Unhelpful clues

[GeekKitty]

Am starting to get more and more infuriated by caches for which the clue is entirely useless. The exact degree of uselessness of the clue varies but tends to come in two types:

 

- Vague - So vague that it doesn't actually help, there is a whole series of caches in a woodland in Denmark where each cache simply has the clue "tree".

 

- Cryptic - So you've failed to find the cache by rummaging about in the ivy, or behind the drain pipe, so you decode the clue to find that it's a cryptic message that doesn't help "What would mr smith do" (random made up example, but you get the idea). That entirely doesn't help you.

 

To me, if I've had to resort to the clue it means that the actual hunt is non trivial and I need the help. Useful examples of clues:

 

- "Base of fence post" - doesn't say which fence post, so allows for some hunt, but actually useful

 

- "Nook of ivy covered tree" - Should help you actually find which nook it is you need

 

Am I the only one getting infuriated by poor clues? Do you have any examples of really good, or the really bad clues?

 

Julia

[Pup Patrol]

This thread was started way back in 2002, and goes on for 15 pages, taking it into 2014:

 

Useless Hints

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=31430

 

 

B.

[+L0ne.R]

Because of infuriating non-hints I've taken to reading the hints before searching, most of the time. And if the hint makes no sense or is something like - 'email me for a hint'. I will leave a note in my log about how the hint didn't help or I didn't have time to wait for an email reply. If I do eventually find the cache, I will also add a bit of info in my log that may actually help the next finder, like 'checked the photo gallery - it helped me find the cache'.

[+mellers]

I'm with you on this one, Julia. I'm not an intuitive cacher and always like to have a hint - even if it's just for reassurance. And yes, useless ones do annoy me! Such as "You won't need one" or "Its obvious" or "Where would you have put it?" They're clearly from another cacher who specialises in telepathy and knows exactly what I'm thinking at any given time and does a sideline in precognition to have known I would be searching for their particular cache. Or challenge caches with the hint" If you've found this many caches, you shouldn't need a hint". Sheesh!

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I would agree with the OP... but only to a point. It seems somewhere along these lines we fall out of step with one another

 

I don't mind a cryptic hint... within limits. Mostly because of the Head-slapping, eye-opening 'DUH' moment that follows.

 

As many before me... I have learned to recognize the (still) encrypted "no hint needed", "not this time", "nope" or the infamous "call me".

Think of it this way: some believe that if you have no hint to give, they still must say something. Wrong? Perhaps. Misguided? Most likely. Condemnable? No.

----------------------

 

What one needs to remember, is that your idea of what is "the right way" doesn't apply to everyone. We all have our differing ideas, thoughts and reasoning for being a geocacher. Some like puzzles, others hate 'em. Some like nanos, others despise them. Some like mountains, forests and day-long hikes, while others are afraid to get out of the city. I know some that are 'lost' when they lose sight of their parking space (even with a GPSr in-hand)!

 

Some geocachers (and CO's) have a IQ hovering around 130-145 (even higher) while others tip the scale closer to 70 or less, many more of course, fall somewhere between.

The best thing about geocaching is that everyone can do it. The worst thing about geocaching is everyone can do it.

[+kunarion]

Because of infuriating non-hints I've taken to reading the hints before searching, most of the time. And if the hint makes no sense or is something like - 'email me for a hint'. I will leave a note in my log about how the hint didn't help

I'm hunting one tomorrow that has what seems to be a non-hint. I'm always optimistic that the non-hint will make sense upon arrival, and is especially helpful and clever. Know what? It never is . And it's a complicated puzzle with no Geochecker. I'm doomed.

 

I'm composing the smack-down about that non-hint, for the log. Which I'm determined will be a "Found It" log. Oh yeah.

Mental note: Bring the good metal detector.

Edited November 11, 2014 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

I don't mind a cryptic hint... within limits. Mostly because of the Head-slapping, eye-opening 'DUH' moment that follows.

