Your advice on a puzzle cache

[+narcissa]

Yeah, I don't get people who are whiny, but ignore that and consider whether there might be possibilities for ambiguity or a lack of clarity that a seeker could overcome with a little help. For multi's, I have to say I think a checker is almost always dumb, since many of us can't access a checker in the field where we're following a multi's trail. But a checksum is appreciated if I'm supposed to gather some information since there's so much room for copying a number down wrong or counting wrong or finding the wrong sign or whatever. Do you provide checksums? If so, you have my permission to tell people whining for a checker that a checker would annoy people without web access in the field.

 

I provide timely responses to emails about my caches.

 

Define timely. Keep in mind that geocacher that might be traveling to your city might only be there for a few hours.

 

In which case it's probably not wise to look at any non-traditional geocaches around here.

 

Not all caches are for all people.

 

But you could make them available for more people if you took the 10 minutes or so it takes to add a coordinate checker.

 

Or I could make them available to fewer people by adding several layers of encryption. I'm not concerned about the level of traffic I get to my caches, so why are you?

[team tisri]

Yeah, I don't get people who are whiny, but ignore that and consider whether there might be possibilities for ambiguity or a lack of clarity that a seeker could overcome with a little help. For multi's, I have to say I think a checker is almost always dumb, since many of us can't access a checker in the field where we're following a multi's trail. But a checksum is appreciated if I'm supposed to gather some information since there's so much room for copying a number down wrong or counting wrong or finding the wrong sign or whatever. Do you provide checksums? If so, you have my permission to tell people whining for a checker that a checker would annoy people without web access in the field.

 

I provide timely responses to emails about my caches.

 

... and that's great. But the people out in the field don't know when, or even whether, you'll reply to an email they send you. And if they send an email one evening when you're out (I assume you have a life outside of geocaching) then however timely you may consider your response it might not be timely enough for them.

 

So from the perspective of the would-be seeker of your cache, they can't be sure whether they correctly solved your puzzle and can't have any assurance that you'll reply to their email fast enough to be of any use. If I were in that position I'd just skip over your cache completely and look at someone else's.

 

... which goes back to whether you care about missing out on visitors from out of the area.

[+narcissa]

If I were in that position I'd just skip over your cache completely and look at someone else's.

 

That is always the correct decision when you aren't certain that you'll be able to complete a geocache in the amount of time you have, whether it's a tricky puzzle, a lengthy multi, or a difficult hide.

 

The owner's responsibility lies in making sure that you have the information you need to make that decision. The owner is not responsible for making sure that everyone is able to do the cache.

[+dprovan]

Or I could make them available to fewer people by adding several layers of encryption. I'm not concerned about the level of traffic I get to my caches, so why are you?

I'm not concerned with the amount of traffic. I'm telling you about a simple thing you could do -- add a checksum -- that would let me detect a simple error and still complete your cache. I'm not sure why you're so opposed to that.

 

I don't have access to e-mail in the field, so your timely responses would do me no good at all. I love doing multis when I'm traveling because they are often a good way to learn about the area, so I'm a little disappointed that your attitude is that I shouldn't do multis unless I'm a local.

 

The owner's responsibility lies in making sure that you have the information you need to make that decision. The owner is not responsible for making sure that everyone is able to do the cache.

Until now, I assumed the owner was always at least interested in helping people have a good time.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The owner's responsibility lies in making sure that you have the information you need to make that decision. The owner is not responsible for making sure that everyone is able to do the cache.

 

It's not about responsibility. It's about courtesy.

 

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Until now, I assumed the owner was always at least interested in helping people have a good time.

 

I don't assume that, but when it happens it helps foster the community instead of treating other geocachers as the enemy.

 

 

[Luckless]

I don't see any response from the OP since the first few posts. Anyway whether he's still responding or not, from my experience the first option seems best. I've done a lot of puzzle caches and multis. Most cachers I've dealt with would want two smilies if they could get them and most don't want very involved puzzles if any at all and those who do like puzzles are usually few, at least around here. I do what I want.

[+J Grouchy]

Until now, I assumed the owner was always at least interested in helping people have a good time.

