What makes a good puzzle?

[+niraD]

In post #74 of the CO enjoys making "unsolvable" puzzles? thread, fizzymagic wrote:

 

Maybe we should have a thread about what makes a good puzzle. When I first started, I thought [...] 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.

 

So, what do others think? What makes a good puzzle?

 

(And please, no off-topic comments about how there are no good puzzles, because they're all terrible, awful, bad, and nasty.)

[+narcissa]

There are puzzles I enjoy, and puzzles I don't enjoy. Other people are different than me. I don't think there's an objective "good."

[+T.D.M.22]

Depends.

 

One one hand, really tough, that most won't solve will make a good puzzle. As a CO you get satisfaction of knowing that you stumped people. As someone who solved it you get satisfaction of knowing you're better than the CO thought, and knowing you did something not everyone is able to do.

 

On the other hand if your goal as a CO is to give lots of people a good time you want it to be relatively easy. Make it fun, or themed. For example a series of caches, one for each planet in the solar system. There's a question in each cache you have to answer multiple choice. Each answer gives you answer number, so correct answers will take you to a puzzle cache (the Sun.) I enjoyed that one quite a bit. Or themed on local events and such. In Calgary, Alberta you could do one themed on rodeo. In Hollywood you could do one based on the walk of fame.

 

As a hider, I like the first part-trying to stump local cachers. As a finder I prefer the second one, where it's more fun than work.

[+J Grouchy]

Good for solving so you can just move on to getting a smiley? A cipher you can cut/paste into a decryption site.

 

Good for testing your brain? Not a cipher you can cut/paste into a decryption site.

 

I also can't stand something with invisible text or anything you have to view the page's source code to solve.

 

Come to think of it...it's almost easier to list what makes a BAD puzzle...

Edited September 1, 2015 by J Grouchy

[+on4bam]

Anything goes concerning puzzles. If they are very difficult the CO should be prepared to give subtle hints (but in no way solutions).

A good puzzle is one that can be solved in a way that I haven't seen/used before.

[+K13]

The only good puzzle (to me) is a solved puzzle (by me).

[+Sivota]

"No mind-reading is required to figure out where to start."

"Each step logically follows from previous steps."

 

These two criteria seem good for me.

 

I especially like puzzles that are related to geocaching and/or geography or puzzles related to the location where the cache is hidden.

For example a puzzle about wildlife, leading to a cache in the woods where that wildlife can be spotted.

 

For me, a good puzzle is always related to a good hide out.

 

[+L0ne.R]

I like fizzymagic's list. I would add that the final, the geocache, should be a water-tight container, swag size (that way everyone gets to enjoy the find - people who like swag, signature items, trackables and people who just want a sheet to sign) and in a pleasant location (not a parking lot). It's nice when the cache ties in with the puzzle theme.

[+SageTracey]

That's a very subjective question. A good puzzle for me is one that I can solve, even if it requires a bit of work, and one that allows me to learn something new.

 

On the other hand, my geo-husband would say that there is no such thing as a good puzzle because he likes to go to the coordinates and search.

 

As a cache owner, I have one puzzle which I thought was relatively easy to solve and which some volunteer testers were able to solve yet, in the field, no one has solved it since it was placed several months ago.

 

And I have a puzzle cache which I thought may stump a few people and it is solved and found fairly regularly (considering the size of our local caching community).

[+narcissa]

I know people who really enjoy nebulous, mind-reading, ambiguous puzzles. Not my cup of tea but I don't think it's my place to say a puzzle is bad because it's not to my taste.

[+geodarts]

The only good puzzle (to me) is a solved puzzle (by me).

 

My feeling exactly. I don't like puzzles that are simply busy work, looking up facts and figures in Wikipedia. Nor am I a fan of puzzles that require advanced math, programming skills, staring at minute pixels,, or psychic abilities to detect the creator's leaps of [il]logic. So that leaves something besides the puzzle itself to get my attention. A good puzzle to me would have an interesting title, location, graphics, or subject matter. And be one that I can solve without having to feel like I am back at work.

