+J Grouchy Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 So today I got a notification of a new traditional cache near my office. I couldn't go out immediately, so I had to wait a bit to head over. When I arrived at the park's parking lot, two cachers were already there with the cache in hand. They told me there was no log book and they were putting one inside. We signed it (I didn't claim FTF since I arrived third, basically) and all left, logging our respective finds online. I then received a message from the CO that the log WAS in the cache, but was hidden and the FTF was still "up for grabs". Oh, brother. So my point to him was that was not clear in the description and that normally a cache where one had to do something other than find the cache container would be classified as a mystery. At the very least, I argued, he ought to be more straightforward in the description about the log sheet being hidden in the container. So if it isn't a puzzle to solve for coordinates, a puzzle to solve to access the log sheet or a lock or some other mechanism to open the container itself...but just a simple hidden log sheet inside the cache, would this be considered a mystery or traditional? I based my argument on the expectations of the finders: a traditional only requires finding the cache itself in order to sign the log while a mystery may require more thinking or investigation in order to get their name on the log. Guess I'm wondering now if I made the appropriate argument. What's your take? Quote Link to comment
+Path Pacer Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) I would call it a traditional with the field puzzle attribute. A mystery cache usually contains a puzzle you have to solve before you can go find the cache. Edited March 23, 2016 by Path Pacer Quote Link to comment
+TriciaG Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I would call it a traditional with the field puzzle attribute. A mystery cache usually contains a puzzle you have to solve before you can go find the cache. I agree. Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 At the very least, I argued, he ought to be more straightforward in the description about the log sheet being hidden in the container. Yes, especially if he wants his cache to participate in a legitimate FTF game. Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 At the very least, I argued, he ought to be more straightforward in the description about the log sheet being hidden in the container. Agreed. Whether it was listed as a Traditional or a Mystery, I'd expect at least a vague nudging that you need to look further for the log and that extra logs shouldn't be helpfully added to the container. I'm not sure how the description read initially, but it currently contains the following: THERE IS A LOG INSIDE THE CACHE! I'm assuming this was added later, and I think is sufficient. The CO will still want to check the cache fairly frequently to check for any helpfully-added logs, though. Quote Link to comment
medoug Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I also agree that it is a traditional with the field puzzle attribute. But, the CO should have at least included a note in or label on the cache specifying that the log is contained within and the puzzle needs to be solved to access and sign it so the log wouldn't just be assumed missing as all of you did. Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted March 23, 2016 Author Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) At the very least, I argued, he ought to be more straightforward in the description about the log sheet being hidden in the container. Yes, especially if he wants his cache to participate in a legitimate FTF game. That was added later after my discussion with the CO. Turns out the log was hidden inside a 'swag' flashlight in the cache. So not only was it not readily apparent from the original description that the log was hidden, but it was hidden inside something that would probably be taken from the cache at some point by a swag trader. Edited March 23, 2016 by J Grouchy Quote Link to comment
medoug Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) I'm not sure how the description read initially, but it currently contains the following: THERE IS A LOG INSIDE THE CACHE! I'm assuming this was added later, and I think is sufficient. The CO will still want to check the cache fairly frequently to check for any helpfully-added logs, though. Now the cache contains two logs: The one hidden by the CO, and the one added by the FTFers. - If this note was added to the description since it's publish, the owner needs to visit the cache to remove the added logbook. - If the note was in the description when it was published, it'd be nice if the FTFers were to return to fix their mistake for not following directions. - It still wouldn't hurt for the CO to include a similar note on the cache container itself to eliminate future misunderstandings, especially since lots of geocachers don't seem to read the descriptions anymore. Edited March 23, 2016 by medoug Quote Link to comment
