Jump to content

Skipping Multi-cache Stages


WH

Recommended Posts

What was not mentioned in the below post was that the Cacher knew where the cache was from knowing one of the owners and therefore knew more than most cachers about where the final would be. Is is not fair to drive to the final and take one of the nice prizes while another group has spent two days 12-14 hours working the cache. If you want to find a regular cache then go find one, if you want a MULTI then work it! It is a given to work the multi especailly when this cache was a 5/5 and took months and tons of sweat energy and money to put together. Now does that make a difference??????

 

 

 

My apologies for resurrecting a four-year old thread, but I couldn't find another that directly addressed what I wanted to ask. (If someone can direct me that way, great!)

 

A new cache pops up in my area and it looks like an epic adventure based on a well-known TV series. At the first stage a book is provided with information on the seventeen "episodes", many with seemingly intricate puzzles to solve and a couple that will have to be completed at night. After a complete read of the book I discover that the location of the final cache is pretty darn obvious so make the 40 mile round-trip drive, find the cache, sign the logbook, and swap some trackables. I also send an email to the cache owner letting them know what I did, how I did it, and promising to complete all of the other stages in the near future and in the company of a couple of friends.

 

The cache was found by two cachers later that day who completed all episodes, some in the company of the cache owner.

 

My Find log gets deleted by the cache owner who claims that they were getting flak. (Quotes from emails include, "It was not fair to the group who spent two days searching and locating each episode." and "I was put in a bad situation with other cachers being not to happy about it being there ,so I removed it!")

 

At the time I signed the logbook there was nothing on the cache page about having to find all episodes in order to find the cache, but it now contains, "YOU MUST FIND ALL EPISODES TO LOG THIS CACHE! IT IS A REQUIREMENT!"

 

In the big picture this is no big deal. I plan to find all of the episodes when time allows. (The two who completed all 17 episodes took about 14 hours.) I know that a cache owner has much power and latitude with their caches, but should my "Find" have been deleted? Was my "Find" legitimate?

Link to comment

What was not mentioned in the below post was that the Cacher knew where the cache was from knowing one of the owners and therefore knew more than most cachers about where the final would be. Is is not fair to drive to the final and take one of the nice prizes while another group has spent two days 12-14 hours working the cache. If you want to find a regular cache then go find one, if you want a MULTI then work it! It is a given to work the multi especailly when this cache was a 5/5 and took months and tons of sweat energy and money to put together. Now does that make a difference??????

Welcome to the forums!

:anicute::D

Link to comment

And let me add that the cache finder lied in the logbook about his least favorite and most favorite esisodes of the hunt. Which is disrespectful since he did not even go to them!!! I did change the cache page so that I do not have to deal with this again. This situation put me into a bad postion with other cachers who asked if I could remove the log in the logbook, from the cacher who did not find all stages. It is named a multi for a reason!

 

What was not mentioned in the below post was that the Cacher knew where the cache was from knowing one of the owners and therefore knew more than most cachers about where the final would be. Is is not fair to drive to the final and take one of the nice prizes while another group has spent two days 12-14 hours working the cache. If you want to find a regular cache then go find one, if you want a MULTI then work it! It is a given to work the multi especailly when this cache was a 5/5 and took months and tons of sweat energy and money to put together. Now does that make a difference??????

 

 

 

My apologies for resurrecting a four-year old thread, but I couldn't find another that directly addressed what I wanted to ask. (If someone can direct me that way, great!)

 

A new cache pops up in my area and it looks like an epic adventure based on a well-known TV series. At the first stage a book is provided with information on the seventeen "episodes", many with seemingly intricate puzzles to solve and a couple that will have to be completed at night. After a complete read of the book I discover that the location of the final cache is pretty darn obvious so make the 40 mile round-trip drive, find the cache, sign the logbook, and swap some trackables. I also send an email to the cache owner letting them know what I did, how I did it, and promising to complete all of the other stages in the near future and in the company of a couple of friends.

 

The cache was found by two cachers later that day who completed all episodes, some in the company of the cache owner.

 

My Find log gets deleted by the cache owner who claims that they were getting flak. (Quotes from emails include, "It was not fair to the group who spent two days searching and locating each episode." and "I was put in a bad situation with other cachers being not to happy about it being there ,so I removed it!")

 

At the time I signed the logbook there was nothing on the cache page about having to find all episodes in order to find the cache, but it now contains, "YOU MUST FIND ALL EPISODES TO LOG THIS CACHE! IT IS A REQUIREMENT!"

 

In the big picture this is no big deal. I plan to find all of the episodes when time allows. (The two who completed all 17 episodes took about 14 hours.) I know that a cache owner has much power and latitude with their caches, but should my "Find" have been deleted? Was my "Find" legitimate?

Link to comment

And let me add that the cache finder lied in the logbook about his least favorite and most favorite esisodes of the hunt. Which is disrespectful since he did not even go to them!!! I did change the cache page so that I do not have to deal with this again. This situation put me into a bad postion with other cachers who asked if I could remove the log in the logbook, from the cacher who did not find all stages. It is named a multi for a reason!

As the cache owner you have a right to do whatever you please with the cache page, BUT...

 

Being dictatorial with one's cache will have certain consequences...

Link to comment

If he used "inside information" to skip the stages, then that's cheating. If he took a prize (rather than doing a swap), then it's very bad form.

