Jump to content

Youtube geocaching videos


Sven.

Recommended Posts

I have read the thread thus far and have a real problem with the way this was handled. The act of spoiling a cache can't be the central issue, can it?

 

ac370fbe-5ae5-49e1-b16b-cb185b2805a1.jpg

 

After all the twists and turns regarding the TOU, I wonder if this would be a violation since it is actually using the tools of the GS website.

 

I can understand that a cacher might not want their cache featured on the channel, but that is a private issue and should be settled between them. I feel that perhaps we aren't really being clear on what we want from Sven&Cup. As mentioned, there are a ton of actual spoilers (posted outside of GC.com) that clearly post GC codes and locations, where they do not. It is also clear that even on Groundspeak's own website there are an abundance of spoilers available to those that want to find them (the CCC thread and the above condition from the pic which exists on every cache page). Perhaps it was just a firm spanking for the sake of defiance. That won't engender me to a warm fuzzy feeling anytime soon.

All that means is that spoilers may have been posted before the cache owner has had a chance to see them and deal with them. It in no way implies that spoilers SHOULD be posted.

Link to comment
that is a private issue and should be settled between them.

The problem is people who think it's fine to show the whole world where my Geocache is, and then when I balk, "settle it in private" by then telling me "GS says Spoilers happen!"

 

What am I supposed to do in that situation, as a CO who's cache was spoiled for profit by someone who has no integrity (supported by others just like him)? I'll have to at least simply kow to his awesome spoiling ability, and give "permission" after the fact. And wait for the cache to eventually be stolen. A nice cache that would have been in the game for years if some people could just keep their mouth shut.

 

Can someone please go to the "Why are my caches being muggled?" threads and explain to them how great this whole idea is?

 

I think you are getting a little ahead of yourself. If someone wants to ruin a cache they will make an account and find some caches to ruin. As a CO you are disposing yourself to the possibility that things can and will go wrong with your cache. I don't look up harry potter spoilers on youtube because I don't care about it. I feel that the majority of people looking at geocaching videos are cachers themselves and not sinister in their efforts. Besides the fact that we want people to see our caches and find them. Don't you like when someone shows appreciation for your work? This is really a level of flattery and in all likelihood it would only bring more praise to your cache. I just think it is a weak argument to bring in peoples motivations, either they will look to enjoy your cache and get a smiley or they will look to destroy them. How they do it is irrelevant, it will happen regardless.

Link to comment

I have read the thread thus far and have a real problem with the way this was handled. The act of spoiling a cache can't be the central issue, can it?

 

ac370fbe-5ae5-49e1-b16b-cb185b2805a1.jpg

 

After all the twists and turns regarding the TOU, I wonder if this would be a violation since it is actually using the tools of the GS website.

 

I can understand that a cacher might not want their cache featured on the channel, but that is a private issue and should be settled between them. I feel that perhaps we aren't really being clear on what we want from Sven&Cup. As mentioned, there are a ton of actual spoilers (posted outside of GC.com) that clearly post GC codes and locations, where they do not. It is also clear that even on Groundspeak's own website there are an abundance of spoilers available to those that want to find them (the CCC thread and the above condition from the pic which exists on every cache page). Perhaps it was just a firm spanking for the sake of defiance. That won't engender me to a warm fuzzy feeling anytime soon.

All that means is that spoilers may have been posted before the cache owner has had a chance to see them and deal with them. It in no way implies that spoilers SHOULD be posted.

 

In theory, but you and I both know that this happens and is one of the tools that people use when searching for a tough cache. I can't remember how many times I have checked old logs for some kind of spoiler clue that has helped me find the cache.

Link to comment

You are correct, permission should be requested, in an ideal world, but if it isn't it's not the end of the world, unless its posted on something directly linked to the site. As I said if hadn't been for all this 'hoo ha' I would have had no idea such you tube videos existed, unless I was looking for spoilers!

 

I think, I may be wrong, that sven had said he would remove the video that was objected to by a CO, all be it after a bit of to-ing and fro-ing, but was told no to bother.

