film canister at the end of a puzzle - really?

[+lachupa]

I like puzzles. I made it through the first 8 of the infamous ePeterso2's puzzle series. I'm stuck on the lateral thinking one because I'm so not hard wired for lateral thinking.

 

Anyway the point is that I've been hunting down puzzles that I can do from my desk with mixed success. I'm a numbers person, hence the math degree and job working with numbers. Not only do I not do lateral thinking well but I also struggle with anagrams.

 

There is a certain satisfaction at finding the solution to a puzzle but an even greater satisfaction at finding the solution to a puzzle that leads to a cache that I can actually physically locate and get a smiley for. To that end I started hunting down some puzzles in my personal caching zone.

 

and finding to my disappointment that for the most part they lead to soggy wet logs in bison tubes or film canisters that have major muggle issues

 

I don't mean to complain - well yes maybe I do a little. I've been working on putting together my own puzzle cache and I mean for it to lead to a regular sized cache with room for trade items, bugs, path tags, whatever and mean to make sure the thing is water proof.

 

I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't get why someone would go to the trouble of putting together a puzzle cache and then tossing a film canister in a bush at the end of it.

[Dinoprophet]

Logically, I'm just signing the sheet anyway. Viscerally, I agree; it seems like an easy way to bump the stars on a nothing hide.

 

I've found exactly two LPCs -- one was the first stage of a multi, the other was the final for a puzzle.

[+kunarion]

I don't get why someone would go to the trouble of putting together a puzzle cache and then tossing a film canister in a bush at the end of it.

Some of the toughest puzzles (the never found ones) have micros. It may be easier to guess where a regular container is hidden, once you have most of the puzzle solved. But it is important that the Final is in an unmuggly, secure spot, where the log stays dry, and where the Cache Owner doesn't have to keep checking on it.

 

If I ever do a real tricky puzzle, the Final micro will have to be better than just a tossed-out film canister with a soaking wet sheet of paper inside. I dunno, maybe I'll paint the matchtube gold.

Edited October 13, 2010 by kunarion

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't get why someone would go to the trouble of putting together a puzzle cache and then tossing a film canister in a bush at the end of it.

Some of the toughest puzzles (the never found ones) have micros. It may be easier to guess where a regular container is hidden, once you have most of the puzzle solved. But it is important that the Final is in an unmuggly, secure spot, where the log stays dry, and where the Cache Owner doesn't have to keep checking on it.

 

If I ever do a real tricky puzzle, the Final micro will have to be better than just a tossed-out film canister with a soaking wet sheet of paper inside. I dunno, maybe I'll paint the matchtube gold.

 

If I was to hide a difficult puzzle it would have to end at an interesting location. I find it a big let down to solve a puzzle and discover the cache is hidden in a disappointing location.

[+kunarion]

If I was to hide a difficult puzzle it would have to end at an interesting location. I find it a big let down to solve a puzzle and discover the cache is hidden in a disappointing location.

I've solved one or two by guessing a nearby interesting place. So with all my other personal restrictions on how I'd do such a hide, there aren't many places to hide even a micro. But part of the fun is finding the perfect spot to hide something.

 

Or I guess I could add "it's in a disappointing location" to the cache description.

Edited October 13, 2010 by kunarion

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't get why someone would go to the trouble of putting together a puzzle cache and then tossing a film canister in a bush at the end of it.

Some of the toughest puzzles (the never found ones) have micros. It may be easier to guess where a regular container is hidden, once you have most of the puzzle solved. But it is important that the Final is in an unmuggly, secure spot, where the log stays dry, and where the Cache Owner doesn't have to keep checking on it.

 

If I ever do a real tricky puzzle, the Final micro will have to be better than just a tossed-out film canister with a soaking wet sheet of paper inside. I dunno, maybe I'll paint the matchtube gold.

 

If I was to hide a difficult puzzle it would have to end at an interesting location. I find it a big let down to solve a puzzle and discover the cache is hidden in a disappointing location.

 

I agree here. However, dropping a film canister with a soggy logscrap in a store parking lot for the end of a puzzle seems to be pretty common (and generally a well-defended practice when the topic comes up here). I'd like to think if you are going to make your puzzle a micro, you would at least put it in a park or on a bike trail or such, and in a location that isn't muggle intensive.

