CAN I LOG A NO FIND ON THIS CACHE?

1.6k · August 9, 2003

Please review the following cache:

There seems to be a new wave of incomprehendible cache descriptions on the rise in my vicinity... I refer to this as the evolution of geocaching

Part and parcel with these new cache descriptions, is that some people will not be able to find the caches, whether or not they even get a chance to physically look for them

Now, I know RobertM is quite the comedian himself, logging a no find on the Yellow Jeep Fever cache by taking a picture of a red jeep and then posting it, but I am serious about my no find log

As posted on his cache page after my first no find log was deleted:

If your cache description is part of the cache hunt (ie: requiring decoding is not unlike requiring the solving of a puzzle cache/multi-cache), then not being able to solve it means it's a no-find...

Since I attempted the cache (vis a vis deciphering the code), and could not find out the location of it, well?

I cannot decipher the code, so I stand by my no find log

If the evolution of geocaching means making the cache descriptions non-comprehendible, then the evolution of no-find logs is also warranted...

So I am just tossing this one out to see what other cachers think...

3.8k · August 9, 2003

Why not just log 50,000+ no finds and be done with it? As far as I know, there are no rules that say otherwise.

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

.

August 9, 2003

I would call it a no find.

sidney sullivan

1.6k · August 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sept1c_tank:

Why not just log 50,000+ no finds and be done with it?

Well, that would be ingenuine to say the least...

9.2k · August 9, 2003

It's a PUZZLE cache. Part of finding the cache is solving the puzzle. This is NOTHING NEW. In this case, the puzzle is on the cache page, instead of at some cache location. The is also NOTHING NEW.

Is the cache clue "non-comprehendible"? Obviously not, as someone else has already found it. Not everyone is going to be able to solve every puzzle. That's just life.

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

1.6k · August 9, 2003

It is definately a puzzle cache, albeit virtual.

And I virtually couldn't find it.

The issue is not the cache.

The issue is that the cache owner does not want me to log it as a no-find, and deleted my first log, and has requested that I delete my second log.

I fully expect that others will solve the puzzle find the cache; the point is that I did not.

August 9, 2003

<Giggle> Ok, if I crack the code but canadazuuk goes and gets it for me , do we both get a find? <giggle>

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator."

- Louis Pasteur

1.6k · August 9, 2003

A further thought:

Maybe the terrain on the cache should be a 5 star due to the special equipment required... (ie: computer programs)

???

August 9, 2003

I would not log it as a “Couldn’t Find It”. If I was unable to de-cypher the code, I would either conclude:

1. I am not going to look for this cache because I cannot figure out the instructions.

or

2. I will wait for another day when my mind might be working a little bit better.

In either case, I would not have looked for the cache, and therefor I would not consider it a “Couldn’t Find It”. To me, it would be similar to posting “not found” on all caches requiring a boat that I have been unable to buy, borrow, or steal, notwithstanding that I tried.

But the criteria for logging “Couldn’t Find It” is, to me, a “to each their own” type thing, and if you really want to log a frownie face for failing to figure out the code, then that would be fine with me - of course you should state in the description that you only got as far as trying to de-cypher the code (as you have done).

The one thing that I am firm on regarding this issue, is that the cache owner should not delete (or require you to delete) your “Could’nt Find It” log - I have little time for that type of childish censorship.

PS Canadazuuk, for you, I have made a special effort to reduce my use of brackets (which are really just smilies and frownies on their sides).

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

[This message was edited by seneca on August 09, 2003 at 02:35 PM.]

August 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:
The one thing that I am firm on regarding this issue, is that the cache owner should not delete (or require you to delete) your “Could’nt Find It” log - I have little time for that type of childish censorship.

The issue was his first no find post at 11:15pm on Friday evening that read:

"if this is the evolution of geocaching, I quit"

And the log type was "No Find".

From that it is obvious that he did not even attempt to decode the cache description but was (as he usually does) using the cache logs as a message posting forum to air his view.

