This topic contains 78 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
Wow – I’m just back from vacation, but what a thread to read (and to see the Mascoutin Valley Trail that MuddyBottoms and I did in the lead paragraph).
My comments:
1) I have plenty of room for more caches out near me but it’s going to take time to get them placed (if BakRdz doesn’t steal them all on me).
2) Add puzzle difficulty rating
3) GC should ignore puzzle finals when considering distance or make it much smaller. If someone’s not doing the puzzle chances are they aren’t going to stumble on the final. As long as it’s a reasonable distance from some other cache.
4) S|S – keep the puzzles coming. I love these challenges.
5) If you need help with a puzzle / cache – I suggest always explaining exactly where you are, your method(s), what your assumptions are, etc. I’ve done this with many of the puzzles for both the puzzle and the find. I assumed the algorithm is …. I see a hollow log in the corner of a fence with a do not enter sign …. This way the owner has some idea you’re actually trying or were in the right spot and has a reason to help get you back on track. I’ve also asked questions about my assumptions before banging my head on the wall for few hours – I assume xxxxx means yyyyy.Apologies up front. I know I get a little winded, but this one takes the cake. However, I feel compelled to defend myself and my caches.
@marc_54140 wrote:But another, more important point is how these caches are tying up otherwise good locations for other, and future, caches.
Yes, each cacher has a right to place a cache. But when an area becomes saturated with puzzles, it can have a negative effect.
For some cachers, yes. The negative effect being primarily the inability to quickly log more caches. But you can not also make the case that having puzzle caches has a positive effect by limiting cache trails, limiting the amount of cache maintenance and providing enjoyment for cachers who enjoy puzzles?
@marc_54140 wrote:
The primary purpose of geocaching for to hide caches for people to go out and find. When some (or too many) caches are barricaded behind complicated hoops and barrels that frustrate the majority of cachers, it defeats that intent.
Caches are meant to be found.
I can’t argue with that statement, and contrary to what you assume, Marc, I do want my caches to be found. I would not go through all the work to create puzzles if I only expected a few finds. Yes, I do have so some hard puzzles that few will ever solve, but then so do you and I’d make the case that overall, a majority of mine are far easier to solve than yours as I provide a clear path on how to solve them. However, the larger point is that I’m not sure how puzzle caches “defeat the intent”. Caches come in all shapes and sizes, some tough, some not. If an area of the state were saturated with caches that were mostly 4/4 or tougher and got few visits, would you be making the same argument and asking for some limitation on how many 4/4+ could be placed?
@marc_54140 wrote:
Puzzle saturation can affect the future of caching. Consider this: How are new cachers to begin to figure out where to place a new cache, when there are so many hidden ‘bombs’ out there?
Now this I can completely agree with. And I empathize with new cache placers who have to contend with hidden bombs, I’ve been there myself many times. I also do not know how to address this valid concern which is why, more and more, I have been finding urban locations for my finals. Perhaps a list of Parks that are all “tied-up” might be useful? These same concerns are reflected in this over-burdened reviewer whom I am sure I have driven to drinking with the puzzles I ask him to approve:
@Team Deejay wrote:
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 long-term health of the game.
As anyone knows who have contacted me for help, I will freely give it. Yet, with all the “bombs” I have placed in the valley, guess how many people have asked to work with me about proximity issues to date? Less than half a dozen, maybe? I am not sure why this is and whenever I meet cachers or post in the forums I try to make this point clear. I am not out to aggravate cachers with super-difficult puzzles just to piss people off and I am not sure where that misperception has come from. Ask me for a hint, I’ll give it. Ask me where a final might be located and I’ll let you know where I’m tying the area up.
