Cheating on puzzles?

[+Ben0w]

For me geocaching is a lot about experience and the story someone can tell. If the story is interesting, I'd like to hear it - this can happen when finding another solution for a puzzle, another access to GZ, a DNF and even about a fun travel on a powertrail. I'd like to hear such a story or read about in the logs. If the story is "Uh...I've got the final coordinates from a list and just logged the final, can't remember where it was exactly, because I did 40 others from the list that day" - well, I won't listen much longer and have my own impression about such a power cacher.

 

This viewpoint solves a lot of the issues discussed here, at least for me.

 

The cache owner's viewpoint of a cache that constantly gets found by list users without even trying the puzzle may be another. In that case I most probably would change the final position or sth else.

[+TopShelfRob]

I understand not everyone enjoys solving puzzles.

Then they are free to skip any puzzle cache the don't want to solve. Oh, but they feel entitled to get the smiley anyway? Even if they don't want to do the puzzle? Maybe that's the problem.

 

I "found" (not found found, but found located) a cache that is up a tree that I can't get to. I wouldn't dream of logging it as found unless I actually retrieved the cache. Same as if I didn't solve the puzzle. I know it's not the same thing, because you'll say, if you can log it, it should count. But to some of us it is.

 

So what if I chopped the tree down to get to the log - is that the same thing as if I cheated on a puzzle to get to it? Would those of you who would cheat on a puzzle also chop down a tree to get a tree cache you couldn't reach? But that's not the same thing either, because you are ruining the cache expereice for the next finder. So I don't know then.

[+Ma & Pa]

I understand not everyone enjoys solving puzzles.

Then they are free to skip any puzzle cache the don't want to solve. Oh, but they feel entitled to get the smiley anyway? Even if they don't want to do the puzzle? Maybe that's the problem.

 

I "found" (not found found, but found located) a cache that is up a tree that I can't get to. I wouldn't dream of logging it as found unless I actually retrieved the cache. Same as if I didn't solve the puzzle. I know it's not the same thing, because you'll say, if you can log it, it should count. But to some of us it is.

 

So what if I chopped the tree down to get to the log - is that the same thing as if I cheated on a puzzle to get to it? Would those of you who would cheat on a puzzle also chop down a tree to get a tree cache you couldn't reach? But that's not the same thing either, because you are ruining the cache expereice for the next finder. So I don't know then.

 

Ruining it for others??? Heck we would have bragging rights after finding it. "We found that cache in the tree that that cacher chopped down. Difficulty wasnt changed so it went to my Fizzy"

 

.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Ma & Pa

[+JPreto]

Would those of you who would cheat on a puzzle also chop down a tree to get a tree cache you couldn't reach? But that's not the same thing either, because you are ruining the cache expereice for the next finder. So I don't know then.

 

Now you know!!!! Me and my geocaching tools...

 

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Thank god the cachers around me aren't like the majority of people in this thread. Would make me want to find a different game if I had to be around this bickering and BS's for months on end.

[+Team Microdot]

Thank god the cachers around me aren't like the majority of people in this thread. Would make me want to find a different game if I had to be around this bickering and BS's for months on end.

 

And yet you took the time to shatter the peace and tranquility that has bathed this thread for over two weeks?

[+TopShelfRob]

Thank god the cachers around me aren't like the majority of people in this thread. Would make me want to find a different game if I had to be around this bickering and BS's for months on end.

Which do you object to? The people that feel it's okay to cheat or the people who complain about the cheaters?

 

And I think the people like to bicker only do it here in the forums... I've never encountered bickering Geocachers out in the field.

[+narcissa]

Thank god the cachers around me aren't like the majority of people in this thread. Would make me want to find a different game if I had to be around this bickering and BS's for months on end.

 

Yeah, the people who post bickery, intentionally inflammatory troll comments on here really are the pits, aren't they?

[+TopShelfRob]

Yeah, the people who post bickery, intentionally inflammatory troll comments on here really are the pits, aren't they?

Let me know if you see any. I find it very unfortunate that "constructive comments designed to illict interesting and insightful discussion" often get mistaken for "intentionally inflammatory troll comments" depending on your viewpoint.