Edited September 1, 2015 by geodarts

[+niraD]

Good for solving so you can just move on to getting a smiley? A cipher you can cut/paste into a decryption site.

Maybe I just don't care enough about getting a smiley. Sure, I'll copy-paste code into an online conversion/decryption service, and then copy-paste the results into the corrected coordinates. Eventually, I might even find the container when it's convenient. But I wouldn't say that's a good puzzle.

 

And I've done plenty of GIYF puzzles: Figure out the theme, Google the theme, look up the numbers associated with the theme. Sometimes you don't even really have to figure out the theme because the CO hands it to you. But I prefer puzzles with a little more substance.

 

Good for testing your brain? Not a cipher you can cut/paste into a decryption site.

I like puzzles where there is still something to do after you've figured out the theme and Googled the topic. Some of my favorites have been puzzles that taught me how a particular cipher works, and then let me work out the solution using my newfound knowledge.

 

I also can't stand something with invisible text or anything you have to view the page's source code to solve.

Some puzzle techniques are overused to the point that they become the LPCs and FPCs and GRCs of the puzzle world. I think simply putting the coordinates in white-on-white text or in an HTML comment qualifies as a puzzle cliche, but I wouldn't object to a puzzle that included hints or other information hidden in these ways.

 

Come to think of it...it's almost easier to list what makes a BAD puzzle...

I think there are definitely good puzzles and bad puzzles, but most are probably in the middle somewhere. Identifying elements of bad puzzles might help owners of bad puzzles achieve that middle zone of mediocrity. But I think it would be more helpful to show owners of mediocre puzzles how to achieve the higher plateau of excellence.

[+J Grouchy]

Good for solving so you can just move on to getting a smiley? A cipher you can cut/paste into a decryption site.

Maybe I just don't care enough about getting a smiley. Sure, I'll copy-paste code into an online conversion/decryption service, and then copy-paste the results into the corrected coordinates. Eventually, I might even find the container when it's convenient. But I wouldn't say that's a good puzzle.

 

And I've done plenty of GIYF puzzles: Figure out the theme, Google the theme, look up the numbers associated with the theme. Sometimes you don't even really have to figure out the theme because the CO hands it to you. But I prefer puzzles with a little more substance.

 

Good for testing your brain? Not a cipher you can cut/paste into a decryption site.

I like puzzles where there is still something to do after you've figured out the theme and Googled the topic. Some of my favorites have been puzzles that taught me how a particular cipher works, and then let me work out the solution using my newfound knowledge.

 

I also can't stand something with invisible text or anything you have to view the page's source code to solve.

Some puzzle techniques are overused to the point that they become the LPCs and FPCs and GRCs of the puzzle world. I think simply putting the coordinates in white-on-white text or in an HTML comment qualifies as a puzzle cliche, but I wouldn't object to a puzzle that included hints or other information hidden in these ways.

 

Come to think of it...it's almost easier to list what makes a BAD puzzle...

I think there are definitely good puzzles and bad puzzles, but most are probably in the middle somewhere. Identifying elements of bad puzzles might help owners of bad puzzles achieve that middle zone of mediocrity. But I think it would be more helpful to show owners of mediocre puzzles how to achieve the higher plateau of excellence.

 

Well...my first comment was typed with a bit of tongue-in-cheek attitude.

 

To my "bad idea for a puzzle cache" list I would also add trivia-based puzzles. There was a whole geo-art published nearby a few months ago that was all about the show Survivor and all the so-called "puzzles" were basically trivia about the show. Tedious.

[kanchan]

My opinion is that there is no universal thing like a good puzzle. Either I like it or I don't like it. We are all different. I'm not a judge, either. It could be just that I'm missing a subtle clue or an embedded shortcut when I think it's illogical or too tedious.

[+geodarts]

To my "bad idea for a puzzle cache" list I would also add trivia-based puzzles. There was a whole geo-art published nearby a few months ago that was all about the show Survivor and all the so-called "puzzles" were basically trivia about the show. Tedious.

