Jump to content

How long do you spend developing a puzzle cache?


Recommended Posts

I was thinking about this question today, and I realized that my practices with regard to creating puzzle caches are probably very different from those of others.

Over the last couple of years, the minimum amount of time I have spent on building a puzzle cache was probably for my most recent one: Boggle Boggle

That one took me about 16 hours or so over the period of two weeks. The ones I spent the longest on were Land of 10,000 Puzzles and Cyber Monday Crossnumber. Those each took me over a month to prepare. Now, I am generally a very lazy person, but for some reason I am fanatic about making my puzzles as good as possible before releasing them.

My process goes something like this:

  • Idea and figuring out if a puzzle is possible -- usually a few days, up to a week

  • Creating the actual puzzle content -- this stage can take anywhere from a day or so to a few weeks

  • Testing on myself -- I usually try solving the puzzle twice from scratch. If a computer program or math is involved, I write an independent solver to be sure it's right.

  • Playtesting -- I send my puzzle to a minimum of two other people who have agreed not to be FTF (frequently, they are not locals) and ask for honest feedback. I am lucky to have friends that will tell me if my puzzle sucks.

  • Refining -- I iterate using feedback from playtesters to make the puzzle better. Frequently this stage involves coming up with a better tie-in between stages of the puzzle. If the playtesters tell me the puzzle requires moon logic at any stage, I work with them to make the flow logically coherent.

  • Checking the coordinates -- I almost ALWAYS do a coordinate check with my local reviewer.

  • Building and hiding the container -- This stage can happen any time in the few weeks before publishing.

  • Writing the cache page -- I generally leave this stage until after I have the puzzle completely working, and at this point I generate any final media content required.

  • Release -- I include as much information about the hide and the puzzle as needed to make the reviewer comfortable with what I am publishing.

Is my process insane? How does it compare to what other people do?

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1
Link to post

As it happens, I'm just in the process of finishing off a new puzzle cache which I'll likely submit for review first thing tomorrow. This one is a replacement for an earlier puzzle (GC6PE5B) in my Bushranger series which I had to archive last year when its secluded waterhole started becoming a popular school holidays attraction for light-fingered muggles. I wanted the new one to follow a similar theme but with a slightly different storyline (set three months after the original) and a different method for solving the actual puzzle.

 

I began thinking about it a few weeks ago when one of my friends on a group caching trip was lamenting not being able to find the original before it was archived. I pondered other ways I might conceal some coordinates in an image of a newspaper article (the original involved counting the commas in each sentence) and an idea started to gel. Last week I created a test page so I could do some playing with the technique to see if it really was workable, which it was, and with a bit of poring over maps I found a location in a public reserve that was well clear of other caches and fitted in with the puzzle's storyline. I spent much of Monday morning wandering around the reserve, sussing out potential hiding places for the physical waypoint and final which I averaged and marked on my GPSr.

 

Once that was done and I was happy with how it was coming together, it was time to assemble some hardware. Like the original cache, the waypoint is Sheriff Plodfoot's missing horse which the bushranger has left tethered close to water, and for that I used a plastic horse anchored into an epoxy resin base with a laminated card bearing the final's coordinates visible through the transparent outer shell.

 

Horse.jpg.82c7b85c58e8887681af1aca9827d255.jpg

 

Since the storyline is about stolen money, I used a steel cash box as the final container. Its hiding place is deep under a rock ledge so it doesn't have to be watertight. I also printed up a bunch of old imperial Australian five pound notes with the bushranger's face replacing whatever royal personage was on the original notes.

 

267257152_Bushranger5Pound.jpg.0d27e01c8f8c197885ab58a05fd71963.jpg

 

A bunch of these are stapled into the logbook as part of the story's denouement, with more included separately in the container for finders to take as keepsakes. Finally, I printed laminated labels for the container and logbook:

 

ContainerAndLogbook.jpg.07ff204b4ec6f4614a6e5fe6fb4dc4b7.jpg

 

While all that was happening, I kept mulling over the storyline and began creating the cache page and newspaper article, gradually fleshing it out as all the details started falling into place. As with all my puzzles, there are lots of little hints scattered about in the wording. It's not meant to be a particularly difficult puzzle (I've set the D rating to 3 which includes both the puzzle itself and the concealment of the waypoint and final) so I've probably been a bit over-generous with the hints, but time will tell. I've also added a Geocheck checker for the puzzle solution so I'll be able to see any mistakes people are making and tweak it if need be.