 

It was presented differently: that you could deduce the final without having to go to all the stages (and without the help of the cache owner). You seem to be contradicting this.

 

I don't mind how you "police" your cache, so no need to defend yourself if you don't feel like it. Now you've changed the cache to an ALR multi, people can decide whether they want to comply or ignore the cache.

But if I was the cache police, I'd have to ask you a couple of questions, and it might be interesting to hear your thoughts for the purpose of the discussion.

  1. If the cache can only be found by following the multi stages, why do you now need to add additional logging requirements? Surely you've very likely dealt with the only case of cheating - I guess the cache owners will no longer give out the final location?
  2. If I was to find a legitimate way around some (or all) of the stages, or perhaps just have a lucky guess at the position of the final, do you really expect me to go back and find all the other stages - when I could just keep quiet about it and you would never know the difference?

I've used shortcuts to several multicaches and mystery caches, and it never even occurred to me that the cache owner would delete my log (obviously I was simply exploiting weak designs rather than cheating though!).

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

Now does that make a difference??????

Maybe not this time, but perhaps it will make a difference in the future. The lesson I hope you take away: Don't give away inside information about your future cache plans. I did that once, and a finder rightly put it to good use. He admitted to it in his log. Applause to him for stumbling across the easter egg that I carelessly left behind!

Link to comment

No information was Given to this person but knowing me and an accident I had and where it took place gave him the cache location because of the episode in the cache book! Most would not have known this info.

 

 

Now does that make a difference??????

Maybe not this time, but perhaps it will make a difference in the future. The lesson I hope you take away: Don't give away inside information about your future cache plans. I did that once, and a finder rightly put it to good use. He admitted to it in his log. Applause to him for stumbling across the easter egg that I carelessly left behind!

Link to comment

And this cacher never admitted to not finding all locations but was busted because the FTF' group that was working the cache from beginning to end found and error which would not have got him to . Which would not have gotten him to the cache.

 

 

No information was Given to this person but knowing me and an accident I had and where it took place gave him the cache location because of the episode in the cache book! Most would not have known this info.

 

 

Now does that make a difference??????

Maybe not this time, but perhaps it will make a difference in the future. The lesson I hope you take away: Don't give away inside information about your future cache plans. I did that once, and a finder rightly put it to good use. He admitted to it in his log. Applause to him for stumbling across the easter egg that I carelessly left behind!

Link to comment

My apologies for resurrecting a four-year old thread, but I couldn't find another that directly addressed what I wanted to ask. (If someone can direct me that way, great!)

 

A new cache pops up in my area and it looks like an epic adventure based on a well-known TV series. At the first stage a book is provided with information on the seventeen "episodes", many with seemingly intricate puzzles to solve and a couple that will have to be completed at night. After a complete read of the book I discover that the location of the final cache is pretty darn obvious so make the 40 mile round-trip drive, find the cache, sign the logbook, and swap some trackables. I also send an email to the cache owner letting them know what I did, how I did it, and promising to complete all of the other stages in the near future and in the company of a couple of friends.

 

The cache was found by two cachers later that day who completed all episodes, some in the company of the cache owner.

 

My Find log gets deleted by the cache owner who claims that they were getting flak. (Quotes from emails include, "It was not fair to the group who spent two days searching and locating each episode." and "I was put in a bad situation with other cachers being not to happy about it being there ,so I removed it!")

 

At the time I signed the logbook there was nothing on the cache page about having to find all episodes in order to find the cache, but it now contains, "YOU MUST FIND ALL EPISODES TO LOG THIS CACHE! IT IS A REQUIREMENT!"

 

In the big picture this is no big deal. I plan to find all of the episodes when time allows. (The two who completed all 17 episodes took about 14 hours.) I know that a cache owner has much power and latitude with their caches, but should my "Find" have been deleted? Was my "Find" legitimate?

I agree with the earlier posters who first responded to the OP back in 2004, namely, that if you managed to find a way to find the cache, well, you found the cache, and you deserve the find! If anything, if I were the cache owner, I would applaud your ingenuity in managing to skip a few stages. It is hardly your fault or problem if the cache owner designed a multi-stage cache where it was possible to easily figure out the location of the final state!

Link to comment

I pointed out this thread to the cache owner in question so that she could follow along and -- if she desired -- add her three cents worth. Since she has now jumped in feet first I can be a little more direct:

 

The coordinates for the physical cache are available for anyone to calculate from the information provided by the cache owner with NO previous knowledge of the cache owner. By using simple substitution and then some basic math all of the coordinates can be filled in with the exception of one -- the second decimal of longitude. (And it can only be one of three numbers.) The distance between using the three numbers is less than 400 feet, but once you arrive at the obvious parking spot for all three points you will see a sign that basically lets you know you are in the right spot. The use of one's geo-senses then directs you to the cache. (Plus the original hint was very specific once in the general area.) [i have also had communication with one of the two finders who found all stages -- he says he had the coordinates for the final long before completing everything but decided to continue stage to stage.]

 

The cache is based on The Twilight Zone and each of the stages is loosely based on a different episode. The cache owner refers to the stages as "episodes". The logbook has a section asking for your favorite/least favorite episodes. I answered based on the synopses included in the book -- and my memory of many watched TZ episodes. Apparently the cache owner was looking for opinions on the stages of the cache hunt and not opinions on the TZ episodes. A mis-interpretation at most. But as I understood the question I did not lie.