 

While I would agree about that these kind of question marks are tedious rather than puzzling, my wife is a huge fan of Survivor and she might enjoy the trivia. I suppose that personal interest might separate whether it's good or bad. Professional darts trivia - I would be all over it. Academy award Wikipedia lookups - busy work that goes to my ignore list.

Edited September 2, 2015 by geodarts

[+cerberus1]

Fortunately here, I know most of the puzzle makers, and are aware what kinda areas the final might be.

I'll take a little extra time to solve a puzzle if the CO is known for waterfalls, views, or historic areas.

Skip right by that final-in-a-parking-lot guy's puzzles every time.

I'm not related to, or buds with Steve Hawking, and am a dyslexic old fart, so if the CO wants to put out a puzzle that no one can solve, I'll happily skip it too.

- Guess I'm kinda in line with Fizzy's list.

[+Mudfrog]

I'm going to go with what i think make bad puzzles.

 

I don't care for needle in a haystack types situations. On a traditional, finding a fake rock in a big pile of rocks is no fun. Likewise, having no clue as to where to even start on a puzzle, isn't either. These don't require much thinking, just a lot of luck.

 

Making a puzzle that requires lots of extra steps such as adding/subtracting/multiplying/dividing the numbers from the primary puzzle solution, is not my cup of tea either. It might be easy math but the tediousness of crunching all the numbers makes it boring.

[+WarNinjas]

One thought I have of what makes a good puzzle is it all being in theme. I was taught that by the first cacher we met who makes a lot of puzzles.

 

I will use the puzzle I just submitted as a example (Not at all saying it is a great puzzle or anything or that I followed all the rules I am talking about).

 

We made a pretty cool container, a cache glued inside of a sea shell. We hid it and made a puzzle with a bunch of pictures of sea shells. You have to identify what kind of sea shell they are to get the numbers. It would have been cooler if we hid the sea shell at the beach but we didn't. It is close. That would have made it a cooler puzzle, to solve it about sea shells then go to the beach and find a sea shell cache. We did however place the puzzle bubble at the beach.

 

It could be anything like that. A puzzle about dogs, then hidden at a dog shelter and the container hidden inside of a fake dog bone. Making the puzzle, location and container all work together is what I think makes a cool puzzle.

 

However one I can solve I like even better!

[+fizzymagic]

Contrary to the opinions of some here, I believe that there really are good puzzles and bad puzzles. I wrote earlier about what makes good puzzles. Here are some things that make bad puzzles:

 

Lazy creators. They choose one random Web page, take some information off of it, and try to disguise where it came from. Minimum work on the part of the creator, maximum work on the part of the would-be solver. These are especially bad when the information on the page they chose varies across different sources, so that solvers have to find the exact same page or they are out of luck.

 

Mental ivy. That is the puzzle equivalent of a needle-in-a-haystack hide. The worst of these don't even give you any known digits (they will use the last 3 digits of latitude and longitude so there is no way to tell if you're on the right track) and have hundreds of possible solution methods.

 

Moon logic. That is a puzzle that requires you to read the creator's mind. Anybody who has done much puzzle caching has run into one of these. I am not talking about the puzzles that once you solve you think "Oh! I should have gotten that!" No, I am talking about puzzles where even once you've solved it it still makes no sense.

 

Poor grammar and spelling. Sometimes misspellings are intentional and part of the puzzle. I don't mean those. I am referring to puzzles for which the description is almost indecipherable or the spelling is egregious. Come on, people. Spend a little bit of time with your listing!

 

Lack of testing. Puzzle solutions should always be tested before the puzzle is released. Even then, some errors will probably sneak through but if a CO has consistent errors in their puzzles it's usually a good indication that they haven't put much effort into them.

Edited September 2, 2015 by fizzymagic

[+J Grouchy]

The worst of these don't even give you any known digits (they will use the last 3 digits of latitude and longitude so there is no way to tell if you're on the right track) and have hundreds of possible solution methods.

