Creating a puzzle cache

[+thebruce0]

6 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Traveling/Moving caches are not allowed under the listing guidelines, and accurate coordinates are required under the listing guidelines.  A cache is subject to being archived if it doesn't follow the listing guidelines.

I guess the question would be, at what point does a container and additional waypoint coordinate adjustment qualify a cache listing as a "Traveling cache"?  Probably something to check in with the reviewer about if it's not already obvious by what's changing (like moving the posted coordinates 10 miles away =P)

[+MartyBartfast]

56 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

thanks, my limited understanding was that you could move it, so to stop the next person passing on the final location and the reviewer does not need to know as the solution is the same,

so say it is moved up or down by plus or minus 5 meters and as no hint, could be anyway in a woodland area

A few "concerns" :

 

I don't really understand how you're planning to have "the solution is the same" but the co-ords change every time, however assuming you did that what's to stop previous finders giving away "the solution" rather than the co-ords?

Also, I don't know what your reviewers are like, but all changes of co-ords are notified to reviewers and ours would be very suspicious when they see that the co-ords keep changing all the time.

5m might not seem a lot, but after 10 finds that could be a 50m move.

Say I worked out the solution tonight and got the co-ords, someone else finds it tomorrow, you change the co-ords, I go there the day later with a 2 day old solution only to discover that it's not at the co-ords I worked out - I would not be very happy and I think you would get yourself a bad name in the community pretty quickly.

 

All in all I don't think this idea's a good one .

 

 

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

thanks, my limited understanding was that you could move it, so to stop the next person passing on the final location and the reviewer does not need to know as the solution is the same,

I'm confused. On the one hand, you say you're going to move it so people can't just pass around the final location, and on the other hand, you say the solution remains the same.

Which is it?

[+fizzymagic]

2 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

thanks, my limited understanding was that you could move it, so to stop the next person passing on the final location and the reviewer does not need to know as the solution is the same,

For fun, I did invent a puzzle cache where you can tell in the log whether they solved the puzzle themselves or leeched it off somebody else:

Here.

I used some cryptography (effectively assigning a digital signature). That's the only solution to the "problem" I have ever seen.  I didn't then, and still don't, believe that having people who didn't solve the puzzle sign the log is a problem.  I just did that as an amusing challenge for myself.

[+barefootjeff]

23 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

For fun, I did invent a puzzle cache where you can tell in the log whether they solved the puzzle themselves or leeched it off somebody else:

Here.

I used some cryptography (effectively assigning a digital signature). That's the only solution to the "problem" I have ever seen.  I didn't then, and still don't, believe that having people who didn't solve the puzzle sign the log is a problem.  I just did that as an amusing challenge for myself.

That might not fly these days - I suspect the reviewers might see "you must include your token in your online log" as an ALR even if you say you won't delete logs with an invalid one.

[+fizzymagic]

3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

That might not fly these days - I suspect the reviewers might see "you must include your token in your online log" as an ALR even if you say you won't delete logs with an invalid one.

Yeah, if I published it today it would be something like "if you don't want people to think you cheated, include your token in your online log."  I have never deleted a log on that cache, token or no. But it's pretty obvious who did and did not solve the puzzle!

[+Clongo_Rongo]

8 hours ago, niraD said:

I'm confused. On the one hand, you say you're going to move it so people can't just pass around the final location, and on the other hand, you say the solution remains the same.

Which is it?

1. Puzzle is solved exactly how it would been solved. Moved or not it makes no difference to the puzzle

[+arisoft]

8 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

I used some cryptography (effectively assigning a digital signature). That's the only solution to the "problem" I have ever seen.  I didn't then, and still don't, believe that having people who didn't solve the puzzle sign the log is a problem.  I just did that as an amusing challenge for myself.

I have used a guestbooks and hall of fame lists for real puzzle solvers. But practically you only have to read the Found it log to say who has solved the puzzle.

Edited April 13, 2018 by arisoft

[+Clongo_Rongo]

10 hours ago, Keystone said:

Traveling/Moving caches are not allowed under the listing guidelines, and accurate coordinates are required under the listing guidelines.  A cache is subject to being archived if it doesn't follow the listing guidelines.

thanks

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

1. Puzzle is solved exactly how it would been solved. Moved or not it makes no difference to the puzzle

If moved or not makes no difference to the puzzle, then why couldn't people share the puzzle solution, and the recipients find the moved puzzle using that solution?