 

I swapped trade items -- I left two can openers, two lanyards, and a completely new never used and still in the box wireless phone. (I also dropped in a GJTB and a geocoin.) I took a pen and a geocoin. (And inadvertently took a $10 gift certificate that I stuck in my pocket while checking out the loot; I meant to put it back in the cache before leaving but found it still in my pocket on the drive back home. I told the cache owner that I would replace the gift certificate ASAP.) I think I definitely traded up.

 

There is no doubt that the cache owner has put an incredible amount of time, effort, and money into the cache. The investment -- emotional too -- has been great and over a long period of time. Having had a similar experience with one of my own more extreme caches I can empathize. But still feel that with my signature in the logbook I deserve the find. And I still plan to go out with some friends and find the rest of the stages.

Link to comment

What was not mentioned in the below post was that the Cacher knew where the cache was from knowing one of the owners and therefore knew more than most cachers about where the final would be. Is is not fair to drive to the final and take one of the nice prizes while another group has spent two days 12-14 hours working the cache. If you want to find a regular cache then go find one, if you want a MULTI then work it! It is a given to work the multi especailly when this cache was a 5/5 and took months and tons of sweat energy and money to put together. Now does that make a difference??????

 

No. Why should that make a difference? Sign log, get smiley. Pure and simple.

I've brute forced mystery caches. Signed log, got smiley. I've had people brute force mine (or worse, get hints from other finders.) Oh, well. Signed log, got smiley! I've learnt to design them better!

I have had one disagreement with a cache owner who did not approve of the way I found the cache. I did not "experience it properly". He did not delete my FTF. I did, and have chosen to ignore his caches in the future. As I would yours! One should never change the rules retroactively.

It being said that I (and most here) do not approve of such behaviour, I would suggest that your cache is no longer a 'multi', but rather a 'mystery/unknown' due to the ALR that you have imposed retroactively. Therefore, you should archive your 'multi' cache, and republish as a 'mystery/unknown' type of cache.

 

If you sign my log, you get a smiley, no matter how you found it! If you don't sign the log, then, and only then, will you have to worry about gettingyour log deleed.

Chill out, and have a nice day.

Link to comment

No information was Given to this person but knowing me and an accident I had and where it took place gave him the cache location because of the episode in the cache book! Most would not have known this info.

P24K:

 

As I pointed out in my last post the coordinates ARE calculable from information contained in the book with NO information about you and/or your past. If I scanned the relevant page and loaded it here I am sure that folks would have a decent idea what road to drive in order to get to the cache within half an hour at most. When you "encoded" the coordinates you should not have also encoded the numbers representing the full degrees; that alone gives anyone five digits for free.

 

Ask RC to verify if he had the coordinates -- within a hundred feet or so -- way before getting to the second last stage.

 

I didn't lie. I used no "inside" information. I used my brain and saved myself much time and effort.

 

And I still plan on going out with someone to find the rest of the stages.

 

I am sorry you feel the way that you do.

Link to comment

And this cacher never admitted to not finding all locations but was busted because the FTF' group that was working the cache from beginning to end found and error which would not have got him to . Which would not have gotten him to the cache.

 

P24K:

 

You have quite the selective memory. In an email I sent to you on the morning after I logged your cache -- maybe10 hours later, I wrote, "As you have already guessed I did NOT find all of the stages. In fact the only stage I DID find is the first -- though I have calculated the coordinates for about half of them. The book provides a whole lot of info that enables you to get much of the missing info, and then a few assumptions gets you the rest of the way." The assumptions were mainly mathematical; believe it or not, Sudoku puzzles have practical applications for solving missing digits of cache coordinates.

 

My now-archived online log as well as my physical log were written in an ambiguous manner so it wasn't immediately apparent if I had found all of the stages or not. I did this intentionally as I knew that there were folks working on finding all of the stages and that they would be signing the logbook probably later that same day. I wanted them to go, "How did he do that?"

 

The reactions to my find have been, IMHO, disproportionate to the situation.

 

And Kim, for that I am sorry.

 

Graeme

Link to comment

Yes you told me after I asked and now that you have given cache information away that should not have been disclosed I will be archiving the cache that took me months and months to make.

 

 

And this cacher never admitted to not finding all locations but was busted because the FTF' group that was working the cache from beginning to end found and error which would not have got him to . Which would not have gotten him to the cache.

 

P24K:

 

You have quite the selective memory. In an email I sent to you on the morning after I logged your cache -- maybe10 hours later, I wrote, "As you have already guessed I did NOT find all of the stages. In fact the only stage I DID find is the first -- though I have calculated the coordinates for about half of them. The book provides a whole lot of info that enables you to get much of the missing info, and then a few assumptions gets you the rest of the way." The assumptions were mainly mathematical; believe it or not, Sudoku puzzles have practical applications for solving missing digits of cache coordinates.

 

My now-archived online log as well as my physical log were written in an ambiguous manner so it wasn't immediately apparent if I had found all of the stages or not. I did this intentionally as I knew that there were folks working on finding all of the stages and that they would be signing the logbook probably later that same day. I wanted them to go, "How did he do that?"

 

The reactions to my find have been, IMHO, disproportionate to the situation.

 

And Kim, for that I am sorry.