@lostby7 wrote:
While I enjoy simple puzzles, I do see far too many in certain areas which has the effect of overwhelming me to the point of just ignoring all of them….I can’t tell which one will take me hours to solve and which ones are easy without reading all the pages and I just don’t have the time to do it. So in the end they are all ignored (the good ones, the bad ones, the fun and irritating ones alike). I look for the pool of other caches left in the area…in Appleton that means at this point I’m likely ignoring about 25% of all the caches (I’ve found a few hundred of the others there)…This kinda sucks because there is so much more land there which I could be finding caches on but end up missing out on….
Valid points and I am sure there are many more who share the same frustrations. But I’d ask you this, if you go to Peirce park in Appleton and find the Traditionals in the center and outlying regions of the that park, what is to be gained, except easy numbers, by placing more traditionals in that park? You’ve already experienced most of the scenic areas and have nothing to gain by visiting more of the same, from a novel “location” standpoint. I STRONGLY agree with a rating system. In fact I’ve argued extensively for one for this exact reason, but those requests have to date fallen on deaf ears.
@astrod-team wrote:
So far in my caching trips, I have not found cache saturation to be an issue. They seem spaced well enough apart and are, for the most part, still in decent enough locations that are worth going to.
I can see cache saturation becoming an issue when caches are being dumped into an area 1. just because they can 2. its being done for numbers 3. because someone feels they should ‘own’ an area and no one else should be able to place caches there.At the moment I look at it this way – Just like not every cache needs to be found, not every empty space within .10 of another cache needs to have a cache hidden.
I think I would call it quits if caching degraded into a film canister behind every telephone pole every .10 miles, or if all I was going to was guard rails, dumpsters, or bus stops to find a cache. Seeing as how that hasn’t happened yet, all is good. Cache on.
Right! I always ask myself, what’s the point of this cache and is anything other than a smiley going to be gained by solving it? And the answer had better be “Yes”. Yes cachers will discover a place they’ve likely never been to. Yes, cachers will remember the cache for the uniqueness of the container, the adventure getting to it, the history they were forced to read to solve the puzzle (there’s no greater transgression for me than finding a traditional a dozen feet from an historic location or plaque and not mentioning a thing about it in the listing). I admit that I have A VERY SMALL number of puzzles that are tough (read more than an hour to solve) and you may not have much to gain by solving, but is this any different than any other puzzle, multi or traditional cache placer out there?
Now, this comment it the one that I have the most concern about:
@zuma wrote:
As to the original thread, I don’t 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.
Merit is what you make of it. Is there merit to creating puzzles that dig up interesting history about the place you live – like the entire Yellowstone Trail series? I’d say the answer it certainly, yes. Are all of the Yellowstone Trail cache finals in scenic places that I would not have been taken to without their placement or in places I would want to visit again? I’d say, no. You make of a cache what you will starting (or ending) with where it’s placed and building on that by developing interesting cache listings with context about the final location so the EXPERIENCE will be memorable.
@zuma wrote:
As to the topic that the thread was stolen to, I don’t see the connection between “quality” and obtuse puzzles that S|S tries 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 don’t try to tell me that those are “quality” caches, cuz I have done enough of them to know otherwise.
Yes, I own a fair number of caches where the heavy lifting is in the solve and in a fair number of cases the finals are less than spectacular (see points previous about not tying up park space). For these a simple additional ATTRIBUTE icon of a computer monitor – one that signifies significant desk time to solve (hint hint) – would be very useful!
@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.”
This suggests that S|S caches have no historical or scenic value when quite the opposite is true. Ask any prolific S|S puzzle solver (you seen them backing me up in this thread) how many times they are “Take(n) … to a lake, a creek or a beautiful woods” or “Show(n) … great architecture or (taught) … something about the interesting history of the area.” and I’d venture a guess that most of them would say, “well, all the time”. This statement suggests to me either that the caches of mine you’ve visited in the valley while touring the area were solved by someone else and you’ve missed the educational opportunity or, as I said earlier, you’ve already been to the “scenic reward” area previously and aren’t getting anything new from the location experience, OR somehow have managed to solve all S|S puzzles where the final is either in an urban setting or is a less than memorable container, and the puzzle itself had no value to you. How you could manage to do that with every S|S puzzle you’ve done to date is beyond me, but it screams for you to do some of the previously listed caches in -cheeto-‘s post. PLEASE contact me the next time you come to town so you can EXPERIENCE the unique rewards many S|S caches offer and PLEASE be mindfull of making what I consider false generalizing statements about the “quality” of my caches, particularly since you are an influential member of the current WGA board and you word carries weight.
Now, having said all of that and knowing full well that the USEFUL suggestions in this thread that would actually address and abate these “saturation” and “puzzle” issues will likely not be acted upon (read historical context here) I will simply create my own Puzzle cache rating system and add it to all of my caches by the beginning of the new year. And that, you can bank on.
^^^Well Said^^^
@seldom|seen wrote:
Apologies up front. I know I get a little winded, but this one takes the cake. However, I feel compelled to defend myself and my caches.
@marc_54140 wrote:But another, more important point is how these caches are tying up otherwise good locations for other, and future, caches.
Yes, each cacher has a right to place a cache. But when an area becomes saturated with puzzles, it can have a negative effect.
For some cachers, yes. The negative effect being primarily the inability to quickly log more caches. But you can not also make the case that having puzzle caches has a positive effect by limiting cache trails, limiting the amount of cache maintenance and providing enjoyment for cachers who enjoy puzzles?
@marc_54140 wrote:
The primary purpose of geocaching for to hide caches for people to go out and find. When some (or too many) caches are barricaded behind complicated hoops and barrels that frustrate the majority of cachers, it defeats that intent.
Caches are meant to be found.
I can’t argue with that statement, and contrary to what you assume, Marc, I do want my caches to be found. I would not go through all the work to create puzzles if I only expected a few finds. Yes, I do have so some hard puzzles that few will ever solve, but then so do you and I’d make the case that overall, a majority of mine are far easier to solve than yours as I provide a clear path on how to solve them. However, the larger point is that I’m not sure how puzzle caches “defeat the intent”. Caches come in all shapes and sizes, some tough, some not. If an area of the state were saturated with caches that were mostly 4/4 or tougher and got few visits, would you be making the same argument and asking for some limitation on how many 4/4+ could be placed?
@marc_54140 wrote:
Puzzle saturation can affect the future of caching. Consider this: How are new cachers to begin to figure out where to place a new cache, when there are so many hidden ‘bombs’ out there?
Now this I can completely agree with. And I empathize with new cache placers who have to contend with hidden bombs, I’ve been there myself many times. I also do not know how to address this valid concern which is why, more and more, I have been finding urban locations for my finals. Perhaps a list of Parks that are all “tied-up” might be useful? These same concerns are reflected in this over-burdened reviewer whom I am sure I have driven to drinking with the puzzles I ask him to approve:
@Team Deejay wrote:
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 long-term health of the game.
As anyone knows who have contacted me for help, I will freely give it. Yet, with all the “bombs” I have placed in the valley, guess how many people have asked to work with me about proximity issues to date? Less than half a dozen, maybe? I am not sure why this is and whenever I meet cachers or post in the forums I try to make this point clear. I am not out to aggravate cachers with super-difficult puzzles just to piss people off and I am not sure where that misperception has come from. Ask me for a hint, I’ll give it. Ask me where a final might be located and I’ll let you know where I’m tying the area up.
@lostby7 wrote:
While I enjoy simple puzzles, I do see far too many in certain areas which has the effect of overwhelming me to the point of just ignoring all of them….I can’t tell which one will take me hours to solve and which ones are easy without reading all the pages and I just don’t have the time to do it. So in the end they are all ignored (the good ones, the bad ones, the fun and irritating ones alike). I look for the pool of other caches left in the area…in Appleton that means at this point I’m likely ignoring about 25% of all the caches (I’ve found a few hundred of the others there)…This kinda sucks because there is so much more land there which I could be finding caches on but end up missing out on….
Valid points and I am sure there are many more who share the same frustrations. But I’d ask you this, if you go to Peirce park in Appleton and find the Traditionals in the center and outlying regions of the that park, what is to be gained, except easy numbers, by placing more traditionals in that park? You’ve already experienced most of the scenic areas and have nothing to gain by visiting more of the same, from a novel “location” standpoint. I STRONGLY agree with a rating system. In fact I’ve argued extensively for one for this exact reason, but those requests have to date fallen on deaf ears.
@astrod-team wrote:
So far in my caching trips, I have not found cache saturation to be an issue. They seem spaced well enough apart and are, for the most part, still in decent enough locations that are worth going to.
I can see cache saturation becoming an issue when caches are being dumped into an area 1. just because they can 2. its being done for numbers 3. because someone feels they should ‘own’ an area and no one else should be able to place caches there.At the moment I look at it this way – Just like not every cache needs to be found, not every empty space within .10 of another cache needs to have a cache hidden.
I think I would call it quits if caching degraded into a film canister behind every telephone pole every .10 miles, or if all I was going to was guard rails, dumpsters, or bus stops to find a cache. Seeing as how that hasn’t happened yet, all is good. Cache on.
Right! I always ask myself, what’s the point of this cache and is anything other than a smiley going to be gained by solving it? And the answer had better be “Yes”. Yes cachers will discover a place they’ve likely never been to. Yes, cachers will remember the cache for the uniqueness of the container, the adventure getting to it, the history they were forced to read to solve the puzzle (there’s no greater transgression for me than finding a traditional a dozen feet from an historic location or plaque and not mentioning a thing about it in the listing). I admit that I have A VERY SMALL number of puzzles that are tough (read more than an hour to solve) and you may not have much to gain by solving, but is this any different than any other puzzle, multi or traditional cache placer out there?
Now, this comment it the one that I have the most concern about:
@zuma wrote:
As to the original thread, I don’t 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.
Merit is what you make of it. Is there merit to creating puzzles that dig up interesting history about the place you live – like the entire Yellowstone Trail series? I’d say the answer it certainly, yes. Are all of the Yellowstone Trail cache finals in scenic places that I would not have been taken to without their placement or in places I would want to visit again? I’d say, no. You make of a cache what you will starting (or ending) with where it’s placed and building on that by developing interesting cache listings with context about the final location so the EXPERIENCE will be memorable.
@zuma wrote:
As to the topic that the thread was stolen to, I don’t see the connection between “quality” and obtuse puzzles that S|S tries 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 don’t try to tell me that those are “quality” caches, cuz I have done enough of them to know otherwise.
Yes, I own a fair number of caches where the heavy lifting is in the solve and in a fair number of cases the finals are less than spectacular (see points previous about not tying up park space). For these a simple additional ATTRIBUTE icon of a computer monitor – one that signifies significant desk time to solve (hint hint) – would be very useful!
@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.”
This suggests that S|S caches have no historical or scenic value when quite the opposite is true. Ask any prolific S|S puzzle solver (you seen them backing me up in this thread) how many times they are “Take(n) … to a lake, a creek or a beautiful woods” or “Show(n) … great architecture or (taught) … something about the interesting history of the area.” and I’d venture a guess that most of them would say, “well, all the time”. This statement suggests to me either that the caches of mine you’ve visited in the valley while touring the area were solved by someone else and you’ve missed the educational opportunity or, as I said earlier, you’ve already been to the “scenic reward” area previously and aren’t getting anything new from the location experience, OR somehow have managed to solve all S|S puzzles where the final is either in an urban setting or is a less than memorable container, and the puzzle itself had no value to you. How you could manage to do that with every S|S puzzle you’ve done to date is beyond me, but it screams for you to do some of the previously listed caches in -cheeto-‘s post. PLEASE contact me the next time you come to town so you can EXPERIENCE the unique rewards many S|S caches offer and PLEASE be mindfull of making what I consider false generalizing statements about the “quality” of my caches, particularly since you are an influential member of the current WGA board and you word carries weight.