The second log he posted (after I deleted his first one) he said he did attempt it. Fair enough. But that's still not my idea of a no find. Zuuk gave me a call and we talked on the phone and I'm going to leave his no log find as it is, if that's what he believes it is. But also, on speaking to him on the phone it is clear he has no idea how to even begin decrypting the cache description. How can that be a no find if you can't even attempt it?

I think this whole thread has not been that clear because the first No Find log has not been pasted here.

1.6k · August 9, 2003

Fair enough RobertM, and my new log indeed spells it out the way it is, EMPHATICALLY.

I doubt though, that anyone reading the original log would have concluded that I had solved the cache location, and then was not able to physically find it.

The inference I intended was:

If we have to have special computer programs to even be able to decipher the cache description, what next? Might as well quit. (Or buy a boat... )

August 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
If we have to have special computer programs to even be able to decipher the cache description, what next?

A simple search on Google (typing in info from the cache page) (like one would possilby do with most puzzle caches one initially wouldn't know how to solve) brought a list of items. The second page in the list explains what RSA is, how to use it and the formulas required to encrypt / decrypt, plus also some examples. (Hope I haven't posted a spoiler to the people that still want to do this.)

What special computer program are you talking about? ;-)

1.6k · August 9, 2003

I don't wish this to be a critique of your cache specifically, or of these types of caches per se.

Although I guess I am begging the question by presuming a no-find log is acceptable even though I never left my house.

So I will not answer the question about the computer programs.

August 9, 2003

It is interesting to hear Canadazuuk, use the phrase "the evolution of geocaching". Since he seems to accept the concept of evolution, then he need not worry about the proliferation of caches that few want to(or are able to) attempt. It is natural for cachers to want their caches to be popular. If only 2 out of 10 people want to attempt a particular type of cache, such caches will, through the process of natural selection, eventually become extinct.

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

1.6k · August 9, 2003

Though I am familiar with the book The Blind Watchmaker, I am more fond of The Long War Against God.

Where are the transitional forms? Extinction is one thing, but I still have a tangible dilemma subscribing to the notion that nothing + chance + time = everything

Good point about cachers wanting their caches to be popular.

I changed four of my puzzle caches last night to traditional goto caches. They had few visits from the enlightened during their former life.

August 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:
... If only 2 out of 10 people want to attempt a particular type of cache, such caches will, through the process of natural selection, eventually become extinct.

.... or otherwise evolve into a superior (more popular) form of Geocache though a series of imperceptible transitions....

(the alternate theory is that Jeremy controls it all!!)

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

1.6k · August 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:

the alternate theory is that Jeremy controls it all!!

In a truly pantheistic world, Jeremy IS one of the gods of geocaching.

24.7k · August 9, 2003

I think you at least have to leave your house to look for the cache before you can call it a no find.

8.4k · August 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
I think you at least have to leave your house to look for the cache before you can call it a no find.

Dang RK. Ya beat me to it and were nicer than I would have been.

Don't give in to peer pressure RobertM. I can't figure it out right now either, plus the fact that I am a loooong ways away. (Stangely, I find that comforting. ) It's caches like yours that inspire people to learn a new skill. There's a local cacher here that does the same thing. He is well respected although his caches move very slowly. There's also a cacher here who only seeks the puzzles. I think it's kewl.

It's YOUR cache.

Sngans

Sacred cows make the best hamburger....Mark Twain.

9.5k · August 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
I think you at least have to leave your house to look for the cache before you can call it a no find.

Well looking at the cache description, it looks like decoding is required before you can even begin to look. The coordinates given are within 3km of the actual location.

quote:
The cache is NOT located at the above coordinates but in the general area (within 3km).

To solve: RSA, pq=5723, r=223.

Figure that out and you are on your way! (You may be using different letters to pq and r.)

Once you’ve successfully decoded the cache description numbers below you’ll end up with another set of numbers that should be obvious enough to use if you’ve got that far. (Even "A SKIier" would know!)