 

On the contrary, I think this makes it more of a valid challenge. I typically at least leave off the N33 and W84 from my solutions because every cache I ever have hidden and ever will hide are in that range. As for the minute integers, it depends on the puzzle and how far from the posted coordinates I place the cache. It sort of takes away some of the effort involved if they know what certain values are supposed to be...it often allows a form of 'reverse engineering'.

[+narcissa]

Moon logic. That is a puzzle that requires you to read the creator's mind. Anybody who has done much puzzle caching has run into one of these. I am not talking about the puzzles that once you solve you think "Oh! I should have gotten that!" No, I am talking about puzzles where even once you've solved it it still makes no sense.

 

So even if some people like these, they're bad?

[+niraD]

The worst of these don't even give you any known digits (they will use the last 3 digits of latitude and longitude so there is no way to tell if you're on the right track) and have hundreds of possible solution methods.

On the contrary, I think this makes it more of a valid challenge. I typically at least leave off the N33 and W84 from my solutions because every cache I ever have hidden and ever will hide are in that range. As for the minute integers, it depends on the puzzle and how far from the posted coordinates I place the cache. It sort of takes away some of the effort involved if they know what certain values are supposed to be...it often allows a form of 'reverse engineering'.

I don't think fizzymagic is complaining about puzzles that use only the last 3 digits of latitude and longitude.

 

I think fizzymagic is complaining about "mental ivy" puzzles that use only the last 3 digits of latitude and longitude. Thus, there is no way to tell if you're on the right track.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The worst of these don't even give you any known digits (they will use the last 3 digits of latitude and longitude so there is no way to tell if you're on the right track) and have hundreds of possible solution methods.

 

On the contrary, I think this makes it more of a valid challenge. I typically at least leave off the N33 and W84 from my solutions because every cache I ever have hidden and ever will hide are in that range. As for the minute integers, it depends on the puzzle and how far from the posted coordinates I place the cache. It sort of takes away some of the effort involved if they know what certain values are supposed to be...it often allows a form of 'reverse engineering'.

 

Note that Fizzy's comment is in the context of needle in the haystack puzzles and that the issue is magnified when one is only solving for the minutes coordinates. For a puzzle where there's a reasonable clue on where the puzzle is or a general idea for how to proceed, solving only for the minutes portion isn't really a problem. However, when there isn't a clue on how to proceed, using at least the most significant digits of the minutes portion of the lat/long coordinates can help the solver know that at least they are on the right track. A puzzle solver may actually have found the right approach to solve the puzzle but wouldn't be able to tell if the numbers they're getting are correct (without a coordinate checker).

 

[+redsox_mark]

I like Fizzy's list.

 

And even if some think there are no traits of puzzles which can be agreed upon as "good" or "bad" (e.g. some people might like puzzles which weren't tested and don't work), we can say what we like to see in a puzzle.

 

For me, if I solve it, the main test is how I feel then. If I have an "ah-ha!" moment, and/or a "I should have thought of that sooner" moment, it is good. If I solved it but I can't see the logic - it was just the 67th thing I tried - then it's not so good - for me.

[+narcissa]

I like Fizzy's list.

 

And even if some think there are no traits of puzzles which can be agreed upon as "good" or "bad" (e.g. some people might like puzzles which weren't tested and don't work), we can say what we like to see in a puzzle.

 

For me, if I solve it, the main test is how I feel then. If I have an "ah-ha!" moment, and/or a "I should have thought of that sooner" moment, it is good. If I solved it but I can't see the logic - it was just the 67th thing I tried - then it's not so good - for me.

 

My husband and I originally got to know each other as geocachers working together on some very difficult caches. We have different ways of thinking - I am more inclined toward math, so figuring out puzzles or multis that require geometry is pretty easy for me. He hates math, but loves cracking crazy encrypted things and convoluted riddles that make my eyes water when I look at them. Together, we're a pretty unstoppable caching force because of our complementary skill sets (and it was geocaching and travelling together that made us realize we're a pretty unstoppable force in life, too).

