"additional Hints"

[Obi Wan]

All cache pages contain the additional option of an encrypted hint. But there does seem a great variation in the level of information you get from them.

 

Recently I was struggling to find one or two caches and used the hint only to find they gave me no information of any value and only told me I was in the right general area, which was of no real use.

 

Now in my limited experience I never struggle to find the general area only the exact hiding place. Surely the hint should 'hint' at this. Other caches seem to go the other way and tell you where to look. This for me stops you getting frustrated after travelling miles to find it and takes away the doubt over wether the cache has be plundered.

 

I would be interested to know what other cachers think the 'hint' should be.

 

Cheers.

 

Obi

[Rangers of Ithilien]

Its really difficult sometimes to get the balance right...one of the caches I was involved with just mentioned that if you were by the perculiar looking hazel then you were no more than 10 foot away from the cache while another one had to be more specific. That was because there was no other clue possible to give!

 

Tiffany

[+S&G.Davison]

Sorry I have to say this

 

Use the Force Obi ...

 

LOL

 

IMHO - yes I agree, hints are final give ups and should pretty much direct you to the cache. We did CAn CAn cache in NC and after searching for an hour gave up and looked at the hint - which was "how difficult can finding 5 Ammo tins be..."

[+John Stead]

I agree with the view that a hint should be pretty well a giveaway to save the situation of a wasted long journey, though not such that it could be found without the GPS. I don't think much of the "under a rock" when it is in a boulderfield and sometimes I get a bit fed up with "under a tree" when it turns out to be the one sapling in a forest!

[+NattyBooshka]

We agree, we hate looking for ages to find the hints saying 'in roots of tree' when you're surrounded by trees, but we can't really complain. One of our caches, did for one day have the additional hint, which basically read'no more additional hints will be given to after the event hehe', which admittly to no use to anyone and rather annoying (i imagine) if anyone tried to decode it out in the field!

[Obi Wan]

One very helpful hint said "Look for the Walkers crisp packet in the tree roots" so essentially using a piece of litter!!! Which, surprise, surpise, was no longer there and in a forest of several square miles!!!!!

 

Perhaps this thread could evolve into tales of useless or bizarre hints!!!

 

Obi

[+stu_and_sarah]

We try to succinctly and precisely describe the location. It's always a pain to see "to the left of the tree" when you might have approached from the other direction to the placer. Our thoughts are that the hint should be a giveaway for someone who has travelled a distance and does not want to go away without a find.

 

If the difficulty means that a giveaway is not a good hint, then we don't leave a hint at all.

[+Bill D (wwh)]

I like plain clear hints that tell me exactly where to look.

 

I hate hints that

 

a: are too vague to be of any real use

b: are so long that they take an age to decrypt

c: give an elaborate description of how to get to the spot where I'm standing.

[+Rocky Balboa]

I like variety, sometimes it makes it more interesting if a hint is vague provided the difficulty rating is right. I suppose it depends what mood i'm in, if I'm trying to bag 10 in a day (sorry if thats not up to your standars seasider ) I can get really angry when the hint is useless, but if I'm just doing 1 cache with time to spare the hunt is made a lot more fun if I don't have a clue! Then again, I am the kind of cacher who will search for hours on end and refuse to give up unless there really is no point in continuing, some people only look for short spaces of time before throwing in the gloves. Thats why variety makes things more interesting, also I do enjoy seeing the occasional no find on a cache page as cruel as it sounds I have hidden caches with huge red herrings that people quite obviously not bothering to do the rest of the multi have fallen for and given up In the end of the day if I have been to a new interesting place, i'm happy wether or not i've bagged the lunchbox

[+Papakas]

I don't mind what information is in the additional hint providing it takes you forwards rather than back!