Link to comment

I am the cache owner of Wilford Willow http://coord.info/GC34WPX.

 

I find it an honour that Sven and Cup deem my cache good enough to feature it in one of their videos. Just for the record I hereby publicly give Sven & Cup permission to feature my caches in their videos. I do not believe that the videos break any geocaching.com or Groundspeak rules. However I do believe it is common courtesy to remove any videos where the CO has requested that they do so.

 

However I think the 1 month ban applied to Sven & Cup unnecessary and is just a big brother bully tactic.

 

I appreciate the geocache spoiler videos. I have used them as inspiration. If you don't want to spoil the hunt for caches dont watch them. Come on Groundspeak you are doing yourselves no favours by getting out the banning big stick in this instance. I know you wont rescind the ban as you would lose face to do so. But be very careful before you decide to extend the ban or take any further action. If I were Sven or Cup and you did I would be instructing my solicitor to sue you.

 

Just my humble opinion.

Link to comment
All you need is "one who objected" to know it was not true.

How's that? The "one who objected" could've have given permission and later changed her mind. Are we now saying before you publish a spoiler of someone else cache you need to get a signed and notarized document stating permission? It sure seems that for something like sharing your geocaching experiences with others that would be going a bit overboard. If you discuss it with the owner and in good faith feel that you have consent that should be enough. I took it that after the initial objection, Sven and the cache owner came to some agreement. Apparently Groundspeak did not see it that way.

 

But in this case there is the issue of what constitutes a spoiler in the first place. Sven has many videos showing clever hides. In the one I have looked at, he doesn't identify the cache by name or GC code. True that some people in his local area might recognize the location of some cache they had DNF'd before and can now find using the spoiler. Of course, any cache who lives near Sven who doesn't want to see a spoiler would know no to watch his videos. Some cache owner's sense of entitlement to not have this hide spoiled for some finders has resulted in rules that spoil the fun of sharing cool geocaching experiences for a far greater number of players for whom the video was in no way a spoiler but was instead just a way to share cool geocaching experiences. The particular video that was objected was even less a spoiler. The cache was hidden in an abandoned fallout shelter. On the cache page the owner says it's OK to post picture, just not to give away where the cache was hidden. In the video, Sven did not show the cache or its hiding place. He simply posted a video of himself going into the fallout shelter. Yet this sparked the clash that has resulted in his being banned. One cannot even assume that a cache owner indicating what "spoilers" he will allow in the logs on the cache page gives consent for what you put in your blog or on your Facebook page. The problem with section 4(m) is that it silences almost all sharing by putting a undo burden to prove consent.

Link to comment

It's already been pointed out that people may post spoilers as each cache description has the following on it:

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

Either they are allowed, or they are not. You can't have it both ways.

 

Svens Youtube channel does state that if you are from the East Midlands do not view his videos, as they may spoil local caches. He also doesn't give locations, GC codes or any other indication of where the caches are.

 

I watched a few of the videos last night and enjoyed watching them. Very informative and inspirational- they spoiled nothing for me.

 

On a different note, how long is he suspended for? Can he still log on and maintain his caches? Will he want to or will he take them elsewhere?

Link to comment

He is banned for 1 month. No he cannot log on to maintain his own caches. He had already downloaded around 500 geocaches. So he can continue geocaching during his ban. The only losers are us as his caches are not being maintained.

 

Nothing to stop him creating a new user id anyway to carry on caching and then log them all when his ban is lifted. Maybe he already has another user id. I know I would. Clearly he could take his caches elsewhere. Doubt Groundspeak would miss him. However we as cachers would be the losers. 35mm film cannisters at the base of trees are ten a penny. There are not many cache creators that are as innovative and diversified as Sven. Perhaps he needs to tread carefully but so do Groundspeak.

Edited by Spire67
Link to comment
All you need is "one who objected" to know it was not true.

