Can Groundspeak help us against Spoiling?

[+Veendammer]

Hello,

 

Just want to bring this topic under your attention.

 

Please support and vote for this.

 

Visit this link for more information.

 

Thank you

[+DanOCan]

I went over and read the first few pages of comments on the feedback site. (I really don't go there often.)

 

I don't see a huge issue with spoilers. There are clearly written disclaimers on the cache page warning people that spoilers may appear in the logs of a cache. Anyone reading the logs or viewing the gallery knows they may have the cache spoiled for them.

 

As for external sites, if people are searching video sites or caching spoiler sites they clearly WANT to find the spoilers. For them the finding of the csche is the fun, not the journey.

 

I ask myself this: As a cache owner, do I care how someone gets the coordinates for my puzzle cache? Do I care how they uncovered my tricky hide? I place caches so others can enjoy finding them, and if they are OK with shortcuts and spoilers then let them find the cache that way. It doesn't take away the fun from the people who want to go out and find the cache using the harder way.

 

If I place a cache on a mountain top, do I care if someone hikes it or if someone rents a helicopter? Nope, they both found the cache in the way that brings them the most enjoyment. I'm OK with that as long as they replace the cache as found.

 

If people are spoiling caches for people who don't want the cache spoiled, THEN I have a problem. However, as I said above, cache information placed on external websites isn't something you are likely to stumble over by accident -- you need to be looking for it. Heck, even if someone put a link in the log on a cache page saying "Spoiler video here" doesn't mean I have to click on it.

[knowschad]

There is no way for Groundspeak to control what content somebody places on another website. Even if they could, that same information could be (and always has been) passed along through a telephone network. Sorry... its a shame if that it is happening a lot in your area, but I really don't think there is anything that can be done outside of a "social engineering*" approach.

 

(* giving those that do it the cold shoulder at events )

[+Trucker Lee]

For Groundspeak to assist with spoilers, someone has to review each log and determine whether it qualifies. A cache owner can get an email of each log, and better knows the hide. Groundspeak has done their part by giving cache owners a way to delete logs that spoil the fun.

 

Of course, some spoilers may be placed unknowingly. Email the finder first and ask them to rewrite as a courtesy.

[+bflentje]

Not getting my vote. There is absolutely NO WAY to control spoiling, outside of deleting logs and pictures, on geocaching.com. This effort someone has started over on the feature request site IS, THE, BIGGEST, waste of time I've seen yet. MUCH bigger waste of time than souveniers or stats.

Edited March 18, 2011 by bflentje

[+kunarion]

Posting spoilers for other people's caches is cheesy, and GS takes a very hands-off approach to it (even in the Forums, where a CO can't delete a spoiler directly).

 

I also don't like the vague posts about a "really cool container and hide" on the other side of the planet, for a cache that I'll never visit. But I assume it must be quite wonderful.

[+t4e]

while i don't like that they post spoilers, there's no way GC can control the internet

 

your suggestions are virtually impossible to impose, Copyright agencies can hardly keep under control what people share on the internet and you want to control spreading information on a cache?...good luck with that lol

 

this one seems the most outrageous to me, what exactly would the process be and how would the "authority" in charge go about removing the contents?

 

- To provide the CO's with meaningful steps and actions to take when these requirements are not met.

 

to me the solution is simple, don't want to see the spoilers don't search the internet

Edited March 18, 2011 by t4e

[+niraD]

So what should the owners of "Citizen Kane" have been able to do about Julie Brown's "The Homecoming Queen's Got a Gun"?

[Mr.Yuck]

while i don't like that they post spoilers, there's no way GC can control the internet

 

your suggestions are virtually impossible to impose, Copyright agencies can hardly keep under control what people share on the internet and you want to control spreading information on a cache?...good luck with that lol

 

this one seems the most outrageous to me, what exactly would the process be and how would the "authority" in charge go about removing the contents?

 

- To provide the CO's with meaningful steps and actions to take when these requirements are not met.

 

to me the solution is simple, don't want to see the spoilers don't search the internet

 

Posting spoilers for other people's caches is cheesy, and GS takes a very hands-off approach to it (even in the Forums, where a CO can't delete a spoiler directly).

