Geocheckers on puzzle caches

[+Krystal Tipps]

On 16/04/2018 at 6:48 AM, noncentric said:

Back to the topic of the OP - I do not support making geocheckers a requirement on puzzle caches. As others have noted, there are plenty of puzzles where the coords are clear once solved or where the solution is not coordinates at all. Not to mention that having a geochecker allows cachers to guess numbers until they get a green light on the checker.

Honestly, I think the OP would make a stronger argument if the OP had geocheckers on all of their own puzzle caches.

Ah noncentric - the difference being - which I mention in my OP - is that if people contact me I reply and help - more than happy to do that - and that is my issue - I have possibly solved a puzzle that is in the centre of Bristol - apparently in someone's front garden - it may be the COs - I have no idea, but I am really not going to go and rummage in a garden in the possibility of my co ords being correct, without being able to check them. That isn't the only example, but just one. And I solve puzzles all over the country, just not just where I know the area... I love puzzles, I have done many and have a few, but find it frustrating when COs don't reply to requests for help...

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, Krystal Tipps said:

Ah noncentric - the difference being - which I mention in my OP - is that if people contact me I reply and help - more than happy to do that - and that is my issue - I have possibly solved a puzzle that is in the centre of Bristol - apparently in someone's front garden - it may be the COs - I have no idea, but I am really not going to go and rummage in a garden in the possibility of my co ords being correct, without being able to check them. That isn't the only example, but just one. And I solve puzzles all over the country, just not just where I know the area... I love puzzles, I have done many and have a few, but find it frustrating when COs don't reply to requests for help...

I'd be tempted to steer clear of that - even if it had a geochecker because the sort of person who would screw up the coordinates enough for them to be in some random front garden is going to put those same incorrect coordinates in the geochecker.

[+thebruce0]

5 hours ago, Krystal Tipps said:

I have possibly solved a puzzle that is in the centre of Bristol - apparently in someone's front garden - it may be the COs - I have no idea, but I am really not going to go and rummage in a garden in the possibility of my co ords being correct, without being able to check them.

I'm sure you've already considered these, but other options include attempting to contact the CO to be certain (they shouldn't encourage you to "try" checking coordinates if they can see it's on private property incorrectly), and check the log history - for photos, adjusted coordinates, tips, hints, descriptions that can indicate where the container might be (like being cautious about being close to a house vs enjoying the trail view)... etc.

And, if there's absolutely no help anywhere, even contacting past finders doesn't net you any good, then yeah, forget about it. Or do a drive by your coords to inconspicuously observe where you think it might be   Maybe there's a big box labeled "GEOCACHE" on the front lawn, heh.

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, Krystal Tipps said:

I am really not going to go and rummage in a garden in the possibility of my co ords being correct, without being able to check them.

If your solution is on private area check this attribute  first.

Sometimes you may see this if the CO has been careful and willing to prevent this kind of incidents.

[+TheLimeCat]

On 4/9/2018 at 8:06 AM, J Grouchy said:

A - sometimes the solution gives no room for doubt, no need for a checker.

B - sometimes the solution may vary by a small amount.  I've worked on a number of puzzles that involved using math that may give varying results because of the sources of information being slightly different, or math that maybe has certain tolerances built in.  Checkers aren't always practical in those cases.

I know this response is a bit late, but you can totally set a range of coordinates in a checker to account for a number of slightly varied solutions. I've done several mathematical puzzles where that was the case. It also affords you the opportunity to put more accurate coordinates in the checker so that everyone who solves it within your range of tolerance is searching the same spot for the physical cache.

[+barefootjeff]

27 minutes ago, TheLimeCat said:

I know this response is a bit late, but you can totally set a range of coordinates in a checker to account for a number of slightly varied solutions. I've done several mathematical puzzles where that was the case. It also affords you the opportunity to put more accurate coordinates in the checker so that everyone who solves it within your range of tolerance is searching the same spot for the physical cache.

One of mine's a bit like that. The solution involves a conversion of units so I allowed a ten metre radius in the checker (geocheck.org) to provide room for rounding errors. So far the three people who've solved it have got the exact solution so perhaps my concerns were groundless, but better to be sure than sorry.

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

One of mine's a bit like that. The solution involves a conversion of units so I allowed a ten metre radius in the checker (geocheck.org) to provide room for rounding errors. So far the three people who've solved it have got the exact solution so perhaps my concerns were groundless, but better to be sure than sorry.

I did the same on a multi-stage letterbox which has multiple sets of coordinates in a single checker and each stage points you to the next. The final set of coordinates entered in the geochecked provides the actual final coordinates of the physical cache.

[+redsox_mark]

Personally

- I prefer it when there is a checker on a puzzle cache.

- All of my puzzles (I believe!) have them.   