How's that? The "one who objected" could've have given permission and later changed her mind. Are we now saying before you publish a spoiler of someone else cache you need to get a signed and notarized document stating permission? It sure seems that for something like sharing your geocaching experiences with others that would be going a bit overboard. If you discuss it with the owner and in good faith feel that you have consent that should be enough. I took it that after the initial objection, Sven and the cache owner came to some agreement. Apparently Groundspeak did not see it that way.

 

But in this case there is the issue of what constitutes a spoiler in the first place. Sven has many videos showing clever hides. In the one I have looked at, he doesn't identify the cache by name or GC code. True that some people in his local area might recognize the location of some cache they had DNF'd before and can now find using the spoiler. Of course, any cache who lives near Sven who doesn't want to see a spoiler would know no to watch his videos. Some cache owner's sense of entitlement to not have this hide spoiled for some finders has resulted in rules that spoil the fun of sharing cool geocaching experiences for a far greater number of players for whom the video was in no way a spoiler but was instead just a way to share cool geocaching experiences. The particular video that was objected was even less a spoiler. The cache was hidden in an abandoned fallout shelter. On the cache page the owner says it's OK to post picture, just not to give away where the cache was hidden. In the video, Sven did not show the cache or its hiding place. He simply posted a video of himself going into the fallout shelter. Yet this sparked the clash that has resulted in his being banned. One cannot even assume that a cache owner indicating what "spoilers" he will allow in the logs on the cache page gives consent for what you put in your blog or on your Facebook page. The problem with section 4(m) is that it silences almost all sharing by putting a undo burden to prove consent.

Nice to see that some people look at the evidence for themselves and take care to understand it before offering opinions. :) Note that many (most?) of Sven's videos are of his own caches.

 

Personally, I've found several of Sven's caches AND I've watched many of his videos AND I've used a spoiler from them AND I've followed this story from the start. The story can be summarised in two phrases; "storm in a teacup" and "sledgehammer to crack a nut". People should bear in mind that this is only a fun game (for most participants at least), and criticism about posting photos and videos should bear this in mind so as not to lose a sense of proportion. I don't know Sven personally although I've been in correspondence with him about his problems with Groundspeak.

 

On the general point of publishing spoilers on third party sites; for a start, Youtube isn't a "spoiler site" as termed by Keystone in this thread. It's a video-sharing site, and it's not uncommon for people to illustrate their hobbies and games with videos; thus giving away a few tricks of the trade and secrets of success. Normally there's a bit of warning in case you don't want to see. In rock climbing there may be something like "Beta Warning!", as climbers cannot claim an on-sight ascent of a route if they've seen a video of someone climbing it. In geocaching, it might be "Potential Spoiler Alert!". Or perhaps one could call the Youtube channel "Geocachespoilers" to make it really clear. Don't want to take a chance of seeing a spoiler? Don't watch a "Geocachespoilers" video.

 

So I think that there is sufficient warning in this case. No problem, particularly as Groundspeak encourage this very activity; see Geocaching Vlogs and Online Videos – The New Horizon of Caching Media, an article which I believe originally even boasted a link to Sven's Youtube channel! And of course, there is the very popular and inspirational Pictures - Cool Cache Containers (CCC's) thread on this very forum, which as far as I know is very much approved of by the moderators, despite not featuring a "spoilers" warning.

 

So why are Sven's videos such a bone of contention? A UK reviewer says that it's not about the videos and that we know little about what's behind the ban. "Tip of the iceberg" is what we can see but the rest is private. Yet Sven maintains that all the facts are available for us to see and that he's hiding nothing. He's not aware of any complaints apart from the withdrawn complaint mentioned by tozainamboku*. Groundspeak refuse to allow their own correspondence to be quoted even though Sven is willing to publish everything that has been said, including his own rash remarks. Yes, Sven has had arguments with reviewers; but significantly, these seem to have taken place AFTER warnings about the Youtube videos and appear to consist of his cache submissions being inspected under a microscope and refused even after he has made all suggested changes.

