Cheating on puzzles?

[+narcissa]

However, I firmly believe that most of those people who do ask for, or trade, puzzle final coordinates know they are being rude and disrespectful, and know it's cheating.

 

I recognize that you've chosen to interpret this in a very negative way, but that's a choice that you've made. Good cache owners recognize that once a cache is out there, it's simply not possible to control how other people find it. You can be venomous and angry about that if you wish, and you can shout at me for pointing it out, but it won't change other people's behaviour.

 

"Cheating" is a very strong word that implies that an advantage is being gained unfairly, perhaps at someone's expense. That's just not possible with geocaching, unless you're playing an unofficial competitive side game.

[+funkymunkyzone]

I have never ever seen a log that says "I asked XXXXX for the final coordinates and they gave them to me. TFTC" or "I traded puzzle final coordinates with XXXX. They gave me the coords for this puzzle and I gave them the coordinates for GCXXXXX. TFTC".

 

I actually have posted that I couldn't solve the puzzle but a friend told me where it was and he got a nasty email from the CO which I found extremely rude. We have someone local does does some pretty sneaky traditionals and yes people do post they used PAF, admitting it doesn't change the fact you cheated then.

 

I do see lots of logs about being with someone who solved the puzzle, it's exactly the same thing. The only difference lots of people log puzzles this way so they have to justify it as being OK.

 

You are missing the point. People admit the PAF etc in their logs because they don't see any problem with it. They see plenty of others admitting it, which effectively means the community as a whole generally accepts it. People generally do not admit that they were given the coords or traded for them, because they know it's wrong and they are ashamed of it.

 

You think it's ok and therefore you have no shame about it and freely admitted doing it in your log. In my opinion, and clearly in the CO's opinion, you cheated and I don't understand your motivation for so desperately needing to find that cache.

 

Just how nasty an email it was from the CO, who knows, without reading it ourselves none of us can say and it might be a massive exxageration. Nasty or not, however, it is irrelevant to the discussion about cheating.

[+funkymunkyzone]

I recognize that you've chosen to interpret this in a very negative way, but that's a choice that you've made. Good cache owners recognize that once a cache is out there, it's simply not possible to control how other people find it. You can be venomous and angry about that if you wish, and you can shout at me for pointing it out, but it won't change other people's behaviour.

Say what? So because I hold a different opinion to you, I am negative, I'm a bad cache owner, and I am venomous and angry, and I am shouting at you? Wow.

[+narcissa]

I recognize that you've chosen to interpret this in a very negative way, but that's a choice that you've made. Good cache owners recognize that once a cache is out there, it's simply not possible to control how other people find it. You can be venomous and angry about that if you wish, and you can shout at me for pointing it out, but it won't change other people's behaviour.

Say what? So because I hold a different opinion to you, I am negative, I'm a bad cache owner, and I am venomous and angry, and I am shouting at you? Wow.

 

The words you're using to describe this very common practice are telling. Rude. Disrespectful. Cheating. Ashamed.

 

When we put out caches, are we putting them out there so others can enjoy them, or are we putting them out there so we can control people?

[+Roman!]

I have never ever seen a log that says "I asked XXXXX for the final coordinates and they gave them to me. TFTC" or "I traded puzzle final coordinates with XXXX. They gave me the coords for this puzzle and I gave them the coordinates for GCXXXXX. TFTC".

 

I actually have posted that I couldn't solve the puzzle but a friend told me where it was and he got a nasty email from the CO which I found extremely rude. We have someone local does does some pretty sneaky traditionals and yes people do post they used PAF, admitting it doesn't change the fact you cheated then.

 

I do see lots of logs about being with someone who solved the puzzle, it's exactly the same thing. The only difference lots of people log puzzles this way so they have to justify it as being OK.

 

You are missing the point. People admit the PAF etc in their logs because they don't see any problem with it. They see plenty of others admitting it, which effectively means the community as a whole generally accepts it. People generally do not admit that they were given the coords or traded for them, because they know it's wrong and they are ashamed of it.

 

You think it's ok and therefore you have no shame about it and freely admitted doing it in your log. In my opinion, and clearly in the CO's opinion, you cheated and I don't understand your motivation for so desperately needing to find that cache.

 

Just how nasty an email it was from the CO, who knows, without reading it ourselves none of us can say and it might be a massive exxageration. Nasty or not, however, it is irrelevant to the discussion about cheating.

 

Firstly I have been given the coordinates outright maybe 3 or 4 times, my map is nothing but unfound puzzles caches. Just from experience the reason I think people don't post they were given the coordinates is the fear of overreaction from a CO.

 

When you post using PAF, it's a conveluded way of saying someone told you exactly where the cache was, no one posts I phoned a friend and he told me exactly where to look. So PAF is cheating too, based on your reasoning as well as disrespectful and rude.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Roman!

[+funkymunkyzone]

I recognize that you've chosen to interpret this in a very negative way, but that's a choice that you've made. Good cache owners recognize that once a cache is out there, it's simply not possible to control how other people find it. You can be venomous and angry about that if you wish, and you can shout at me for pointing it out, but it won't change other people's behaviour.

Say what? So because I hold a different opinion to you, I am negative, I'm a bad cache owner, and I am venomous and angry, and I am shouting at you? Wow.