I seem to be missing something here. I've seen puzzle cache finals move (because the hide needed to move, not because the CO was trying to thwart "cheaters"), and sometimes the puzzle changes, and sometimes the puzzle stays the same but the CO adds an offset to account for the move. But I don't understand how you can move the puzzle cache final to thwart "cheaters" but not also thwart people who solved it, but didn't get out to the cache location until after you'd moved it.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

Hopefully I won't get just a 'TFTC' after the time and effort spent on crating a puzzle,

I feel that a CO deserves better and could be seen as a negative type of log, but I am sure the experienced puzzlers will tell me different ?

[+arisoft]

On 13.4.2018 at 5:56 PM, niraD said:

But I don't understand how you can move the puzzle cache final to thwart "cheaters" but not also thwart people who solved it, but didn't get out to the cache location until after you'd moved it.

I have this kind of puzzle. It is a field puzzle using GPS but no coordinates. The puzzle tells you where to go. When you have solved the puzzle you have also found the cache and you can sign the logbook. If the cache moves there is no reason to inform about the situation because the puzzle guides you to the correct place again.

[+Team Microdot]

Avoid disappointment. Lower your expectations.

After all - it's only a game and everyone plays their own way blah, blah, blah.

Puzzles can be a very contentious area. You're more likely to find that seekers will feel entitled to your puzzle whether they've solved it or simply got the coordinates from someone else without investing any real effort whatsoever.

The more zealous puzzle seekers have been known to trash an entire area in frustration at not finding a puzzle cache too.

There's very little reward to be had most of the time.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Team Microdot
Spelling

[+LFC4eva]

58 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

Hopefully I won't get just a 'TFTC' after the time and effort spent on crating a puzzle,

I feel that a CO deserves better and could be seen as a negative type of log, but I am sure the experienced puzzlers will tell me different ?

Time and effort cuts both ways when talking about puzzles..

The CO invests time and effort on the creation and the solver invests time and effort on the solve.. so sometimes it is disappointing (as a solver) to find the final GZ wasn't worth the effort you put into solving it.

I remember a few years ago solving a tricky puzzle only to find the cache itself was a p** pot, under a rock at the side of a very busy road (traffic whizzing by at 50+ miles an hour) and guarded by nettles.. and while I was complimentary about the puzzle itself in my log, I did express disappointment at the hide - and I was slated for being so truthful.. so these days, if I find a cache which disappoints, I am more likely to just write TFTC.. puzzle or not.. if you can't say anything nice, it's best to say nothing at all.

[+Team Microdot]

44 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

Time and effort cuts both ways when talking about puzzles..

The CO invests time and effort on the creation and the solver invests time and effort on the solve.. so sometimes it is disappointing (as a solver) to find the final GZ wasn't worth the effort you put into solving it.

I remember a few years ago solving a tricky puzzle only to find the cache itself was a p** pot, under a rock at the side of a very busy road (traffic whizzing by at 50+ miles an hour) and guarded by nettles.. and while I was complimentary about the puzzle itself in my log, I did express disappointment at the hide - and I was slated for being so truthful.. so these days, if I find a cache which disappoints, I am more likely to just write TFTC.. puzzle or not.. if you can't say anything nice, it's best to say nothing at all.

I've always maintained that feedback is important and useful - good or bad.

By understanding which aspects of our caches people enjoyed more and which they enjoyed less we can seek to improve our placements over time. If everyone does this then the net result should be of benefit to everyone.

This system however cannot flourish where only praise is welcome - whether deserved or not - and offence is taken at anything less than completely positive feedback.

In cases like these it's sometimes better to just play safe and save yourself the hassle by simply thanking the CO for the cache and the universally recognised short form for this is TFTC.

Even trying to be helpful in logs can be taken the wrong way - especially if someone is determined to do so.

