It's In The Tree!!!!

[+Alibags]

When I decrypt them they all seem to say 'in the roots of the tree'.

 

How helpful should a clue be? Do you need to place one? Do zealous types often not bother to decrypt them and spoil the fun? My first hidden cache has proved very easy to find, which is nice as an exercise in my personal confidence building, but perhaps I should have not put so much info in the clue. I have seen some which are blatently a description of where the thing is.

 

Having just hidden a cache in the woods, it was very tempting to say 'it's in the tree' and nothing else.

 

What do you all think? Some people do seem to enjoy a quick and easy find, to ramp up their tally, some others enjoy a bit of a puzzle and chance to exercise the leedle grey cells. I am torn by wanting people to actually find my caches, but I want them to have to work a bit for it. Hmm.

[+The Hokesters]

Make 'em work!!!! Hide them well

Edited August 23, 2004 by The Hokesters

[+harrogate hunters]

You can always up the difficulty factor....

 

A easy hide with easy clue .... difficulty 1

A easy hide with no clue (or hard one) ..... difficulty 2

A hard hide with easy clue ..... difficulty 2/3

A hard hide with no clue (or hard one) ..... difficulty 10 !

[+Alibags]

Well, as all my caches have now been found, time to dream up a really evil one. I have been hatching a plot for a week or so now, so all I have to do is make it suitably difficult.

 

Is it etiquette to go back and make the clue harder, or just remove it altogether?

[+Firth of Forth]

I think that it often depends on the terrain, and how difficult or long the walk is to the cache. As an extreme example, it would be very annoying to hike all the way up Ben Nevis and find that the clue is something like 'under a rock' given that the whole of the top of the mountain is covered by millions of rocks and piles of rocks.

 

If the location is such that a GPS signal is very difficult to receive and the vast undergrowth all looks the same then, again, a clue that directs you to the right spot is very welcome.

 

But if the cache is hidden a short walk away from the car, and there are a number of good hiding places, then I think it's Ok to make the clue less specific and get cachers to search about. Part of the pleasure of retrieving the cache is the effort that has gone in to finding it! It's that 'Finally!!' feeling.

[+naffita]

By the time you get round to decyphering the clue, you will have probably spent half an hour looking in all the possible places, you will think that either the cache has gone or you are just having a bad day. The clue should lead you pretty much to the cache, otherwise, having decyphered it and still not found the thing it must be missing, eh?

What I find annoying is the " under a rock" clue when you are halfway up a hill covered in rocks or "under a tree" in a wood, classic uselessness is the clue I once decyphered that gave extensive details of where to park, which footpath to follow, how many styles to cross etc and then "just follow your GPS", great.

The ones that really get steam coming out of my ears is the "under the rock in the picture". What %**$% picture? Oh, you mean the one that says "spoiler"? The one I didn't look at so as not to spoil the hunt? The one that's fifty miles away on my computer? Oh well, silly of me not to realise I would need it.

Edited August 23, 2004 by naffita

[+wildtrekker]

I try not to use clues, but I think it depends on a lot of things. Sometimes the signal is just not good enough to pinpoint the location. I do think clues should be helpfull though, I did have one that said it's under a rock, when there was about 500 rocks. it took about an hour of searching and the final rock was about 20 meters from the GPS point.

 

It would be really nice if our GPS took us to within 1 foot of the cache everytime, but sadly they don't, so if there is a lot of hiding places, then a clue should help, if there is only a couple of possible places withing a square mile, then make it more cryptic

 

I guess that we have to remember that some cachers travel a long way to go geocaching and for me it's the location that I'm taken to that makes it for me, not the sawps in the cache or to find a little hole where you can hide some tupawear, so to get to that location and not be able to sign the log book can be very disapointing.

[+globalgirl]

Interesting topic. As a noobie the clues often make the difference between utter discouragment (and subsequent thoughts of suicide) vs. total irrelevance 'cuz I never decrypt the clue unless it's a last resort.

 

Commenting on some interesting points made here:

 

You can always up the difficulty factor....

