5 Found - 8 Dnf

[+MoonHerb]

Check out one of my caches - Wye Rapids

 

I used this as a tester to try an idea in cache hiding. Originally there was going to be a 'regular' cache 0.2 miles further down the trail so Wye Rapids was going to be a 'bonus' cache. Unfortunately, due to a ban on cache's in the Forest of Dean, the 'regular' cache never got placed . . . . . . . but that's another story.

 

Wye Rapids has had 5 finds and 8 did not finds, here's the question:

 

This cache was hidden in such a way as to make it purposefully difficult to find, are people going to enjoy it for the challenge or are they going to be hacked off because it was too difficult ?

I was thinking of hiding another similar 'hard-to-find' but I'm a bit worried that it won't be visited much because it's too difficult.

 

. . . . . Opinions please . . .

 

Oh, yeah. Because the first lookers did-not-find I sent them a pretty explicit clue 'cos I felt sorry for them ! Would you do this ?? The last thing I want to do is p**s people off !

Edited September 17, 2004 by MoonHerb

[+The Spokes]

Its your Cache mate do what you want. Make it clear on the page that it is tough to find. Let them come and find it. You will get people who want to do a cache for the sake of it rather than numbers people who are out only to find the easy ones. The upside of this is that the logs should be better than…. “Found it TNLN off to my next cache.” I do hate it when that happens.

 

PS I would sooner have an award for the most interesting logs rather than the most finds for a cache.any day.

Edited September 17, 2004 by The Spokes

[+Teasel]

Nothing wrong with a cache that's difficult, so long as you warn people beforehand. Just as there's nothing wrong with a cache that'd be certain death to attempt without a rope and harness... but make sure it's down as a terrain 5!

 

Maybe you just need to raise the difficulty level a bit? Sure, having a difficulty rating of 5 means that some people won't even attempt it. But from the sound of things, only the most determined cachers will actually find it anyway! You might even end up with more visitors to the cache, as people might drive that little bit further in search of a good challenge.

 

Something I've done in the past to find the "correct" difficulty rating is to notch it up by 1/2 every time someone posts a DNF, until you settle at a value that represents the difficulty that people are having (rather than the difficulty you thought they'd have back when you placed the cache).

[+Haggis Hunter]

It certainly looks like a difficult cache, but a good one at that. Due to the fact that you have had people find it, means it is possible to find it. The question is, has everyone that has found it, had additional help from yourself. If the answer is yes then you should think about adding this help to the page. If the answer is no then leave it as it is.

GC.com rates a *** difficulty cache as this - Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

I think that your cache comes into this rating.

[+wildlifewriter]

I can't see anything wrong with this, as it's presented. You've given all the information necessary, and included a hint that the container is camouflaged. You adjusted the rating - which many people don't bother to do - and included sensible parking directions.

 

<rant> As a comparative newcomer to the hobby, I never get p****d off if a cache is a tough find, or calls for triangulation to get round the tree cover problem. Two things that DO annoy me are: (1) Co-ordinates that haven't been properly checked, before listing and (2) no indication of what we're supposed to be looking for.

 

Unfortunately, a number of hides in Ireland suffer from one or other of these - and the notorious IWG caches (of course) feature both. </rant>

 

(edited for whingeing)

Edited September 17, 2004 by wildlifewriter

[+Sue and Bernie]

Make it hard but make sure the clue helps.

 

We regularly travel many miles to a single cache, usually by bike, having exhausted the immediate Norfolk wilderness for 30 miles about us. If we fail to find the cache by searching about, we use the clue - that's what it is for. There is nothing more irritating than de-cyphering "You don't need one!" when actually you do!

[+Papakas]

Following on the heels of GCD09B All Roads Lead To Rome I feel another night caching challenge coming on! Have I got to put all you DNFers to shame again?!

 

Prince of Darkness!

[SlytherinAlex]

(2) no indication of what we're supposed to be looking for.

 

Unfortunately, a number of hides in Ireland suffer from one or other of these - and the notorious IWG caches (of course) feature both. </rant>

My Austin Power series in W Yorks relies on the fact that you don't know what you are looking for. That's the whole point. But hopefully the cache pages make that clear.

 

a.

[+aRRKS]

(2) no indication of what we're supposed to be looking for.

 

Unfortunately, a number of hides in Ireland suffer from one or other of these - and the notorious IWG caches (of course) feature both. </rant>

My Austin Power series in W Yorks relies on the fact that you don't know what you are looking for. That's the whole point. But hopefully the cache pages make that clear.

 

a.