 

Tap, tap. Hello, is this thing on? I know someone who got a 2 month ban from the website (or what we would call a locked account today) for creating a Facebook puzzle solution group, and posting puzzle cache solutions on it.

 

If you think I'm saying who or where though, I'm not.

[Mr.Yuck]

Rescuing from slipping off the 1st page. What, I'm a thread killer just because I said I know TPTB banned someone for posting puzzle solutions to facebook? I was kind of a smart aleck, but my point was don't assume TPTB have a "we can't do anything, it's the internet" policy, because in my experience, they most surely don't.

 

So discuss here, and vote on the feedback topic, please. Unless it slips off the 1st page again, then I'll really, really know I'm a thread killa.

[+Markwell]

[+Walts Hunting]

Maybe it will slip off the first page because nobody cares. I wish they allowed us negative votes because I would throw 3 negatives there. We can't control everything. Just enjoy your part of the hobby and let the rest go. There's an old saying.

 

Have the Courage to change what you can,

the serenity to accept what you can't

and the wisdom to know the difference.

[cezanne]

 

to me the solution is simple, don't want to see the spoilers don't search the internet

 

What you suggest is however no solution for the hiders of involved mystery and multi caches. Moreover, the standard way to find some preliminary information for some caches is to use the internet in order to get an idea what other sources might be helpful. That of course is not true for some creative puzzles which are not based on some type of knowledge, but these form only a subgroup among the set of ?-caches.

 

I do not care that much if a few cachers get the coordinates from someone else, but would be very unhappy with a system for getting the coordinates of the more involved caches in my area, in particular my own. I am not investing many hours/days into a cache in order to then get many logs of those who regard the caches just as the containers at the end (i.e. the part of my caches into which I do invest the least amount of work - the attractive and interesting places are visited before the container).

 

I agree that Groundspeak cannot control everything. They can have a policy on the topic however and they might ban someone for some time when this cacher sets up a site on the internet that systematically spoils caches (exactly that has happened in the Netherlands).

 

Many like to stress the fun part of geocaching, but note that actions like the one in the Netherlands do ruin the fun of many cachers. If my ?-caches were handled that way, I would instantly archive them as I would lose all the positive feelings I associate with my caches and only negative ones would remain. The same applies to longer multi caches. I would end extremely frustrated and even furious if invested several days to come up with a 100km hiking multi cache and then many cachers just visit the final and log "thanks for the fast after work cache".

 

Cezanne

[+DanOCan]

What you suggest is however no solution for the hiders of involved mystery and multi caches.

 

I think no one is offering solutions for the hiders because there really isn't a problem there to solve.

 

Each hider gets to choose how he/she reacts to someone finding the cache. You choose to somehow feel slighted if they don't find it in the exact method you wanted them to use. I choose to say they found it in a manner which was enjoyable for them, even if it wasn't what I had in mind. Nothing no one can do can provide a solution for how people choose to react to something.

 

When someone contacts me about a puzzle of mine, I ask them how much help they want -- either an obscure hint, a gentle nudge, a step-by-step walkthroughm, right up to giving them the answer. The caches I place are there for others to enjoy, not for me.

 

We're different in that way and I can respect that.

[cezanne]

What you suggest is however no solution for the hiders of involved mystery and multi caches.

 

I think no one is offering solutions for the hiders because there really isn't a problem there to solve.

 

Actually the Dutch cachers who started off the feedback topic or support it by voting for it are mainly concerned about the hiders

of caches and their frustration which brings many nice caches to the archive.

 

Each hider gets to choose how he/she reacts to someone finding the cache. You choose to somehow feel slighted if they don't find it in the exact method you wanted them to use.

 

No, that's not true. I do not have any problem with a group of cachers visiting one of my cachers where only among has solved the puzzle part. I also do not have any problem at all with those who ask someone for help. I am offering help to any prospective visitor of my caches if I am asked for it.

 

What I do not like are systematic attempts to destroy involved caches by building up organized spoiler sites/datebases available to the large public.

 

 

I choose to say they found it in a manner which was enjoyable for them, even if it wasn't what I had in mind. Nothing no one can do can provide a solution for how people choose to react to something.

