"Please check my solution for your puzzle"

[+-CJ-]

When I practiced geocaching at our national website I owned dozens of difficult caches that required both physical and mental efforts. It was common that people tried to get to the final point again and again. Sometimes - this usually happened when they ran out of ideas and found themselves in a dead end - they asked for help and I usually gave them hints. However all of them did their best to get to the final hides themselves without my assistance.

 

When I switched to geocaching.com I discovered that the majority of puzzles (that I read about) were "home puzzles" - so, one has to solve a puzzle at home, get coordinates and go directly to the hidden box. I prefer "field puzzles" where you have to do all work at the location but I also published a couple of pretty easy "home puzzles". And I used to receive requests to confirm solutions for my puzzles. It was not that a cacher had troubles while solving my puzzle and asked for help. It was when he did all his "homework" and wished to confirm his coordinates before going anywhere.

 

From my point of view checking solutions "in field" is a nice part of this puzzle game and the way you can proudly say afterwards: "I did that". You solve my puzzle, go outdoors, get to the place and check if you're right or not. "Wow, my coordinates are in the middle of a pool. There must be something wrong in my calculations since it's said - magnetic micro, terrain 1". Isn't this the fun and the sport of geocaching? Indeed, if you fail to find the container you can call me and ask for some additional hint. However if you ask me to confirm your calculations it's like you're stopping and saying: "I don't want to do this part, let's ask the owner instead". As the result, your puzzle is ended and all you get is another traditional magnetic micro cache in the city.

 

Do you share my attitude to puzzle caches or do you think that a puzzle are actually a homework + a traditional cache so it's obvious that people get exact coordinates (as they are published for traditional caches)?

[+lamoracke]

Am a little confused by your post, but if one of your puzzles did not have a geochecker and I saw your puzzle in an area I was going to be and potentially find it, I would definitely consider asking you to check my solution first. I personally love geochecker or whatever, those are pretty much the only puzzles I will do while traveling unless its really obvious the answer in advance. There are so many puzzles out there in the world, if I am going to Hawaii next month, I do not want to spend 15 to 20 minutes looking for a puzzle cache that I am off by 0.65 miles because I had the solution wrong.

Edited April 16, 2014 by lamoracke

[+tozainamboku]

I get a lot of enjoyment in solving a difficult puzzle, being fairly certain that I got the puzzle right, heading out to search for the cache, and getting that satisfaction when I find it that I did my "homework" right. But I think you and I are in the minority. Most people solving a puzzle want to get immediate feedback that they have solved it correctly. Some will not even look at a puzzle unless there is a link to a verification site where they can check their answer. I used to not have verification links on my puzzles, I've since added them just to get people to do the puzzle.

 

If someone still wants to get the satisfaction of finding the cache as the verification that they solved the puzzle correctly, they can skip clicking the link and go straight for the cache.

Edited April 16, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+Ev1l 81tch]

I don't have a geochecker on my puzzles but I would much prefer someone to check their answers with me than not bother going for it at all, incase they are miles out! I also will ask CO's if I have the correct coords on complicated puzzles after checking that the coords I have are in a likely location ie on a footpath/ bridleway and not in someones garden!

 

the whole point of placing caches is for someone to go find it, surely you would rather they check with you than not bother?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I provide a geochecker on most of my puzzles. I purposely left it off on a few puzzles.

 

Reasons:

- When the puzzle is solved, you know you have the right numbers based on how the solution presents itself

- It's a difficult puzzle and I don't want people battleshipping it

- I want people to get to the location before they see what they are up against and have them question themselves with the solution (it's an easy puzzle though)

[+Traditional Bill]

I place caches with the intent for them to be found. So when I put out a complicated puzzle, I always put a geo checker on the page. It only makes sense to me. Why would you want to send cachers on a wild goose chase? Or even worse, what if an incorrect solution lands somebody somewhere they're not supposed to be, or somewhere they'll be in danger? Most puzzle solvers use common sense when there's no geochecker, but you never know.

 

I generally won't bother hunting a puzzle cache that I have to solve from home if there's no way to check my solution, unless the answer is obvious. I'm pretty sure there's a good chunk of cachers who share that sentiment as well.

[+dprovan]

First of all, let me say that your thinking it logical, and there's nothing wrong with that attitude.

 

Second, this is a cultural thing that can vary from place to place, and you certainly are in a unique geocaching area.

 

But having said that, I hate it when I have to go into the field without confirmation of a puzzle solution. And I claim that most people in my area hate it. Almost all puzzles here have a checker these days.

 

I think the main reason is that it's frustrating enough to search for a difficult cache (or, more to the point, a missing cache) when you know where it's supposed to be. With a traditional cache (or a cache at a confirmed location), the decision to give up is a simple binary: have I looked hard enough? Unconfirmed coordinates add an additional variable: Is it really here? That can take the heart out of my search long before I should really give up.

 

And that's just considering what happens to me, the determined cacher. The first question my lovely, though reluctant, assistant always asks me is whether I'm sure this is where it is. You can guess how much effort she puts into the search when I say, "No, there's no confirmation on this one." In those cases, she usually starts whining about giving up before we've gotten to GZ.