 

I don't assume that, but when it happens it helps foster the community instead of treating other geocachers as the enemy.

 

It does seem like a rather flippant attitude towards people who may genuinely be interested in finding that cache. There are a lot of things in this game that the CO isn't responsible for but that they do out of courtesy to those seeking their caches. Checking a cache after a run of DNFs...restocking swag or cleaning out a container...verifying coordinates and adding parking or points-of-interest waypoints...updating the cache inventory if trackables are missing...

 

None of that is a requirement, but doing them make for a better geocaching experience in my opinion.

Edited October 3, 2014 by J Grouchy

[team tisri]

If I were in that position I'd just skip over your cache completely and look at someone else's.

 

That is always the correct decision when you aren't certain that you'll be able to complete a geocache in the amount of time you have, whether it's a tricky puzzle, a lengthy multi, or a difficult hide.

 

The owner's responsibility lies in making sure that you have the information you need to make that decision. The owner is not responsible for making sure that everyone is able to do the cache.

 

Nobody ever said the owner was responsible for making sure everybody could do the cache.

 

Personally if I'd taken the time and effort to create and hide a cache and then create a puzzle I wouldn't necessarily want the puzzle to be easy but I would want to make it easy for someone who had successfully solved the puzzle to know they had the right coordinates. If you're not hiding caches so they can be found, why hide caches at all?

[cezanne]

Personally if I'd taken the time and effort to create and hide a cache and then create a puzzle I wouldn't necessarily want the puzzle to be easy but I would want to make it easy for someone who had successfully solved the puzzle to know they had the right coordinates.

 

For many puzzles automatic checkers help in obtaining the coordinates without solving the puzzle completely. I'm happy to make it easy for those who deal with my puzzle caches to verify their solutions by mailing them to me. That way they can either send me complete coordinates or tell me they have troubles with a part of the solution. What they cannot do is trying out many solutions and then creating the illusion in their log that everything was trivial for them.

 

In case of more challenging puzzle caches, it hardly occurs that someone who travels is solving them 10 minutes before they intend to head for the final as even the solution process will take longer. So I think in this setting asking a responsive cache owner is the best way. It just requires the courage to send out answers one is not sure about which is lacking many cachers nowadays.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited October 3, 2014 by cezanne

[team tisri]

Personally if I'd taken the time and effort to create and hide a cache and then create a puzzle I wouldn't necessarily want the puzzle to be easy but I would want to make it easy for someone who had successfully solved the puzzle to know they had the right coordinates.

 

For many puzzles automatic checkers help in obtaining the coordinates without solving the puzzle completely. I'm happy to make it easy for those who deal with my puzzle caches to verify their solutions by mailing them to me. That way they can either send me complete coordinates or tell me they have troubles with a part of the solution. What they cannot do is trying out many solutions and then creating the illusion in their log that everything was trivial for them.

 

They can but most of them have built-in measures to slow the flow of trial-and-error checking. I remember one puzzle I solved years ago had enough information in it, and a two-stage checker, that meant it was easy enough to try multiple permutations through the coarse checker and as soon as a "close enough" answer was found to try a much narrower ranges of precise options through a fine checker. Obviously if you're going to provide a checker you'd need to consider whether the checker itself made the puzzle easier to solve.

 

In case of more challenging puzzle caches, it hardly occurs that someone who travels is solving them 10 minutes before they intend to head for the final as even the solution process will take longer. So I think in this setting asking a responsive cache owner is the best way. It just requires the courage to send out answers one is not sure about which is lacking many cachers nowadays.

 

Good point on the solvers but at the same time if you're going to be visiting an area you may be spending time on a boat/plane/train solving puzzles, or solving things a short time before travelling. There's no way of knowing from the cache page how fast the owner will respond to emails, and so if there's no way I can be confident I've got the right answer I'll just pass by and look at a different one. I don't want to take the time solving a puzzle only to find I can't verify my solution and to find the owner gets back to me once I've left the area to tell me whether I was right or not. So folks like narcissa who comment that "they provide a timely response" really don't help because there's no way of knowing from the cache page that this is the case, and also no way of knowing what they consider "timely".

