Puzzle Cache Approval

[+Thot]

I’m having difficulty getting a puzzle cache approved. The approver wants information about “the nature of the puzzle” that I’m reluctant to provide. I have explained I can’t answer his/her questions without revealing a critical part of the solution to the puzzle, and that I prefer not to reveal how the puzzle is solved.

 

Is it customary to have to explain the nature of the puzzle and how it’s solved to get a puzzle cache approved?

 

I consider the cache itself a puzzle, so there’s not a thing called a puzzle per se on the cache page. In my initial submission I provided the cache location/coordinates and the process used to work the cache, but not the solution.

 

The reviewer quotes a section of the guidelines and says he must verify, 'The information needed to solve the puzzle is available to the general caching community and it should be solvable from the information provided on the cache listing.'

 

I thought this was an instruction/guideline for the cache placer. It didn’t occur to me this was something the reviewer “verified.” To be sure any cache is “solvable from the information provided on the cache listing” the reviewer must be able to solve it himself. In many cases I would think this would require he actually find the cache, because additional clues are often given along the way. As a minimum he would have to be able to arrive at the correct coordinates by solving the puzzle. Since I doubt reviewers solve every puzzle, the only way to do this is for the solution to be given to them.

 

As for the information needed to solve the puzzle being 'available to the general caching community,' that requirement appears to be subject to wide interpretation. Again, I thought it to be a guideline/instruction to the person who placed the cache. If this “a rule” that reviewers must “verify” then they will need to understand the entire puzzle from start to finish.

 

Given the philosophy oft quoted here that a cache is the absolute property of the owner to do with as he wants. [Even to the point of disallowing otherwise legitimate finds because the owner “doesn’t like people with the cacher’s name ” – see this thread] As the owner of the cache and of the intellectual property the puzzle represents, I don’t understand why Groundspeak needs to be involved beyond essentials like the coordinates used in order to regulate cache density, and perhaps the classification of the cache. I’m willing to state unequivocally that the cache can be found using the information given on the cache page, and that I have used no information that’s not available to the general public.

 

It’s possible the reviewer is put off by the fact that he does not see a traditional puzzle on the cache page. And, he doesn’t realize he hasn’t been verifying these guidelines unless he’s been solving the puzzles, or being given the solution and reviewing it for compliance.

 

So, my question:

 

Is it standard practice for reviewers to ask for puzzle solutions. If not, they must not typically verify these guidelines. In that case I feel like I am being subjected to selective enforcement.

 

Edited for clarity

Edited May 9, 2005 by Thot

[+briansnat]

Is it customary to have to explain the nature of the puzzle and how it’s solved to get a puzzle cache approved?

 

Yes. They need to know where the cache is and if the puzzle with get the person there using the info on the page.

 

I know my most recent puzzle cache I forgot to include the solution and it was held up until I provided it. I don't see the big deal.

Edited May 9, 2005 by briansnat

[+TeamK-9]

It seems the approver just wants you to give him a solution, and/or description of how the puzzle actually works. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

 

It's nothing really to worry about, the approver is the only one who will see that information.

 

If your approver is relatively local to your area, and you're afraid of giving them the solution, you could always ask for them to have a non-local approve the cache.

 

The fact of the matter is that you are going to have to at least partially explain to them how the puzzle is solved...

[+Thot]

If your approver is relatively local to your area, and you're afraid of giving them the solution, you could always ask for them to have a non-local approve the cache.

As a matter of fact you have touched on part of my concern that I left out because it was a little touchy. This approver uses a sock puppet. He conceals his geocaching name, thus I don’t know where he’s from or who his companion cachers are.

Edited May 9, 2005 by Thot

[+Thot]

It's nothing really to worry about, the approver is the only one who will see that information.

I thought all reviewers in the world could look at the cache notes you write.

[+TeamK-9]

If your approver is relatively local to your area, and you're afraid of giving them the solution, you could always ask for them to have a non-local approve the cache.

As a matter of fact you have touched on part of my concern, that I left out because it was a little touchy. This approver uses a sock puppet. He conceals his geocaching name, thus I don’t know where he’s from and who his companion cachers are.

