Jump to content

Cheating on puzzles?


Roman!

Recommended Posts

So let's take your analogy one step further and imagine that the product is, say, leather and that the price of the leather is agreed throughout the chain of supply and everyone's expectations are based on that.
I'm sorry, but geocaching analogies only work with beans. :anibad:
And then the shopkeeper takes the leather and fashions it into a pair of shoes, or gloves, or even a pair of leather shorts.

 

Should he sell those items for the same price as the leather without something extra for the extra work involved?

That analogy doesn't work because the 'log = found' guideline covers puzzle caches. Therefore, the contract that the shopkeeper signed is for the sale of shoes, not raw leather.

 

Small wonder then that there's so much more raw leather out there to be found these days... and so few shoes. Yet people still bemoan the fact.

Link to comment

The only person that the cheating bothers that I'm addressing is the puzzle cache owner. And this threads leads me to conclude that the community doesn't care what the puzzle cache owners' feelings are on the issue. Therefore puzzle cache owners who don't mind if people cheat or not will be fine, but those who care about the integrity of their puzzle are discouraged from putting out puzzles

 

If I put out a puzzle cache, and one of the finders has a great time solving it, why does it matter if the next 99 cachers get the coordinates from the first finder? I enjoyed creating it, someone enjoyed solving it. The puzzle is there if someone wants to solve it. The cache is there if someone wants to find it. The "integrity" isn't compromised if someone's girlfriend tags along and logs the find without solving.

 

If someone is actually discouraged from hiding puzzle caches because they aren't allowed to control everybody else, that's their own problem. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not a way to lord power over other people.

Link to comment

No, I think Geocaching.com, as merely the listing service, is the newspaper that is running the ads. Why they have a say in what the shopkeeper can or cannot sell his items for, I have no idea.

twist any analogy enough and you'll break it. That being said, there is not a newspaper on the planet that doesn't decide what ads it will (and won't) publish.
Link to comment
So let's take your analogy one step further and imagine that the product is, say, leather and that the price of the leather is agreed throughout the chain of supply and everyone's expectations are based on that.
I'm sorry, but geocaching analogies only work with beans. :anibad:
And then the shopkeeper takes the leather and fashions it into a pair of shoes, or gloves, or even a pair of leather shorts.

 

Should he sell those items for the same price as the leather without something extra for the extra work involved?

That analogy doesn't work because the 'log = found' guideline covers puzzle caches. Therefore, the contract that the shopkeeper signed is for the sale of shoes, not raw leather.

 

Small wonder then that there's so much more raw leather out there to be found these days... and so few shoes. Yet people still bemoan the fact.

There is not a guideline on the books that doesn't have someone claiming that it shouldn't apply to them because they are super special and their nonconforming cache is amazingly awesome.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
So let's take your analogy one step further and imagine that the product is, say, leather and that the price of the leather is agreed throughout the chain of supply and everyone's expectations are based on that.
I'm sorry, but geocaching analogies only work with beans. :anibad:
And then the shopkeeper takes the leather and fashions it into a pair of shoes, or gloves, or even a pair of leather shorts.

 

Should he sell those items for the same price as the leather without something extra for the extra work involved?

That analogy doesn't work because the 'log = found' guideline covers puzzle caches. Therefore, the contract that the shopkeeper signed is for the sale of shoes, not raw leather.

 

Small wonder then that there's so much more raw leather out there to be found these days... and so few shoes. Yet people still bemoan the fact.

There is not a guideline on the books that doesn't have someone claiming that it shouldn't apply to them because they are super special and their nonconforming cache is amazingly awesome.

 

Don't think anybody here made any such wildly exaggerated claims.

Link to comment
So let's take your analogy one step further and imagine that the product is, say, leather and that the price of the leather is agreed throughout the chain of supply and everyone's expectations are based on that.
I'm sorry, but geocaching analogies only work with beans. :anibad:
And then the shopkeeper takes the leather and fashions it into a pair of shoes, or gloves, or even a pair of leather shorts.

 

Should he sell those items for the same price as the leather without something extra for the extra work involved?

That analogy doesn't work because the 'log = found' guideline covers puzzle caches. Therefore, the contract that the shopkeeper signed is for the sale of shoes, not raw leather.