 

The words you're using to describe this very common practice are telling. Rude. Disrespectful. Cheating. Ashamed.

 

When we put out caches, are we putting them out there so others can enjoy them, or are we putting them out there so we can control people?

 

Roman! asked if anyone thought it was cheating, but we're not allowed to use the word cheating?

 

I really don't think I'm being venomous or angry to point out that I have never seen someone state in their log that they found a puzzle cache by trading or being handed the coords, and my belief that they do so out of shame for finding the cache that way.

 

Personally, I've never sent a nasty email because of it, I've never deleted a log over it, nothing like that at all. I'm pretty passive about it. But when I'm told about someone being approached to trade for my puzzle finals, I do have a bit of a laugh about how lame that is. I really don't think that makes me venomous, angry or shouty.

[+funkymunkyzone]

When you post using PAF, it's a conveluded way of saying someone told you exactly where the cache was, no one posts I phoned a friend and he told me exactly where to look. So PAF is cheating too, based on your reasoning as well as disrespectful and rude.

I totally respect your logic, Roman!, and I don't believe for a moment that you loaded the opening question of this topic so that anyone thinking it was cheating would be labelled venomous and angry.

 

I happen to think a PAF is ok, just my opinion full of fuzzy human judgement call. I don't consider it hypocrisy, but I respect that you might consider it that. Judging by logs, and how often PAF is mentioned without any apparent negative backlash I think the vast majority of the caching community agrees with me.

Edited June 16, 2014 by funkymunkyzone

[+Roman!]

When you post using PAF, it's a conveluded way of saying someone told you exactly where the cache was, no one posts I phoned a friend and he told me exactly where to look. So PAF is cheating too, based on your reasoning as well as disrespectful and rude.

I totally respect your logic, Roman!, and I don't believe for a moment that you loaded the opening question of this topic so that anyone thinking it was cheating would be labelled venomous and angry.

 

I happen to think a PAF is ok, just my opinion full of fuzzy human judgement call. I don't consider it hypocrisy, but I respect that you might consider it that. Judging by logs, and how often PAF is mentioned without any apparent negative backlash I think the vast majority of the caching community agrees with me.

 

I never called anyone that or intended that, I started this thread after a day of caching with a puzzle master and his girlfriend who won't log finds until she solves it herself. We had a discussion about this very topic.

 

Me, personally, I'm very black and white on this subject, either it's all cheating or none of it is, my view, none of it is, that's just my view.

 

You were the first to call being given the coordinates cheating so I engaged you with my views. One thing I agree with you, admitting you were given coordinates is not socially acceptable which I find interesting as I see being with the solver and logging the cache as the same thing and I see PAF on a D4/5 hide the same thing but that is OK. What's the difference between a sneaky puzzle and a well camouflaged hide?

[+funkymunkyzone]

I totally respect your logic, Roman!, and I don't believe for a moment that you loaded the opening question of this topic so that anyone thinking it was cheating would be labelled venomous and angry.

 

I happen to think a PAF is ok, just my opinion full of fuzzy human judgement call. I don't consider it hypocrisy, but I respect that you might consider it that. Judging by logs, and how often PAF is mentioned without any apparent negative backlash I think the vast majority of the caching community agrees with me.

 

I never called anyone that or intended that

I know, that was someone else.

 

Me, personally, I'm very black and white on this subject, either it's all cheating or none of it is, my view, none of it is, that's just my view.

I get that. Although I do believe there is a line somewhere past which you would consider an activity cheating. Perhaps if I got random people around the world to sign cache logs for me, and I couch-cached a bunch of virtuals? I'm sure at some point you'd just laugh at me and think at the very least "well, he's only cheating himself"...

 

You were the first to call being given the coordinates cheating so I engaged you with my views. One thing I agree with you, admitting you were given coordinates is not socially acceptable which I find interesting as I see being with the solver and logging the cache as the same thing and I see PAF on a D4/5 hide the same thing but that is OK. What's the difference between a sneaky puzzle and a well camouflaged hide?

I have no answer to that - to me, there just is a difference. And to put that in context, I own a couple of caches that are pretty devious hides, and I've never felt there was an issue with a PAF. The only thing I can think of is that at least a PAF often leads to a more definitive find or no find, as in a no find after a PAF carries more weight for a cache owner who then might go and check. Really though, I'm reaching for a reason, as I can't think of a definitive one.

[+Roman!]

The only rule is sign the log book and log it online so yes, logging from your sofa is cheating so as long as someone signed the log book they have not cheated. (NOTE: yes earthcaches, webcams, virtuals and challenges have extra rules that must be met to not be cheating)

 

Would you get upset if one person gave another the solution to your puzzle?

 

It just seems to me puzzle cache owners are the ones that get into a tizzy when someone finds their cache by other means. (By this I mean the only drama I have ever seen was with puzzle caches and FTFs)

Edited June 16, 2014 by Roman!

[+funkymunkyzone]

The only rule is sign the log book and log it online so yes, logging from your sofa is cheating so as long as someone signed the log book they have not cheated. (NOTE: yes earthcaches, webcams, virtuals and challenges have extra rules that must be met to not be cheating)

The rule is your name has to be in the log book. How it gets there is another story.

 

Would you get upset if one person gave another the solution to your puzzle?