Chances are it's nothing to worry about, but if you feel like it's a problem, he/she would probably be glad to let another approver take a look at it.

 

Even if the approver is your next-door neighbor, I doubt it would make too much of a difference. I once remember Keystone Approver saying that after he approves a puzzle cache, he tries to wait a month or two, so that the solution is properly out of his head. With as many cache approvals as he does, it's probably very easily to completely erase the details of a puzzle out of your mind.

 

Keystone is a shining example of the greatness of Groundspeak's volunteers, and I'm sure that all of them have as high a level of integrity as he does.

 

So, like I said, don't worry about it, and if worst comes to worst, just ask for another approver...

[+Bjorn74]

It's nothing really to worry about, the approver is the only one who will see that information.

I thought all reviewers in the world could look at the cache notes you write.

I know I'm not the only one who spells out in entirety the solution for a puzzle, especially when the VOLUNTEER cache reviewer isn't too keen on puzzles. These people have a lot to do. If they want to do your puzzle, they'll do something to make it fair for them. I hate to use KA as an example again, but I know that last fall he had another VOLUNTEER cache reviewer handle the permanent caches that were part of the Murder Mystery event put on by the SerenityNow/Fraggle Rock crew. He thought it would be unfair to approve them the night before the event and then find them in a contest the next day.

 

It really sounds like paranoia to me. Once you put a puzzle or any cache out, for that matter, it's really public domain. You are responsible for upkeep and determining when it's dead, but the cache takes on a life of it's own. Puzzles are often duplicated and there is no protection other than the stigma of calling someone a "copycat". People will find a puzzle with someone who solved the puzzle and decided to drive 2 hours to claim the find, but needed a driving buddy. That's life.

 

Did I mention that these people are VOLUNTEERS who have other things to do than solving and finding caches before they're listed? If you don't want to disclose your solution fully, then write the puzzle and coordinates on some paper, put it in a river, and let someone find it. It doesn't have to be listed here.

 

I'm grumpy.

[+Hemlock]

So why not just send a copy of the puzzle to the reviewer? Chances are, that would be enough for her to determine if the puzzle is within the guidelines.

Edited May 10, 2005 by Hemlock

[+SeventhSon]

If you're worried about your reviewer cheating, giving him the method of solving your puzzle won't be necessary to cheat. He will need the final coords to the cache in order to list it. Regardless of who reviews it, your reviewer will still have access to the actual cache location.

 

Solving a puzzle isn't necessary if you're given the final coords. Just hide it for those cachers out there who actually solve the puzzle. You'll provide them with a great feeling of pride that they actually earned your cache.

[+pdxmarathonman]

It's nothing really to worry about, the approver is the only one who will see that information.

I thought all reviewers in the world could look at the cache notes you write.

If you're worried about that then send the reviewer an email.

But for the sake of the reviewer - just give them what they want. That is unless you're worried they're going to claim FTF on the fabulous prizes.

[adampierson]

If your approver is relatively local to your area, and you're afraid of giving them the solution, you could always ask for them to have a non-local approve the cache.

As a matter of fact you have touched on part of my concern that I left out because it was a little touchy. This approver uses a sock puppet. He conceals his geocaching name, thus I don’t know where he’s from or who his companion cachers are.

Well you gotta abide by the rules if you wanna play the game. You do need to reveal all waypoints so the Approvers so they can make a informed decision on the approval.

 

As far as asking for the solution of a puzzle. That's a new twist. I don't recall ever hearing a solution being provided for a cache's approval.

 

There has got to be more to this than what you're telling us. I can't believe an approver would ask this unless it was necessary.

[Max Cacher]

Reviewing Puzzle and Multistage caches, the reviewers need the coordinates, and how the puzzle is solved to make sure (1) it meets the 528 foot guideline from another cache or someone placing a cache to close to yours (2) and yes its best if we understand how the puzzle cache is solved, it nothing else to make sure it can be solved, (3) you make sure they are no offence comments in a encrypted text, am sure you would be surprised at the number on caches that have to be edited after no one can find the cache because the cache owner made a mistake, we are not here to beat you up only to make the best possible review we can.

 

Point me to any reviewer that has ran out to be first to find on a puzzle or multistage cache. Sorry but I do not understand your concerns.

 

Working on my third as an reviewer and have never approved a cache with out all the information required, and to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever asked for a different reviewer.

 

Remember we are volunteers here, and we try to help you get the cache listed, but cannot if you do not provide all the information.

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

 

Hemlock, types way faster than I do

[+TeamK-9]

It's nothing really to worry about, the approver is the only one who will see that information.

I thought all reviewers in the world could look at the cache notes you write.

If you had posted that before I posted my long-winded response about approver integrity, I would have addressed it.

 

Yes, all approvers can look at the approver notes. But quite frankly, I don't think any of them would be desperate enough to look up the answer to a puzzle cache...

 

No offense, but I think you're just being paranoid.

 

Surely, approvers have had LOTS of opportunities to commit "GeoFraud" like this, but seeing as that there have been no majorly publicisized incidents, it leads me to believe that they all understand the responsibility and integrity required of they're position..

 

To quote a wise, man named Bobby McFerrin "Don't Worry, Be Happy"

[+Hemlock]

If you're worried about your reviewer cheating, giving him the method of solving your puzzle won't be necessary to cheat. He will need the final coords to the cache in order to list it. Regardless of who reviews it, your reviewer will still have access to the actual cache location.

As do all reviewers. The final coords are sitting there, plain as day, in an archived reviewer note. If any reviewer is going to cheat (which they are not) they can already do so. Providing the puzzle won't change that.

 

You just need to trust your reviewer.

[CoyoteRed]

Is it standard practice for reviewers to ask for puzzle solutions. If not, they must not typically verify these guidelines. In that case I feel like I am being subjected to selective enforcement.

We've not ever been asked for how to solve the puzzle, only the coordinates to each stage.

 

I think the rule you are refering to came about to prevent mechanisms similar to requiring one to email the owner for additional information. Of course, someone could selectively answer emails to allow their favorites to find the cache or disallow someone they don't like.

[Electric Mouse]

When I review a puzzle cache, I ask for the coordinates of the stages and final cache to check that they are in permitted areas, not on railroad tracks etc. If I can't tell from the nature of the puzzle that it can be solved through information on the page I will ask for more information. I don't necessarily need (or want) a full solution, just enough to verify that the cache doesn't require something like registration at a commercial web site, downloading of a program that might have issues or cost money, or as CR pointed out, an email requirement that might cause concerns etc.

 

With puzzle and multi-caches, I have a policy of never being first to find and often wait quite awhile. In the case of an interesting puzzle that I know I want to do, I refer it to another reviewer so that I don't receive any spoilers in the process. Yes, technically I could go through the several steps necessary to see the final coords, but I don't. My reason for referring it to someone else was so I could enjoy the challenge of the puzzle and I am not the cheating type. I trust the local cachers to trust me on that one.

Edited May 9, 2005 by Electric Mouse

[+Thot]

As far as asking for the solution of a puzzle. That's a new twist. I don't recall ever hearing a solution being provided for a cache's approval.

 

There has got to be more to this than what you're telling us. I can't believe an approver would ask this unless it was necessary.

Well that's two points on the curve. It’s always required as several say or it so unusual you think I'm concealing something.

 

Rest assured I did not deliberately hold back anything. I made an effort to explain everything pertinent to this issue. If I misled anyone it wasn’t for the want of trying hard not to.

 

The reviewer stated that ordinary there’s an actual puzzle on the cache page and in that case they don’t need to ask the owner anything. I take that to mean they don’t normally ask for the solution.

[+Thot]

Reviewing Puzzle and Multistage caches,  the reviewers need the coordinates, and how the puzzle is solved to make sure (1) it meets the 528 foot guideline from another cache or someone placing a cache to close to yours 

As I mentioned in my original post, as part of my initial submission I provided all coordinates and explained the process used to work the cache – just not the solution.

 

(3) you make sure they are no offence comments in a encrypted text, 

Offensive comments are certainly undesirable, but there’s really nothing to prevent the owner of a regular cache putting anything in it they want. If complaints are received the cache can be archived until the complaint is settled.

