Jump to content

CO enjoys making "unsolvable" puzzles?


geocat_
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Impossible caches are ridiculous, next to ridiculous caches that two or three visits are good, as long as DNF are included. Get with the nature of the game, it should not be the like a Casino where the House is always stacked against you. It should an odds on even chance for the player. Other wise, it is all a waste of time.

In that case, I should archive Son of Boxzilla, since it's got only four finds. It's not a puzzle, and not a long hike, but it requires walking through waist-deep weeds and planning a way around thorn bushes (depending on the selected route) where there are all kinds of critters including probably some pretty big snakes.

 

Then there's my puzzle cache, Found only 5 times in the past 2 years. It's just a couple of years away from getting its own Forum Thread about how unsolvable it is. :yikes:

 

I might someday make a puzzle that's tough. I'll rate it accordingly. If it's "unsolvable", I'll add a new clue later. If I feel like it. :anitongue:

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

Seems kind of boring, creating caches everyone else is ignoring.

Apparently it doesn't to the CO.

Right, apparently the CO created his own little "side game" of making unsolvable puzzles. It entertains him and bores and/or irritates everyone else. Ignoring the CO is the answer. Getting rattled by the taunts just feeds the troll.

Link to comment

Impossible caches are ridiculous, next to ridiculous caches that two or three visits are good, as long as DNF are included. Get with the nature of the game, it should not be the like a Casino where the House is always stacked against you. It should an odds on even chance for the player. Other wise, it is all a waste of time.

... I might someday make a puzzle that's tough. I'll rate it accordingly....

+1

 

With caches that are rated high in difficulty, I expect the odds to be stacked against me. It's an informed choice that I make, and my enjoyment is all greater when I do beat the House.

Link to comment
Right, apparently the CO created his own little "side game" of making unsolvable puzzles.
Maybe. Or maybe he's still learning the difference between challenging puzzles that are entertaining and solvable, and "moon logic" puzzles that are essentially exercises in reading the CO's mind.

 

Have any of the other puzzle cache owners talked to him about it?

Link to comment

...it should not be the like a Casino where the House is always stacked against you. It should an odds on even chance for the player.

 

You seem to be imagining that CO's have you in mind when they set their puzzles.

 

There's at least an even chance thats not the case.

 

It should an odds on even chance for the player.

 

And odds on even chance for which player, at which skill / experience level?

 

Fact is that skill and experience levels vary - sometimes significantly - and what might be difficult for you might be easy for someone else - and the whole spectrum in between. So if you can describe a way that a puzzle could present an odds on even chance for all those players, I'd love to hear it.

 

Other wise, it is all a waste of time.

 

For whom?

 

If an activity feels to me like a waste of time I try to find an opportunity to stop doing it - and go and do something else that doesn't feel like a waste of time.

Link to comment

Surprised that due to heated discussion this thread hasn't been closed down! Impossible caches are ridiculous, next to ridiculous caches that two or three visits are good, as long as DNF are included. Get with the nature of the game, it should not be the like a Casino where the House is always stacked against you. It should an odds on even chance for the player. Other wise, it is all a waste of time.

 

My next cache found is going to be the best Cache I have ever found!

 

The vast majority of caches out there are very easy traditionals.

 

Why not just ignore the small handful of caches that don't interest you?

 

There are caches out there I know I will never find unless I get a SCUBA license or learn to rock climb. I just think it is great that this game can be adapted to so many variations for different people.

 

The nature of the game is customization. Filter out the caches you don't like.

Link to comment
Right, apparently the CO created his own little "side game" of making unsolvable puzzles.
Maybe. Or maybe he's still learning the difference between challenging puzzles that are entertaining and solvable, and "moon logic" puzzles that are essentially exercises in reading the CO's mind.

 

Have any of the other puzzle cache owners talked to him about it?

 

Maybe the CO is just a unique person with unique caches who doesn't need to be harangued because people feel entitled to find every cache they see.