 

A easy hide with easy clue .... difficulty 1

A easy hide with no clue (or hard one) ..... difficulty 2

 

Hmmm... I guess I always figured that the difficulty rating was based only sans the clue. Otherwise, the actual difficulty would vary wildly, based on A.) those who didn't use the clue vs. B.) those who did, and it was a murky clue at best vs. C.) those who did and it was a dead-giveaway clue.

 

And I agree with Firth of Forth's (et al) thoughts:

...it often depends on the terrain...very annoying to hike all the way up Ben Nevis and find that the clue is something like 'under a rock' given that the whole of the top of the mountain is covered by millions of rocks and piles of rocks...GPS signal is very difficult to receive and the vast undergrowth all looks the same...

 

Clearly it's up to the cache owner's druthers whether to offer a clue, as well as how directly helpful that clue might be. But it seems to me that (unless the owner is on some power trip and gets his/her jollys from seeing a stream of purple faces and DNFs in the log) how could it hurt to offer a halfway helpful clue?

 

For those hard core that prefer/are able to find it sans clue - fine. Good for you, and someday I hope to grow up to be just like you.

 

But for those (of us) that thrash around with a jumpy gps, stumbling through nettles and tripping over a sea of same-looking rocks/thorny vines, etc. in vain search for a 2" micro... What's wrong with offering the option of a clue, so I don't have to go home feeling like a totally worthless wretch, who couldn't find her way out of a paper bag?

 

Arguably, I have no business going after anything but a 1 star at this point. But that limits my caching options rather severely, and besides - how am I ever gonna learn to solve the more diabolical puzzles if I have no hope whatsoever of even getting to wpt 1?

 

And besides, in my (admittedly limited) experience, even the 1 stars are arguably rated subjectively. Indeed, though no doubt TPTB that rate caches are exceedingly experienced and very good at what they do, but... sometimes I wonder if they've actually been out there on the specific turf of a given cache. Clearly those stars can only be an arbitrary (albeit however learned) assessment of actual "difficulty" at best. Indeed2 - "difficulty" itself is ultimately in the mind of the beholder, no?

 

Don't get me wrong. Above all - no way do I want things to be too EASY. Nope, nope, NOPE! If that were the case, I'd no doubt get bored with it all in a nanosecond and cease geocaching altogether.

 

Guess what I am saying here is... better to offer a halfway helpful clue 'cuz it's purely optional. Folks don't have to decrypt if they don't want to.

 

Oh and please, please, pulllleeeeezzzz! If you're gonna offer a clue - do please make it somethng halfway helpful. IME, there's truly nothing more discouraging than to spend hours thrashing about in the rain and mud, eating mouthfuls of spider webs, getting bit by g-knows what itsy creatures that swell one's eyelid verily shut, and then when you fiiiiinnnally (oh so reluctantly) breakdown (in near tears) to decrypt the clue - only to find something utterly ambiguous like... "look to your left", or "fern tree" (this latter, amid an ocean of trees and ferns in search of a "small silver mint container" - the 1st of a 3 stage multi with a rating of 2 stars and a gps error of 54 ft. in pouring down rain)

 

IOW, might I suggest that the default be: make the cache as tough as you like, but offer a reasonably helpful clue. Shoot, even better - 2 clues labeled:

 

1. "Mildly Helpful"

 

2. "Utter Spoiler - decrypt only after you've tried your level derndest and are seriously contemplating caching in the hereafter, beyond the golden gates as a pleasant alternative".

[+Learned Gerbil]

Having just moved two caches I have adopted to avoid them regularly going missing. I had my first stab at clue writing. I have tried to make them helpful in that they prompt people to think about the options, whilst not being of the "its over there you idiot!" type.

[+wildlifewriter]

Here in N.I. several caches, rated 1/1, have been placed by a person who cannot correctly...

 

... operate a GPS receiver,

 

... or a compass,

 

... nor understand the effect of different map datum settings.

 

Finding his/her/their latest effort took me three visits to the site, and two hours applied maths at home, before I found it.

 

And I'm still the only person who has!