 

Individually, we had very different ideas of what makes a "good" puzzle, but working together made us both more open-minded about approaching puzzles that are intimidating or frustrating at the start.

 

A few years ago, I probably would have agreed wholeheartedly with fizzymagic's list, but experience and seeing these things through someone else's eyes has softened me toward this type of thing. I know that many cache owners do get real enjoyment out of stumping people but are also genuinely pleased when someone finally gets it.

[+cheech gang]

I know that many cache owners do get real enjoyment out of stumping people but are also genuinely pleased when someone finally gets it.

 

...but should also be disappointed when NOBODY gets it. Then it is time to add some hints.

[+fuzziebear3]

The worst of these don't even give you any known digits (they will use the last 3 digits of latitude and longitude so there is no way to tell if you're on the right track) and have hundreds of possible solution methods.

On the contrary, I think this makes it more of a valid challenge. I typically at least leave off the N33 and W84 from my solutions because every cache I ever have hidden and ever will hide are in that range. As for the minute integers, it depends on the puzzle and how far from the posted coordinates I place the cache. It sort of takes away some of the effort involved if they know what certain values are supposed to be...it often allows a form of 'reverse engineering'.

I don't think fizzymagic is complaining about puzzles that use only the last 3 digits of latitude and longitude.

 

I think fizzymagic is complaining about "mental ivy" puzzles that use only the last 3 digits of latitude and longitude. Thus, there is no way to tell if you're on the right track.

 

As a solver, I definitely appreciate when I need to solve for the 39 and 84. It helps validate that I am taking the correct approach, as I move on to the digits with more variation.

 

I also really appreciate a checker. I often will miss a digit or make a small mistake somewhere along the line, the checker helps me to validate that I didn't make a mistake and avoid a wasteful trip and search.

[+narcissa]

I know that many cache owners do get real enjoyment out of stumping people but are also genuinely pleased when someone finally gets it.

 

...but should also be disappointed when NOBODY gets it. Then it is time to add some hints.

 

"Should" isn't the right word to use here. It's up to the cache owner to operate it as she/he sees fit.

[+dprovan]

Moon logic. That is a puzzle that requires you to read the creator's mind. Anybody who has done much puzzle caching has run into one of these. I am not talking about the puzzles that once you solve you think "Oh! I should have gotten that!" No, I am talking about puzzles where even once you've solved it it still makes no sense.

So even if some people like these, they're bad?

I'm having a hard time imagining who could like unsolvable puzzles, unless you're talking about friends of the CO that have other channels that allow them to learn what the CO is thinking. It's really not much fun to have to try a hundred random possibilities to see if any of them are what the CO used.

 

I know that many cache owners do get real enjoyment out of stumping people but are also genuinely pleased when someone finally gets it.

There's a fine line between being pleased when someone finally gets it, and being pleased that people have to come to you for help before they can get it. It's not "stumping" when there's no way to solve without asking the CO for help, but I suspect that at least some of these COs interpret asking for help as proof of a stump.

[+cheech gang]

I know that many cache owners do get real enjoyment out of stumping people but are also genuinely pleased when someone finally gets it.

 

...but should also be disappointed when NOBODY gets it. Then it is time to add some hints.

 

"Should" isn't the right word to use here. It's up to the cache owner to operate it as she/he sees fit.

 

Are we not talking about our opinions of what we feel makes a good puzzle experience?

[+narcissa]

 

I'm having a hard time imagining who could like unsolvable puzzles, unless you're talking about friends of the CO that have other channels that allow them to learn what the CO is thinking. It's really not much fun to have to try a hundred random possibilities to see if any of them are what the CO used.

 

 

Not fun for you. It's not what I think of as fun either. But I know some people who love figuring this stuff out. I don't really get it, but I'm not going to stomp all over their fun and tell them with some false authority that their caches are bad because they aren't to my taste.