 

Graeme

Link to comment

What was not mentioned in the below post was that the Cacher knew where the cache was from knowing one of the owners and therefore knew more than most cachers about where the final would be. Is is not fair to drive to the final and take one of the nice prizes while another group has spent two days 12-14 hours working the cache. If you want to find a regular cache then go find one, if you want a MULTI then work it! It is a given to work the multi especailly when this cache was a 5/5 and took months and tons of sweat energy and money to put together. Now does that make a difference??????

 

No. Why should that make a difference? Sign log, get smiley. Pure and simple.

I've brute forced mystery caches. Signed log, got smiley. I've had people brute force mine (or worse, get hints from other finders.) Oh, well. Signed log, got smiley! I've learnt to design them better!

I have had one disagreement with a cache owner who did not approve of the way I found the cache. I did not "experience it properly". He did not delete my FTF. I did, and have chosen to ignore his caches in the future. As I would yours! One should never change the rules retroactively.

It being said that I (and most here) do not approve of such behaviour, I would suggest that your cache is no longer a 'multi', but rather a 'mystery/unknown' due to the ALR that you have imposed retroactively. Therefore, you should archive your 'multi' cache, and republish as a 'mystery/unknown' type of cache.

 

If you sign my log, you get a smiley, no matter how you found it! If you don't sign the log, then, and only then, will you have to worry about gettingyour log deleed.

Chill out, and have a nice day.

I agree with Harry and with Leprechauns. The cache was found, fair and square, by OzGuff using his own type of ingenuity, albeit using a different method than anticipated by the hider. If the find method used by OzGuff bothers the cache hider so much, then she simply needs to make her future multi-stage and puzzle hides more "secure" and bulletproof, but to punish the finder by deleting his find makes no sense to me at all, and, were I a local, I would push for this cache to be archived by Groundspeak or the reviewers in a heartbeat due to unconscionable actions on the part of the cache owner.

Link to comment

This seems to have been blown way out of proportion. I'm sad to see that something simple like this has caused a rift between local cachers. It really doesn't seem like this cache should be archived. :D

No, Ambrosia. It needs to be archived, because the type of cache has been changed.

When one rides a high horse, one must be prepared for an occasional fall.

Link to comment

Well I have offered the cacher the find. I sent him his log to copy/paste but he thrives on discourse. Now that the easy route to the cache has been posted for the world to see it is going to take alot of money and time to fix it. This was a 36 pages all day long cache and was exciting for myself as well as the other cache owner because it was was a tribute to how she saved my life 2 years ago when I fell 50 feet from cliffs and broke my back. She found me and now we own our own business. So this cache meant a lot to us, now it's just causingme stress. I had a very difficult time placing alot of the stages since I am considered disabled now. So it was meant to be worked, the cacher knew this and has known me for a long time! I sent him an email over an hour ago telling him to log the find because I am tired of the drama but he is continuing to post and give away the cache information after the find was offered back to him. So yes it is sad to say the least. I am very disappointed. I will say no more!

 

This seems to have been blown way out of proportion. I'm sad to see that something simple like this has caused a rift between local cachers. It really doesn't seem like this cache should be archived. :D

Link to comment

Of the 184 multi's I have found, I'm sure I skipped one or more stages on at least half of them. I have been chastised by very few owners over this. CacheBandits cursed me over one of theirs, but then they are always cursing at me. :D

I suspect some of the other owners were not particulary enthused by my actions. On a number of occasions, the hints were changed after I posted my log.

 

I can see the argument about possibly missing some of what the hider wanted me to pass by, but trust me in that I usuallly end of knowing more about the area than those who walk it with GPS in hand. Skipping stages often means careful investigation of trail maps, and delving into the mind of the hider. It means making slow careful inspection of the route, looking for sites that match the clues, without knowing if you are on the right trail.

 

 

-WR

 

I skip a lot too, I see it more as the clever then the cheating, to me if you find the final you found the cache.

Link to comment

What was not mentioned in the below post was that the Cacher knew where the cache was from knowing one of the owners and therefore knew more than most cachers about where the final would be. Is is not fair to drive to the final and take one of the nice prizes while another group has spent two days 12-14 hours working the cache. If you want to find a regular cache then go find one, if you want a MULTI then work it! It is a given to work the multi especailly when this cache was a 5/5 and took months and tons of sweat energy and money to put together. Now does that make a difference??????

 

If you really want answers.... based on your statements alone, whether they are truthful or not.

 

Cacher knew where the cache was from knowing one of the owners and therefore knew more than most cachers about where the final would be

 

I'm not sure how this relates. I know a lot of cachers and still would be hard pressed to find one of their caches based on that criterion alone.

 

Is is not fair to drive to the final and take one of the nice prizes while another group has spent two days 12-14 hours working the cache.

 

Fair does not enter into this at all when it comes to how one person does a cache compared to another. What you mean is that it is not fair that one person was able to "Fast Forward". That scenario was created, and the loophole was found, and now hopefully you've closed it. Personally I think it was rather nice of them to tell you of it so you could fix it up so that others enjoy the cache the way it was intended.

 

If you want to find a regular cache then go find one, if you want a MULTI then work it! It is a given to work the multi especailly when this cache was a 5/5 and took months and tons of sweat energy and money to put together.

 

At the most that is all non sequitur. I'm certainly not saying whether or not I condone the method used by the finder but creating an involved geocache as it appears that you have ALWAYS takes considerable more effort and resources than it does for people to find it. And sometimes you need to make corrections after the fact.

