Is a new notation or ATTRIBUTE needed for puzzles?

[-cheeto-]

[Lostby7]

@-cheeto- wrote:

If an attribute is what you want there already is an attribute that can be used. Takes less than an hour/Does not take less than an hour.

Yes but that attribute is ambiguous in this context…less than an hour to solve or less than an hour to find in the field? A new puzzle specific attribute would be needed.

@-cheeto- wrote:

Like s|s says in the “other thread”, whether something is done about this by TPTB at groundspeak or not, I think we (the WGA puzzle creators and hunters) should create our own system and work on a way to include it on our descriptions. By the way, this is how attributes got implemented initially if I follow the history correct.

I agree this is a good place to start and I have no doubt S|S is already tossing ideas around his head….I think if anything is done with this concept the information should be the very first thing on the page…but still this additional information added to pages doesn’t solve the issue, I’d still need to open each page in hopes that someone has included the information….most wont.

…and before someone brings up Bookmarks, that is not the answer either.

[seldom|seen]

@-cheeto- wrote:

If an attribute is what you want there already is an attribute that can be used. Takes less than an hour/Does not take less than an hour.

FYI – adding attributes is just as much of an uphill battle as adding an additional difficulty star rating or a category field.

However, without a system puzzle cache creators will not take it upon themselves to tell you how difficult their puzzle may be.

Perhaps in addition to my original idea, another item could be worked in somehow. “Requires subject-matter knowledge” or something. This could be worked into a “clayjar rating system” of sorts on the difficulty. So if a particular puzzle requires you to know what an ER nurse does or how to play a guitar or fly a plane than you would factor that into the difficulty rating. Some of these subject-matter things are tough to just research using google.

Another item that could go into a rating system is whether all of the information is available on the page or not.

I would love to be able to rate my puzzles on a difficulty scale.

Like s|s says in the “other thread”, whether something is done about this by TPTB at groundspeak or not, I think we (the WGA puzzle creators and hunters) should create our own system and work on a way to include it on our descriptions. By the way, this is how attributes got implemented initially if I follow the history correct.

All great points, although I concur with Lostby about the “Less than an hour” icon not being sufficient to quantify the various stages of difficulty involved in solving puzzles. There can be many stages in getting to a solve.

Here’s an example: Real Gone | Bonus, a puzzle cache. Stage one: To find it you must first finish the series. In solving the series you will have to solve the 15th cache: Real Gone | How’s It Gonna End, the last cache and a tough puzzle, the final of which contains instructions on how to solve Bonus.

Sounds like a 5 already. But the puzzle for Bonus itself is only a 2, if that. So how do you rate the D of the puzzle itself, what people are wanting to know, when the difficulty of just getting there is major factor? That’s an extreme example and one that incorporates that strange creature, the “challenge” cache, but you can see where a “Less than an hour” set to strikeout isn’t usable as an attribute, when the solve and find for Bonus might take all of 15-20 minutes, but getting through the hoops to get there could take many hours.

Is adding an attribute an uphill battle? What did it take to get the “flashlight” icon added for night caches? Couldn’t we develop a set of attributes specifically for puzzle caches that include all of the above mentioned useful puzzle characteristices.

I think this ranking discussion has more to do with CACHE OWNERS ranking their puzzles than it does with cache players which is why I like the less involved to implement ATTRIBUTE option. If only because somewhere along the way new attribute options DO get added and ranking systems that have been suggested now for 4-5 years, do not.

[Team Deejay]

While I certainly appreciate people trying to accurately set the difficulty on their puzzles/caches, I think we will all agree that the vast majority out there do not put much thought into it when creating the cache. And this is understandable. What is easy for one person will be next to impossible for something else (especially regarding puzzles). Some puzzles require local knowledge to discern the solution METHOD, which makes those out of reach for non-locals. There was a puzzle here in my area involving a cartoon that was trivial for those whose kids watched that program (again, and again, and again…) while everyone else had to grit our teeth through mind numbing research on a cartoon show. The bottom line is that a difficulty rating is only as good as those applying it, and the subjectivity of this rating would make it pretty loose and thus not very useful. (I’ve always thought that there were only 2 Hide difficulty ratings needed: One star = I can find it, Five Star = I can’t find it. )

I have heard some rumblings that GS is planning to add attributes for the solve at home/solve in the field differences on puzzle caches. In my opinion, this would add a lot of utility to those who are visiting from outside the area.

[Lostby7]

@Team Deejay wrote:

I have heard some rumblings that GS is planning to add attributes for the solve at home/solve in the field differences on puzzle caches. In my opinion, this would add a lot of utility to those who are visiting from outside the area.

That would be VERY helpful…that might just be enough to get me back to adding some puzzles to the menu…not exactly what I want but a really good start.

[nohandsgps]

@Lostby7 wrote:

@Team Deejay wrote:

I have heard some rumblings that GS is planning to add attributes for the solve at home/solve in the field differences on puzzle caches. In my opinion, this would add a lot of utility to those who are visiting from outside the area.

