Your advice on a puzzle cache

[+beauxeault]

I'm preparing a puzzle cache with a single puzzle that can be solved with two valid answers, leading to two different sets of coordinates. Let me tell you, it was NOT easy finding two eligible cache sites, since the location for one positively determines only ONE possible location for the other one!

 

Anyway, I'm considering how to construct the cache(s) for maximum enjoyment of cachers who enjoy puzzles, so if you enjoy puzzle caches, help me decide which way to go:

 

1. I can create two separate caches with separate GC numbers and separate cache pages, but the respective cache pages would be identical aside from the GC numbers (the cache names might possibly also differ slightly, but need not).

 

2. I can create one cache page that starts with the puzzle but ends up a multi. In this scenario, the cacher who doesn't notice that two solutions are possible would probably assume that the puzzle will produce coordinates for a cache with a log sheet. But in fact, arriving at those coordinates, s/he would find a container with no log sheet but a sheet with HALF a set of coordinates for the actual cache, and a message that the second half of the coordinates would still have to be found. There would not be any explicit instructions on how to determine the other half of the coordinates; it would be up to the cacher to discover that a second solution exists, and to find the other half of the final coordinates in the container that s/he is led to by the second solution. Thus, to actually solve the puzzle entirely and log the find, the cacher would have to solve the puzzle once and then discover (as part of the puzzle) that the puzzle could be solved a second way, and then have to find two intermediate containers to get the coordinates for the final cache and log the find.

 

The advantage I see with the first approach is that it would reward the cacher with two separate finds, and it would be a little easier, since the existence of the two separate listings would suggest (though not confirm) that there are two solutions to the puzzle. However, I'm not sure that "easier" is necessarily a good thing for those who enjoy puzzles. And I'd think that those most interested in the extra smiley are generally the ones least interested in a fairly challenging puzzle.

 

I should mention here, perhaps, that the puzzle itself is (I think) reasonably challenging - I'm leaning toward a D4 rating. Discovering the existence of a second solution is probably a D2.5 or so, once the D4 puzzle is solved the first time, and reaching the second solution is about a D1 once it is clear that a second solution is possible. So I don't think the job of finding the second solution will add to anyone's enjoyment, but discovering a second solution for a puzzle when it was initially assumed to be a straightforward single-solution puzzle, could, I think, add a nice little mental sparkle that I'm afraid of losing with the first approach.

 

So the advantage of the second approach, then, is that it doesn't risk giving away the fact that there's a second solution, so possibly it would be more enjoyable because of the fun of discovering the second solution. The biggest potential drawback to this approach, I'd think, would not be the loss of a possibility for a second smilie, but possibly a bit of frustration and perhaps even anger if the cacher assumes there's only one solution, and arrives at the "cache" expecting to sign the log, and discovers that there's still some thinking to be done.

 

What I'd REALLY like to do is to set it up as in the second option, but then reward a successful "full" solution of the puzzle with a second smilie. But I haven't figured out how to do that yet.

 

So if you enjoy puzzle caches, which approach would you find most enjoyable? Are there other considerations I might have missed?

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2014 by beauxeault

[+lamoracke]

Well, and I admit, I do not totally understand all your parameters, I think it would be easier to just do one puzzle cache. I think its okay to have 2 sets of coordinates, one may lead you to a multi piece and the other coordinate, the tougher one to solve, would leave you right to the final. You would have to make sure to make it clear at this false cache that this is just a waypoint, not the final or folks will sign that and call it good.

 

I have a set of 2 puzzles, under a different name, that there are 2 coordinates and one is for each puzzle. Both have geocheck. They seem to be pretty well received relatively speaking.

 

So, both could work, just as long as you take some steps to help avoid confusion. If your final is a regular and your WP1 is a micro, that may make it tough unless you are clear that the final is a regular but you may end up at a waypoint micro if you did not solve the puzzle the way to get to the true answer.

[+narcissa]

Well, I've solved puzzles where there were four possible solutions and I just had to go searching. The correct one was the one I could get to that wasn't on someone's lawn or in a river.

[+beauxeault]

To perhaps clarify what I'm considering:

 

In situation 1: There's GCXXXXA and there's GCXXXXB. Both cache listings are identical, with the same puzzle listed for each one. If the cacher solves the puzzle one way, it takes himher to the cache at the coordinates that Groundspeak has listed for cache A. If s/he solves it the other way, s/he signs the log for the cache at the coordinates that Groundspeak knows as cache B. It's possible the log sheets might not even list the GC number, so whichever solution the cacher gets, there's a cache there and they think they've found THE cache. But if they notice that there are two identical listings ("Hey, I've solved this one already!") maybe they start to think there's a second solution. If they find the second solution, they get a second smilie. In this case both caches are micros under lamp post skirts.

 

In situation 2: There's only GCXXXXA; there is no GCXXXXB. The cacher solves the puzzle, getting one of the solutions, and heads out to find the cache. But the message in the container says "This is not the cache. The north coordinates for the cache are N 24 16.997" (for example). "When you have FULLY solved the puzzle, you will be able to find the second half of the final coordinates." If the cacher reaches the other solution, it will lead him/her to a similar container, at a different location, with the West coordinates. Or the cacher may solve the puzzle the other way, and find the container with only the West coordinates first, and then have to solve the puzzle the second way to find the container with the North coordinates. Or, the observant cacher may discover initially that there are two solutions, and go out hunting with the idea that there might be containers in both spots.

 

In the second situation, the two waypoint containers, each with half of the coordinates for the final, will be micros under lamp post skirts, and the final will be either a small or a regular container hidden in a more appealing location.

 

 

[team tisri]

I think the option of one cache with two solutions has some merit but could easily lead to a lot of frustration. If you solve the puzzle and get to the coordinates only to find a cache that basically tells you to go home and try again to get the other half that would be annoying, especially if you're a distance from home. If you were to use something like a custom geochecker to confirm the coordinates and say (openly or cryptically) that there was another solution that needed to be found, that would overcome the issue.