 

I think a big reason for this being the common attitude around here is that there are lots and lots of caches. I can go somewhere different every day and still have caches to find. If there were only a handful of caches, I'd probably appreciate a cache I had to try again and again for. But as it is, if I can't find a cache at an unconfirmed location, I normally just forget about it. I wouldn't try another solution and then another and another until I found the right location. That's no fun compared to going somewhere else and actually finding a few caches.

[+CanadianRockies]

You solve my puzzle, go outdoors, get to the place and check if you're right or not. "Wow, my coordinates are in the middle of a pool. There must be something wrong in my calculations since it's said - magnetic micro, terrain 1".

What if it didn't say "magnetic" and the terrain was 3? Many solvers wouldn't want to strap on SCUBA gear and search the potential location.

 

What if the potential location was on private property? Many solvers wouldn't want to search that spot either.

 

As a cache owner, you don't have to provide any verification to your puzzle caches, either automatically or by email. But don't blame solvers for politely asking for verification.

[+-CJ-]

I suspect that many cachers share the idea that Traditional Bill just wrote: a good puzzle is a puzzle that you can solve at home without going to the place. (And even check your solution to be sure). Many puzzles are of this sort, I know. However I feel that geocaching is an outdoor treasure hunting game, so a puzzle cache could be described as an outdoor puzzle hunting game. The adventure of the treasure hunting is to solve the puzzle and get the prize yourself. I can hardly imagine a treasure hunter who does all homework with old pirate maps and legends and than say: "I won't bother going outside until Cpt.Flint confirms that my coordinates are good"

 

Why would you want to send cachers on a wild goose chase?

 

Why people place geocaches with difficulty level of 3 or 4? For many people this would be a wild goose chase, I guess. Even easy caches sometimes can be accessed from very strange directions, across private lands, etc. I remember one story when one of my caches was placed on a lake shore with a pretty good path leading to it. One guy approached this cache from some unknown road, drived there looking at his GPS arrow until it was 200m left and walked this last distance across the very wet bog. He also managed to hurt his leg somehow on his way to the cache. He was pretty sure that it was me who was his evil misfortune that day

 

So, being very respectful to everyone's opinion I don't think it's wise to argue about geocaches "being placed to be found". We actually don't talk about that because it's obvious (if you don't mean that you used to guarantee every cache hunter his smiley). My question was mostly about whether you think of puzzles as of an outdoor treasure hunting game (where you do full job from the beginning to the end) or of a homework to be fully completed at home so "the outdoor part" turns into a simple traditional hide.

[+-CJ-]

What if the potential location was on private property? Many solvers wouldn't want to search that spot either.

 

I see such situation as part of the game. If I see the spot is on someone's private property then there are two choices for me. 1) The owner, the reviewer and all those who successfully found this cache all did something wrong. 2) I did something wrong. So, I won't search this spot (as you suggested) and think about what I missed in my solution. For me it's even more fun.

 

But don't blame solvers for politely asking for verification.

 

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm trying to get more understanding of differencies between what I've experienced at puzzle caches and what other players think. I was recently contacted by a person who asked for confirmation of his solution so he knew whether he liked to include "this cache" in "his schedule" or not. This didn't sound offensive to me but I definitely won't ask such questions any of my fellow cachers. So, I think it's a great chance for me to broaden my understanding of how people play geocaching worldwide.

Edited April 16, 2014 by -CJ-

[+Traditional Bill]

I suspect that many cachers share the idea that Traditional Bill just wrote: a good puzzle is a puzzle that you can solve at home without going to the place. (And even check your solution to be sure). Many puzzles are of this sort, I know. However I feel that geocaching is an outdoor treasure hunting game, so a puzzle cache could be described as an outdoor puzzle hunting game. The adventure of the treasure hunting is to solve the puzzle and get the prize yourself. I can hardly imagine a treasure hunter who does all homework with old pirate maps and legends and than say: "I won't bother going outside until Cpt.Flint confirms that my coordinates are good"

 

Why would you want to send cachers on a wild goose chase?

 

Why people place geocaches with difficulty level of 3 or 4? For many people this would be a wild goose chase, I guess. Even easy caches sometimes can be accessed from very strange directions, across private lands, etc. I remember one story when one of my caches was placed on a lake shore with a pretty good path leading to it. One guy approached this cache from some unknown road, drived there looking at his GPS arrow until it was 200m left and walked this last distance across the very wet bog. He also managed to hurt his leg somehow on his way to the cache. He was pretty sure that it was me who was his evil misfortune that day

 

So, being very respectful to everyone's opinion I don't think it's wise to argue about geocaches "being placed to be found". We actually don't talk about that because it's obvious (if you don't mean that you used to guarantee every cache hunter his smiley). My question was mostly about whether you think of puzzles as of an outdoor treasure hunting game (where you do full job from the beginning to the end) or of a homework to be fully completed at home so "the outdoor part" turns into a simple traditional hide.

 

It really depends on the nature of the puzzle, I suppose. For example, there's a series of puzzles in my area that involve cipher that is entirely created from the CO's head. I have no issue with that, however, a good portion of the numbers are ambiguous, leading to hundreds of different solutions. There was no geochecker when the series was published and the CO was very disappointed that nobody was interested in her puzzles.

 

It's not that nobody was interested, it's that nobody wanted to spend weeks searching hundreds of possible locations for a pill bottle. At least that's how I feel, personally. Other cachers in other parts of the world may enjoy that, but not I. I enjoy puzzles, and I enjoy geocaching, but I don't enjoy looking in every corner of town for a cache that may or may not be where I'm searching. So yes, I suppose I'd rather do some "homework" which will ultimately lead to a traditional cache.

 

Don't get me wrong though. I certainly do enjoy a good field puzzle. There are many different kinds though. I don't mind not having verification if there's a definitive answer when I figure out what needs to be done to solve the puzzle, but if there's ambiguity within the solution, that can be frustrating for me.

 

Then again, something that I consider to be fun may not be something you consider to be fun and vice versa. We all have our own style and judging by the cachers I know in my neck of the woods, most of us would rather have verification for complicated, solve from home puzzles.

[+-CJ-]

dprovan, thank your for your explanation about the possible reason. I think I should consider what you said when I'm asked to confirm coordinates of any of my puzzles.

[+-CJ-]

Traditional Bill, I appreciate your post and agree with that. If only we talked about complicated puzzles with encryption (or anything of this sort) having hundreds of solutions - I won't even raise this question and waste your time However, the puzzles in question are simple. It's my responsibility (in this particular case) as a CO to help the cache seekers with hints, and if they simply use their common sense after looking around they would normally solve such puzzles with no headache. (And no scuba equipment ). Once they are there. I know this because many locals have already found these puzzles easily without confirmation of coordinates. It happens that some people don't want to go to the location and try.

[+dprovan]

I suspect that many cachers share the idea that Traditional Bill just wrote: a good puzzle is a puzzle that you can solve at home without going to the place. (And even check your solution to be sure). Many puzzles are of this sort, I know. However I feel that geocaching is an outdoor treasure hunting game, so a puzzle cache could be described as an outdoor puzzle hunting game. The adventure of the treasure hunting is to solve the puzzle and get the prize yourself. I can hardly imagine a treasure hunter who does all homework with old pirate maps and legends and than say: "I won't bother going outside until Cpt.Flint confirms that my coordinates are good"

There's nothing wrong with this kind of cache. There are a few such caches in my area, and they are very highly prized. Most people would have no problem with such caches as long as the description always makes clear that this is what the seeker will face. Not as many people will seek such a cache, of course, but those that did would do it because they understood the challenge and wanted to face it. Here, the wealth of caches in my area cuts in the opposite direction: anyone not interested can just skip it 'cuz there are plenty of other caches to seek.

 

Yours sound particularly tough, and that's still OK as long as you're clear. In my experience, though, people will be less inclined to seek the cache if not many previous seekers are successful on their first try. People don't mind going back once or twice for a tough cache, but they are less inclined to go the first time unless they can believe they'll find it the first try.

 

And the best reaction to "I won't bother going outside until Cpt.Flint confirms that my coordinates are good" is, "I'm sorry you won't be able to enjoy my cache." It's true that it's not your fault that you have a tough cache, but it's also not their fault that they don't want to invest in seeking a tough cache.

[+Traditional Bill]

Traditional Bill, I appreciate your post and agree with that. If only we talked about complicated puzzles with encryption (or anything of this sort) having hundreds of solutions - I won't even raise this question and waste your time However, the puzzles in question are simple. It's my responsibility (in this particular case) as a CO to help the cache seekers with hints, and if they simply use their common sense after looking around they would normally solve such puzzles with no headache. (And no scuba equipment ). Once they are there. I know this because many locals have already found these puzzles easily without confirmation of coordinates. It happens that some people don't want to go to the location and try.

 

And there's our middle ground I most certainly agree that if the puzzle is simple and there's only one definitive solution, there's no need to confirm anything at all. I've solved many puzzles of that nature without ever needing confirmation.

 

In my area though, a geochecker is almost necessary as many of the locals are conditioned to having it there. Hell, I even have an easy field puzzle that I added a geochecker on just so I wouldn't have to hear any complaints But it's true..... It's really unnecessary for puzzles of that nature.

[4wheelin_fool]

I think the field puzzles are much more enjoyable than the ones solved on a computer, but if it is not a field puzzle then a checker should be included. Most people do not like unnecessary wild goose chases. If you are already in the general area for the field puzzle it's a little different, or if you are hunting actual treasure.

[+-CJ-]

It's true that it's not your fault that you have a tough cache, but it's also not their fault that they don't want to invest in seeking a tough cache.

 

Indeed. Did I sound like a judge blaming other cachers for their tastes? Visitors make their own decisions and I respect them. It was unusual to get requests from people who did part of the job at an easy puzzle, then stopped just to wait for confirmation without trying to complete the task. They didn't run out of ideas. They didn't get to a dead end. They got a nice solution which they thought was correct. If I was in their shoes I would definitely try this solution. This is what I'd call an outdoor treasure hunting game. Confirmation would simply end the puzzle when I'm still at home. However since it is a really popular approach I felt that I probably missed some edges of the game and/or ignore traditions of geocaching as it is played in other countries. See, I just asked careful questions at this forum mentioning no specific caches - and people quickly said I was going to blame someone for doing something. I bet I need to be really accurate when replying to requests on this matter.

 

Or maybe I just change these few puzzles so they could be solved in field only

[+Ambrosia]

I'm going to be making some points that other people have made, but they're part of my stream of consciousness.

 

I think that a lot of people are hesitant to spend their time/money searching around for possible final locations for both Mystery/Puzzles and Multis. In the "olden" days, that was probably less of the case. It's a combination of cachers being more of the adventurous type in general (in the past), and the fact that there were just less caches out there. You could focus on each cache more, instead of nowadays where you can just say, "that's a bit long and difficult - NEXT CACHE!".

 

It's a bit like how people felt about parking/trail coordinates. A long time ago, it was expected that people would hunt around for the way to actually get to the starting point to get to the cache. That was part of the whole experience, and some people were upset when people started using the additional waypoints to put in parking coords and such. Instead of the full experience of hunting, we have short cuts!

 

I have one Puzzle cache. For a few years, I didn't have a checker on it. I had enough emails requesting checks on coordinates that I finally put up a geochecker on the cache page. I also made the puzzle easier to do. I haven't had any emails since.

[+L0ne.R]

I think the main reason is that it's frustrating enough to search for a difficult cache (or, more to the point, a missing cache) when you know where it's supposed to be. With a traditional cache (or a cache at a confirmed location), the decision to give up is a simple binary: have I looked hard enough? Unconfirmed coordinates add an additional variable: Is it really here? That can take the heart out of my search long before I should really give up.

 

That's happened to me. No geochecker. I felt reasonably sure I had the right coordinates. Got to the location, stood in a wooded area. Hint said it was 'under a log'. There were a lot of logs and no cache under the log at ground zero. I did do a search under a few logs but gave up quickly thinking, 'maybe my coords are wrong, what's the point of continuing my search?' About a year later I'm looking at caches in that area and realize one of them is that puzzle that I had forgotten about. Sent an email to the CO, he said I had the correct coords. Now when I go back (maybe sometime this summer) I will do a more thorough search.

[+CanadianRockies]

What if the potential location was on private property? Many solvers wouldn't want to search that spot either.

I see such situation as part of the game. If I see the spot is on someone's private property then there are two choices for me. 1) The owner, the reviewer and all those who successfully found this cache all did something wrong. 2) I did something wrong. So, I won't search this spot (as you suggested) and think about what I missed in my solution. For me it's even more fun.

So, if I want to stump you (i.e., prevent you from finding my puzzle cache), then all I need to do is hide a puzzle cache in my backyard. Remember, permission must be granted to place a cache on private property, but the cache description doesn't have to mention that permission has been granted.

 

Edited to clarify the phrase "stump you."

Edited April 16, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+-CJ-]

So, if I want to stump you, then all I need to do is hide a puzzle cache in my backyard. Remember, permission must be granted to place a cache on private property, but the cache description doesn't have to mention that permission has been granted.

 

Maybe my English is not good enough, sorry. I didn't understand what you were talking about.

[+-CJ-]

Thanks for clarification. In the desribed situation I will most probably not start solving the puzzle.

[+NeverSummer]

This sounds much like a personal preference poll.

 

I don't mind for a moment checking someone's work before, during, or after they've hunted for a "home puzzle" cache I own. I don't just give the answer, however, if they are wrong...

[cezanne]

Thanks for clarification. In the desribed situation I will most probably not start solving the puzzle.

 

But the point is that you cannot know that before you visit the coordinates you obtained.

So there is no way to make your decision before you start to solve the puzzle (the part at home).

[+The_Incredibles_]

I don't share your view at all. It's a waste of time looking for a cache if you've got the wrong coordinates. Not only that, it's not good for the environment.

 

If there's no geochecker, I will email the CO my coords for checking before going out.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I have one Puzzle cache. For a few years, I didn't have a checker on it. I had enough emails requesting checks on coordinates that I finally put up a geochecker on the cache page. I also made the puzzle easier to do. I haven't had any emails since.

 

I have lots of puzzle caches. Most of them have Geochecker on them. Some I thought so easy (or so obvious) that they did not need a Geochecker. Until I started getting e-mails asking if the coords were correct. So I added them. Around here people expect the Geochecker. Oh, well.

[+The_Incredibles_]

It's a bit like how people felt about parking/trail coordinates. A long time ago, it was expected that people would hunt around for the way to actually get to the starting point to get to the cache. That was part of the whole experience, and some people were upset when people started using the additional waypoints to put in parking coords and such. Instead of the full experience of hunting, we have short cuts!

 

I've looked for caches with no parking/trailhead waypoint and sometimes its incredibly frustrating, not to mention a waste of gas. Waypoints are good because they 1) save gas 2) save frustration 3) make things easier on the neighbors who may not want countless people driving to the end of their street, jumping out an peaking into their backyard, then doing a U turn

[+terrkan78]

I agree that there are similarities between geocheckers and parking coords being provided.

 

I've hunted puzzles all the way from beginning to end without a geochecker (DNFing a whole lot of them). I've also found remote geocaches without the benefit of parking coords.

 

I prefer having the parking coords provided, and I prefer a geochecker so at least I know I'm searching the right area when I DNF the thing.

 

One fairly remote cache took me three tries to find the right trailhead (80 miles round trip each time). The description said the CO wouldn't provide parking coords because that's "half the fun" of finding the cache. I disagree. Those two wasted trips and the countless time and effort spend pouring over sat maps were annoying as heck. But obviously that CO doesn't share my opinion, which is fine. I put geocheckers on my non-field puzzles, and I put parking coords down.

[+Ambrosia]

It's a bit like how people felt about parking/trail coordinates. A long time ago, it was expected that people would hunt around for the way to actually get to the starting point to get to the cache. That was part of the whole experience, and some people were upset when people started using the additional waypoints to put in parking coords and such. Instead of the full experience of hunting, we have short cuts!

 

I've looked for caches with no parking/trailhead waypoint and sometimes its incredibly frustrating, not to mention a waste of gas. Waypoints are good because they 1) save gas 2) save frustration 3) make things easier on the neighbors who may not want countless people driving to the end of their street, jumping out an peaking into their backyard, then doing a U turn

 

I agree that there are similarities between geocheckers and parking coords being provided.

 

I've hunted puzzles all the way from beginning to end without a geochecker (DNFing a whole lot of them). I've also found remote geocaches without the benefit of parking coords.

 

I prefer having the parking coords provided, and I prefer a geochecker so at least I know I'm searching the right area when I DNF the thing.

 

One fairly remote cache took me three tries to find the right trailhead (80 miles round trip each time). The description said the CO wouldn't provide parking coords because that's "half the fun" of finding the cache. I disagree. Those two wasted trips and the countless time and effort spend pouring over sat maps were annoying as heck. But obviously that CO doesn't share my opinion, which is fine. I put geocheckers on my non-field puzzles, and I put parking coords down.

 

For the most part, I'm fine with figuring it out. But I still remember that ONE TIME ( ) many years ago where we were in a neighborhood going around in circles, around and around several blocks, trying to find a hidden little park. All the entrances had gates and were marked private, for residents only. SO frustrating. We gave up on that one, and I've always wondered about it.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Ambrosia

[cezanne]

It's a bit like how people felt about parking/trail coordinates. A long time ago, it was expected that people would hunt around for the way to actually get to the starting point to get to the cache. That was part of the whole experience, and some people were upset when people started using the additional waypoints to put in parking coords and such. Instead of the full experience of hunting, we have short cuts!

 

I've looked for caches with no parking/trailhead waypoint and sometimes its incredibly frustrating, not to mention a waste of gas. Waypoints are good because they 1) save gas 2) save frustration 3) make things easier on the neighbors who may not want countless people driving to the end of their street, jumping out an peaking into their backyard, then doing a U turn

 

I agree that in 2014 in areas with many cachers providing such waypoints is a reasonable thing to do.

 

In the early days of geocaching it was not necessary and was in many cases considered to be part of the geocache. There were only few cachers around and those were willing to invest a lot of time with planning and looking at maps. It could have easily happen that only a single cache showed up during a month. Investing more time per cache and probably more than one attempt was not a big issue.

As gas consumption is regarded, back then at least in my corner of the world more people came by bicycle than is the case nowadays.

 

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

It's true that it's not your fault that you have a tough cache, but it's also not their fault that they don't want to invest in seeking a tough cache.

Indeed. Did I sound like a judge blaming other cachers for their tastes?

No, you didn't sound like that. Sorry, that wasn't what I meant to convey. My point was merely that you should expect and accept them asking for confirmation even if you continue to refuse to give it. That extends to making it very clear right up front, probably before the puzzle, that solutions can only be confirmed by finding the cache. And no matter how clear you are, expect requests and plan to respond to them pleasantly!

 

They got a nice solution which they thought was correct. If I was in their shoes I would definitely try this solution. This is what I'd call an outdoor treasure hunting game.

Generally I think people would accept and enjoy that approach as long as they knew it was coming. Or, to put it the other way, if they knew they wouldn't enjoy it, as long as they know, they can just skip it.

 

By the way, there are other options besides an explicit checker or a checksum. The best puzzles have a theme, and when I look at my solution, it's somewhere that fits the theme perfectly. In that case, explicit confirmation isn't as important. Another idea is to say something about the final location that doesn't give away the solution, but that allows me to see that I'm in the right place when I arrive.

 

Or maybe I just change these few puzzles so they could be solved in field only

Or if you really want to be annoying, you can do both: have the puzzle only solvable in the field, and then supply a geochecker that most people won't be able to use in the field!

[+Shadowrhen]

I agree with previous sentiment that simple, quick, and obvious puzzles may not need a geochecker. Those can be fun and are a good introduction to those new to geopuzzles. For more challenging home solved ones, a geochecker is helpful. Field puzzles are another animal that require a different mindset to hunt. I've worked different types and don't have a preference. I'll try them all.

 

I'm surprised there was no mention of using Google Earth for an initial estimate. I've spent considerable time in GE solving puzzles. I'll plot my solution, and if it clearly lands somewhere unreasonable or outside the distance limit, I'll go back and redo my work. If there's a geochecker, I'll check solutions that appear reasonable by GE and the context of the puzzle. Streetview can be very valuable at times. This has saved a lot of wasted trips.

 

I'll try to solve on my own then ask for assistance. I prefer to not bother a CO, but when I do email, I detail my understanding of the puzzle, what I've done so far to solve it, then ask for guidance. I started taking this approach after seeing a puzzle in which the CO requested an email to "show your work for another hint". I consider it a fair exchange. I'm working the puzzle. The CO isn't giving away the solution. Also, the CO gets feedback on how well others understand the puzzle, which gives them the opportunity to improve it.

 

Ask the cacher to show their work to date. If they don't, you don't have to offer additional hints if you don't want to.

[+tozainamboku]

This sounds much like a personal preference poll.

Perhaps. Past threads on this topic generally have begun "There should be a requirement for GeoChecker on all puzzles".

 

It's refreshing to hear the other view that perhaps part of the puzzle is to enhance the sense of adventure where finding the cache is the proof you got the solution right.

 

But there are some people who will always use the excuse that it would be a "waste of time" to go out looking for a cache if they had the wrong solution.

 

It reminds me of the debate over whether or not a false found it log causes cachers to waste time. Hypothetically you can come up with a wrong solution, and go spend a lot of time looking in the wrong place. But more likely you will check the solution with a map and at check out if it was reasonable before you go. And certainly, you can't be blaming someone else if you didn't check your work and had the wrong solution because you made a stupid error.

 

I would say that going out with the wrong answer is rare, but I have examples of at least two puzzles where I had the wrong solution initially. (Both eventually got favorite points from me). In one case I was able to get the correct solution in the field. In the other, I was going for an FTF, and didn't check something I normally would have before going to find the cache. I thought someone else would certainly find the cache before I had a chance to correct my error, but I was still FTF when I went back for it later that day.

[+-CJ-]

Now it's your time to sleep and my turn to answer

 

But the point is that you cannot know that before you visit the coordinates you obtained.

So there is no way to make your decision before you start to solve the puzzle (the part at home).

 

If you confirm that placing puzzles at private backyards is usual in your geocaching community I will respectfully listen to your explanations/advices because we don't have such things around here.

 

It's a waste of time looking for a cache if you've got the wrong coordinates

 

I was talking not about wrong coordinates but about people that don't want to check their coordinates in field while playing an outdoor treasure hunting game. In my experience with easy puzzles (this is what I was talking about) people got correct coordinates. They just didn't want to complete the job. It's even more interesting that sometimes people spend days trying to solve the puzzle on their computers but they don't want to spend an hour to walk outdoors to complete the task. They say it can be waste of their time. In my opinion it's an outdoor game. Used to be.

 

parking coords provided

 

Nice comparison. Let me go a bit further into the topic.

 

A cache - as I see it - is a complex of decription/hints/photos/additional waypoints/etc. and all this is expected to bring fun to anyone's searching efforts. My task as a CO (if I wish to make a great puzzle) is to provide enough information of this kind. Not only coordinates. In most cases however this information is useless if you stay in your armchair. You need to visit the place to get use of it.

 

My visitors wrote sometimes: "We desperately tried to guess what the CO meant in his hint but once we approached the place it became crystal clear".

 

This is what dprovan says:

 

By the way, there are other options besides an explicit checker or a checksum. The best puzzles have a theme, and when I look at my solution, it's somewhere that fits the theme perfectly. In that case, explicit confirmation isn't as important. Another idea is to say something about the final location that doesn't give away the solution, but that allows me to see that I'm in the right place when I arrive.

 

A clever hint is an interesting part of the game. What if you constantly get messages asking to explain your hints - to convert them into pure "technical" directions about where to go - because "it's a waste of time for me to go outdoors with such a poor hint"?

 

Another great example of how homework could be done (thank you):

 

I'll check solutions that appear reasonable by GE and the context of the puzzle. Streetview can be very valuable at times.

 

As it was already said, many kinds of data may be used to get rid of wrong solutions.

 

Again, this discussion is highly useful to me. I've got no requests to confirm coordinates from within our local community but from foreign cachers coming to our city only. Mostly from experienced cachers that had many puzzles found in their statistics. With your help I managed to understand them better and - despite our different approaches - to respond to their messages more accurately.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I generally won't bother hunting a puzzle cache that I have to solve from home if there's no way to check my solution, unless the answer is obvious. I'm pretty sure there's a good chunk of cachers who share that sentiment as well.

 

That's how I feel when I'm traveling. Without a confirmation that I have the correct coordinates, I won't hunt the cache unless it's something totally obvious. Without a checker, I put the coordinates into Google Maps and if it looks promising, I'll hunt it.

 

In my home caching area, I'm willing to take the chance that my solution is wrong and end up searching the wrong spot. But, it's nice to see that "Success!" pop up after solving a puzzle and walk out knowing you have the right numbers.

[+redsox_mark]

To answer the initial question about how I feel as a cache owner: My puzzle caches have geocheckers on them. But I do get requests for hints/help in solving them, and I'm happy to help when I get those.

 

As a finder: I see CJ's point. Firstly, I would say 75% of the puzzles I solve have some sort of checker, and if so I will use it. Of the others, some it is pretty obvious when you solve the puzzle so I go out 95% sure I have it right. There have been some puzzles where I was not sure I had the right answer, and there was no checker. Here I check that the coordinates look to be in a reasonable place, and if so I will go look. And in this case I guess there is an extra feeling of excitement when I find the cache as it also confirms I solved the puzzle correctly.

 

But the downside is if I can't find it I don't know if it is because of a wrong answer, or am I in the right place and can't find it. And I have gone out looking with the wrong answer before.

 

I've generally not asked for confirmation myself if there was no checker.. but if I was unsure and the cache involves significant travel etc then I would ask.

[+niraD]

I haven't used solution checkers for field puzzles. I've used them only for "solve at home" puzzles, and even then, I don't think they're always needed.

 

There are some puzzles where the solution is very clear once you get it. This doesn't always mean that the puzzle is easy to solve, only that the solution is very clear once you get it. The only issue is whether you screwed up the transcription of the solution. A solution checker can help with that, but so can a checksum.

 

Where I think solution checkers are really useful is when the solution isn't all that clear. Again, this isn't a question of difficulty, as much as it is a question of ambiguity. Especially for puzzles where the first task is to identify the puzzle, it may be possible to come up with "alternative solutions" that aren't correct. A solution checker can confirm that you really have solved the puzzle. Alternatively, a solution checker can confirm that you haven't solved the puzzle. And even if the correct solution is very clear once you get it, it may be possible for sufficiently creative puzzlers to come up with "alternative solutions" that aren't so clear, and a solution checker can show that those "alternative solutions" are not correct.

[+Team Hugs]

Most of what I would say on the topic has been said already, but I'll add one additional point.

 

I'm at a stage of life where I don't travel much on my own for recreational purposes, but I do get to travel occasionally on business. In those situations, of course, I try to spend what little "free time" I have caching. Since I love puzzles, I will often look at the area where I'm visiting ahead of time and attempt to pre-solve any puzzle caches that are close to where I'm going.

 

I can certainly understand the point of view that not having a checker adds to the entire experience by adding an extra layer of uncertainty. But when I only have a few hours to cache in an area that I might not visit again for years --- if ever --- I'd prefer to spend my time looking for caches that I believe are actually at the location I'm searching. (I'll pass up active caches with a lot of recent DNFs for the same reason.) Having a checker gives me greater confidence that spending my limited time looking for that particular cache is likely to result in a find.

 

The few caches I've placed are mostly puzzle caches. Some of them have checkers; others don't. The puzzles without checkers are designed so that if you solve the puzzle, it's immediately obvious that you've got the correct answer. But I don't have a problem confirming the coordinates when asked.

[+CanadianRockies]

A clever hint is an interesting part of the game. What if you constantly get messages asking to explain your hints - to convert them into pure "technical" directions about where to go - because "it's a waste of time for me to go outdoors with such a poor hint"?

Again, as the cache owner, it's entirely up to you to decide how to respond. If you want to give pure technical directions about where to go, then that's okay. If you want to give an additional nudge in the right direction, then you certainly can.

 

If you prefer not to give any additional hints, then you don't have to. In this case, you probably could reduce the amount of emails you get by stating in your cache description (and/or hint) that you don't provide any additional hints.

Edited April 17, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+Walts Hunting]

I only have a couple of unknown that require people to figure out the coords before and they are so simple I don't respond to any requests. I have seen a number of caches that the co has said hint available with DNF log.

 

As to trailhead and parking coords while they are nice they sometimes provide to much help. Finding parking and the correct path in is part of the caching sperience. I was on my bike the other day heading towards what was described a little local park and it was. Took two tries to find the right winding street that access. A parking icon would have reduced the experience and the exploring.

[+dprovan]

My visitors wrote sometimes: "We desperately tried to guess what the CO meant in his hint but once we approached the place it became crystal clear".

Yeah, I love when a puzzling hint suddenly makes perfect sense when I get to GZ, and all the more so when it results in a quick find for an unconfirmed solution.

 

Again, this discussion is highly useful to me. I've got no requests to confirm coordinates from within our local community but from foreign cachers coming to our city only. Mostly from experienced cachers that had many puzzles found in their statistics. With your help I managed to understand them better and - despite our different approaches - to respond to their messages more accurately.

I think having a general discussion was useful, so I've avoiding bringing up this specific point, but I do think it's important. When I'm traveling, I have to choose where to cache, and I'm only going to have time for one chance. If I have something better to do, I won't go looking for a guess. This is one of the reasons I've been stressing being clear about it: I encourage you to do your own thing, but I don't want to get sucked into it only to discover that the solution will be unconfirmed.

 

Oh, one other point along those lines, though: if I solve a puzzle and the guess turns out to be in a good place to go caching because of the other caches in the area, I'm much more likely to go there and check out the guess on the way to finding the other caches.

 

For a local cache, I don't mind having to try and try again.

 

There are some puzzles where the solution is very clear once you get it. This doesn't always mean that the puzzle is easy to solve, only that the solution is very clear once you get it. The only issue is whether you screwed up the transcription of the solution. A solution checker can help with that, but so can a checksum.

Good point. I often solve a puzzle correctly, but then make a minor error. Just this morning, I had trouble with a puzzle because I cleverly transcribed "Q" as 6 instead of 7. (niraD will probably recognize that "Q" stands for "Quiche".) I use checkers as much to make sure I haven't fumbled some detail like that as to confirm that I have solved the puzzle. As bad as it is to go on a wild goose chase because I solved the wrong puzzle or solved the right puzzle wrong, it's worse to go on a wild goose chase because I made a stupid mistake.

[+-CJ-]

Team Hugs:

When I only have a few hours to cache in an area that I might not visit again for years --- if ever --- I'd prefer to spend my time looking for caches that I believe are actually at the location I'm searching.

 

So do I. This is why I usually don't search for puzzles abroad.

 

CanadianRockies:

Again, as the cache owner, it's entirely up to you to decide how should respond

 

It was a question to other cachers

 

Walts Hunting:

hint available with DNF log

 

I think such requirement to be too strong for my caches. Normally I welcome people who ask for hints - if I see they really try to find my cache. I've been contacted by caches by phone numerous times and gave hints to them. Sometimes I even suggest people to warn me about their plans so I could take all necessary data with me if I wanted to go outdoors. So if...

 

redsox_mark:

...I can't find it I don't know if it is because of a wrong answer, or am I in the right place and can't find it

 

...will you think about calling the CO and asking for an advice or a hint?

 

Another question to all. Would you welcome a warning on a puzzle cache page saying that (for example)

 

- This is a "field puzzle" so you need to get necesary data when you reach the place.

or

- This is a rather simple puzzle. I bet you can do it without asking me to confirm your calculated coordinates. Don't hesitate, go and try your solution!

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

Another question to all. Would you welcome a warning on a puzzle cache page saying that (for example)

 

- This is a "field puzzle" so you need to get necesary data when you reach the place.

or

- This is a rather simple puzzle. I bet you can do it without asking me to confirm your calculated coordinates. Don't hesitate, go and try your solution!

 

Well, if it is a field puzzle, that should be listed on the page and there is a field puzzle attribute you can add to the page as well.

 

For your second statement, I think that's a good idea. You'd probably still field some confirmation emails but I'd guess more would take you up on the "challenge" of finding the cache without knowing if the solution is correct.

[+niraD]

As a cache owner, I've gotten a couple requests from out-of-town geocachers to verify the coordinates of my puzzle cache. I've replied with a confirmation (or in one case, with a comment that two of the digits were transposed). I figured that they'd done the hard work of solving the puzzle, and should have the opportunity to find the cache during their limited time in the area.

 

As a cache seeker, I've only emailed my solution to the CO a couple times, when I searched at my solution coordinates and DNFed the cache itself. This was more to help the CO interpret my DNF log correctly, and less to get confirmation of my coordinates. Although in one case, the CO replied with both a confirmation of my solution (yippee) and a spoiler for the hide (sigh).

 

I've also emailed the CO of an out-of-town puzzle when there had been a string of DNFs on a puzzle that I'd solved in preparation for an upcoming trip. It turned out that the cache was there, but was a non-LPC located near a lamp post. Once the first DNF was posted, others apparently saw nothing under the lamp post skirt and quickly posted another DNF.

[+dprovan]

Another question to all. Would you welcome a warning on a puzzle cache page saying that (for example)

 

- This is a "field puzzle" so you need to get necesary data when you reach the place.

or

- This is a rather simple puzzle. I bet you can do it without asking me to confirm your calculated coordinates. Don't hesitate, go and try your solution!

I welcome anything that makes the situation clearer. I particularly like to be warned that I'll need to bring something with me to solve a field puzzle. I hate it when field puzzles assume I have web access when I get there.

 

While I don't mind the "simple puzzle" warning, to be honest, if the puzzle is that simple, then there's no good reason not to supply a checker to help catch simple mistakes. At least I assume that making a bad search based on a simple mistake isn't the experience you're going for.

[+The_Incredibles_]

- This is a rather simple puzzle. I bet you can do it without asking me to confirm your calculated coordinates. Don't hesitate, go and try your solution!

 

You could do that, but you might get your foot stepped on at the next event.

[+-CJ-]

Crow-T-Robot, thanks for reminding me about the attribute. I checked my puzzles and added it where it was missing.

NiraD, thanks for sharing your experience.

 

dprovan:

I hate it when field puzzles assume I have web access when I get there

 

Indeed.

 

making a bad search based on a simple mistake isn't the experience you're going for

 

I would say just the opposite. This would be a nice experience so one will act more carefully not to repeat such mistakes in future. Checking solutions half-way in an armchair "to save time" is no serious lesson.

 

"The time issue" was mentioned (in this or that form) many times within this discussion - despite that saving someone's time hasn't been listed among priorities of the game or advantages of a good puzzle cache. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

The_Incredibles:

You could do that, but you might get your foot stepped on at the next event.

 

No chance People that ask for confirmations are foreigners and are rare guests at our events (mostly because of the language barrier) and locals usually don't ask for confirmation.

Edited April 18, 2014 by -CJ-

[+JL_HSTRE]

IMO every puzzle should have a geochecker unless there is no room for error (ex: hidden text). And not Evinence which is a pain.

[+-CJ-]

IMO every puzzle should have a geochecker unless there is no room for error

 

Thinking this way: every traditional cache should have a spoiler photo.

[+The_Incredibles_]

IMO every puzzle should have a geochecker unless there is no room for error

 

Thinking this way: every traditional cache should have a spoiler photo.

 

Not the same. Geochecker does not give away the answer. And it's near impossible to brute force. Not that I would know anything about that.

Edited April 19, 2014 by The_Incredibles_