[+narcissa]

Yeah, the people who post bickery, intentionally inflammatory troll comments on here really are the pits, aren't they?

Let me know if you see any. I find it very unfortunate that "constructive comments designed to illict interesting and insightful discussion" often get mistaken for "intentionally inflammatory troll comments" depending on your viewpoint.

 

"Thank god the cachers around me aren't like the majority of people in this thread. Would make me want to find a different game if I had to be around this bickering and BS's for months on end."

 

Sounds constructive to me.

[+TopShelfRob]

Yeah, the people who post bickery, intentionally inflammatory troll comments on here really are the pits, aren't they?

Let me know if you see any. I find it very unfortunate that "constructive comments designed to illict interesting and insightful discussion" often get mistaken for "intentionally inflammatory troll comments" depending on your viewpoint.

 

"Thank god the cachers around me aren't like the majority of people in this thread. Would make me want to find a different game if I had to be around this bickering and BS's for months on end."

 

Sounds constructive to me.

No that one, definitely I agree.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

I'd voice stronger but that is against the rules so that is as insulting as I can get. I should blog more.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Sounds constructive to me.

This forum is pointless for constructive discussion. I posted multiple times in a constructive and positive way. 90% of the time the post is ignored and the bickering between one or two folks continues on. Almost all forums these days are just for entertaining trolling and ranting.

Edited July 16, 2014 by TheWeatherWarrior

[Keystone]

I'd voice stronger but that is against the rules so that is as insulting as I can get. I should blog more.

Yes, why don't you go do that.

[+hzoi]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

[+giddeanx]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

Cheating, like fraud, has to have intent. Blundering into a cache you weren't looking for is not cheating. You signed it; you found it.

 

But I do have a seperate question. If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating or just being resourceful?

[+Team Microdot]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

Cheating, like fraud, has to have intent. Blundering into a cache you weren't looking for is not cheating. You signed it; you found it.

 

But I do have a seperate question. If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating or just being resourceful?

 

Both together?

[+giddeanx]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

Cheating, like fraud, has to have intent. Blundering into a cache you weren't looking for is not cheating. You signed it; you found it.

 

But I do have a seperate question. If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating or just being resourceful?

 

Both together?

 

Ah you are right. Let me simplify the question: If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating?

[+Team Microdot]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

Cheating, like fraud, has to have intent. Blundering into a cache you weren't looking for is not cheating. You signed it; you found it.

 

But I do have a seperate question. If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating or just being resourceful?

 

Both together?

 

Ah you are right. Let me simplify the question: If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating?

 

Yes.

[+giddeanx]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

Cheating, like fraud, has to have intent. Blundering into a cache you weren't looking for is not cheating. You signed it; you found it.

 

But I do have a seperate question. If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating or just being resourceful?

 

Both together?

 

Ah you are right. Let me simplify the question: If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating?

 

Yes.

You call a friend and they give you the final coordinates to a puzzle cache is it cheating?

[+Team Microdot]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

Cheating, like fraud, has to have intent. Blundering into a cache you weren't looking for is not cheating. You signed it; you found it.

 

But I do have a seperate question. If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating or just being resourceful?

 

Both together?

 

Ah you are right. Let me simplify the question: If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating?

 

Yes.

You call a friend and they give you the final coordinates to a puzzle cache is it cheating?

 

Oh.

 

Some sort of sliding scale game huh?

 

Is there specific point you're looking to prove?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

Cheating, like fraud, has to have intent. Blundering into a cache you weren't looking for is not cheating. You signed it; you found it.

 

But I do have a seperate question. If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating or just being resourceful?

 

If there were a website somewhere that kept track of and counted the number of solved crossword puzzles, taking a peep at the answer at the back would be considered resourceful. If there wasn't a solution in the back, resourceful crossword puzzle players would phone a friend and ask for the answer to clues they can't solve.

 

 

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

Cheating, like fraud, has to have intent. Blundering into a cache you weren't looking for is not cheating. You signed it; you found it.

 

But I do have a seperate question. If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating or just being resourceful?

 

If there were a website somewhere that kept track of and counted the number of solved crossword puzzles, taking a peep at the answer at the back would be considered resourceful. If there wasn't a solution in the back, resourceful crossword puzzle players would phone a friend and ask for the answer to clues they can't solve.