 

Personally I'd go for just about anything other than micros under lamp post skirts. You never know what else might have taken up residence there, they can be difficult to get at if there's much muggle activity going on (which is often unpredictable), and if there are people nearby even if they aren't looking at what you're doing it's sometimes hard to lift the skirt without making a lot of noise. If I was a long way from home I'd feel most disappointed if I'd made the effort to solve a difficult puzzle only to find I couldn't finish it because a really lame intermediate stage was nigh on impossible. Even if the best way to place the cache is to say something like "at the coordinates you'll see a number ABC, add this to the westing" and hide a keysafe behind a guard rail, that's better than the lamp post skirt.

 

Long before I gave up on micros in general, any time I realised a cache was a skirtlifter cache I ignored it. I got tired of trying to lift a metal skirt up a metal pole without the sound of metal grating on metal attracting all sorts of unwanted attention.

 

Seriously, if you're going to go to this level of effort to make a good puzzle, do something more inventive than a skirtlifter film pot.

Edited September 26, 2014 by team tisri

[+beauxeault]

I think the option of one cache with two solutions has some merit but could easily lead to a lot of frustration. If you solve the puzzle and get to the coordinates only to find a cache that basically tells you to go home and try again to get the other half that would be annoying, especially if you're a distance from home. If you were to use something like a custom geochecker to confirm the coordinates and say (openly or cryptically) that there was another solution that needed to be found, that would overcome the issue.

 

Personally I'd go for just about anything other than micros under lamp post skirts. You never know what else might have taken up residence there, they can be difficult to get at if there's much muggle activity going on (which is often unpredictable), and if there are people nearby even if they aren't looking at what you're doing it's sometimes hard to lift the skirt without making a lot of noise. If I was a long way from home I'd feel most disappointed if I'd made the effort to solve a difficult puzzle only to find I couldn't finish it because a really lame intermediate stage was nigh on impossible. Even if the best way to place the cache is to say something like "at the coordinates you'll see a number ABC, add this to the westing" and hide a keysafe behind a guard rail, that's better than the lamp post skirt.

 

Long before I gave up on micros in general, any time I realised a cache was a skirtlifter cache I ignored it. I got tired of trying to lift a metal skirt up a metal pole without the sound of metal grating on metal attracting all sorts of unwanted attention.

 

Seriously, if you're going to go to this level of effort to make a good puzzle, do something more inventive than a skirtlifter film pot.

 

Thanks. The geochecker option sounds like a good idea. I don't have any experience yet with geocheckers. Is that degree of customization a common feature? If so, I think it could, as you say, go a long way toward avoiding unnecessary frustration.

 

I'm not generally a big fan of LPCs, either. My hides to date all run pretty strongly in the opposite direction. But I did want to make sure that the containers, whether they're finals or waypoints, are easily and unambiguously found, since there could be some question as to whether the second solution is active (though the geochecker solution could address this), and because the puzzle is difficult enough as it is - I'd hate for a more difficult hide to prevent someone from registering their success with the puzzle. In my research, though, I did in fact locate two other pairs of eligible sites. One of them would be a pair of trees in which I could hang something (but one of the trees is on the grounds of a church, so it could not be a particularly obvious hide), and the other pair is a guard rail and a spot on property that is becoming an animal shelter, so I'd have to wait until the shelter is finished before I could confirm the eligibility of this site. Or, if others agree with the inadvisability of the LPC hides, I can keep looking.

 

 

[+Chrysalides]

Personally I like the idea of it being just one cache listing, with multiple solutions and a cache at each of the solution coordinates, but encourage the finder to say which one they logged (you can't require it as a ALR, but most will play along if it is an optional, polite, harmless, and fun request).

 

My favorite puzzle checker is Certitude. I'm not sure if it can handle multiple solutions though. I've emailed the creator to ask.

[+beauxeault]

Well, I've answered my own question about geocheckers. It looks like geochecker.com may not have the customizability I'd need, though geochecker+ does (for a small fee), and geocheck.com does as well, evidently for free.

Edited September 26, 2014 by beauxeault

[+lamoracke]

Well, I've answered my own question about geocheckers. It looks like geochecker.com may not have the customizability I'd need, though geochecker+ does (for a small fee), and geocheck.com does as well, evidently for free.

 

www.geocheck.org is different than www.geochecker.com. I would try the first one if you have not.

 

There are other ones out there, certitude, evince (I wince as I type their name).

 

I have seen some people have multiple levels of puzzles in the geochecker itself. We have one here like that. Just one final cache though.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC338AJ_buta-sudoku?guid=c57cdfd5-44d5-4768-a31a-979abf5b17c4

[+dprovan]

It's really, really annoying to have two arbitrarily different solutions to a single puzzle. So here's what I'd prefer:

 

First, unless you want to hide the fact that there are two solutions, say in the description that there are two solutions, and do it in a way that provides a link to the second identical puzzle.

 

Second, use certitude, then have the right solution give confirmation, and have the other solution give a link to the other puzzle, like "Yeah, that's right, but it's the solution to THIS CACHE".

 

I actually like the idea of a multicache with the two solutions offering half of the final solution, but I would say you should make it clear in the description that's what's happening. (I'm saying "multicache", but I think it would make sense -- perhaps more sense -- as a single puzzle cache that I needed to work out led me in two directions at the same time.) I think you're thinking you could make that a "surprise" about the puzzle, but I'd argue against that because it would be really annoying to people that didn't recognize the two solutions, but it might even be annoying to people that did recognize that there were two solutions, but assumed you wouldn't do that without being fairly obvious about it.