Leaving the house first is no good due to the overly large area you would have to search without decoding the clues given.

RobertM merely narrowed down the number of finds his cache is going to receive due to the complexity of the problem. Looking at one of the logs, the response was in kind, and I have no clue what it is except with exception to recognizing it as a programming mathmatical string.

Can one legitimately declare a no find after attempting to decode without leaving the house? I think the answer for this cache would have to be yes only because the decoding was required before you can go on the physical search. It is only fair to expect these kinds of notes when a cache like this is designed.

Cheers!

TL

24.7k · August 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TotemLake:
...Can one legitimately declare a no find after attempting to decode without leaving the house? I think the answer for this cache would have to be yes only because the decoding was required before you can go on the physical search. It is only fair to expect these kinds of notes when a cache like this is designed.

Cheers!

TL

If you know you didn't decode it, then why would you look for the cache? If you screwed it up and thought you had it but didn't and looked then it's a skunk.

If you are frustrated becaue you can't decode it then post a note. This isn't that complex.

Then again, I'm not the one trying to figure out that code. My problem caches all involve rope. Do I log a skunk if I know I can't rappel before I leave the house?

9.5k · August 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

If you know you didn't decode it, then why would you look for the cache? If you screwed it up and thought you had it but didn't and looked then it's a skunk.

If you are frustrated becaue you can't decode it then post a note. This isn't that complex.

Then again, I'm not the one trying to figure out that code. My problem caches all involve rope. Do I log a skunk if I know I can't rappel before I leave the house?

Using your rappelling cache example (assuming I would attempt it)... if I attempted to find it and discovered too late that I needed rope skills to achieve my goal and failed to find the cache; from the many opinions I have read in these forums, this would be considered a DNF based on the guidelines provided.

~Assuming~ that I would even attempt it... IF I put honest effort in decoding and failed... why isn't that as much a skunk as looking for it and failing? The exercise and thus the challenge is different; mental versus physical.

I merely applied the same stated guidelines from a physically failed attempt to a mentally failed attempt.

It is afterall, a puzzle cache of a different sort. It is requiring one to gain the solution to the puzzle to gain the appropriate coordinates rather than requiring one to go out to a multi-waypoint and gaining a code to decipher.

Cheers!

TL

August 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Snoogans:
Don't give in to peer pressure RobertM. I can't figure it out right now either, plus the fact that I am a loooong ways away. (Stangely, I find that comforting. ) It's caches like yours that inspire people to learn a new skill. There's a local cacher here that does the same thing. He is well respected although his caches move very slowly. There's also a cacher here who only seeks the puzzles. I think it's kewl.

It's YOUR cache.

Well thank you Snoogans for the positive comments / feedback.

And just to let everyone know. I've placed puzzle/multi-caches before and am fully aware that by their nature they therefore receive less "hits" than the more simpler Go To type of caches. That is why I have 1 like that out there. I in fact have another 2 I'm currently working on, and 1 of them will be at least a simple Go To cache.

You can't please all the people all the time. So there are different types of caches for different types of folks. Some enjoy the Go To's and only know how to do that, barely knowing how to work the GPS, and good for them in getting involved in this great activity. Then there are others that enjoy the more mental puzzle types of caches (of which there are at least a few here in Vancouver) and isn't it great that there are at least caches where they can think a bit more?

And to reiterate, I don't mind Canadazuuk posting the no find on the cache. If he believes he could not find it after not looking for it, then he can log that. (I don't make the rules, nor do I know what they are, nor do I particularly care. Isn't this about fun?) As pointed out above, what I did not like was his first original no find message which appeared to be more of a snide remark than anything else. His second no find log he posted (after I deleted his first inappropriate one) says he "attempted" it so I'm leaving it.

Can someone remind me what "special equipment" is required to do this cache? ;-)

8.4k · August 9, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by RobertM:
As pointed out above, what I did not like was his first original no find message which appeared to be more of a snide remark than anything else.