 

I set the physical waypoint and final this afternoon, rechecking the coordinates on my GPSr while I was at it, then prepared my detailed Reviewer's Note explaining how the puzzle is solved and including photos of the waypoint and final in their respective hiding places. I'll give it another read-through this evening then sleep on it and, if I'm completely satisfied with everything, I'll submit it tomorrow morning.

 

All up from concept to completion has been about a month, with the past week spent working on it pretty much full time (it helps being retired).

Link to post

On average I also spend a lot of time creating new puzzle caches.
The great thing about puzzle caches is that everyone can have/create their own kind of puzzles.

I took a quick look at your mentioned puzzles (Nice puzzles by the way) and although the genre is different, my process is not that different.

  • Idea, this usually comes naturally
  • Creating/building the puzzle content
  • Testing
  • Changing after testing
  • I then let my wife or one of my kids solve the puzzle (I give them only hint to speed things up, not the answers)
  • Changing after testing
  • Hiding
  • writing the cahce page (always takes more time than expected)
  • Release, always pass on a lot of information to the reviewer otherwise you will still get questions ...
  • Wait for the FTS and FTF

So, it's not insane. I think for me its always days work rather than hours...
For my most recent one Mars 2020: At least a month, but mostly in the weekends and after working hours...
 

Edited by simon_cornelus
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I take my time for any cache type I create (even for the one traditional and the one virtual cache I own). When I am creating a puzzle cache there's always something to do outside, a (more or less) little outdoor part with stages. The indoor part - the puzzle itself - rarely is only one level of task, it usually consists of many steps to take.

 

I am not a very good tinkerer so building the final cache box usually doesn't take too long but creating and refine the puzzle may take about 50 working hours averaged. I would estimate that my longest creation phase was at the cache GC5RY0X (sorry, it's German) and took me about 150 hours (only the indoor part, outdoorpart adding up some hours). I remember that I was working almost each night after work and sports until 2 a. m. - that's because it was a fun one to create.

I created a similar puzzle cache lately (it is betatested right now) with an even longer story but it took me less hours (getting better? :-)). But in the end there might be another 100 hours of working time. Let's see how many changes I have to do after the betatest. :-)

 

Some people want to hide many caches. They can't affort taking their time. That's not for me. With all the time put in my own hides others would have been able to hide 200 or more caches but that's not what I want to do. I have decided that it's nice to create one effortful (for me and the finders) per year - that's enough and for me that's better than creating 20 simple ones getting many "quick found" logs. I don't get too many logs for my caches but the ones I get usually tell me that the finderst had fun! :-)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Is my process insane? How does it compare to what other people do?

It doesn't sound insane to me. I've only completed the process for one puzzle cache myself, but my process was similar.

 

I didn't spend much time checking whether it was possible though, unless you count time spent securing permission for the hide. But even that wasn't hard. The person in charge of the property loved the idea. So have his successors. The current property manager eagerly offered to take care of the cache container for me, now that Mrs niraD and I have moved across the country.

 

But I gave the puzzle to only one other person. She is a subject matter expert though, so I figured that I didn't need to have anyone else test it. And the puzzle didn't require much refinement.

 

Most of my puzzle cache ideas never get to the playtesting stage though.

Link to post
10 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Is my process insane? How does it compare to what other people do?

It's not insane at all. If all puzzles were created by owners like you, we would have a lot less "bad" puzzles.

 

My own routine is somewhat similar, with one notable exception: I don't ask other people to test my puzzles. Therefore, "self-testing" is a super important part of the work, and I often spend considerable time on it. Especially for the D4+ puzzles, it's often really hard to find the "perfect" write up: There must be some subtle hints (keywords, images, whatever...) in the listing to make it solvable at all, but OTOH, those hints shouldn't be too obvious.

 

As for the absolute time needed, this varies significantly:

  • My quickest puzzle took literally 5 minutes from the idea to the (effectively) finished listing. But that was intentionally more like a parody than a really good puzzle.
  • The longest gestation time ;) was more than 3 years from the first rough idea to the final design.

And to be honest, I even created one mystery cache, which was intentionally designed to be impossible to solve. Which was actually very easy (and almost frustratingly easy to get through the review :o).

