[seldom|seen]

@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.

[seldom|seen]

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.

[seldom|seen]

Got all enthused when I saw a whole forest of purple pins w/in 50 miles of our home coordinates…till I realized I’d created them all and the few others I didn’t I have no intention of finding no matter if they are on the list or not! I can’t believe how much the game has changed in just one year. No wonder I’m not playing hard anymore.

[seldom|seen]

Yeah, yeah.. judging by the heavy purple cluster over the valley, there’s no arguing that point!

Since the event was hosted here last year and many traveled through some pretty intense weather, I was kinda hoping to centralize the location this time around. Portage, Madison, Stevens Point? I know there’s no way to accommodate all the players and those in the Northwest are always at a distinct distance disadvantage, but I’d like to hear what others who might attend have to say about moving it to the middle of the state this year.

[seldom|seen]

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.

In general, I quite obviously echo the sentiments of those who do not have an issue with the nature or number of puzzle hides in the valley. Primarily because there are an ever increasing number of cache hides to keep most cachers happy. Now it’s easy to make sweeping generalizations about various approaches to the way people play the game, but I do think the camps can be split into 2 categories. Quality and Quantity.

Puzzle caches are an issue for Quantity cachers because they require an unknown investment on time and travel which makes if difficult to maximize the number of finds they can tick off in a given period of time. For many, not all who lean this way, it isn’t worth the time or energy involved and they do not see any real merit in the process of the solve. This is also, I might add, the Prime Directive of GC.com, to place easy to find caches for the least able among us, as long as you have to have a GPS in hand. Ironic since most Traditional caches can be found using just google maps.

For cachers in the Quality camp, the nature of the puzzle and getting to the solve is the reward and getting the final cache is just icing. Many cachers in this camp have given up on finding all the caches in their hometown radius since they see no reward in wasting time chasing around town to visit the same park and sometimes the exact spot in the same park they’ve been to a half dozen times before or drive to yet another dead-end street so they can mill around and hope to find an elusive 35mm hanging from a cedar limb before the squad cars pulls up.

Never the twain shall meet. Like Extreme Left and Extreme Right, the merits of each approach can be justified till their mouthpieces are blue in the face, but it will always amount to very little movement in either direction. Once you settle into a habit, it’s hard to break.

Which begs the question. Where do threads like this get us? A little like town halls, it’s the most vocal being most vocal and trying desperately to get the other side to see their viewpoint. There is a small chance that some of the independents will be won over, but that’s slim.

I’d suggest the initial question would have been better posed if it had been about Quality, not Quantity. Would we all not prefer a dozen exceptional caches to three dozen forgettable ones? Caches will continue being published until one day every public space will be saturated. Many parks already are. At that point the proximity guideline will change or the game itself will change to accommodate saturation. Until that day I expect, as others have suggested, atrophy will do its part to keep the poor caches to a minimum.

Still with me? Great… thanks for investing the time and giving me the benefit of the doubt. Now it’s time to back up my own approach to placing puzzles. A few key points to consider.

A. There were hundreds of caches and dozens of difficult and mind-numbing puzzles in the Valley when I got started, most of which came from the author of this thread.

B. Everything I do is deliberate, especially the placements of my caches. This is just a guess, but I suspect that more than 75% of the caches I submit are within 518-538 feet of a nearby cache, another of mine or someone else’s. Why you ask? Because I try to maximize the space available to me and get more caches placed than what might otherwise be placed if the only prerogative is “there’s a good place for a cache”.

C. If there are a couple Traditionals already in a city park, is there any “location” benefit to placing more traditionals except to get more easy finds? Or is it to see more of the same park? And if that’s what you want to do, wouldn’t you rather just explore the park on your own and not be distracted by a GPS? I’d actually argue that placing less frequented puzzle finals is a good thing as it keeps what would be higher Traditional traffic down. Imagine if all the caches in Riverside Cemetery were traditionals when a certain cacher created the perfect storm over there and brought the heat on us. I don’t think there would be any caches in that cemetery today.

D. Better than half of my puzzle finals are not in any park but are true urban hides, some in noteworthy locations some not. Very few of these spots would ever be considered by 99.9% of Traditional cache places as a “good place for a cache”. They are not “taking up valuable space” as suggested. Certainly, I have many puzzle placed in many parks, but they are not my first choice and I am always considering the balance of Puzzles, Trads and Multi’s when placing. And, I say this in FULL knowledge of the ARROGANCE it portrays, I also know that an S|S cache will likely be more memorable than other caches in those parks were they left to be filled by traditionals. There, now everyone knows just how full of myself I am.

E. I wish more people who get worked up over puzzles would just simply ignore them. Some of the most vocal anti-puzzle voices are the same people who will contact me or others who’ve found my puzzles and ask for a hint or clue. DUDE, WHY ARE YOU DOING THEM IF THEY BOTHER YOU! This I just cannot fathom. I often gets notes like “maybe I’ll just start to ignore your caches” to which I usually respond “please do”.

For as many anti-puzzle voices that there are out there, there are just as many pro-Puzzle voices and recently quite a number of pro-puzzle newbies who have quickly taken to puzzles. These are the people I create puzzles for, just as Earthcaches are created for those who like them. And there is no stopping the flow of ideas that comes out of this head. So brace yourselves, because the puzzles will keep coming, from me at least, and in many cases, to a park near you.

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!