 

Of course, I may not know about everything that has taken place, but I can't see any reason for a ban and I can't see why Groundspeak shouldn't make public the real reason. When you see one side happy to reveal all details about the case and answer any questions and the other side claiming "privacy" and being evasive, you come to your own conclusions quite quickly.

 

Why am I interested? Firstly, I don't want to lose 30 or so of the best caches in the region, and potentially several more. Secondly, I want to know how far we're allowed to go in publishing geocaching videos on Youtube before the Groundspeak detectives sniff us out and start wielding the truncheon. Thirdly, I like to see fair play and openness and I don't think we're seeing a good example of that here.

 

*edit: and, I am told, a couple of other unspecified complaints; although as there is no link between the GS web site and the Youtube account I'm not sure why this would make any difference

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

So I think that there is sufficient warning in this case. No problem, particularly as Groundspeak encourage this very activity; see Geocaching Vlogs and Online Videos – The New Horizon of Caching Media, an article which I believe originally even boasted a link to Sven's Youtube channel! And of course, there is the very popular and inspirational Pictures - Cool Cache Containers (CCC's) thread on this very forum, which as far as I know is very much approved of by the moderators, despite not featuring a "spoilers" warning.

 

Good point but Mod Approval ≠ GS Approval. I could be wrong, though i'm pretty sure that GS doesn't really monitor the Forum.

Link to comment

And then there is the first amendment.

I don't think the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says what you think it does:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As far as I can tell, no U.S. government at any level (federal, state, or local) is involved in this matter. Many other people seem to have a similar misunderstanding.

Link to comment

There is a petition in support of the videos (I won't call them spoilers because we are no longer sure of the definition now that Groundspeak has widened it). It's not been instigated by me, but I do support it.

 

I would urge anyone who thinks that the videos are a bad thing, to recall viewing the videos and consider whether any of their cache finds has actually been "spoilt" by these particular videos and whether they can see that a cache they're planning to do is likely to be spoilt. You could even imagine being someone who caches in the East Midlands of England and decide whether you'd then have a problem with the videos should you be aiming to tackle a few of the 5000+ caches in the area.

Or perhaps you never even came across them until you read this thread. Or perhaps you'll be livid one day, when you're approaching a really cleverly-hidden cache but you remember the scene from when you had a few days closely studying caching videos; and you end up finding the cache in a few minutes. I'd feel just SO angry and let down that I'd been forced to study the spoiler and it had ruined my day! :mad::D

 

Or perhaps it's one of my caches that has been spoilt, so now I end up with one or two extra finds which previously wouldn't have happened. Because a handful of people have worked out which cache it might be and go out of their way to get an easy find of a hard cache. I'm sure I'd be livid about that too (not)!

Link to comment

In my line of work I am often acting as the intemediary between two parties who have VERY different ideas of how things should be done. We do need rules/guidelines in most things in life, if we all had the same morals and common sense it wouldn't be a problem, just a very boring world to live in, but these rules/guidelines should always be questioned when warranted and those whose job it is to impose those rules should always listen and try not to take it as personal slight. Which seems to be a bit what has happened here (if not then some one should speak up and say exactly what the problem is, sven has repeatedly said on here and other forums that he has nothing to hide). It may be that he has an attitude that GS are not fond of but that should not affect they way the rules are applied to him versus others. A teacher singling out the uncharismatic kid in the class. Planning officers refusing applications from agents with an ego problem. Police offficers singling the odd family on the estate, all for no reason other than personal opinion, all these things would be frowned upon by most people including, I suspect GS employees. Until I see evidence saying otherwise this appears to be a similar case.

 

I do not think that personal issues are involved in this case. The change in the formulation of the ToU with respect to spoilers has been made in response to an initiative by a large group of Dutch cachers who felt extremely annoyed by organized spoiler sites (including you tube videos as well) and who asked Groundspeak to add some sentences to their guidelines that spoilers of that type are not welcome and not in the spirit of gc.com. Of course, Groundspeak cannot execute violations that happen outside of their site, but they can ask cachers to remove spoiler material if cache hiders who are effected ask them for help. This has happened in this case and Sven had the chance to react and remove the annoying material.