Now, having said all of that and knowing full well that the USEFUL suggestions in this thread that would actually address and abate these “saturation” and “puzzle” issues will likely not be acted upon (read historical context here) I will simply create my own Puzzle cache rating system and add it to all of my caches by the beginning of the new year. And that, you can bank on.
I think you are misreading my post, understandable given all the interesting points of view folks have here. And for my part, when I posted, I did not understand that some saw this interesting thread as a referendum on S|S puzzles, the type of discussion I would generally just stay out of. I saw it as a more general discussion of cache saturation and filling in urban areas with obtuse puzzles.
I did not intend to comment on the “referendum” on S|S puzzles that some are trying to make this thread the focus. That said, to the “referendum” aspect that some people are reading into this thread, I have done many S|S puzzles and have found that many are quite creative, interesting and well placed. On the other hand, I have also found S|S puzzles that take you to a nano in a garbage can next to an urban street with coords way off. Nothing unique about that. Like you, I too have some caches that I think are excellent, some that are mediocre, and some that need changes to get them right or that need to be archived.
My original post was to the point that you made that basically boiled down to: Obtuse puzzle = “quality” cache. We have a friendly different point of view on that. My view is that of a real estate agent:
“Quality” cache = location, location, location.
zuma
@zuma wrote:
My view is that of a real estate agent:
“Quality” cache = location, location, location.
zuma
A location does play an important part om the quality of a cache.
There is a cache north of me, called Sprained Ankle I think. I spent an hour looking for it. GZ is in the middle of a recent clear cut with fresh stumps and stick piles everywhere. I did not find it. Because of the distance from my home I spent extra time looking for it. The cache became a challange. It was essentialy a needle in a hay stack to find.
I later learned that the cache was a micro on the end of a branch, stacked on a large pile of branches. It was a crule, evil cache. But it made you think. Sometimes, thinkings is good. Thinking and brain power is apart of caching. Thinking of ways to hide/camo an object that an avarage Joe is not going to discover. Puzzles make you think. It’s an extention of a cache. But as it is preached, it’s all about how the player choses to play the game. Micros, nanos, puzzle, multies, temps, numbers are all variables in this game. Up North, we have more locations than you can shake a cache on a stick at than in the Suberian areas.
Another factor in this game is opinions. And every player has one and each one is diffrent. Quality = Location is YOUR opinion and I’m sure that no one can or ever will chage that opinion and no one should try.It’s MY opinion that micros, nanos and temps should be banned and bring back the Virts and the Loctationless caches and I don’t get Earthcaches. Finding X amount of holes in the ground makes you Master? Whoopie Do Da! But again, thats MY opinion.
So………. It is MY OPNION that a “Quality” cache = Location & Brain Power.
I guess that’s end of my nonsense ranting for tonight and no disrespect was ment towards Zuma or his opinion.“Quality” cache = location, location, location.
THE CACHE IS NOT LOCATED AT THE ABOVE LISTED COORDINATES.
@zuma wrote:
My view is that of a real estate agent:
“Quality” cache = location, location, location.
It’s obvious that we all “see” things from different viewpoints. I would disagree with location, location, location. I like to visit new and interesting places just as much as many of you. I also must admit that the Laughing Waters series was my first intro to S|S puzzles and I loved them. There was a variety and I learned a ton about the city of Menasha from them. I’m a Fox Valley native (lived here all my life) but new very little about Menasha as it turns out. As a “non-Fiction” junkie this was right up my alley. They weren’t all easy finds, in fact I bugged S|S numerous times on some refusing to give up. Each time I asked for (and received) a gentle nudge in the right direction.