[+lachupa]

On the one I'm working up I was going to err on the side of making the actual find fairly easy. It's a chose your own adventure sort of thing so I figured that after force marching someone through a series of clues it would be just too evil to say hook a black bison tube covered with fake leaves on a gutter grate in the street.

[+SSO JOAT]

As a self-proclaimed puzzle meister... there is no point in placing a big trading cache at the end of a puzzle. Very, very few people bother to hunt down puzzle caches anyhow. So using a small or micro hide is a preferred final as the only real purpose of the puzzle final is to prove that you solved the puzzle.

 

Of my many puzzles, I believe that only 2 of them are regular sized caches. Of the maybe 8 or 10 finds between both of those, no one has ever traded anything. They just sign the log and perhaps drop their sig item. I'm thoroughly convinced that an ammo can behind a puzzle is a waste of a perfectly good ammo can.

 

So, you can put a MKH on a guardrail and publish it as a traditional micro with 2 sentences on the cache page. All you have is a worthless numbers cache. Or, you can take that same spot and use it to hide the logbook for a really cool puzzle. When you ask why did the CO bring me here, the answer is to prove you solved the puzzle and to keep some knucklehead from putting a P&G traditional numbers cache in that spot.

 

A common puzzle theme 'round my area is that a very difficult puzzle is usually coupled with an easy access hide. A simple puzzle often has a more difficult hide. On a few puzzles, they are rated higher because you have a tough puzzle on top of a tough hide.

 

Sometimes it really is about the journey, not the destination.

[4wheelin_fool]

Many puzzle caches are in uninspired containers and/or locations. In many cases the find is to only prove that you solved it. Some owners do it on purpose, as to avoid blocking off a good location from a more frequently visited traditional cache.

[+L0ne.R]

As a self-proclaimed puzzle meister... there is no point in placing a big trading cache at the end of a puzzle. Very, very few people bother to hunt down puzzle caches anyhow. So using a small or micro hide is a preferred final as the only real purpose of the puzzle final is to prove that you solved the puzzle.

 

You are right that there are a small subset of cachers that will hunt puzzles and of that subset there are those, like myself, that will not even bother solving a puzzle if the container is a micro. As a finder, micro is not a preferred final and I'm glad to see that many people in this forum who enjoy the extra challenge of puzzles, agree that they want to find a good watertight swag-size cache (in a nice location) at the end of the game.

[+mountainman38]

As a self-proclaimed puzzle meister... there is no point in placing a big trading cache at the end of a puzzle. Very, very few people bother to hunt down puzzle caches anyhow. So using a small or micro hide is a preferred final as the only real purpose of the puzzle final is to prove that you solved the puzzle.

 

Of my many puzzles, I believe that only 2 of them are regular sized caches. Of the maybe 8 or 10 finds between both of those, no one has ever traded anything. They just sign the log and perhaps drop their sig item. I'm thoroughly convinced that an ammo can behind a puzzle is a waste of a perfectly good ammo can.

 

So, you can put a MKH on a guardrail and publish it as a traditional micro with 2 sentences on the cache page. All you have is a worthless numbers cache. Or, you can take that same spot and use it to hide the logbook for a really cool puzzle. When you ask why did the CO bring me here, the answer is to prove you solved the puzzle and to keep some knucklehead from putting a P&G traditional numbers cache in that spot.

 

A common puzzle theme 'round my area is that a very difficult puzzle is usually coupled with an easy access hide. A simple puzzle often has a more difficult hide. On a few puzzles, they are rated higher because you have a tough puzzle on top of a tough hide.

 

Sometimes it really is about the journey, not the destination.

This is exactly how I feel -- thanks for saving me from writing it all out!

 

There is a local puzzle cache that calls itself a travel bug hotel. While it's not an exceptionally difficult puzzle, it takes some work to solve. The hide itself is in a rather difficult to access spot. Add these together, and it makes for a fun cache to solve/claim. Travel bug hotel? Nope. It's been found 3 times since it was published several months ago.

 

Leaving a TB in a puzzle cache seems like a really lame thing to do, too -- especially on a tough puzzle that may go weeks or months between finds.

