Incentives for cache owners?

[+CAVinoGal]

On 11/3/2018 at 6:07 PM, MNTA said:

All I'm saying is the existing method [of cache hiding?] is awful

 

On 11/3/2018 at 6:07 PM, MNTA said:

Back to the Original subject. What can be done to create incentives for cache owners. Make the hiding process just as easy as the finding process.

 

There's much I could say but I'll focus on these two statements.  I think the current system of hiding and submitting caches for review is working well.  What, specifically, do you find so "awful" about the process?  Hiding a cache, and finding a cache, are two entirely different endeavors, and "finding a cache" is inherently simpler than "hiding a cache".  One of my first hides was thwarted by a puzzle cache too close.  That got me motivated to solve the puzzle, find the locaton, and then place mine in a better spot, rather than get upset.  Yes, it was frustrating (we had the perfect hint all set!) but all a part of the learning process and helped to get me hooked on puzzles.

 

There are rules and guidelines for cache placement.  You hide a container, you write up the page, you make it as complex or as simple as you choose, then you submit it for review.  It either gets published or is pushed back to you to be revised so it fits within the guidelines.  Some caches are simple to place , and simple to find (we had one that was hidden, submitted, published, and found within an hour!!)  Others take some planning, and possibly revisions, before they are published, and may take more effort to find (puzzles, multi's, etc).  There's a place for all of it!

[+barefootjeff]

On 11/4/2018 at 12:07 PM, MNTA said:

Well then I'll let you suggest something. All I'm saying is the existing method is awful and all I ever hear is a protect my hard puzzles from cheating. Honestly I have over 1000 puzzles in my ignore list. I have no desire to solve half of them and don't care to cheat either. This game is a basically a personal experience there is no prizes or awards given out other than digital smileys and now souvenirs. The current mechanism is awful and turned me off from hiding more due to the difficulty and the process. 

 

So please stop trying to protect something that honestly does not matter in the grand scheme of things. Cheating exists its a fact and should not be used as an excuse to prevent improving other aspects of the game.  But if you have a suggestion feel free to offer it would love to hear it.

 

Like CAVinoGal, I don't particularly mind if people put some effort into finding workarounds to my puzzles and multis, often their tales are quite amusing. I'm also happy to provide hints to someone struggling to reach a solution - if I can help them reach that ah-hah moment, great, but I'd still like them to have that moment of elation when the solution drops into place. However I'd draw the line at something that just gave away the final coordinates, such as what you're suggesting with the cache submission process.

 

On the map below, both mystery caches are mine (Groundspeak's new map doesn't have a scale, but from the left to right edge of this screenshot is about 9km or 6 miles).

 

 

The one in the top left is a challenge cache, so it's not a problem as its coordinates are known anyway, but the other one is a D4 puzzle with the final well within its permitted 3km of the listed coordinates. So if the saturation map showed a 161m circle around the final, it'd be pretty obvious which cache it belonged to, and even if the centre of the circle only got someone within ten or twenty metres, from the hint it wouldn't be too hard to pin down the container's hiding place. Likewise if you were battleshipping it with something that gave a yes/no response to submitted coordinates you could soon pin it down, especially in this case as that narrow strip of darker green running from the mystery to the traditional to its left is the only bit of public land outside the boundaries of the national park, and the container is most likely within that strip. So if you got your wish and that D4 puzzle suddenly became a D1, I'd probably be best just to archive it and reuse the container and hiding place in a similarly-themed traditional. The same goes for those four multis which are also mine.

 

Incidently, I see that you've had five caches published in the last four and a bit months, one of which you've archived already, so perhaps the process isn't as tough as you're making out. Hiding a cache isn't meant to be easy and some effort is usually required to get through all the hoops. That challenge cache in the top left corner of my map took four months of negotiation to get approval from the national parks authority, and that approval is only valid for two years so I have to go through the process again in about six months if I want to keep it alive. Sure, avoiding bumping into other puzzles and multis isn't much of a problem in my area, but getting a cache up for publication still requires a fair bit of work behind the scenes if it's to be something worth publishing. For example, that traditional in the centre of the map took me six months from first sussing out the location to having all the pieces in place to be able to hit Submit.

 

As for other suggestions, have you tried approaching the owners of those bothersome puzzles? Maybe they'd be willing to help you find a clear spot for your cache. Or maybe host an event where you can all sit around a map and work out some local solutions to your problem.

Edited November 5, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Like CAVinoGal, I don't particularly mind if people put some effort into finding workarounds to my puzzles and multis, often their tales are quite amusing. I'm also happy to provide hints to someone struggling to reach a solution - if I can help them reach that ah-hah moment, great, but I'd still like them to have that moment of elation when the solution drops into place. However I'd draw the line at something that just gave away the final coordinates, such as what you're suggesting with the cache submission process.

 

Also echoed. It's quite understandable that some people will never get some puzzles (myself included). But I would absolutely rather that cachers contact me - and then I can judge whether to nudge, guide, or just let them get the cache. When someone intentionally goes behind the CO's back for fear of the CO saying no, that to me is circumventing every possible intent of the CO. That just rubs me the wrong way. I mean, if you're going to cheat and go behind the CO's back, then do that after they say no and at least give them a chance to be accomodating =P But presuming 'guilty until innocent' is just bad form, imo.

My order of operations are typically:

1. try to solve (learn in the process!)

2. ask for help (friends, then CO)

3. beg for help from CO

4. find someone else who's solved it and go with them (don't just get coordinates) - there's a very fine distinction there , granted

(probably something for the What Irks Me thread, but when I ask a past finder for a puzzle tip and they give me coordinates... nooooo *sigh*)

 

Anyway. Point being, people have been asking for better mystery waypoint detection in the cache placement toolset for ages. That's nothing new. And I hope it doesn't get any more revealing than it is now.

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

(probably something for the What Irks Me thread, but when I ask a past finder for a puzzle tip and they give me coordinates... nooooo *sigh*)

 

Maybe you should be clear when you commnicate with said person?

 

Something along the lines of I know you couldn't give a hoot about the amount of effort the CO put into putting this puzzle together for the entertainment of others, and that you think you're well within your rights to show how clever you are to others who also don't care, but without giving me the coordinates (because I want it to appear that I do care, at least a little) could you help me?

[+thebruce0]

I can't tell if that's a dig at me or people who want to cheat at puzzles.

 

I think "hey I need a bit of a tip on this puzzle, could I maybe get a hint at this particular step please?" is clear enough. A response of "I didn't solve it, but here are the final coordinates..." does not follow in the slightest.  The latter is a response from someone who ethically doesn't care about the concept of puzzling.  The former can come from anyone who isn't dogmatically opposed to arriving at a solution having even one tip from any other source except their own mind.  I'm not the latter. Even if asked for help. I won't give out coordinates. Help, sure. Not solutions. Not without permission.

[+dprovan]

On 11/2/2018 at 7:33 PM, MNTA said:

My vote would be to improve the hiding a cache feature. Because of hidden coordinates of some cache types the ability to first find potential areas then find a final good quality placement is near impossible in an area with a lot of those types of caches.

Lots of issues with this suggestion, which I'm sure we'll now go off topic to discuss endlessly, but there aren't enough caches in the OP's area for this to be a factor for the COs he's hoping to encourage.