Spoilers

[+DavidMac]

A few recent threads got me thinking about the taboo surrounding the great evil known as spoilers in cache logs. First, two disclaimers: 1) I've always gone out of my way to avoid posting specific information in my logs which would give away a cache location. 2) This thread is not in response to any personal incident or deleted log. It's more in response to a few forum posts and face-to-face conversations which got me thinking about the topic. My reasoning for this rambling post is that, recently, I've started wondering why we've always avoided spoilers. I came up with a few obvious reasons of my own, but I figured I'd leave this open for discussion.

 

Many times, I've heard people make statements such as, "I'll only delete logs on my caches if they contain spoilers" or "if you give too much away about the cache, the owner can delete your log". This weekend at an event, somebody mentioned that they take a picture of every cache they find. This elicited an immediate and slightly concerned response of, "Please tell me you don't post those to the cache page?!?"

 

Why such a negative reaction toward spoilers? When I bring this topic up in conversation, the usual response is something along the lines of "because it's in the guidelines." What people are referring to is usually this section, which I've heard and seen quoted numerous times as justification when deleting a spoiler log:

 

The owner will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged "finds" for the cache, and will agree to delete any "find" logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

• bogus? Fake, fraudulent, untrue. I understand this to mean a log on a cache that you didn't actually find.
   
  
• counterfeit? Not really that much different from "bogus", IMO.
   
  
• off topic? Usually this would be a spam, flame, or a log that has nothing to do with the actual cache itself. I've seen this text cited when deleting "threads" that start up on controversial cache listings. Maybe your find log rambled on for several paragraphs about how your cat was sick yesterday but had nothing to do with a cache hunt. Is a spoiler off topic? I'd argue that technically a spoiler can't be off topic, since it's about the cache.
   
  
• not within the stated requirements? What are the stated requirements beyond "sign the log", and where are these listed? With the recent ALR change, cache owners are no longer allowed to enforce specific requirements in their descriptions. So does this text conflict with the new ALR rules? Is it now outdated or redundant?
  

How is putting the text "do not post any spoilers in your log" into your cache description different from any other ALR? What specifically gives cache owners the right to enforce such a request versus any other logging requirement? I don't see where the guidelines imply that cache owners can delete logs containing spoilers. In fact, nowhere in the guidelines does the word "spoiler" even appear.

 

There are two other pieces of evidence to support the posting of spoilers. One is the "permanently encrypt" option that cache owners have. I've used it several times on overly descriptive logs posted to my caches. Second, on every single cache page, you will find this text just above the logs:

 

Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

 

The word "may" in this sentence could have two meanings. The first, which is more likely given the fact that the sentence is preceded by the "Warning", is that the text is meant to serve as a reminder that somebody reading the logs may learn something about the cache that the owner didn't intend. However, could this disclaimer not also be interpreted to mean, "when you log this cache, you may include spoilers in your descriptions or links"?

 

So, I wonder, what would it be like if we just let the spoilers fly in our logs and understood that reading a find log puts you at risk of spoiling the hunt? What if we left it up to cache owners to encrypt logs that they feel give away too much information, then let potential finders decrypt them at their own risk? Could there be any benefit to somebody at risk of walking away with a DNF who just wants an extra hint or two and would this outweigh any negative effects of spoiler-saturated logs? What do you think the game would be like today without the negative stigma associated with spoilers?

[+mcrow]

I think there are two big things you are missing:

 

#1- the enjoyment of the cache for all cachers.

#2- The enjoyment of the cache for the owner.

 

Most cachers I know don't want spoilers because they want to experience each cache from a "heres the waypoint, go find it" point of view without knowing more than that going into it. For many people the hunt is the part that is the most fun and what people consider spoiling the hunt varies quite a bit. So, IMO, it's best not to allow any spoilers that people would think may spoil the fun for a perspective cacher. No, not everyone cares but I would rather there be no spoilers than ruin the fun for even one cacher.

 

Also as a cache owner part of the fun of owning a cache is trying to trick cachers and to challenge them. If someone goes and posts a dead give away about your cache that spoils the fun for both the cacher and the owner then I think that does nobody any good. .

 

I guess that's my stand on it.

Edited May 11, 2009 by mcrow

[GOF and Bacall]

As a cache seeker I'd just as soon you keep your spoiler to yourself. No fun in it if I know every twist and turn along the way. In other word don't spoil the adventure.

 

As a cache hider I want to give each and every person that seeks my cache the best possible experience. If I let a finder post a spoiler that may take some of the fun out of it for the next person to look for it.

[knowschad]

They are called "Spoilers" because the spoil the fun.

[+BlueDeuce]

...nevermind.

Edited May 11, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[knowschad]

 

Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

 

The word "may" in this sentence could have two meanings.

 

I asked afriend from France once why her hides all had spoiler pictures that she herself had uploaded, complete with red arrows and circles pointing to the cache. Her answer was that in France, many cachers didn't have GPS units, but still enjoyed the challenge of the hunt. She said that such spoilers were common in her area for just that reason. That is one good reason for the "Spoilers may be included" warning.

Edited May 11, 2009 by knowschad

[Clan Riffster]

What if we left it up to cache owners to encrypt logs that they feel give away too much information, then let potential finders decrypt them at their own risk?

I am a cache owner. Folks post logs on my caches. Sometimes these have spoilers. As a cache owner I have a choice to make. Delete the log, decrypt the log, ignore the log or ask for it to be altered. For my clarification, are you suggesting we remove one of those options? Do away with our ability to remove spoilers? It brings to mind a particularly nasty urban micro which, over multiple trips, I spent a total of 15 hours hunting for. Had the past logs contained blatant spoilers, my total hunt time would've been closer to 15 minutes. I think I would've lost the tremendous feeling of satisfaction I gained from the find, rendering it just another park & grab. This would've significantly devalued the cache, in my opinion.

