Post by zaphod73491 on Jun 5, 2017 21:12:07 GMT -5
Based on what Pete revealed in his hour-long interview with Mike, I think he made an unfortunate miscalculation. It is a dangerous idea to have a treasure hunt puzzle book that has *both* deliberate red herrings *and* clues to more than one treasure hunt. He suggests in the interview there is a means of differentiation between the clues from different puzzles vs. clues from red herrings, but I think he underestimates the creativity and predisposition of people to make connections that Pete didn't even himself make.
He even admits that there are multiple people/groups searching the same city ... and he has no idea why! There are at least two cities that have more than a dozen "reasonable" clues for them in his book, so I fear the true-clue to red-herring-clue ratio is awfully close to unity.
He even admits that there are multiple people/groups searching the same city ... and he has no idea why! There are at least two cities that have more than a dozen "reasonable" clues for them in his book, so I fear the true-clue to red-herring-clue ratio is awfully close to unity.
?? How can someone sell a treasure hunt telling people to look for clues.... knowing that some clues are false... and other clues which are true will cause people to spend huge amounts of time and money traveling only for the treasure NOT to be there because there are 3 different hunts embedded in a book... where he never even told anyone about this craziness until months after the book was sold and people's money was spent?