[+Thot]

When I review a puzzle cache, I ask for the coordinates of the stages and final cache to check that they are in permitted areas, not on railroad tracks etc. If I can't tell from the nature of the puzzle that it can be solved through information on the page I will ask for more information. I don't necessarily need (or want) a full solution, just enough to verify that the cache doesn't require something like registration at a commercial web site, downloading of a program that might have issues or cost money, or as CR pointed out, an email requirement that might cause concerns etc.

Gosh, that all sounds so reasonable, and you even let folks know who you are. Can I get you to review it?

 

By the way, how common is it for reviewers to hide behind sock puppets?

Edited May 10, 2005 by Thot

[+Hemlock]

By the way, how common is it for reviewers to hide behind sock puppets?

About 2/3 of the 60+ reviewers use alternate accounts for reviewing. Some of them, including myself, are well known in their community. Others choose to stay anonymous. You can be rest assured, however, that each and every one was hand-picked by the other reviewers and Groundspeak. If there was any doubt about their ethics, they would not be a reviewer.

[Electric Mouse]

When I review a puzzle cache, I ask for the coordinates of the stages and final cache to check that they are in permitted areas, not on railroad tracks etc. If I can't tell from the nature of the puzzle that it can be solved through information on the page I will ask for more information. I don't necessarily need (or want) a full solution, just enough to verify that the cache doesn't require something like registration at a commercial web site, downloading of a program that might have issues or cost money, or as CR pointed out, an email requirement that might cause concerns etc.

Gosh, that all sounds so reasonable, and you even let folks know who you are. Can I get you to review it?

 

By the way, how common is it for reviewers to hide behind sock puppets?

Some reviewers use a separate account because it helps keep records separate. Having a mix of personal and reviewer logs on one account can be a pain for some. A separate account keeps reviewer bookmarks, email and pocket queries for maintenance notes separate. For some who post in the forums it also keeps comments separate so that it is clear when a person is speaking officially as opposed to giving a personal opinion or thought. In some unfortunate instances, abuse of reviewers makes a person desire to be anonymous. Or the person just might feel more comfortable with anonymity. In my case I use a separate account for the first two reasons, regularly let locals know who I am, but don't "advertise" it otherwise. I prefer that people outside of Nebraska and the Dakotas think of me as as a cacher instead of a reviewer. So Electric Mouse rarely posts here.

 

In the end, whether your reviewer is annonymous or not, I ask you to trust them. If they ask for information, there is a reason. I looked at your puzzle page. I would not be able to tell from that if it could run into some of the examples of problems that I listed previously and would have asked for more information. If I thought I might want to seek it and worried about spoilers I would have passed it on to someone else to review. If it was not near me or didn't look like my sort of puzzle, I would review it myself. Regardless, I trust your reviewer. I really don't think he or she will act inappropriately.

Edited May 10, 2005 by Electric Mouse

[+briansnat]

If there was any doubt about their ethics, they would not be a reviewer.

 

 

[+Renegade Knight]

...By the way, how common is it for reviewers to hide behind sock puppets?

There are reasons to use a sock puppet account and I agree with them for the most part. It was never an issue for me until we ran into a local problem. Then I realized I don't know enough about my reviewers background to know what they my be able to contribute or what expertise they might have on an issue. In a pinch the entire sock puppet thing became a liability. If I need to talk to the mayor of a town on a policy it's not RK I introduce myself as. "Sock Puppet Reviewer" only introduces a nameless faceless backgroundless net person. When the time comes to talk to a land manager on an issue if I don't already know my reviewer then I don't know if they would be an asset or a liability so I don't take the chance. If I need advice it's the reviewers I know that I'm going to ask, not the one who remains hidden.

 

As for the OP, Electric Mouse summed it up fairly well.

[CoyoteRed]

RK, brings up a good point.