But I can't see them becoming mandatory.    As has been said there are some types where it doesn't make sense, though I suppose tools could handle some of these.  E.g. if the final coordinates are same as the posted coordinates, don't require a checker, otherwise do.   Still, this would force providing a checker for types like a Night Cache; which while it isn't at the posted coordinates, the task isn't to obtain the final coordinates, but to navigate there via a trail, etc.   

I've had several caches spoilt on internet sites.   I found that if I didn't include a checker, they seemed less likely to be spoilt.   This created a dilemma for me.. I didn't want them spoiled, but I also want to provide a checker for "honest" solvers.     Lately I've been adding the checker a bit later; hoping this might help.    

As a finder, I've had several cases where I thought I had solved a puzzle, but had not, and looked in the wrong place.   On one cache, I looked in 3 wrong places, before coming up with  4th solution which was correct.    Whilst there is some fun in that, I generally prefer to be able to check.  

[+IceColdUK]

I like checkers, and most of my puzzles include them, but I don’t think they should be mandatory.

 

It does make me smile when I see things like “there’s only one solution; checker unnecessary”.  From my experience, there’s always someone that comes up with an idea completely out of left field!

 

Or “you’ll know when you have the right solution”.  But will I know when I have a wrong one?

 

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I like checkers, and most of my puzzles include them, but I don’t think they should be mandatory.

 

It does make me smile when I see things like “there’s only one solution; checker unnecessary”.  From my experience, there’s always someone that comes up with an idea completely out of left field!

 

Or “you’ll know when you have the right solution”.  But will I know when I have a wrong one?

 

I agree with all that, especially the part about not making checkers mandatory. But the reasons I like checkers is that, no matter how obvious the answer is, a checker lets me use my computer to actually copy the right answer and put it where it needs to go instead of copying it by typing it in again. I've always preferred that, but this really hit home after I looked for a cache three or four times without finding it while everyone else was posting "easy find" logs, and then I finally went back, resolved the puzzle, and discovered that I'd dropped a digit when I wrote down the answer that appeared in the solution image

[+thebruce0]

 

3 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

Or “you’ll know when you have the right solution”.  But will I know when I have a wrong one?

 

Usually that means, or should mean, a correct answer can only be an undertandable message or coordinate values, and any wrong solution is gibberish. It's an all or nothing puzzle. Those I can understand that having a geochecker is really just for peace of mind than anything.

- ROT-13 is a (very simple) example of that. There are 25 other ROTs to try, but generally speaking only one gives an intelligible answer.

- Not like 15 independent digit questions as a quiz to form a coordinate value, when any number of digits could be wrong and you'd have no way to know - that usually ends up in someone being unsure of one digit, and brute forcing each number 1-9 in that spot with the other 'known' numbers.

So I can understand a know-it-when-you-see-it solution. The checker isn't really needed to check the solution (solving the puzzle correctly is its own verification), but it would be nice to have some way of nudge that the method for getting the right solution is correct or in the right direction    That generally comes down to good puzzle design though.

 

The argument can be made though that having a checker ensures that the complete coordinate is displayed and copyable, and reduces the chance of user error in transcribing the digits, by whatever method used, to the end device, as dprovan mentions above.  So why not have one?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

5 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I like checkers, and most of my puzzles include them, but I don’t think they should be mandatory.

 

It does make me smile when I see things like “there’s only one solution; checker unnecessary”.  From my experience, there’s always someone that comes up with an idea completely out of left field!

 

Or “you’ll know when you have the right solution”.  But will I know when I have a wrong one?

 

 

I've seen quite a few puzzle caches which, when one solves the puzzle, clearly displays the lat/long coordinates as the solution.  The simplest is editing the Short or Long description such that it either contains a comment with the coordinates or sets the foreground color the same as the background color in an html tag so that the coordinates are in the source of the cache listing but aren't visible on the rendered page.  A checker is unnecessary because the solution is clearly displayed if you know where to look for it.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I've seen quite a few puzzle caches which, when one solves the puzzle, clearly displays the lat/long coordinates as the solution.  The simplest is editing the Short or Long description such that it either contains a comment with the coordinates or sets the foreground color the same as the background color in an html tag so that the coordinates are in the source of the cache listing but aren't visible on the rendered page.  A checker is unnecessary because the solution is clearly displayed if you know where to look for it.

 

I have seen puzzles which really display coordinates as you told but they are fake coordinates. The checker is needed to notice that the solution is wrong

One clever way is to hide the checker in the puzzle. You will find the link to the checker if you try to solve the puzzle. This keeps some spoiled players away.

[+redsox_mark]

On 6/22/2018 at 9:50 PM, arisoft said:

 

I have seen puzzles which really display coordinates as you told but they are fake coordinates. The checker is needed to notice that the solution is wrong

One clever way is to hide the checker in the puzzle. You will find the link to the checker if you try to solve the puzzle. This keeps some spoiled players away.