This thread reminded me to adjust the hint on a cache that changed slightly, making the hint obsolete. It was kind of cryptic and balanced and cool (well I thought so), and lately wasn't as helpful anymore. Fixed it.

[+factotem]

I don't mind a cryptic hint... within limits. Mostly because of the Head-slapping, eye-opening 'DUH' moment that follows.

This thread reminded me to adjust the hint on a cache that changed slightly, making the hint obsolete. It was kind of cryptic and balanced and cool (well I thought so), and lately wasn't as helpful anymore. Fixed it.

[+factotem]

Unless it is in an urban or high muggle area I try first to find the cache without looking at the hint. I try to forget as soon as possible the really naff hints, namely the ones that are not helpful. My ideal hint is one that helps without being too precise. However the type of hint that probably annoys me the most (should I need it) is the one that only makes sense after I have found the cache.

[+Bear and Ragged]

It's trying to find the right hint, somewhere between 'vague' for those that read the hint before they even get near the cache, and 'helpful' for when you find the cache out in the open, and read the hint to know where to place it back...

[+cerberus1]

Because of infuriating non-hints I've taken to reading the hints before searching, most of the time. And if the hint makes no sense or is something like - 'email me for a hint'. I will leave a note in my log about how the hint didn't help or I didn't have time to wait for an email reply.

Same here.

No longer using a phone, I read everthing before heading out.

"Email me..." isn't happening.

Maybe there is someone, somewhere, sitting around waiting for someone to mail 'em...

- But not when I need them.

Yesterday, a person posted that maybe an anagram as a clever hint may work.

After a long hike, that's not something I'd want to decipher in the field.

[+dprovan]

Am I the only one getting infuriated by poor clues? Do you have any examples of really good, or the really bad clues?

Well, I know what you're talking about it, but I find it amusing, not infuriating. Just keep in mind: a perfectly reasonable alternative would be to give no hint at all, so if you don't find the hint useful, just pretend it isn't there. It didn't cost you any more to read it to see it's useless than it would to look and see it wasn't there at all.

 

Anyway, three kinds immediately come to mind: hints requiring research -- foreign languages and obscure cultural references are the most common -- hints that you can't understand until you've found the cache, and, my favorite, hints that merely confirm what the coordinates told you. "South side of road"; well, I hope so, since that's where the coordinates point.

 

Oh, by the way, no big deal, but a minor point about nomenclature: you're talking about hints. Clues are things in the description, and I don't think we can't really object to those being vague or cryptic.

[+Chrysalides]

I'd seen "not in the ivy" when there's no ivy in sight, and "not magnetic" when all that's around the cache are trees and grass.

 

And of course, there's always a bunch of "too easy" and "really? you need a hint?" I'd DNF a bunch of those.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I had one really, really, really sucky clue: "Magnetic".

 

The cache was indeed a magnetic blinky, and there were many things immediately available where it could have been attached.

HOWEVER -- the cache was glued to the inside of a wooden structure.

 

Now that was a sucky clue! Maybe it was a *sucker* clue.

 

Guess whose Ignore list that CO was put on....

[+Stoke Bunnies]

Hints? Don't use them and only rarely give them. Removing them totally would stop this argument!

Edited November 17, 2014 by Stoke Bunnies

[+dprovan]

Hints? Don't use them and only rarely give them. Removing them totally would stop this argument!

I suppose that's true, if they hadn't been allowed to begin with. But I can't just ignore hints because there's also an opposite problem: caches that are impossible to find unless you read the hint.

 

I have no problem at all with COs that don't give hints. Many COs consider hints part of the description, and I think it makes sense for those COs to just include them in the description instead of putting them in a different make-pretend-secret field.

[GeekKitty]

Hints? Don't use them and only rarely give them. Removing them totally would stop this argument!

 

Yes, they would, and would also dramatically increase the number of DNF's. There is a fine level between making the game a challenge, and the number of DNF's making you say sod it and do something else. I turned round from a planned 33 cache cycle ride after the 4th DNF, when they all just had "tree" as the hint for caches in woodland.