Certainly the videos will not be spoilers to those come from other areas, but for local cachers the videos certainly provide a lot of information Sven has not yet found that many caches and many of those are 0815 ones. So it is not difficult to single out the more creative ones. Things get even more easy when they have already found many caches there and are missing just a few.

 

Clearly every cacher is free to decide whether he wants to watch such spoiler videos, but as a hider I would not welcome at all if videos of the type provided by Sven could be found openly in the internet. I would immediately archive such caches (a similar reaction has happened in the Netherlands and was one of the sources of motivation for the inititiave mentioned above).

 

 

The warning that logs might contain spoilers is a warning to cache seekers, not to cache owners as the owners can ask for the removal of spoilers from the logs or delete them. The issue of spoilers is mainly an issue from the point of view of some cache hiders, not from cache seekers. As a cache hider I can delete logs that contain spoilers directly on gc.com. I have, however, no chance to act against spoiler sites like Sven's video site and I am explicitely welcoming that Groundspeak takes action in such cases if there is no willingness to remove spoilers. I am not in favor of taking action at once, but when cache owners complain and the persons providing spoilers are not willing to cooperate, then I am in favor of actions like bans from gc.com as a kind of showcase demonstrating that the work of cache hiders as the basis for geocaching is respected decently.

 

Every cache hider who does not mind if spoilers about his caches exist, is free to give permission or at least not to complain to Groundspeak or the provider of spoilers. This does not mean, however, that all cache hiders need to be willing to live with spoilers.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Svens Youtube channel does state that if you are from the East Midlands do not view his videos, as they may spoil local caches. He also doesn't give locations, GC codes or any other indication of where the caches are.

 

As a cache owner my issue would not be whether other cachers are warned that spoilers are available for my caches and they should not look at them, but rather that cachers who want to obtain spoilers can obtain them very easily and openly in the internet against my will. I do not care whether any seeker is spoilering his own fun, but I do care if my motivation to take care of my caches is ruined.

 

I think that it should be part of a proper geocaching etiquette to not provide spoilers for caches without having the permission of the cache owner. Spoilers can happen, but in case of a cache owner feels annoyed the spoilers should be removed as soon as possible,

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Svens Youtube channel does state that if you are from the East Midlands do not view his videos, as they may spoil local caches. He also doesn't give locations, GC codes or any other indication of where the caches are.

 

As a cache owner my issue would not be whether other cachers are warned that spoilers are available for my caches and they should not look at them, but rather that cachers who want to obtain spoilers can obtain them very easily and openly in the internet against my will. I do not care whether any seeker is spoilering his own fun, but I do care if my motivation to take care of my caches is ruined.

 

I think that it should be part of a proper geocaching etiquette to not provide spoilers for caches without having the permission of the cache owner. Spoilers can happen, but in case of a cache owner feels annoyed the spoilers should be removed as soon as possible,

 

To summarize, spoilers are ok if the owner of the concerned cache is not having an issue with them as cache seekers are indeed not forced to look at spoilers.

Spoilers are not ok if the owner is not happy with spoilers for his/her cache.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

As a cache owner my issue would not be whether other cachers are warned that spoilers are available for my caches and they should not look at them, but rather that cachers who want to obtain spoilers can obtain them very easily and openly in the internet against my will.

 

And thankyou, a fantastic point. Imagine one of your caches was included in Sven's blog. Now consider your statement above.

 

Now imagine I'm a cacher, I cannot find your hide, it's a good hide. I really want to find it. I'm determined, so I look for spoilers on the internet......

 

Now....How do you propose that I go from your cache to Sven's videos?

 

I could search google for the name of the cache....I would come up blank.

I could search msn for the gc code of the cache....I would come up blank.

I could search yahoo for the location of the cache...I would come up blank.

 

Spoiler? I think not.