Link to comment

Not all caches are for all people. If a puzzle is too hard or not interesting for me, it isn't because the owner has an ego problem, it's because the cache just isn't for me.

 

You apparently didn't bother to read the OP in this thread, did you? The part where:

 

The CO basically taunts would-be solvers by saying things like "Hmmmm Seems we dont have any real puzzle solvers here."

 

which makes it pretty clear that the owner is, in fact, on an ego trip.

 

Maybe next time before you ascribe bad thoughts and motives to other contributors in a thread, by writing things like

 

I'm always mystified at the anger that difficult puzzles seem to generate among certain cachers. A cache that you can't find isn't a personal insult. How insecure do you need to be to make these awful comments about someone because they enjoy creating tricky puzzles?

 

you could try to, you know, read the posts they are referring to?

Link to comment

Surprised that due to heated discussion this thread hasn't been closed down! Impossible caches are ridiculous, next to ridiculous caches that two or three visits are good, as long as DNF are included. Get with the nature of the game, it should not be the like a Casino where the House is always stacked against you. It should an odds on even chance for the player. Other wise, it is all a waste of time.

 

My next cache found is going to be the best Cache I have ever found!

 

This is completely wrong. Caching should be what each player makes it. There are those who like very difficult puzzles and they should be allowed to have them. There are those who like extreme challenges, and they should be allowed to have them. There are those who like lots of easy caches, and they should be allowed to have them.

 

I like caches with a scenic view. Does that mean caches without a scenic view should not be hidden? Does it mean caches without a scenic view are worth less than those with a scenic view? Perhaps to me, yes, but to someone else, they are not interested in the hike sometimes needed for a scenic view. Just because a cache is not my style does not make it wrong.

Link to comment

Not all caches are for all people. If a puzzle is too hard or not interesting for me, it isn't because the owner has an ego problem, it's because the cache just isn't for me.

 

You apparently didn't bother to read the OP in this thread, did you? The part where:

 

The CO basically taunts would-be solvers by saying things like "Hmmmm Seems we dont have any real puzzle solvers here."

 

which makes it pretty clear that the owner is, in fact, on an ego trip.

 

Maybe next time before you ascribe bad thoughts and motives to other contributors in a thread, by writing things like

 

I'm always mystified at the anger that difficult puzzles seem to generate among certain cachers. A cache that you can't find isn't a personal insult. How insecure do you need to be to make these awful comments about someone because they enjoy creating tricky puzzles?

 

you could try to, you know, read the posts they are referring to?

 

The OP stated this:

 

So there is a local cacher who has 5 puzzle caches that have never been solved/logged as finds. I happen to live in an area where there are a good deal of excellent puzzle solvers (I am NOT one of them!) yet no one has cracked any of these in 4-5 years. The CO basically taunts would-be solvers by saying things like "Hmmmm Seems we dont have any real puzzle solvers here."

 

I don't really care about the little taunts or even a puzzle that is very difficult to solve, but what's the idea of having 5 caches that can't be found by a reasonable (or any) number of people? I know when had a particular challenge cache submitted, the reviewer rightfully wanted me to prove that a decent number of people in the area qualified before he would publish it. Seems hypocritical.

 

Also, can someone verify that puzzles have to have a solution submitted at the time of review. Keystone, you would know the answers without a doubt ;)

 

It's evident that most everything about these caches bothers the OP. They're too hard, their owner is egotistical and likes to taunt, and he thinks there is some hypocrisy going on.

 

As with every thread on this subject, it's obvious that the root of the angst is that the puzzle caches themselves are too difficult for the OPs. I figure that most, for some reason, believe that it's unfair that they can't solve the puzzle and get the smiley. I can just about guarantee that these threads would't exist if their OPs had gotten their smilies on these cache. ;)

Link to comment

Not all caches are for all people. If a puzzle is too hard or not interesting for me, it isn't because the owner has an ego problem, it's because the cache just isn't for me.

 

You apparently didn't bother to read the OP in this thread, did you? The part where:

 

The CO basically taunts would-be solvers by saying things like "Hmmmm Seems we dont have any real puzzle solvers here."