At least he stays consistant.

Zoraima had a similar problem with a sockpuppet called Death2McToys. Sounds like you have given it careful thought. Good for you.

BTW- You can UNDELETE and recover that original cache notification from your email.

Sngans

Sacred cows make the best hamburger....Mark Twain.

[This message was edited by Snoogans on August 09, 2003 at 11:41 PM.]

1.6k · August 10, 2003

A cacher goes out to find a cache within 10 minutes of his house, gets halfway down the 30 minute trail, and loses GPS reception, and then logs a no find. The no find is legitimate, in that it signifies that an attempt was made to find the cache, and it wasn't found. I know that this is a grey area; it could simply be a note just as easily. I have logged a note for an attempt before, based on how I felt about the circumstances.

A cacher sits down at his PC to seek new caches, and comes across one that looks interesting. It just happens to be the second that week with 'code' of some type. He punches away into his PC, and comes up empty handed. He tried to find th solution to the puzzle cache, but couldn't. He logs a no find.

Different sameness?

Anyway, it was never meant as a personal attack on RobertM. It was a truthful expression of how I felt about the caching experience.

If I crack the code one day, or someone does it for me, maybe I will log a find.

August 10, 2003

After pondering over this for literally hours last night and this morning, and pretty much getting nowhere, my head hurts.

However, now that I've found an easier way to do it/better explaination, I'm on my way to attempt again.

I hope I can figure this out haha

And Zuuk, if I can figure it out, I'm sure you can!

1.6k · August 10, 2003

From a webpage I was sent:

Can I decompose 'n' to the product of prime numbers, like 'pq'?

The answer is probably NO.

For n = 77 as above, it is very easy to do it, {p, q} = {7, 11}! But in general, it may be a hard task to examine which it is a prime number or not. It requires a large number of divide operations. For instance, if p and q are 1000-bit integers, then n becomes a 2000-bit integer. To factorize it in prime elements, we must examine by dividing with every prime integer in { 2, 3, 5, ... , SquareRoot(n) }, which is known to be about n / log(n) members from the famous prime number theorem. In this case that n is a 2000-bit integer, the number of prime integers less then SquareRoot of n to be examined must be about

21000 / log( 21000 ) = (103)100 / 1000 log(2) = 10298.

Alas, what a big universe number! The 10298 times division will take about 10281 years (Can you imagine it?) even if the 1 G (=109) operations-per-second extraordinary-tough machine works strongly throughout 24 hours a day, 365 days a year! Oh, how old will you be when the calculation has finished?

1.6k · August 10, 2003

And again:

But as you mention several people are probably trying out random keys/solutions, but looking at the possible keys to try (you could say combinations=keys), and the fact that only yesterday distributed.net tried over 160 million of them without success (afaik ;-).

The possibility of finding _the_ key without divine intervention is in one word... microscopical...

August 10, 2003

In my opinion, you should not log a no find. To me a no find means you actually got off your butt, left your house, and actually tried to find it but couldn't.

Now before you say if I can't solve a puzzle on a multi I'd log a no find, I'd say you're wrong in this case too. I'd post a note saying I had not yet figured out the puzzle and will attempt to search for the stage of the multi cache when I figure it out letting the cache hider know my progress on his/her cache.

You haven't searched for anything yet, so it should be a note instead of a no find.

"Following animal paths may make the bushwacking a little easier, but probably won't pay off in the long run, since deer tend not to geocache much." - Geocacher Peeve on the Vaught Ranch Bushwackin Fun (B.D. #2) cache

August 10, 2003

I think you can log a DNF on that cache.

I logged a not found HERE and never left my computer looking for it, But I had spent a lot of time trying to figure it out and couldn't, so I figured a DNF was appropriate. Days later while doing another computer related task I found the answer and, later, the cache. (left the DNF of course).

_________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

August 10, 2003

Well, I managed to not only decode the numbers into more numbers, but the other numbers into letters.