 

It's also possible that someone would have part of the solution ahead of time and only realise much nearer the time that they could finish the puzzle, only to then find they couldn't verify the result. But again, if you can't verify that you have the right answer it's easy to see why people might not bother even starting to solve it.

 

Ultimately if owners don't want to provide that sort of facility it's entirely their right. Personally if I thought I might get people from a long way away visiting my cache I'd want to make it as easy as possible for them to know they were in the right place, even if they did happen to visit while I was offline for any reason.

[+narcissa]

The owner's responsibility lies in making sure that you have the information you need to make that decision. The owner is not responsible for making sure that everyone is able to do the cache.

 

It's not about responsibility. It's about courtesy.

 

It's courteous to maintain a detailed cache listing that lets cachers know what they're in for with a particular cache.

 

The absence of a link to a third-part site is not discourteous.

[+narcissa]

If I were in that position I'd just skip over your cache completely and look at someone else's.

 

That is always the correct decision when you aren't certain that you'll be able to complete a geocache in the amount of time you have, whether it's a tricky puzzle, a lengthy multi, or a difficult hide.

 

The owner's responsibility lies in making sure that you have the information you need to make that decision. The owner is not responsible for making sure that everyone is able to do the cache.

 

Nobody ever said the owner was responsible for making sure everybody could do the cache.

 

Personally if I'd taken the time and effort to create and hide a cache and then create a puzzle I wouldn't necessarily want the puzzle to be easy but I would want to make it easy for someone who had successfully solved the puzzle to know they had the right coordinates. If you're not hiding caches so they can be found, why hide caches at all?

 

It is easy. I'm happy to answer an email.

 

It's not my responsibility to accommodate every possible scenario. If someone's travelling, or geocaching on their lunch break, or geocaching with a child, or whatever the case may be, it is their responsibility to read cache listings and determine whether or not a cache is appropriate for them. It is courteous for owners to indicate the level of effort involved so that cachers can make those decisions themselves.

 

I've had a couple of whiny emails because I don't have a geochecker on my multi-caches. They are meant to be done in the field with your GPS and the notion of using a geochecker for that is ridiculous.

 

I'm not interested in placing caches that cater to the lowest common denominator so I can have a stampede of "TFTC" logs. There are plenty of caches that are easy and fast. I hide what I like, and that's what everyone should do.

[cezanne]

They can but most of them have built-in measures to slow the flow of trial-and-error checking.

 

Yes, but that's not really relevant for many reasons. First, it suffices for many puzzles to run through a limited number of candidates (in particular in combination with a date base of all other caches someone has already found in the area) and moreover one just needs to change the IP address in between (easy to do).

 

Good point on the solvers but at the same time if you're going to be visiting an area you may be spending time on a boat/plane/train solving puzzles, or solving things a short time before travelling. There's no way of knowing from the cache page how fast the owner will respond to emails, and so if there's no way I can be confident I've got the right answer I'll just pass by and look at a different one. I don't want to take the time solving a puzzle only to find I can't verify my solution and to find the owner gets back to me once I've left the area to tell me whether I was right or not. So folks like narcissa who comment that "they provide a timely response" really don't help because there's no way of knowing from the cache page that this is the case, and also no way of knowing what they consider "timely".

 

You could write a mail before starting to solve the puzzle in such an exceptional situation and if the owner assures you quickly that a quick check is available, then you could start solving the puzzle.

What's the problem with that?

 

It's also possible that someone would have part of the solution ahead of time and only realise much nearer the time that they could finish the puzzle, only to then find they couldn't verify the result. But again, if you can't verify that you have the right answer it's easy to see why people might not bother even starting to solve it.

 

As my own caches are regarded, I do not have a single one that is well suited for someone who is short in time. All my msytery caches involve several stages. So one needs to plan ahead anyway. Sometimes my caches are visited by non locals, but never spontaneously as this does not work out anyway.

 

Given the kind of my caches I rather have someone stay away that might have enjoyed the cache than getting 10 visits by people who end up disappointed. If someone asks for me for recommendation, I typically never promote my caches and rather tell them as many facts as possible and if they are not local point out the issues they have to turn into account.

 

I do not want to have many visits at my caches, but aim to maximize the number of those among the visitors you do not end up disappointed because they expected something else.