 

which makes it pretty clear that the owner is, in fact, on an ego trip.

 

Maybe next time before you ascribe bad thoughts and motives to other contributors in a thread, by writing things like

 

I'm always mystified at the anger that difficult puzzles seem to generate among certain cachers. A cache that you can't find isn't a personal insult. How insecure do you need to be to make these awful comments about someone because they enjoy creating tricky puzzles?

 

you could try to, you know, read the posts they are referring to?

 

I realize that the anger people feel when they interpret cache owner action feels very real to them.

 

When you ignore caches and cache owners that aren't suited to your tastes, you don't see things that you then interpret as "taunts" and "ego."

 

"Wowzers, that's a mighty difficult looking puzzle. Looks like the cache owner is having some fun with it. I know I'll never be able to do this so I'd best be moving on out of these here parts."

 

... or ...

 

"This puzzle is too hard for me. The cache owner must think me a fool. I must exact my revenge."

 

It's all in the cacher's head.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Boy, reading all this makes my head hurt blink.gif I am continuously amazed at how many wanna-be psychics post here. Since I am the OP, I will clarify once again...I am NOT frustrated by these puzzle caches. In fact, I haven't even made the first step to try to solve them. I am not someone who even enjoys puzzle caches. I found these caches through project-gc.com while browsing for unfound caches. There you have it. The mysterious and cryptic intentions of the OP exposed biggrin.gif Now I can get back to the planning for my T5 Earthcache adventure tomorrow.

Link to comment

I realize that the anger people feel when they interpret cache owner action feels very real to them.

 

When you ignore caches and cache owners that aren't suited to your tastes, you don't see things that you then interpret as "taunts" and "ego."

 

...

 

It's all in the cacher's head.

 

So, in other words, you are saying that the OP is either a liar or delusional.

 

Nice.

Link to comment

I realize that the anger people feel when they interpret cache owner action feels very real to them.

 

When you ignore caches and cache owners that aren't suited to your tastes, you don't see things that you then interpret as "taunts" and "ego."

 

...

 

It's all in the cacher's head.

 

So, in other words, you are saying that the OP is either a liar or delusional.

 

Nice.

 

Great illustration of the point. It's amazing how imaginative an individual's interpretation can be, isnt it?

 

To one person, the cache owner is having a bit of fun challenging others to try something new.

 

To another person, he/she is taunting people to flex his/her ego.

 

The reaction someone has to a cache page is a matter of choice.

Link to comment
The reaction someone has to a cache page is a matter of choice.

 

As is the reaction to another's post. What do you think it says about you that your reaction (in this thread and others) seems to always be to assume the worst possible motives on the part of the poster?

 

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

 

But that has become off-topic. The take-away here I can agree with: not every cache is for everybody. There are obnoxious cachers; if there is one who annoys you, it's easy to avoid their caches.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment
The reaction someone has to a cache page is a matter of choice.

 

As is the reaction to another's post. What do you think it says about you that your reaction (in this thread and others) seems to always be to assume the worst possible motives on the part of the poster?

 

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

 

But that has become off-topic. The take-away here I can agree with: not every cache is for everybody. There are obnoxious cachers; if there is one who annoys you, it's easy to avoid their caches.

 

The original post called reviewers "hypocritical" for publishing puzzles that were too hard. No need to assume the worst when the worst is clearly stated.

Link to comment

Impossible caches are ridiculous, next to ridiculous caches that two or three visits are good, as long as DNF are included. Get with the nature of the game, it should not be the like a Casino where the House is always stacked against you. It should an odds on even chance for the player. Other wise, it is all a waste of time.

In that case, I should archive Son of Boxzilla, since it's got only four finds. It's not a puzzle, and not a long hike, but it requires walking through waist-deep weeds and planning a way around thorn bushes (depending on the selected route) where there are all kinds of critters including probably some pretty big snakes.

