Jump to content

Puzzles checker in geocaching.com


TimenPatricia

Recommended Posts

Coordinates checker?

 

Hi all ,

 

Again i come across a cache with difficult puzzles and without a checker.

I really dont get it why caches are approved without a checker.

 

Reviewers always wanna have permissions from the land / place owner where the cache is hidden. But why? You know what is much worse?

A cache with difficult puzzles and without a checker and yes you think you have the good coordinates goto the place and yes it end near a graveyard. The really amazing part is that people really look everywhere there and its a mess! 50 meters wide all search marks because of some people don't have a checker in there cache. This is only one cache but with our experience where seeing this more often.

 

So my question is.. why don't build a checker option into geocaching.com when people click on the Question ? to make a cache, theres a cache checker build in. Its no rocket science and you already have the coordinates (hidden) so a simple php script and your done.

With this checker always enabled you spare a lot of searching people with the wrong coordinates!

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Tim

Edited by TimenPatricia
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Checkers are not always functional. I had to switch some of my caches to a different checker last week. Unless as suggested, GS sets up an in-house checker, it's good as always to ask the cache owner. Or skip that cache.

Link to post

Maybe it's just me, but most puzzle caches I've done (solo) were so simple they didn't really need one.

- The reason this dyslexic old fart did 'em. :laughing:

 

I know that there's many who're very comfortable with the higher difficulty puzzles too, as many we've done with others, they've solved the puzzle, while I handled the terrain end (that they may not be so comfortable with).

 

Something we're experiencing more often is non-working checkers. :D

I don't feel checkers on cache pages should be mandatory, but optional, as it is now, thanks.

Link to post

Maybe it's just me, but most puzzle caches I've done (solo) were so simple they didn't really need one.

- The reason this dyslexic old fart did 'em. :laughing:

 

I know that there's many who're very comfortable with the higher difficulty puzzles too, as many we've done with others, they've solved the puzzle, while I handled the terrain end (that they may not be so comfortable with).

 

Something we're experiencing more often is non-working checkers. :D

I don't feel checkers on cache pages should be mandatory, but optional, as it is now, thanks.

Some COs probably prefer that catchers not be able to plug in coordinate ideas at a rate of 3 guesses per day. Especially when the puzzle solution leaves no room for error.

Link to post

well I think its a weird system now:

Yes geocaching wanna know if the cache is aproved by the landowner. But no we dont care if someone makes a puzzle and people search some hectare of forest where nobody gots permission to be because theres simply no checker in the cache.

 

Theres nothing wrong with a cache puzzle but in the end its all about the correct cordinates right?

And if i see how forests are broke down because of the simpel fact that theres no checker in the puzzle and people search because of the CO dont respond and yes it must be correct so i go look for it... i really think thats a weird thing.

 

Regards,

 

Tim

 

And i dont mean a checkbox just make it static or dont make puzzles ;)

Edited by TimenPatricia
Link to post

And, a lot of my puzzle caches were put out before checkers were available. I'm not going back to add them.

IIRC, we did one of yours around '06 or so.

Those days, we simply tried again later, crossing our Ts maybe, if we didn't get it right the first time.

Not a special trip, but it'd be attempted again when in the area. :)

 

Today, similar to what hunarion said earlier, folks sometimes get "3 guesses per day" without leaving the house using these checkers, seeming (to me) to lower the rated D/T a bit.

 

I'd probably do more of yours if I could spend the time guessing coords insteada hoofin' it. :laughing:

Link to post
Some COs probably prefer that catchers not be able to plug in coordinate ideas at a rate of 3 guesses per day. Especially when the puzzle solution leaves no room for error.
And especially when figuring out which of a handful of locations is the correct solution. I've found a few puzzle caches like that, and requiring a checker would spoil that part of the design, unless the checker could be programmed to acknowledge all of the potential locations with some ambiguous response.
Link to post

I don't know if I would require puzzle checkers- some type of puzzles have less to do with the coordinates and more to do with following clues. And a puzzle is easy enough to ignore if a checker is not included.