 

Small wonder then that there's so much more raw leather out there to be found these days... and so few shoes. Yet people still bemoan the fact.

There is not a guideline on the books that doesn't have someone claiming that it shouldn't apply to them because they are super special and their nonconforming cache is amazingly awesome.

 

Don't think anybody here made any such wildly exaggerated claims.

I thought that was what you were going for with your last post.

Link to comment

There is not a guideline on the books that doesn't have someone claiming that it shouldn't apply to them because they are super special and their nonconforming cache is amazingly awesome.

 

Don't think anybody here made any such wildly exaggerated claims.

I thought that was what you were going for with your last post.

 

Wildly exaggerated claims? The belief that the guidelines don't apply to me or that I'm super special and that my caches are amazingly awesome?

 

No - none of those things. Drama really isn't my thing.

 

I'm just a great believer in common courtesy and also realistic enough to realise that the average shopkeeper will only sell what people are willing to pay a fair price for - and if the acceptable price is rock-bottom, then the stock on the shelves will end up reflecting that. Hardly aspirational but then, what does it matter huh? :)

Link to comment

 

If I put out a puzzle cache, and one of the finders has a great time solving it, why does it matter if the next 99 cachers get the coordinates from the first finder? I enjoyed creating it, someone enjoyed solving it. The puzzle is there if someone wants to solve it. The cache is there if someone wants to find it. The "integrity" isn't compromised if someone's girlfriend tags along and logs the find without solving.

 

If someone is actually discouraged from hiding puzzle caches because they aren't allowed to control everybody else, that's their own problem. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun, not a way to lord power over other people.

 

To me the extent of the "spoiling" is significant. And it is nothing about trying to control other people.

 

If there is a puzzle cache (doesn't matter if it is mine or not) and someone tags along and finds it without solving, I don't think it makes a difference.

 

If someone posts the answers somewhere where lots of people will see them, and suddenly 99 people who haven't solved the puzzle find it, I think it makes a difference. It doesn't take away the fun the first person had, but it changes things. And not just for the owner.

 

Some of the great puzzle caches I've found I watch and love reading the logs. As the cache owner put a lot into the cache the finders tend to put a lot into their logs, including talking about how solving the puzzle was for them (without spoiling it). Even more so the case when there are multiple stages. It can be fun just to watch and see who is finding it and what adventures they had. If there is suddenly a big rush of TFTC logs by people who jumped to the end (skipping both the puzzle and intermediate field stages) then it's not so much fun to read.

 

And while you can argue it shouldn't make a difference, I think new finders are less likely to spend time working out a puzzle which they know has been spoilt.

 

An analogy which I can relate to is this. There are 2 mountains, both with an equally challenging climb. But one of them can also be reached by a cable car. I will enjoy hiking the one without the cable car more, as there will be less people on top, and they all will have done what I have done, and we can compare notes on it etc. Spoiling a cache is like building a cable car. It doesn't stop the hike being as good, but it does change the overall experience.

 

Now I can't put a number on it - i.e. 1 is OK, 99 is not.. what about 47? But I do feel a puzzle cache is best if it is not widely spoilt, and most people either solve it, or find it with someone who solved it.

 

But I am all for teamwork, getting help, etc. And if you get lucky and just stumble up it, that's fine too.

Link to comment

There is not a guideline on the books that doesn't have someone claiming that it shouldn't apply to them because they are super special and their nonconforming cache is amazingly awesome.

 

Don't think anybody here made any such wildly exaggerated claims.

I thought that was what you were going for with your last post.

 

Wildly exaggerated claims? The belief that the guidelines don't apply to me or that I'm super special and that my caches are amazingly awesome?

 

No - none of those things. Drama really isn't my thing.

 

I'm just a great believer in common courtesy and also realistic enough to realise that the average shopkeeper will only sell what people are willing to pay a fair price for - and if the acceptable price is rock-bottom, then the stock on the shelves will end up reflecting that. Hardly aspirational but then, what does it matter huh? :)

I think that you've broken the analogy. I have no idea what it is that you are trying to say.

Link to comment

There is not a guideline on the books that doesn't have someone claiming that it shouldn't apply to them because they are super special and their nonconforming cache is amazingly awesome.

 

Don't think anybody here made any such wildly exaggerated claims.

I thought that was what you were going for with your last post.

 

Wildly exaggerated claims? The belief that the guidelines don't apply to me or that I'm super special and that my caches are amazingly awesome?

 

No - none of those things. Drama really isn't my thing.

 

I'm just a great believer in common courtesy and also realistic enough to realise that the average shopkeeper will only sell what people are willing to pay a fair price for - and if the acceptable price is rock-bottom, then the stock on the shelves will end up reflecting that. Hardly aspirational but then, what does it matter huh? :)

I take it that you (and others) agree that guidelines for a logging a physical cache online do not allow the cache owner to require anything beyond signing the logs (with the exception for challenge caches). Yet despite this agreement there is a sense of indignation when someone logs online that they found a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle. The claim seems to be that a puzzle owner must prefer that you solve the puzzle - so out of respect for the cache owners wishes, cachers should voluntarily submit to the additional requirement of solving the puzzle before they log a find online. :unsure:

 

You can't have it both ways. Either the guidelines are correct and you only need to sign the log, or respecting the supposed wishes of a cache owner trumps the guidelines and you must solve the puzzle.

 

I don't want to have to guess what a particular cache owner might wish. I know that as a puzzle owner, I'm not one to get my knickers in a twist because a found (or a DNF) log says that they didn't solve the puzzle. I personally think any cache owner who is bothered by such a log is the one with a problem. Everytime I hide a cache I check a box that I read and understood the guidelines; so I have no expectattion on the loggers beyond what the guidelines say.

Link to comment

I'm just a great believer in common courtesy and also realistic enough to realise that the average shopkeeper will only sell what people are willing to pay a fair price for - and if the acceptable price is rock-bottom, then the stock on the shelves will end up reflecting that. Hardly aspirational but then, what does it matter huh? :)

I think that you've broken the analogy. I have no idea what it is that you are trying to say.

 

I thought he was making a kind of "least common denominator" argument.

 

Mrs. Car54

Link to comment

I'm just a great believer in common courtesy and also realistic enough to realise that the average shopkeeper will only sell what people are willing to pay a fair price for - and if the acceptable price is rock-bottom, then the stock on the shelves will end up reflecting that. Hardly aspirational but then, what does it matter huh? :)

I think that you've broken the analogy. I have no idea what it is that you are trying to say.

 

I thought he was making a kind of "least common denominator" argument.

 

Mrs. Car54

If the argument is that people wouldn't hide puzzles unless there was some guarantee that only peole who solve the puzzle could log it online, then puzzles would have stopped being hidden after April 9, 2009.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

As a puzzle cache owner, I’d like it if people solve the puzzle the way I’ve designed it to be solved. I try to make my puzzles have a logical step-by-step route from beginning to end, and I’d love it if you take that route that I’ve laid out for you, like a tour through the neighborhood, rather than just rushing through to the end. I do realize that I can’t control that though. I think a well-designed puzzle should have that pathway built into it. It may be difficult to see, or require complex logic, but it should be there. That’s not at all the same as saying I want to be in control of how you solve it.

 

There are lots of ways to ‘solve’ a puzzle, some that I can foresee, some that I can’t. These include stumbling across the final location, solving in a different manner, brute forcing the answer, brute forcing the location, asking the CO for help, asking prior solvers for help, tagging along when a solver goes to GZ, copying the GZ cords from a posted solution site, and many others. It’s a multi-dimensional space, and somewhere snaking through all of that is the line that separates “Good for you!” from “Really?” That division is going to vary for each CO and each puzzle.

 

I can’t stop anyone from crossing that line into the “Really?” territory, and won’t even know that they had unless they state as much in their log or other discussions. Someone who does so will get points for being honest, but if you’ve crossed that line I do have the right to have that influence my opinion of you. When I hear you bragging about all the high-difficulty caches you’ve found, and I know you basically borrowed some stars on some of mine by being a tagalong, well, ……

 

The only two times I’ve ever deleted a find from a puzzle cache of mine (or any cache of mine) were:

1. An obviously fake find by a new cacher who logged finds on caches in five other states and the UK on the same day he “found” mine in Minnesota (and yes, I did check the logbook before deletion); and

2. When a new cacher logged as “Found” a challenge cache of mine he could not possibly/did not qualify for. In that case I sent him an email stating he could make it a Note and then at some future date, upon qualifying, add a Found IT log with that future date.

 

I don’t make puzzles to force people to jump through hoops. In large part I create them for the following reasons:

1. I like to solve puzzles, and following the idea of “Hide the type of cache you’d like to find”….

2. Creating a well-designed puzzle is much like solving a puzzle itself—what pathways will a solver go down? How do I direct him to/away from the right path? What clues do I leave in the cache page, in the cache name, in the posted cords?

3. We’ve got a lot of great puzzle creators and solvers here in the Twin Cities, and I want to give back.

4. I want to create caches with high star counts, but I’m not personally a big terrain person, so I up the ante on the difficulty side by making you work for the rating.

5. Having a puzzle allows more of a theme to carry across all parts of a cache.

 

Some people in this conversation have stated that a puzzle is not well-designed if it is open to solving by brute force or other methods not anticipated by the hider. That is not at all true, in my opinion. For one thing, a puzzle cache’s final location may become compromised innocently by one or more future hiders saturating the surrounding area such that the only possible solutions can be found by viewing a map rather than attacking the puzzle.

 

I don't expect everyone to solve my puzzles in the manner I've laid out. I don't delete finds if someone doesn't follow that path. But solving the "I need to get coordinates" puzzle is not he same as solving the posted puzzle.

Link to comment

I take it that you (and others) agree that guidelines for a logging a physical cache online do not allow the cache owner to require anything beyond signing the logs (with the exception for challenge caches).

 

Yes - I agree - I think we probably covered that pages back and I don't think a single poster is in any doubt whatsoever about that fact. Moving swiftly on...

 

Yet despite this agreement there is a sense of indignation when someone logs online that they found a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle. The claim seems to be that a puzzle owner must prefer that you solve the puzzle - so out of respect for the cache owners wishes, cachers should voluntarily submit to the additional requirement of solving the puzzle before they log a find online. :unsure:

 

Think this has been covered before also. I fully accept Groundpeak's requirements for a valid find - signature on logbook. For certain caches I have additional, well, let's leave the word expectations to one side for a moment as that word seems to cause some consternation, let's instead use the word hope - I hope that finders will recognise extra effort put into puzzle caches and multi-caches and reciprocate by solving puzzles or completing multi-caches as intended.

 

There. That's that out of the way.

 

You can't have it both ways. Either the guidelines are correct and you only need to sign the log, or respecting the supposed wishes of a cache owner trumps the guidelines and you must solve the puzzle.

 

Quite apart from the fact these things are not mutually exclusive, why limit yourself to either / or when you can have both and have high confidence that all parties will be happy - respect the supposed wishes of the cache owner by solving the puzzle / completing the field puzzle / completing the multi as intended AND satisfy Groundspeak's basic requirements by then signing the log. Easy-peasy! :D

 

I don't want to have to guess what a particular cache owner might wish.

 

Then don't guess. We also covered this pages back. Take the safe assumption that solving a puzzle / completing a field puzzle / completing a multi as intended AND signing the log to satisfy Groundspeak's basic requirements will be perfectly satisfactory all round. At least the odds of dissatisfaction in these circumstances are, I imagine, rather tiny. Heck - anyone who gets upset about this outcome may even deserve to be upset / get their knickers in a twist.

 

No guesswork required - easy-peasy B)

 

I know that as a puzzle owner, I'm not one to get my knickers in a twist because a found (or a DNF) log says that they didn't solve the puzzle. I personally think any cache owner who is bothered by such a log is the one with a problem. Everytime I hide a cache I check a box that I read and understood the guidelines; so I have no expectattion on the loggers beyond what the guidelines say.

 

That's great - I'm genuinely pleased for you - getting one's knickers in a twist sounds very uncomfortable - perhaps even dangerous to health! :o

 

I doubt though that the mild disappointment that people might feel when they see the fruits of their labours downgraded to a TFTC log because their cache happened to be on the conveyor belt for that day will cause them undue ill health. They might though, decide that their efforts would be better employed elsewhere.

Link to comment

If the argument is that people wouldn't hide puzzles unless there was some guarantee that only peole who solve the puzzle could log it online, then puzzles would have stopped being hidden after April 9, 2009.