 

If the GPS was a bit more accurate, then not needing a clue would be fine, but given that between the margin of error of your GPSR and my GPSR, I could be searching an area spanning 20-50m in some cases. So knowing that I should be looking for a film container, and that it's attached to a fence post, narrows down the search quite a lot. I found a cache last week where I had to use the clue, as the GPS had me in the middle of a busy road with cars doing 60mph. Had I not used the clue, I would have had no chance on the cache. As it was, I had to search 3 tree's before I found it.

 

To me, the ideal cache description should include the type of container that you are looking for, rough instructions - Park at x, a description of why the cache is there, be it historical significant, you had a nice date there, it's a good view, the tree is ancient, etc... and then a hint that when decrypted helps you to find the cache.

 

If you don't do this, then most film pot placements really should become difficulty 5, and you will get a lot of DNF's.

[GeekKitty]

Just noticed the following log entry for one of my caches:

 

"The GPS was a bit off but the hint was very helpful."

 

Without the hint, that could have been a DNF, due to the natural margin of error of the two GPSR units involved.

 

The hint:

 

"In the heart of the tree"

[dodgydaved]

 

If you don't do this, then most film pot placements really should become difficulty 5

 

 

Really not sure this is so.

 

Frome Clayjar: (an old rating site - easy to use, tho' for UK cachers addition of a little reality helps!

Clayjar Cache Rating Tool

 

"* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

 

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

 

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

 

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

 

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache. "

 

Ireckon most of the filmpots I have found would rank as 3* or less.

[+Mad H@ter]

Hints? Don't use them and only rarely give them. Removing them totally would stop this argument!

I suppose that's true, if they hadn't been allowed to begin with. But I can't just ignore hints because there's also an opposite problem: caches that are impossible to find unless you read the hint.

 

I have no problem at all with COs that don't give hints. Many COs consider hints part of the description, and I think it makes sense for those COs to just include them in the description instead of putting them in a different make-pretend-secret field.

But I never read the description

[+MinkyTennis]

I would agree with the OP... but only to a point. It seems somewhere along these lines we fall out of step with one another

 

I don't mind a cryptic hint... within limits. Mostly because of the Head-slapping, eye-opening 'DUH' moment that follows.

 

As many before me... I have learned to recognize the (still) encrypted "no hint needed", "not this time", "nope" or the infamous "call me".

Think of it this way: some believe that if you have no hint to give, they still must say something. Wrong? Perhaps. Misguided? Most likely. Condemnable? No.

----------------------

 

What one needs to remember, is that your idea of what is "the right way" doesn't apply to everyone. We all have our differing ideas, thoughts and reasoning for being a geocacher. Some like puzzles, others hate 'em. Some like nanos, others despise them. Some like mountains, forests and day-long hikes, while others are afraid to get out of the city. I know some that are 'lost' when they lose sight of their parking space (even with a GPSr in-hand)!

 

Some geocachers (and CO's) have a IQ hovering around 130-145 (even higher) while others tip the scale closer to 70 or less, many more of course, fall somewhere between.

The best thing about geocaching is that everyone can do it. The worst thing about geocaching is everyone can do it.

 

Absolutely ! I love geocaching but get very frustrated when I hear others saying this is right and this wrong according to their preferences. My personal dislike is Ivy Covered Tree...in the middle of a forest !! So, I avoid them ! Simples !! and the ones with no clues at all, all too often the search in circles can spoil a good walk...for me! But others love the search and / or the cerebral challenge of a cryptic clue, good on em ! Do your research before you set out and don't whinge after. Peace and Love !

[+firestronaut]

Useless hints are the bane of my life. I've put down two (one archived now ) sneaky caches in my time, designed to be difficult (but not frustrating like a micro in the woods!) and always use a hint to help zero in on the location, or to avoid unnecessary searching in places a sneaky cache may be.

My first sneaky cache was a little bit cryptic, but was an instruction at the same time.