[CoyoteRed]

What do you think the game would be like today without the negative stigma associated with spoilers?

I think there would be a lot fewer difficult to find caches. Why bother if the first person to find it drops a 5 to 1 in difficulty?

 

The cache owner is the person who sets the difficulty of the hunt. They are the ones who write the description and have a say on what is presented to the seeker. This site recognizes that a cache owner can't be on top of every single log and therefore warns us that there might be more information in a log than what the cache owner might have wanted us to know. There are fundamental flaws in the system to fully realize a spoiler-free cache page.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Why such a negative reaction toward spoilers?...

 

Because they spoil the intended experience. Simple as that.

 

If everthing caching was could be summed up as "the box". That's caching in a world with spoilers. If caching should also be about the experience as much as the box, that's caching in a spoiler free world.

[+DavidMac]

For my clarification, are you suggesting we remove one of those options? Do away with our ability to remove spoilers?

 

Not at all. Personally I do believe that cache owners should have the right to delete blatant spoilers. My question was what gives us the right to do so. It's not written on paper, but I'll argue that it's only because of the status quo... I imagine that anybody complaining that "a cache owner deleted my spoiler log!" would find that an overwhelming majority would support the cache owner's decision.

[Skippermark]

So many finds are made easier by spoiler logs that you may not want to see.

 

You might want to check the logs to see if someone said the coords were way off or something because you're having no luck where your GPS zeroes out the 3rd log you read says, "Great hide. Have never seen a fake rock like that..." Well duhhh. Now it's spoiled.

[+Frank Broughton]

So many finds are made easier by spoiler logs that you may not want to see.

 

You might want to check the logs to see if someone said the coords were way off or something because you're having no luck where your GPS zeroes out the 3rd log you read says, "Great hide. Have never seen a fake rock like that..." Well duhhh. Now it's spoiled.

 

A fake rock deserves to be spoiled...

[+bflentje]

...Why such a negative reaction toward spoilers?...

 

Because they spoil the intended experience. Simple as that.

 

If everthing caching was could be summed up as "the box". That's caching in a world with spoilers. If caching should also be about the experience as much as the box, that's caching in a spoiler free world.

 

Spoilers are also just plain disrespectful. No ifs, ands, or buts. Unless you're in France that is.

[knowschad]

So many finds are made easier by spoiler logs that you may not want to see.

 

You might want to check the logs to see if someone said the coords were way off or something because you're having no luck where your GPS zeroes out the 3rd log you read says, "Great hide. Have never seen a fake rock like that..." Well duhhh. Now it's spoiled.

 

A fake rock deserves to be spoiled...

 

You haven't seen my fake rocks, have you? No geocaching logo embossed on these guys!

[AZcachemeister]

What if we left it up to cache owners to encrypt logs that they feel give away too much information, then let potential finders decrypt them at their own risk?

I am a cache owner. Folks post logs on my caches. Sometimes these have spoilers. As a cache owner I have a choice to make. Delete the log, decrypt the log, ignore the log or ask for it to be altered. For my clarification, are you suggesting we remove one of those options? Do away with our ability to remove spoilers? It brings to mind a particularly nasty urban micro which, over multiple trips, I spent a total of 15 hours hunting for. Had the past logs contained blatant spoilers, my total hunt time would've been closer to 15 minutes. I think I would've lost the tremendous feeling of satisfaction I gained from the find, rendering it just another park & grab. This would've significantly devalued the cache, in my opinion.

 

Not a jab at Clan Riffster in particular, but the above post exemplifies my point.

 

ONLY if you chose to read the logs or view the photos.

Don't blame others for your OWN lack of self control.

IF you approach each cache (no matter how many logs may have been posted) as if you are the first to attempt the find, your satisfaction will be the same as if you were the First to Find.

 

OTOH, if you are Team ALAMOWGLI and you need to be in and out in three minutes or less...

[+Starglider]

Why such a negative reaction toward spoilers?

As the word indicates spoilers spoil the fun for both the cache owner and most of the people searching the cache.

It is part of the experience to be surprised or to get over some difficulties while hunting a cache. The cache owner has put thought in what information he gives away in the cache listing in order to create a certain caching experience (if it is a cache worth mentioning). Spoilers change that experience for everybody who happens to read them.

 

Example:

"I was surprised when I found this cave and the very cool skull decoration at the final location. And boy that sound that came out the box when I openend it scared the sh*** out of me. I hope you guys will have as much fun as I had when I went for this cache " (Fotos of the cave attached)

 

Btw. I have never heard anybody referring to the geocaching guidelines when talking about spoilers and why they should be avoided.

Warning. Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

However, could this disclaimer not also be interpreted to mean, "when you log this cache, you may include spoilers in your descriptions or links"?

I interpret that as "there may be logs containing spoilers that have not yet been deleted" since the cache owner can't see the logs before they are published.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Starglider

[+kraushad]

For me, I will sometimes use the previous logs to help me locate a cache through inferences I can draw, before I go to the hint (if I need it).

 

I would hate to read the answer to the problem before I am ready to give up. I guess if everyone who was planning to post a spoiler did so with the words "SPOILER:" in front of it, I could at least live with that and skip over their post.

 

I haven't placed a cache yet, but when/if I do, I wouldn't want the spoiler out there to ruin the hard work that I went to in camo or placement.

 

Overall, I would vote against spoilers in the logs.