 

Then there's my puzzle cache, Found only 5 times in the past 2 years. It's just a couple of years away from getting its own Forum Thread about how unsolvable it is. :yikes:

 

I might someday make a puzzle that's tough. I'll rate it accordingly. If it's "unsolvable", I'll add a new clue later. If I feel like it. :anitongue:

 

Now these sound like awesome caches! Not found often is great and I think some of the best caches! To have out 5 caches or so for 5 years that have not been found once seems crazy to me.

 

I know there would be no way to enforce this but I think maybe one or two could be allowed if someone wanted to hide a impossible puzzle but after that it is kind of crazy. I would say after 5 years of no finds there should just be a reviewer saying....Thanks for placing this puzzle but apparently no one is interested in solving or finding it. We are going to open up the spot for a cache that someone might someday want to find!

Link to comment

Impossible caches are ridiculous, next to ridiculous caches that two or three visits are good, as long as DNF are included. Get with the nature of the game, it should not be the like a Casino where the House is always stacked against you. It should an odds on even chance for the player. Other wise, it is all a waste of time.

In that case, I should archive Son of Boxzilla, since it's got only four finds. It's not a puzzle, and not a long hike, but it requires walking through waist-deep weeds and planning a way around thorn bushes (depending on the selected route) where there are all kinds of critters including probably some pretty big snakes.

 

Then there's my puzzle cache, Found only 5 times in the past 2 years. It's just a couple of years away from getting its own Forum Thread about how unsolvable it is. :yikes:

 

I might someday make a puzzle that's tough. I'll rate it accordingly. If it's "unsolvable", I'll add a new clue later. If I feel like it. :anitongue:

 

Now these sound like awesome caches! Not found often is great and I think some of the best caches!

 

To have out 5 caches or so for 5 years that have not been found once seems crazy to me.

 

I know there would be no way to enforce this but I think maybe one or two could be allowed if someone wanted to hide a impossible puzzle but after that it is kind of crazy. I would say after 5 years of no finds there should just be a reviewer saying....Thanks for placing this puzzle but apparently no one is interested in solving or finding it. We are going to open up the spot for a cache that someone might someday want to find!

 

I've been kicking around a couple of ideas for trickier puzzles. If I ever place one, it will be self-enforced. That is, I won't make a bunch more that nobody seems to be solving. Once one is cracked, I'll make another. I guess if it's a once-in-a-lifetime unique puzzle that only works in one set of coords, maybe I'll place that one. So the spot isn't gone 5 years from now. :anicute:

 

I don't mind unsolvable puzzles. But I do mind finding mistakes in them. I sent a correction to a high-difficulty unsolvable puzzle (and then the CO fixed the error), although I still can't solve it. :rolleyes:

 

Once I find mistakes in the puzzle design, I tend to ignore all of the CO's puzzles. They may indeed be unsolvable. But I know one guy who isn't even working on them. Me. ;)

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I would say after 5 years of no finds there should just be a reviewer saying....Thanks for placing this puzzle but apparently no one is interested in solving or finding it. We are going to open up the spot for a cache that someone might someday want to find!

Reviewers would enforce this just as soon as the concept is added to the listing guidelines. It isn't there, nor is there a concept that a certain percentage of local geocachers "must be able to solve" the puzzle as a condition of publication -- possibly because it's impossible to prove.

 

In contrast, there's a concept in the guidelines saying that a "challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers." So, reviewers did their best to enforce that.

 

Refusing to enforce concepts that are not in the guidelines, while enforcing concepts that are in the guidelines, is the antithesis of hypocrisy.

Link to comment

I would say after 5 years of no finds there should just be a reviewer saying....Thanks for placing this puzzle but apparently no one is interested in solving or finding it. We are going to open up the spot for a cache that someone might someday want to find!

Reviewers would enforce this just as soon as the concept is added to the listing guidelines. It isn't there, nor is there a concept that a certain percentage of local geocachers "must be able to solve" the puzzle as a condition of publication -- possibly because it's impossible to prove.