 

I usually don't see any need to solve a puzzle if my time and effort is not respected by including a means to verify coordinates before I go someplace to search - I am too old and curmudgeonly to play that type of game. There are some areas where I commonly do not look for caches and would not search unless I know my solution is correct. Then again I usually don't see a need to solve a puzzle in order to find a plastic container so lack of a checker is one way to narrow things down.

Edited by geodarts
Link to post

It really depends on the class of puzzle too. Some are an all-or-nothing solution - you get the answer and you know it. Others are mathematically uncertain, or digitally uncertain, and there's no way to know if your answer is correct because there are mulitple components.

 

For example, a rot13 puzzle would be the former.

A multi-question ABC XYZ coordinate digit replacement puzzle would be the latter.

 

A checker for the latter is typically a good idea; not only to avoid having people search in potentially dangerous or illegal places if they're wrong, but also to assuage any unneeded frustration on the side of the cacher. It's like intentionally fuzzy coordinates; that's not really fun... or at least, it's a different kind of fun =P

Link to post

well I think its a weird system now:

Yes geocaching wanna know if the cache is aproved by the landowner. But no we dont care if someone makes a puzzle and people search some hectare of forest where nobody gots permission to be because theres simply no checker in the cache.

 

Regardless whether or not someone else cares, searching without knowing the correct spot is a bad idea. Especially your broken down forest scenario. The scorched earth policy of many "Geocachers" is a very poor practice, and rationalizing it due to "no coordinate checker" is even worse. Or whatever the excuse of the day is. <_<

Edited by kunarion
Link to post

And, a lot of my puzzle caches were put out before checkers were available. I'm not going back to add them.

What is your intention if I'm unsure if I solved it? Some in this thread say they just won't try such puzzles... is the idea that I ignore yours? Or will you verify that I'm correct if I write when I've solved it?

 

I've placed caches aside when I can't tell where the cache may be. On a Wherigo, the CO deleted my DNF (the display directed me to a house address, not coords, I didn't find a cache, but I did see a house). To the bottom of the pile it goes, and unlike a lot of "Geocachers" around here, I will not destroy property in passive-aggressive protest of "the lack of a geochecker". That isn't even Geocaching, it's crime. Disgraceful activity, but it's what passes for Geocaching suggestions around the Forum. Hey, vandalism is a cherished Geocaching acitvity, don't you dare stifle freedom speech about property destruction. ...I've been told... in no uncertain terms... :ph34r:

 

I set up at least one of my "?" caches for the purpose of having a quiet cache -- people skip those. The puzzle's pretty easy. But it has a checker, also (as with other caches of mine) a request that if you're stuck, to ask me.

Edited by kunarion
Link to post

I think that is doesnt matter what i think or you guys think. We all are geocachers right? So thats a fact, then you have geocachers who like nature (like me) with a checker builtin nature stays nature where nothing is going to be found (wrong answers in puzzles) and you have geocachers that doesnt care about nature but these people benefit from this checker also because we dont goto places where we got nothing to look for no complaining from farmers what the hell we are doing on there land etc. Because thats the reason in the first place why reviewers ask if you got permission or not. We like to have a GOOD name.

So puzzles without checkers is really a bad idea and theres no reason whats so ever not to put a checker in there. it doesnt spoil anything because you already got the good coordinates! and if you got the wrong one some farmer/person is happy because you dont come for no reason on there land and give geocachers a BAD name.

Link to post

I'm a big fan of checkers and encourage puzzle cache CO's to use one. But I see no reason to require it, and I definitely don't want geocaching.com to provide a default one because that will drive innovation out of the checker "market".

 

But that's beside the point. The problem with this thread is that you're blaming the CO for the damage done by seekers. Damaging the land and trespassing are both bad, but they're still the seeker's responsibility. It doesn't matter if they're done based on the posted coordinates of a traditional, a checked puzzle solution, or the seeker's unconfirmed guess.

Link to post

I'm a big fan of checkers and encourage puzzle cache CO's to use one. But I see no reason to require it, and I definitely don't want geocaching.com to provide a default one because that will drive innovation out of the checker "market".