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2
Link to post

Hmm. I've come to really like creating puzzles as my tasted in cache hiding have changed. I'm not good at solving puzzles...heck I kind of suck at it. BUT, I have a system. I also love history. So I have a lot of fairly easy puzzles, and a few....tougher nuts to crack. I think I can confidently say my rough average for puzzle creation, development, final cache container creation and development...placement THEN publishing....would be well, a few weeks. I mean, many of my puzzles only took about 2 hours or so to build out, but a handful took longer.....and in that handful there's a few that took over a month. I tested them myself, I rigorously checked them and made sure the system they need is fine, and made sure they havea logical path. Although of course, puzzle styles are a tough thing to crack if it clashes with your own...as many would be solvers have issues witha  few of me puzzles. I have one D5 I hid over 6 months ago, which was published 5 months ago....strictly because that puzle took about 7 weeks to finish, or....15 hours minimum, probably closer to 25. It hasn't been cracked but I KNOW it can be solved. 

 

That being said, I think the quickest puzzle for me took about an hour and a half. 

Link to post

I own / have owned 65 puzzles - pretty much all old-school pen-and-paper jobs. I have a onenote page with all sorts of sketched ideas, half of which I'll never use:

 

Renamed countries: Dahomey4 Rhodesia8 Upper Volta1 Gold Coast7 Ceylon3 Burma2 Abyssinia1 Nyasaland4

Countries in their own language: Espana 5 Osterreich 5 Cote d'Ivoire 3 Deutschland 4 Suomi 9 Shqiperia 9 Magyarorszag 3

Capital cities hidden words > country (sO SLOw > Norway > 4 or 14 etc)

Boeufgué Pierre [that's a bad translation of Oxford Stone - some sort of puzzle in garbled French?]

King William theme near King William pub

Kings with nicknames [Louis the Fat etc]

TV series locations

TV pubs

Obvious algebra [unsolvable clues but it has to be N51/W001, go from there]

Acronyms: asap, CITO etc

Patron saints

Dewey numbers

PMs not using real 1st names

Jan Feb Mar Mon Tue Wed etc hidden words

 

Probably more than half of my puzzles get a tweak to the wording after a solve or two. There are probably 10 or 12 puzzle cache finders / setters in the area who road-test each other's caches, usually after they've gone live though. 

 

Hiding places - some I've had in mind for a couple of years, either on a map or on the ground. As per list above, there's a lovely pub called the King William near here that is at the end of a lane and so a great place to start a walk (past Rowan Atkinson's house...) - there used to be a trail of trads there. One day, hopefully this summer, I'll walk out with 6-10 containers and do my worst. I do like to put out a whole series to reward solvers with a decent walk, when possible.

 

Sometimes the idea for a puzzle just lands in your lap. Like when I was reading a book about trusting people and there was a chapter on Ana Montes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Montes - ooh shall I use that code? You bet I will ! https://coord.info/GC8V35B (Help yourselves if you want to use it too; you'll need a bit more research on her exact decode technique, or just use my simpler read-across-and-down initial method). Or when I walked into a church and the hymn number numbers were just lying there so I came back having hidden a cache and set up the coords - backwards, just because: https://coord.info/GC6JG0R > Gallery > Interior 

 

The other day I walked past a family and the little girl was singing "head, shoulders, knees and toes" - I'm contemplating daft descriptions of a Northern and Western invented creature and describing their head1, shoulders2, knees3 and toes4... and of course eyes5 and ears6 and mouth7 and nose8... 

Link to post
2 hours ago, DreamMachine74 said:

I have one D5 I hid over 6 months ago, which was published 5 months ago....strictly because that puzle took about 7 weeks to finish, or....15 hours minimum, probably closer to 25. It hasn't been cracked but I KNOW it can be solved.

That's why puzzles need to be play-tested by someone who is not the creator.  You may "know" that it is solvable, but someone living outside of your head may not be able to make the  logical leaps necessary, even though they may seem obvious to you.  A puzzle that has not been solved in 5 months is not a good sign.  As it happens, I looked at the puzzle; which looks like a "guess what encryption I used" puzzle, which I always assume is a lazy CO's puzzle type.  I am not saying you didn't work hard on it, and I can't say it is a moon logic puzzle, because I haven't solved it, but the surface appearance is not very appealing to me.  Please don't think I am criticizing you; I am trying to give you feedback on what somebody coming upon your puzzle would think  before getting into it.