 

Ultimately if owners don't want to provide that sort of facility it's entirely their right. Personally if I thought I might get people from a long way away visiting my cache I'd want to make it as easy as possible for them to know they were in the right place, even if they did happen to visit while I was offline for any reason.

 

If you can do that without effecting difficulty of the puzzle, go ahead. Often this is not possible.

 

Moreover, there is another aspect that makes me decide against automatic checkers.

If cachers contact me with their solution, it allows me to see where they make mistakes, have difficulties etc (in a much higher extent than I could deduce from the wrong solutions entered in a checker) and that also helps to adjust the D-rating and to decide whether to add a hint or change something in the description.

Human communication is unbeatable in this respect.

Edited October 3, 2014 by cezanne

[+J Grouchy]

Moreover, there is another aspect that makes me decide against automatic checkers.

If cachers contact me with their solution, it allows me to see where they make mistakes, have difficulties etc (in a much higher extent than I could deduce from the wrong solutions entered in a checker) and that also helps to adjust the D-rating and to decide whether to add a hint or change something in the description.

Human communication is unbeatable in this respect.

 

The ultimate "responsibility" is the geocacher's. They CAN still email you even if you do put in a checker. I get plenty of that from folks trying my puzzles. In my mind the checker is the final step once the puzzle is worked through. Help and hints are great, but in the end they still have to come up with a final set of numbers and I'd rather they do that part all on their own than have to hold their hand all the way to the end.

[cezanne]

 

The ultimate "responsibility" is the geocacher's. They CAN still email you even if you do put in a checker.

 

Of course they can, but the main reason why cachers ask for a checker in my area is because they do not want to have to disclose their solution/parts to a human being.

 

In my mind the checker is the final step once the puzzle is worked through.

 

But there is no way to enforce that the checker is not used to help solving the puzzle.

You could try out 100 solutions but no one would mail the owner and try out 100 solutions one after the other obtained by varying some values one cannot determine.

 

Help and hints are great, but in the end they still have to come up with a final set of numbers and I'd rather they do that part all on their own than have to hold their hand all the way to the end.

 

If they try out various values for one or more variables, this goal is not achieved. If a human replies with yes or no, this comes much closer to what you apparently have in mind.

 

What I wrote about hints and help was just that seeing the sincere wrong solutions (not the ones caused by trying all values) might provide valuable feedback to the cache owner.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited October 3, 2014 by cezanne

[team tisri]

They can but most of them have built-in measures to slow the flow of trial-and-error checking.

 

Yes, but that's not really relevant for many reasons. First, it suffices for many puzzles to run through a limited number of candidates (in particular in combination with a date base of all other caches someone has already found in the area) and moreover one just needs to change the IP address in between (easy to do).

 

True enough but it comes back to having a well designed puzzle. If your puzzle is the sort of thing that can be sensibly brute-forced by just trying dozens of permutations maybe the problem is with the puzzle rather than the person trying to brute-force it.

 

Good point on the solvers but at the same time if you're going to be visiting an area you may be spending time on a boat/plane/train solving puzzles, or solving things a short time before travelling. There's no way of knowing from the cache page how fast the owner will respond to emails, and so if there's no way I can be confident I've got the right answer I'll just pass by and look at a different one. I don't want to take the time solving a puzzle only to find I can't verify my solution and to find the owner gets back to me once I've left the area to tell me whether I was right or not. So folks like narcissa who comment that "they provide a timely response" really don't help because there's no way of knowing from the cache page that this is the case, and also no way of knowing what they consider "timely".

 

You could write a mail before starting to solve the puzzle in such an exceptional situation and if the owner assures you quickly that a quick check is available, then you could start solving the puzzle.

What's the problem with that?

 

There isn't a problem with any of these things, but neither is there a problem with the owner providing some form of checker so people can find out whether they've got the right answer. All the alternatives involve some form of interaction between seeker and hider, and given how some hiders don't respond at all I personally wouldn't bother with anything that required me to contact the hider unless it looked particularly interesting.

 

It's also possible that someone would have part of the solution ahead of time and only realise much nearer the time that they could finish the puzzle, only to then find they couldn't verify the result. But again, if you can't verify that you have the right answer it's easy to see why people might not bother even starting to solve it.