 

Lately, I've been looking for one that 90% of both finders and DNFers of this one cache just didn't get. I took to google a still only came up with a 75% certainty of what the clue was.

A good clue doesn't and shouldn't affect the difficulty rating of the cache. If it's a good cache, well hidden and just leaves everybody stumped until they read the clue, that's a good cache imo. One where the owner seems to enjoy DNFs isn't.

[+Oxford Stone]

"Head / chest / waist height" - really? For me or for Oxford Stone Junior aged 5? How tall are you, CO?

[+crb11]

I've always assumed that those refer to the proportions of a typical adult, and that COs who were unusually tall or short would make allowances accordingly - never had a problem. (In fact, one local CO who I assumed must be well over 6 foot from his descriptions turned out to be rather on the short side when I met him at an event - guess he's overcompensating!)

[+TotemLake]

 

A good clue doesn't and shouldn't affect the difficulty rating of the cache. If it's a good cache, well hidden and just leaves everybody stumped until they read the clue, that's a good cache imo. One where the owner seems to enjoy DNFs isn't.

Here you have identified two styles of gaming. One you like, and one you don't like. It doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad cache. It just means someone out there appreciates that which you don't.

 

Nobody on this green earth is entitled to their perception of a good hint. Nobody on this green earth is entitled to finding the cache. And nobody on this green and blue world is entitled to appreciate 100% of this game.

 

Have fun with what you want to hunt, leave the rest to the others. Make this game what you want of it.

Edited November 20, 2014 by TotemLake

[+dprovan]

"Head / chest / waist height" - really? For me or for Oxford Stone Junior aged 5? How tall are you, CO?

I've always assumed that those refer to the proportions of a typical adult, and that COs who were unusually tall or short would make allowances accordingly - never had a problem. (In fact, one local CO who I assumed must be well over 6 foot from his descriptions turned out to be rather on the short side when I met him at an event - guess he's overcompensating!)

I agree with both of you. I always find the comparative height clues ambiguous, but they do typically get me thinking in the right area. "waist height" is not on the ground nor over my head, and that's often very helpful. I had the opposite experience from crb11: one CO used a clue that was "eye level", and since I knew she was on the short side, I was looking at her eye level. It hit me on the head, just about at her other half's eye level.

[+L0ne.R]

..., that's a good cache imo. One where the owner seems to enjoy DNFs isn't.

 

I hear you. First, I don't look for caches with a D rating over 3, because I like to find caches. If it's a D3 or under and I get the feeling that the cache owner wants DNFs (no-hint, non-hint, taunting-hint), I don't participate. I walk away, put the cache on ignore, and do not log a DNF. I might log a note if I want to say something that I feel future cachers might find helpful.

[+firestronaut]

 

A good clue doesn't and shouldn't affect the difficulty rating of the cache. If it's a good cache, well hidden and just leaves everybody stumped until they read the clue, that's a good cache imo. One where the owner seems to enjoy DNFs isn't.

Here you have identified two styles of gaming. One you like, and one you don't like. It doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad cache. It just means someone out there appreciates that which you don't.

 

Nobody on this green earth is entitled to their perception of a good hint. Nobody on this green earth is entitled to finding the cache. And nobody on this green and blue world is entitled to appreciate 100% of this game.

 

Have fun with what you want to hunt, leave the rest to the others. Make this game what you want of it.

Pretty sure imo implied what I was saying wasn't stone cold fact but an opinion.

 

Not about to start a war with somebody over the pond over the word 'entitled'. Although I am entitled to tell you to piss off.

[+Bear and Ragged]

 

A good clue doesn't and shouldn't affect the difficulty rating of the cache. If it's a good cache, well hidden and just leaves everybody stumped until they read the clue, that's a good cache imo. One where the owner seems to enjoy DNFs isn't.

Here you have identified two styles of gaming. One you like, and one you don't like. It doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad cache. It just means someone out there appreciates that which you don't.