I'd be annoyed, just like if someone cuts me off in traffic or slams a door in my face. Nothing to get terribly worked up over, but I would consider it rude (on the basis they are effectively flipping off another player who has put some effort into placing a cache for them to find).

 

When I say that, of course, I am simply thinking of my local situation. There are a couple of people here who do it and they try to not let the cache owners, or the general community, know that they do it. Once again, I can only imply from this secrecy that they would be embarrassed if everyone knew. They don't know that I know.

[+BlackRose67]

My favorite thing recently, is to find the puzzle some way other than actually solving it, but still without doing what I would consider 'cheating'.

There is a puzzle here that I've "solved" by looking at the photos that were posted with some find logs.

 

I was able to use those images plus satellite imagery to determine the final location.

[+Roman!]

My favorite thing recently, is to find the puzzle some way other than actually solving it, but still without doing what I would consider 'cheating'.

There is a puzzle here that I've "solved" by looking at the photos that were posted with some find logs.

 

I was able to use those images plus satellite imagery to determine the final location.

 

I am actually very good at figuring out final coordinates for puzzles and multis by various means. Logs and pictures and checking the order of finds a cacher has when they find my target cache are great ways. Exif coordinates, checking finds of the CO the day they placed the cache, deducing coordinates using logic based on the 2 mile rule. I have other tricks too.

[cezanne]

So what's the difference between being given the coordinates or being out with the person who solved the puzzle and finding it too?

 

For me as a cache owner the difference is two-fold: First, on the very same day that I will get a meaningless log, I typically will get also a log from someone who knows what the cache is about which will serve as compensation for me. Moreover, when accompanying someone who solved the homework part for my caches, the cacher who did not do the homework part will visit the locations I show with my caches and will not just visit the final which is pointless for several of my difficult mystery caches (they are not single stage ones and at the final lodations there is nothing of interest to see - the interesting locations are visited before).

 

Second, when only those who join someone who solved the puzzle visit difficult puzzle caches, the number of visits of cachers who have not solved the puzzle stays typically reasonably low. As soon as coordinate trading starts, it will become an endless story. After a while the coordinates will be moved on exclusively by people who have not solved the puzzle and who have never experienced the cache in the intended manner and thus do not even know what the cache is about.

That's quite unfortunate in my opinion.

 

Personally, I do not think that the most important aspect of your question is whether one calls it cheating. I do not know whether the girl you mentioned in some of your posts wants to solve the puzzles herself due to the fact that she does not want to cheat or becauses she simply does not feel comfortable to log found its for caches where she feels that she has not experienced a major part of the cache. I would not log a cache up a tree either because I cannot get there.

 

For Groundspeak having signed the log book is sufficient, for me and the girl you mentioned it is not when it comes to ourselves. Of course, I accept each found it log which corresponds to a signature in the log book of my caches, but some found it logs make me very unhappy and can easily make me very frustrated. Of course, someone like you will probably not care that much if some puzzles caches get archived, but keep in mind that there are cachers out there that like such caches. They are the real victims if puzzle caches get archived. From this perspectice, it does make a difference what annoys cache owners and in my experience most puzzle cache owners prefer logs by cachers who did not solve the puzzle but accompanied someone who solved the puzzle to coordinate trading.

 

 

I'd bet that almost everyone has done this. Either way you contributed nothing.

 

It does not play role for the discussion here, but just for the record: Almost always I have solved the puzzles before visiting a cache and in very rare occasions afterwards.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Roman!]

So what's the difference between being given the coordinates or being out with the person who solved the puzzle and finding it too?

 

For me as a cache owner the difference is two-fold: First, on the very same day that I will get a meaningless log, I typically will get also a log from someone who knows what the cache is about which will serve as compensation for me. Moreover, when accompanying someone who solved the homework part for my caches, the cacher who did not do the homework part will visit the locations I show with my caches and will not just visit the final which is pointless for several of my difficult mystery caches (they are not single stage ones and at the final lodations there is nothing of interest to see - the interesting locations are visited before).

 

Second, when only those who join someone who solved the puzzle visit difficult puzzle caches, the number of visits of cachers who have not solved the puzzle stays typically reasonably low. As soon as coordinate trading starts, it will become an endless story. After a while the coordinates will be moved on exclusively by people who have not solved the puzzle and who have never experienced the cache in the intended manner and thus do not even know what the cache is about.

That's quite unfortunate in my opinion.

 

Personally, I do not think that the most important aspect of your question is whether one calls it cheating. I do not know whether the girl you mentioned in some of your posts wants to solve the puzzles herself due to the fact that she does not want to cheat or becauses she simply does not feel comfortable to log found its for caches where she feels that she has not experienced a major part of the cache. I would not log a cache up a tree either because I cannot get there.

 

For Groundspeak having signed the log book is sufficient, for me and the girl you mentioned it is not when it comes to ourselves. Of course, I accept each found it log which corresponds to a signature in the log book of my caches, but some found it logs make me very unhappy and can easily make me very frustrated. Of course, someone like you will probably not care that much if some puzzles caches get archived, but keep in mind that there are cachers out there that like such caches. They are the real victims if puzzle caches get archived. From this perspectice, it does make a difference what annoys cache owners and in my experience most puzzle cache owners prefer logs by cachers who did not solve the puzzle but accompanied someone who solved the puzzle to coordinate trading.