 

I solved one puzzle cache where, it turned out, there was a solution that seemed reasonable with an answer that was times 1, but you were supposed to catch that it really should have been times 2, and the real cache was at times 2. I thought that was cute because at the location indicated by "times 1", there was a "DECOY" cache that told me I'd failed but obliquely hinted that maybe I should be thinking times 2. I thought it was fun, but that was only because I was in the area all the time, so having to go back after I timesed 2 wasn't a bother.

[+Chrysalides]

Second, use certitude, then have the right solution give confirmation, and have the other solution give a link to the other puzzle, like "Yeah, that's right, but it's the solution to THIS CACHE".

I like this idea!

[+niraD]

I've found puzzle caches where there were multiple solutions to the obvious puzzle, and part of the puzzle cache experience was figuring out which of those solutions was correct.

 

I don't like your first option, with two mostly identical listings. If I solve the puzzle for GCXXXXA, then it should lead to the cache for GCXXXXA. I shouldn't have to worry about inadvertently finding the cache for GCXXXXB (but then logging a find online for GCXXXXA).

 

I've found puzzle caches where the same puzzle produced coordinates for two puzzle caches. But in this case, it was always clear which set of coordinates went with each cache listing. That doesn't sound like the case with your first option.

 

I do like your second option, with one listing, two puzzle solutions, and each solution providing part of the coordinates for completing (or continuing) the multi-stage puzzle cache.

 

And Certitude can handle multiple waypoints, with different responses for each waypoint.

[team tisri]

It's really, really annoying to have two arbitrarily different solutions to a single puzzle. So here's what I'd prefer:

 

First, unless you want to hide the fact that there are two solutions, say in the description that there are two solutions, and do it in a way that provides a link to the second identical puzzle.

 

Second, use certitude, then have the right solution give confirmation, and have the other solution give a link to the other puzzle, like "Yeah, that's right, but it's the solution to THIS CACHE".

 

I actually like the idea of a multicache with the two solutions offering half of the final solution, but I would say you should make it clear in the description that's what's happening. (I'm saying "multicache", but I think it would make sense -- perhaps more sense -- as a single puzzle cache that I needed to work out led me in two directions at the same time.) I think you're thinking you could make that a "surprise" about the puzzle, but I'd argue against that because it would be really annoying to people that didn't recognize the two solutions, but it might even be annoying to people that did recognize that there were two solutions, but assumed you wouldn't do that without being fairly obvious about it.

 

I solved one puzzle cache where, it turned out, there was a solution that seemed reasonable with an answer that was times 1, but you were supposed to catch that it really should have been times 2, and the real cache was at times 2. I thought that was cute because at the location indicated by "times 1", there was a "DECOY" cache that told me I'd failed but obliquely hinted that maybe I should be thinking times 2. I thought it was fun, but that was only because I was in the area all the time, so having to go back after I timesed 2 wasn't a bother.

 

I think this goes back to giving people some idea of what they're letting themselves in for if they start the cache.

 

If you attempt a 5/5 multi/puzzle that makes reference to needing a light, you can be reasonably sure that some or all of it needs to be done in the dark, so if you don't have time/inclination to come back at night you know not to bother with it. If you start something, get most of the way through, but then realise you can't finish it because you have to go "back to base" and figure something else out, it's irritating for locals and a totally wasted opportunity for visitors. The time they spent following a dead end with your cache could have been spent seeking someone else's cache that they could have actually completed.

 

If it's a high difficulty cache you can be a bit cryptic about the fact there are two solutions but I think it should be presented to the seeker in some way. If they are attempting a high difficulty puzzle cache they can't really complain if they didn't pick up on something crucial in the text of the puzzle - it's the difference between a puzzle that presents what they need in a way they may or may not notice, and a puzzle that essentially just wastes lots of time expecting them to keep going back to base to try again until they hit the right version of the answer.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I've found puzzle caches where there were multiple solutions to the obvious puzzle, and part of the puzzle cache experience was figuring out which of those solutions was correct.

 

I don't like your first option, with two mostly identical listings. If I solve the puzzle for GCXXXXA, then it should lead to the cache for GCXXXXA. I shouldn't have to worry about inadvertently finding the cache for GCXXXXB (but then logging a find online for GCXXXXA).

 

First, If GCXXXXA and GCXXXXB are both published at the same time, you can pretty much guarantee that those in the area will see both listings about the same time and when they see that the cache description is the same they're going to wonder what is going on, maybe even wondering if there was system glitch that caused a cache to get published twice.

Then if someone solves the puzzle using one solution they'll go out and find the cache, then log finds for both GCXXXXA an GCXXXXB. Or they might discover that GCXXXXA does have two solutions, go out and find both caches, then log two finds each on both cache listings.

[Space*Cadet]

There was a similar cache in Austin (GC2YJ0N) that has been archived now. It had a total of 6 stages before reaching the final. You had to figure the correct answers at each stage to be able to find the next. It was based on Harry Potter! It was a challenging puzzle cache. I only got to stage 3, before it got too dark to continue. I never was able to go back and finish it!

[+narcissa]

I frown on third-party "geocheckers" but I think the idea of making it a multi where the cacher can visit either one of the solutions and then get directed to the final has some merit. That's assuming you can find two open spots that work with your puzzle.

 

Another solution is to say "there are two possible solutions to the puzzle; the geocache is located at the northernmost location" or whatever.

[team tisri]

I frown on third-party "geocheckers" but I think the idea of making it a multi where the cacher can visit either one of the solutions and then get directed to the final has some merit. That's assuming you can find two open spots that work with your puzzle.

 

Another solution is to say "there are two possible solutions to the puzzle; the geocache is located at the northernmost location" or whatever.

 

Interesting idea. Running with the multi idea, you could always have two solutions to the puzzle where each solution took you to a container with half the coordinates and the coordinates of the other container. Whichever answer you found you get what you need to finish the cache.