 

Certainly not, but some of the archival reactions can be avoided if the set up of such spoiler sites is frowned upon by Groundspeak and the majority of cachers instead of writing that they do not care.

 

When someone contacts me about a puzzle of mine, I ask them how much help they want -- either an obscure hint, a gentle nudge, a step-by-step walkthroughm, right up to giving them the answer. The caches I place are there for others to enjoy, not for me.

 

I do this in the same way as you. What I would not do, however, is giving them the coordinates of the final stage of a cache with several stages if they have not even tried to deal with one of the stages. I even encourage my fellow cachers to contact me in case they run into any difficulty with my caches before they get frustrated as the idea behind my caches is not to created frustrations, but to show interesting places and to obtain some learning lessons to the visitors (a bit in the style of the Earthcaches, but not implemented in that way and with the focus on other topics). What I meant was something different than what you apparently understood. I guess that one needs to know at least one of my caches to understand what I am trying to explain. Take e.g. this cache of mine

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=65741a97-b59e-4e58-8292-3f918bc61774

 

If someone needed help to find the first stage or some intermediary answers, but has visited the stages and has dealt with the topic, that's fine and as good for me as if someone did not need any help. What does not make sense in the case of my caches is just visiting the final container. As I do want to avoid finds by chance, I select hideouts that are not directly at the locations which are interesting to visit. Moreover, I do not put any value into the container and the log book. So what remains if someone is only visiting the final location, in particular in case of my urban caches is something which I regard as very lame cache and it is hence not at all in my interest that there exist organized systems turning my cache into such a cache.

 

If from time to time I have a visitor who cheats and gets the final coordinates of one of my caches, that's not a real problem for me. It starts to turn into a source of frustration in case a systematic attempt to harm involved caches is taking place. Of course I am still free to choose the way of my reaction. My point is just that in such a case I would not enjoy my own cache any longer and thus would archive it. It is as simple as that. Those who suffer are then those who would have liked to visit my cache and are playing with fair means.

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

What you suggest is however no solution for the hiders of involved mystery and multi caches.

 

I think no one is offering solutions for the hiders because there really isn't a problem there to solve.

 

Actually the Dutch cachers who started off the feedback topic or support it by voting for it are mainly concerned about the hiders

of caches and their frustration which brings many nice caches to the archive.

 

I just don't have much sympathy for the hiders, and I have hidden a few tough puzzles.

 

I do hope spoilers are not so obvious that a finder who wants to solve the puzzle themselves has the answer shoved in their face. I put out puzzles because I know there are many cachers who enjoy working puzzles and they like being able to combine their enjoyment of puzzles with the enjoyment of finding a cache. I am also aware that many cachers don't like puzzles at all. Their choice is either to ignore puzzles they can't solve or get some help. Ultimately that may be to find the answer on a "cheat" site. This is fine with me. They enjoyed finding the cache and for that they get a smiley. The cachers who enjoy puzzles will have the satisfaction that they worked out the puzzle and, IMO, that is worth more than the smiley.

[cezanne]

I just don't have much sympathy for the hiders, and I have hidden a few tough puzzles.

 

...........

 

I put out puzzles because I know there are many cachers who enjoy working puzzles and they like being able to combine their enjoyment of puzzles with the enjoyment of finding a cache.

 

 

I took a quick look at your profile. Your puzzle caches appear to be of an entirely different type than mine are. That easily explains to a good part

our different opinion. My mystery caches are mainly put out to prepare the cachers for the stages they are going to visit during the field work and

to get them involved in the topic of the cache. That's very different than e.g. putting out some crypto cache for those who enjoy deciphering a code where the

cache container is hidden at a place with no connection to the code to be deciphered.

 

I do hope spoilers are not so obvious that a finder who wants to solve the puzzle themselves has the answer shoved in their face.

 

Some of the spoilers the Dutch are angry about are very obvious and are easily found by chance.

 

The cachers who enjoy puzzles will have the satisfaction that they worked out the puzzle and, IMO, that is worth more than the smiley.