 

Or use Google.

[+narcissa]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

Cheating, like fraud, has to have intent. Blundering into a cache you weren't looking for is not cheating. You signed it; you found it.

 

But I do have a seperate question. If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating or just being resourceful?

 

Both together?

 

Ah you are right. Let me simplify the question: If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating?

 

Sshh... we don't want the crossword puzzle people to stop writing crossword puzzles and stomp off in a huff.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

Cheating, like fraud, has to have intent. Blundering into a cache you weren't looking for is not cheating. You signed it; you found it.

 

But I do have a seperate question. If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating or just being resourceful?

 

Both together?

 

Ah you are right. Let me simplify the question: If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating?

 

Sshh... we don't want the crossword puzzle people to stop writing crossword puzzles and stomp off in a huff.

 

Maybe those people should do more crossword puzzles. They're not doing enough of them and probably should find another type of puzzle to solve.

[+redsox_mark]

My wife does crossword puzzles. Each time she uses a dictionary, Google, or asks me (which isn't often) she records it was a "cheat". If she knew the answer but used one of those methods to confirm it, it is half a cheat. She then records on the puzzle how many cheats were used (e.g. 2.5 cheats).

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

Ah you are right. Let me simplify the question: If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating?

Who's going to know... or care? Certainly I wouldn't, it's your game, not mine. Nor do I really care how someone figures out one of our puzzles. Brute force, PAF, stumbled upon, or begging me for clues until I finally give in. If they're happy with the end result, and can live with that, so am I.

[+tozainamboku]

We stumbled across the final to this puzzle cache while we were doing a CITO at the close of the first German mega event. We'd made no attempt to put the puzzle together; we could have, but we hadn't. But, we found the cache -- intentionally or otherwise, as the stash note would say -- and we signed the log.

Cheating, like fraud, has to have intent. Blundering into a cache you weren't looking for is not cheating. You signed it; you found it.

 

But I do have a seperate question. If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating or just being resourceful?

 

Both together?

 

Ah you are right. Let me simplify the question: If you are doing a crossword puzzle and take a peep at the answer at the back of the book are you cheating?

 

Sshh... we don't want the crossword puzzle people to stop writing crossword puzzles and stomp off in a huff.

Not only do crossword puzzle writers put the answers in the back of the book, they fully expect people to peek, or to use a dictionary, or to ask a friend. At a crossword puzzle competition these methods aren't allowed.

 

The question may be whether solving a puzzle cache is an informal recreation like working the Sunday Times crossword at home or if is is a formal contest like the Americal Crossword Puzzle Tournament.

 

I find it hard to understand how people who create puzzle caches could think that solving a puzzle cache is a formal contest with rules to prevent "cheating".

[4wheelin_fool]

As a puzzle cache owner, I really don't care if someone finds out the answer from someone else, as long as they know how to solve it, not just being handed the final coords. I also don't want the solutions posted online in public anywhere. Not only is that rude and disrespectful, but a little creepy.

[+Team Microdot]

The question may be whether solving a puzzle cache is an informal recreation like working the Sunday Times crossword at home or if is is a formal contest like the Americal Crossword Puzzle Tournament.

 

I find it hard to understand how people who create puzzle caches could think that solving a puzzle cache is a formal contest with rules to prevent "cheating".

 

The question may also be whether some cache owners - of any/all cache types - have certain expectations around how their caches will be found/treated/received and might be disappointed when those expectations are not met.

 

I don't find that difficult to understand.

[team tisri]

The question may be whether solving a puzzle cache is an informal recreation like working the Sunday Times crossword at home or if is is a formal contest like the Americal Crossword Puzzle Tournament.

 

I find it hard to understand how people who create puzzle caches could think that solving a puzzle cache is a formal contest with rules to prevent "cheating".

 

The question may also be whether some cache owners - of any/all cache types - have certain expectations around how their caches will be found/treated/received and might be disappointed when those expectations are not met.

 

I don't find that difficult to understand.

 

I find it hard to understand. If you put a cache out there people will try and find it, using whatever means they deem appropriate.