[+MarcB]

I'm very guilty of making naff clues!

MarcB

[+Travers]

I agree with Learned Gerbil, sometimes there is a good reason for not giving clues.

[+Firth of Forth]

The only time I have given no clue at all is for a cache on top of a hill, where GPS reception is good, where I was confident that the coords I had given for the cache were also good, and where the cache had previously been muggled. I got a bit paranoid thinking that the thieves could look it up on the website and find it again with a clue after I had moved it to a nearby location!

[+globalgirl]

Having just moved two caches I have adopted to avoid them regularly going missing. I had my first stab at clue writing. I have tried to make them helpful in that they prompt people to think about the options, whilst not being of the "its over there you idiot!" type.

I agree with Learned Gerbil, sometimes there is a good reason for not giving clues.

 

Not arguing your stance Travers (nor certainly your right to not offer clues), but...

 

(Please do correct me if I'm wrong Learned) I think you may have misunderstood Msr. Gerbil's post, Travers. To me, he seems to be saying that he has indeed started providing clues for his adopted caches.

 

And mighty sweet ones I might add LG - I checked out your 8 caches and you've kindly provided a wee clue for every blessed one of them (and none are more than a 2 difficulty). Given that I don't hold much hope for ever doing them (sadly, London is a few thousand miles away), I took a peek at the clues decrypted and all seem most intriguing, yet potentially helpful. Indeed, some seem most slyly clever, whilst still providing a small ray of hope.

 

Then again, this - from a UKer, and we all know their minds are singularly playfully twisted! (must be something in the tea?)

[+klaus23]

Here in N.I. several caches, rated 1/1, have been placed by a person who cannot correctly...

 

... operate a GPS receiver,

 

... or a compass,

 

... nor understand the effect of different map datum settings.

 

Finding his/her/their latest effort took me three visits to the site, and two hours applied maths at home, before I found it.

 

And I'm still the only person who has!

who's that? before I go and try to find it some day...

[+Learned Gerbil]

I can only claim credit for two of the clues - the others I inhereted when I adopted the caches.

[+wildlifewriter]

Klaus23: before I go and try to find it some day...

I get the impression, that isn't going to happen any time soon.

[+Haggis Hunter]

The ones that really get steam coming out of my ears is the "under the rock in the picture". What %**$% picture? Oh, you mean the one that says "spoiler"? The one I didn't look at so as not to spoil the hunt? The one that's fifty miles away on my computer? Oh well, silly of me not to realise I would need it.

 

For one of my caches the only clue is a picture, in the written description the clue part is left blank.

I use my PDA all the time when I go caching, if I get a clue that says in the picture, I don't blame the person who placed the cache, I blame myself for not looking at the cache page before leaving my computer 50 miles away at home.

You could always purchase a laptop and a mobile phone so that you can link to the internet whilst at the location and look at the picture

 

My point being that we all think differently, and some people try to make things more difficult. My first cache couldn't be any easier, but as I have progressed my caches have got more difficult, some with easy clues some with difficult clues. From what I have seen from the logs people like it both ways.

 

But for those (of us) that thrash around with a jumpy gps, stumbling through nettles and tripping over a sea of same-looking rocks/thorny vines, etc. in vain search for a 2" micro... What's wrong with offering the option of a clue, so I don't have to go home feeling like a totally worthless wretch, who couldn't find her way out of a paper bag?

 

Better not try any of my micro's, 2 of them are at least 1.5" smaller than what you are used too

[+naffita]

For one of my caches the only clue is a picture, in the written description the clue part is left blank.

I don't mind the "see picture" bit in the cache description, its the encrypted clue that says "see picture" that gets me. I try not to resort to using clues, I never look at them before leaving home, and mostly have no problems, but as I previously said, when I have to use it I want the clue to at least give me a fighting chance of finding the cache.

As for carrying a laptop about with me, its just one more bit of kit to add to the PDA, camera, GPS, batteries, swaps, spare logbook, phone and all the other bits that seem to accumulate in my rucksack.