[+narcissa]

I know that many cache owners do get real enjoyment out of stumping people but are also genuinely pleased when someone finally gets it.

 

...but should also be disappointed when NOBODY gets it. Then it is time to add some hints.

 

"Should" isn't the right word to use here. It's up to the cache owner to operate it as she/he sees fit.

 

Are we not talking about our opinions of what we feel makes a good puzzle experience?

 

Yes. We're not talking about what cache owners should feel.

 

If you prefer caches that are easier to solve, cool. Dictating how others should feel and what they should find fun? Problematic.

[+niraD]

For me, if I solve it, the main test is how I feel then. If I have an "ah-ha!" moment, and/or a "I should have thought of that sooner" moment, it is good. If I solved it but I can't see the logic - it was just the 67th thing I tried - then it's not so good - for me.

For many of the puzzles on my Favorites list, solving the puzzle gave me an appreciation for the elegance of the puzzle's design. It's a combination of "Aha!" and "Wow!"

 

For "mental ivy" puzzles, solving the puzzle gives me more of a "Finally, I'm done!" response.

[+bflentje]

What makes a bad puzzle...?

 

One that is so difficult that it goes two weeks before being scored. And as soon as FTF has been established, 15 people follow with their own finds because the puzzle is so mindbendingly difficult, that the FTF'er shared the information to the next 15.

[+on4bam]

And as soon as FTF has been established, 15 people follow with their own finds because the puzzle is so mindbendingly difficult, that the FTF'er shared the information to the next 15.

 

That goes for multi's too.

[+Zepp914]

A good puzzle is clear in the listing as to what is required. If there are multiple caches, it should list the # of steps. I don't like finding out at GZ that surprise its a multicache. I also hate when people hide additional puzzles or steps after you get the happy Geochecker message.

 

Otherwise fizzymagic hit the nail on the head.

[+cheech gang]

A good puzzle is clear in the listing as to what is required. If there are multiple caches, it should list the # of steps. I don't like finding out at GZ that surprise its a multicache. I also hate when people hide additional puzzles or steps after you get the happy Geochecker message.

 

Otherwise fizzymagic hit the nail on the head.

 

Hey, how did you get away with using the word "should"?

[+cheech gang]

Double post

Edited September 2, 2015 by cheech gang

[+narcissa]

A good puzzle is clear in the listing as to what is required. If there are multiple caches, it should list the # of steps. I don't like finding out at GZ that surprise its a multicache. I also hate when people hide additional puzzles or steps after you get the happy Geochecker message.

 

Otherwise fizzymagic hit the nail on the head.

 

Hey, how did you get away with using the word "should"?

 

Saying what the puzzle should contain to be "good" rather than saying what a cache owner should feel.

[+dprovan]

I'm having a hard time imagining who could like unsolvable puzzles, unless you're talking about friends of the CO that have other channels that allow them to learn what the CO is thinking. It's really not much fun to have to try a hundred random possibilities to see if any of them are what the CO used.

Not fun for you. It's not what I think of as fun either. But I know some people who love figuring this stuff out.

We're talking about caches that can't be figured out. fizzymagic is a perfect example of a CO that creates puzzles that are very, very difficult, and I think his puzzles are great, whether I can figure them out or not. The bad puzzles are the ones that you could try techniques forever without discovering the one the CO used. Those are the ones I can't imagine being fun for anyone.

[+narcissa]

I'm having a hard time imagining who could like unsolvable puzzles, unless you're talking about friends of the CO that have other channels that allow them to learn what the CO is thinking. It's really not much fun to have to try a hundred random possibilities to see if any of them are what the CO used.

Not fun for you. It's not what I think of as fun either. But I know some people who love figuring this stuff out.

We're talking about caches that can't be figured out. fizzymagic is a perfect example of a CO that creates puzzles that are very, very difficult, and I think his puzzles are great, whether I can figure them out or not. The bad puzzles are the ones that you could try techniques forever without discovering the one the CO used. Those are the ones I can't imagine being fun for anyone.

 

I'll take your word for it when it comes to an individual cache owner's puzzles. As a general rule I'm interested in topics, not people, so I don't look at profiles for people in the forums unless there's a really compelling reason to.

 

There are lots of things I can't imagine being fun, like golf, that some people in fact find fun beyond all reason. I live in an area where puzzles and puzzle one-upmanship is rampant, and I only know of one or two that were archived without ever being found. Some people enjoy the challenge, some people just refuse to be defeated. I might not understand it, but I'm not going to denigrate a puzzle or its owner because I don't get it.

 

I guess, in this era of geocaching populism, I just like to know that there are still cache owners out there being unique and non-conformist.

[+Zepp914]

 

Hey, how did you get away with using the word "should"?

 

Huh? Is that a banned word?

[+geocat_]

I know that many cache owners do get real enjoyment out of stumping people but are also genuinely pleased when someone finally gets it.

 

...but should also be disappointed when NOBODY gets it. Then it is time to add some hints.

 

"Should" isn't the right word to use here. It's up to the cache owner to operate it as she/he sees fit.

 

Are we not talking about our opinions of what we feel makes a good puzzle experience?

 

Yes. We're not talking about what cache owners should feel.

 

If you prefer caches that are easier to solve, cool. Dictating how others should feel and what they should find fun? Problematic.

 

But narcissa, you do realize that you are telling others how they should feel with your own responses.

 

To the OP, I think a good puzzle is one that is enjoyed by others. So a puzzle with no finds seems silly to me BUT I will say that it is possible working on such puzzles are still enjoyed by some masochists. It would appear that some "puzzles" are made by COs with the intention of not having a solution (or at least that may have been the case before they were required to provide solutions/process of solving to reviewers) are just BAD and not puzzles at all but a silly way of pumping up their ego.

 

Disclaimer: Everything I post is just MY OPINION

[+narcissa]

I know that many cache owners do get real enjoyment out of stumping people but are also genuinely pleased when someone finally gets it.

 

...but should also be disappointed when NOBODY gets it. Then it is time to add some hints.

 

"Should" isn't the right word to use here. It's up to the cache owner to operate it as she/he sees fit.

 

Are we not talking about our opinions of what we feel makes a good puzzle experience?

 

Yes. We're not talking about what cache owners should feel.

 

If you prefer caches that are easier to solve, cool. Dictating how others should feel and what they should find fun? Problematic.

 

But narcissa, you do realize that you are telling others how they should feel with your own responses.

 

To the OP, I think a good puzzle is one that is enjoyed by others. So a puzzle with no finds seems silly to me BUT I will say that it is possible working on such puzzles are still enjoyed by some masochists. It would appear that some "puzzles" are made by COs with the intention of not having a solution (or at least that may have been the case before they were required to provide solutions/process of solving to reviewers) are just BAD and not puzzles at all but a silly way of pumping up their ego.

 

Disclaimer: Everything I post is just MY OPINION

 

Please specify.

[+fizzymagic]

Some people enjoy the challenge, some people just refuse to be defeated. I might not understand it, but I'm not going to denigrate a puzzle or its owner because I don't get it.

 

I, personally, have never met anybody who enjoys mind-reading games like that, and I suspect that I have solved and found a few more puzzle caches than you have.

 

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. How about you produce one of these people, and I give them a classic moon logic puzzle (it will be a legitimate geocaching puzzle, with final coordinates and plenty of clues) and then have them solve it and tell the rest of us whether or not they like it.

 

Since you claim to know so many cachers who enjoy moon logic puzzles, this cannot be difficult for you at all.

 

Or, even better, how about you volunteer to solve it? While you are working on it, we'll taunt you, and (if you ever actually solve it) then you can tell us about how you found it enjoyable.

 

Sounds fair to me. Go for it.

 

Well, either that or quit making these claims.

[+dprovan]

I'll take your word for it when it comes to an individual cache owner's puzzles.

Thanks!

 

As a general rule I'm interested in topics, not people, so I don't look at profiles for people in the forums unless there's a really compelling reason to.