 

But that's beside the point. The problem with this thread is that you're blaming the CO for the damage done by seekers. Damaging the land and trespassing are both bad, but they're still the seeker's responsibility. It doesn't matter if they're done based on the posted coordinates of a traditional, a checked puzzle solution, or the seeker's unconfirmed guess.

 

No i dont blame anyone but you cant tell me you can search for a cache without leaving search marks or without trespassing maybe prohibited property...

And you talk in one person, i talk in manny persons who seek on the wrong places because of the fact there puzzle answers is wrong.

Link to post
I think that is doesnt matter what i think or you guys think.
And yet you're trying to convince us to think the way you think.

 

theres no reason whats so ever not to put a checker in there.
Sure there are. Some have even been mentioned in this thread.

 

it doesnt spoil anything because you already got the good coordinates!
Except for puzzles where a checker would spoil the puzzle by allowing a brute force attack.

 

Coordinates checkers and checksums are useful for many puzzles. But there are other puzzles where they don't make sense, or where they would allow a brute force attack. The CO is in the best position to decide this. We don't need mandatory coordinates checkers for all mystery/puzzle caches.

Link to post
No i dont blame anyone but you cant tell me you can search for a cache without leaving search marks or without trespassing maybe prohibited property...
More than once I've walked away because I realized that my puzzle solution would put me somewhere that would involve trespassing.

 

Go and do likewise.

Link to post

I just solved a series of 38 mysteries without checkers but looking at the OSM map they all are very close to walking paths, form a logical loop and are in the correct order. I suspect they are all correct B) We'll soon find out...

It's nice to have a checker but if there is none and I'm not sure, I'll ask the CO. If I question the solution enough I will just skip that cache, no worries...

Link to post

No i dont blame anyone but you cant tell me you can search for a cache without leaving search marks or without trespassing maybe prohibited property...

Yes, I absolutely can tell you that you can search without leaving marks and without trespassing. Furthermore, I insist that it's your responsibility to do just that at all times.

 

And you talk in one person, i talk in manny persons who seek on the wrong places because of the fact there puzzle answers is wrong.

It makes no difference how many people are involved when they all behave the way they should. I agree that there are times COs need to take the traffic they're creating into account, and I'll even concede that in some cases, a checker should be used to minimize the problem of errant traffic. But that doesn't change the fact that the people hurting the environment by their searches are wrong and shouldn't be made to seem acceptable by accommodating them in the manner you suggest.

 

This is just a firm standard that should be applied in all cases. But in the case of a puzzle cache, one additional suggestion is to discourage people from thinking they should look for a cache unless they're fairly certain where it is. If you're so unsure of your answer that you think there's a good change a checker will reject it, then just skip the cache. It's no different than a puzzle that you have absolutely no idea how to solve.

Link to post

And, a lot of my puzzle caches were put out before checkers were available. I'm not going back to add them.

What is your intention if I'm unsure if I solved it? Some in this thread say they just won't try such puzzles... is the idea that I ignore yours? Or will you verify that I'm correct if I write when I've solved it?

 

If a cacher asks whether s/he has the correct solution, I will tell him/her.

Link to post

I'd like to put my two cents in.... I do agree with TimenPatricia. I think that an easy cache is in the eyes of the beholder.  If I am going to travel an hour or more to then hike in a kilometre to get to a possible location, I'd like to have some assurance that I was in the right area.  I think that if I have done the work solving a cache then I will go and find it.  Many of the cache owners who have not chosen to include a Geochecker are gracious enough to confirm coords by messaging, in my area, since many are deep in forest tracts.  I have also had others who don't respond to requests. It becomes a safety/legal factor.  You don't want to be wandering unnecessarily around a forest or on private property, etc. (As previously stated in others' comments). Either way, having a Geochecker as a requirement for placing a puzzle cache is a good idea in my opinion.  "Three tries a day" rule is fine by me.  P.s. New to posting. Thanks for all the interesting thoughts! 