 

As my own caches are regarded, I do not have a single one that is well suited for someone who is short in time. All my msytery caches involve several stages. So one needs to plan ahead anyway. Sometimes my caches are visited by non locals, but never spontaneously as this does not work out anyway.

 

Given the kind of my caches I rather have someone stay away that might have enjoyed the cache than getting 10 visits by people who end up disappointed. If someone asks for me for recommendation, I typically never promote my caches and rather tell them as many facts as possible and if they are not local point out the issues they have to turn into account.

 

I do not want to have many visits at my caches, but aim to maximize the number of those among the visitors you do not end up disappointed because they expected something else.

 

If a cache will take a while to finish the attribute that shows it can't be done within an hour seems like a good way to make that clear. If people decide to go for it anyway then any disappointment caused by not being able to finish it in time is on them.

 

Giving an indication of what to expect is a good thing - while I'm very much in favour of having a checker so a puzzle solution can be verified before setting off I'm also in favour of cache pages giving decent information regarding what to expect while attempting the cache.

 

The key thing is, it's one thing to know that it's going to take 2-3 hours from the first stage to the final stage and another thing entirely to know whether or not the calculated coordinates for the first stage are correct. If you've got a few hours in a particular area and figure a cache looks like a good one but then can't do it because it turned out you'd made a mistake calculating the starting point that's just a waste of time. And for the sake of including a checker that particular frustration can be resolved.

 

Ultimately if owners don't want to provide that sort of facility it's entirely their right. Personally if I thought I might get people from a long way away visiting my cache I'd want to make it as easy as possible for them to know they were in the right place, even if they did happen to visit while I was offline for any reason.

 

If you can do that without effecting difficulty of the puzzle, go ahead. Often this is not possible.

 

Moreover, there is another aspect that makes me decide against automatic checkers.

If cachers contact me with their solution, it allows me to see where they make mistakes, have difficulties etc (in a much higher extent than I could deduce from the wrong solutions entered in a checker) and that also helps to adjust the D-rating and to decide whether to add a hint or change something in the description.

Human communication is unbeatable in this respect.

 

If people are looking for a hint to solve the puzzle they can still contact you even if there is a checker. The checker doesn't take away any of that communication - if someone doesn't see a checker and decides not to even bother you'll never know; if you see wrong answers coming through the checker and someone contacts you for help they can still tell you what they've done and where they are stuck. The checker makes it possible for them to know they got it right without taking away any of the options for direct communication for those who are struggling.

[cezanne]

True enough but it comes back to having a well designed puzzle. If your puzzle is the sort of thing that can be sensibly brute-forced by just trying dozens of permutations maybe the problem is with the puzzle rather than the person trying to brute-force it.

 

There are many different types of tasks that can be behind a mystery cache. Not all of them are classical puzzles. For example, historical research and many other things might be involved and in order to

end up with coordinates there then needs to be some way to map the obtained information into numbers. Trying out several values for a certain variable without even trying to deal with the background is neither sensible nor meaningful from the owner's perspective. It does not pay off to develop very complicated methods to make such guessing approaches harder as they also will harm those who really deal with the tasks.

 

 

There isn't a problem with any of these things, but neither is there a problem with the owner providing some form of checker so people can find out whether they've got the right answer. All the alternatives involve some form of interaction between seeker and hider, and given how some hiders don't respond at all I personally wouldn't bother with anything that required me to contact the hider unless it looked particularly interesting.

 

I have solved numerous puzzle caches without checking my result at all. If you only want to go for caches where a geochecker is available, fine. I do not miss those who do not visit my caches because there is no geochecker.

 

 

If a cache will take a while to finish the attribute that shows it can't be done within an hour seems like a good way to make that clear. If people decide to go for it anyway then any disappointment caused by not being able to finish it in time is on them.

 

There is much in between one hour and many hours. I never ever would come up with a cache "requires less than one hour" - that's completely uninteresting for me.

It is often hard to estimate how long someone will need for a cache. I sometimes needed more than 3 times as long or only 1/3 of the time mentioned.