 

Obviously you are very passionate about your cache, and you really want people to enjoy it. I hope you can get past this event that has upset you. It sounds like it is a fun one, and now that you've made some adjustments to it hopefully the acolades will pour in. Let it go, it's not worth being upset about and negative comments only serve to lessen the enjoyment for others.

 

:D BQ

Edited by The Blue Quasar
Link to comment

I sent him an email over an hour ago telling him to log the find because I am tired of the drama but he is continuing to post and give away the cache information after the find was offered back to him. So yes it is sad to say the least. I am very disappointed. I will say no more!

 

Well, you did rather back him into a corner. In a public forum, you basically called him a cheat for using personal information, and the only way to refute that was to show that anyone with the required logic and mathematical skills could have done the same thing.

 

Frankly, anyone who could follow his 'hints' would already know how to solve simple substitution cyphers and could choose how they wanted to do your cache.

 

There is a challenge involved in being the FTF, which tends to trump the fun of following the stages of a long multicache. Ozguff has said that he intended to go back and experience the rest of the cache with friends, which he could've done at any time, but the FTF is only available once!

 

This is your chance to show some generosity of spirit and both reward his ingenuity in finding your cache and to leave your cache online for others to enjoy.

Link to comment

As OzGuff has given more info about how he found the cache...

 

Again, more power to ya.

 

I love 'puzzle' caches like that... and can/have frequently 'solved' them in just the same way... although I think some of the hiders around here are catching on. I did try to muscle my way through one in a similar fashion last year and I only found a pot field.

 

Lots of smilies... but no smiley.

 

 

michelle

Link to comment
Is is not fair to drive to the final and take one of the nice prizes while another group has spent two days 12-14 hours working the cache.
If I ever get so incredibly anal about my hides that I would even remotely consider such borish behavior, I hope someone will beat me sensless with rotten lemmings. He found the final. He deserves the find. Anything else is just silly.
Link to comment

PUR24KARET;

 

I feel like I’m listening in on a private quarrel that is totally none of my business, but as this is a public forum, I would like to offer this constructive suggestion:

 

If you're going to archive your cache anyway, why not start over with OzGuff as one your partners? Rebuild your multicache with the final hidden in a new location, then, if he agrees, let OzGuff play-test the whole thing before listing it as a brand new, freshly reborn cache.

 

Advantages:

  • OzGuff, a skilled cache-cracker with a proven record, will carefully check your challenge for unintended holes, snags, and shortcuts.
  • You can then list your new hide with confidence.
  • Since completing the stages in sequence will then be the ONLY way to the final, you won’t need to ‘patch’ your description with the artificial ‘requirement.’
  • OzGuff will get to enjoy working the challenge before anyone else gets to see it.
  • OzGuff will, in return, need to agree to waive the right to claim a First Find – or any find at all, depending on whatever agreement the two of you decide – thus preventing a replay of the current debacle.
  • In the process you and OzGuff will get a chance to make up, trade olive branches, and have some fun.

In the past I have made it a habit to have a friend play-test each of my puzzles or difficult multicaches before submitting them for public listing. I made a significant improvement to one of my most recent puzzles as a result of some quality feedback from my brother. If I lived in Asheville I would consider either you or OzGuff to be a valuable resource if either of you were ever willing to do me such a favor.

 

You really wouldn’t be starting over from scratch, right? You’ve already got the concept, the description, the hardware, and whatever else is involved. Just move the final to a new spot, re-work the coded part as necessary, and then let OzGuff have at it!

 

If you decide not to archive the cache, then at least consider my suggestion for your next challenge. Use Ozzie for quality control! I know I would. :D

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

Well I have offered the cacher the find. I sent him his log to copy/paste but he thrives on discourse. Now that the easy route to the cache has been posted for the world to see it is going to take alot of money and time to fix it. This was a 36 pages all day long cache and was exciting for myself as well as the other cache owner because it was was a tribute to how she saved my life 2 years ago when I fell 50 feet from cliffs and broke my back. She found me and now we own our own business. So this cache meant a lot to us, now it's just causingme stress. I had a very difficult time placing alot of the stages since I am considered disabled now. So it was meant to be worked, the cacher knew this and has known me for a long time! I sent him an email over an hour ago telling him to log the find because I am tired of the drama but he is continuing to post and give away the cache information after the find was offered back to him. So yes it is sad to say the least. I am very disappointed. I will say no more!

Have you considered, even for a second, that none of this would have happened if you hadn't made a rookie mistake in puzzle design? You don't seem to want to take any responsibility for the puzzle's flawed design.

Edited by Prime Suspect
Link to comment

Ok...I'm new here but I have to say...this seems silly.

A find is a find.

Someone posting hints that will help others bypass stages falls under the spoilers heading and that's up to the next cacher to read or not read. I choose to not read the logs and hints (other than learning a quick check of the logs to see if the last bunch were DNFs and possibly a note about something wrong with the sequence).

Maybe a simple editing of the find log to not be such a give-away?

As for the archiving of the cache...sounds like a bummer to me because it sounds like a really cool one to work on (so the only people being hurt here really are the future cachers who don't get to try this one...and isn't that what it's all about?)

 

and ok...not exactly the same thing but somehow in my head it seems to relate enough that I kept coming back to it as I read all this...

 

Last week I was trying to find a local cache.