 

I agree. My ?-caches are however not all about enjoying to solve puzzles. While I still would agree that a modified version of your

statement is true also for my caches (having learnt something is worth more than the smiley), it still makes a difference for me as a hider of

a cache how the majority of the visitors are attacking it. I on purpose put out caches that are not intended as cheap caches for the big masses.

If the big masses start to visit them, I lose all my enjoyment and lose the motivation to maintain the caches. That's my point - whether

or not you sympathize with me or anyone who has a similar attitude.

 

Cezanne

[+Team Dromomania]

I freely give hints to all my caches and I don't mind that others give hints. Everybody plays differently. What is the difference if somebody should go to a spoiler site for the info or just tag along with another cacher who has done all the work to make a FIND claim? This should be a fun activity and who am I to tell others how to play the game? If they get their name on my log sheet then it is a find - no questions asked (or even necessary).

[+Chokecherry]

I enjoy a good hint and occasional spoiler in a log or picture on the cache page. I only really delve into either if I'm stumped on a cache and need a push in the right direction. Great if it's nicely disguised hint.

 

There's some caches that have just become not fun for me due to owners purposely doing soft coordinates (learned after asking around), or making things overly difficult. I do this to have fun and fun for me is not adding stress to my life. If there was a website with spoilers around here I would probably use it for the handful of caches that are just not that fun for me anymore just to get them done and off my list. If I don't enjoy the caches I tend to avoid caches made by the same owner if at all possible regardless of if they are a different difficulty or whatever.

 

I don't do a lot of puzzle caches though (just not something that interests me a lot). Usually if I can't solve a puzzle I call it good and just move forth and ignore the cache and likely other puzzle caches by the same owner.

[cezanne]

This should be a fun activity and who am I to tell others how to play the game? If they get their name on my log sheet then it is a find - no questions asked (or even necessary).

 

Certainly this is a find. I would never delete a found it log of that type. Note, however, that if all the fun is destroyed for a hider of a cache, then it is an understandable reaction to archive a cache which became victim of a spoiler attack. Fun ist something quite subjective and is defined differently by different people.

In my opinion, telling those hiders who feel annoyed by spoiler attacks that they should not care is exactly telling others how to play the game.

 

Cezanne

[+t4e]

 

Tap, tap. Hello, is this thing on? I know someone who got a 2 month ban from the website (or what we would call a locked account today) for creating a Facebook puzzle solution group, and posting puzzle cache solutions on it.

 

If you think I'm saying who or where though, I'm not.

 

allow me to doubt that, GC can't possibly control what i am posting on the internet, there has to be more to the story, and the ban came for something else

 

i want to see the TOU or Rules that say i will be banned for posting puzzle solutions on the internet

i will take a wild guess and say it was somehow a copyright issue

 

 

anyway, lets face it, after a puzzle has been solved by a couple of people the solution will be shared regardless of where and how

Edited March 21, 2011 by t4e

[+Veendammer]

Bryan from Groundspeak had replied the following:

 

Bryan

Thanks for the additional comments. As far as a clear statement of rules against spoiling, how do you feel about an addition to the Terms Of Use Agreement (http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx), stating "By using the services of geocaching.com, you agree not to publish the solutions, hints or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner."

 

Source: http://bit.ly/g6H87R

[+t4e]

Bryan from Groundspeak had replied the following:

 

Bryan

Thanks for the additional comments. As far as a clear statement of rules against spoiling, how do you feel about an addition to the Terms Of Use Agreement (http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx), stating "By using the services of geocaching.com, you agree not to publish the solutions, hints or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner."

 

Source: http://bit.ly/g6H87R

 

fine idea, add it to the TOU, the point remains the one Bryan originally made....how do you plan on enforcing it?

 

so far i see a lot of people complaining and demanding GC does something but not one person has suggested a viable way of how to go about it

 

Status: under review

 

We can certainly take steps to educate people on why spoiling is bad, but we are unclear on what steps can be taken to enforce the anti-spoiling rules. We agree that spoiling is bad on a number of levels. However, when it is done anonymously, enforcement becomes extremely difficult. Please feel free to suggest options for enforcement and we will consider them.

5bba8e32-febf-4c00-8a63-0b9b91a71b8a

Bryan Admin