 

As long as there's some way of knowing from the cache page that the coordinates aren't for the final cache it should work pretty well. It's good to know whether solving the puzzle effectively turns it into a traditional or a multi.

[+derektiffany]

So if you enjoy puzzle caches, which approach would you find most enjoyable? Are there other considerations I might have missed?

Bonus Cache ...

 

Set up the initial puzzle cache as you've described. Single cache page, single GC code. 2 possible solutions. Container with log at each location. Someone makes either solution, finds either container, gets the smiley ...

 

Set up a bonus cache. "Coordinates for this cache are located in _______". If you want to make it easy, just do lat/lon (latitude in one container of the original cache, longitude in the other). Of course, if you want to make it a little trickier you could do a puzzle with 1/2 the information required for the solve in each container. You could even hint at the dual nature ... "Coordinates for this cache are located in _______ containers" . Whatever. Point is, it's a bonus cache.

 

There you go ... like your option #2 but ... 2 smileys. And someone who rushed out the door with a (single) set of coords ... still gets their smiley. Aha, but now they have something more to mull over when they get back ...

 

Issues:

1) Since there are two containers and two solutions for the original cache / puzzle ... some people might well go ahead and log it twice. And, btw, there are a few puzzle caches out there like that. Multiple possible solutions ... multiple containers ... log it as found for each one you find. Anyway, figure out (in advance) whether (or not) you want to allow that (multiple finds on the same cache).

 

2) You're bound to get a few "Needs Maintenance, only found 1/2 of coordinates for bonus cache" type of logs.

 

But anyway, yes, with what you originally described ... bonus cache is what I'd do.

[+J Grouchy]

I frown on third-party "geocheckers"

 

Well, seeing as how there is no "first-party" geochecker on the GC site, it's the only option aside from emailing the CO (which often either never gets a response or doesn't get a timely response).

[+narcissa]

I frown on third-party "geocheckers"

 

Well, seeing as how there is no "first-party" geochecker on the GC site, it's the only option aside from emailing the CO (which often either never gets a response or doesn't get a timely response).

 

Funny, the first "option" I think of is to go look for the cache.

 

It just frustrates me that so many people have come to expect and demand these third party links on other people's cache pages. I get complaints that my multi-caches don't have them. What is that?

[+J Grouchy]

I frown on third-party "geocheckers"

 

Well, seeing as how there is no "first-party" geochecker on the GC site, it's the only option aside from emailing the CO (which often either never gets a response or doesn't get a timely response).

 

Funny, the first "option" I think of is to go look for the cache.

 

It just frustrates me that so many people have come to expect and demand these third party links on other people's cache pages. I get complaints that my multi-caches don't have them. What is that?

 

Well...seeing as there are numerous puzzles out there where confirming the answer is correct is difficult, a checker is a reasonable expectation. Not all puzzles are simple ciphers involving a clear translation to a single answer. My own puzzles don't usually work that way.

 

Case in point: http://coord.info/GC4RPCW

This one basically involves brute-forcing it to get the right coordinates. Sure, you COULD go look at each of the HUNDREDS of possible coordinates...but that's just plain silliness.

[+frinklabs]

This one basically involves brute-forcing it to get the right coordinates. Sure, you COULD go look at each of the HUNDREDS of possible coordinates...but that's just plain silliness.

 

Color me silly.

 

Here's another multi/puzzle that needs a checker, which I have been slowly attempting to brute-force over the years:

 

407ETR at Bayview

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I frown on third-party "geocheckers"

 

Well, seeing as how there is no "first-party" geochecker on the GC site, it's the only option aside from emailing the CO (which often either never gets a response or doesn't get a timely response).

 

Funny, the first "option" I think of is to go look for the cache.

 

 

Yes, it's an option, but in many cases it's not a very good one. Although there are some puzzle for which a geochecker is not necessary (where the coordinates are displayed if you have solved it correctly) I would suspect the a significant majority are of the type where it's easily possible to get an incorrect digit or more. As I see it, a puzzle checker provides the means to verify that one has solved the puzzle correctly *and* have the correct coordinates for the final. It's a convenience for the puzzle solver so they won't waste time search in an area where the cache isn't hidden. That not might be an issue to you, but there are some that like to solve a puzzle or two in an area where they'll be traveling. I appreciated it when a cache owner has provided the courtesy of allowing me to verify the coordinates on a puzzle, especially when that puzzle might be 5000 miles from home and I'm only going to be in the area for six hours. To me, courtesies like this are a way to improve the overall experience for someone that has chosen to solve one of my puzzles and wants to find the cache, and is just one way to help foster the community.

 

It just frustrates me that so many people have come to expect and demand these third party links on other people's cache pages. I get complaints that my multi-caches don't have them. What is that?

 

I imagine you get a lot of complaints.

 

 

[+narcissa]

Yes, it's an option, but in many cases it's not a very good one. Although there are some puzzle for which a geochecker is not necessary (where the coordinates are displayed if you have solved it correctly) I would suspect the a significant majority are of the type where it's easily possible to get an incorrect digit or more.

 

Heavens to betsy, you mean you might have an unsuccessful attempt and have to try again to get it right? Lord have mercy!

 

I completely understand why some cache owners might choose to make use of these third-party tools, but it's not appropriate to demand this of cache owners.

[+J Grouchy]

Yes, it's an option, but in many cases it's not a very good one. Although there are some puzzle for which a geochecker is not necessary (where the coordinates are displayed if you have solved it correctly) I would suspect the a significant majority are of the type where it's easily possible to get an incorrect digit or more.

 

Heavens to betsy, you mean you might have an unsuccessful attempt and have to try again to get it right? Lord have mercy!

 

I completely understand why some cache owners might choose to make use of these third-party tools, but it's not appropriate to demand this of cache owners.

 

Who said anything about "demanding"? Not me. Like NY said, it's a courtesy and is likely to get more folks to try for the more difficult puzzles. In the example I posted, if not for the checker, I wouldn't even bother because the CO himself acknowledged that the only way to get the correct coordinates is to brute force it.