 

 

I'd bet that almost everyone has done this. Either way you contributed nothing.

 

It does not play role for the discussion here, but just for the record: Almost always I have solved the puzzles before visiting a cache and in very rare occasions afterwards.

 

 

Cezanne

 

Firstly, you still get the same amount of logs and same quality of logs just on different days.

 

Secondly, whether I'm with the solver when he finds the cache or if I get the coordinates at a later date will not impact any coordinate trading that may be done.

 

Thirdly, the few times I did get coordinates I knew what the puzzle was about, I just couldn't solve it but the many times I was with the solver, most times I had no clue what the puzzle was about.

 

Lastly, almost always

Edited June 16, 2014 by Roman!

[cezanne]

Firstly, you still get the same amount of logs and same quality of logs just on different days.

´

 

I do not agree. The experience in my area has shown that when coordinate trading (including databases which contain the final coordinates of multi caches and mystery caches) starts, there is no balance any longer between the number of people who solved the puzzle and who did not. Moreover, if someone just gets the final coordinates, he/she will not visit the stages which play a main role in my puzzles caches.

 

As the logs are regarded, the day when the logs arrive plays a role for me as one nice log can as mentioned compensate my frustration about the meaningless log early enough before I press the archive button.

 

Secondly, whether I'm with the solver when he finds the cache or if I get the coordinates at a later date will not impact any coordinate trading that may be done.

 

No, but if only people log the cache who either solved the puzzles themselves or accompanied someone who did, the number of visitors stays smaller.

 

Thirdly, the few times I did get coordinates I knew what the puzzle was about, I just couldn't solve it but the many times I was with the solver, most times I had no clue what the puzzle was about.

 

I do not know how many of the puzzle caches you did have several stages. All my mystery caches involve the visit of several stages and it makes a huge difference if someone has visited the locations or at least knows which are the locations that the cache is showing or just visited the final container. The homework part of my caches always connects to the rest of the cache - it is not just about an arbitrary puzzle to keep cachers busy.

 

Cezanne

[+Roman!]

Firstly, you still get the same amount of logs and same quality of logs just on different days.

´

 

I do not agree. The experience in my area has shown that when coordinate trading (including databases which contain the final coordinates of multi caches and mystery caches) starts, there is no balance any longer between the number of people who solved the puzzle and who did not. Moreover, if someone just gets the final coordinates, he/she will not visit the stages which play a main role in my puzzles caches.

 

As the logs are regarded, the day when the logs arrive plays a role for me as one nice log can as mentioned compensate my frustration about the meaningless log early enough before I press the archive button.

 

Secondly, whether I'm with the solver when he finds the cache or if I get the coordinates at a later date will not impact any coordinate trading that may be done.

 

No, but if only people log the cache who either solved the puzzles themselves or accompanied someone who did, the number of visitors stays smaller.

 

Thirdly, the few times I did get coordinates I knew what the puzzle was about, I just couldn't solve it but the many times I was with the solver, most times I had no clue what the puzzle was about.

 

I do not know how many of the puzzle caches you did have several stages. All my mystery caches involve the visit of several stages and it makes a huge difference if someone has visited the locations or at least knows which are the locations that the cache is showing or just visited the final container. The homework part of my caches always connects to the rest of the cache - it is not just about an arbitrary puzzle to keep cachers busy.

 

Cezanne

 

I think you are referring to multis, I'm talking about puzzle caches that involve hours sitting on your butt in front of a computer such as figuring out the specific scientific name of the posted pictures of ducks.

 

I know you'd walk 500 miles to find a cache, would you sit 500 hours to solve one?

Edited June 16, 2014 by Roman!

[+The_Incredibles_]

So what's the difference between being given the coordinates or being out with the person who solved the puzzle and finding it too?

 

For me as a cache owner the difference is two-fold: First, on the very same day that I will get a meaningless log, I typically will get also a log from someone who knows what the cache is about which will serve as compensation for me.

 

This is a very good point. It somehow softens the blow if you get 2 logs the same day, 1 from someone who actually was interested and solved the puzzle.

 

someone like you will probably not care that much if some puzzles caches get archived, but keep in mind that there are cachers out there that like such caches. They are the real victims if puzzle caches get archived.

 

You're so right. It doesn't matter whether something is cheating or not. We can debate that for ages. What really matters is whether or not the cache owner gets upset. Upset the cache owner and they may archive their cache and stop hiding puzzles (which might make Roman! really really happy, but the puzzle lovers in his area not so much).

 

What it all boils down to is putting consideration for your fellow human beings above your own selfish desires. Kind of like what I am teaching my 6 year old right now.

Edited June 16, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[+Roman!]

So what's the difference between being given the coordinates or being out with the person who solved the puzzle and finding it too?

 

For me as a cache owner the difference is two-fold: First, on the very same day that I will get a meaningless log, I typically will get also a log from someone who knows what the cache is about which will serve as compensation for me.

 

This is a very good point. It somehow softens the blow if you get 2 logs the same day, 1 from someone who actually was interested and solved the puzzle.

 

someone like you will probably not care that much if some puzzles caches get archived, but keep in mind that there are cachers out there that like such caches. They are the real victims if puzzle caches get archived.