 

If you put a cache high up in a tree people might climb the tree, they might use a ladder, they might use a cherry-picker. If you create a puzzle people might solve it the way you intended, they might stumble upon it by accident, they might brute-force the puzzle, they might find some other shortcut you hadn't expected. All are fair play.

 

I've seen a few really obscure puzzles that turned out to be fairly easy to brute force. I remember one quite local to me where the cache could only be in one of about 190 possible places, but because of the note at the bottom thanking a particular council for permission to place it I could instantly rule out about 170 of those. So it was pretty easy to just work through the remaining 20 possibilities until the geochecker told me I was right.

 

Having solved it I emailed the owner to ask how it was supposed to be solved, as I had no idea. I sent the coordinates to prove I had already solved it, and they explained it to me with a request I didn't share the answer with others.

 

From the logs I saw on the cache I don't think I was the only one who brute-forced it.

[+Team Microdot]

I find it hard to understand.

 

I must have misunderstood this as you seem to be saying that you find it hard to understand that people have expectations, and may be disappointed when their expectations are not met.

[+tozainamboku]

The question may be whether solving a puzzle cache is an informal recreation like working the Sunday Times crossword at home or if is is a formal contest like the Americal Crossword Puzzle Tournament.

 

I find it hard to understand how people who create puzzle caches could think that solving a puzzle cache is a formal contest with rules to prevent "cheating".

 

The question may also be whether some cache owners - of any/all cache types - have certain expectations around how their caches will be found/treated/received and might be disappointed when those expectations are not met.

 

I don't find that difficult to understand.

I understand that some people have unreasonable expectations. I've found it unreasonable to expect that everyone is reasonable.

[team tisri]

I find it hard to understand.

 

I must have misunderstood this as you seem to be saying that you find it hard to understand that people have expectations, and may be disappointed when their expectations are not met.

 

I find it hard to understand people being upset if someone solves their puzzle or reaches their cache in a way they didn't expect.

 

If I set what I'd hoped was a difficult puzzle I'd be disappointed if someone managed to short-circuit it, but only in that I'd left an easier way available. If someone can solve my puzzle more easily than I expected then I'm not as good a puzzle setter as I might like to think. There's no point trying to claim someone cheated or to try and deny them the find because they didn't do it the way I'd hoped they would.

 

If we start allowing cache hiders to specify how the cache is to be accessed we're almost back to ALRs - "you can access the cache but only if you follow this footpath and approach from the east". If it's on an island does the hider get to specify whether someone is to swim across, row across, pay someone else to row across, or wait until the lake is frozen in the depths of winter and walk across? Where do we draw the line in worrying whether we're doing it the way the hider intended? As long as you put it back how you found it and don't damage the area, it really doesn't matter how you get to it.

[+Car54]

Maybe those people should do more crossword puzzles. They're not doing enough of them and probably should find another type of puzzle to solve.

 

Oh my gosh - too funny!

 

Mrs. Car54

[+TopShelfRob]

As a puzzle cache owner, I really don't care if someone finds out the answer from someone else, as long as they know how to solve it, not just being handed the final coords. I also don't want the solutions posted online in public anywhere. Not only is that rude and disrespectful, but a little creepy.

 

I find it hard to understand people being upset if someone solves their puzzle or reaches their cache in a way they didn't expect.

 

If I set what I'd hoped was a difficult puzzle I'd be disappointed if someone managed to short-circuit it, but only in that I'd left an easier way available.

+1 to both of these answers. If they can figure out an easier way to solve it, or a shortcut, or stumble on to it by narrowing down possibilities, brute-forcing it, etc., then more power to them, I'd have no problem with that. As puzzle maker I should have made it not so easy to circumvent, and good for them they were able to conquer it, whether it was the way I intended or not.

 

What I'd object to is if they just grabbed they answer off of a freely circulated answer list or Facebook group dedicated to deseminating all puzzle solutions to anyone who wants to get them without having to even try.

 

If a puzzle cache goes from being found once every couple a months with detailed, interesting logs, to all of a sudden being found 3 times a week with a bunch of 'TFTC' logs, then clearly the solution has been compromised and published somewehere and it's time to re-work the puzzle and archive it and replace it with a new (maybe tougher) puzzle cache whose solution hasn't been compromised, IMO.