Link to post

I don't think checkers should be mandatory. As others have said, there are some puzzles with an all-or-nothing solution, like coordinates spelt out in words when the text is decoded or an image that the numbers appear in when the trick is performed, so there's never any ambiguity about the correctness of a solution. For others, such as matching photos to a series of virtual waypoint locations, there's a limited set of possible outcomes that would be too easy to brute force with a checker. And for field puzzles in remote locations where there's no internet access, a checker would be pointless.

It's horses for courses. In my puzzles I provide a checker when I think it'd be helpful without giving too much away, for others maybe a checksum, a good option for remote locations with no internet, or even a description of GZ (such as five metres from the road or on top of a hill) as a correctness aid.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I think that there are two issues here:

1.  Should all puzzle caches be required to have a checker?.  For reasons given by others above, I think the answer is "No"

2.  Should Groundspeak provide a puzzle-checker on their web site?  Given that Evince has gone away and there is the possibility that other third-party checkers could also go away, then I think that this would be a great idea.   Maybe we should continue a discussion on the features we would like to see in such a checker and try to prod Groundspeak into making one.

 

To that end, I would like to see:

A checker which allows two checks without time limitation and then subsequent checks have a longer delay between them.  Maybe 30 seconds between 2 and 3, one minute between 3 and 4, 5 minutes between 4 & 5 etc.  With a maximum number per day.

A checker which allows +/- a fudge factor (for ballistic puzzles etc.) with the true coordinates given in the "Correct!" page.

The ability to provide hints, images etc. in the "Correct!" page.

The ability to enter coordinates in one field or in several fields - in other words, enter N12 34.567 as one field or N; 12; 34; 567 as separate fields.  If only one, use the one field approach. 

A checker which provides the ability (as an option) to automatically fill in the corrected coordinates field.

 

Link to post

Another feature that is useful for some puzzles is a keyword checker. The geocacher enters a keyword instead of coordinates, and if the keyword is correct, then the "Correct!" page provides the actual coordinates.

Link to post
11 hours ago, missskitty said:

All great features , Gill & Tony.   I agree, it would be logical for Groundspeak to provide one so that it would be consistent.  I would especially like to see the "fudge factor" option included.  

i think that one of the issues here is the use of the term "mandatory" as implies a cache owner has to do something extra when creating a new puzzle cache.  If GS implemented a coordinate checker it wouldn't be mandatory, but instead be "automatic".   Every puzzle cache created today has at least two sets of waypoints, one for the published coordinates and one set tagged as "FINAL".  The implementation of a coordinate checker would simply be to automatically include a "Check Your Solution" button on a puzzle cache with a "FINAL" additional waypoint, that would lead to a page for geocachers to enter in coordinates to be verified.   Cache owners wouldn't have to do anything.  It would automatically be included.   In fact, every puzzle cache that exists today with a FINAL additional waypoint would get the "Check Your Solution" button on their cache page without any CO interaction. To take this further, *any* additional waypoint could be verified as well (multiple stages on a mulit?), again, without the cache owner having to do anything.  

Of course, there are some that will object even if they don't have to do anything so I supposed GS could add an "opt-out" button when creating a new listing for the small number of geocacher that don't want a coordinate checker on principle.

It would require some sort of CO interaction if the CO wanted to add a fudge factor or keyword, or that CO could just use one of the 3rd party checkers available. 

Link to post
On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 0:51 PM, niraD said:

More than once I've walked away because I realized that my puzzle solution would put me somewhere that would involve trespassing.

 

Go and do likewise.

I agree.

Sometimes I feel this hobby has reached similar to others,  where hands have to be held simply due to a lack of common sense.

Sheesh...

Edited by cerberus1
spellification
Link to post

Some years ago I prefer to add checker to the most mystery caches I made. A friend of mine said pretty wisely: "You can't break a mystery by adding a checker to it."

Later I found that geocheckers are widely misused to check coordinates not originated from the puzzle itself but from some other sources like events etc.