I looked for close to two hours one evening...while I was looking the park ranger came by because he wanted to close the gate down the hill. He asked if I was geocaching and I said yes. I asked if he had any kind of hint for me and he said, "I didn't even know we had one." He gave me another 15 minutes to keep looking before he locked up but I still didn't find it. I went back the next day with a friend and spent another hour looking all around GZ to no avail. The cosmic coincidence came into play when the cache owner showed up for a Spring checkup on her cache. Once the introductions took place she told us we were looking in the right place...after 10 more minutes of searching she ended up telling me I actually had the cache in my hand but tossed it aside without realizing I'd found it. When she pointed that out, we quickly saw the micro inside the stick I'd tossed aside. Upon opening it she asked if we wanted to sign the log. I said no thanks because it just didn't feel like a real find to me (I think I only had 2 or 3 at that point). We chatted a bit and I naturally complimented her on a cool hide. I didn't sign the log, nor did I log it as a find online...it just didn't seem right to me.

In another of my first finds...I found the first and second (final) stages of a multi but because of a muggle I didn't sign the log in the final stage...my online log entry was deleted (I was shocked at first but then caught on to the idea of having to sign the real log before logging the find)...so I went back the next day and signed the log, re-did the online log and it stuck.

 

So...how does this relate to the cache in question? Um................I'm not sure....it's kinda late and I'm probably babbling. But the point I'm trying to make is....Please leave the cache out there...it sounds WAY WAY cool and with (maybe) some slight tweaking or editing of the cache page (or the 'found' log) will still be a ton of fun for future cachers.

I'd probably suck at it, the only 2 TZ episodes I really remember are the Burgess Meredith broken glasses one and one where at the end you found out the people were living in an alien zoo.

 

I may be an altruistic dipstick here...but this is the second time today I've read about a cacher archiving their caches because they're mad at a cacher or a reviewer...I'd just ask one simple question....who does this hurt? The reviewer in the other thread certainly doesn't care, I bet the finder here doesn't care....the only ones who are hurt are the hider (because they'll be internalizing the angst) and the future cachers who won't get the chance to go after the hides.

Just seems like one of those times when the (former) therapist in me wants to tell everyone to lighten up, this is supposed to be fun!

Link to comment

.. and now that you have given cache information away that should not have been disclosed I will be archiving the cache that took me months and months to make.

There seems to be just a hint of a tantrum there! :D

You might not actually want any advice, but now it's all out in this thread you'll get some anyway...

 

The cache can still live on perfectly well and provide hours of entertainment. You could leave it as it is, and I'm sure that you'll find most people going round every stage in the way you were hoping. Some will spot a shortcut or two, and may choose to ignore them or take advantage: whatever they feel like doing. It Is supposed to be "fun", after all.

 

Perhaps some may read this thread (or not) and figure out how to make it into a traditional cache.

If they fancy doing the whole thing, then they may still go ahead: if not, it's because they don't want to (for whatever reason). With the ALR you added, they just won't log it - without, they would have found it and logged it, having not bothered with the trail. What do you lose?

 

Aside from tweaking the cache design to remove the flaws, the best solution (IMO) is to remove the ALR and replace it with the text "I know that there are shortcuts you can take to miss out stages. You're welcome to use your initiative and do this if it appeals, but be warned that you'll miss out on the whole cache experience and you may be diminishing your enjoyment.".

 

I have a multi where people regularly deduce some likely final coordinates by the time they are half way through. But I realised this and designed it so that they have to pass all the remaining stages anyway, so everyone does the whole thing.

Link to comment

First of all I would again like to thank all that have replied! The fact that the vast majority of folks here considered my "find" legitimate was nice to hear.

 

However, I have decided to wait until I complete the rest of the stages in order to re-log the find. P24K obviously has a lot tied up in this cache; if our relationship is salvageable -- and it is a pretty big "if" -- then this is the first step.

Link to comment

First of all I would again like to thank all that have replied! The fact that the vast majority of folks here considered my "find" legitimate was nice to hear.

 

However, I have decided to wait until I complete the rest of the stages in order to re-log the find. P24K obviously has a lot tied up in this cache; if our relationship is salvageable -- and it is a pretty big "if" -- then this is the first step.

 

Or add P24K to your 'ignore' file.

 

If it were me, I'd cut my losses at this point.

 

 

michelle

Link to comment

If I were to find out the some one had passed over stages of one of my multis, I would delete their find.

 

Hopefully your cache pages mention that all stages must be found.

No they do not, but it stands to reason that if a cache is a mutli all stages should be completed.

I own the cache, and I have the last word re any questionalble logs, I have deleted (bogus) logs on caches in the past and I will do so in the future

Edited by JohnnyVegas
Link to comment
No they do not, but it stands to reason that if a cache is a mutli all stages should be completed.

What reason is that?

 

If a muggle can log a find on an unintentionally found cache, why are the rules different if you are looking for the cache? It simply doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Ah let me see, OH! Becuase they did not do the cache as intended!!!!

I'm not a mindreader. I don't know what you intended, only what I see in front of me. Having to complete each and every stage is not a community standard by any means. How do I know you didn't build in a way to short cut your multi? Maybe it's a puzzle. "Skip from the first stage to the last or do 14 other stages." That's what some folks are doing.

Link to comment
Ah let me see, OH! Becuase they did not do the cache as intended!!!!