 

There is a cache in the south that takes you to a high structure. There is nothing specific in the cache details to suggest the cache is on the structure. The additional hint advises how to get onto the structure and also that the cache is in undergrowth under a tree. When you get onto the structure there are no trees. The co-ords indicate 15 metres to one side so looking down there is a wood. After searching in vain for over half an hour on the ground between the structure and a river I gave up and headed for the owners second cache nearby. I read the next cache instructions as I wandered up the path away from the structure to discover a reference to the cache I couldn't find. It advised clearly that the cache is upon (on) the structure. I turned back! I found the cache only by going to the nearest location on the structure to the GPS pinpoint. There was no tree there, the cache was hidden under some grass.

 

Some caches are set to be a greater level of difficulty but I consider it wrong for them to be misleading, intentionally or not. Fortunately the above cache is the only one I've come across so far that I consider being misleading.

[+choccymandm]

we consider the hint to be the "we give up tell us where it is" point and wont decrypt until then. sometimes when it's a crypt clue, downright misleading or just a blantant "you've gotta find it yourself" type clue it makes it more frustrating .... sorry did i just say frustrating ... i meant fun .... naaa, perhaps funstrating?

[+Lizzzzeeeee]

I don't really mind what the hint says provided it's useful but what drives me mad is when unencrypted cache descriptions give you exact instructions of where to find the cache! I know some people cache without GPSr but I'm sure they don't want it to be handed to them on a plate either (unless they ask by decoding a clue).

 

It got to the point where after reading "go to the signpost and face towards the tower, walk 150m towards the tower then go left between the two beech trees. After 78m you will find a fallen tree, look under the root area" once too often I stopped reading the cache notes completely which did cause me one or two problems when I didn't know if I was looking for a micro or a multi!

[+The Bennett Family]

I prefer photo's with big arrows on them!

When we resort to the the clue we really just want to know the answer.

Of course this doesn't work unless I remember to actually copy any spoiler photo's onto my PDA

Gaz.

[+The Time Lord]

Surely the whole aim is to find the cache.

 

I think that when you set a cache you should make sure that the people can get to within 20 or 30 foot of the site. Then a general cryptic - but unencrypted clue is good in the body of the text with more of a spoiler encrypted.

 

But how does this then tie in with the difficult of finding the cache? Should every cache with difficulty of 1 for finding mean it should have a spoiler and if its a 5 then no spoiler allowed?

 

What do you think?

Jim

[+Draegon]

Hints should clue into the exact location. Some level of saying "log", "rock", "tree" or what have you, but without being so blunt as that.

 

I too hate when I get to the spot, search for 20-30 minutes, check the clue that tells me I'm in the right park

[+aisledog]

From the above, it is clear that we all have different views on how much or how little; how clear or how obscure additional hints should be. I believe this is because geocaching appeals to its devotees on different levels.

To use an analogy, some people get their satisfaction from going to the newsagents to get their paper. Others are not happy until they have bought the paper and completed the Times crossword. If points were awarded for this exercise in the same way as finds in geocaching, there would be some among us who would want the crossword to be filled in for us!

It has been suggested that a three hundred mile trip to record a DNF is the hight of frustration. I would counter that satisfaction comes from, in order: -

- a find without using the hint;

- a find using the hint; and

- a DNF

 

But, hey, there are a lot of caches out there....some to suit all of us don't you think?

[+Stuey]

From the above, it is clear that we all have different views on how much or how little; how clear or how obscure additional hints should be. I believe this is because geocaching appeals to its devotees on different levels.

 

It has been suggested that a three hundred mile trip to record a DNF is the hight of frustration. I would counter that satisfaction comes from, in order: -

- a find without using the hint;

- a find using the hint; and

- a DNF

 

On Sunday, I am hoping to attempt Dave and Vicky's 5/5 "Wildcat". If successful, it will be my 100th cache . It's a round trip of at least 250 miles. Considering the difficulty level, there is no hint (makes sense). Logging a DNF on this incredible looking cache that I have spent days working on is a risk I am prepared to take

Edited March 12, 2004 by Stuey