That would be VERY helpful…that might just be enough to get me back to adding some puzzles to the menu…not exactly what I want but a really good start.

I am going to have to agree again… knowing that a puzzle could be solved in the field would be very helpful.

Does the Board of a statewide Geocaching Association have some kind of pull with GC or not?

[Team Deejay]

I would guess “no”. That said, let’s just say they are aware of the issue.

[-cheeto-]

@Team Deejay wrote:

I would guess “no”. That said, let’s just say they are aware of the issue.

Boy that sucks. Too bad the larger groups of cachers out there don’t have at least a smidgen more “pull” when it comes to shaping the way the game is played or a feature is implemented.

But that’s the answer I expected to hear. Now if our group was a for-profit company such as Garmin we would be able to impact their business decisions. 😉

[-cheeto-]

Oh and I am starting to like the additional set of puzzle attributes option better than my difficulty + category idea.

To add the flashlight attribute I believe they had to pull one. And I have read countless threads about attributes being added on their forums with nothing coming of them. Yes it’s actually an uphill battle to add attributes based on what I’ve read.

A separate set of puzzle attributes sounds like an awesome idea now that I think about it.

[CodeJunkie]

I actually like the idea of a third rating or classification. For example – If you select “multi” the next classification could relate to simple offset (ie. multi), offset with simple calculation (ie. cemetery style), etc. If you select puzzle, then the classification could represent the style of puzzle / mystery.

As a programmer I deal with these “extensions” on a daily basis and they aren’t all that hard to implement. The biggest challenge is to figure out what to do with existing data, but it would be easy to seed these with some “classic” or “n/a” value.

I’m disappointed to hear that the associations don’t have pull with the GC. I understand they’re a business but without the associations and the members they wouldn’t have a business. Just because the association is non-profit doesn’t mean the opinions aren’t worthwhile.

[seldom|seen]

@-cheeto- wrote:

Oh and I am starting to like the additional set of puzzle attributes option better than my difficulty + category idea.

To add the flashlight attribute I believe they had to pull one. And I have read countless threads about attributes being added on their forums with nothing coming of them. Yes it’s actually an uphill battle to add attributes based on what I’ve read.

A separate set of puzzle attributes sounds like an awesome idea now that I think about it.

Seems like a smaller hill to climb than pursuing the rating thing, although I think I’d prefer a multi-facited puzzle rater. I see the addition of a set of well thought out Puzzle Attributes to be the easiest to implement, Plus, it’s all in the hands of the puzzle creator to select the attributes they want. My perception is that most cache placers select some attributes for their caches and it wouldn’t be like starting from scratch and having to implement a whole new interface with the public. That’s the main issue with a rater. One, you can’t grandfather in any factors from existing puzzles if you suddenly implemented a rating system and suddenly all cache listings had a rating system. For the vast majority of caches who’ve had their peak visitation, you’re not going get people to go back and rate them. You’d be relying only on visits after the rating system was added. Seems like it would only be truly effective for new caches.

Leaving it in the hands of the owners to add some attributes to their puzzles not only takes some of the cache “solving” and “finding” subjectivness out of the equation, it also leaves the onus on the owner to define aspects of the puzzle and moreover, doesn’t require them to “pick a difficulty” level which is the basis much of the anti-rating system argument.

If I have a puzzle with the following icons; Brain (head time), Notepad (field solve), G / monitor (google / desk time) and House (local knowledge) I could certainly make some assumptions about what is going to be involved in solving the puzzle and finding the cache, without ever reading the description. It might not tell me “how much” of any one aspect I am in for be at the very least I understand, up front, what I am getting into. Then I can decide whether to ignore it or not. If I hate desktop puzzles but love field solve puzzles, I can simply pull pocket queries with the kinds of puzzles I like and ignore the kinds I don’t.

[gotta run]

Given either the system limitations of gc.com, or the unwillingness of groundspeak to make changes, or both, on this issue, it seems to make the most sense for the community to come up with some sort of rating system on its own, if the feeling is strong enough.

Granted, you won’t be able to do PQs by it, but at least having it there would be something. Ideally it could be something that would allow some level of filtering by users, just like having “WSQ” on a cache allows poeple who don’t like cemetery caches to filter them out, even though there’s no “tombstone” attribute.

And, if the rating system is good enough, and popular enough, market forces will move it into the mainstream, in much the way geochecker (or some derivative thereof) has become SOP on puzzles.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[nohandsgps]

Something
FP + cache name = Field puzzle
or
HP + cache name = Home puzzle

[CodeJunkie]

@nohandsgps wrote:

Something
FP + cache name = Field puzzle
or
HP + cache name = Home puzzle

I’d prefer putting the P first which would identify the “Puzzle” then “Solve Requirements” (Field, Research, etc.)

[nohandsgps]

@CodeJunkie wrote:

@nohandsgps wrote:

Something
FP + cache name = Field puzzle
or
HP + cache name = Home puzzle

I’d prefer putting the P first which would identify the “Puzzle” then “Solve Requirements” (Field, Research, etc.)

Good point.

[Author]

Posts