 

I don't care to find soggy logs no matter what type the cache is, but as was said -- the point of finding the cache is to prove you solved the puzzle. I don't think you'd really want to waste a great view spot with a puzzle cache -- that's less likely to get people out to see the cool spot you'd like to share.

 

All my puzzle caches are located in places that aren't unattractive, but were chosen for their ease of access more than their great views.

[+Semper Questio]

Most of the big puzzle-makers I've talked to put LPC micros out as finals because, to them, the challenge, and often the point, of the cache is the puzzle, NOT the find of the final.

[+mountainman38]

...You are right that there are a small subset of cachers that will hunt puzzles and of that subset there are those, like myself, that will not even bother solving a puzzle if the container is a micro. As a finder, micro is not a preferred final and I'm glad to see that many people in this forum who enjoy the extra challenge of puzzles, agree that they want to find a good watertight swag-size cache (in a nice location) at the end of the game.

I prefer finding micro's. Ammo cans are too big to lend themselves to a stealthy hide in many places, and there is no thrill whatever in sorting through a bunch of junky toys and wrinkled business cards to find the log book.

[+L0ne.R]

Most of the big puzzle-makers I've talked to put LPC micros out as finals because, to them, the challenge, and often the point, of the cache is the puzzle, NOT the find of the final.

 

So far it's the puzzle makers that say they prefer hiding micros. But the general consensus of the finders is we prefer swag size caches in nice locations as a reward for solving a puzzle. We make the extra effort, we want a nice reward.

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't particularly care about the size of the cache. I find it a let down that so many puzzles end in uninspired locations. It's anti-climatic. Could be part of the reason I generally don't like puzzles. The puzzle should enhance a great cache. Instead all to often the cache is just to validate the listing. If it is all about the puzzle then skip hiding the cache and list it on a puzzle site.

[+dfx]

So far it's the puzzle makers that say they prefer hiding micros. But the general consensus of the finders is we prefer swag size caches in nice locations as a reward for solving a puzzle. We make the extra effort, we want a nice reward.

try to look at it from the point of view of those who can't solve the puzzle. those would rather prefer the puzzle cache to be in a lame location and have a traditional cache at the good location.

[+BlueDeuce]

I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't get why someone would go to the trouble of putting together a puzzle cache and then tossing a film canister in a bush at the end of it.

 

The expectation is that a good cache page would suggest a good cache location. Take away the puzzle part and I still have the expectation of a good cache location.

 

I'll wait for the reviews. I save my expectations for the cache owners who know how to place a cache.

[+Chrysalides]

So far it's the puzzle makers that say they prefer hiding micros. But the general consensus of the finders is we prefer swag size caches in nice locations as a reward for solving a puzzle. We make the extra effort, we want a nice reward.

As a puzzle finder, most of the fun for me is in solving the puzzle. Micros are just fine with me, as long as it is not a nasty hide. I'm not after any special reward.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I don't particularly care about the size of the cache. I find it a let down that so many puzzles end in uninspired locations. It's anti-climatic. Could be part of the reason I generally don't like puzzles. The puzzle should enhance a great cache. Instead all to often the cache is just to validate the listing. If it is all about the puzzle then skip hiding the cache and list it on a puzzle site.

 

I agree for the most part. It's not the size of the cache that's an issue for me. One of my favorite puzzles that I've solved led me to a bison tube stuck to a guard rail. However, it was at a very scenic spot overlooking a bay.

 

Even if the container is a bison, nano, or film can it can still be placed in a location that is thematically related to the puzzle. The cache name, description, puzzle, and location can often all be tied together to create an interesting caching experience from start to finish.

[+Semper Questio]

Most of the big puzzle-makers I've talked to put LPC micros out as finals because, to them, the challenge, and often the point, of the cache is the puzzle, NOT the find of the final.

 

So far it's the puzzle makers that say they prefer hiding micros. But the general consensus of the finders is we prefer swag size caches in nice locations as a reward for solving a puzzle. We make the extra effort, we want a nice reward.

 

Fair enough. From a finder's perspective, at least in my area, I don't really care TOO much. Yes, I'd prefer a final that is related to the puzzle in some way and/or has some reason for being there...the view, the history, a personal story from the hider, SOMEthing. But, ultimately, I'm looking for a log to sign. I expect the puzzle to be the point of a puzzle cache and the logging is just a formality to indicate I solved it. Otherwise it'd be listed as a traditional with no puzzle involved.