Now I add checkers only to those puzzles, which are so poorly defined, that the player really needs to guess the right answer.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

It would be great if geocaching.com and the app provided a built-in checker for every puzzle cache. I would also like to see it integrated with the feature to where if you checker has the coordinates within 12 ft of the solution, that one could click a button to fill this in automatically into the corrected coordinates field

Link to post

An old series was made up of puzzle/mystery caches no longer allowed.  They'd  be a multi, or all separate caches with a bonus today.

 - A "checker" would have no meaning for that type of setup.  To make it mandatory to have a checker would be silly.

We have a friend who has ridiculously easy puzzles, I believe it may be just to keep the weekend n done kids away.

 - If someone really needed a checker to solve them, the puzzle probably isn't the issue.  ;)

I'd prefer to let COs decide whether a checker is needed, without making it built-in to every puzzle cache, thanks.    :)

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Checkers for puzzles in which the answer isn't all-or-nothing are almost essential these days. Puzzles like ROT-13's are all-or-nothing: Figure out the solution and the entire answer is clear; get one digit, get them all.  Puzzles like trivia to determine each digit, or math equations that could be a few minor digits off with a wrong feed number, could lead people to think they have the right location if a wrong answer looks feasible on a map, but can't possibly know until they visit the spot.  Even worse, imo, are puzzles where multiple possible answers exist, and each of the wrong ones are red herrings, where they look like feasible locations on the map, but you can't know if you're right or wrong until you try the coordinate that is correct (especially if it really is a roulette game because each answer could be correct by the puzzle itself). I hate those as they can waste gas and money and time; the least the CO could do is warn that since there's no checker, part of the 'challenge' may require visiting false locations.

 

Anyway. I agree requiring a checker for every cache isn't a good idea (though if it's not 'necessary' then having one doesn't hurt anyway). But there are some puzzles where, somehow, having a checker would certainly be warranted. I don't see how it could be enforced though without a lot more reviewer headaches.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Checkers for puzzles in which the answer isn't all-or-nothing are almost essential these days. Puzzles like ROT-13's are all-or-nothing: Figure out the solution and the entire answer is clear; get one digit, get them all.  Puzzles like trivia to determine each digit, or math equations that could be a few minor digits off with a wrong feed number, could lead people to think they have the right location if a wrong answer looks feasible on a map, but can't possibly know until they visit the spot.  Even worse, imo, are puzzles where multiple possible answers exist, and each of the wrong ones are red herrings, where they look like feasible locations on the map, but you can't know if you're right or wrong until you try the coordinate that is correct (especially if it really is a roulette game because each answer could be correct by the puzzle itself). I hate those as they can waste gas and money and time; the least the CO could do is warn that since there's no checker, part of the 'challenge' may require visiting false locations.

 

Anyway. I agree requiring a checker for every cache isn't a good idea (though if it's not 'necessary' then having one doesn't hurt anyway). But there are some puzzles where, somehow, having a checker would certainly be warranted. I don't see how it could be enforced though without a lot more reviewer headaches.

 

I agree.    Can't make a checker mandatory, but as a finder I appreciate them, especially for caches where there could be multiple "solutions" (i.e. it is easy to come up with a "solution" which makes sense but isn't the "correct" solution.     I recall one puzzle cache where I went to 3 different (wrong) locations, before getting the right one.    

 

I also appreciate them on puzzles which are straightforward (research some information), as   1) sometimes there are multiple sources with different answers, and 2) I can make silly mistakes with the arithmetic, even if my individual answers are all correct.

 

All the puzzles I own have a checker.   I mainly use Certitude, and I'm happy with it.. but yes there is always the risk it could disappear and I'd have to move them all to another checker.  

Link to post
On 7/23/2017 at 5:57 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

Of course, there are some that will object even if they don't have to do anything so I supposed GS could add an "opt-out" button when creating a new listing for the small number of geocacher that don't want a coordinate checker on principle.

Not sure if I'd call it "on principle", but I can see a CO not wanting the checker included because their puzzle is conducive to brute force checking. I've seen puzzles where it's multiple choice to get a few numbers. The possible combinations of those numbers are not many, so someone could 'check' each permutation and get the correct coords without even attempting the questions.

 

CO's of such puzzles may choose to 'opt out' of having a checker on their cache. I guess you could call it "on principle".