Edited July 16, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+frinklabs]

"you can access the cache but only if you follow this footpath and approach from the east". If it's on an island does the hider get to specify whether someone is to swim across, row across, pay someone else to row across, or wait until the lake is frozen in the depths of winter and walk across? Where do we draw the line in worrying whether we're doing it the way the hider intended?

 

As an aside, this scenario would be perfectly addressed by embedding the D/T settings in the find log. That way, the CO could have T5 when there is liquid water, then change it to a lesser but appropriate terrain rating when the lake is frozen.

 

ETA: link to feature request

Edited July 16, 2014 by frinklabs

[Mr.Yuck]

Sounds constructive to me.

This forum is pointless for constructive discussion. I posted multiple times in a constructive and positive way. 90% of the time the post is ignored and the bickering between one or two folks continues on. Almost all forums these days are just for entertaining trolling and ranting.

 

I suspect TWW is on vacation right now, but if he's not, I'd like to let him know he is THIS FAR (I'm holding my fingers like 1/64th of an inch apart) from surpassing NTHacker66 as the most angry Geocaching Topics forum hater ever. If you start emailing people who start threads and tell them we're all idiots and none of us cache, at that point you'll be tied. You haven't done that, right?

[+narcissa]

Sounds constructive to me.

This forum is pointless for constructive discussion. I posted multiple times in a constructive and positive way. 90% of the time the post is ignored and the bickering between one or two folks continues on. Almost all forums these days are just for entertaining trolling and ranting.

 

I suspect TWW is on vacation right now, but if he's not, I'd like to let him know he is THIS FAR (I'm holding my fingers like 1/64th of an inch apart) from surpassing NTHacker66 as the most angry Geocaching Topics forum hater ever. If you start emailing people who start threads and tell them we're all idiots and none of us cache, at that point you'll be tied. You haven't done that, right?

 

I guess we were all supposed to listen to his "constructive and positive" comments, and then cease all discussion. So now he's a sad panda.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As a puzzle cache owner, I really don't care if someone finds out the answer from someone else, as long as they know how to solve it, not just being handed the final coords. I also don't want the solutions posted online in public anywhere. Not only is that rude and disrespectful, but a little creepy.

 

I find it hard to understand people being upset if someone solves their puzzle or reaches their cache in a way they didn't expect.

 

If I set what I'd hoped was a difficult puzzle I'd be disappointed if someone managed to short-circuit it, but only in that I'd left an easier way available.

+1 to both of these answers. If they can figure out an easier way to solve it, or a shortcut, or stumble on to it by narrowing down possibilities, brute-forcing it, etc., then more power to them, I'd have no problem with that. As puzzle maker I should have made it not so easy to circumvent, and good for them they were able to conquer it, whether it was the way I intended or not.

 

What I'd object to is if they just grabbed they answer off of a freely circulated answer list or Facebook group dedicated to deseminating all puzzle solutions to anyone who wants to get them without having to even try.

 

If a puzzle cache goes from being found once every couple a months with detailed, interesting logs, to all of a sudden being found 3 times a week with a bunch of 'TFTC' logs, then clearly the solution has been compromised and published somewehere and it's time to re-work the puzzle and archive it and replace it with a new (maybe tougher) puzzle cache whose solution hasn't been compromised, IMO.

 

I've brute forced a few mystery caches. I stopped telling the CO that I did. It bothered him.

I have lots of puzzle cache hides. Some are very simple. Some are very difficult. I put three five difficulty mysteries in my newest series. One is mostly found by brute forcing. "Hmm... There's a hole here..." Several cachers have actually solved the puzzle. As long as they signed the log, I am happy. It is obvious that many finds on my difficult puzzles are by PAF. I am not happy about that. But as long as the log is signed, it's a valid find. That's my viewpoint: As log as the log is signed, it's a find.

I have had reviewers ask if I really wanted to put out some of my obtuse puzzles. "YES!"