 

The pages make that perfecly clear, in fact that was the reason we wanted to do them and why we travelled over 50 miles...twice

 

S.

[markandlynn]

As they say its your cache. I really like the look of it and if it was a little closer would be looking for it as the challenge has been set.

It all adds to the appeal of caching not all of them should be easy and not all of them should be hard

You get some good logs from the DNF's and if we are ever in the vicinity we would certainly try for it.

Perhaps the difficulty should go up a bit to reflect how hard it is to find but otherwise if it aint broke dont fix it. If people get really frustrated they can always contact you for more explicit instructions.

[+The Scout]

Unfortunately, due to a ban on cache's in the Forest of Dean

What is the reason for this ban, I thought most of the Forest of Dean was common land with open access to 90% of its area, hence the abundance of cycle tracks and walking trails. Has the ban been made by Gloucestershire County Council or by a UK rep of Geocaching.com or for some other reason?

[+Molinnis]

As myself and my Daughter Demelza "Cornish Mouse" represent 40% of the finders so far I thought I would add my comments.

 

We both thoroughly enjoyed the challenge on this one. As our logs state we spent 15/20 minutes to find this one. It made a change to not reach the location and both say its under that tree/Bush/Rock from 20 feet away.

 

It is true that a lot of DNF's will put some people off trying, but it also kindles the interest in the cache to others who enjoy a harder challenge.

 

Please carry on putting caches like this out as it adds to the great variety of caches that are availible in this hobby of ours.

[+sTeamTraen]

When I get a DNF on one of my caches, I stick 0.5 on the difficulty. I take that back off after two successful finds. When people see **** they should be prepared to fail maybe - ** is already "can take up to 30 minutes on average to find".

[+Billy Twigger]

I'm undecided about "middle of a forest" caches. I love woodland and mixed forest, and we're getting to that time of year where they are at their most colouful.

Nonetheless, I can't convince myself that looking for a cache in a forest is in fact geocaching. It's great fun, and if the description and clues are well thought out, it should be found. But if you can't get a signal, its not geocaching.

 

Take a look at Spoiler 2 on Wye Rapids Now, I've not been there, but it looks as though air has difficulty getting through never mind any far-travelled microwaves! Maybe I'm spoilt for choice. Here on Bute there are plenty of spots where you can expose your GPSr to 360 degrees of wide open sky, and I'm pretty certain that your GPSr will take you to all of my caches.

 

I think the point is that you WANT fellow cachers to find your cache. So if the satellites can't get you there, make sure that something does.

Edited September 17, 2004 by Billy Twigger

[+Beds Clangers]

The question to ask is "do you want people to find your caches or not?" Middle of a wood, no GPSr who cares, if your clues says, XX paces N/E/S/W from the obvious tree, they will find it.

 

Having done many caches where you have walked a few miles to "see a sea" of trees and the clue is "under the tree". You look around with a GPSr accuracy of 50m and think what the "hecking full" am I looking for.

 

I always look at my DNFs and try to make them a little easier, in the clue, if possible.

 

I could make all my caches 5/5's if I wanted but, isn't the idea that you want people to find them?

 

Don' t mind a challenge, but if you want to set 5/5's you must expect e-mail/queries, " where the hecking full" is it!!.

 

Nick, wait for the FLAK!!

[+Molinnis]

The difficulty and terrain ratings in my opinion are spot on for this cache. There is enough information in the cache write up coupled with the photo's and clue to allow most people to find this cache within 10/15 minutes or so.

 

Trouble is a lot of the time people read the write ups and start searching without reading between the lines so to speak. Many times when we have had difficuilty finding a cache. I have just sat back for a minute, Reread the write up and found it within a couple of minutes just by taking in exactly what the cache placer has given away in the write up. Sometimes before decrypting the clue.

[+MoonHerb]

The question is, has everyone that has found it, had additional help from yourself. If the answer is yes then you should think about adding this help to the page. If the answer is no then leave it as it is.

Only one group of cachers had any help. They were the FTDNF (!) and I felt sorry for them !!

[+MoonHerb]

Unfortunately, due to a ban on cache's in the Forest of Dean

What is the reason for this ban, I thought most of the Forest of Dean was common land with open access to 90% of its area, hence the abundance of cycle tracks and walking trails. Has the ban been made by Gloucestershire County Council or by a UK rep of Geocaching.com or for some other reason?

It's not really a ban, just a temporary 'please don't place any' type pause until we can get the forestry commission to answer a few emails.

 

Having said that, it is a forest and most of the best places do happen to be under some pretty heavy tree cover. Pity though, I was in the final stages of an 8 part multi cache which should have brought some more cachers into the area.