To me this is what it’s all about. A mix of location and historical significance (imagine going to Washington DC and viewing the view but not knowing the history). Another great history / location series is the -cheeto- series in downtown Neenah. There are others as well, but my point is that I don’t feel it’s all about the location. There are some beautiful locations, but when coupled with relevant history they become even better.
I think more people out there “mis-read” your post zuma. Perhaps it’s how you said what you said? Read again..
(emphasis mine)
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.
Fairly harsh words pointed towards an individual cacher and member to be coming from a respected board member.
He has every right to be upset with you personally for what you said. I would be if you said those things about me and the work I put into hundreds of caches.
Now back to the topic.. well sort of,
And all of this is still ON TOPIC in part because the OP of this thread lives and caches near Appleton a city within our great state of Wisconsin and there are hundreds of puzzle caches “saturating” the area published by seldom|seen of which those living in this area and/or spending any amount of time with the thread OP at events have heard him b&m about this particular cacher and “his puzzles” and how many there are. It was bound to get on topic eventually anyway because there are only so many high volume puzzle cache creators in our state!
Now I am sure he wasn’t referring solely to seldom|seen puzzle saturation. So in all fairness to marc (and alex), my apologies for pointing it in that direction.
I am glad it did get pointed in that direction for one reason. I hope marc has read alex’s heartfelt and lengthy response. It addresses many things that though may get a bit off-topic definitely needed to be said, to marc.
I still think this thread is funny coming from someone who holds events encouraging puzzles…
-cheeto-
@zuma wrote:
I think you are misreading my post, understandable given all the interesting points of view folks have here. And for my part, when I posted, I did not understand that some saw this interesting thread as a referendum on S|S puzzles, the type of discussion I would generally just stay out of. I saw it as a more general discussion of cache saturation and filling in urban areas with obtuse puzzles.
I did not intend to comment on the “referendum” on S|S puzzles that some are trying to make this thread the focus. That said, to the “referendum” aspect that some people are reading into this thread, I have done many S|S puzzles and have found that many are quite creative, interesting and well placed. On the other hand, I have also found S|S puzzles that take you to a nano in a garbage can next to an urban street with coords way off. Nothing unique about that. Like you, I too have some caches that I think are excellent, some that are mediocre, and some that need changes to get them right or that need to be archived.
My original post was to the point that you made that basically boiled down to: Obtuse puzzle = “quality” cache. We have a friendly different point of view on that. My view is that of a real estate agent:
“Quality” cache = location, location, location.
zuma
I’ll bite. For non-valley cachers, you may not make the obvious connection, but if you live here, like I and the thread starter do, then it would quite obvious to you that the “referendum” is indeed about S|S puzzle caches “saturating” the valley and causing many to get frustrated with puzzle caching. Since you are not, you get a by. Secondly, you did call me out and I’m pretty sure, based in the personal e-mails I’ve gotten, that many have “misread” the pointed comments about S|S caches in your post, just as I apparently did, to be specifically about my caches, intentional or not. That’s from other thread followers and an easy leap to make given the area we’re discussing and the contributors to this thread.
I only make the point about your opinion of what makes a “quality” cache because your name is widely known throughout the state and your position on the BOD does carry some weight when you are expressing your PERSONAL opinions about what YOU consider to be a quality cache. I’d expect your position, being in that position, to be neutral. Obviously when you make blanket statements about my puzzles that paint them all in a negative light, specifically calling me out, I’m inclined to counter.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY PUZZLES are not OBTUSE as you suggest. Most of them have a clear path to solving and would be considered offsets, if that category were still around.