Link to post

Yeah but in those cases I might say the puzzle isn't well designed (depending on where gz is or how far apart the possible locations are). If only because without a way to know if your coordinates are correct, you could be potentially leading someone on an extensive and/or expensive wild goose chase. Ideally they'd proceed with the understanding that there's no guarantee their answer is correct, but still; it's the kind of puzzle I wouldn't prefer to see or publish, in general. (there are always exceptions :P)

I like to discourage puzzles that encourage hit and miss. Puzzles I like are ones where you know, before you set out, whether you are correct. It's like, if the puzzle is in the listing, the solution should be 'in the listing', as it were. If it's a field puzzle that's a different dynamic, but similar idea.

Another situation; in any case, whether an online puzzle, field puzzle, multi-stage, etc, if there's no verification of any particular coordinate, how does the cacher know if they're correct or not, or if the stage/container/info is missing? Do they go back and try something else, equally as uncertain and hope for a success? Or do they post a DNF/NM/Note?

To me, red herrings requiring physical visitation is just a Bad Idea in general.  All-or-nothing or verifiable success for any puzzle/task is the way to go, imo.

 

It would be nice if GS built an in-house geochecker, since all the coordinates are already in the database; but make the checker optionally available by the CO for any waypoint.  It seems convenient and a logical next step.  They could make it a codeword or coordinate checker; and even allow the CO to add additional hints on success... basically anything that makes a good checker right now.

Link to post
14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Another situation; in any case, whether an online puzzle, field puzzle, multi-stage, etc, if there's no verification of any particular coordinate, how does the cacher know if they're correct or not, or if the stage/container/info is missing? Do they go back and try something else, equally as uncertain and hope for a success? Or do they post a DNF/NM/Note?

There is a very straightforward solution to this problem

  • If you find the container you post a found log.
  • If you do not find the container you post a DNF log.

As you see - It works the same way as any traditional caches do.

The cache may be too difficult to find, it may be missing or coordinates are bad. It is the cache owner's responsibility to correct the problem if the situation so requires. For example clarify how to count stairs or windows correctly etc.

Link to post

Oh you're raising the definition of a DNF again... I'm just going to say there are other threads debating that, and request that that topic remain in that/those threads... especially since it's not related to the OP.

Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Yeah but in those cases I might say the puzzle isn't well designed (depending on where gz is or how far apart the possible locations are). If only because without a way to know if your coordinates are correct, you could be potentially leading someone on an extensive and/or expensive wild goose chase. Ideally they'd proceed with the understanding that there's no guarantee their answer is correct, but still; it's the kind of puzzle I wouldn't prefer to see or publish, in general. (there are always exceptions :P)

Caches like this are a common workaround here with national parks where virtual waypoints are allowed but physical containers are restricted and require explicit approval. Typically there are multi-choice questions at each virtual waypoint or photos to match - pretty much all of my Chasing Waterfalls series are done that way, with virtual waypoints at each of the waterfalls inside the park and the container further along the stream outside the park boundary. At least one of those is in an area where there's no phone coverage so a checker would be useless anyway. Are you saying these should be banned?

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to post

Nope I'm just saying my preference. In my experience those puzzles have been easy enough that the answers are clear and the final location is pretty obviously feasible. I'm saying I'm not a fan of puzzles where the questions are hard enough that you can't be sure of your answers and with no way of verification that you've actually got the correct solution, how do you know what to log, unless you find the container?  That's my reasoning for why I don't prefer that specific set of circumstances in puzzle caches. Most puzzle caches I've looked at (vast majority) are not like that.

In short, the circumstance is: A target coordinate has no reasonable manner of the cacher knowing or being confident whether it's the proper intended coordinate or not, requiring visitation and crossed fingers.  Not a fan.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to post
13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Nope I'm just saying my preference. In my experience those puzzles have been easy enough that the answers are clear and the final location is pretty obviously feasible. I'm saying I'm not a fan of puzzles where the questions are hard enough that you can't be sure of your answers and with no way of verification that you've actually got the correct solution, how do you know what to log, unless you find the container?  That's my reasoning for why I don't prefer that specific set of circumstances in puzzle caches. Most puzzle caches I've looked at (vast majority) are not like that.