 

The key thing is, it's one thing to know that it's going to take 2-3 hours from the first stage to the final stage and another thing entirely to know whether or not the calculated coordinates for the first stage are correct. If you've got a few hours in a particular area and figure a cache looks like a good one but then can't do it because it turned out you'd made a mistake calculating the starting point that's just a waste of time. And for the sake of including a checker that particular frustration can be resolved.

 

Typically my starting points make sense with regard to the cache and are not just arbitrary.

 

If people are looking for a hint to solve the puzzle they can still contact you even if there is a checker. The checker doesn't take away any of that communication

 

It does take away the communication about wrong solutions. If someone tests 10 coordinates, you do not know whether she/does it because something is unclear/too difficult or whether the person is lazy.

If there is a checker, one typically gets contacted only if the cachers get stuck and do not manage to get coordinates with brute forcing and all other methods. As a cache owner you cannot learn that much from that this scenario than from the scenario when there is no geochecker.

 

The human interaction approach might for example involve the statement; I'm not able to determine the value for variable C - can you provide me with some hint.

The geochecker approach is trying out all values for C that are possible. If I happen to notice that someone tries out all values I do not know why this person is doing so and I have no way to find out the person's identity so I cannot ask for the background either.

 

Certainly no communication is required and I ask for a personal check only very rarely myself. I still do not agree that geocheckers are a good way to go for all types of puzzle caches.

 

Cezanne

[+beauxeault]

So if you enjoy puzzle caches, which approach would you find most enjoyable? Are there other considerations I might have missed?

Bonus Cache ...

 

Set up the initial puzzle cache as you've described. Single cache page, single GC code. 2 possible solutions. Container with log at each location. Someone makes either solution, finds either container, gets the smiley ...

 

Set up a bonus cache. "Coordinates for this cache are located in _______". If you want to make it easy, just do lat/lon (latitude in one container of the original cache, longitude in the other). Of course, if you want to make it a little trickier you could do a puzzle with 1/2 the information required for the solve in each container. You could even hint at the dual nature ... "Coordinates for this cache are located in _______ containers" . Whatever. Point is, it's a bonus cache.

 

There you go ... like your option #2 but ... 2 smileys. And someone who rushed out the door with a (single) set of coords ... still gets their smiley. Aha, but now they have something more to mull over when they get back ...

 

Issues:

1) Since there are two containers and two solutions for the original cache / puzzle ... some people might well go ahead and log it twice. And, btw, there are a few puzzle caches out there like that. Multiple possible solutions ... multiple containers ... log it as found for each one you find. Anyway, figure out (in advance) whether (or not) you want to allow that (multiple finds on the same cache).

 

2) You're bound to get a few "Needs Maintenance, only found 1/2 of coordinates for bonus cache" type of logs.

 

But anyway, yes, with what you originally described ... bonus cache is what I'd do.

 

derektiffany's solution above is the one I went with. The initial puzzle cache has just published, as GC5EXBG, and the bonus cache is GC5F47B.

 

I also took the advice offered here against using lamp post skirts. This made finding eligible placement locations even more difficult, but I eventually did find a pair of locations using a guard rail and a storm drain.

 

In the end I did not use the geochecker to reveal the fact that a second solution exists, because the way it's set up, as derektiffany suggests, the cacher can get a smiley with either solution, and with both solutions can find the bonus cache for the second smiley. However, I did have to use geocheck.org for the geochecker, and had to use their "subset" incorrect solution response feature to indicate that the second solution was in fact a correct solution. If you solve the puzzle, you can see how that works.

 

There's a cache at the location for each solution, and each one has a log book and one half of the coordinates for the bonus cache. A cacher who has not discovered the fact that there is a second solution will reach one cache or the other, and find only the West coordinates or only the North coordinates for the bonus cache, at which point s/he MAY begin to wonder about a second solution. Or complain, as anticipated by derektiffany, that the bonus coordinates are incomplete. That's okay with me either way.

 

I'm not entirely sure whether this is a D4 - it may be easier. The bonus cache only gets a D2.5 because once you've solved the first part of the puzzle it's relatively easy to discover the second solution, and at that point the real aha! moment comes when you realize that there might be a second cache involved.