 

You're so right. It doesn't matter whether something is cheating or not. We can debate that for ages. What really matters is whether or not the cache owner gets upset. Upset the cache owner and they may archive their cache and stop hiding puzzles (which might make Roman! really really happy, but the puzzle lovers in his area not so much).

 

What it all boils down to is putting consideration for your fellow human beings above your own selfish desires. Kind of like what I am teaching my 6 year old right now.

 

Again, unless you solve a puzzle with no help from other than the CO you are being inconsiderate as is PAF, just for some strange reason you chose to arbitrarily draw the line at sharing coordinates, I reverse the selfishness and suggest the CO is the one being selfish expecting people to solve their cache the they intended.

 

If I create some evil camouflaged traditional do I not then have the right to get upset if people tell each other what/where my hide is? Why the special treatment for puzzles? It is hypocritical.

 

Either any and all help is cheating or it's not, anything else, you're just trying to justify your guilty conscience.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Roman!

[+Roman!]

Here is what I have a hard time understanding, it's ok to log a find on a puzzle you never looked at but happened to be with someone who solved it but it's not ok to get the coordinates from them later after trying to solve it?

 

I do not understand how either both are not acceptable or both are wrong.

 

In both cases the same two people found it, in both cases only one of them solved it.

 

In the latter at least the person tried to solve it, shouldn't the former be worse?

Edited June 16, 2014 by Roman!

[+niraD]

Since getting coordinates given to you is not cheating according to Groundspeak

I may have missed something. Has Groundspeak ever ruled one way or the other on what is or is not "cheating" on a puzzle cache?

 

They've ruled on what is a find, to the degree that the CO is no longer allowed to delete the online log. But that isn't the same thing.

 

They've ruled that publishing solutions, hints, spoilers, or coordinates can violate the terms of service. But that isn't the same thing either.

 

But like I said, maybe I missed where they made a ruling about what is or is not "cheating" on a puzzle cache.

 

 

I know you'd walk 500 miles to find a cache, would you sit 500 hours to solve one?

But I would sit five hundred hours

And I would sit five hundred more

Just to be the man who sat a thousand

Hours to boost my puzzle score

 

(SICNR)

[+Rainbow Spirit]

I mostly hunt traditionals , and I have an extensive list of pafs who I will call if after a long search I am coming up empty handed. I will always state in my logs that I have contacted a paf if their help has lead me to the cache.

 

There is one cacher on that list who is happy to use the paf option but rarely says so in their logs. In fact on a FTF hunt together on one of my own hides I gave some big hints on where to look. When he logged his find there was no mention of the fact that I was there helping.....That's just the way they play...

[+Roman!]

Since getting coordinates given to you is not cheating according to Groundspeak

I may have missed something. Has Groundspeak ever ruled one way or the other on what is or is not "cheating" on a puzzle cache?

 

They've ruled on what is a find, to the degree that the CO is no longer allowed to delete the online log. But that isn't the same thing.

 

They've ruled that publishing solutions, hints, spoilers, or coordinates can violate the terms of service. But that isn't the same thing either.

 

But like I said, maybe I missed where they made a ruling about what is or is not "cheating" on a puzzle cache.

 

 

I know you'd walk 500 miles to find a cache, would you sit 500 hours to solve one?

But I would sit five hundred hours

And I would sit five hundred more

Just to be the man who sat a thousand

Hours to boost my puzzle score

 

(SICNR)

 

Ha, I'm actually waiting for a nice day to get FTF on this cache: http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC56GX3_i-would-walk-500-m?guid=5199e503-2d74-4126-bd41-97fc0d130292

Edited June 16, 2014 by Roman!

[+Roman!]

Seems like pretty much everyone cheats, they just wNt to feel better by thinking others cheat more.

 

My name is Roman and I am a cheater and I am free to cache how I wish.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Roman!

[cezanne]

I think you are referring to multis, I'm talking about puzzle caches that involve hours sitting on your butt in front of a computer such as figuring out the specific scientific name of the posted pictures of ducks.

 

As I said all my puzzles caches have a homework part and then a number of stages have to be visited - for example, two of them involve a hike of more than 5km. Call them multi caches if you want, they are still listed as mystery caches as you need to do something at home in order to know where to go. Actually, my preferred type of puzzle cache has multiple stages and not just a final.

 

Whether or not you obtained the scientific names of the ducks on your own will not make such a dramatic difference to the overall experience. In case of some of my caches you are missing the whole point of the cache if you have not visited the stages and just find a container at a somehow arbitrary location. What I write is not just theoretical. The final coordinates of one of my mysteries ended up on a huge list of final coordinates (several hundreds of caches) that were handed around openly. In case of that cache the hideout location is quite lame and all what is interesting about the cache happens before. The starting puzzle brings you to a special location that is hardly known. The cache is intentionally not hidden at that location, but at some distance. It is completely pointless to visit only the final of this cache.

 

 

 

I know you'd walk 500 miles to find a cache, would you sit 500 hours to solve one?

 

No, I would not but I do not need to visit all caches and log them as found it.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

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.

 

I've logged puzzles I haven't solved - and I consider it cheating.

 

If someone has gone to the trouble to construct a puzzle for my entertainment, then I want to obtain the coordinates by solving the puzzle.

