geocacher to work out a solution using the hints, the descriptions, other logs and even other caches by the CO. The fact that you worked stuff out with other cachers is one of the things that I love about cacheing.

 

I highlighted one sentence of yours as it reminds me of what happened on one of our Micro Logic (ML) puzzle caches. I hid 5 ML caches on a newly discovered trail. Many were able to solve 4 of them but had problems getting the West coords for the fifth cache (ML143). There was clearly a gap on the trail, so armed with the coords for the other 4 and the North coords, cachers tried to locate the cache. First of all they tried putting guesses in the geochecker. We started to see the incorrect guesses climbing into the hundreds on the geochecker but eventually green lights appeared. Others walked the trail and using the info they had, managed to locate the cache.

 

Some figured out the answer to the West coords, others used one of the methods I mentioned above, and others went out with groups of cachers who had the solution or who wanted to walk the line together to locate it. The geochecker has nearly 700 false guesses at this time.

 

No matter which method they used it was all OK with me. And a bonus was the great logs with the stories of their solving, their hike, their searching , their caching groups, etc.

 

Here is the cache.

 

http://coord.info/GC40B1F

 

.

 

.

 

Ma & Pa - Like you, I'm stoked when people solve my puzzles in ways like you have described above. For me, the one single way of solving a puzzle I think is not above board is by simply being handed the coords or trading puzzle final coords. For the finds you described, I'm sure you got interesting and fun to read logs, but my bet is that none of them said "XXXX gave me the final coords for this cache so it was easy. TFTC". While you might not get worked up over it, or even care, I'm willing to bet you'd be less excited about reading that than the other fun and interesting ways people managed to get to the final.

 

............

 

 

Thank you for your response. You are correct on all points. The logs showed the various methods cachers used to get the coords and/or the cache. They are all fun to read and very gratifying to me.

 

Some of the cachers who got the cache without solving the actual puzzle expressed an interest in how to solve the actual puzzle. I provided them with a link to a similar puzzle cache of ours that could help. I have recently been giving that link to cachers who ask me for help.

 

Interestingly one of the FOUND LOGS is a poem.

 

This puzzle was not like the rest.

Took forever to clue into the west.

Even visited an obvious area.

But failed to find; such hysteria.

So go back to the drawing board

And try an avenue unexplored.

Success with the checker so grand

And today it was the cache in hand.

 

.

,

Any cache can get poetry, check out this LPC and the first 15 or so logs.

 

No favorites though.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Roman!

[+narcissa]

That's certainly how I would feel, and if that's a character flaw on my part (as has been pointed out to me in this thread) then so be it - I'm not a robot.

 

Having feelings and calling someone a cheater are not one and the same.

[+tozainamboku]

That's certainly how I would feel, and if that's a character flaw on my part (as has been pointed out to me in this thread) then so be it - I'm not a robot.

 

Having feelings and calling someone a cheater are not one and the same.

What about calling someone a robot . Edited June 19, 2014 by tozainamboku

[etarace]

 

And if you want to *force* people to visit different waypoints, you can always try this method:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC994A_keychase

That looks so awesome! And it went on for over ten years... too bad people messed it up so recently. I'm pretty sure they don't allow this type of cache anymore. That's unfortunate.

[+funkymunkyzone]

That's certainly how I would feel, and if that's a character flaw on my part (as has been pointed out to me in this thread) then so be it - I'm not a robot.

 

Having feelings and calling someone a cheater are not one and the same.

 

I'm not entirely sure how that is a response to my post, but ok.

 

With regards to the use of the 'c' word - refer to Roman!'s opening post, which I believe was not a loaded question designed to entrap those who later repeat the 'c' word.

 

I don't think I've seen any evidence whatsoever in this thread of anyone suggesting it's ok to call people out as cheaters or send nasty emails or whatever, so it's probably about time you dropped that one and stopped trying to muddy the waters with it.

[4wheelin_fool]

That's certainly how I would feel, and if that's a character flaw on my part (as has been pointed out to me in this thread) then so be it - I'm not a robot.

 

Having feelings and calling someone a cheater are not one and the same.

What about calling someone a robot .

 

 

I think you pass the Turing test, but Narcissa may not.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

That's certainly how I would feel, and if that's a character flaw on my part (as has been pointed out to me in this thread) then so be it - I'm not a robot.

 

Having feelings and calling someone a cheater are not one and the same.

What about calling someone a robot .

 

What's wrong with that?

[4wheelin_fool]

Finding out the solution from someone other than the CO is not really cheating IMO. Getting them off a Facebook page IS. The difference is that it's rude to share them in public, but not in private.

[+Team Microdot]

 

And if you want to *force* people to visit different waypoints, you can always try this method:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC994A_keychase

That looks so awesome! And it went on for over ten years... too bad people messed it up so recently. I'm pretty sure they don't allow this type of cache anymore. That's unfortunate.

 

We have this one nearby which was published in July 2012 - so if they have been disallowed it must be a fairly recent thing.

[+TopShelfRob]

This whole thread reminds me of something Bobby Knight once said. To paraphrase: "if people cheating on your puzzle is inevitable, you might as well sit back, relax and enjoy it while it's happening."