Link to comment

As a cache owner my issue would not be whether other cachers are warned that spoilers are available for my caches and they should not look at them, but rather that cachers who want to obtain spoilers can obtain them very easily and openly in the internet against my will.

 

And thankyou, a fantastic point. Imagine one of your caches was included in Sven's blog. Now consider your statement above.

 

Now imagine I'm a cacher, I cannot find your hide, it's a good hide. I really want to find it. I'm determined, so I look for spoilers on the internet......

 

Now....How do you propose that I go from your cache to Sven's videos?

 

I could search google for the name of the cache....I would come up blank.

I could search msn for the gc code of the cache....I would come up blank.

I could search yahoo for the location of the cache...I would come up blank.

 

Spoiler? I think not.

 

Why does my post say Ringbone?

Link to comment

Clearly every cacher is free to decide whether he wants to watch such spoiler videos, but as a hider I would not welcome at all if videos of the type provided by Sven could be found openly in the internet. I would immediately archive such caches (a similar reaction has happened in the Netherlands and was one of the sources of motivation for the inititiave mentioned above).

I fail to understand this attitude. Does Stephen King or Dan Brown take their books out of circulation because someone posted a spoiler on a website? Does M. Night Shyamalan take his movies out of circulation. Geocache owners should similarly recognize that people will share information about their caches. If not on spoiler sites then privately with phone-a-friend networks or just talking at geocaching events. It's really asking a lot that Groundspeak adopt some "rules" so they can punish those who share information that the owner doesn't want shared.

 

I can understand a statement from Groundspeak indicating that before sharing information on a public website one should get the consent of the cache owner; but once you start to have rules you need to enforce you will get controversies like this one. There will be disputes over whether on not something was a spoiler and whether or not consent was given. As written the ToU favors the cache owner, meaning a blogger innocently wanting to share their caching experiences can get caught up in this. In my mind, sharing information about caches is the natural state. Cache owners with unreasonable expectation is what is wrong. If it gets you so ticked off that some did one of your caches without solving the puzzle maybe you shouldn't be hiding puzzle caches. If the puzzle is really what makes the cache, then I'm certain that most geocachers will continue to work the puzzle as intended. As has been stated many times, the people who use spoilers are only cheating themselves.

Link to comment

Clearly every cacher is free to decide whether he wants to watch such spoiler videos, but as a hider I would not welcome at all if videos of the type provided by Sven could be found openly in the internet. I would immediately archive such caches (a similar reaction has happened in the Netherlands and was one of the sources of motivation for the inititiave mentioned above).

I fail to understand this attitude. Does Stephen King or Dan Brown take their books out of circulation because someone posted a spoiler on a website? Does M. Night Shyamalan take his movies out of circulation. Geocache owners should similarly recognize that people will share information about their caches. If not on spoiler sites then privately with phone-a-friend networks or just talking at geocaching events. It's really asking a lot that Groundspeak adopt some "rules" so they can punish those who share information that the owner doesn't want shared.

 

I can understand a statement from Groundspeak indicating that before sharing information on a public website one should get the consent of the cache owner; but once you start to have rules you need to enforce you will get controversies like this one. There will be disputes over whether on not something was a spoiler and whether or not consent was given. As written the ToU favors the cache owner, meaning a blogger innocently wanting to share their caching experiences can get caught up in this. In my mind, sharing information about caches is the natural state. Cache owners with unreasonable expectation is what is wrong. If it gets you so ticked off that some did one of your caches without solving the puzzle maybe you shouldn't be hiding puzzle caches. If the puzzle is really what makes the cache, then I'm certain that most geocachers will continue to work the puzzle as intended. As has been stated many times, the people who use spoilers are only cheating themselves.

Nicely put. And if you study the wording of the ToU section 4, the agreement is limited to publishing spoilers via the geocaching.com website or their forums.

Link to comment

Why does my post say Ringbone?

Cup is replying on behalf of Sven, who cannot join the discussion due to being banned. She is the other half of the caching team.