[+narcissa]

is likely to get more folks to try for the more difficult puzzles

 

All the more reason to eschew them, as far as I'm concerned.

[team tisri]

Yes, it's an option, but in many cases it's not a very good one. Although there are some puzzle for which a geochecker is not necessary (where the coordinates are displayed if you have solved it correctly) I would suspect the a significant majority are of the type where it's easily possible to get an incorrect digit or more.

 

Heavens to betsy, you mean you might have an unsuccessful attempt and have to try again to get it right? Lord have mercy!

 

I completely understand why some cache owners might choose to make use of these third-party tools, but it's not appropriate to demand this of cache owners.

 

Who said anything about demanding it of anyone?

 

If I'm visiting an area and solve a puzzle I may go and look for the cache. If I can't be sure that I've correctly solved the puzzle, chances are I'll look for a different cache. If you'd like to get found logs from people from further away, make it easy for me to confirm I got the right answer. If you don't want to, that's fine, I'll just give someone else the log from half way around the world. Either way is fine for me.

[team tisri]

is likely to get more folks to try for the more difficult puzzles

 

All the more reason to eschew them, as far as I'm concerned.

 

All the more reason to eschew your caches, as far as I'm concerned.

[+dprovan]

Heavens to betsy, you mean you might have an unsuccessful attempt and have to try again to get it right? Lord have mercy!

The problem is that there's no way to distinguish "solution wrong" from "cache is missing or I can't find it". Do I check my solution? Or do I go look for it in the same place again?

 

I completely understand why some cache owners might choose to make use of these third-party tools, but it's not appropriate to demand this of cache owners.

Certainly a CO is free to present any experience he wants, including forcing people to wonder whether they've correctly solved the puzzle or just can't find the cache. I just point out that the ambiguity can be annoying.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Yes, it's an option, but in many cases it's not a very good one. Although there are some puzzle for which a geochecker is not necessary (where the coordinates are displayed if you have solved it correctly) I would suspect the a significant majority are of the type where it's easily possible to get an incorrect digit or more.

 

Heavens to betsy, you mean you might have an unsuccessful attempt and have to try again to get it right? Lord have mercy!

 

 

This actually happened. I was traveling on business and had a six hour layover in Paris. As there are a *lot* of puzzle caches in Paris I solved a bunch of them before I left home. I DNF'd one of them after searching for about 20 minutes and discovered, once I got back home, that I had one of the digit wrong and was searching on the wrong side of the road. So I suppose I just just buy a round trip ticket to Paris so I can try again?

 

 

I completely understand why some cache owners might choose to make use of these third-party tools, but it's not appropriate to demand this of cache owners.

 

And I don't understand why a cache owner would choose *not* to make use of a geochecker unless you get some sort of twisted satisfaction when someone attempting to find your cache goes on a wild goose chase because your puzzle can result in different solutions with no way to confirm which one is correct. Seems kind of mean spirited to me.

 

 

[+niraD]

And I don't understand why a cache owner would choose *not* to make use of a geochecker unless you get some sort of twisted satisfaction when someone attempting to find your cache goes on a wild goose chase because your puzzle can result in different solutions with no way to confirm which one is correct. Seems kind of mean spirited to me.

Some puzzles just don't work that way, and a coordinates checker would be pointless. For others, figuring which of multiple solutions is correct is part of the intended puzzle, and a coordinates checker would subvert that part of the puzzle.

 

I've found both types of puzzle cache, and they haven't seemed mean spirited to me.

[team tisri]

Is it so much to ask for a bit of text in the cache page to know roughly what to expect?

 

If the answer is obvious once you've solved it there's no need for a checker (like the ones where you solve a cipher and the text says "north five one three six" etc). If the puzzle has multiple solutions and part of it is to make sure you've got everything right, does it hurt to make that clear so that people visiting the area with limited time can make an informed choice whether to attempt your cache at all?

 

On the times I've been looking for a cache based on just passing through an area or having a short time available it's good to have some sense that the cache is probably still in place, and you've got the right coordinates. If I can't find the cache that's the risk you take but it's annoying to choose one cache over another and then find that it wasn't there at all, or the coordinates were wrong, or some such.

[+J Grouchy]

is likely to get more folks to try for the more difficult puzzles

 

All the more reason to eschew them, as far as I'm concerned.

 

All the more reason to eschew your caches, as far as I'm concerned.

 

True. On those 'ambiguous' puzzles without a checker and without any sort of hint about the solution, if I'm not 100% certain about a solution, I'll move on. Seems to me the point of a puzzle geocache is solving a puzzle to get a solution which gives you coordinates at which there is a hidden cache. Without that certainty, all you have is a puzzle to which you may have the correct solution which gives you coordinates at which there may or may not be a hidden cache and you get to search an area that may or may not be pleasant. There are plenty of other caches out there to look for where I won't feel like I'm wasting my time, why would I waste my time where uncertainty is a factor before I even get to GZ?

[+narcissa]

And I don't understand why a cache owner would choose *not* to make use of a geochecker unless you get some sort of twisted satisfaction when someone attempting to find your cache goes on a wild goose chase because your puzzle can result in different solutions with no way to confirm which one is correct. Seems kind of mean spirited to me.

 

It's not a feature offered by Geocaching.com. Why should cache owners feel pressured to use external websites for things like that? If it's so very important, get Groundspeak to produce something.

 

I've never had an issue contacting puzzle owners when I need a nudge or strike out with an incorrect solution. Is it so very horrible to go out and look?

[+J Grouchy]

It's not a feature offered by Geocaching.com. Why should cache owners feel pressured to use external websites for things like that?

 

Honestly, I would think it would be more annoying to get emails asking to confirm a solution rather than just sucking it up and adding a checker.

 

Is it so very horrible to go out and look?

 

Depends. If we're talking two or three possibilities...maybe not. If we're talking dozens or hundreds of possibilities in a two-mile radius? Well...maybe not for YOU, but anyone with a life outside geocaching would likely not even bother trying without some degree of certainty they were trying the right place.

 

I would find it preferable to have a built-in feature on GC.com for answer checking. I don't particularly LIKE any of the third party sites, but I recognize their value and the need they fulfill. Maybe at this point GS is just afraid of p***ing those folks off and basically making all of those sites obsolete by adding their own.

Edited October 1, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+narcissa]

It's not a feature offered by Geocaching.com. Why should cache owners feel pressured to use external websites for things like that?

 

Honestly, I would think it would be more annoying to get emails asking to confirm a solution rather than just sucking it up and adding a checker.

 

Is it so very horrible to go out and look?

 

Depends. If we're talking two or three possibilities...maybe not. If we're talking dozens or hundreds of possibilities in a two-mile radius? Well...maybe not for YOU, but anyone with a life outside geocaching would likely not even bother trying without some degree of certainty they were trying the right place.

 

I would find it preferable to have a built-in feature on GC.com for answer checking. I don't particularly LIKE any of the third party sites, but I recognize their value and the need they fulfill. Maybe at this point GS is just afraid of p***ing those folks off and basically making all of those sites obsolete by adding their own.

 

I don't mind getting emails from other geocachers, but I maintain a limited number of caches that are manageable for me.

 

I don't think I've ever encountered a geocache where there were dozens of possible solutions and no way to discern the correct one. I don't think I'd be terribly impressed if I had to run dozens of solutions through a checker to find the correct one, especially since they usually have CAPTCHA things that think I'm a robot.

 

The most I think I've ever encountered was four possible solutions, and there is usually a note on the cache page to lead people in the right direction.

 

Anyway, the thing that really turned me off of them was the whiny emails I started getting because I don't have them on my multi-caches. Seriously, what is that?

[+J Grouchy]

It's not a feature offered by Geocaching.com. Why should cache owners feel pressured to use external websites for things like that?

 

Honestly, I would think it would be more annoying to get emails asking to confirm a solution rather than just sucking it up and adding a checker.

 

Is it so very horrible to go out and look?

 

Depends. If we're talking two or three possibilities...maybe not. If we're talking dozens or hundreds of possibilities in a two-mile radius? Well...maybe not for YOU, but anyone with a life outside geocaching would likely not even bother trying without some degree of certainty they were trying the right place.

 

I would find it preferable to have a built-in feature on GC.com for answer checking. I don't particularly LIKE any of the third party sites, but I recognize their value and the need they fulfill. Maybe at this point GS is just afraid of p***ing those folks off and basically making all of those sites obsolete by adding their own.

 

I don't mind getting emails from other geocachers, but I maintain a limited number of caches that are manageable for me.

 

I don't think I've ever encountered a geocache where there were dozens of possible solutions and no way to discern the correct one. I don't think I'd be terribly impressed if I had to run dozens of solutions through a checker to find the correct one, especially since they usually have CAPTCHA things that think I'm a robot.

 

The most I think I've ever encountered was four possible solutions, and there is usually a note on the cache page to lead people in the right direction.

 

Anyway, the thing that really turned me off of them was the whiny emails I started getting because I don't have them on my multi-caches. Seriously, what is that?

 

Well, I provided a link to an example with dozens of possible solutions. It was possible to reduce it further with some previously gained knowledge about the overall series by that CO, but that's a separate issue. Fact is, even with five or six possibilities it was really asking too much for people to do. Add in the fact that it's a very tough hide, you get folks roaming several locations searching everything and not even knowing if they were in the right spot or if it's even there anymore. Fact is, I wouldn't even be willing to search three locations.

 

As for the multi-cache thing...it depends on what sort of stages you have. Are you actually providing coordinates at each stage or making them solve an equation? If the latter, is the equation open to any sort of interpretation? To me that's on a case-by-case basis and I wouldn't just automatically agree with you that a checker on a multi-cache is unnecessary without knowing more. I have one with and one without.

[team tisri]

And I don't understand why a cache owner would choose *not* to make use of a geochecker unless you get some sort of twisted satisfaction when someone attempting to find your cache goes on a wild goose chase because your puzzle can result in different solutions with no way to confirm which one is correct. Seems kind of mean spirited to me.

 

It's not a feature offered by Geocaching.com. Why should cache owners feel pressured to use external websites for things like that? If it's so very important, get Groundspeak to produce something.

 

Good luck with that. Some of the suggestions that have been submitted are still in the queue after two years with no indication of when, or even whether, they are going to be implemented.

 

I've never had an issue contacting puzzle owners when I need a nudge or strike out with an incorrect solution. Is it so very horrible to go out and look?

 

I'd rather not be looking for a cache if I've got the coordinates wrong. If it has a high difficulty rating I'll already be expecting to take a while to find it, and I'd really rather know in advance that I've got no chance of finding it because it's half a mile away from the coordinates I've got.

 

And you're still complaining about being pressured. If you don't want to provide a checker, don't provide a checker. The community can vote with their feet. My vote would be to not bother attempting your cache. Others may go for it anyway. If you're happy with whatever outcome you get, do whatever you want to do.

[+dprovan]

And I don't understand why a cache owner would choose *not* to make use of a geochecker unless you get some sort of twisted satisfaction when someone attempting to find your cache goes on a wild goose chase because your puzzle can result in different solutions with no way to confirm which one is correct. Seems kind of mean spirited to me.

Some puzzles just don't work that way, and a coordinates checker would be pointless. For others, figuring which of multiple solutions is correct is part of the intended puzzle, and a coordinates checker would subvert that part of the puzzle.

 

I've found both types of puzzle cache, and they haven't seemed mean spirited to me.