I'm not a mindreader. I don't know what you intended, only what I see in front of me. Having to complete each and every stage is not a community standard by any means. How do I know you didn't build in a way to short cut your multi? Maybe it's a puzzle. "Skip from the first stage to the last or do 14 other stages." That's what some folks are doing.

 

If I can find your cache in a different manner than you intended I darned well SHOULD be able to log the find. Why should your way be the only way? Otherwise you might be dragging me through seemingly endless stages that are meaningless just because you can. Unless you state on the cache page that every stage must be completed you should not be taking exception to anyone who figures out a way to find your cache that just might be different from what you came up with. After all the guidelines don't say anything about blindly following the little arrow through all 47 waypoints before you sign the log. They say to find the cache and sign the log.

Link to comment

I've had people find the final on two different multis that I have, without doing everything I meant for them to do. I cannot for the life of me figure out how they did it.

 

One is a 4-5 mile hike with two stages with coords to the next, and then the final. The second stage had some problems there for a while, and one person just kept hiking along and after a couple miles, guessed where I had placed the final and found it.

 

I think that is just extraordinary and I'm proud to have them log my multi. Yay for them. :laughing::laughing:

Link to comment

A local caching team (of two) visited a nearby 3-stage multi in a wood, to discover that the second stage had been muggled. Unperturbed, the team headed off deeper in to the plantation searching for the final box, using the hint ("under a tree"!). Within a short time they chanced upon the cache. Legitimate find? I guess not according to Johnny Vegas! :laughing:

 

I must say that insistence that a cache must be found in the style dictated to by the cache owner is curious behaviour. Particularly when there's an exploitable weakness in the design, or when this is just an arbitrary requirement.

 

Actually, I quite enjoy the "detective work" challenge aspect of finding a shortcut, even though sometimes it may have been quicker just to go to every stage. Isn't it meant to be simply about the finders enjoying the cache? As long as I don't spoil anyone else's options, I don't see why any cache owner would have a problem with people taking shortcuts. I sometimes design them in, allowing cachers to have a quick find or a more scenic one depending on how they feel.

Link to comment
Legitimate find? I guess not according to Johnny Vegas!

No doubt. I reckon it's a good thing that Kalifornia won't let me past their borders. I can just imagine the log deletion notes:

You used a pokey stick instead of digging around with your hands...

You opened my ammo can with your right hand instead of your left...

You read the hint after only 15 minutes. 30 minutes is the required minimum...

You used a flashlight to look into the hiding spot...

You were listening to The White Album instead of the Beastie Boys when you made your find...

You used Word instead of WordPad to view source...

 

You didn't make your find as I intended, therefor you're getting deleted!!!

 

Yeah, I'd probably have trouble with that. :laughing:

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

No information was Given to this person but knowing me and an accident I had and where it took place gave him the cache location because of the episode in the cache book! Most would not have known this info.

 

 

Now does that make a difference??????

Maybe not this time, but perhaps it will make a difference in the future. The lesson I hope you take away: Don't give away inside information about your future cache plans. I did that once, and a finder rightly put it to good use. He admitted to it in his log. Applause to him for stumbling across the easter egg that I carelessly left behind!

And your point is????? :laughing:

Link to comment

If I were to find out the some one had passed over stages of one of my multis, I would delete their find.

 

Hopefully your cache pages mention that all stages must be found.

No they do not, but it stands to reason that if a cache is a mutli all stages should be completed.

I own the cache, and I have the last word re any questionalble logs, I have deleted (bogus) logs on caches in the past and I will do so in the future

 

So if I have a unannounced rule that all my caches must be done in shorts and flip flops I'd be OK deleting logs of those that don't comply?

Link to comment

First of all I would again like to thank all that have replied! The fact that the vast majority of folks here considered my "find" legitimate was nice to hear.

 

However, I have decided to wait until I complete the rest of the stages in order to re-log the find. P24K obviously has a lot tied up in this cache; if our relationship is salvageable -- and it is a pretty big "if" -- then this is the first step.

 

I went out and re-found the cache that got me involved in this thread. Nine hours and many miles later I can officially re-log the find. And it really was a ton of fun! Cool views, cool puzzles, day-caching, night-caching -- it had it all!

 

The cache has not yet been archived, and I truly hope it is not! There is a group heading out Saturday to begin their assault. This cache has the potential to be compared favorably to TUBE TORCHER and TUBE TORCHER II!

Link to comment

If I were to find out the some one had passed over stages of one of my multis, I would delete their find.

 

Hopefully your cache pages mention that all stages must be found.

No they do not, but it stands to reason that if a cache is a mutli all stages should be completed.

I own the cache, and I have the last word re any questionalble logs, I have deleted (bogus) logs on caches in the past and I will do so in the future

 

I don't believe, for a second, that just because a cache is a 'multi' that 'all stages should be completed'. Note that your use of the word 'should' does not imply 'must'. Semantics, yes, but still... "Multi" indicates there is one or more stages from first to final, but does not indicate that you HAVE to find them. In most cases it's much easier TO find them, but it is not always necessary.

 

The biggest problem I have with your statement, Johnny is that you've used the words '(bogus) logs'.

 

If I find your cache container, and write my name in your log book... providing I didn't 'cheat' and get coords from a previous finder, I found your cache. There ain't no 'bogus' about it. Yes, I might have used a little ingenuity to get there (did I get stuck at one part of the multi, but had enough information to get to the next step without it and just push on through?) but a bogus find? Not hardly.