On the other fin: I saw a cacher hide a cache. I said "That should be easy to find." After he left, I signed the log book, and discovered the TB (which was my big mistake.) It was a bonus cache: Find these two, and get the coords for the third. The cache had not been published yet. So he went back, tore my signature out of the log book, and changed the hiding place. I 'did not find it by the expected method.' I guess that's his prerogative, since it had not been published yet. But with that attitude, he is on my 'ignore list'. If he had done that on one of my caches, I would have laughed heartily, and congratulated him!

[team tisri]

As a puzzle cache owner, I really don't care if someone finds out the answer from someone else, as long as they know how to solve it, not just being handed the final coords. I also don't want the solutions posted online in public anywhere. Not only is that rude and disrespectful, but a little creepy.

 

I find it hard to understand people being upset if someone solves their puzzle or reaches their cache in a way they didn't expect.

 

If I set what I'd hoped was a difficult puzzle I'd be disappointed if someone managed to short-circuit it, but only in that I'd left an easier way available.

+1 to both of these answers. If they can figure out an easier way to solve it, or a shortcut, or stumble on to it by narrowing down possibilities, brute-forcing it, etc., then more power to them, I'd have no problem with that. As puzzle maker I should have made it not so easy to circumvent, and good for them they were able to conquer it, whether it was the way I intended or not.

 

What I'd object to is if they just grabbed they answer off of a freely circulated answer list or Facebook group dedicated to deseminating all puzzle solutions to anyone who wants to get them without having to even try.

 

If a puzzle cache goes from being found once every couple a months with detailed, interesting logs, to all of a sudden being found 3 times a week with a bunch of 'TFTC' logs, then clearly the solution has been compromised and published somewehere and it's time to re-work the puzzle and archive it and replace it with a new (maybe tougher) puzzle cache whose solution hasn't been compromised, IMO.

 

True, but I guess it's only to be expected that such things will happen sooner or later.

 

In many ways it's only a small step removed from a group of people going caching and trading puzzle answers before they go, so everybody can find all the caches along their chosen route. As with so much else it's a question of degree.

[team tisri]

As a puzzle cache owner, I really don't care if someone finds out the answer from someone else, as long as they know how to solve it, not just being handed the final coords. I also don't want the solutions posted online in public anywhere. Not only is that rude and disrespectful, but a little creepy.

 

I find it hard to understand people being upset if someone solves their puzzle or reaches their cache in a way they didn't expect.

 

If I set what I'd hoped was a difficult puzzle I'd be disappointed if someone managed to short-circuit it, but only in that I'd left an easier way available.

+1 to both of these answers. If they can figure out an easier way to solve it, or a shortcut, or stumble on to it by narrowing down possibilities, brute-forcing it, etc., then more power to them, I'd have no problem with that. As puzzle maker I should have made it not so easy to circumvent, and good for them they were able to conquer it, whether it was the way I intended or not.

 

What I'd object to is if they just grabbed they answer off of a freely circulated answer list or Facebook group dedicated to deseminating all puzzle solutions to anyone who wants to get them without having to even try.

 

If a puzzle cache goes from being found once every couple a months with detailed, interesting logs, to all of a sudden being found 3 times a week with a bunch of 'TFTC' logs, then clearly the solution has been compromised and published somewehere and it's time to re-work the puzzle and archive it and replace it with a new (maybe tougher) puzzle cache whose solution hasn't been compromised, IMO.

 

I've brute forced a few mystery caches. I stopped telling the CO that I did. It bothered him.

I have lots of puzzle cache hides. Some are very simple. Some are very difficult. I put three five difficulty mysteries in my newest series. One is mostly found by brute forcing. "Hmm... There's a hole here..." Several cachers have actually solved the puzzle. As long as they signed the log, I am happy. It is obvious that many finds on my difficult puzzles are by PAF. I am not happy about that. But as long as the log is signed, it's a valid find. That's my viewpoint: As log as the log is signed, it's a find.

I have had reviewers ask if I really wanted to put out some of my obtuse puzzles. "YES!"

On the other fin: I saw a cacher hide a cache. I said "That should be easy to find." After he left, I signed the log book, and discovered the TB (which was my big mistake.) It was a bonus cache: Find these two, and get the coords for the third. The cache had not been published yet. So he went back, tore my signature out of the log book, and changed the hiding place. I 'did not find it by the expected method.' I guess that's his prerogative, since it had not been published yet. But with that attitude, he is on my 'ignore list'. If he had done that on one of my caches, I would have laughed heartily, and congratulated him!