 

In contrast, there's a concept in the guidelines saying that a "challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers." So, reviewers did their best to enforce that.

 

Refusing to enforce concepts that are not in the guidelines, while enforcing concepts that are in the guidelines, is the antithesis of hypocrisy.

I know it isn't there. I also know there would be no way to really enforce it. Also I think cachers should be able to place hard puzzles if they want to like kunarion is talking about. This is for sure a rare case as most cachers I know want there hides to be found. What is the fun of placing them if they are never found. Seems like a waste. I wonder if the CO has ever gone out to check if after 5 years if they are still even there if someone was crazy enough to solve it now.

Link to comment

I would say after 5 years of no finds there should just be a reviewer saying....Thanks for placing this puzzle but apparently no one is interested in solving or finding it. We are going to open up the spot for a cache that someone might someday want to find!

Reviewers would enforce this just as soon as the concept is added to the listing guidelines. It isn't there, nor is there a concept that a certain percentage of local geocachers "must be able to solve" the puzzle as a condition of publication -- possibly because it's impossible to prove.

 

In contrast, there's a concept in the guidelines saying that a "challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers." So, reviewers did their best to enforce that.

 

Refusing to enforce concepts that are not in the guidelines, while enforcing concepts that are in the guidelines, is the antithesis of hypocrisy.

I know it isn't there. I also know there would be no way to really enforce it. Also I think cachers should be able to place hard puzzles if they want to like kunarion is talking about. This is for sure a rare case as most cachers I know want there hides to be found. What is the fun of placing them if they are never found. Seems like a waste. I wonder if the CO has ever gone out to check if after 5 years if they are still even there if someone was crazy enough to solve it now.

 

Some people want their caches to be near impossible. The enjoyment for them is the feeling that they've stumped others. The thing is, just about anyone can place a cache that is just about impossible to find. A clever and challenging puzzle cache is great as long as there is a way to actually figure it out. Finding that fine line between challenging and ridiculous is sometimes tough to do.

 

Having said that, i still say that it shouldn't really matter. It should be enough that one person out a million enjoys a cache. If that's what the cache owner wants, then why not? I'll alaways have fun figuring out a good puzzle but at the same time, ignore those caches that aren't fun to me.

Link to comment

Finding that fine line between challenging and ridiculous is sometimes tough to do.

 

As a puzzle creator, I can totally agree with this. When you're creating a (hopefully) original type of puzzle, it's always tough to know if others will "get it"...will see what is necessary to solve it. For the most part, I try to make mine very "simple"...simple meaning that once you know the method or the 'trick', it's quick work to make the solve. I have two unfound puzzles. One of these was actually solved and I was very pleased to find out from the solver that he had the exact method of solving that I intended. For him, once he knew what to do, it really was easy to work it out. That's rewarding to me, to know one of my puzzles works out as intended.

 

Of course, he wasn't able to find the cache... :ph34r:

Link to comment

Having said that, i still say that it shouldn't really matter. It should be enough that one person out a million enjoys a cache. If that's what the cache owner wants, then why not? I'll alaways have fun figuring out a good puzzle but at the same time, ignore those caches that aren't fun to me.

 

+1

 

The same arguments people make about low-find, tricky puzzles could be made about isolated, very difficult terrain caches. Or caches that require very specialized equipment, like SCUBA gear. Or long multis that people avoid because it's too much work for one smiley.

 

This game would be pretty boring if we could only place easy traditionals that appeal to the lowest common denominator. It wouldn't be the game I've come to enjoy over the past ten years, that's for sure.

Link to comment

For the most part, I try to make mine very "simple"...simple meaning that once you know the method or the 'trick', it's quick work to make the solve.

 

Maybe we should have a thread about what makes a good puzzle. When I first started, I thought like you do here -- that a good puzzle was one that was easy once you saw the "trick."