 

Nobody on this green earth is entitled to their perception of a good hint. Nobody on this green earth is entitled to finding the cache. And nobody on this green and blue world is entitled to appreciate 100% of this game.

 

Have fun with what you want to hunt, leave the rest to the others. Make this game what you want of it.

Pretty sure imo implied what I was saying wasn't stone cold fact but an opinion.

 

Not about to start a war with somebody over the pond over the word 'entitled'. Although I am entitled to tell you to piss off.

 

Not entitled to on these forums.

 

Forum Guidelines

 

1. To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian.

 

2. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests in these forums with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, everyone should be treated respectfully.

 

3. Foul language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family-friendly. All forum posts must conform to a family-friendly standard and contributors must act accordingly. It is not appropriate to replace characters in a profane word to elude the built-in censoring filter, or forum moderation.

 

4. Personal attacks and inflammatory or antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to post criticism, please do so constructively. Generalized, vicious or veiled attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

These are a US company web forums... They are a 'little less' tolerant than those of posters here in the UK.

[+firestronaut]

 

A good clue doesn't and shouldn't affect the difficulty rating of the cache. If it's a good cache, well hidden and just leaves everybody stumped until they read the clue, that's a good cache imo. One where the owner seems to enjoy DNFs isn't.

Here you have identified two styles of gaming. One you like, and one you don't like. It doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad cache. It just means someone out there appreciates that which you don't.

 

Nobody on this green earth is entitled to their perception of a good hint. Nobody on this green earth is entitled to finding the cache. And nobody on this green and blue world is entitled to appreciate 100% of this game.

 

Have fun with what you want to hunt, leave the rest to the others. Make this game what you want of it.

Pretty sure imo implied what I was saying wasn't stone cold fact but an opinion.

 

Not about to start a war with somebody over the pond over the word 'entitled'. Although I am entitled to tell you to piss off.

 

Not entitled to on these forums.

 

Forum Guidelines

 

1. To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian.

 

2. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests in these forums with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, everyone should be treated respectfully.

 

3. Foul language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family-friendly. All forum posts must conform to a family-friendly standard and contributors must act accordingly. It is not appropriate to replace characters in a profane word to elude the built-in censoring filter, or forum moderation.

 

4. Personal attacks and inflammatory or antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to post criticism, please do so constructively. Generalized, vicious or veiled attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

These are a US company web forums... They are a 'little less' tolerant than those of posters here in the UK.

 

I toned it down!

 

I'm chalking my irritability up to pregnancy hormones.

[+TotemLake]

Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But I find it ironic the UK would find themselves more tolerant at the same time telling me to piss off. Where's the love?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Back to the topic, the main problem with a useless hint is that when you can't find a cache hidden in a certain way you can't eliminate the possibility that it's just not there. So the cache owner assumes that people are just not looking hard enough when in fact it's been missing for weeks and everyone has been wasting their time. Cache seekers spend an inordinate amount of time looking in the wrong places even though they've actually found the hidey hole.

 

The type of cache I mean is one where there are numerous possible hiding places within 10 metres or so, and it's known to be a tricky hide.

 

If you search for a while and then resort to the hint and it's "base of post" then a thorough search at the base of any nearby post will soon lead to a find or an alert to the CO.

 

The other problem when the hint is cryptic or non-existent is when you've logged a lot of caches in a day. I often use the hint to jog my memory about the cache and that works surprisingly well...except for those "no hint needed" or "Star Trek episode 9" hints.

[+Oxford Stone]

"Head / chest / waist height" - really? For me or for Oxford Stone Junior aged 5? How tall are you, CO?

I've always assumed that those refer to the proportions of a typical adult, and that COs who were unusually tall or short would make allowances accordingly - never had a problem. (In fact, one local CO who I assumed must be well over 6 foot from his descriptions turned out to be rather on the short side when I met him at an event - guess he's overcompensating!)