[+The Hokesters]

I had this problem on my only DNF I use GPXSonar and after looking for the cache under heavy tree cover the super arrow flying all over the place I thought "right time for the clue".

 

In GPX Sonar you highlight the area where the clue should be and it then becomes visable - but it didn't - there was nothing there

 

Apparantly it is very easy to find. Getting on for 45 minutes in I decided to give up .

 

I will go back but all the same - it wouldn't hurt would it?

[+Alibags]

Having found a cache last night, using the 'it's over there, stupid' clue I have to say that most of the mailings do seem to confirm what I had suspected. ie make the clue a CLUE, because people do want to find the things after all, but don't hand it to them on a plate. Last night's was acceptable because it was an interesting place and a very nice walk in, but no real mental exertion required.

 

Anybody remember the advert where the kid buries the family car and says 'IT's in the SAND!... sorry I am not being very helpful, am I Dad?' hence my 'it's in the tree' topic title. Looks like I live in a particularly foresty bit of the country, as everybody else has been experiencing the 'it's under the rock' gritty northern equivalent!

 

Anyhow, I think I got it right because the feedback on my caches was positive, ie the people enjoyed looking for them, which is what I was trying to acheive, after all.

 

Now to dream up something really fiendish...

 

Thanks for your input, peeps!

[+The Hokesters]

If you want to be even more vague you could say "it's in the water" Everything else seems to be this fine sunny August.

 

Like the sad bored git that I am I did check to see how many caches were around the Boscastle area!!! Anyone else do that?

 

Simon

[+Haggis Hunter]

As for carrying a laptop about with me, its just one more bit of kit to add to the PDA, camera, GPS, batteries, swaps, spare logbook, phone and all the other bits that seem to accumulate in my rucksack.

S rry I was being slightly sarcastic with that comment, hence the smiley.

 

Like the sad bored git that I am I did check to see how many caches were around the Boscastle area!!! Anyone else do that?

 

NO!!!

[+Simply Paul]

Top ten clues:

 

10) "Look over the fallen tree" - It's a micro cache, I've walked almost a mile to be here and the fallen tree is over 100ft long with many many many hiding places.

 

9) "Phone 0908 7665 382 for a clue. Calls charged at £1 per minute. Max call duration 3 minutes" - No, never seen it and never hope to! Still, if I knew the box had £10 in it for the FTF...

 

8) "O" - A clue for one of my caches which makes perfect sense when you're at the location.

 

7) "Stuffed up the Bull" - Was *almost* a clue for a sub-micro cache I placed in Oxford but I couldn't get it to wedge properly. And before anyone calls the RSPCA it's a statue near the train station

 

6) "The cache is hidden in the last place you'll look" - This is true of EVERY cache, as I always stop looking for it when I've found it! Gurr!

 

5) "The cache is hidden" - I thought perhaps the owner had been distracted halfway through typing the clue, or perhaps my printer had run out of paper.

 

4) "I bet you wished that you'd decrypted this long, unhelpful clue before you left home" - Fortunately, I had!

 

3) "Under a pile of sticks" - Nothing wrong with it as such, just a bit uninspired.

 

2) "Tucked out of sight" - I'm in the middle of a wood. It's dark, raining and my GPS is giving me locations over 100ft apart. There was some language used that night, and no mistake.

 

1) "It's in the obvious place" - If it's *that* obvious I wouldn't have decrypted the clue!

 

SP

[+MarcB]

4) "I bet you wished that you'd decrypted this long, unhelpful clue before you left home" - Fortunately, I had!

That clue is *evil*

[+Couparangus]

I think you should make the clue descriptive enough that there should be little if any chance of a no-find. Others may disagree, but I feel that finding the cache container itself should be secondary to the experience of the hunt or hike. Spending half an hour on all fours looking for a container in a muddy bog is not time well spent in my opinion.

 

Cheers!

Coupar Angus

[+globalgirl]

...Others may disagree, but I feel that finding the cache container itself should be secondary to the experience of the hunt or hike....

 

Very well said indeed, Couparangus, and I do so emphatically agree! But...