medoug Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 That was added later after my discussion with the CO. Turns out the log was hidden inside a 'swag' flashlight in the cache. So not only was it not readily apparent from the original description that the log was hidden, but it was hidden inside something that would probably be taken from the cache at some point by a swag trader. That's not a good method. We had a "Little Library" cache in our area where the log was hidden in one of the books. Eventually someone "checked out" that particular book so the log was missing. Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) Turns out the log was hidden inside a 'swag' flashlight in the cache.So not only was it not readily apparent from the original description that the log was hidden, but it was hidden inside something that would probably be taken from the cache at some point by a swag trader. +1 Sounds like the CO was attempting to be clever, and that's not panning out so well. Agree that when someone trades the flashlight, maintenance would have be done for that missing log. Kinda wondering if the theme they were looking for would continue as items are traded, resulting in a lotta maintenance . Seems like their cute idea could be more hassle than it's worth. Luckily there's an extra log JIC now. Edited March 23, 2016 by cerberus1 Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Sounds like the CO was attempting to be clever, and that's not panning out so well. Agree that when someone trades the flashlight, maintenance would have be done for that missing log. Kinda wondering if the theme they were looking for would continue as items are traded, resulting in a lotta maintenance . Seems like their cute idea could be more hassle than it's worth. Luckily there's an extra log JIC now. "I stopped by today to find your cache! Took the flashlight swag, left a logbook since there wasn't one. TFTC!" Quote Link to comment
+Mudfrog Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 At the very least, I argued, he ought to be more straightforward in the description about the log sheet being hidden in the container. Agreed. Whether it was listed as a Traditional or a Mystery, I'd expect at least a vague nudging that you need to look further for the log and that extra logs shouldn't be helpfully added to the container. I'm not sure how the description read initially, but it currently contains the following: THERE IS A LOG INSIDE THE CACHE! I'm assuming this was added later, and I think is sufficient. The CO will still want to check the cache fairly frequently to check for any helpfully-added logs, though. For sure! Many people don't read the cache description in the first place. Then on top of that, you have people like me who read the description, and after opening the container, still might think the log had been taken. There's really no way to make a cache like this foolproof without giving the trick away. Because this one is listed as traditional, the CO has to realize that many people are going to add their own scraps of paper when they don't see a logbook/sheet. Quote Link to comment
+noncentric Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 The only way to help this type of 'tricky' cache would be to secure the log holder (flashlight/book/etc) to the cache container somehow. Maybe with a wire or zip-tie, although I'm not sure how best to do that without compromising the waterproof-ness of the container. With a flashlight though, it's still likely finders will think the log is missing. Maybe put a label on the secured flashlight that says "Open Me" and/or "Logbook inside". Cuts down on the trickery a bit, but better than having finders think the log is missing. Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted March 24, 2016 Author Share Posted March 24, 2016 All this is why I suggested to him that anything beyond simply finding the cache likely made it more of a 'mystery' type. My comment to him was this: Puzzle caches don't necessarily involve solving a puzzle to get coordinates. If accessing the log requires more than just finding the cache container, it would typically be classified as a puzzle by Groundspeak. Examples include solving a puzzle containing a log book (http://coord.info/GC440B4), opening a lock that is holding the cache container closed (http://coord.info/GC5VW71 or http://coord.info/GC5BTAC)...or just finding a special hiding place within the cache itself where the log sheet is contained. Traditional are intended to be straightforward: find the cache. Anyone looking for a mystery knows there may be something different about the cache, which is why it is often classified this way. Anyone looking for a traditional expects to only have to find the cache itself. I think if you'd explained to the reviewer in your Reviewer Note that the log was hidden, he probably would have wanted either to change the type or have this more explicitly spelled out in the description at the very least. While I understand the suggestion for a field puzzle attribute is probably closer to correct for this sort of thing, I think it's fair to say that more people read cache descriptions than actually look at attributes. Since this one is a straightforward find as far as how the cache container is hidden at the posted coordinates, making the type a mystery is much more likely to give folks a reason to read through the description. Either way, just rolling the log into a flashlight in the cache feels more like deception than any sort of puzzle. I'd be more impressed with some sort of hidden compartment or a puzzle box or combination lock for hiding the log. Quote Link to comment