I agree with both of you. I always find the comparative height clues ambiguous, but they do typically get me thinking in the right area. "waist height" is not on the ground nor over my head, and that's often very helpful. I had the opposite experience from crb11: one CO used a clue that was "eye level", and since I knew she was on the short side, I was looking at her eye level. It hit me on the head, just about at her other half's eye level.

And the very next day what do I run into but a hint "5 feet up" and it wasn't! Very true, the above comment about ruling out ground level (useful at the moment with the banks of wet fallen leaves).

[+dprovan]

And the very next day what do I run into but a hint "5 feet up" and it wasn't! Very true, the above comment about ruling out ground level (useful at the moment with the banks of wet fallen leaves).

Several times I've see a hint in the "5 feet up" class with an older cache hidden in a tree or bush, and I always wonder if enough time has passed for the hiding place to have gone up as the bush grew or down as the branches drooped. I don't recall ever finding a cache where I thought that happened, but I can't stop expecting it.

 

More often, of course, "5 feet up" is wrong because the CO was really bad at estimating heights...

[+crb11]

I had a bit of a falling out with a CO who posted a hint "6 feet up", so I ignored the road signs which were about my height (5'7) and went for the trees. Ten minutes I looked around and spotted it immediately - on the back of a sign, about 5 foot off the ground. My log included "the hint is worse than useless" which didn't go down well.

[+MartyBartfast]

I had a bit of a falling out with a CO who posted a hint "6 feet up", so I ignored the road signs which were about my height (5'7) and went for the trees. Ten minutes I looked around and spotted it immediately - on the back of a sign, about 5 foot off the ground. My log included "the hint is worse than useless" which didn't go down well.

 

Am I being too literal and missing some subtle irony/sarcasm in this post? or do you really think that "6 feet up" is a worse than useless hint for something which is "about 5 foot off the ground"? That would seem a perfectly reasonable approximation to me, especially considering it may well have drifted as people remove & replace it.

[+crb11]

Caches do drift, so you expect the hint to be a pointer to where it originally was and allow for a bit of movement. The problems here was that the cache had never been higher than five feet in the first place (it was one of those stuffed behind the joint on the sign, so essentially only two places it could go) and that we are fairly well attuned to the difference between 5 feet and 6 feet: roughly eye level and a bit over head height respectively for most of us.

 

Without the hint, I think 90% of us would have gone straight for the road sign - it's a familiar hide, and I think the cache was called "Welcome to X" or something similar which points that way too. With the hint, you're prompted to look up for something, and since there's nothing "up" on the sign, the reasonable assumption to make is that the CO wants you to look elsewhere. So yes, I think having the hint makes it harder to find than having no hint at all. I should add, for context, that the same CO had other caches with misleading hints, some I think deliberately so.

[+Chrysalides]

My log included "the hint is worse than useless" which didn't go down well.

For this very reason, I try not to log when I'm in a bad mood.

[+firestronaut]

My log included "the hint is worse than useless" which didn't go down well.

For this very reason, I try not to log when I'm in a bad mood.

I've logged when I was in a terrible mood and soon I'll be at an event with the CO. Awks

[+fellsmanhiker]

I'm amazed that the most important reason for giving a good clue has not been mentioned,A good clue should be given where possible if only to preserve the area from being disturbed or even trashed my last series of caches all have the hiding location in the cache title itself e.g. (CR&B6Under Stile)(CR&B7Behind Holly)all the caches of the series have had around 80 visits each and no complaints so far for having the concealment locations laid out on a plate so to speak,having said that it's not always possible to give a good clue for places like mountain summits where the cache could be under a rock in a boulder field for which on my such caches I have in the past written on my listing "clue worse than useless,use spoiler picture"and this is where spoiler pictures come in which I always supply,minimum disturbance to the cache location both as a hider and a seeker is my top priority.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Good point there, Fellsmanhiker. The hint should be very specific where there is danger of trampling or other disturbance.