 

From a permission and land steward point of view, sock puppets might not be the best approach. When I speak to a land steward, it's not as "CR of Sissy-n-CR." It's Ken Jones and, BTW, here's my phone number. Folks in the real world like to know who the real world person really is.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

I know I'm not the only one who spells out in entirety the solution for a puzzle, especially when the VOLUNTEER cache reviewer isn't too keen on puzzles. These people have a lot to do. If they want to do your puzzle, they'll do something to make it fair for them. ... Did I mention that these people are VOLUNTEERS who have other things to do than solving and finding caches before they're listed? If you don't want to disclose your solution fully, then write the puzzle and coordinates on some paper, put it in a river, and let someone find it.

You are quite correct. The reviewers are VOLUNTEERS; not MARTYRS. As far as I can tell, nobody has forced the odious task of reviewing caches upon them, and no one is forcing any VOLUNTEER to continue against their will.

 

The reviewer, regardless of whether s/he is a volunteer or paid staff member, needs to know the actual location of every stage of a cache in order to properly fulfill his/her duty. They do not need to know the solution to puzzles, or how a puzzle works.

[+Bjorn74]

But none of the park officials know any of us by our GeoNames anyway. Geocachers are the only ones who might only know me as Bjorn. Come to think of it a guy in college only called me "Has Been" since I used that in a name game once.

 

Does having a sock puppet as an approver really make a differance in that case? If I log on here as Bjorn74 or Ding-Dong-Daddy from Decorah, it's all the same. This guy at Blendon Woods is still going to associate me, my car, and my name, which is Ben by the way, together.

 

I do think that if someone is going to be responsible for making decisions, it's only right that they make themselves known. At least enough to show that they have found caches and can make a fair judgement. Otherwise, it can look like someone's hiding. When KA was still using KA as a secret identity, he said that he'd done 40 caches here. That started a search, but it didn't matter because he was up front about his experience and fairness. It's even better now that people can put his face on dart boards, though.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

About 2/3 of the 60+ reviewers use alternate accounts for reviewing. Some of them, including myself, are well known in their community. Others choose to stay anonymous.

I sincerely believe that most of the reviewers strive to uphold the rules/guidelines in as unbiased and objective a manner as is humanly possible ... that includes most of the reviewers who have chosen to operate using 'administrative accounts.' However, it is widely known, or at least widely believed, that a small number of reviewers operating anonymously under 'administrative accounts' do so precisely because actions attributed to their 'known username(s)' have been far from admirable. In my opinion, that tends to erode the level of trust one can or should place in any reviewer operating anonymously under 'administrative accounts.'

[SCP-173]

Funny, I've never been asked to give the solution to any of my puzzles. I've only ever provided the coordinates of the stages.

[YouKnowMe]

Send it by email to an approver out of your area, like COAdmin.

[+nfa]

I created a puzzle cache about a year ago...Rupert's Cash Cache, and the approver did not ask me how to solve the puzzle, only for the actual coords of the cache container. The approvers obviously need to know the actual cache container coordinates, but I'm just as happy not having had to share the structure of the puzzle, which continues to baffle all but the one person who has solved it (and some friends of his who all work as a team at times).

 

nfa-jamie

[+cudlecub]

I always copy and paste the steps to a puzzle cache in the reviewer notes. I'm in the process of placing a few other puzzle caches in the area. But my non-caching friends are coming up with different answers. Once I get the steps simplified I'll be submitting them.

 

I live near two states and most of the cool places to hide are on the TN side. The reviewer for that side of the line is quite a few hours away and I don't think they've ever been here caching.

[+Hemlock]

Funny, I've never been asked to give the solution to any of my puzzles. I've only ever provided the coordinates of the stages.

The puzzle in this case is very unconventional. It is not supplied on the cache page. So the reviewer could not easily check that this puzzle meets with the guidelines. That's why she asked what the nature of the puzzle is. I would think just supplying a copy of the puzzle would suffice.

Edited May 10, 2005 by Hemlock

[Keystone]

What Hemlock said. If I see a big cryptogram on the cache page, or strings of binary code if it's Bjorn74's cache page, I can safely assume that it's a puzzle that's solvable by the people who like to solve puzzles. I don't ask for any information other than the solution coordinates. Nor would I want to... I may hunt the cache someday. At that point, weeks or months later, the solution coordinates are archived in a hidden place that I cannot even access when using my player account. I will skip the cache rather than cheating it. I skip a *lot* of puzzle caches.