[Clan Riffster]

...I don't get why someone would go to the trouble of putting together a puzzle cache and then tossing a film canister in a bush at the end of it.

There are those who honestly believe that black and grey film cans make perfectly good cache containers, and that shrubbery and/or parking lots make perfectly good hiding spots. I've talked with a few of those folks and I can assure you there is no swaying their opinion. Another good reason for Groundspeak to come up with an easy way to ignore all hides by a particular user.

[+Isonzo Karst]

A few years ago, on a local board, there was a spirited debate about final puzzle locations. There were those who felt that it was "waste" of a good location to make it the endpoint of a puzzle cache. Interesting point of view.

 

(My admin account tells novice and not-so-novice cachers that their hide "in the perfect spot" in the place where they, "can't believe there are no caches", is too close to a puzzle solution - I do this over and over and over and over and over and.......so I see that side of it. )

 

Early in my caching career, when caches were few and precious, I worked on a couple of puzzles. Both disappointed me in their locations. The really tough one was a skirt lifter at a drug store. I was already ignoring those kinds of caches as traditional hides. The other did have a theme to it, and to the final location kept to theme, but was still a commercial lot. As I wasn't really enjoying the puzzle part, and I definitely wasn't enjoying those finds, I quit doing puzzles.

 

No cache should be in a lousy container.

[+Coldgears]

I don't particularly care about the size of the cache. I find it a let down that so many puzzles end in uninspired locations. It's anti-climatic. Could be part of the reason I generally don't like puzzles. The puzzle should enhance a great cache. Instead all to often the cache is just to validate the listing. If it is all about the puzzle then skip hiding the cache and list it on a puzzle site.

Errm, then what about the lame hides that are a lame hide AND have no puzzle. Should they go on a lame hide for numbers website?

[+niraD]

I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't get why someone would go to the trouble of putting together a puzzle cache and then tossing a film canister in a bush at the end of it.

As others have mentioned, many puzzlers consider the puzzle itself to be the important part of the cache. The hide itself is considered secondary.

 

And some think it is inconsiderate to "waste" an interesting location on a puzzle cache, and considerate to hide puzzle caches in "boring" locations that don't make very interesting traditional caches.

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't particularly care about the size of the cache. I find it a let down that so many puzzles end in uninspired locations. It's anti-climatic. Could be part of the reason I generally don't like puzzles. The puzzle should enhance a great cache. Instead all to often the cache is just to validate the listing. If it is all about the puzzle then skip hiding the cache and list it on a puzzle site.

Errm, then what about the lame hides that are a lame hide AND have no puzzle. Should they go on a lame hide for numbers website?

 

Works for me.

[Mr.Yuck]

A few years ago, on a local board, there was a spirited debate about final puzzle locations. There were those who felt that it was "waste" of a good location to make it the endpoint of a puzzle cache. Interesting point of view.

 

(My admin account tells novice and not-so-novice cachers that their hide "in the perfect spot" in the place where they, "can't believe there are no caches", is too close to a puzzle solution - I do this over and over and over and over and over and.......so I see that side of it. )

 

Early in my caching career, when caches were few and precious, I worked on a couple of puzzles. Both disappointed me in their locations. The really tough one was a skirt lifter at a drug store. I was already ignoring those kinds of caches as traditional hides. The other did have a theme to it, and to the final location kept to theme, but was still a commercial lot. As I wasn't really enjoying the puzzle part, and I definitely wasn't enjoying those finds, I quit doing puzzles.

 

No cache should be in a lousy container.

 

You know, I was going to say that some of the arguments in this thread for not "wasting" a good spot on a puzzle cache were quite convincing, especially those made by SSOJoat. Even almost to the point of swaying my opinion on the matter.

 

Thanks for verbally smacking me upside the head, and making me come to my senses though.

[+SSO JOAT]

... the general consensus of the finders is we prefer swag size caches in nice locations as a reward for solving a puzzle. We make the extra effort, we want a nice reward.

 

I'd like to see the study and data that supports your assertation that there is a concensus amongst puzzle finders that they want "swag sized" caches as a "reward". I have to play the BS card on this "invented statistic".