Zuuk, all the info you *need* is on the page. You don't need to find the primes (even though I managed it quite easily by googling "prime factor" which gave me a nice little place to enter the number and it factored it for me).

I went and found all the variables, and it turned out I only needed the ones that were posted on the cache page. Doh.

1.6k · August 10, 2003

So the question now is this:

If I finish solving the cache location virtually, and send another cacher to do the physical signing of the logbook, can we both log a find?

3k · August 10, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
If I finish solving the cache location virtually, and send another cacher to do the physical signing of the logbook, can we both log a find?

Does the cache description specifically allow (or deny) "finds by proxy?"

9.5k · August 10, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by RobertM:

Well thank you Snoogans for the positive comments / feedback.

And just to let everyone know. I've placed puzzle/multi-caches before and am fully aware that by their nature they therefore receive less "hits" than the more simpler Go To type of caches. That is why I have 1 like that out there. I in fact have another 2 I'm currently working on, and 1 of them will be at least a simple Go To cache.

You can't please all the people all the time. So there are different types of caches for different types of folks. Some enjoy the Go To's and only know how to do that, barely knowing how to work the GPS, and good for them in getting involved in this great activity. Then there are others that enjoy the more mental puzzle types of caches (of which there are at least a few here in Vancouver) and isn't it great that there are at least caches where they can think a bit more?

And to reiterate, I don't mind Canadazuuk posting the no find on the cache. If he believes he could not find it after not looking for it, then he can log that. (I don't make the rules, nor do I know what they are, nor do I particularly care. Isn't this about fun?) As pointed out above, what I did not like was his first original no find message which appeared to be more of a snide remark than anything else. His second no find log he posted (after I deleted his first inappropriate one) says he "attempted" it so I'm leaving it.

Can someone remind me what "special equipment" is required to do this cache? ;-)

Hey RobertM,

I hope you didn't think I was criticizing your cache. I'm of the personal belief variety is the spice of life.

I'm not up to speed with math, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good puzzle. In fact, it piqued my curiosity looking at it and I am the type to chew on bones. It is too bad clues were dropped here in this stream.

I merely stuck out my club-footed opinion on whether a DNF was qualified based on the effort required.

Cheers!

TL

24.7k · August 10, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TotemLake:
...Using your rappelling cache example (assuming I would attempt it)... if I attempted to find it and discovered too late that I needed rope skills to achieve my goal and failed to find the cache; from the many opinions I have read in these forums, this would be considered a DNF based on the guidelines provided....

Funny you should mention that. I went with Gotcache? to one of them. We found the cache easily enough and uttery failed to retrieve it. We failed even with rope due to a complete lack of experience. I logged a note, they logged DNF. The world kept turning, and the best part about the rough is that when you knock your golf ball there, you find more of them.

9.5k · August 10, 2003

LMAO - Yup - I think you hit it.

Cheers!

TL

August 10, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TotemLake:
I'm not up to speed with math, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good puzzle. In fact, it piqued my curiosity looking at it and I am the type to chew on bones. It is too bad clues were dropped here in this stream.

I don't mind at all. In fact, if some people can make any sense from anything above then good. Maybe it will spark some people to find the cache that would not have otherwise attempted it, or maybe it sparks an interest in puzzle caches.

As I've told Zuuk in a private e-mail or on the phone (can't remember), all that is required is in the cache description, unencoded. And SombreHippie has seen that for himself and has decoded/decrypted it. Good one SombreHippie!

August 10, 2003

*snicker* (that's *herself*)

August 10, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by SombreHippie & Puppy Dawg:
*snicker* (that's *herself*)

And I forgot to mention PuppyDawg as well. I was gonna ask if the puppydawg is a female as well, but then had to erase the line cause it came out wrong, if you know what I mean. ;-)

August 10, 2003

hahaha

No, he's male. He pretty much just comes. I apparently am the brains of this opperation *laughs*

1.4k · August 10, 2003

I'd say that this does not play well as a no find -- if you were to solve the puzzle, determine the final coordinates, and then go out and look for the cache but not find it -- then it would be a no find.