 

On a few occasions I have calculated the coordinates by a process of deduction - and happily logged them as finds - but it is still cheating, and a lot less satisfying than solving the puzzle - so I rarely bother with this method, unless I can use the information to solve the puzzle in reverse.

 

On two occasions I've stumbled on puzzle caches while out scouting for hides - and happily logged them as finds. Cheating? Well, I can't exactly unfind them

 

In each of these examples the find has some worth because I got there under my own steam - not because I happened to be there with someone who had the coordinates or because I had the coordinates handed to me on a plate.

 

Logging puzzles because you happened to be there with someone else or because you were handed the coordinates is lame - and bad for the game. To me, it's the equivalent of armchair logging - utterly pointless.

[cezanne]

Logging puzzles because you happened to be there with someone else or because you were handed the coordinates is lame - and bad for the game. To me, it's the equivalent of armchair logging - utterly pointless.

 

I disagree with you. For me there is a huge difference to armchair logging. Moreover, I can understand that someone who goes caching with a friend of puzzle caches might want to log all the caches that have been found on that day together. Personally, I do not log finds in such a case, but there are many cachers out there who appreciate if their list of finds on gc.com is accurate.

[+Team Microdot]

Logging puzzles because you happened to be there with someone else or because you were handed the coordinates is lame - and bad for the game. To me, it's the equivalent of armchair logging - utterly pointless.

 

I disagree with you. For me there is a huge difference to armchair logging. Moreover, I can understand that someone who goes caching with a friend of puzzle caches might want to log all the caches that have been found on that day together. Personally, I do not log finds in such a case, but there are many cachers out there who appreciate if their list of finds on gc.com is accurate.

 

Then we disagree - cool

 

I too can understand that someone who goes caching with a friend of puzzle caches might want to log all the caches that have been found on that day together - no surprise there at all as clearly it's all about just another smiley by any means possible and not about actually earning it. I mean - earning the smiley - surely that's just for purists, right?

 

I've also known people go out on caching walks with a large group and log every single cache as FTF - despite not even having seen a single cache the whole day - and I think that's equally lame but hey - at least they get those smileys huh? May as well just armchair log them and be done with it.

[cezanne]

I too can understand that someone who goes caching with a friend of puzzle caches might want to log all the caches that have been found on that day together - no surprise there at all as clearly it's all about just another smiley by any means possible and not about actually earning it. I mean - earning the smiley - surely that's just for purists, right?

 

I'm careful with the term "earning" when it comes to geocaching. I could quickly solve many of the puzzle caches I've visited within 1-2 minutes given my background. Those who spent 30 minutes in vain and made a serious effort and failed, are better off with respect to having earnt something.

 

I've also known people go out on caching walks with a large group and log every single cache as FTF - despite not even having seen a single cache the whole day - and I think that's equally lame but hey - at least they get those smileys huh? May as well just armchair log them and be done with it.

 

I've seen this as well, but I do not consider the action of accompanying someone for a mystery cache as equally lame. It depends a lot on the individual situation and the caches under consideration.

 

Moreover, the term "found it" chosen by Groundspeak is ambiguous and it leads to a lot of debates, not only for puzzle caches but also for challenges.

 

Finding a cache, signing the log and accomplishing the overall mission behind a cache are three different things.

 

Cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

I'm careful with the term "earning" when it comes to geocaching. I could quickly solve many of the puzzle caches I've visited within 1-2 minutes given my background. Those who spent 30 minutes in vain and made a serious effort and failed, are better off with respect to having earnt something.

 

I'm not really up for a long-winded philosophical debate on what constitutes earning. I think it's pretty clear that the intention with a puzzle cache is that the coordinates are obtained by solving the puzzle - just as the intention with a multi is that you visit multiple locations - obviously - and so on.

 

Moreover, the term "found it" chosen by Groundspeak is ambiguous and it leads to a lot of debates, not only for puzzle caches but also for challenges.

 

Finding a cache, signing the log and accomplishing the overall mission behind a cache are three different things.

 

Well let's make the assumption that the intention requires the whole package then rather than debating semantics

[+narcissa]

Well let's make the assumption that the intention requires the whole package then rather than debating semantics

 

This conflicts with Groundspeak's view, which is that if you sign the log, you can claim the find.

[+Team Microdot]

Well let's make the assumption that the intention requires the whole package then rather than debating semantics

 

This conflicts with Groundspeak's view, which is that if you sign the log, you can claim the find.

 

There's no conflict.

 

We all know that if we can sign the log, we can claim the find.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm careful with the term "earning" when it comes to geocaching. I could quickly solve many of the puzzle caches I've visited within 1-2 minutes given my background. Those who spent 30 minutes in vain and made a serious effort and failed, are better off with respect to having earnt something.

 

I'm not really up for a long-winded philosophical debate on what constitutes earning. I think it's pretty clear that the intention with a puzzle cache is that the coordinates are obtained by solving the puzzle - just as the intention with a multi is that you visit multiple locations - obviously - and so on.

 

 

I agree. The way I see it, I assume that if a CO is going to create a cache, explicitly select the unknown cache type and add a puzzle in the cache listing, that they're intent is for me to solve to puzzle in order to obtain the coordinates. Otherwise, they would have just created the cache as a traditional. Given that the CO took the time and energy to create a cache for me to find I think it would be disrespectful to claim a smiley in a manner that wasn't how the CO intended.