I think you're missed that we're talking about fizzymagic's ideas about moon logic puzzles, so you didn't understand that I mentioned the quality of his puzzles to underscore that he can't possibly be talking about merely hard puzzles. He has created many of those that lots of people, including me, enjoy. We're talking about puzzles that are literally impossible unless the CO tells you how to solve them.

[+Team Microdot]

We're talking about puzzles that are literally impossible unless the CO tells you how to solve them.

 

In my experience, such puzzles are often created by people who rarely or even never solve puzzles themselves.

[+fizzymagic]

We're talking about puzzles that are literally impossible unless the CO tells you how to solve them.

 

In my experience, such puzzles are often created by people who rarely or even never solve puzzles themselves.

 

Absolutely! Making good puzzles requires practice and experience. One of the most important things is to learn to put yourself in the shoes of those who are solving the puzzle -- to see the puzzle the way they do, not knowing the answer. Moon logic and mental ivy caches are generally the result of inexperience. We are lucky in my area to have some community activities that expose everyone to the solution process and to some very good puzzles.

 

Pretending that all puzzles are equally good means that those without much experience are deprived of a chance to learn to do better.

Edited September 3, 2015 by fizzymagic

[+Team Microdot]

We're talking about puzzles that are literally impossible unless the CO tells you how to solve them.

 

In my experience, such puzzles are often created by people who rarely or even never solve puzzles themselves.

 

Absolutely! Making good puzzles requires practice and experience. One of the most important things is to learn to put yourself in the shoes of those who are solving the puzzle -- to see the puzzle the way they do, not knowing the answer. Moon logic and mental ivy caches are generally the result of inexperience. We are lucky in my area to have some community activities that expose everyone to the solution process and to some very good puzzles.

 

Pretending that all puzzles are equally good means that those without much experience are deprived of a chance to learn to do better.

 

Also in my experience, some of the worst puzzles I've encountered were those where a perfectly good puzzle was taken by a non-puzzle solver who then added a twist to make it harder, breaking that good puzzle and insulting the original CO in the process

[+narcissa]

Some people enjoy the challenge, some people just refuse to be defeated. I might not understand it, but I'm not going to denigrate a puzzle or its owner because I don't get it.

 

I, personally, have never met anybody who enjoys mind-reading games like that, and I suspect that I have solved and found a few more puzzle caches than you have.

 

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. How about you produce one of these people, and I give them a classic moon logic puzzle (it will be a legitimate geocaching puzzle, with final coordinates and plenty of clues) and then have them solve it and tell the rest of us whether or not they like it.

 

Since you claim to know so many cachers who enjoy moon logic puzzles, this cannot be difficult for you at all.

 

Or, even better, how about you volunteer to solve it? While you are working on it, we'll taunt you, and (if you ever actually solve it) then you can tell us about how you found it enjoyable.

 

Sounds fair to me. Go for it.

 

Well, either that or quit making these claims.

 

I am married to someone who weirdly appreciates moon logic caches. And there are a couple of others around here who create these things so I assume there is some enjoyment for them as well. I don't get it, I don't try to. I just don't think there is any need to bully a cache owner because his/her caches don't appeal to me.

 

Seriously, look at your post. Are you actually claiming that cache owners who make puzzles you don't like somehow also come into your home to taunt you about it? That's creepy but highly unlikely. Notes on a cache page that I am ignoring because I'm not interested in the cache? Those aren't "taunts."

 

I understand that some cachers really feel that they are required and entitled to find every cache. Want to talk about moon logic? That's moon logic. I'm not meeting you at the playground with switchblades because you've taken personal offense at the mere fact of disagreement.

 

There is room on this planet and in this game for all kinds of caches, and yet there are constantly people trying to eliminate everything they don't like. It is so very rare that I see or hear about an "unsolvable" cache listing. I can't fathom why a handful of ?s on the map are a problem, or why this topic generates so much anger that you are actually telling me to quit posting about it.