While you are correct, of course, that there are exceptions, I must point out that you and I cache in an area where 95% of all puzzle caches have a checker because they are not such exceptions. I have to wonder if I would be as interested in puzzle caches if those hundreds of times when I failed at a check for one reason or another had resulted in wild geese chases.

 

If the answer is obvious once you've solved it there's no need for a checker (like the ones where you solve a cipher and the text says "north five one three six" etc).

I disagree with you here. I think a "north five one three six..." cipher is the perfect case for a checker, since it would be nearly impossible to use to help solve the puzzle, yet it provides an easy way to catch minor transcription errors and such for someone that has solved the intended puzzle but then makes some unrelated mistake.

 

I don't think I've ever encountered a geocache where there were dozens of possible solutions and no way to discern the correct one.

I agree this isn't a particularly interesting case, although I've run into puzzles where the whole point was to find a small number of solutions and then figure out which one passed the checker. Not my favorite use of a checker.

 

More interesting are the cases where there are other ways that the CO didn't notice to get a reasonable yet incorrect solution, or things that can be interpreted multiple way that the CO didn't recognize, or any other thing that might lead to a plausible yet wrong solution. Even if you're 100% sure your puzzles couldn't possibly have any problems like that, there's still the possibility I just brought up: someone making a mistake after correctly solving the puzzle. What's the point in forcing them to search where the cache isn't?

 

Anyway, the thing that really turned me off of them was the whiny emails I started getting because I don't have them on my multi-caches. Seriously, what is that?

Yeah, I don't get people who are whiny, but ignore that and consider whether there might be possibilities for ambiguity or a lack of clarity that a seeker could overcome with a little help. For multi's, I have to say I think a checker is almost always dumb, since many of us can't access a checker in the field where we're following a multi's trail. But a checksum is appreciated if I'm supposed to gather some information since there's so much room for copying a number down wrong or counting wrong or finding the wrong sign or whatever. Do you provide checksums? If so, you have my permission to tell people whining for a checker that a checker would annoy people without web access in the field.

Edited October 1, 2014 by dprovan

[+niraD]

More interesting are the cases where there are other ways that the CO didn't notice to get a reasonable yet incorrect solution, or things that can be interpreted multiple way that the CO didn't recognize, or any other thing that might lead to a plausible yet wrong solution.

Yeah, the main place where I really do appreciate solution checkers are the moon-logic puzzles where there are many, many, many ways to get side-tracked with pseudo-solutions that the CO didn't intend. I'm not talking about intentional red herrings, because those usually lead to obvious non-solutions, or to decoys that point out that you solved the puzzle incorrectly. But when the puzzle involves pulling numbers out of a hat, it's easy to pull the wrong numbers out of the hat.

 

Then again, those really aren't the best kind of puzzle in the first place.

[+narcissa]

Yeah, I don't get people who are whiny, but ignore that and consider whether there might be possibilities for ambiguity or a lack of clarity that a seeker could overcome with a little help. For multi's, I have to say I think a checker is almost always dumb, since many of us can't access a checker in the field where we're following a multi's trail. But a checksum is appreciated if I'm supposed to gather some information since there's so much room for copying a number down wrong or counting wrong or finding the wrong sign or whatever. Do you provide checksums? If so, you have my permission to tell people whining for a checker that a checker would annoy people without web access in the field.

 

I provide timely responses to emails about my caches.

[team tisri]

If the answer is obvious once you've solved it there's no need for a checker (like the ones where you solve a cipher and the text says "north five one three six" etc).

I disagree with you here. I think a "north five one three six..." cipher is the perfect case for a checker, since it would be nearly impossible to use to help solve the puzzle, yet it provides an easy way to catch minor transcription errors and such for someone that has solved the intended puzzle but then makes some unrelated mistake.

 

I see what you're saying but sooner or later we have to accept that people doing something boneheaded will fall over their own shoelaces sooner or later.

 

I forget how much time I once wasted solving a particular puzzle. Everything worked out, the answer dropped out perfectly, the coordinates looked plausible (based on a satellite view and being close enough to the posted coordinates), but it failed the geochecker. So I went back and recalculated, and every which way I worked the answer came out the same, but it failed the geochecker.

 

After some amount of time I realised the problem was that I'd put in N50 xx.xxx rather than N51. Had I passed the geochecker and then put the wrong values into my software, or mistranscribed them into the GPS, no amount of checking will catch it. If the puzzle answer is as clear as "north five one three six..." the checker offers no value in confirming the solution, so still doesn't protect people from their own ineptitude.

[+J Grouchy]

Yeah, I don't get people who are whiny, but ignore that and consider whether there might be possibilities for ambiguity or a lack of clarity that a seeker could overcome with a little help. For multi's, I have to say I think a checker is almost always dumb, since many of us can't access a checker in the field where we're following a multi's trail. But a checksum is appreciated if I'm supposed to gather some information since there's so much room for copying a number down wrong or counting wrong or finding the wrong sign or whatever. Do you provide checksums? If so, you have my permission to tell people whining for a checker that a checker would annoy people without web access in the field.

 

I provide timely responses to emails about my caches.

 

Good for you and the ten others that do.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Yeah, I don't get people who are whiny, but ignore that and consider whether there might be possibilities for ambiguity or a lack of clarity that a seeker could overcome with a little help. For multi's, I have to say I think a checker is almost always dumb, since many of us can't access a checker in the field where we're following a multi's trail. But a checksum is appreciated if I'm supposed to gather some information since there's so much room for copying a number down wrong or counting wrong or finding the wrong sign or whatever. Do you provide checksums? If so, you have my permission to tell people whining for a checker that a checker would annoy people without web access in the field.

 

I provide timely responses to emails about my caches.

 

Define timely. Keep in mind that geocacher that might be traveling to your city might only be there for a few hours.