[+OzGuff]

It is also possible that some reviewers do not ask for the solution to the puzzle as (1.) they have seen a variation of it before, and/or (2.) they can figure out the solution on their own. (Smart folks these reviewers! )

Edited May 10, 2005 by OzGuff

[+BDstarcachers]

You know, you always have the option, if you don't want to give the final

coords of your cache for approval, you can just not list it for the game.

 

I think you are missing the big picture here....

 

What makes you think that if your cache is published, that the solution

to your cache will not be spread from the finders to the seekers that are

having a hard time solving your puzzle????

 

There is no way to stop people from giving out the answer if they want to,

and I am sure with the gigantic workload the approvers have, why would

they care about only one cache out of hundreds and thousands?

 

It's just a game, and if the approvers need additional info, just give it.

It's not really the time to hide anything if you want your cache page

approved.

[Keystone]

What makes you think that if your cache is published, that the solution to your cache will not be spread from the finders to the seekers that are having a hard time solving your puzzle????

People would actually do that? I'm shocked and appalled.

 

I thought only the reviewers cheated.

[+Thot]

What makes you think that if your cache is published, that the solution to your cache will not be spread from the finders to the seekers that are having a hard time solving your puzzle????

You haven't seen the structure of this cache. It may not be as easy to pass around the solution as you think.

[+AtoZ]

If your approver is relatively local to your area, and you're afraid of giving them the solution, you could always ask for them to have a non-local approve the cache.

As a matter of fact you have touched on part of my concern that I left out because it was a little touchy. This approver uses a sock puppet. He conceals his geocaching name, thus I don’t know where he’s from or who his companion cachers are.

Doesn't the approver already HAVE the coordinates to find the cache????

 

cheers

[+BDstarcachers]

"You haven't seen the structure of this cache. It may not be as easy to pass around the solution as you think. "

 

If it would be hard to pass around the solution, what are you worried about the

approver for?

 

Bottom line is...the rule to posting a cache is final coords must be given

in order to verify it's placement in an area that falls within the guidelines

of GC.com.

 

Give it a shot...see how it goes. What do you have to loose here? It's only

a game......

[+Thot]

Bottom line is...the rule to posting a cache is final coords must be given in order to verify it's placement in an area that falls within the guidelines of GC.com. 

As I've said in this thread. I provided the coordinates in my original submission.

 

It's only a game......

Given all the rules and authorities to enforce them, I'm not sure the PTB are that casual about it.

Edited May 10, 2005 by Thot

[+CO Admin]

Bottom line is...the rule to posting a cache is final coords must be given in order to verify it's placement in an area that falls within the guidelines of GC.com. 

As I've said in this thread. I provided the coordinates in my original submission.

 

It's only a game......

Given all the rules and authorities to enforce them, I'm not sure the PTB are that casual about it.

Bottom line.

 

You want it listed? answer the persons questions. you don't want it listed? then continue to not comply. Its very simple.

 

And they are NOT sock puppets the are Reviewer accounts. I use one to help separate the to levels of power on my nicks.

 

 

And for the record. When I was listed only as CO Admin I still gave land managers and those that needed my real name, address and in many cases phone numbers. Some of you guys can think of the silliest things to try and find wrong.

[+Marietta Moose]

When I review a puzzle cache, I ask for the coordinates of the stages and final cache to check that they are in permitted areas, not on railroad tracks etc. If I can't tell from the nature of the puzzle that it can be solved through information on the page I will ask for more information. I don't necessarily need (or want) a full solution, just enough to verify that the cache doesn't require something like registration at a commercial web site, downloading of a program that might have issues or cost money, or as CR pointed out, an email requirement that might cause concerns etc.

Gosh, that all sounds so reasonable, and you even let folks know who you are. Can I get you to review it?

 

By the way, how common is it for reviewers to hide behind sock puppets?

I just put out my first cache and it is rather different puzzle cache. Your reviewer is noted on the lower left of your cache page when you look at it. First, you don't have to worry about your reviewer logging a find because you can eliminate any log from your reviewer. Second, this is a game and you want folks to find your cache. If you don't want it found, just don't put it out. The idea is to strike a balance between the time spent solving the puzzle and the time spent searching for the cache.