medoug Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 I think it's fair to say that more people read cache descriptions than actually look at attributes. ^ True. I can't count the times that an on-line log was left complaining that they didn't appreciate walking in the woods wearing shorts and flipflops even though the attributes on the cache clearly contained "poisonous plants", "thorny plants", and "ticks". Obviously these people are used to the more-recent dominance of urban and park-n-grab caches, not forest/hiking caches which the hobby originally started with. Quote Link to comment
medoug Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Perhaps the CO wanted the cache to be more challenging for the FTF, STF, TTFers, and then after that they plan to return it to a standard logbook format. A better way to do this is to omit a "additional hint" and then add it after the race to FTF is over. Another way is to not provide a GeoChecker on a mystery cache until after the first few finds. Quote Link to comment
+zoothornrollo Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 All this is why I suggested to him that anything beyond simply finding the cache likely made it more of a 'mystery' type. My comment to him was this: Puzzle caches don't necessarily involve solving a puzzle to get coordinates. If accessing the log requires more than just finding the cache container, it would typically be classified as a puzzle by Groundspeak. Examples include solving a puzzle containing a log book (http://coord.info/GC440B4), opening a lock that is holding the cache container closed (http://coord.info/GC5VW71 or http://coord.info/GC5BTAC)...or just finding a special hiding place within the cache itself where the log sheet is contained. Traditional are intended to be straightforward: find the cache. Anyone looking for a mystery knows there may be something different about the cache, which is why it is often classified this way. Anyone looking for a traditional expects to only have to find the cache itself. I think if you'd explained to the reviewer in your Reviewer Note that the log was hidden, he probably would have wanted either to change the type or have this more explicitly spelled out in the description at the very least. While I understand the suggestion for a field puzzle attribute is probably closer to correct for this sort of thing, I think it's fair to say that more people read cache descriptions than actually look at attributes. Since this one is a straightforward find as far as how the cache container is hidden at the posted coordinates, making the type a mystery is much more likely to give folks a reason to read through the description. Either way, just rolling the log into a flashlight in the cache feels more like deception than any sort of puzzle. I'd be more impressed with some sort of hidden compartment or a puzzle box or combination lock for hiding the log. I rarely look at attributes. Quote Link to comment
+AustinMN Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 All this is why I suggested to him that anything beyond simply finding the cache likely made it more of a 'mystery' type. My comment to him was this: Puzzle caches don't necessarily involve solving a puzzle to get coordinates. If accessing the log requires more than just finding the cache container, it would typically be classified as a puzzle by Groundspeak. Examples include solving a puzzle containing a log book (http://coord.info/GC440B4), opening a lock that is holding the cache container closed (http://coord.info/GC5VW71 or http://coord.info/GC5BTAC)...or just finding a special hiding place within the cache itself where the log sheet is contained. Traditional are intended to be straightforward: find the cache. Anyone looking for a mystery knows there may be something different about the cache, which is why it is often classified this way. Anyone looking for a traditional expects to only have to find the cache itself. I think if you'd explained to the reviewer in your Reviewer Note that the log was hidden, he probably would have wanted either to change the type or have this more explicitly spelled out in the description at the very least. While I understand the suggestion for a field puzzle attribute is probably closer to correct for this sort of thing, I think it's fair to say that more people read cache descriptions than actually look at attributes. Since this one is a straightforward find as far as how the cache container is hidden at the posted coordinates, making the type a mystery is much more likely to give folks a reason to read through the description. Either way, just rolling the log into a flashlight in the cache feels more like deception than any sort of puzzle. I'd be more impressed with some sort of hidden compartment or a puzzle box or combination lock for hiding the log. I rarely look at attributes. So? There are prople who don't read cache descriptions, don't look at D/Tratings, and...dare I say it...don't actually find caches. Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 I was out of town when this was posted, so I'm only just now catching up. My take is that the CO was being silly. 3 cachers at GZ together missed the artificial "puzzle" the CO had created, so while I sympathize with the CO, that clearly demonstrates he goofed up. Even so, I'd accept the CO's bogus ruling, delete my find, and go back to find the "true" log, but I'd still think the CO was at fault. Quote Link to comment