 

My favorite puzzles are those where it is clear that the creator spent more time on the puzzle than the solvers will need to.  I always try to make a puzzle where the solver has at least a small thread to pull on from the start.

 

But I do appreciate that you test them on yourself.  I know a guy that solves almost every puzzle that comes out (not me -- I tend to ignore most puzzles under D3) and he reports that right around 25% of the puzzles published in the US have errors in them when they are first released.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post

I agree testing by someone else is always better. But even then it still happens flaws/errors get in the puzzle.

Even when its already solved and logged several times.. I once got a message from someone asking if there was no mistake...

I could quickly solve this by including this option in the checker and stating the error so they could get the correction solution.

Sometimes after testing I add common mistakes in the checker with some sort of hint to proceed.

 

Link to post
58 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

That's why puzzles need to be play-tested by someone who is not the creator.  You may "know" that it is solvable, but someone living outside of your head may not be able to make the  logical leaps necessary, even though they may seem obvious to you.  A puzzle that has not been solved in 5 months is not a good sign.  As it happens, I looked at the puzzle; which looks like a "guess what encryption I used" puzzle, which I always assume is a lazy CO's puzzle type.  I am not saying you didn't work hard on it, and I can't say it is a moon logic puzzle, because I haven't solved it, but the surface appearance is not very appealing to me.  Please don't think I am criticizing you; I am trying to give you feedback on what somebody coming upon your puzzle would think  before getting into it.

 

My favorite puzzles are those where it is clear that the creator spent more time on the puzzle than the solvers will need to.  I always try to make a puzzle where the solver has at least a small thread to pull on from the start.

 

But I do appreciate that you test them on yourself.  I know a guy that solves almost every puzzle that comes out (not me -- I tend to ignore most puzzles under D3) and he reports that right around 25% of the puzzles published in the US have errors in them when they are first released.

 

If it is a D5 and it hasn't been solved in 5 months, I don't think it will be something to worry about.

 

There are many factors that we should take into account, as how lively is the Geocaching community around you (as an example, it could be people who usually interacts with you in the Geocaching world are not puzzle solvers, or just there are no many geocachers), if it is a really difficult puzzle and it takes a bit (or a looooong bit) to come across the solution...

 

Anyway, I agree with you that a puzzle shouldn't take so long to be solved, and the thought that you have to get the knack or a really powerful hint from the owner to break the mistery, in my opinion, it spoils the puzzle completely.

 

In my community, we are still struggling with a mistery that was released in 2016, and it hasn't been solved yet! The funny fact about the puzzle is... the owner rated it as a D4! It is not the first time that a puzzle of this owner took years in order to find out the solution (and every one of them is D4 or below), and even publishing each year a hint, it hasn't been cracked yet.

And I think it will be remain as unsolved, since the owner hasn't been active in Geocaching, nor connecting to the webpage, nor finding any cache, nor answering any email or WhatsApp, for 8 months.

 

 

 

Link to post
On 3/5/2021 at 12:20 PM, baer2006 said:

It's not insane at all. If all puzzles were created by owners like you, we would have a lot less "bad" puzzles.

 

Exactly my thoughts.  I have not had the pleasure of even seeing any of your caches (Fizzy Magic) but if you are crafting your own puzzles from the ground up then all the applause to you.

Edited by The Blue Quasar
  • Surprised 1
Link to post

My puzzle isn't exactly an encryption puzzle (there's a few layers to it) but yes, I understand what you mean. 

 

Testing with someone else is very helpful for sure, albeit sometimes I find this to be a troublesome method if they give away the secret to the puzzle....I notice a good few users who, when asked about how they solved a specific puzzle, just say they were given the coordinates. (This howevere is more fitting for the pet peeves thread, but alas)

Link to post

Fizzy -

Process sounds about right for a really good puzzle.

I have no idea how many hours it took me to put together "SBS - You're in a World of Hertz" (GC2G604).  At a guess, from concept to completion, probably 60 hours+, and I already had the necessary bits and pieces to put it together in-house.  It's a multi that contains a number of field puzzles.

It rarely gets found, but apart from my original beta tester (your 'Playtesting' is a very important step, especially for complex puzzles), who was still in a daze when he logged it, it has 100% favorite points.

 

  • Surprised 1
Link to post

I honestly do not care if someone finds one of my puzzle caches without solving it.  I frequently go caching with friends and we find puzzle caches that I have solved that they have not.  My position is that if the puzzle is good enough, people will want to solve it.

