[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.

[Lostby7]

[Lostby7]

@nohandsgps wrote:

I would be in favor of it. Has this been brought up on the gc forum?

I would have to assume that is has but I’m guessing if we as a group see a need for it we might make some headway with TPTB if we approached them en-mass…but as puzzles have been treated the same way as other caches in terms of difficulty ranking since the beginning I’m not overly optimistic. Still, knowing there is a “Need” for something might at least turn a head over at GC.

So, let’s see where we as a group fall on the subject…

[Lostby7]

shocking I know…the GC forums are very slow too….should clear up soon though…I hope. They are getting stuff moved around and may have forgotten to feed the hamsters.

[Lostby7]

@Trekkin’ and Birdin’ wrote:

Yup. All the Twin Bluffs caches, but especially that one, are favorites of ours, too. You will not believe that cave once you get inside it!

The area (while a bit sparse in as far as cache density goes) does offer some really nice and imaginative caches……oops I take that back lots of caches have moved in since mt visit…looks like a great destination.

[Lostby7]

@JimandLinda wrote:

Give (GCXWPM) a try, BakRdz.

I’ve been back there twicw since finding it, just to share the fun!

I HIGHLY recommend this cache (Twin Bluffs Cave)…it is fantastic…plus the view from the top of the bluff is amazing….

[Lostby7]

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.

[Lostby7]

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.

[Lostby7]

@marc_54140 wrote:

As I cache throughout Wisconsin (and IL, MN, etc), meeting different addicts from all over, I have been hearing more and more about cache saturation. And specifically, puzzle caches.

Not wanting to solve them, or go hunt for them, is one issue. I am hearing from more and more cachers who specifically state they will not do puzzles. Look at the number of finders for them. Look at the number of puzzles some cachers have found. The numbers are not promising.

But another, more important point is how these caches are tying up otherwise good locations for other, and future, caches.

The topic was refined so the puzzle discussion is on topic with the thread.

[Lostby7]

@-cheeto- wrote:

I have one universal response for those of you who ignore puzzle caches: it’s your own loss…To be honest, if there was no such thing as a puzzle geocache I would have quit long ago…

I totally agree. It is a loss. I used to love to solve puzzles but after awhile so many of them got so difficult, finding one which was manageable in a reasonable amount of time became more of a rarity than a norm…as a result I just stopped trying to sort the manageable from the inscrutable. Do I dislike puzzles, no. I just don’t have the time to try and sort them out….give me a rating system and I’d get back in the saddle and start solving them…but until then it is my loss. I lose real-estate to cache in and caches to find…

[Lostby7]

@nohandsgps wrote:

Maybe it is time for a puzzle rating.

I would be THRILLED with this….I have always thought that puzzles should be rated for solve difficulty. If GC could create a puzzle rating system I’d go back to solving them rather than ignoring them…but I guess that is getting us off topic….sorry.

[Lostby7]

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 irratating 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 sux cuz there is so much more land there which I could be finding caches on but end up missing out on….

[Lostby7]

@nohandsgps wrote:

Cache saturation is great… it allows me to walk to the caches instead of driving.

I wish my area looked more like West Bend or Appleton….I’d surely then have over 3,000 finds by now.

[Lostby7]

Not sure if Colorado has the same Windows like file folders which you move things in or out of but with the Oregon I just drop the opened PQ right into the GPX folder…done. No need for GSAK (which I don’t use).

[Lostby7]

Welcome…there are lots of nice EarthCaches here to find and a section here on the boards to read about EC topics.

[Author]

Posts