 

...Spending half an hour on all fours looking for a container in a muddy bog is not time well spent in my opinion.

 

Well to me, it's not the level of ack involved in looking. AIS earlier, I surely wouldn't want it to be too easy - nope, nope, NOPE!. Indeed, seems to me that a penchant for masochism is verily a prerequisite to the gc sport, no?

 

But rather, it's the still no hope of finding it - even after thrashing around in the mud on all fours.

 

IOW, I repeat - surely no harm in providing an optional clue so that I don't have to go home utterly dejected. Ideally a clue that is clear enough to all but guarantee I'll find it - whilst still a tad mysterious to allow me a feeble shred of dignity.

 

No doubt a tall order for our blessed cache designers. Then again... providing such might well demonstrate the difference between a merely "good" cache designer - and a BRILLIANT one!

[+Team Ullium]

I don't know about anyone else, but I have found that about fifty percent of the hints are actually counter productive !!!

 

I think it has to do with perception....if I read close to whatever...I'm thinking six maybe ten feet...not fifty yards LOL

Also, certain words can mean different things to different people depending on their own experiences in life....recently a reference to a cable made me think of the kind of cables that ships are moored with....when an electrical cable was being implied.

 

Nowadays...I treat hints with a bit of suspicion and trust my GPSr or my instinct in a lot of occasions.

 

Ullium.

[+Simply Paul]

Ah, is it 'instinct' or rather the ability to spot faint cachers trails? I found my first cache by spotting a trodden route where no route needed to be and I still find many the same way. Much more useful than some clues

 

SP

[+Learned Gerbil]

I found myself nominated to maintain a cache I could not find because the description said it was in dense woodland near large yew tree.

 

After several expeditions I discovered that

 

a) the huge distinctive yew tree visible from wide arround was not the one - I was meant to use a smaller insignificant one as the landmark, and

 

the yew tree was a complete red herring. Ignoring the yew and simply following the GPS took me to the exact location despite all the trees.

 

I still have no idea where "the" yew tree is that is so important!

[+Team Ullium]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury....I rest my case

 

Ullium.

[+John Stead]

I've just come back from a cache where the contents of the encrypted clue were already in the cache description - what is the point of that?

[+DavisFamily]

When we hid our first cache in a county park with an extremely reluctant-to-approve naturalist, our clue was cryptic. The first few people out to find it didn't, and trampled a lot of vegetation while trying. Because the park people were so fussy and hard to deal with I figured we'd quickly lose our permit if this continued. Thus, I made the clue more specific "under the boulder on the uphill side."

 

I always appreciate a helpful clue when I've gone to a lot of work trying to find a cache. Just IMHO, I feel quite aggravated when we've hiked a long ways with our young children and the hint is not helpful.

[+The Forester]

One pet peeve of mine is when the clue says something like "beside the ivy covered tree" or "ivy covered post". When you get to the terminal phase of the search you discover that all the trees or posts are ivy-covered.

 

Having said that, I must confess that I usually decrypt the clue in the sortie-planning phase just in case I need to closely scrutinise the large scale map of the area to plan an appropriate approach route. This has prevented groin-scraping encounters with barbed wire fences and other obstacles on numerous occasions.

 

Cheers, The Forester

[+Pharisee]

When we hid our first cache in a county park with an extremely reluctant-to-approve naturalist, our clue was cryptic.

Cryptic clues can be a bit 'difficult' sometime. For instance... 'Grope about under the horses tail' could mean different things to different people. What it in fact means is that there is a fallen tree that from a 'certain angle' the cache setter with a vivid imagination thinks looks a bit like a horse and the cache is hidden in a hole and the 'bum' end. To just about everybody else not at that 'certain angle' and with less imagination, it just looks like fallen tree so they're scratching their head, wondering where the horse is. Much better to just say 'In a hole at the north end of the fallen tree'

[+Naefearjustbeer]

'Grope about under the horses tail' could mean different things to different people.