[+Team Microdot]

I'm careful with the term "earning" when it comes to geocaching. I could quickly solve many of the puzzle caches I've visited within 1-2 minutes given my background. Those who spent 30 minutes in vain and made a serious effort and failed, are better off with respect to having earnt something.

 

I'm not really up for a long-winded philosophical debate on what constitutes earning. I think it's pretty clear that the intention with a puzzle cache is that the coordinates are obtained by solving the puzzle - just as the intention with a multi is that you visit multiple locations - obviously - and so on.

 

 

I agree. The way I see it, I assume that if a CO is going to create a cache, explicitly select the unknown cache type and add a puzzle in the cache listing, that they're intent is for me to solve to puzzle in order to obtain the coordinates. Otherwise, they would have just created the cache as a traditional. Given that the CO took the time and energy to create a cache for me to find I think it would be disrespectful to claim a smiley in a manner that wasn't how the CO intended.

 

Agreed.

 

It effectively tells the CO that the extra trouble they went to to develop something over and above a trad was a worthless waste of time.

[Clan Riffster]

I enjoy the process of puzzle solving, or, as often is the case, puzzle attempting. That being said, if I was with someone who solved a puzzle, I would not hesitate to log a find on it, once my name was on the log.

[+narcissa]

It effectively tells the CO that the extra trouble they went to to develop something over and above a trad was a worthless waste of time.

 

While a CO might choose to interpret it that way, that's not the only possible conclusion. We can't read minds. It's unfortunate when a CO chooses to view this in the most negative way possible, but it is a choice.

[etarace]

It effectively tells the CO that the extra trouble they went to to develop something over and above a trad was a worthless waste of time.

 

While a CO might choose to interpret it that way, that's not the only possible conclusion. We can't read minds. It's unfortunate when a CO chooses to view this in the most negative way possible, but it is a choice.

If I put out a puzzle, I fully expect that there will be a finder, quite possibly claiming first, who doesn't solve it and admits this in the log. While I might have an opinion about him and his choice of methods for playing, it does not reflect on how awesome my cache would be.

 

So, while it may be rude and lazy on the finder's part, I think that anyone hiding caches has come to expect a certain amount of people who are finding all caches to "clear the area" or "get the D/T rate" or whatever other competition in their own minds.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

It effectively tells the CO that the extra trouble they went to to develop something over and above a trad was a worthless waste of time.

 

While a CO might choose to interpret it that way, that's not the only possible conclusion. We can't read minds. It's unfortunate when a CO chooses to view this in the most negative way possible, but it is a choice.

 

As a CO, I have no problem with a group of people going out together for one of my puzzles, when only some of them have actually solved it. (Not much I can do about it anyway)

 

I don't like it when folks contact each other with the query - "Can you give me the solution?". Not much I can do about that either, but I would rather have them contact me for a nudge or a hint than PAF for the solution.

[+DanOCan]

I actually have posted that I couldn't solve the puzzle but a friend told me where it was and he got a nasty email from the CO which I found extremely rude. We have someone local does does some pretty sneaky traditionals and yes people do post they used PAF, admitting it doesn't change the fact you cheated then.

My "cheating at a puzzle story":

 

There was a series of six or eight Traditionals you had to find and gather clues from and then take that information and enter it on a webpage in order to get the final coordinates for a puzzle cache. I was out caching with some friends one day and we were driving by a little park and someone mentioned "Oh, you know the final for such-and-such series is in that bush?" (He had heard about it from a friend.) We stopped and found the cache.

 

We didn't think anything about it. Between all of us we had found all of the Traditions needed to get the answer to the puzzle, although not all of us had found all of them.

 

Well, moments after logging my Find online, I get a nasty email from the CO calling us a bunch of cheaters because not everyone in the group had found every one of the Traditionals. I politely emailed back and explained that as a group we had all the information so it was a team effort.

 

Moments later, another email. "I checked the logs on my server hosting my webpage and there haven't been any hits on the site for over a week. I know you didn't enter the information onto the webpage to get the coordinates. Tell me who gave out the coordinates or I'm deleting your logs."

 

I responded back in a not-so-polite manner and told him if he deleted the logs I would simply have Groundspeak restore them since our names were in the logbook and that we had photographic proof to back me up. (I was bluffing about the photo evidence but I knew it would turn into a game of my word against his otherwise.)

 

His reaction? He changed the cache page to state "The cache is not in place under normal circumstances. When you have correctly solved the puzzle in the proper manner, email me and -- once I have verified you got the answer in a legitimate manner -- I will put the container out for you to find and send you an email when I have done so. You will have 24 hours to find the container and sign the log before I remove it again."

 

Well, naturally one of our group immediately posted a NA log on the cache. The reviewer looked at the cache page, agreed it was a violation of the guidelines and Archived the cache.

 

What's the point of all this? Sometimes caching is taken WAY too seriously. It's a game and it should be fun. We all have our own personal definition of what is cheating or not. The number of hard and fast rules in caching can be counted on one hand.

