Detailed Hints.....i Dont Like Them

[+CGT]

Ok, when geocaching started it was ment to be done with a GPS, and yet some of the caches give such good descriptions that you dont need one at all. Which i guess is nice for the people that dont have a GPS but i like having to use mine and not be led right to the spot. I understand that some caches are so tree covered that its hard to get a good reading but i think for these spots, it should be a multi cache, find a place close by that gets good GPS readings, but a film container that has good descritions for the actuall cache(along with the cord's) This way its a little more of a hunt. Let me know what you all think

 

Chad

Edited May 19, 2005 by C&D_Tracking

[Jeremy]

The general response has been "so don't look at them." I know it's hard, like trying to keep from thinking about a pink elephant. Stop thinking about that pink elephant!

[+CGT]

But the problem is that you dont know untill you get out there that you cant get a good reading and actually need the hint. Alot of people are good about saying there is bad coverage but not all of them. I have been printing some of them off and not de-coding them till i need them. But i hate having to carry a notebook when im out hunting.

[+Yamahammer]

You just opened the door of the Paperless GC!!! Go to Geocaching-U.com and checkout paperless caching, (or something like that). I suspect others are more informed than I am on the subject, although I'm heading in that direction.

 

Carry on!!!

 

[Jeremy]

I know most will suggest getting a premium membership and going paperless. That is really the best way to go if you aren't sure about a cache and whether you need hints.

 

The other option is using http://wap.geocaching.com if you have a WAP enabled cell phone. This option is free (except for whatever cell minutes/fees you get). You just need to know the GC code for the listing to read the hints.

Edited May 19, 2005 by Jeremy

[twjolson & Kay]

What I use to do (before I started using my PDA for the hints, which I carried anyways) is go out, try and find it with no hint. Then if I couldn't find it, I logged it as a DNF, then I would look at the hint, and if need be, look at spoiler pictures and log entries.

 

Barring that, you could use a PDA as I do, or you could use a Cell and call someone to give you the hint. For example, if the little miss stays home while you go caching.

[+Miragee]

Uh . . . after logging six DNFs the Sunday before last because there were NO hints at all for caches hidden like this:

 

 

I appreciate a hint very, very much.

 

I had never found those DeCon containers before and had no idea if it was hidden between some huge boulders or under a pile of rocks or sticks, or hanging from a tree branch or tucked in a bush.

 

I even wrote about, and editorialized, about my disappointing experience here.

 

There is nothing worse than driving thirty miles to embark on a cache hunt and NOT be able to find the cache.

 

When I was new at this, a cache I went to had coordinates that were off by 80 feet. It was in a canyon with tall Eucalyptus trees. I thought I had a good reading, but obviously the cache hider did not. I was thankful for the very detailed hint, and the fact that there was only one laurel bush in the canyon, so I could find the cache.

 

Also, I use my Palm, but I don't decrypt the hint until I need it. However, using the Palm, it doesn't take up a lot of time to decrypt the hint. And, one other thing . . . I don't have a cell phone . . . so, there is no way to call for assistance . . .

[+Kit Fox]

Which i guess is nice for the people that dont have a GPS but i like having to use mine and not be led right to the spot. I understand that some caches are so tree covered that its hard to get a good reading but i think for these spots, it should be a multi cache,

Chad

Ok, when geocaching started it was ment to be done with a GPS, and yet some of the caches give such good descriptions that you dont need one at all.

 

You have been a cacher since Oct. of 2004, how would you know how caches were originally hidden? With so much angst, and only 29 finds, I'm afraid you are going to burn out on Geocaching quickly.

 

find a place close by that gets good GPS readings, but a film container that has good descritions for the actuall cache(along with the cord's) This way its a little more of a hunt.  Let me know what you all think

 

Like Jeremy said, don't read the hints. My advice is to avoid all "1/1" caches and only look for 2.5 to 5 star diff. caches. This way you won't get bored with the "too easy" caches.

[+CGT]

Actually i have been doing this for about three years but have a different login now that im back in Oregon, but thanks for the input

[+AuntieWeasel]

Nothing harshes my buzz like a long, lovely walk in the woods followed by a long, painful DNF. My worst track record is with rocky shorelines or great piles of rocks; thousands of hidey-holes within the margin of error, and the hint is almost always "under a rock."

 

Sometimes you just want to sit on a rock and cry.

[+Miragee]

You know Auntie, I would have appreciated even THAT much of a hint on those six DNFs I had . . .