Pity the poor horse who just happens to be in a nearby field on the day of a cache bash

[+dogastus]

I used the clue "Look for a pair of trunks" on one of my caches. It was nowhere near the sea or swimming baths

[+Team Ullium]

I must admit although a hint doesn't necessarily need to be cryptic, I do enjoy a good cryptic clue ..... particularly if it is cleverly apt and in the end helpful

 

Unfortunately, composing a fair cryptic clue is not within everyone's ability

 

Ullium.

[+Haggis Hunter]

I don't know about anyone else, but I have found that about fifty percent of the hints are actually counter productive !!!

 

I think it has to do with perception....if I read close to whatever...I'm thinking six maybe ten feet...not fifty yards LOL

Also, certain words can mean different things to different people depending on their own experiences in life....recently a reference to a cable made me think of the kind of cables that ships are moored with....when an electrical cable was being implied.

 

Nowadays...I treat hints with a bit of suspicion and trust my GPSr or my instinct in a lot of occasions.

 

Ullium.

I'm sorry Bill but if you could get a ship were that cache was, you're a better man than me by a long way. I know it was by water but a canoe needs it to be in spate to navigate it.

But it does all become clear when you think about it though doesn't it?

[+Happy Humphrey]

I really like a clue to give confirmation that you're looking in the right place. If you're about to give up, then you decode the clue and you're definitely at the right spot, you can be fairly sure that the cache has disappeared. Then you can alert the owner. If the clue is too vague you can't be sure that you weren't just looking in the wrong area. The clue can be a little cryptic still: but like a good cryptic crossword clue you should be sure that you've got it right.

 

I did a cache recently (GCK6N2) which is close to a path so is in slight danger of being lost or stolen. When you get to the (final) cache area it doesn't take a lot of finding, but if it had disappeared the clue would give you confirmation that you were not just looking in the wrong place. Yet the clue doesn't mean much until you get there - excellent, Mr. Pieman!

 

I think I'll revise some of my clues now...

 

HH

[+Team Ullium]

I'm sorry Bill  but if you could get a ship were that cache was, you're a better man than me by a long way. I know it was by water but a canoe needs it to be in spate to navigate it.

But it does all become clear when you think about it though doesn't it?

 

Yeh that was maybe a bad example Haggis Hunter as I really thought that was a good hint...I only quoted it to illustrate how we all have different conceptional visions associated with certain words

 

One of the most common complaints in many logs is the fact that the hint was less than helpful and in a lot of occasions even counter productive...I feel great care should be taken when constructing a hint

 

Ullium.

[+snaik]

One of the most common complaints in many logs is the fact that the hint was less than helpful and in a lot of occasions even counter productive...I feel great care should be taken when constructing a hint 

Hi Bill. try this Cache hint Cateran Trail - Enochdhu

 

 

Snaik

[+Team Ullium]

Hi Snaik

 

No doubt all will become clear to me when I eventually get around to going after this cache

 

Allieballie mentioned your extensive knowledge about fungi....maybe I should do some reading up on the subject before tackling this cache

 

Ullium.

Edited August 26, 2004 by Ullium

[+makerofthingsup]

Maybe clues should be compass based so that even if your gps is a bit off the compass can't lie. Ten paces North of the big round rock etc.. that sort of thing. That way it's still caching in it's truest form.. ish. Well I might try this for my next hide.

[+Haggis Hunter]

I'm sorry Bill  but if you could get a ship were that cache was, you're a better man than me by a long way. I know it was by water but a canoe needs it to be in spate to navigate it.

But it does all become clear when you think about it though doesn't it?

 

Yeh that was maybe a bad example Haggis Hunter as I really thought that was a good hint...I only quoted it to illustrate how we all have different conceptional visions associated with certain words

That's quite alright, I had a feeling you might have been using it along those lines but I had already posted the note

[+Team Ullium]

No worries HH...

 

It's a bit like what some people think is an obvious scrapped 'H' on a rock viewed from over a kilometer away and what others think isn't

 

Sorry I couldn't resist that

 

(OK OK it was closer than that .... half a kilometer then )

 

Ullium.