 

Shame you didn't take the TB.

 

If you found it and signed the log it's a valid find even if it isn't published yet.

[+Ibar]

Something that came to my mind reading this endless thread:

 

A couple of months ago, here in Belgium while trying to find the final stage of Multi A, I found by mistake/accident/luck the final stage of Multi B (which was somewhere between 100 & 200 M from GZ of Multi A). I signed the log and of course on the online log I mentioned how did I get there. I didn't get the feeling I was cheating at all, what do you think?

[+Team Microdot]

Something that came to my mind reading this endless thread:

 

A couple of months ago, here in Belgium while trying to find the final stage of Multi A, I found by mistake/accident/luck the final stage of Multi B (which was somewhere between 100 & 200 M from GZ of Multi A). I signed the log and of course on the online log I mentioned how did I get there. I didn't get the feeling I was cheating at all, what do you think?

 

This type of scenario has been discussed at least once and, I think, several times in this endless thread.

 

Answers to your question are there to be found, if you care to read through

[+CanadianRockies]

I saw a cacher hide a cache. I said "That should be easy to find." After he left, I signed the log book, and discovered the TB (which was my big mistake.) It was a bonus cache: Find these two, and get the coords for the third. The cache had not been published yet. So he went back, tore my signature out of the log book, and changed the hiding place.

If you found it and signed the log it's a valid find even if it isn't published yet.

If the cache owner had left the cache in place, then I'd agree our finny friend did indeed find the cache. But if the owner moved the cache a significant distance, then I think it became a new cache that hadn't been found yet.

 

To clarify the point, let's look at an extreme example. Suppose Harry Dolphin signed the log in a New Jersey Walmart parking lot. Before publishing the cache, however, the owner moved it to the top of a mountain in France. Did HD really find a 4-star terrain cache in France?

 

HD did find a cache, but that cache was never published. The published cache was a different one.

[+TopShelfRob]

Sounds constructive to me.

This forum is pointless for constructive discussion. I posted multiple times in a constructive and positive way. 90% of the time the post is ignored and the bickering between one or two folks continues on. Almost all forums these days are just for entertaining trolling and ranting.

 

I suspect TWW is on vacation right now, but if he's not, I'd like to let him know he is THIS FAR (I'm holding my fingers like 1/64th of an inch apart) from surpassing NTHacker66 as the most angry Geocaching Topics forum hater ever. If you start emailing people who start threads and tell them we're all idiots and none of us cache, at that point you'll be tied. You haven't done that, right?

How do TWW and NTHacker66 rank in comparison to... uh, for instance, someone who doesn't want to appear in third party leaderboards?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I saw a cacher hide a cache. I said "That should be easy to find." After he left, I signed the log book, and discovered the TB (which was my big mistake.) It was a bonus cache: Find these two, and get the coords for the third. The cache had not been published yet. So he went back, tore my signature out of the log book, and changed the hiding place.

If you found it and signed the log it's a valid find even if it isn't published yet.

If the cache owner had left the cache in place, then I'd agree our finny friend did indeed find the cache. But if the owner moved the cache a significant distance, then I think it became a new cache that hadn't been found yet.

 

To clarify the point, let's look at an extreme example. Suppose Harry Dolphin signed the log in a New Jersey Walmart parking lot. Before publishing the cache, however, the owner moved it to the top of a mountain in France. Did HD really find a 4-star terrain cache in France?

 

HD did find a cache, but that cache was never published. The published cache was a different one.

 

That was my decision. The cache was no longer where I found it. The hints to find it were changed. I deleted my find. Though it still had the same cache code. As far as I can tell, the new hide was probably within 100 feet of the old hide. The two caches needed to get the coords were in the same park, and the park has congestion issues.

[+LeftyLeo]

Would those of you who would cheat on a puzzle also chop down a tree to get a tree cache you couldn't reach? But that's not the same thing either, because you are ruining the cache expereice for the next finder. So I don't know then.

 

Now you know!!!! Me and my geocaching tools...