[+Team GPSaxophone]

But the problem is that you dont know untill you get out there that you cant get a good reading and actually need the hint. Alot of people are good about saying there is bad coverage but not all of them. I have been printing some of them off and not de-coding them till i need them. But i hate having to carry a notebook when im out hunting.

Easy: use your GPS to get to the coords. If you can't find the cache, look at your printout (or PDA) and start reading.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

I guess since I only have 29 finds as well, my opinion doesn't matter much, but here it is anyway.

 

No, I wasn't around when Geocaching started. But I'm willing to bet that the people who deposited the first caches meant for them to be findable with a GPSr and pretty much ONLY a GPSr (and maybe a little common sense). I know you can always avoid caches you don't like, and so far I have chosen to do exactly that, but I don't think geocaching was originally meant to be a contest for who could post the most creative puzzle or the most confusing hide.

 

After all, isn't the whole idea of PLACING a cache so that it can be FOUND?

 

Maybe I'll submit coordinates to a cache that really isn't there, leave no hint, and then just watch the DNF'S pile up. Wouldn't that be the most bestest hide ever!

[+sbell111]

Actually, most of the older caches were a box next to a tree covered by a few sticks. If you got to ground zero, you pretty much were guaranteed a find.

 

Ummm, I forgot your point and how it relates to anything. dadgum muscle relaxers. Oh yeah, other than the fact that many more caches are hidden in such a way that hints are useful, how has anything changed?

[+CGT]

I agree, the idea is to find it. But the idea is also to be a little bit chalenging and fun, thats why a multi cache would help, you could give very good details to the final cache if need be(tree cover or whatever) but leave it in the fist cache that has to be found by GPS

[Jeremy]

Actually, most of the older caches were a box next to a tree covered by a few sticks. If you got to ground zero, you pretty much were guaranteed a find.

(old fogey voice)

 

Even more so, the caches were huge! I'm talking big white buckets. Moun10bike hid one of the first hitchikers which today would only fit into 1% of the containers out there. If you can believe it there was a time where folks were begging to have their containers found by anyone. Some were doubtful they would ever be found.

[+CGT]

The game has come along way and with some many caches out there and so little places to hide them, they have gotton alot smaller. I found one in the desert in cali that i could have hid in!!! But that does not mean that the GPS part of the game needs to go away.

[+Miragee]

If I had a choice between a Tupperware container out in a nearly-rockfree meadow under an obvious pile of rocks that can be seen from 50 feet away or a devious hide that is impossible to find, without a detailed hint, I would much rather have the deviously-hidden cache and a detailed hint, if I need it.

 

However, I would much rather have a completely exposed blue-lidded Tupperware container that I found and was able to sign the log for, such as this one:

 

 

than never find a deviously hidden container that doesn't have a hint.

 

Oh. . . do you see it now? Not yet? Need a hint . . .

 

[+diverhank]

My preference is to have very good hints so cachers can find it. If it bothers someone so much about the hints, don't read them. I would rather not have vague and near useless hints when I'm very close to a DNF.

 

In my only hide, my hints are very detailed and I preceded them with a "Spoiler" warning.

[+Hoppingcrow]

I think this is a problem of perception (somebody just said that to me in one of my own posts). There is one particular micro in my area that I've been beating myself to death on for about three weeks. Am I whining for a hint? No! I am cussedly going back to that hide every single chance I get, eyeballing stumps with a mind to bringing a hatchet, and then telling myself, "No, you'll get it. It's gotta be here. The owner says it's still here. They hid it without affronting the ecology, so you can find it without using unsafe logging practices."

[+CGT]

I agree, if you could walk up to every cache and find it with one eye closed in the dark without a flashlight it would not be any fun, i like have to wonder and let the GPS settle in on a cord, and having to do some searching, not "Its under the third tree in and here is a picutre of it and ill be standing there pointing at it" ha ha

[+Miragee]

"without unsafe logging pracitces."

 

If a cache was on my way home and I could stop by to give it additional tries because I liked the challenge, that would be fine. But if you have driven quite a distance to get to the cache location, that isn't very practical with the price of gas being what it is now.

 

Also, I tend to really, really, really look for a cache, one time for more than an hour. Without even a general clue, or a general hint, I cannot imagine I would have better luck when I return, especially if I am looking for a cigar tube in an area of a huge oak tree, boulders, shrubs, tall wees, and poison oak.

[+Jeep_Dog]

.. and yet some of the caches give such good descriptions that you dont need one at all. Which i guess is nice for the people that dont have a GPS but i like having to use mine and not be led right to the spot...

Dude, check this out. When you are searching for caches (using home coordinates link, zip code, coordinates, or whatever), and get yer pages up, click the little box and download the files into a .loc file. Then, with EasyGPS or whatever floats your boat, review the caches. Get a cable, load them up on your GPS. If you don't have a cable, then all EasyGPS gives you is the cache name, waypoint name, who placed it, and the coords.

 

Easy, no desciptions with which to torture yourself.

 

About a month ago, after my PDA died for the umpteenth time, this is exactly what I have been doing. I went paperless, and stayed paperless... but now I'm cache descriptionless too. Indeed, caching is much more exciting this way, but I'm also taking much longer to find micros and such. Oh, yeah, virtuals are a total pain this way, but I have pretty much stopped doing those.

 

A typical cache run with descriptions used to net me 6-8 caches in a two hour period. Now, without descriptions, I get 2-4 in the same period. I personally like the hunt, and not the numbers, so I am happy as a lark.

[+Kit Fox]

Actually i have been doing this for about three years but have a different login now that im back in Oregon, but thanks for the input

Sorry,

 

I didn't mean to berate you. I was more concerned that you were already planning Geocide. I didn't imply that cachers with low find counts were any less of cachers than someone with hundreds of finds. I skunked cacher number 3 in the world with one of my caches , with a bit of cache page misdirection. I personally like stimulating caches far more that 1/1s in parking lots.

 

I only read the descriptions as a last resort, when I'm caching paperless. Most times, I hit goto, and starting looking at GZ.

Edited May 19, 2005 by Kit Fox

[+briansnat]

When I place a cache I usually want someone to find it. If a detailed hit will help, I'll provide one. In the end I don't want people tearing up the area looking for a cache. The less time there, the lower the impact.

 

Besides, nobody is forcing anyone to use the hints.

[+CGT]

I think alot of you are not understanding my thoughts, Im all about a relitivly quick find, i dont want to be out there for hours looking. My thought was rather then a straight forward writen hint, was to be a little more creative with the GPS to get the cacher to the spot. This will make it easy to find, fun to find, and yet still leave some work to be done and not hand them all over.

[+Miragee]

When I place a cache I usually want someone to find it.  If a detailed hint will help, I'll provide one.  In the end I don't want people tearing up the area looking for a cache. The less time there, the lower the impact. 

 

. . .

Boy, isn't that the truth. At the cache at which I spent more than half an hour, I wrote in my DNF log that by the time I had walked around and around and around the rocks and tree and poison oak, it looked as if a whole "herd" of Geocachers had been there.

 

One of the next people to visit, who also didn't find the cache, even remarked about how they could see the evidence of my circling . . .

 

When I returned to that cache location, it still took me more than 20 minutes to find it. It would have been nice if the coordinates had been a little closer to what my GPSr was reading and if there had been a teeny, tiny little hint. Like look below waist level, or above waist level. Or in the tree, or beneath rocks, or hanginglowinabush.

 

A hint doesn't have to be too specific to be of a help to save the environment.

[+Siberian Cacher]

I think alot of you are not understanding my thoughts, Im all about a relitivly quick find, i dont want to be out there for hours looking. My thought was rather then a straight forward writen hint, was to be a little more creative with the GPS to get the cacher to the spot. This will make it easy to find, fun to find, and yet still leave some work to be done and not hand them all over.

I like the idea of having 2 levels of hints on the cache page.. one to help push you in the right direction, more vague yet with a little more detail and then another for those who log a DNF. That would be kind of cool. When you log a DNF, you could check a box that would e-mail you a more specific hint or something. You'd almost have to earn the extra hint, but it would help the next time you went out - if you wanted it and checked the box...

[+Miragee]

If cache hiders don't type in a hint in the first place, how are you going to get them to type in two hints . . . :o

[+Kit Fox]

Several caches have multiple hints. They start with clues, then nudges, than cache spoilers.

 

A good way to do multiple hints is to encrypt a simple hint, normally, and then a far more detailed hint, using brackets. This forces cachers to manually decrypt the hints, in the field.

 

I did this type of hint on this cache

[+Marcie/Eric]

I like the idea of having 2 levels of hints on the cache page.. one to help push you in the right direction, more vague yet with a little more detail and then another for those who log a DNF. That would be kind of cool. When you log a DNF, you could check a box that would e-mail you a more specific hint or something. You'd almost have to earn the extra hint, but it would help the next time you went out - if you wanted it and checked the box...

Shouldn't the description be the first level: "push you in the right direction"

 

& the decodable hint should be almost a giveaway. Unless the cache is already a giveaway.

 

Desc: A beautiful view of the sierra foothills on the way to the cache locale. The cache is in the middle of a small grove of live oak trees, at the designated coords.

 

Hint: teh 0a]< 7r33 w17h teh f0r]<

 

(The oak tree with the fork) So it's not ROT-13.

 

I think that is how it should be, and most caches I have found are usually like this.

 

General Description > Hint

 

...Or is this just not how it should be?

[+Miragee]

This is the description of a cache located beneath a spreading oak tree with rocks, boulders, shrubs, weeds, flowers, and poison oak in the vicinity of a 30' foot circle of the GPSr coordinates:

Less than .2 of a mile from convenient parking. Easy stroll along old US 80, now restricted to hiking and biking only. You are looking for a camoed cylinder, about 5" long. This is a log only cache, bring your own writing implement.

Additional Hints (No hints available)

 

[+tozainamboku]

There are many kinds of hints. There could be:

- no hint at all

- a useless hint

- a cryptic hint

- a straight forward hint that narrows down the search but doesn't give it away

- a total spoiler

 

I think the OP is objecting to the last type of hint. I hate to see these on cache with more than one star difficulty. For a one star difficulty cache, if I can't find it and resort to decrypting the hint then I probably wouldn't mind a spoiler.

[+Siberian Cacher]

If cache hiders don't type in a hint in the first place, how are you going to get them to type in two hints . . .

If we related it to micros or caches with 4+ difficulty, then you could be required to offer a general hint and then the logged *DNF hint.

 

the problem with the decrypted message is that I never know the level of hint they give - until it is too late. Some give you too-vague info and others give you the exact location. many times, I'm looking for something in the middle. I stink (I admit it ) at finding "obvious" locations. I'm one of those people who are mildly intelligent but not overy endowed with common-sense. just ask my wife!

 

Each time I logged a DNF, I could then have the option for being e-mailed a more specific clue; however, i could still determine when I wanted to use it. Plus, it would force me to log a DNF each time I rejected it, which some people may not like.

[+Siberian Cacher]

Shouldn't the description be the first level: "push you in the right direction"

 

One would think that. However, I don't come across too many different styles of caches- mainly ammo cans and tupperware. The only reason I found 2 different styles (one was a fake rock and the other the back of a magnetic stip ((GPS Saxaphone thank you)) on a utility box) was b/c I was browsing the fourms in the "unusual cache" section and saw pictures!! I would never think of those types of caches... and they are tame now!!

 

I had no idea how "diabolical" people can be when it comes to caches.. lol many times, the description can't push b/c they would give away the cache.

[+CGT]

I like the idea of have the final and most oviouse hint emailed to you once you logged a DNF, this makes you look and use the GPS and then when all else fails, be led right to it

[ATMouse]

I don't like a long hunt with no success at the end. My caches sometimes don't have a hint, but MOST have hints in the description OR (best of all) in the name of the cache. Like having a cache named "Dumb as a post" and having the cache near or at a post in the search area. It's probably silly, but it tickles me.

[+Miragee]

I looked for an hour for a cache and was convinced it was missing. I emailed the cache owner and never got a reply.

 

Because it was a treacherous climb, I haven't returned, and probably won't until someone else finds that cache.

 

Some cache owners don't respond to correspondence . . .

 

However, my most recent six DNFs did generate hints, both from the caches' owner and another cacher who felt sorry for me. That is how I managed to turn all those blue faces into smilies.

[+hydee]

I like the idea of have the final and most oviouse hint emailed to you once you logged a DNF, this makes you look and use the GPS and then when all else fails, be led right to it

That is fine for a cache with a higher difficulty rating, but when you go out for an easy cache you expect to find it.

 

I would focus on caches with difficluty levels of 3 or higher if you want more of a challenge.

[+sbell111]

For some reason, I'm reminded of this thread.

[+tozainamboku]

However, my most recent six DNFs did generate hints, both from the caches' owner and another cacher who felt sorry for me. That is how I managed to turn all those blue faces into smilies.

I actually don't like getting unsolicited hints when I log a DNF. If I want a hint, I'll email the owner for a hint or ask a previous finder. I do appreciate when the owner checks on their cache and emails me, "Its still there, keep looking".

However, I don't think the owner checked when she logged this response to my DNF.

[+diverhank]

Oh. . . do you see it now? Not yet? Need a hint . . .

 

Urghh!!! Those dreaded decon in a bush. They are tough to find without hints! Once it took me an entire hour looking for a camouflaged-taped decon in a bush without luck and it was looking straight at it for many minutes.