 

Thanks. I never would have figured that out by myself. ;)

 

To actually be on topic, claiming that something that has "spoiler" in the name isn't about spoilers seems a bit...odd, to put it mildly.

Link to comment

Why does my post say Ringbone?

Cup is replying on behalf of Sven, who cannot join the discussion due to being banned. She is the other half of the caching team.

 

Thanks. I never would have figured that out by myself. ;)

 

To actually be on topic, claiming that something that has "spoiler" in the name isn't about spoilers seems a bit...odd, to put it mildly.

I wonder if Sven had called his site CoolCaches instead of GeocacheSpoilers if he would be in the same situation.

 

I suspect that he may have chosen the title because he realized that some people might not want to see the caches, especially if they were caching in East Midlands, and he wanted to warn people there might be something they don't want to see.

 

What is odd to me is that Groundspeak finds it OK to post spoilers with no warning at all if it is for your own cache or if the cache owner gives permission. A person who wants to find the cache without a spoiler doesn't really care if it comes from the cache owner or from another cacher without the owner's permission. For some reason people think "If the owner posts it, it's not a spoiler; it's just the information the owner wanted you to have." Well there are people who cache with just coordinates in their GPS so they won't be tempted to read the description, the hint, or logs that may contain spoilers. And I find it annoying when a puzzle comes out with "No hints till the first finder" and then gets a spoiler hint added after the FTF.

 

My guess is that more people are annoyed when they can't find a cache or figure out a puzzle and the cache owner decides not to give any hints. For these people the real spoiler sites are something that makes the game tolerable. But few people would be able to use Sven's videos this way. If they live in East Midlands they can watch all of the videos and perhaps recognize the location of the cache where they are having trouble. But other than that, these are simply videos of cool caches Sven has found (no matter what he calls them).

Link to comment

What is odd to me is that Groundspeak finds it OK to post spoilers with no warning at all if it is for your own cache or if the cache owner gives permission.

 

The issue is here not what Groundspeak finds ok, but rather that there is a not neglectable group of cache owners that do not wish that their own caches are spoilered. If someone does not want to get spoilered for caches hidden by someone else, he/she is free not to read logs/watch videos etc. Personally, I am not fan of such spoilers either, but I can live with them while I am not willing to live with spoilers for my own caches.

 

Spoilers remain spoilers, that's clear, but I welcome if cache owners' wishes are respected a bit more, and therefore it makes a difference whether a cache owner is annoyed by a spoiler or not. The cache owners provide the basis for geocaching.

 

My guess is that more people are annoyed when they can't find a cache or figure out a puzzle and the cache owner decides not to give any hints. For these people the real spoiler sites are something that makes the game tolerable.

 

That might well be. Note however that if I hide a mystery cache or a long multi cache, I am hiding it only for those who take the effort to do it in the intended way. I cannot do anything against someone getting help from a friend and that's fine with me. I am not willing, however, to invest a lot of work and time into my caches in order to end up with logs by people who circumvented the challenge and did not take it up if this is done in an organized way.

 

I am more than willing to provide help to anyone who is contacting me on an individual basis, but that's something different than giving away everything and opening up the cache to an audience to which it is not directed.

 

I am not investing a lot of time into my caches to let them generate to simple traditionals just visited to increase one's find count or to find all caches in an area.

 

In my area there exist e.g. caches for which one has to walk at least 120km - it would be quite easy to compromise some of them by simply including a video of the hideout without mentioning the cache name.

 

For me this is a matter of principle and not just the case of Sven.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Why does my post say Ringbone?

Cup is replying on behalf of Sven, who cannot join the discussion due to being banned. She is the other half of the caching team.

 

Thanks. I never would have figured that out by myself. ;)

 

To actually be on topic, claiming that something that has "spoiler" in the name isn't about spoilers seems a bit...odd, to put it mildly.