For example - I recently found a nano with an already weak magnet attached to the bottom of a steel pin on a stone gatepost above thick vegetation. Experience has taught me that this is a really good scenario for a cache getting accidentally dislodged and lost during the search. I mentioned as much in my log - although in a slightly veiled manner so as not to give too much away about the hide. Another cacher - not even the CO - posted a note to the cache page branding me caching police! This is exactly the sort of thing that makes me more likely to post TFTC logs although it does seem unfair that the CO should end up with a paltry TFTC log because someone else got their knickers in a twist on a cache they don't even own.

[+Hitman9956]

11 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I've always maintained that feedback is important and useful - good or bad.

By understanding which aspects of our caches people enjoyed more and which they enjoyed less we can seek to improve our placements over time. If everyone does this then the net result should be of benefit to everyone.

This system however cannot flourish where only praise is welcome - whether deserved or not - and offence is taken at anything less than completely positive feedback.

In cases like these it's sometimes better to just play safe and save yourself the hassle by simply thanking the CO for the cache and the universally recognised short form for this is TFTC.

Even trying to be helpful in logs can be taken the wrong way - especially if someone is determined to do so.

For example - I recently found a nano with an already weak magnet attached to the bottom of a steel pin on a stone gatepost above thick vegetation. Experience has taught me that this is a really good scenario for a cache getting accidentally dislodged and lost during the search. I mentioned as much in my log - although in a slightly veiled manner so as not to give too much away about the hide. Another cacher - not even the CO - posted a note to the cache page branding me caching police! This is exactly the sort of thing that makes me more likely to post TFTC logs although it does seem unfair that the CO should end up with a paltry TFTC log because someone else got their knickers in a twist on a cache they don't even own.

I wanted to pick up on your comments regarding magnetic nanos in general. Firstly, thank you for visiting my cache - I am so sorry I did not comment as such previously (busy life in the way!).

 

Whilst I fully respect an experienced opinion by you in terms of nanos, which I take on board, I am very much a student of the game. That being said, all my nanos are brand new, and touch wood I habe had little issues in terms of nano qualities, with nano caches placed for at least the past two years. That nano that you found was magnetically attached, and brand new. If it is damaged or goes missing then by all means I will review the container and change it.

 

Once again, I appreciate your feedback, though respectfully advise that I am experienced enough with nano caches myself

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

That nano that you found was magnetically attached, and brand new.

The magnet was already weak and will get weaker. I got some brand new ones yesterday and they are pretty awful.

Would you rather people didn't try to offer information about your caches in their logs if they think it could be helpful?

Do you agree with the cacher who posted a log on your cache page claiming that this was caching policing?

Edited April 20, 2018 by Team Microdot
Addition

[+Clongo_Rongo]

21 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

Once again, I appreciate your feedback, though respectfully advise that I am experienced enough with nano caches myself

Hopefully now, this will stop any unnecessary negative comments by finders

 

[+Team Microdot]

Just now, CHEZRASCALS said:

25 minutes ago, Hitman9956 said:

Once again, I appreciate your feedback, though respectfully advise that I am experienced enough with nano caches myself

Hopefully now, this will stop any unnecessary negative comments by finders

Which comment are you trying to class as negative?

The one intended to be helpful with regard to the weak magnet? The one further up the page which expresses disappointment in the size of the cache?

[+hzoi]

19 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

Hopefully I won't get just a 'TFTC' after the time and effort spent on crating a puzzle,

I feel that a CO deserves better and could be seen as a negative type of log, but I am sure the experienced puzzlers will tell me different ?

I was curious how many "TFTC" or similarly curt logs we'd gotten on our puzzle caches.  Happy to say that, out of all our puzzle caches, we've only seen a handful, and almost all of those were from newer cachers who I presume didn't know better.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

On ‎25‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 10:21 PM, Quirky Diva said:

It would appear that a certain Cacher spits their dummy out, when he thinks there is a conspiracy towards that cacher. Armchair logging of NA logs is petty especially when they have not been to the cache himself. 

The weather has not been kind to caches so, I always have spare logs in my pockets and replaces after pinging the CO. All part of the community spirit. Why slap a NA when you can help your fellow cacher?

Certain puzzle are placed for pals, and they are usually the unsolvable ones. Just because you can't solve them and other do does not necessarily mean they have been given the coords.