 

If someone else climbs the tree and brings down the cache for me to sign? I'd take that as a Find. If someone chartered a helicopter and brought down a cache from a remote mountain summit for me to sign? I would not take that as a Find. Somewhere in between those my personal threshold for cheating gets crossed. I'm not even sure I could define where that line is until I'm faced with a particular scenario.

 

So, for puzzles? Yep, I've claimed Finds on caches where I never solved the puzzle. I've claimed Finds on caches where I solved the puzzle using a method not intended by the CO. Whether you call that cheating or not is up to you.

[+Team Microdot]

As a CO, I have no problem with a group of people going out together for one of my puzzles, when only some of them have actually solved it. (Not much I can do about it anyway)

 

How about if none of them had actually solved it?

[+Roman!]

I'm careful with the term "earning" when it comes to geocaching. I could quickly solve many of the puzzle caches I've visited within 1-2 minutes given my background. Those who spent 30 minutes in vain and made a serious effort and failed, are better off with respect to having earnt something.

 

I'm not really up for a long-winded philosophical debate on what constitutes earning. I think it's pretty clear that the intention with a puzzle cache is that the coordinates are obtained by solving the puzzle - just as the intention with a multi is that you visit multiple locations - obviously - and so on.

 

 

I agree. The way I see it, I assume that if a CO is going to create a cache, explicitly select the unknown cache type and add a puzzle in the cache listing, that they're intent is for me to solve to puzzle in order to obtain the coordinates. Otherwise, they would have just created the cache as a traditional. Given that the CO took the time and energy to create a cache for me to find I think it would be disrespectful to claim a smiley in a manner that wasn't how the CO intended.

 

Agreed.

 

It effectively tells the CO that the extra trouble they went to to develop something over and above a trad was a worthless waste of time.

 

I think expecting someone to find your cache only the was you intended is selfish and not being prepared for people to find in a variety of other ways is niave.

[+Roman!]

As a CO, I have no problem with a group of people going out together for one of my puzzles, when only some of them have actually solved it. (Not much I can do about it anyway)

 

How about if none of them had actually solved it?

 

What's the difference if I'm with the person who solved it or I get the coordinates later? To me it's exactly the same thing.

 

How about if I'm caching with the solver a week later and we pass a puzzle he already found and shows it to me. I know this happens a lot too and to me it's also the same thing.

[+Team Microdot]

I think expecting someone to find your cache only the was you intended is selfish and not being prepared for people to find in a variety of other ways is niave.

 

Selfish how?

[+Roman!]

I think expecting someone to find your cache only the was you intended is selfish and not being prepared for people to find in a variety of other ways is niave.

 

Selfish how?

 

If you expect me to do things your way you are being selfish, I have every right to do them my way.

[+Team Microdot]

I think expecting someone to find your cache only the was you intended is selfish and not being prepared for people to find in a variety of other ways is niave.

 

Selfish how?

 

If you expect me to do things your way you are being selfish, I have every right to do them my way.

 

Which - if you turn that on it's head - is equally selfish.

 

Or probably even moreso if we consider our relative investment.

 

And this is supposed to be fun?

[+narcissa]

As a CO, I have no problem with a group of people going out together for one of my puzzles, when only some of them have actually solved it. (Not much I can do about it anyway)

 

How about if none of them had actually solved it?

 

Again, I must wonder - is the purpose of the cache for people to enjoy it, or is the purpose of the cache to control others?

[+Team Microdot]

As a CO, I have no problem with a group of people going out together for one of my puzzles, when only some of them have actually solved it. (Not much I can do about it anyway)

 

How about if none of them had actually solved it?

 

Again, I must wonder - is the purpose of the cache for people to enjoy it, or is the purpose of the cache to control others?

 

Well what do you think?

[+Roman!]

I think expecting someone to find your cache only the was you intended is selfish and not being prepared for people to find in a variety of other ways is niave.

 

Selfish how?

 

If you expect me to do things your way you are being selfish, I have every right to do them my way.

 

Which - if you turn that on it's head - is equally selfish.

 

Or probably even moreso if we consider our relative investment.

 

And this is supposed to be fun?

 

My idea of fun is solving puzzles any way I can, I have put one out and never worried about how others would find it, those that enjoyed puzzles and were good at them solved it, those that enjoyed puzzles and were bad at them got help from friends and those that didn't care about puzzles found it by other means, exactly as I suspected.

 

Don't forget, a puzzle cache takes up real estate, image if there was nothing but puzzle caches around and a person didnt like puzzles, wouldn't it be selfish to think they either had to do them or not find any caches.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Roman!

[+Team Microdot]

Don't forget, a puzzle cache takes up real estate, image if there was nothing but puzzle caches around and a person didnt like puzzles, wouldn't it be selfish to think they either had to do them or not find any caches.

 

I'm going to assume that by image you mean imagine?

 

I'd probably have to agree that your imaginary scenario would be somewhat selfish - and I'm glad that the reality is very different - with plenty of caches of all types out there to suit the abilities and tastes of pretty much anybody

[+narcissa]

 

Again, I must wonder - is the purpose of the cache for people to enjoy it, or is the purpose of the cache to control others?

 

Well what do you think?

 

I think it's pretty weird for a cache owner to sit at home fretting and lashing out at people who don't find their cache in a particular way. If the cache is put back safely for the next cacher to find, who cares? Other cachers aren't puppets who should dance for my amusement.