 

 

[+narcissa]

Yeah, I don't get people who are whiny, but ignore that and consider whether there might be possibilities for ambiguity or a lack of clarity that a seeker could overcome with a little help. For multi's, I have to say I think a checker is almost always dumb, since many of us can't access a checker in the field where we're following a multi's trail. But a checksum is appreciated if I'm supposed to gather some information since there's so much room for copying a number down wrong or counting wrong or finding the wrong sign or whatever. Do you provide checksums? If so, you have my permission to tell people whining for a checker that a checker would annoy people without web access in the field.

 

I provide timely responses to emails about my caches.

 

Define timely. Keep in mind that geocacher that might be traveling to your city might only be there for a few hours.

 

In which case it's probably not wise to look at any non-traditional geocaches around here.

 

Not all caches are for all people.

[+J Grouchy]

Yeah, I don't get people who are whiny, but ignore that and consider whether there might be possibilities for ambiguity or a lack of clarity that a seeker could overcome with a little help. For multi's, I have to say I think a checker is almost always dumb, since many of us can't access a checker in the field where we're following a multi's trail. But a checksum is appreciated if I'm supposed to gather some information since there's so much room for copying a number down wrong or counting wrong or finding the wrong sign or whatever. Do you provide checksums? If so, you have my permission to tell people whining for a checker that a checker would annoy people without web access in the field.

 

I provide timely responses to emails about my caches.

 

Define timely. Keep in mind that geocacher that might be traveling to your city might only be there for a few hours.

 

In which case it's probably not wise to look at any non-traditional geocaches around here.

 

Not all caches are for all people.

 

Kind of dodging that question, really. Just like not all caches are for all people, all people get to decide where to cache and what to cache for. If they are in a sea of traditionals and see there's the potential for picking up a mystery cache and just want to confirm an answer, who are you to tell them they shouldn't try because it might take you more than two or three hours to get back to them?

 

Or you could just add a checker and let THEM decide if it's "for" them.

Edited October 2, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+narcissa]

Yeah, I don't get people who are whiny, but ignore that and consider whether there might be possibilities for ambiguity or a lack of clarity that a seeker could overcome with a little help. For multi's, I have to say I think a checker is almost always dumb, since many of us can't access a checker in the field where we're following a multi's trail. But a checksum is appreciated if I'm supposed to gather some information since there's so much room for copying a number down wrong or counting wrong or finding the wrong sign or whatever. Do you provide checksums? If so, you have my permission to tell people whining for a checker that a checker would annoy people without web access in the field.

 

I provide timely responses to emails about my caches.

 

Define timely. Keep in mind that geocacher that might be traveling to your city might only be there for a few hours.

 

In which case it's probably not wise to look at any non-traditional geocaches around here.

 

Not all caches are for all people.

 

Kind of dodging that question, really. Just like not all caches are for all people, all people get to decide where to cache and what to cache for. If they are in a sea of traditionals and see there's the potential for picking up a mystery cache and just want to confirm an answer, who are you to tell them they shouldn't try because it might take you more than two or three hours to get back to them?

 

Or you could just add a checker and let THEM decide if it's "for" them.

 

I'm not telling anyone anything. They can read cache descriptions and make the decision for themselves. These third-party "geocheckers" are not required of me as a cache owner.

[+J Grouchy]

Yeah, I don't get people who are whiny, but ignore that and consider whether there might be possibilities for ambiguity or a lack of clarity that a seeker could overcome with a little help. For multi's, I have to say I think a checker is almost always dumb, since many of us can't access a checker in the field where we're following a multi's trail. But a checksum is appreciated if I'm supposed to gather some information since there's so much room for copying a number down wrong or counting wrong or finding the wrong sign or whatever. Do you provide checksums? If so, you have my permission to tell people whining for a checker that a checker would annoy people without web access in the field.

 

I provide timely responses to emails about my caches.

 

Define timely. Keep in mind that geocacher that might be traveling to your city might only be there for a few hours.

 

In which case it's probably not wise to look at any non-traditional geocaches around here.

 

Not all caches are for all people.

 

Kind of dodging that question, really. Just like not all caches are for all people, all people get to decide where to cache and what to cache for. If they are in a sea of traditionals and see there's the potential for picking up a mystery cache and just want to confirm an answer, who are you to tell them they shouldn't try because it might take you more than two or three hours to get back to them?

 

Or you could just add a checker and let THEM decide if it's "for" them.

 

I'm not telling anyone anything. They can read cache descriptions and make the decision for themselves. These third-party "geocheckers" are not required of me as a cache owner.

 

You seem to think you are being told they are. Nobody has. Simply a courtesy. Your position against them doesn't make much sense, but it's your prerogative.

[+narcissa]

You seem to think you are being told they are. Nobody has. Simply a courtesy. Your position against them doesn't make much sense, but it's your prerogative.

 

I'm not telling anybody else not to use them. I just don't think they should treated as a necessity or a courtesy.

 

The most courteous thing a cache owner can do is maintain a detailed listing that gives geocachers a good sense of what they're in for.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Yeah, I don't get people who are whiny, but ignore that and consider whether there might be possibilities for ambiguity or a lack of clarity that a seeker could overcome with a little help. For multi's, I have to say I think a checker is almost always dumb, since many of us can't access a checker in the field where we're following a multi's trail. But a checksum is appreciated if I'm supposed to gather some information since there's so much room for copying a number down wrong or counting wrong or finding the wrong sign or whatever. Do you provide checksums? If so, you have my permission to tell people whining for a checker that a checker would annoy people without web access in the field.

 

I provide timely responses to emails about my caches.

 

Define timely. Keep in mind that geocacher that might be traveling to your city might only be there for a few hours.

 

In which case it's probably not wise to look at any non-traditional geocaches around here.

 

Not all caches are for all people.

 

But you could make them available for more people if you took the 10 minutes or so it takes to add a coordinate checker.