Nor did I ever state that an “Obtuse puzzle = “quality” cache.” In fact I never used the word “obtuse”, I don’t like obtuse puzzles even though I know I own a few. I used the word “quality” and yes, I did equate it with puzzles – a generalization I should have avoided. I am simply tying to suggest that a Traditional 35mm can in a guardrail is not as rewarding or memorable as a well crafted offset or puzzle cache that required you to dig into some local history or, yes, even some unknown phenomena or rock music or any other topic with the expectation that you’d come away from the find knowing a tiny bit more than you did before you started it.
My basic premise for all caches is this, “if you can’t remember an S|S cache a month after you did it, it wasn’t worth finding”. I expect that despite your disstain for my puzzles, you probably remember where those nano’s were hidden and as least a fragment of what you discovered while solving the puzzle to get there. At least that is my hope.
I don’t have a differing viewpoint about the value of location. I like an interesting location as much as you do. What I have are many cache ideas that I like to bring to fruition, but don’t want to hog open spaces and so elect to place then in urbane urban areas. I know full well that some finals are less than rewarding for some of those, but that’s the beauty of the mix of finals I do employ. You never know when you’re going to happen upon a really cool cache location, container or unique subject matter.
1. Well, my main intent here was to get some discussion, see what different viewpoints come up. That’s working ……
2. Was not picking on anyone. No matter how you phrase something, it will point to one or more persons. Did anyone read gotta run’s (11/2 3:55) posting?
@zuma wrote:
On the other hand, I have also found S|S puzzles that take you to a nano in a garbage can next to an urban street with coords way off. Nothing unique about that.
Good grief, Zuma!
You cannot possibly include personal insults in two consecutive posts, then toss your hands in the air and say, “Wasn’t me!”
Shameful. 😥
On the Left Side of the Road...@gotta run wrote:
@zuma wrote:
On the other hand, I have also found S|S puzzles that take you to a nano in a garbage can next to an urban street with coords way off. Nothing unique about that.
Good grief, Zuma!
You cannot possibly include personal insults in two consecutive posts, then toss your hands in the air and say, “Wasn’t me!”
Shameful. 😥
Are you taking me out of context on purpose????? Why take out the sentence that follows, to make an innocent statement of fact look like an insult???? I think some of you people here are just looking for the fun of controversy, rather than intelligent conversation.
To be clear, no insult was intended. I was stating a fact, in response to the initial statement of S|S’s that puzzle caches are somehow always “quality” caches. Some are. Some are not. Nanos on garbabe cans are not my idea of a “quality” cache, and I recall one of these so-called “quality” puzzle caches that was just that.
Now, this is my last post on this topic, as I have clearly stated that no insult to S|S or anyone else was intended. I thought we were having an intelligent discussion on what makes for a “quality” cache, and I understand some folks might think other things other than location make for quality, and that is great that a variety of preferences and points of view are out there. My only point is my view is that location makes for a quality cache.
However, I really dont appreciate simple statements of fact taken out of context and distorted just to have a fun controversy. I am not about that.
z
Why should a BOD’s position be neutral?
If all BOD’s positions were neutral, nothing would happen.
(Maybe that’s off topic,but it is still a valid question). ❓
Oh come on. You could have kept this at the “I didn’t intend to make this a referendum comment” rather than go into the detail you did.
But instead, you tossed in some prefacing comments about how much you like a particular hider’s caches, only to provide yourself some air cover to let fly a hail of insults that are not only not necessary but, I believe, untrue. “No, really, I think your caches are totally great except for these ones that really suck.” The “nano in a garbage can” comments were sensational and specific, even in their entire context.
Sorry if my comments aren’t “intelligent” enough for you but your post was totally uncalled for. But whatever.
On the Left Side of the Road...@seldom|seen wrote:
…because your name is widely known throughout the state and your position on the BOD does carry some weight when you are expressing your PERSONAL opinions about what YOU consider to be a quality cache. I’d expect your position, being in that position, to be neutral.
Being on the BOD does not require somebody to be (or even post) neutral on every subject. Always assume that the BOD member that is posting is giving his or her PERSONAL opinion. (including this post)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.