People moaning about other people's caches on the ether are no more than Internet Trolls, so please return back under the bridge from which you sprang. Just because you can't solve all does not mean they are unsolvable. Just because you cannot find the cache does not mean it's not there.  

Be nice. It's nice to be nice. IT'S ONLY AS GAME

All part of the community spirit - Exactly

[+Team Rogersway]

Hello!

I was hoping that someone here could help with a puzzle cache that we are trying to hide.  Initially we had a great cache hidden but it turned up stolen twice in less than a week from hiding it.  So we are rethinking it's location and also wanting to turn it into a puzzle cache.  Perhaps this may deter any "passers-by" from "discovering it" with the intent to keep it.  My questions is, we'd like to relocate this cache (currently archived) to a location not too far from the original cords.  We are somewhat new to hiding caches and are thinking that we can re-use the original cords (like a waypoint ????).  Then in the description we put the puzzle which would have to be figured out to get to the cords of the location of the actual cache.  Are we understanding this correctly?  We love the original location which fits with the concept of the cache  and with some additional puzzle info the cache can be found without actually putting the correct cords in the listing.  Are we on the right track???  Any tips and thoughts would be greatly appreciated.  Thank You! 

[+arisoft]

11 minutes ago, Team Rogersway said:

Are we understanding this correctly?

 

I think you got it right. To be sure, I recommend to find at least one puzzle cache before you hide your own. For example, this one.

 

It is quite normal to choose puzzle type when there is problem with the cache. It works two ways. Puzzle caches have less visitors which pays less attention and ordinary muggles have no idea how to find the cache even if they have access to the cache description.

Edited February 23, 2019 by arisoft

[+niraD]

11 hours ago, Team Rogersway said:

So we are rethinking it's location and also wanting to turn it into a puzzle cache.  Perhaps this may deter any "passers-by" from "discovering it" with the intent to keep it. 

Puzzle caches get less traffic, as arisoft mentioned, and therefore muggles may notice it less since there will be fewer geocachers searching for it. But making it a puzzle cache won't help anything if random passers-by are just stumbling upon it on their own.

[+humboldt flier]

I have "placed" a few back in the day and they were simple to solve.  

 

MY MOTIVATION: to get around the ban on virtuals.   

 

i.e.: Ferndale, California ... commemorative plaque relating to the longest baseball game.  Both teams and both pitchers referenced.  BTW 26 innings one pitcher each team.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, humboldt flier said:

I have "placed" a few back in the day and they were simple to solve.  

 

MY MOTIVATION: to get around the ban on virtuals.   

 

i.e.: Ferndale, California ... commemorative plaque relating to the longest baseball game.  Both teams and both pitchers referenced.  BTW 26 innings one pitcher each team.

 

This is actually a multi-cache if a player must first visit the posted coordinates and then calculate the final position for the cache. No puzzle here. The most common puzzle cache do not require visiting so called bogus-coordinates at all and using puzzle type without reason greatly reduces visitors.

[+thebruce0]

Yeah a multi-cache can have puzzle elements, but part of the task has to be done at the posted coordinates. The puzzle Unknown/Mystery cache type doesn't have to have anything at the posted coordinates.

 

Another thought to keep in mind, noting that we have no idea what went missing from your initial cache placement, Team Rogersway, is that the container may have just gone missing. Small ones could get carried off by creatures, someone may have thought it was actual trash, or nature may have just had its way. All dependent of course on how it was hidden/attached/camouflaged, etc. It takes a lot to be certain that a cache was actually stolen

 

If you were to move the container and put the puzzle entirely in the listing with the posted coordinates having no roll in the puzzle, you can make it a Mystery cache.  If you would like the posted coordinates to have some influence in the puzzle at all, you can make it a multi-cache (that would be a virtual stage 1 if you want a person to gather information, or a physical stage 1 if you place something for them to find; plus the final location).

 

Obviously the easiest 'fix' for your concern would be to make it a listing-only puzzle and have nothing at the posted coordinates for the person to do. (What I've done in the past is make the posted coordinates interesting, per se, related to the cache, but nothing there relevant to determine the final location)