 

 

**That's taking "Alternate Solve Method" a bit too extreme ... (too funny!! :-)

[+LeftyLeo]

As a puzzle cache owner, I really don't care if someone finds out the answer from someone else, as long as they know how to solve it, not just being handed the final coords. I also don't want the solutions posted online in public anywhere. Not only is that rude and disrespectful, but a little creepy.

 

I find it hard to understand people being upset if someone solves their puzzle or reaches their cache in a way they didn't expect.

 

If I set what I'd hoped was a difficult puzzle I'd be disappointed if someone managed to short-circuit it, but only in that I'd left an easier way available.

+1 to both of these answers. If they can figure out an easier way to solve it, or a shortcut, or stumble on to it by narrowing down possibilities, brute-forcing it, etc., then more power to them, I'd have no problem with that. As puzzle maker I should have made it not so easy to circumvent, and good for them they were able to conquer it, whether it was the way I intended or not.

 

What I'd object to is if they just grabbed they answer off of a freely circulated answer list or Facebook group dedicated to deseminating all puzzle solutions to anyone who wants to get them without having to even try.

 

If a puzzle cache goes from being found once every couple a months with detailed, interesting logs, to all of a sudden being found 3 times a week with a bunch of 'TFTC' logs, then clearly the solution has been compromised and published somewehere and it's time to re-work the puzzle and archive it and replace it with a new (maybe tougher) puzzle cache whose solution hasn't been compromised, IMO.

 

I've brute forced a few mystery caches. I stopped telling the CO that I did. It bothered him.

I have lots of puzzle cache hides. Some are very simple. Some are very difficult. I put three five difficulty mysteries in my newest series. One is mostly found by brute forcing. "Hmm... There's a hole here..." Several cachers have actually solved the puzzle. As long as they signed the log, I am happy. It is obvious that many finds on my difficult puzzles are by PAF. I am not happy about that. But as long as the log is signed, it's a valid find. That's my viewpoint: As log as the log is signed, it's a find.

I have had reviewers ask if I really wanted to put out some of my obtuse puzzles. "YES!"

On the other fin: I saw a cacher hide a cache. I said "That should be easy to find." After he left, I signed the log book, and discovered the TB (which was my big mistake.) It was a bonus cache: Find these two, and get the coords for the third. The cache had not been published yet. So he went back, tore my signature out of the log book, and changed the hiding place. I 'did not find it by the expected method.' I guess that's his prerogative, since it had not been published yet. But with that attitude, he is on my 'ignore list'. If he had done that on one of my caches, I would have laughed heartily, and congratulated him!

 

Shame you didn't take the TB.

 

If you found it and signed the log it's a valid find even if it isn't published yet.

 

There is a ? cache near me and someone knew where other caches were and eliminated a large area and 'manually searched' the remainder and found the cache since the puzzle was too hard.. Is that cheating or 'alternate method' .. a signed log is a signed log.. (i have to agree with Harry, though it can be a bit of a let down for the co/puzzle creator) ..

 

Do you think the co should be allowed to disqualify a find if the puzzle isnt found, but brute forced like that?

 

(oh and i also agree that answers shouldnt be just handed out. I like to get people to try them, to teach them how to solve them... there are plenty that i have spent many hours on and still cant get, but thats why they are puzzles...and high diff's)

[+kunarion]

Do you think the co should be allowed to disqualify a find if the puzzle isnt found, but brute forced like that?

How do you know the whole idea is not to solve it by brute force?

 

I recently found a cache where I'd been taking notes for the past 5 years, had parts of the coordinates and highlighted maps. The cache was once moved, so other containers had more than one set of coords (you get coordinates by finding the others). As with many Unknown style caches, the whole "puzzle" was mal-formed. Then I found another piece which helped me discard the false clues, and narrowed the cache down to one point.

 

If the CO can disqualify a find for an improperly solved puzzle, it would be fair if a cache could be archived for having a low quality mess of a puzzle. Otherwise, let people solve it their way. If the CO were to delete my find because I solved it the wrong way, I'd probably let it go til I did it right. But I'd be a whole lot less inclined to bother with that one, or any of that CO's caches.

Edited July 19, 2014 by kunarion