 

My advice is go with the flow and help your reviewer help you put out a cache worth finding. That's my 2 cents worth.

 

MM

Edited May 11, 2005 by Marietta Moose

[+Thot]

First, you don't have to worry about your reviewer logging a find because you can eliminate any log from your reviewer.

That’s not really my issue, but maybe you missed the part about the reviewer operating under a pseudonym. I would have no way to recognize him/her if he/she logged the cache.

[+Kealia]

So you haven't said WHY you don't want to send the info to the reviewer? Have you?

[CoyoteRed]

I don't want to sound flippant, but how about looking into listing over on terracaching.com. I believe there is already a decent sized following from Texas over there. A lot of the sponsors only require that the cache be legal and allow the rest of the users to vote on its merits.

 

There are some regulars here who travel more than one highway, so to speak.

 

At first, I thought I didn't like the closed feeling of the site, but I figured most of who find our harder caches are our friends anyway so why do we need all of the exposure?

[+AtoZ]

First, you don't have to worry about your reviewer logging a find because you can eliminate any log from your reviewer.

That’s not really my issue, but maybe you missed the part about the reviewer operating under a pseudonym. I would have no way to recognize him/her if he/she logged the cache.

What happens if the review does solve the puzzle conventionally and makes the find. So what your saying is ALL reviewers are just NUMBER crazed geocachers they don't care about the journey just the end. Hummm why are you so paranoid about this issue. If they want to log the find why not just take the final coordinates and do it why bother with the puzzle.

cheers

[+Cow Spots]

My two cents worth:

 

The reviewer needs:

 

1) The false coordinates and the final coordinates, to make sure that neither of them encroach too closely upon another cache, and that the placement of the actual cache meets the GC.com guidelines.

 

2) Proof that it is logical, from the information provided on the cache page, that it is possible to solve the puzzle and proceed to the final cache coordinates or to an intermediate waypoint of the puzzle. This should be able to be done without having insider info or information which is not generally available.

 

For example, I could design a puzzle cache in which you must know the order of books on my bookshelf -- inherently unfair since the information is not available to you. Or a puzzle where you have to email me to get coordinates --- which lends itself to problems since I could be selective on who I give that information to.

 

I could also design a cache which is virtually impossible to solve. Case in point : suppose I make a "Beale cipher" code [one that involves picking numbers out of certain pages of a specific book] but I provide absolutely no information or hints whatsoever regarding the book involved. Unfair and unsolvable.

 

This is why I believe that reviewers want at least enough information to satisfy themselves that a person can, with reasonable effort, find the cache because they were given enough info to proceed in SOME direction. If you're not willing to provide that, or not able to figure a way to prove that to a reviewer in such a way that doesn't compromise your puzzle, then I seriously doubt this cache will ever see the light of day.

 

Regarding 'intellectual property' of this puzzle : Hrm. I'll just say that I've looked at nearly a thousand or more puzzles on GC.com (habit of mine, solving 'em from afar) and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if your 'grand idea' hasn't been done by someone else before. Many times I thought I had a great and original idea only to find that someone else came up with it too. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Anyway........... What I'll say is that many times the hardest part of designing a puzzle cache is NOT making the puzzle itself, but assembling the framework of the puzzle and crafting the hints/guidance in such a way that it is not immediately obvious, but makes sense in retrospect. Some of the puzzles I've enjoyed most and had the most respect for were crafted extremely well to disguise the method used while still giving assistance, even if you couldn't see it at first glance.

[+Thot]

What happens if the review does solve the puzzle conventionally and makes the find.  So what your saying is ALL reviewers are just NUMBER crazed geocachers they don't care about the journey just the end. 

This issue has been settled, but it was about providing the solution to the approver. He/she could not “solve the puzzle conventionally” it he’s been provided the solution. But, that was never my concern anyway.

[+sbell111]

If it is all settled, why don't you lock this thread?

[Keystone]

I believe that the Cow Spots' post above has pegged it dead-on, and probably is clearer than what the Guidelines say or what I have written in the forums on this subject. Good post.