 

The "extra effort" is most certainly put out by the puzzle maker, not the finder. It's not nearly as difficult to solve a puzzle as it is to put one together.

 

Your reward is the "aha" moment while solving the puzzle and the overwhelming sense of satisfaction you get when you've got a GPS coordinate and a "success" message on the geocheck. That is followed by getting to write a "nice log" about how great the puzzle was. If the fact that the logsheet was in a bison tube disguised as a pine cone in a plain spruce tree on the shoulder of a little dirt road that doesn't have some kind of "spectacular" view of anything is enough to ruin the puzzle experience... well, sorry.

[kablooey]

The worst thing for me as a finder after I've solved a difficult puzzle is to have it be so difficult to find that I either DNF it or it's too hard to get to that I can't claim it. In either case, I don't get any reward for solving the difficult puzzle. I'd much rather claim a LPC for those caches. Sure I understand it's nice to have clever hides or nice long hikes, but I'd prefer to separate them from the tough puzzles. I do agree that hiding a LPC in a thematically appropriate location or with a thematically appropriate container can still make an otherwise ordinary hide more rewarding for a puzzle solver.

Edited October 14, 2010 by kablooey

[+SSO JOAT]

Looking through my bookmark list of every local puzzle cache in my area...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...b1-095a64292485

 

... I count 38 micros, 4 regulars and a couple smalls of the 44 puzzles within 15 miles of our little "twin cities" area. Of those micros there are zero LPCs, one camo painted film canister (the clear Fuji type, not a single black/grey one to be found), 18 pill bottles (twist-on child-resistant waterproof cap style, nearly all of them camo'd with birch bark by a very crafty cache hider), 1 nearly-nano lab sample tube, 2 MHKs, and the rest are commercial Bisons. The vast majority of these cache finals are in the woods or next to the woods on road shoulder ROWs. None are on commercial parking lot properties. One is on a guard rail on a winding roadway thorugh a rural subdivision that most would consider a nice area to drive through. A whole bunch of them are on roadside greenbelt around the University property and several more are on public recreation and sports-related fields (baseball fields, rodeo grounds, ice rink facility, small city parks, etc).

 

My sampling is a such a very small slice of the geocaching pie that it means nothing compared to what else is out there in the world, but the complaint about puzzles being krappy film can LPC hides is completely off the mark 'round here.

[Clan Riffster]

Your reward is the "aha" moment while solving the puzzle...

While it's a perfectly acceptable for you to decide that the only necessary reward from solving a puzzle is the satisfaction of accomplishing a difficult task, let's not paint everyone with the lame hide brush. Contrary to the silliness being presented by the Micro-Spew fans, some of us still appreciate a quality container in an inspired location, whether a puzzle is involved or not. By using a quality container, in an inspired location, as a puzzle finale, you satisfy those folks who don't care what the final is like, as well as satisfying those of us who still cling desperately to higher standards. Sounds like a "Win-Win" scenario to me. As for the notion that a quality spot can be wasted by a puzzle, I just don't get it. Those who prefer hiding traditional caches had an equal shot at that perfect spot. They just waited too long. Let's not use puzzle caches as crappy cache enablers. Take pride in (all aspects of) your hide.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Take pride in (all aspects of) your hide.

 

Instead of requiring 100 finds before hiding a cache, new geocachers should be required to write...

 

"I take pride in all aspects of my hide."

 

...100 times on a blackboard. If every hider followed this mantra, I can't help but see how the game would be improved for everyone.

[+Stargazer22]

 

... As a finder, micro is not a preferred final ...

 

I agree with this one completely. As a finder, I do not prefer to find a micro after solving a difficult puzzle. I think someone that believes a micro is a preferred final is one who doesn't want to work at maintaining a full sized cache and wants to make it easy on themselves as a hider. Essentially little or no maintenance required and maybe 20 seconds to find a spot to plunk down a film can or bison tube.

 

As far as the statement made about solving puzzles, I have to disagree that there is more work in making the puzzle than solving it. I can make a puzzle in 5 minutes that will be almost impossible to solve.

 

I would much prefer finding a full sized cache at the end of the journey. If I solve a puzzle and find a micro at the end, that one would fit my personally biased definition of "lame".