+BAMBOOZLE Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 All this is why I suggested to him that anything beyond simply finding the cache likely made it more of a 'mystery' type. My comment to him was this: Puzzle caches don't necessarily involve solving a puzzle to get coordinates. If accessing the log requires more than just finding the cache container, it would typically be classified as a puzzle by Groundspeak. Examples include solving a puzzle containing a log book (http://coord.info/GC440B4), opening a lock that is holding the cache container closed (http://coord.info/GC5VW71 or http://coord.info/GC5BTAC)...or just finding a special hiding place within the cache itself where the log sheet is contained. Traditional are intended to be straightforward: find the cache. Anyone looking for a mystery knows there may be something different about the cache, which is why it is often classified this way. Anyone looking for a traditional expects to only have to find the cache itself. I think if you'd explained to the reviewer in your Reviewer Note that the log was hidden, he probably would have wanted either to change the type or have this more explicitly spelled out in the description at the very least. While I understand the suggestion for a field puzzle attribute is probably closer to correct for this sort of thing, I think it's fair to say that more people read cache descriptions than actually look at attributes. Since this one is a straightforward find as far as how the cache container is hidden at the posted coordinates, making the type a mystery is much more likely to give folks a reason to read through the description. Either way, just rolling the log into a flashlight in the cache feels more like deception than any sort of puzzle. I'd be more impressed with some sort of hidden compartment or a puzzle box or combination lock for hiding the log. I agree.....Re attributes, while I put them on all my hides I rarely check them on caches I'm looking for. Quote Link to comment
+jellis Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 At the very least, I argued, he ought to be more straightforward in the description about the log sheet being hidden in the container. Yes, especially if he wants his cache to participate in a legitimate FTF game. That was added later after my discussion with the CO. Turns out the log was hidden inside a 'swag' flashlight in the cache. So not only was it not readily apparent from the original description that the log was hidden, but it was hidden inside something that would probably be taken from the cache at some point by a swag trader. We did one like that. The CO didn't say the log was hidden and we were too busy with the travel bugs thinking the other cacher had signed it. We went back and eventually found the logsheet in a pen. Another object that could be picked up by accident. Quote Link to comment
+Wagonmaker Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Referring back to the original question: I don't think there is anything wrong with labeling this cache as a traditional, and I also don't think the owner needs to say squat about how to access the log. A traditional cache is found at the posted coordinates, but could still require some trickery to get your name on the log. The onus is on the cache finder to do what they must to get their name in the log. If it appears that there is no log in the cache, my first assumption would be to look more thoroughly at the things in the cache, not to assume the CO "did it wrong" and forgot a logbook, so I'll just take the liberty of adding one myself. (Which I would only ever do after checking with the CO first.) Now, all this being said, I do agree that a flashlight just looks like swag, and could easily be removed by accident as a tradable item. The flashlight would need to be secured somehow, or, be the only thing in the cache. There is one cache around here where the only thing in the cache is an old film camera, and you have to figure out that you needed to pull the logbook out of the film compartment to sign in. That one is also labeled (appropriately, in my opinion) as a traditional. Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 The only way to help this type of 'tricky' cache would be to secure the log holder (flashlight/book/etc) to the cache container somehow. Maybe with a wire or zip-tie, although I'm not sure how best to do that without compromising the waterproof-ness of the container. With a flashlight though, it's still likely finders will think the log is missing. Maybe put a label on the secured flashlight that says "Open Me" and/or "Logbook inside". Cuts down on the trickery a bit, but better than having finders think the log is missing. +1 If the cache's name, description, or difficulty presented itself that there was more to a cache than something straight-forward, maybe I'd look around inside the container a bit. - But no one I know would look more thoroughly at the things in a cache, assuming that the log had to be inside "something". Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.