 

Is there different levels of bogus-ivity? If I can't find one of 14 steps does that make my find invalid. Howabout two? Four? 12?

 

I think 'bogus' would be better represented by.... oh, hey, remember "The Blue-Legend In-Hand" in all those virtual caches from lo those many years ago? BOGUS. Someone giving another person the final coords to make it 'easier' for them to find. That's probably BOGUS too.

 

I am 100% behind the principle that if you are ingenious enough to make short-work of a multi, aside from getting coordinates from a previous finder, you find the final cache, and sign the log you get the point.

 

No harm, no foul.

 

You can bet if it were my cache I'd be back to the drawing board right quick. You can also bet that every time I start a puzzle, my first job is to look for and take advantage of any weakness I can find... because that's the way I roll.

 

 

 

michelle

Link to comment

I went out and re-found the cache that got me involved in this thread. Nine hours and many miles later I can officially re-log the find. And it really was a ton of fun! Cool views, cool puzzles, day-caching, night-caching -- it had it all!

 

The cache has not yet been archived, and I truly hope it is not! There is a group heading out Saturday to begin their assault. This cache has the potential to be compared favorably to TUBE TORCHER and TUBE TORCHER II!

 

I've started to reply to this thread several times but have had trouble expressing what was troubling me about it till OzGuff reported on doing the whole cache as intended. While I don't think the cache owner should have deleted OzGuff's original find, what I found more disturbing is that so many people equate the smiley for an online find with signing the physical log book and not for experiencing a really fun cache the way the cache owner intended. It seems that many people have the view "Who cares that cache owner spent hours preparing for a geocaching adventure for me to enjoy. If I can skip all the fun and go right to the final stage and get a log then I get a smiley." It seems that many of the same people who claim to be anti-numbers and even those who blame the pursuit of numbers for the lack of creative, interesting, and fun caches, were quick to condemn the cache owner for deleting a log and quick to support the idea that the whole point of geocaching is to sign the log and then get your online smiley. Shame on all you hypocrites (you know who you are). The point of geocaching is to have fun. A cache owner went out of her way to prepare a cache that was not the usual cache. It was not a park and grab to claim a quick smiley. Instead it was a multi cache with an interesting theme that can take a whole day to do. She deleted a log because she wanted cachers to do the whole cache and enjoy the experience and not to just see this a another smiley that you could grab quickly without doing her cache just by using a little deduction. I commend OzGuff for going back and doing the whole cache as intended to get his find. And from his post it looks like this was worth much more than a silly smiley.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
The point of geocaching is to have fun.

Very true. Judging from his earlier postings, I'd guess that Oz did have fun finding the cache the first time, right up until the cache owner deleted his perfectly legitimate found it log. Then it became somewhat less than fun. I have to hand it to Oz for going the extra mile to appease her. If a cache owner deletes one of my legitimate logs, then changes the "rules" for the cache after the fact, I would put them on a permenant ignore list. Nothing sucks the fun out of caching faster than overly anal owners pushing their weight around.

Link to comment

I too have stumbled upon a stage of a multi out of order on more than one occasion. The most recent one however was one where I opted to head back to the missed stage just for the experience. I won't advertise this in the logs though because it's always a possibility that the placer would prefer the seeker experience each stage and may not want others knowing that it is possible to make a jump like that.

 

Now Typically I'm not a fan of multi's unless all stages are logable but there are a few cache placers in my area who go so far out of their way to make the multi worth the effort to visit each stage that I have them on my must do lists.

Link to comment

The cache has not yet been archived, and I truly hope it is not!

If 18 users were watching one of mine I certainly wouldn't archive! :D

I went out and re-found the cache that got me involved in this thread.

I don't see your log on there. I do see a "Caching Fool" found it yesterday. Perhaps a puppet account? :D
Link to comment

After reading this enitre string, I think that pretty much every viewpoint has already been expressed but here's my two cents anyway. As someone who enjoys finding multis, I generally want to do each stage as laid out, but nothing is more frustrating than an early stage dnf, especially if it turns out that the stage was muggled. You can search all you want, but if it's gone, game over. In this situation, the best alternative is to imaginatively find the next stage or the final using any means at hand which generally means interpreting the clues. As someone who enjoys setting multis, I generally want the seeker to have an enjoyably frustrating time, finding all the stages, but not too easily, and the last thing I want is for the game to end because a stage has gone missing. One option is to publish all of the stages except the final so that if one is missing, the game can continue. This allows a lot of lattitude in how the cache is run as people are free to do the stages in any order they wish and it's not necessary to find all of the stages to solve for the cache. I find I enjoy people's cleverness in solving the puzzle without all of the pieces. What I notice is that a multi makes it clear that different folks have different motivations for the game: some folks want to follow the route and do them all in order, some want to finish as soon as possible, for some the smilie ASAP is the goal, and for others it's the walk in the woods that matters. And the way you play can change from day to day. The same is true for constructing them, you can make them easy or hard, and have as many or as few rules as you want, but with each stage you add, the less control you have over how the cache is run. I think the more you want to control the experience, for whatever reason, the more explicit you have to be. There are a lot of ways to climb a mountain. Some are more fun and interesting than others, but it depends on who you are rather than the path.

edexter

Edited by edexter
Link to comment

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...