 

But having done a lot of puzzles, and having read some on the subject, I now realize that those kinds of puzzles are actually less fun for the solvers than other kinds. IMO now, the best puzzles are ones where:

 

  • No mind-reading is required to figure out where to start.
  • Each step logically follows from previous steps.
  • Clues are integrated into each step for future steps.
  • The solver can see progress being made -- they don't have to solve the entire thing to know they were on the right track.
  • Red herrings resolve quickly.
  • Solution requires a minimum of tedium.

 

I still have puzzles out there that are trivial once you have the "aha!" moment, but I don't consider them my best.

Link to comment

For the most part, I try to make mine very "simple"...simple meaning that once you know the method or the 'trick', it's quick work to make the solve.

 

Maybe we should have a thread about what makes a good puzzle. When I first started, I thought like you do here -- that a good puzzle was one that was easy once you saw the "trick."

 

But having done a lot of puzzles, and having read some on the subject, I now realize that those kinds of puzzles are actually less fun for the solvers than other kinds. IMO now, the best puzzles are ones where:

 

  • No mind-reading is required to figure out where to start.
  • Each step logically follows from previous steps.
  • Clues are integrated into each step for future steps.
  • The solver can see progress being made -- they don't have to solve the entire thing to know they were on the right track.
  • Red herrings resolve quickly.
  • Solution requires a minimum of tedium.

 

But that's my point...all of those things apply to my own. In fact, most of mine only involve one real "step" and the solution (progress) generally makes itself apparent without need for check tools.

 

In fact...for me, multiple step puzzles generally lose me and, from my experience with them, they tend to have errors that can make the end result questionable.

Link to comment
Finding that fine line between challenging and ridiculous is sometimes tough to do.
As a puzzle creator, I can totally agree with this. When you're creating a (hopefully) original type of puzzle, it's always tough to know if others will "get it"...will see what is necessary to solve it.
Yep. There's a local puzzle cache owner who is somewhat notorious for trying to put out easy straight-forward puzzles, but his easy straight-forward puzzles turn out to be very hard for others to actually solve. I've solved several myself, and I can see why he thought they were easy and straight-forward. But I also know why it is a challenge for solvers to find the easy straight-forward solution.

 

In another context, I see this with new puzzle writers (rallyemasters) routinely. They understand how their own puzzles (gimmicks) are supposed to work, so they seem easy and obvious to them. It's really difficult to appreciate how your puzzles might seem to someone else who is encountering them for the first time.

Link to comment

Seems kind of boring, creating caches everyone else is ignoring.

Apparently it doesn't to the CO.

Right, apparently the CO created his own little "side game" of making unsolvable puzzles. It entertains him and bores and/or irritates everyone else. Ignoring the CO is the answer. Getting rattled by the taunts just feeds the troll.

 

I've known a few cachers in my time that LOVE solving "impossible" puzzles, so I'd have to say that they don't exactly irritate *everyone else*. This guy is apparently one of them, and is just hiding what he likes to find. Calling him a troll for that seems out of line to me.

Link to comment

... but what's the idea of having 5 caches that can't be found by a reasonable (or any) number of people? ,,,

The above could be said of any type of cache, not just puzzles. It's one of the reasons that I'm a very low-profile cacher anymore. I like caches that COs put out because they want the cache to be found. I personally don't understand the thinking behind those who put out caches that they do not want found; though there are a lot of folks in the forums who do understand those kinds of COs; so it's just a difference in thinking.

 

(In the same way, I'm the kind of person who does not laugh at someone when they get hurt; but there are a lot of folks who do laugh when folks get hurt. The world consists of lots of types of thinking. And BTW, I am not saying there is any link at all between the folks in this analogy and the folks in the first paragraph. At least, I hope not.) :P

Link to comment

... but what's the idea of having 5 caches that can't be found by a reasonable (or any) number of people? ,,,

The above could be said of any type of cache, not just puzzles. It's one of the reasons that I'm a very low-profile cacher anymore. I like caches that COs put out because they want the cache to be found. I personally don't understand the thinking behind those who put out caches that they do not want found; though there are a lot of folks in the forums who do understand those kinds of COs; so it's just a difference in thinking.