 

Someone who puts lots of work into designing a clever and interesting puzzle then puts a micro out for the cache at the end sounds like someone who is into puzzles but not so much into geocaching to me.

[+L0ne.R]

... the general consensus of the finders is we prefer swag size caches in nice locations as a reward for solving a puzzle. We make the extra effort, we want a nice reward.

 

I'd like to see the study and data that supports your assertation that there is a concensus amongst puzzle finders that they want "swag sized" caches as a "reward". I have to play the BS card on this "invented statistic".

 

I was only going with the consensus in the thread up until the time I posted. After I posted my observations, a couple of finders said they were good with micro rewards in ho hum locations. But before my post the OP and other finders indicated that they want a good caching experience at the end - not a micro on a guardrail. It was the puzzle maker COs that insist that it's better not to take up a good location with a puzzle cache and for some reason a micro is a better container for a puzzle cache too. I don't know why a micro would be a better choice over a small (or larger) cache placed at the ho hum location. I have solved puzzles that end in a micro container but since I don't like micro hides (because in my experience they are a disappointment) I don't bother to go look for them. Then it becomes just about the puzzle. There are many websites which I can go to other then gc.com in order to enjoy solving a puzzle. I prefer the whole caching experience - solve the puzzle, find a swag size cache, in a decent location.

[+SSO JOAT]

None of this is convincing. But then I have absolutely no problem with micro caches and I consider myself to be really "into geocaching".

 

I'm not going to run out and change my micro puzzles into ammo cans that will get muggled or filled with water and trashy swag.

 

Did anyone consider that perhaps the micro that a CO placed behind his puzzle was chosen for a specific reason?

 

A puzzle that is "impossible to solve" that you build in 5 minutes fits the definition of a totally "lame puzzle" just as a film can under a wally lamp skirt fits the definition of a totally lame cache. A good puzzle takes hours of labor to build and it is symbiotic with the hide and container, even if that container happens to be a micro. It's not the size of the ship, it's the motion of the ocean.

[+addisonbr]

I don't mind micro containers for finals. I live in an area where container sizes are necessarily smaller than the average for most folks. And as others have alluded, not all micros are the same.

 

I sometimes mind the location; I get a little bummed if the last memory I have of a good puzzle is behind a dumpster in an alley.

[+sbell111]

Your reward is the "aha" moment while solving the puzzle...

While it's a perfectly acceptable for you to decide that the only necessary reward from solving a puzzle is the satisfaction of accomplishing a difficult task, let's not paint everyone with the lame hide brush. ...

That's all fine and well, but asking someone who worked hard to develop a quality puzzle to further provide a 'reward' to finders seems a little too self-involved for my taste.

 

I believe that most people who complete puzzles do so because they get some satisfaction out of completing the puzzle, not from just going through swag. Those that get their primary enjoyment from the swag, rather than from solving the puzzle, should not bother searching for puzzles that are listed as micros. Perhaps they should move away from puzzles all together if that is not where their enjoyment hides. Either way, it turns out that there is an easy peasy method to help these people avoid what they don't enjoy.

[+sbell111]

... As a finder, micro is not a preferred final ...

I agree with this one completely. As a finder, I do not prefer to find a micro after solving a difficult puzzle. ... If I solve a puzzle and find a micro at the end, that one would fit my personally biased definition of "lame".

You sound like you think that puzzle owners are tricking you into finding their micros. You know, there is a way to tell the size of teh cache container before you even begin working on the puzzle, right?

Someone who puts lots of work into designing a clever and interesting puzzle then puts a micro out for the cache at the end sounds like someone who is into puzzles but not so much into geocaching to me.

Just because they don't have the hangup about microcaches that you appear to, doesn't mean that they don't enjoy the game.

[+sbell111]

So far it's the puzzle makers that say they prefer hiding micros. But the general consensus of the finders is we prefer swag size caches in nice locations as a reward for solving a puzzle. We make the extra effort, we want a nice reward.

I'd like to see the study and data that supports your assertation that there is a concensus amongst puzzle finders that they want "swag sized" caches as a "reward". I have to play the BS card on this "invented statistic".

I was only going with the consensus in the thread up until the time I posted. ...

You made that remark at post 14. Only ten cachers had even weighed into the thread, at all, more less actually given their opinion as finders. I'm someone surprised that anyone could think that this tiny amount of data could be considered even remotely representative of all finders.

 

You might also note that your statement was also factually incorrect because you ignored the simple fact that the 'hiders' who gave their opinion are also 'finders'.

Edited October 14, 2010 by sbell111

[MisterEFQ]

Im not a fan of micros. I have found a few I liked. And I am just now getting into easy puzzles.

 

So I ran a PQ for easy puzzles and ignored the micros.

 

I actually plan on my first hide to be a puzzle. Im almost done working it out. The cache is going to be a regular size cache so I can fill it full of halloween swag, and restock it throughout the year, and drop our new TB in it.

[+lachupa]

Most of the puzzles I've seen have unknown as the size.

 

I get the idea of not wanting to waste a good spot on a puzzle, not that I agree with it but I can follow the argument.

 

BUT what I don’t follow is the claim that someone solving a puzzle is somehow less deserving of a quality hide than someone who wants to pull over on the side of the road, turn on their hazard lights, and snag a cache just to pad their numbers.

 

So far I don’t think the cache rats have hit my area, but reading a few posts about them I tend to think that if that sort of thing starts happening here I’m going to go with strictly puzzle caches. Hey you want to steal my cache to prove some sort of point, I’m at least going to make you work for it.

Edited October 14, 2010 by lachupa

[+lachupa]

and really the truth of it is I don't mind a micro at the end of a puzzle - not really as long as its a quality micro

 

by quality micro I don't mean a moldy wet log stuck in a film canister

 

The little screw on bison tubes seem ok as long as the log is in a bag.

 

So essentially I suppose what I'm saying is that size doesn't necessarily matter - let it go, this is a family forum.

 

Personally though, I'm leaning more towards a regular size cache at the end of the puzzle I'm doing. I'm new though and only have 2 hides so I haven't hit the point of getting frustrated with cache degredation and muggle issues.

[+sbell111]

... BUT what I don’t follow is the claim that someone solving a puzzle is somehow less deserving of a quality hide than someone who wants to pull over on the side of the road, turn on their hazard lights, and snag a cache just to pad their numbers. ...

I would argue that puzzle solvers are no more or less deserving of a cache of any specific size.

 

The only difference between a puzzle cache and a traditional is that the puzzles have a puzzle to solve. Those that think that solving this puzzle somehow entitles them to anything more have it wrong.

Edited October 14, 2010 by sbell111

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Most of the puzzles I've seen have unknown as the size.

 

Really? I've found 95 puzzles caches and have solved a bunch more. I just took a look at the container sizes using GSAK and found one marked as Other and one as Not Chosen.

[+niraD]

I don't know why a micro would be a better choice over a small (or larger) cache placed at the ho hum location.

Many locations (especially "ho hum" locations that are being used to avoid "wasting" a good location on a puzzle cache) can't support anything more than a micro--at least, not without some serious camouflage. I enjoy caches with challenging camouflage, but many of the local puzzlers want the actual find to be relatively easy, so that anyone who solves the puzzle can find the cache. Challenging camouflage would go against that. They'll create 4-star camouflage, or a 4-star puzzle, but they won't combine the two.

 

Also, most of the local puzzlers aren't really into trading, except a few of us who collect personal sig items. Nano-caches have room for a blank log. Larger micro-caches have room for most sig items. From that perspective, there's no need for larger containers that are harder to hide.

 

I prefer the whole caching experience - solve the puzzle, find a swag size cache, in a decent location.

I prefer the "whole caching experience" too, but I'm happy with a good puzzle in a "ho hum" location, and I really don't care about cache size. Actually, that isn't completely true. I have a slight preference for smaller containers. Anything larger than a small size cache tends to have more junk to sort through, making it harder to find any sig items that might be in the cache.

[Clan Riffster]

Personally though, I'm leaning more towards a regular size cache at the end of the puzzle I'm doing.

I thank you, and those who seek your cache will thank you. The extra bit of effort spent placing a quality container, at an interesting location, will pay you huge dividends as the logs start rolling in. Not only will the finders bless you for your awesome puzzle, they will further bless you for the way kewl final. If you want to reduce the speed in which your swag degrades, make your final as far from parking as you are comfortable with. There seems to be a direct relationship between the distance in miles that someone has to hike, and their willingness to follow the "Trade up, trade even" mantra. The swag in caches I own that take a full day to acquire actually seems to improve over time.