Consider that when you look at a cache page and read that there are a number of no finds in a row it will send up red flags that perhaps the cache has gone missing -- and it may disuade you from going after the cache. Just because you can't figure out the puzzle, it is not a no find.

You need to actually go out and not find the cache to call it a no find.

Regarding the yellow jeep no find that RobertM and myself both logged -- it was done in jest as a protest about the lameness of that particular locationless cache.

Perhaps, Zuuk, if you'd stop using cache pages as forums posts, you wouldn't have your logs deleted. I myself, have deleted a couple of your logs because they didn't have anything to do specifically with the cache itself.

*****

August 10, 2003

I unfortunately had to delete another log (note) of Canadazuuk's on this cache page.

Why? No, I don't like deleting logs or make it a habit, but he found it fit to post details about the contents of the decrypted message (so he must have figured it out) for everyone to see. Can't other people also have a chance to figure it out for themselves? Why spoil it for everyone?

I can't understand that logic.

August 10, 2003

When one gets off their but, and goes out to find a cache, how close do they physically have to get before they can call it a no find? I think that if it is a puzzle cache and you are not able to figure out the puzzle, it should definately be a "no find",because thats as close to the cache as you are going to get.

9.5k · August 10, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by RobertM:
I unfortunately had to delete another log (note) of Canadazuuk's on this cache page.

Why? No, I don't like deleting logs or make it a habit, but he found it fit to post details about the contents of the decrypted message (so he must have figured it out) for everyone to see. Can't other people also have a chance to figure it out for themselves? Why spoil it for everyone?

I can't understand that logic.

Bummer attitude from canadazuuk after raising such a pitiful ruckus.

Cheers!

TL

August 10, 2003

Why not...

Ecrypt the note that gives away the details, and then those who want to solve it can, others can "cheat".

But, if you only want it found by people who have solved the puzzle, then ask people not to give it away.

IMNSHO, the person who did the work of placing the cache should have a certain amount of say about the way the cache is designed to be solved. No one has to go any farther than clicking the "Back" button on his browser once he sees what the cache is all about.

On the evolution thing... entropy is going to have its effects, and only with intelligent guidance will any system improve over time.

I hope that someday we will be able to put away

our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people.

1.6k · August 10, 2003

Yeah yeah, I showed ONE word from the cache description (which was also a different language, BTW)...

August 10, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mark 42:
Why not...

Ecrypt the note that gives away the details, and then those who want to solve it can, others can "cheat".

Too late. ;-) I deleted it this morning. I could have hit Permanently Encrypt instead, but it seems his only intention is to spoil this cache.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark 42:
But, if you only want it found by people who have solved the puzzle, then ask people not to give it away.

I have no problem with cachers e-mailing between themselves getting hints on how to do it. All I ask is that people don't "publicly" spoil it for others by posting spoilers on the cache page. Actually I'll edit the page now and include that comment at the bottom.

1.6k · August 10, 2003

I have edited my second no find log now to a note. The jury seems split on whether a DNF could be logged here or not.

5.3k · August 10, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
A cacher goes out to find a cache within 10 minutes of his house, gets halfway down the 30 minute trail, and loses GPS reception, and then logs a no find. The no find is legitimate, in that it signifies that an attempt was made to find the cache, and it wasn't found.

In your example, let's suppose the geocacher wrote this DNF:

"I hate caches where you actually have to walk to get to them. If this is where geocaching ie headed, I quit."

That's not a legitimate DNF log, it's an obnoxious whine. As was yours. Get over yourself.

August 11, 2003

If only there were a way to mark a cache "ignored", then there would be no reason for people to use the DNF and notes to remember caches that they do not want to do or can't do.

CAN I LOG A NO FIND ON THIS CACHE?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment