This topic contains 78 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
@seldom|seen wrote:
I’ve learned not to jump in too soon, usually until my name is mentioned. Much of the anti-puzzle rhetoric is directed at me which of course begs for a response…
…As has been said in a hundred threads a thousand times over, there are a million ways to play this game and a millions rewards to get out of it. To each, their own!
This was well thought out and well written. Of course the most important part is the last two sentences. To that I say “AHMEN”
This is the part I liked . . .
@seldom|seen wrote:And there is no stopping the flow of ideas that comes out of this head. So brace yourselves, because the puzzles will keep coming
Hmmmmmm…….we don’t seem to have that problem here “Up Nort.”
But again, “Up Nort” doesn’t seem to really be part of the WGA(Ya, I Know, not try to steal the thread thou.) As this sport grows, spots to place any type of cache is going to dwindle. I like puzzle,I make puzzles. I don’t care for micos, and try not to put out micros. Finding 12 micros in the Chequamegon forest was fun and also a pain in the butt when I couldn’t find them. All the area, and I’m looking for something the size of my thumb and there are no other caches with in 10 miles. But I was there looking for them ,cuz there were no other caches within 10 miles.
Had to go back cuz I didn’t find 3 of them. And when I did find them. they were pretty dang tricky but good hides and couldn’t believe I over looked them the first time. If you into numbers and ratings, try Terracaching. I have one in Hayward that hasn’t been found in 3 years.
And it’s with in 100 feet of 1 cache and 300 fwet of 3 others. Terrinf caching you CAN put a cache as close together as you want.Earthcaches, I don’t go out of my way to find them, but yet there are some who think they are the cat’s meows. For a cache to count, there you need to sign a log. I have yet to find any log to sign at an earth cache. Why did GC.com make Waypoints there own thing? Just think of the numbers one could have if the counted towards finds. And they aint really any diffrent than an earthcache.
Temps, I don’t go find them either cuz there are Regulars that I haven’t found, so why waste my time looking for them. But there are other who do. That’s their choice. And as it was mention buy others in this thread, it all comes down the the Players choice. There was a poll awhile back. You had to choose if you could only hide or only seek a cache, which one would you pick? And the Majority was???????? So the Placers, continue putting out caches that you want to spend the time and money on to put out. The searchers, well, I guess your all stuck to find whats put out to find and if you don’t want to hunt for them, well then don’t. The Puzzlers are not going to lose any sleep cuz you ignoring the caches.
Well written seldom|seen.
I’m not sure that most of the folks posting were anti puzzles…nor am I. I did see a desire for a rating system though as that would greatly help folks figure out which puzzles are at their ability/desirability to solve.
Also I’m not sure if it is as simple as a quantity v. quality issue either. I’ve done crappy puzzles and crappy traditionals. Just making a puzzle cache doesn’t ensure a quality find…though in my experience it may add to the enjoyment if the puzzle is well crafted. I have several times created a puzzle to “add to” the experience of finding a cache when I feel the location itself isn’t visit-worthy enough.
The issue here seems to be (to me at least) that when there are so many puzzles in one place they tend to be overwhelming. I cannot weed through them…all I want to do is get out and cache so I ignore them. If there were a rating system I’d spend the time and solve (some of) them because I do enjoy puzzles…but only those which I can solve in under 30 minutes or so.
I certainly meant no disrespect to those who place puzzles as I know how much effort goes into their creation…in fact I think it is a shame that puzzle caches do get ignored as much as they do…I honestly feel that a rating system would go a long way in turning that around. One of my favorite caches (which I placed) is a puzzle and I know it gets skipped over..bums me out but it is what it is.
As to the original thread, I dont see a problem with a lot of caches in an area, as long as it is a nice area, the more the better. On the other hand, there is not much merit in ever increasing numbers of caches placed in boring or even poor locations, but to each their own.
We all have the freedom to choose our type of caching, and that is what is great.
As to the topic that the thread was stolen to, I dont see the connection between “quality” and obtuse puzzles that S|S tried to make. To me, an obtuse puzzle or a puzzle that tries to get me to google a topic that I have no interest in at all, is not a “quality” cache. If other folks like doing those, then great, go get em, but dont try to tell me that those are “quality” caches, cuz I have done enough of them to know otherwise.
To me, a “quality” cache is a cache that takes me somewhere worth being. Take me to a lake, a creek or a beautiful woods. Show me great architecture or teach me something about the interesting history of the area. Those are great caching experiences. Sitting by a computer and googling arcane and boring factoids and then going to find a nano in a less than spectacular location, is not what caching is about for me and it is quite a stretch to define those types of caches as “quality.”
But, cache the way you want. It is great that we all find something to enjoy about caching, and it is great we have that freedom. “Quality” caches, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I see “quality” primarily defined as where the cache took me, and nothing else.
z
@zuma wrote:
…
To me, a “quality” cache is a cache that takes me somewhere worth being. Take me to a lake, a creek or a beautiful woods. Show me great architecture or teach me something about the interesting history of the area. Those are great caching experiences. Sitting by a computer and googling arcane and boring factoids and then going to find a nano in a less than spectacular location, is not what caching is about for me and it is quite a stretch to define those types of caches as “quality.”
…
zWe agree, Ralph!
We have found our share of Micros in pine trees, in rock piles, on guard rails, and at the base of lampposts. I don’t believe that this is what the sport is all about. We are in the State of Arkansas right now and finding a cache is not high on our priorities. One would have to drive these Ozark mountain roads to see that numbers are not as important as the experience. We will log a few before we leave the state, to show we were here, but the experience will put the smileys on our faces, not the numbers.@zuma wrote:
To me, a “quality” cache is a cache that takes me somewhere worth being. Take me to a lake, a creek or a beautiful woods. Show me great architecture or teach me something about the interesting history of the area. Those are great caching experiences. Sitting by a computer and googling arcane and boring factoids and then going to find a nano in a less than spectacular location, is not what caching is about for me and it is quite a stretch to define those types of caches as “quality.”
zI agree Zuma. But I’m also glad those puzzle cachers are out there to creat all types of puzzles. What puzzles I don’t like and find a complete waste of time, others do not. So there is always something for everyone.
In response to s/s post: I admit, I do not like all his puzzles (and my hubby loathes all of them), but I don’t think he should come under undue criticism for putting them out in the quantity he is. (To me, it seems that’s that the round about way this thread topic is implying?) He likes creating them, and many cachers like trying to solve them – myself included.
Right now, Appleton is one big question mark icon due to all the puzzles. Does that negatively taint my view on the area in terms of caching – yes. But I also know that it provides a challenge down the road when I feel ready to tackle it.
Cache saturation isn’t too bad whether by puzzles or traditionals. Yet. I maintain that not every .10 needs to have a cache. When it starts becoming prolific (like that area in Illinois or near Denver was it??) I start viewing it as geo-littering rather than geo-caching. That’s not how I want or care to be associated or participate in the game/sport/hobby/whatever. So far, I have seen most cachers around here take care in the placement of caches. Which makes this issue pretty much a non-issue in my book.
@zuma wrote:
As to the original thread, I dont see a problem with a lot of caches in an area, as long as it is a nice area, the more the better. On the other hand, there is not much merit in ever increasing numbers of caches placed in boring or even poor locations, but to each their own.
We all have the freedom to choose our type of caching, and that is what is great.
As to the topic that the thread was stolen to, I dont see the connection between “quality” and obtuse puzzles that S|S tried to make. To me, an obtuse puzzle or a puzzle that tries to get me to google a topic that I have no interest in at all, is not a “quality” cache. If other folks like doing those, then great, go get em, but dont try to tell me that those are “quality” caches, cuz I have done enough of them to know otherwise.
To me, a “quality” cache is a cache that takes me somewhere worth being. Take me to a lake, a creek or a beautiful woods. Show me great architecture or teach me something about the interesting history of the area. Those are great caching experiences. Sitting by a computer and googling arcane and boring factoids and then going to find a nano in a less than spectacular location, is not what caching is about for me and it is quite a stretch to define those types of caches as “quality.”
But, cache the way you want. It is great that we all find something to enjoy about caching, and it is great we have that freedom. “Quality” caches, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I see “quality” primarily defined as where the cache took me, and nothing else.
z
generalizing again.
Let’s not let that generalization hide all the truly QUALITY seldom|seen puzzle caches. (to keep this on topic, these are of course some of the puzzles the OP posts about when he comments on puzzle cache saturation in Wisconsin)
If you would like a QUALITY s|s puzzle cache experience that’s not just “googling nonsense to find a nano in a less than spectacular location” might I suggest:
Urban Myth | My Blood e-Valentine – GC205QP
Tributary | Exploding Cheeto’s Inevitable – GC1XPME
War & Peace | Winnebago War – GC1R3PT
Chronicles | Last Trolley Ride – GC1QDHR
Phenomenal | Solid, Liquid, Gas… Plasma? – GC1NJ1F
Roter Eulenflug – GC14T4W
Pareidolia 🙂 Big Smiles Every One – GC1K9ZF
Tributary | Pickled Tinker – GC1JTAV
Postmarked | “Truthiness” – GC1GH7C
Chronicles | You Turn Me On – GC1F8MF
Start Yer Yakin’ | Join the Club – GC1ER0H
Camelback Cinema | The Passings of Mr Pink – GC1DC1G
PUC | I’ll Come Bouncing Back – GC1C9JB
Dark Knight | Super-Serums – GC1B4ZH
Postmarked | Faithful to my Master – GC18ZD5
Pace Yourself, Again! – GC1822E
Boxed in a Corner – GC10966Again to each his own.
When I balance visiting that awesome look-out or stream or wooded path with learning about art, science, math, history, culture, geology, politics, and so much more that goes into puzzle caches I feel I am having a blast. I enjoy exercising my mind and my body.
Just like with traditionals, there are less than quality puzzles as pointed out. There are less than stellar places posted for me to visit. However, when you are hunting caches do you not visit those places anyway? As you rack up your numbers or clear that area? It’s inevitable. We’ll all do crappy caches. I can be honest here. Some of the s|s caches are obtuse and suck. (sorry alex) However, there is a parallel here. You hunt some sucky caches to eventually find that awesome nature experience you are looking for. I hunt some sucky caches to find that awesome historical learning experience I am looking for.
As we discuss the finer points of puzzles versus traditionals, quality vs quantity, saturated vs unsaturated we can all agree that there are good caches out there and bad. If you want a few quality s|s caching experiences you will not be let down by any in the list above. I would probably list more but I personally haven’t done them all and there are still other quality s|s caches in my future.
the fine print:
– I have not done GC205QP and am just advertising it because it sounds really cool.
– Unfortunately GC1B4ZH is disabled right now due to reconstruction.
– Yes I am partial to GC1XPME. The location is definitely not a nano and is a spectacular location.
– I am also partial to GC1F8MF. One of the best Alex has ever crafted and I certainly know the time and energy that went into it.It seems to me that the point of S|S’s post (sorry, I mean seldom|seen, I realize not everybody in the world knows who uses that unique naming convention) is that quantity (numbers-focused) cachers do not appreciate puzzles because solving puzzles cuts into quantity (numbers) time. This conclusion I completely agree with based on my own observations and the comments made over time. This is not a bad thing–to each his own.
Regarding the point of saturation-meets-quality, I’ll use part of Zuma’s argument:
@zuma wrote:
To me, a “quality” cache is a cache that takes me somewhere worth being. Take me to a lake, a creek or a beautiful woods. Show me great architecture or teach me something about the interesting history of the area. Those are great caching experiences. Sitting by a computer and googling arcane and boring factoids and then going to find a nano in a less than spectacular location, is not what caching is about for me and it is quite a stretch to define those types of caches as “quality.”
I focus on the word EXPERIENCES here. I have spent a lot of time googling arcane facts on puzzles where the reward lies in the field. In fact, our children’s favorite cache of all time (and that’s saying a lot) had me wasting my time googling psychedelic record album covers that I had absolutely no interest in–but the field experience was one of a kind. They bring it up every time we go to that park. In another case, I spent hours trying to hunt down obscure animae move clips, to be rewarded with knowledge I am a better person for having, not to mention a field hunt experience that was amazing yet definitely in the LEAST scenic, most unpleasant, yet most appropriate location for this particular cache I could think of.
By the same token, there are many “field solve” puzzle caches that have been great family experiences, some of which are referenced in -cheeto-‘s post above so I will not restate them here.
Therefore, back to the point of saturation. What this indicates to me is that there is plenty of opportunity for diversity in the field, including whether to focus on a particular type of puzzle or ignore them altogether. There is also ample evidence that the placement of caches, while technically limited by the .1 mile rule, is in reality only limited by the imagination of cache hiders.
On the Left Side of the Road...Lame caches huh? So if they are so lame, why log them? Roundabout caches seem lame, but yet they are still logged. Hmmm….if I was a newbie reading this thread and was just getting ready to put out a cache, would I think twice about putting it out cuz I have to worry if others think it’s going to be lame? Or being a seasoned cacher, do I say screw it and start pulling all my cache cuz maybe someone thinks some of them are lame and stop putting caches out all together. Theese lame caches didn’t seem so lame to the persom putting them out. They went through the effort of putting out the cache to have it later be called lame.
So here is a question. If you are out and with someone else who solved the puzzle, do you sign the log and claim the find even thou you did not find the cache as it was intended?
OK, I now need to attend to some of my caches tthat may or may not lame and decide if they are just a wast of everyones time, mine included.
I like a variety / quantity of caches. Just this morning I did a cache that was located at the base of bus stop rest area, the second cache was on the welcome sign for a village, and the 3rd was at a cemetary.
The first two were kinda lame (thanks for the smiley) while the 3rd was interesting. I like variety. I like easy, I like hard, I like long walks, I like quick grabs, I like quality, I like lame, and I like quantity. I like to cache, so thanks again to all that put out hides.
One more rating suggestion… “quality rating”. Cache hidden on a stop sign = quality 1. Cache located on a bluff over looking a river that few people know about = quality 5.
I happen to really enjoy puzzle caches. I like multi caches even more. That said, there are some issues which are not obvious when you don’t see what is happening on the inside. I have seen many new hiders (and even a few experienced hiders) struggle with placing new caches in crowded areas. Certain parks (Telulah Park in Appleton is probably the worst case) do not appear to be saturated, even though they are completely full. This causes new hiders to attempt to place caches in these locations, which obviously get kicked back to them with the instruction to either “find the cache/solve the puzzle or contact the owner to get the coordinates”. As reviewers, we are not allowed to give out the hidden coordinates to other cachers. We try to direct them to a less saturated areas, but it doesn’t always work. I have seen many people who try multiple times to place a cache, eventually giving up and walking away from the game. Who knows how many of these people would have become active players, given the chance to get started with their first hide?
This post got a lot longer than I intended. The main point I wanted to make is that if one of these new people writes you to ask for the coordinates of your puzzle or multi cache, please consider giving it to them. I have done this myself several times with my own mystery caches, even though they are easy field puzzles. Helping these guys get started is good for the longterm health of the game.
@Team Deejay wrote:
The main point I wanted to make is that if one of these new people writes you to ask for the coordinates of your puzzle or multi cache, please consider giving it to them. I have done this myself several times with my own mystery caches, even though they are easy field puzzles. Helping these guys get started is good for the longterm health of the game.
I will respond with an “it depends”. Yeah I would certainly be open to meeting with someone new or pointing them in the right direction. However, I have said no to requests for coords on certain puzzle caches. It’s not fair to anyone to hand them out. Especially the previous finder who you know worked at the puzzle and was proud of their solve.
If it wouldn’t matter if they had the coords i.e. the location is too saturated (there on topic again) then I will point them in the same direction it sounds like you do as a reviewer.
It also depends on how the hypothetical newbie approaches me. Courteous respectful people are treated differently than disrespectful, rude people.
Unfortunately I have seen more of the latter in recent times but there are glimmers of hope.
When I commented on doing “crappy caches” I certainly did not mean to offend anyone. I own some myself and have been told in logs as such. Your point is well taken though that there are real people behind these cache listings with feelings who have put in an effort (it’s not easy as this thread points out) to help out the game and place caches to find. So again, my apologies if I offended.
-cheeto-
I have only asked once for coords for someones hide…they responded by giving me the coords for the first two waypoints of the multi and letting me know the general area of the rest of the coords and the final. That was all I needed to place my caches in the park and they were able to keep the integrity of their hide in place…you don’t need to be too specific…chances are you can be a bit vauge and still help.
@Team Deejay wrote:
I happen to really enjoy puzzle caches. I like multi caches even more. That said, there are some issues which are not obvious when you don’t see what is happening on the inside. I have seen many new hiders (and even a few experienced hiders) struggle with placing new caches in crowded areas. Certain parks (Telulah Park in Appleton is probably the worst case) do not appear to be saturated, even though they are completely full. This causes new hiders to attempt to place caches in these locations, which obviously get kicked back to them with the instruction to either “find the cache/solve the puzzle or contact the owner to get the coordinates”. As reviewers, we are not allowed to give out the hidden coordinates to other cachers. We try to direct them to a less saturated areas, but it doesn’t always work. I have seen many people who try multiple times to place a cache, eventually giving up and walking away from the game. Who knows how many of these people would have become active players, given the chance to get started with their first hide?
This post got a lot longer than I intended. The main point I wanted to make is that if one of these new people writes you to ask for the coordinates of your puzzle or multi cache, please consider giving it to them. I have done this myself several times with my own mystery caches, even though they are easy field puzzles. Helping these guys get started is good for the longterm health of the game.
Haven’t seen a new hide in Appleton from me in a long time.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.