[+L0ne.R]

You might also note that your statement was also factually incorrect because you ignored the simple fact that the 'hiders' who gave their opinion are also 'finders'.

 

They're biased.

[+sbell111]

You might also note that your statement was also factually incorrect because you ignored the simple fact that the 'hiders' who gave their opinion are also 'finders'.

 

They're biased.

So are you, but you still countered your vote.

[+Stargazer22]

... As a finder, micro is not a preferred final ...

I agree with this one completely. As a finder, I do not prefer to find a micro after solving a difficult puzzle. ... If I solve a puzzle and find a micro at the end, that one would fit my personally biased definition of "lame". You sound like you think that puzzle owners are tricking you into finding their micros. You know, there is a way to tell the size of teh cache container before you even begin working on the puzzle, right?

 

Someone who puts lots of work into designing a clever and interesting puzzle then puts a micro out for the cache at the end sounds like someone who is into puzzles but not so much into geocaching to me.

Just because they don't have the hangup about microcaches that you appear to, doesn't mean that they don't enjoy the game.

 

Please don't put your words into my mouth. I never said anything about anyone "tricking" anyone into anything. That's all in your imagination. However, on that subject, many puzzle owners mark their puzzles as "unknown" on the size so you really can't tell in advance that it is a micro.

 

Please don't insinuate that I have any "hangup"s about micros. You are mistaken. I search for micros all the time and don't attemp to filter them out. In fact, 2 weekends ago I did a 6+ mile hike that had 17 caches on the hike. 14 of them were micros. I knew it in advance and planned the weekend around those caches.

 

I simply said that I think that a puzzle cache with a micro for a final fits my personal definition of lame. Someone who goes to all the trouble of working out a puzzle but can't be bothered to place anyting except a micro sounds to me like someone who is more into the puzzle than the cache. As a puzzle on a puzzlers website that may be fine, but as a cache on a geocacher's website, I find it to be lacking.

[+sbell111]

... As a finder, micro is not a preferred final ...

I agree with this one completely. As a finder, I do not prefer to find a micro after solving a difficult puzzle. ... If I solve a puzzle and find a micro at the end, that one would fit my personally biased definition of "lame".

You sound like you think that puzzle owners are tricking you into finding their micros. You know, there is a way to tell the size of the cache container before you even begin working on the puzzle, right?

 

Someone who puts lots of work into designing a clever and interesting puzzle then puts a micro out for the cache at the end sounds like someone who is into puzzles but not so much into geocaching to me.

Just because they don't have the hangup about microcaches that you appear to, doesn't mean that they don't enjoy the game.

 

Please don't put your words into my mouth. I never said anything about anyone "tricking" anyone into anything. That's all in your imagination. However, on that subject, many puzzle owners mark their puzzles as "unknown" on the size so you really can't tell in advance that it is a micro.

 

Please don't insinuate that I have any "hangup"s about micros. You are mistaken. I search for micros all the time and don't attemp to filter them out. In fact, 2 weekends ago I did a 6+ mile hike that had 17 caches on the hike. 14 of them were micros. I knew it in advance and planned the weekend around those caches.

 

I simply said that I think that a puzzle cache with a micro for a final fits my personal definition of lame. Someone who goes to all the trouble of working out a puzzle but can't be bothered to place anyting except a micro sounds to me like someone who is more into the puzzle than the cache. As a puzzle on a puzzlers website that may be fine, but as a cache on a geocacher's website, I find it to be lacking.

There is an easy peasy method that would help you to avoid these micro-puzzles that cause you so much angst.

 

<edited to fix the stargazer's messed up quotes>

Edited October 15, 2010 by sbell111

[+Castle Mischief]

I have two puzzles- one ammo can and one micro. I've listed the size because I want people to know what they are getting at the end of the hunt, because I know that it does matter to some. If some people don't want to hunt the micro I'm cool with that.

 

I wouldn't be too let down if I found a micro at the end of an unsized mystery cache. I might be a little perplexed to find one at the end of a very long hike combined with a very hard puzzle in a location that could have supported a larger cache, but honestly I don't hunt mystery caches that often at all.