 

Whoops - forgot about this one :unsure:

 

For me, the fact that there's a steady stream of new cachers coming into the game who believe that if they place a puzzle cache, people will solve the puzzle / if they place a multi-cache, people will complete the multi / if they place a cache with a field puzzle, people will complete the field puzzle - shoots that argument in the foot.

 

Of course they may well learn through experience that their expectations will not be met.

Link to comment

Everytime I hide a cache I check a box that I read and understood the guidelines; so I have no expectattion on the loggers beyond what the guidelines say.

I kind of hope people go above and beyond the guidelines when they cache. I hope they put the lid back on the cache container. I hope they don't empty the contents on the ground and leave them there. I hope they don't destroy the environment around the cache.

Link to comment

There is no cheating if you sign the log its found. Im noy as smart as alot of people in this hobby and some of these puzzles are way to brainy for me. If I can ask a friend that found it for the coords in exchange for a future favor that works for me. If I wasn't allowed to do this a would quit thid hobby. Every one plays there own way dont judge.

Link to comment

I usually solve puzzles myself before I find and log them.

 

A few times, I have found puzzle caches that someone else has solved. Before I logged them online, I solved the puzzles on my own.

 

Once, I solved part of a puzzle, and then brute-forced the rest of the coordinates. After I found the cache, I used the solution coordinates to figure out the solution to the rest of the puzzle. Then I logged it online.

 

A few times, I have found puzzle caches that were solved as part of a group effort, as part of Venona's annual ACTIVITIES. But those puzzles are intended to be solved by a group collaborating on the solution via online forums.

Link to comment

The only person that the cheating bothers that I'm addressing is the puzzle cache owner. And this threads leads me to conclude that the community doesn't care what the puzzle cache owners' feelings are on the issue. Therefore puzzle cache owners who don't mind if people cheat or not will be fine, but those who care about the integrity of their puzzle are discouraged from putting out puzzles

 

I'd say that's about the top-and-bottom of it - if the posters in this thread are a fair representative sample of the geocaching community at large.

Well, so much for the theory - because the veterans have stated in these forums that the posters are NOT representative. :o

Link to comment

I usually solve puzzles myself before I find and log them.

 

A few times, I have found puzzle caches that someone else has solved. Before I logged them online, I solved the puzzles on my own.

 

Once, I solved part of a puzzle, and then brute-forced the rest of the coordinates. After I found the cache, I used the solution coordinates to figure out the solution to the rest of the puzzle. Then I logged it online.

 

A few times, I have found puzzle caches that were solved as part of a group effort, as part of Venona's annual ACTIVITIES. But those puzzles are intended to be solved by a group collaborating on the solution via online forums.

When is the next voting session for "Geocacher of the Year"?

Link to comment
I usually solve puzzles myself before I find and log them.

 

A few times, I have found puzzle caches that someone else has solved. Before I logged them online, I solved the puzzles on my own.

 

Once, I solved part of a puzzle, and then brute-forced the rest of the coordinates. After I found the cache, I used the solution coordinates to figure out the solution to the rest of the puzzle. Then I logged it online.

 

A few times, I have found puzzle caches that were solved as part of a group effort, as part of Venona's annual ACTIVITIES. But those puzzles are intended to be solved by a group collaborating on the solution via online forums.

Really.....
Yep, really.
Link to comment

I usually solve puzzles myself before I find and log them.

 

A few times, I have found puzzle caches that someone else has solved. Before I logged them online, I solved the puzzles on my own.

 

Once, I solved part of a puzzle, and then brute-forced the rest of the coordinates. After I found the cache, I used the solution coordinates to figure out the solution to the rest of the puzzle. Then I logged it online.

 

A few times, I have found puzzle caches that were solved as part of a group effort, as part of Venona's annual ACTIVITIES. But those puzzles are intended to be solved by a group collaborating on the solution via online forums.

When is the next voting session for "Geocacher of the Year"?

I think that Brian holds that vote in secret.

Link to comment

Will you log a puzzle you never solved or do you consider that cheating?

 

Me, absolutely, I'll log a puzzle any way I can solved or not.

 

There was an Event in Minnesota a few years back that was dedicated to Puzzle Caches. Some of the CO's got together and gave away coords to their caches as well as instructions on how to solve them. You could either just plug the coords in and find them or look at the instructions on how to solve them and do it that way....

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...