 

Spoiler pics CAN be useful but I wouldn't rely on them too much. A lot of cachers have no access to them in the field. I've failed on quite a few where there's no hint and no help in the description - very frustrating! The problem being that I had downloaded several hundred caches and only looked for a few, not knowing when or where I might go caching...so they are all on the GPSr, which doesn't have spoiler photos available. On checking later, it seems that the CO had assumed that the photos on the cache page gave enough of a hint. Well, they would if I could have seen them.

[+colleda]

I like to give a hint in line with the difficulty level. What's the point say, of a D3 D4 or D5 then giving a hint that turns it into a D1 or D2?

I also have a preference for cryptic hints, trying not to make them too obtuse, and often with a musical theme. e.g "***** as a *****" - Jethro Tull". This one usually presents no problem for those of my generation and the younger ones with their phones or tablets can easily Google it, which they do.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I like to give a hint in line with the difficulty level. What's the point say, of a D3 D4 or D5 then giving a hint that turns it into a D1 or D2?

I also have a preference for cryptic hints, trying not to make them too obtuse, and often with a musical theme. e.g "***** as a *****" - Jethro Tull". This one usually presents no problem for those of my generation and the younger ones with their phones or tablets can easily Google it, which they do.

If it's a D5 traditional cache then a really good hide should still allow you to provide an informative hint taking you to the exact hiding place. The challenge for the CO is not to send people all over the area searching high and low and ransacking the undergrowth until it looks like a battle zone, but to provide camouflage good enough that even though people look in the right place they don't see it. That's a really good hide. A really bad one is where you just have to either get lucky, or search for hours until you happen on it 20 feet from the GPS location, or bring along half a dozen people to search. I wouldn't like the Jethro Tull hint...even though I'd get it straight away there's a good chance that others of my age have no idea, and of course not everyone can get internet access at all times.

 

No, as a CO there's most satisfaction when you tell people "two feet from the base of a post" and they have to return several times before they find it...exactly two feet up a post. Which has happened to me. Look at the early logs on this one.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Happy Humphrey

[dodgydaved]

Andy - I far preferred this one!.

 

ddd!

[+Oxford Stone]

I sometimes use the title as a hint, either to the hide or a puzzle - where's the cheque? http://coord.info/GC4A8G3 - it's in the post, of course. (Bison tube - fishing line - magnet; idea copied from metal-bijou and soon to be recopied by a CO around Goring, for those of you in the Oxon-Bucks area!)

[+barbie6803]

I sometimes use the title as a hint, either to the hide or a puzzle - where's the cheque? http://coord.info/GC4A8G3 - it's in the post, of course. (Bison tube - fishing line - magnet; idea copied from metal-bijou and soon to be recopied by a CO around Goring, for those of you in the Oxon-Bucks area!)

 

I personally don't like cache and dash type caches or ones with tat inside. 1 Difficulty 1 Terrain for example, where's the fun in those? You are just totting up the numbers. No, tax my brain with hints and clues, give me a walk to interesting areas that cannot be appreciated from the roadside. Obscure yes, as long as they make sense once found and grps isn't 20 metres out. I don't go for question mark ones unless I've worked out the answers before leaving home. But it's horses for courses isn't it. Check out the D & T's beforehand, set your handsets to ignore the difficult ones if you just want to grab and bag.

[+vw_k]

Back in the day when I used to print off the cache page and decrypt the hint on the trail using the ROT13 guide (and I bet some people still do this) the thing that annoyed me were long hints with nothing useful in the first 90%.

 

Why make someone decrypt:

"If you are having trouble finding the cache and have to resort to this clue then try looking at the base of the birch tree"

 

when all they need is:

"base of birch tree"

[+Bear and Ragged]

Back in the day when I used to print off the cache page and decrypt the hint on the trail using the ROT13 guide (and I bet some people still do this) the thing that annoyed me were long hints with nothing useful in the first 90%.

 

Why make someone decrypt:

"If you are having trouble finding the cache and have to resort to this clue then try looking at the base of the birch tree"

 

when all they need is:

"base of birch tree"

 

But, back in the day, I'd see the "gerr" bit and start from that end of the hint!