 

For my own amusement, I have created a couple of puzzles for which the person logging a find can prove that they (or someone acting on their behalf) solved the puzzle.  It's not a requirement, but people seem to enjoy the "bragging rights" for having solved these:  GCPNXY and GC85149.  Coming up with a method for allowing proof of solving was a fun exercise.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, ecanderson said:

I have no idea how many hours it took me to put together "SBS - You're in a World of Hertz" (GC2G604).  At a guess, from concept to completion, probably 60 hours+, and I already had the necessary bits and pieces to put it together in-house.  It's a multi that contains a number of field puzzles.

Boy that looks like fun!  of course, I recognize the equipment needed immediately, although some (stage #4) is getting rarer!  I am curious about how you powered the stages.

Link to post
10 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Boy that looks like fun!  of course, I recognize the equipment needed immediately, although some (stage #4) is getting rarer!  I am curious about how you powered the stages.

Amazing.  Just as we talk about it in this thread, I've got another finder in the process of working through it!  You brought the cache some good luck by starting the thread!  Will be interesting to see his log.

 

Stage 4 is pretty easy since the distances really do call for driving, though it can certainly be done easily enough on a bicycle, so there's that to sort out if pedaling, I guess.

 

As for power, it's a secret!  Stage one is a particular power hog due to distance between xmitter and posted coordinates, and propagation requirements.  The others employ high gain (very directional) antenna systems.

 

 

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
17 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

I am curious about how you powered the stages.

 

Minimally! :lol:

 

On 3/11/2021 at 8:15 PM, ecanderson said:

it has 100% favorite points.

 

Yep, still does.  Great cache!

Link to post
On 3/11/2021 at 12:07 PM, DreamMachine74 said:

Testing with someone else is very helpful for sure, albeit sometimes I find this to be a troublesome method if they give away the secret to the puzzle.

If a play-tester of one of my puzzles gave away the answer I would find a different play-tester! Paranoia is not a good reason to eschew the external feedback, in my opinion. I have some dedicated play-testers who live outside of my area and are happy to confidentially validate both the puzzle's integrity and fun-factor. It has been many years since I've published one without this step.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post

You know, I had an idea.  How hard would it be to allow a cache page creator to specify a single other account to view a cache page before release for the purpose of play-testing it?  As the system is now structured, no second set of eyes can look at a cache page before it is released.  In addition to helping puzzles to roll out with fewer errors, the system could also help cache owners avoid mangled language and spelling errors.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to post

^ That'd be great. The need to cobble together a temporary approximation of likely page contents, for tester use, can only serve as a disincentive re seeking pre-publication user feedback.

The case for such thing seems particularly strong nowadays, given that Adventure Labs do allow for a fully-functional mock-up. In as many iterations as you want. (Which is fantastic and enthusiastically exploited in my own case.)

Link to post
8 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

You know, I had an idea.  How hard would it be to allow a cache page creator to specify a single other account to view a cache page before release for the purpose of play-testing it?  As the system is now structured, no second set of eyes can look at a cache page before it is released.  In addition to helping puzzles to roll out with fewer errors, the system could also help cache owners avoid mangled language and spelling errors.

Great idea.

Or if this is to complicated maybe they can give the option to generate an URL/Link which does allow to visit the cache page before it is released.

That way the CO can send this link to the persons that are helping him. This would eliminate the setting of allowed users to visit...

This is only an idea but also seems an option?

 

Link to post
6 hours ago, simon_cornelus said:

Great idea.

Or if this is to complicated maybe they can give the option to generate an URL/Link which does allow to visit the cache page before it is released.

That way the CO can send this link to the persons that are helping him. This would eliminate the setting of allowed users to visit...

This is only an idea but also seems an option?

 

 

That might actually be just as complicated as allowing another userID to access a cache page prior to publication.  

Link to post
On 3/5/2021 at 7:11 AM, fizzymagic said:
 
  • Idea and figuring out if a puzzle is possible -- usually a few days, up to a week

  • Creating the actual puzzle content -- this stage can take anywhere from a day or so to a few weeks

  • Testing on myself -- I usually try solving the puzzle twice from scratch. If a computer program or math is involved, I write an independent solver to be sure it's right.

  • Playtesting -- I send my puzzle to a minimum of two other people who have agreed not to be FTF (frequently, they are not locals) and ask for honest feedback. I am lucky to have friends that will tell me if my puzzle sucks.