In short, the circumstance is: A target coordinate has no reasonable manner of the cacher knowing or being confident whether it's the proper intended coordinate or not, requiring visitation and crossed fingers.  Not a fan.

Sorry, I misinterpreted when you said it's the kind of puzzle you wouldn't prefer to see or publish as meaning they shouldn't be published. But if you have a better way of designing these sorts of field puzzles where the places of interest are off limits to physical containers, I'm all ears.

Link to post

It doesn't have naything to do with physical containers; just the nature of the puzzle. I would suggest that if it's hard enough that you could have (incorrect) answers that are feasible cache locations, then include a checker, or alter the puzzle type so that the correct answer is clear (all-at-once, or only one solution can reasonably have a container). Or make the puzzle easier so people generally won't have doubts about their own answers if they're uncertain. Yep, that's all pretty subjective, and my gauge of easy vs hard may be very different from someone else's, but if I were putting it out, I'd avoid that issue altogether - I'd either include a checker, or make it an all-at-once solution; make it as likely as possible that there's sufficient certainty of an answer before having to visit to the location to have certainty one way or another.

Or in absolutely fewest words: I don't like "visit coordinate" to be a part of a non-physical puzzle before confirming that "coordinate" is correct. Maybe there are exceptions, but I can't think of any this second.

(they're not against the rules, and certainly those puzzles exist, but I don't like'em :P)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to post

I have recently completed a GeoArt series of puzzles based on famous basketball players.  The puzzles were not difficult - google the players name and answer questions based on that player's career statistics.  Usually 6 questions, giving 1-digit answers A to F.  Then plug the A to F answers into a coordinate formula.  I really needed the checker because my typing is lousy and I frequently entered something like 12.875 instead of 12.857.

 

Another puzzle I 'solved' had a poem relating to the theme on the page and I managed to get a very reasonable set of coordinates from the poem.  Obvious, no other solution possible.  Unfortunately, the poem wasn't the clue and my coordinates were wrong.  The real clue was hidden away in the picture gallery.  Without the checker I would have been in a perfectly reasonable place, a kilometer or so from the real GZ.

 

I am a fan of hard puzzles, including those with red herrings and distractions.  I also like simple ones.  Hard puzzles with multiple possible ways to attack the problem need checkers, if only to eliminate wrong approaches.  Even simple puzzles can benefit from having a checker, just to stop fat-fingered typists like myself from entering the wrong value for a solution.

Link to post
6 hours ago, arisoft said:

There is a very straightforward solution to this problem

  • If you find the container you post a found log.
  • If you do not find the container you post a DNF log.

As you see - It works the same way as any traditional caches do.

The cache may be too difficult to find, it may be missing or coordinates are bad. It is the cache owner's responsibility to correct the problem if the situation so requires. For example clarify how to count stairs or windows correctly etc.

I agree.  Pretty simple really.   

Link to post
11 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

I have recently completed a GeoArt series of puzzles based on famous basketball players.  The puzzles were not difficult - google the players name and answer questions based on that player's career statistics.  Usually 6 questions, giving 1-digit answers A to F.  Then plug the A to F answers into a coordinate formula.  I really needed the checker because my typing is lousy and I frequently entered something like 12.875 instead of 12.857.

 

 

That's exactly the kind of puzzle cache where having a checker is helpful.  I've done more than a few like that where google the question (players name) led to ambiguous answers.  I've done one based on the uniform number of a sports player, but some players changed numbers when they changed teams.  Even when the answer is unambiguous, a checker helps those that fat finger a number when transcribing a digit into the formula.  

Link to post

Typos happen with fat or thin fingers though, coordinates or keywords. That falls more in the realm of human error, and assuaged by double and/or even triple checking your answers, regardless of finger profile. I think the greater concern is where you are essentially confident of your intended answers, but with no way to know whether the answer itself is correct.

Link to post

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...
×
×
  • Create New...