 

I agree.   Whilst I'm not in favour of making checkers mandatory. I would find it particularly evil (and not in a good way) to have an obvious solution given (e.g. coordinates in white text or a comment in the source), but have it be a red herring, and no checker.   

 

So far, the ones with red herrings I've done have had a checker.   So whilst I still had the sinking solution of "I found the solution" only to have not really found it, at least it was at home, and not in the field.  

[+dprovan]

On 6/22/2018 at 10:46 AM, thebruce0 said:

- ROT-13 is a (very simple) example of that. There are 25 other ROTs to try, but generally speaking only one gives an intelligible answer.

I like this example. Many COs think that if the answer is obvious when the right rotation reveals the coordinates in english text, then a checker is pointless. But I have to transcribe that english into digits, and I'd like a checker so I'm absolutely sure I didn't mess that transcription up. (Not that I want to require a checker, just that I want COs to know they're useful in situations that might not be obvious.)

 

3 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

I would find it particularly evil (and not in a good way) to have an obvious solution given (e.g. coordinates in white text or a comment in the source), but have it be a red herring, and no checker. 

Oh, don't get me started. When I go back east, sometimes I have to force myself to solve puzzles because I've noticed that in some areas in the mid-atlantic there's a tradition of having red herrings that are perfectly legitimate answers with nothing except the non-existent container to tell you you've been sent on a wild goose chase. I guess they think it's clever, but it's just mean.

[+thebruce0]

 

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

On 6/22/2018 at 1:46 PM, thebruce0 said:

- ROT-13 is a (very simple) example of that. There are 25 other ROTs to try, but generally speaking only one gives an intelligible answer.

I like this example. Many COs think that if the answer is obvious when the right rotation reveals the coordinates in english text, then a checker is pointless. But I have to transcribe that english into digits, and I'd like a checker so I'm absolutely sure I didn't mess that transcription up. (Not that I want to require a checker, just that I want COs to know they're useful in situations that might not be obvious.)

 

Yes:

On 6/22/2018 at 1:46 PM, thebruce0 said:

The argument can be made though that having a checker ensures that the complete coordinate is displayed and copyable, and reduces the chance of user error in transcribing the digits, by whatever method used, to the end device, as dprovan mentions above.  So why not have one?

 

In which case the checker is for convenience and verification against end-user error, rather than verification that the puzzle solution itself is correct. A checker isn't really necessary for the latter all-or-nothing puzzle, but still has value for the former.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

 

Yes:

 

In which case the checker is for convenience and verification against end-user error, rather than verification that the puzzle solution itself is correct. A checker isn't really necessary for the latter all-or-nothing puzzle, but still has value for the former.

 

I wonder if I'm the only one that has ever used a checker to confirm a solution on a puzzle then transcribed the numbers incorrectly when entering them into my GPS.

 

Now, whenever I solve a puzzle cache and use a checker I copy-n-paste the coordinates from the checker into the corrected coordinates field *and* the personal note field.

[+on4bam]

25 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Now, whenever I solve a puzzle cache and use a checker I copy-n-paste the coordinates from the checker into the corrected coordinates field *and* the personal note field.

 

I do the same. While solving I mostly work in Notepad, once solved I C/P the coordinates in the checker and if correct I immediately C/P into the corrected coordinates field in GSAK. I then C/P the complete solving sequence (values found, websites/codes used) from Notepad to GSAK notes. Since caches are exported from GSAK to the GPS there's little or no risk that coordinates get corrupted. Should a problem arise, I can always read my notes again as the note is saved as most recent log on the GPS.

 

[+thebruce0]

I don't recall ever mis-typing numbers, but depending on the puzzle I've either entered them into the Personal Note field and copied those into the checker (therefore they're already right) or likewise I copy them out of the checker and save into the Notes field. I sync the cache data with the entry in Geosphere and updated the posted coordinates and add a Final waypoint. It's rare I've ever had a mis-typed coordinate. But I can understand the desire to have it to help avoid that.

 

That was one of the main use defenses for both entering the coords into the checker as a single field, and for being able to copy them out of the returned result as a single coordinate field. Fewer clicks and taps and all that, less room for error

[+redsox_mark]

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I wonder if I'm the only one that has ever used a checker to confirm a solution on a puzzle then transcribed the numbers incorrectly when entering them into my GPS.

 

Now, whenever I solve a puzzle cache and use a checker I copy-n-paste the coordinates from the checker into the corrected coordinates field *and* the personal note field.

 

I've made all sorts of typo mistakes with corrected coordinates,  and I do the same as you now.

[+hzoi]

I have nevr made a tyop in my liff.  Certain.y not with coodrinates.