 

After confirming with the owner that I was searching at the right place, I came back and found it ...Like many cache owners whose caches I've had the misfortunes of looking for, this one I believe purposely posted a coords that was about 30 ft off. Even with all the geosenses I was able to muster, I couldn't find it even though I was searching in the right area.

 

I hate decon in a bush types of hide!!! Especially those with less than perfect coords and little or no hints.

[+Miragee]

However, my most recent six DNFs did generate hints, both from the caches' owner and another cacher who felt sorry for me. That is how I managed to turn all those blue faces into smilies.

I actually don't like getting unsolicited hints when I log a DNF. . . .

Actually, the unsolicited hint from another cacher was very sweet. He said, "C'mon, time to ask for a hint." But then he wrote, "Scroll down if you want a hint, otherwise just delete this message."

 

Then there was lots of white space in the email so I couldn't see the hint unless I really wanted to.

 

Since I spent hours trying to find four of the six DNFs, I scrolled down because without a hint, I wasn't going to go back out there again.

 

Of course, I also emailed the caches' owner because I REALLY needed a clue . . .

 

Until that day I had never had to look for DeCon containers hidden in a bush before.

[+Miragee]

Urghh!!!  Those dreaded decon in a bush. They are tough to find without hints!  Once it took me an entire hour looking for a camouflaged-taped decon in a bush without luck and it was looking straight at it for many minutes.

 

After confirming with the owner that I was searching at the right place, I came back and found it ...Like many cache owners whose caches I've had the misfortunes  of looking for, this one I believe purposely posted a  coords that was about 30 ft off.  Even with all the geosenses I was able to muster, I couldn't find it even though I was searching in the right area.

 

I hate decon in a bush types of hide!!!  Especially those with less than perfect coords and little or no hints.

Yup. That's the way these were. No hints . . . with the coords off from my GPSr's reading.

 

On one of these, I found it, then went to get my camera to take a picture and then I couldn't find it again to frame it in the viewfinder. ARRRRGGHHH!

[+RockyRaab]

Here's something that just occurred to me. I might even try it if I place a really devious cache:

 

Place a semi-detailed hint in a 35mm can, and hide it perhaps 100 yards from the real cache. Put the "Hint cache" coords in the cache's hint section. I.E "Hint is in a film can at..."

 

Two fun finds for the price of one! (Although it would only count as one because the hint can wouldn't be a separate cache.)

[+Renegade Knight]

...My worst track record is with rocky shorelines or great piles of rocks; thousands of hidey-holes within the margin of error, and the hint is almost always "under a rock."

 

Sometimes you just want to sit on a rock and cry.

Hey, you got shorlines! We just got the rocks. Our hints are more helpful. "The cache is under the big rock" Ammo cans take an hour to find with hints like that in rock piles. Rock pile caches need just a little something to make them workable. But that takes experience to come up with the hide. Experience doesn't help you find the faster though. It's just brute force.

[+Miragee]

Sounds like this one. Even with a hint, several people have either not been able to find it, or have spent a long time on the search.

 

In the immortal words of Night Hunter, who just found his one thousandth cache, "Ahhhhhhh.... Rock Piles "

[+Glenn]

Actually, most of the older caches were a box next to a tree covered by a few sticks.  If you got to ground zero, you pretty much were guaranteed a find.

(old fogey voice)

 

Even more so, the caches were huge! I'm talking big white buckets. Moun10bike hid one of the first hitchikers which today would only fit into 1% of the containers out there. If you can believe it there was a time where folks were begging to have their containers found by anyone. Some were doubtful they would ever be found.

Do you mean like this one?

 

 

Yes, the cache is hidden just like that. Out in the open with no cover. You'd think a big white bucket in the forest would be an easy find for anyone. But this cache, GC23, does have a few DNF logs.

[+soreyes]

I post painfully clear hints when I am concerned about the sensibility of an area. I don't want the vicinity around my hides trapsed and trampled. I try to hide caches so that they can be reached without ever leaving a trail or previously cleared area.

[+EleriandBlade]

I like the multi-level hints, with the first hint being something helpful, but still vague, like "south", the second being more detailed like "ground level", and the third being detailed "At the base of the big oak tree with the split trunk"

 

Detailed hints are, I think, vital on micro caches. Especially if you're going to place them in an area where there is a high muggle volume and/or an expected short stay. Like a rest area on the freeway, augh. How am I supposed to spend time searching under every bit of sagebrush, when there's cars going past me every 2 minutes? As much as I'd love to spend several hours looking for a micro, when I'm on the road, I can't always. It's frustrating logging a DNF when it's a cache in a place I might not get back to for months.