  • Refining -- I iterate using feedback from playtesters to make the puzzle better. Frequently this stage involves coming up with a better tie-in between stages of the puzzle. If the playtesters tell me the puzzle requires moon logic at any stage, I work with them to make the flow logically coherent.

  • Checking the coordinates -- I almost ALWAYS do a coordinate check with my local reviewer.

  • Building and hiding the container -- This stage can happen any time in the few weeks before publishing.

  • Writing the cache page -- I generally leave this stage until after I have the puzzle completely working, and at this point I generate any final media content required.

  • Release -- I include as much information about the hide and the puzzle as needed to make the reviewer comfortable with what I am publishing.

Is my process insane? How does it compare to what other people do?

 

You have a good and ambitious list that fits well for an ambitious and well worked cache. I have some that fits your process pretty well.

For mosty of my caches, even fairly ambitious multis, I don't ask for a coordinate check from reviewers since it is so strongly unwanted, but for complex builds I do. Same with playtesting. I test the problem myself, and in some cases I have other people testing.

So it depends on the kind of cache, but for the most ambitious ones, your list is very good and complete!

Link to post
On 3/23/2021 at 4:53 PM, fizzymagic said:

You know, I had an idea.  How hard would it be to allow a cache page creator to specify a single other account to view a cache page before release for the purpose of play-testing it?  As the system is now structured, no second set of eyes can look at a cache page before it is released.  In addition to helping puzzles to roll out with fewer errors, the system could also help cache owners avoid mangled language and spelling errors.

I think private caches would be a fine idea. By that I mean caches that can be created and the link to them sent out to other players without actually publishing them. It could be used for private parties or educational exercises as well as play testing. I've seen such things requested from time to time in the forums, although it's normally not understood by the person asking the question that that's the feature that would satisfy their needs.

 

(By the way, I've never thought of securing them by allowing only particular users to access them. I always thought it would be sufficient to allow the CO to send the links to the people that he wanted to have them. In other words, only prevent people from finding them through any kind of search on the web site, but not prevent them from accessing the page once they had a link to it no matter how they managed to get it.)

 

I have no idea whether GS has ever considered such a feature. But I'm guessing they'd be too worried about it being abused to foster this "elitism" that so terrifies them. After all, you say you just want your cache to be "play tested", but GS will suspect that what you really want to do is give one or more of your friends a leg up on solving it so they can find it before anyone else as soon as you publish it. I find that kind of reaction silly -- A. Who would want to do that? and B. Who cares if they do? -- but it does seem to be the way GS looks at things.

Link to post
On 3/27/2021 at 12:05 PM, dprovan said:

I think private caches would be a fine idea. By that I mean caches that can be created and the link to them sent out to other players without actually publishing them. It could be used for private parties or educational exercises as well as play testing. I've seen such things requested from time to time in the forums, although it's normally not understood by the person asking the question that that's the feature that would satisfy their needs.

 

(By the way, I've never thought of securing them by allowing only particular users to access them. I always thought it would be sufficient to allow the CO to send the links to the people that he wanted to have them. In other words, only prevent people from finding them through any kind of search on the web site, but not prevent them from accessing the page once they had a link to it no matter how they managed to get it.)

 

I have no idea whether GS has ever considered such a feature. But I'm guessing they'd be too worried about it being abused to foster this "elitism" that so terrifies them. After all, you say you just want your cache to be "play tested", but GS will suspect that what you really want to do is give one or more of your friends a leg up on solving it so they can find it before anyone else as soon as you publish it. I find that kind of reaction silly -- A. Who would want to do that? and B. Who cares if they do? -- but it does seem to be the way GS looks at things.

 

Unfortunately, I can see that suggestion growing into a cottage industry - people filing 'private caches' on GS's servers to create birthday parties, corporate events,etc.

I don't think I'd like to see private use of GS resources. Currently there are two divisions of access: Basic & Premium. I'd hate to see a "Private" added to it.

 

Would they have to comply with the guidelines? Distance, commercial intent, permissions, etc? Will GS ask their volunteer reviewers to spend their time working for these private entities?

 

As a reviewer, would you want to get into a kerfuffle with an irate near-muggle who want to set up a birthday party for a runny-nosed brat?  "OOOHH, It's a Hi-Tech version of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey!!!"  

  • Upvote 3
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...