[seldom|seen]

I guess I agree in principle with Deejay. But, the point I’m trying to make is that adding an additional log sheet when one gets full can easily be done to save the owner from having to make a trip just to perform that simple task. Sure, it falls under the auspices of maintenance, but with all the other things we have to contend with as cache creators and placers as a result of less than sufficient rehiding, caching in the presence of muggles, etc. that this one little step would certainly be welcome and appreciated by us.

Here is a case in point. A relatively new cacher with only 50 finds posted this to one of my caches which is in great shape, but just had a full log sheet at the final.

“Thanks for a really fun cache! Two really great hides!!! Definitely one of our favorites! We put a new log sheet in with the old one which was full, and we also left a coin. TFTC!! – PMmja5”

Now that’s the kind of caching ethic we should be promoting. They not only placed a new sheet for me, but left a GC in a cache without trading thus leaving the cache in better shape then when they found it![/i]

[seldom|seen]

I know of a few. In fact I know the perfect spot for it; The Old Man Gets All Stung Out is pretty deep and dark… just ask gotta_run and CSI

[seldom|seen]

Out today posting milestone congrats. Enjoyed your milestone. Thanks for putting it out… seldom|seen
La mejor palabra es la que no se dice.

[seldom|seen]

I’m going to defer that answer to gotta_run who’se taken command of the game in 2009 and has the most stories to share. Good time to get the ball rolling on it though and I think an important even to continue hosting.

[seldom|seen]

@labrat_wr wrote:

@RSplash40 wrote:

Nifty Fifty :>

I’m waiting on an owner confirmation on this one first 🙂

Yeah, I know, I’m waiting for gotta_run and CSI to come down with the ATV and ice auger again. They got off easy on their 5/5 run a while back and owe me one, right Mike?

[seldom|seen]

Lot’s of great feedback everyone and thanks for keeping it all about the topic in question.

I do have many caches out there as some of you know and the vast majority rarely need any constant monitoring since they get relatively little traffic.

I also do try to get out and check up on my caches with some kind of regularity and I also expect sheets to get full on a few of them. But then I have a handfull that are some distance away and for those I need to rely on Trailbosses and the generosity and good caching practices of other cachers.

I agree with all the comments about the owner’s responsibility to maintain. In the same breathe, however, I’d also suggest it’s everyone’s else’s responsibility to properly close and re-hide caches the way the owner intended them to be and most of the cache headaches I get have to do with the latter, which has led to broken, damp or muggled caches. I make this point only to suggest that it’s not ALL on the owner’s shoulders to keep their caches in good shape. We rely heavily on the caching community at large to keep them in good working order too.

But that’s getting off on another tangent. My veiled request here is to suggest to anyone who comes across a “full” sheet in an otherwise serviceable cache, with no apparent issues, would be welcome to add another log sheet instead of posting an NM log. If you come across a damp log and it was due to an improperly closed cache, I’d expect the same treatment. Now, if the cache has issues, by all means post an NM log, that’s what it’s for. I am just reacting to what appear to be mostly new cachers using the NM log for a minor issue when really all they had to do was add a slip of paper and move on.

[seldom|seen]

Welcome back and thanks for serving! I was once with 2-128th, C Company out of Watertown. So many years ago, in fact, that we were one of the first battalions in the State to get the Original HumVees, which I drove the piss out of mind you.

I too did a tour, in the first Gulf War and thankfully had only that single, abbreviated, mission and returned home with little battle fatigue and no PTSD, although I did have a serious attitude adjustment and worried about the “syndrome” for many years after.

I would be honored to help you in your mission. If you send me the names of several of your fellow soldiers, I will be sure to send them more that just a geocoin for X-mas.

Thanks again for going the distance!

[seldom|seen]

I’d rather get a dozen e-mails about places you’ve looked for one of mine than no e-mails or DNF’s on the caches. It’s tells me that either the cache is there or it isn’t. I’d also rather get a ten paragraph note asking for help on a puzzle of mine, most of which aren’t all that difficult, than have cachers contact previous finders for help. I will almost always give you a substantial nudge since I think anybody who puts an hour into solving a puzzle deserves a hint or two. There are very few puzzles that I won’t help out on, so PLEASE ask me for a hint first.

As far as a baptism by fire, you just have to keep in mind that everyone has a choice to do or not to do my caches. Most choose not to and that’s fine by me, keeps the traffic to a minimum and makes the reward for those who do that much sweeter.

[seldom|seen]

@-cheeto- wrote:

@seldom|seen wrote:

Smith… and I ain’t no Jack Mormon, if I belonged to a church it wouldn’t be the Latter Day Saints, but an anagram thereof…

Artisan At Styled ?

an anagram of the acronym… you want me to spell it out for ya? Sheeeshhh.

[seldom|seen]

@zuma wrote:

Really, just practice the Golden Rule, and it should not be that much of an issue.

zuma

Short and sweet. Get to know the cacher MO and you get to know the quality of hides and how to proceed when you feel there is something worth bringing up. If you spot a problem, FIRST, see if YOU can fix it on the spot. Carry a few spare log sheets and small containers. If you can’t do anything about the issue, take a look at the owner’s profile, number of hides, number of disabled caches before you log your visit and then decide which way to go; DNF, NM or SBA.

And, for the sake of all of us, stuff a few extra baggies and logsheets in your pocket the next time you go out. There’s nothing more frustrating than a NM log on a perfectly good cache that just has a slightly damp or a full log sheet which could be remedied quicker than it takes to figure out what kind of NM log to post!

[Author]

Posts