 

(In the same way, I'm the kind of person who does not laugh at someone when they get hurt; but there are a lot of folks who do laugh when folks get hurt. The world consists of lots of types of thinking. And BTW, I am not saying there is any link at all between the folks in this analogy and the folks in the first paragraph. At least, I hope not.) :P

 

I don't want people to find my caches. I want them to TRY to find them. The vast majority of them do find them.

I also want people to try to solve my puzzles in order to try to find my cache.

 

I mean...we are supposed to HIDE caches, right? When did hiding a cache become a bad thing?

Link to comment

First of all, thank you Keystone for actually answering my question in between the goofy posts which still demand that I am goofy for posting such a goofy question in the first place. blink.gif

 

Second, my use of the word "hypocritical" was in response to my misunderstanding about the guidelines. I mistakenly thought that the guidelines to which I referred about challenges also applied to puzzles. I am now enlightened biggrin.gif

Lastly, I love how this thread has sparked some good conversation and I have been happy to be part of it, but not nearly as happy as I was getting 10 Earthcaches yesterday with a good friend tongue.gif (Including a nice T5 cliff climb)

Link to comment

... but what's the idea of having 5 caches that can't be found by a reasonable (or any) number of people? ,,,

The above could be said of any type of cache, not just puzzles. It's one of the reasons that I'm a very low-profile cacher anymore. I like caches that COs put out because they want the cache to be found. I personally don't understand the thinking behind those who put out caches that they do not want found; though there are a lot of folks in the forums who do understand those kinds of COs; so it's just a difference in thinking.

 

Some fairly massive assumptions made there guys.

 

Firstly that there's a threshold beyond which a cache should be considered to have been found by a reasonable number of people. Reasonable according to whom?

 

Then that there are people who put caches out and don't want them found. Or is it just that they take their pleasure in providing an above average challenge?

 

And then that there are a lot of folks in the forums who understand the kinds of CO's who put caches out that they don't want found. I've no idea how you even arrive at such a conclusion. That to me has the appearance of assumptions based on assumptions.

Link to comment

I know it isn't there. I also know there would be no way to really enforce it. Also I think cachers should be able to place hard puzzles if they want to like kunarion is talking about. This is for sure a rare case as most cachers I know want there hides to be found. What is the fun of placing them if they are never found. Seems like a waste. I wonder if the CO has ever gone out to check if after 5 years if they are still even there if someone was crazy enough to solve it now.

 

Yes, he has updated the caches fairly recently.

As linked in prior message on this thread... http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=Silver+Bells

 

Specific example: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=1029234d-9e8f-47ee-a1ad-72ca0df7020a

the CO checked in on them in march of this year. Still no finds however. :)

Link to comment

I know it isn't there. I also know there would be no way to really enforce it. Also I think cachers should be able to place hard puzzles if they want to like kunarion is talking about. This is for sure a rare case as most cachers I know want there hides to be found. What is the fun of placing them if they are never found. Seems like a waste. I wonder if the CO has ever gone out to check if after 5 years if they are still even there if someone was crazy enough to solve it now.

 

Yes, he has updated the caches fairly recently.

As linked in prior message on this thread... http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=Silver+Bells

 

Specific example: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=1029234d-9e8f-47ee-a1ad-72ca0df7020a

the CO checked in on them in march of this year. Still no finds however. :)

Well at least he is checking on them then. Someone go find them now!

Link to comment

For what it's worth, I looked up one of the caches the OP was referring to. I can't tell if the CO is actually a jerk or it's some kind of local inside joke.

 

The cache is here.

I was reading through this CO's unfound mystery caches and didn't have any misgivings about the CO's personality. Seems like the CO has some difficult puzzles, which are rated accordingly, so no big deal.

 

Then I read the CO's 5/4/2012 log on the cache linked above and started leaning toward the 'jerk' viewpoint. Seems like an unnecessary comment to a cacher that didn't post anything provocative in their 5/3/2012 log. I didn't think about it maybe being an inside joke. I hope that is the case.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...