 

I agree. I'm usually in lock step with The Frog like maybe 1% of the time, but I support their decision for the ban here!! There's spoiler videos on the web. At least 2 people complained about their caches being shown without permission. His general geographic area is known. I am completely baffled by why anyone would want to make and post videos of other people's Geocaching ideas in the first place, let alone the massive anti-Groundspeak backlash over it. Must be a Europe thing, like the massive anti-Timberland backlash. :blink:

Link to comment

Clearly every cacher is free to decide whether he wants to watch such spoiler videos, but as a hider I would not welcome at all if videos of the type provided by Sven could be found openly in the internet. I would immediately archive such caches (a similar reaction has happened in the Netherlands and was one of the sources of motivation for the inititiave mentioned above).

I fail to understand this attitude. Does Stephen King or Dan Brown take their books out of circulation because someone posted a spoiler on a website? Does M. Night Shyamalan take his movies out of circulation.

 

Writing a book is something completely different than setting up a cache. In my understanding, a cache invites for an activity and the container at the end is just the final part of it.

If I wrote a book and someone posted a spoiler about it, I would not care either. I do care, however, if I pose a challenge and this challenge is circumvented. Quite often for my caches the container is the boring part and everything before is the reason why the cache is there.

 

Geocache owners should similarly recognize that people will share information about their caches. If not on spoiler sites then privately with phone-a-friend networks or just talking at geocaching events.

 

I am aware of that, but private sharing is not the same as sharing via the internet.

 

It's really asking a lot that Groundspeak adopt some "rules" so they can punish those who share information that the owner doesn't want shared.

 

I am not asking for something new. They have already adopted the type of thing that I welcome and they did it in reply to a vague of complaints starting from the Netherlands.

I am just saying that I welcome how Groundspeak has acted in this case. It might be that Sven has changed his opinion in the meantime. Some days ago, however, I watched a you tube video where he clearly declared that only he decides what he published on his sites. This implies that he does not care at all about the effects on cache owners.

In my opinion, no cache site should support this type of behaviour and limit the access of cachers who are not willing to react to complaints about spoilers.

 

I can understand a statement from Groundspeak indicating that before sharing information on a public website one should get the consent of the cache owner; but once you start to have rules you need to enforce you will get controversies like this one. There will be disputes over whether on not something was a spoiler and whether or not consent was given.

 

Actually, it becomes quite evident that also Sven regards his videos as potential spoilers for local cachers. So it is not a debate about whether spoilers are involved.

 

As written the ToU favors the cache owner, meaning a blogger innocently wanting to share their caching experiences can get caught up in this.

 

Of course a spoiler can happen without bad intent, but then it can easily be removed later on if the cache owner is asking for. The very same thing happens for logs.

Why not outside of the gc.com site as well? The only difference I see is that a geocaching site cannot control the external sites, but it can limit the access of cachers who

are not willing to remove spoilers from external sites.

 

In my mind, sharing information about caches is the natural state.

 

I do not agree at all.

 

Cache owners with unreasonable expectation is what is wrong. If it gets you so ticked off that some did one of your caches without solving the puzzle maybe you shouldn't be hiding puzzle caches. If the puzzle is really what makes the cache, then I'm certain that most geocachers will continue to work the puzzle as intended. As has been stated many times, the people who use spoilers are only cheating themselves.

 

I am not the only one who feels differently. In the Dutch case, many cache owners wanted to archive their caches and some did. Those who felt regret were those cachers who have not yet found the effected caches, but would have loved do so. They have been the driving force behind the initiative that led to the change of the ToU with regard to spoilers. I have not been involved.

 

As my caches are regarded: They are typically not only about puzzles, but about involve educative aspects and are all caches with multiple stages. Most of them are directed to a minority audience. Already when I am setting them up, I do know that the caches will appeal to at most 5-10% of the cachers and that they would appeal to more cachers, but less to those 5-10% if I set them up in a different way. So if a workaround is available, it will certainly not happen that most visitors will do the caches in the intented way, but rather that many that ignore the caches without a workaround available would show up and that's not exactly the knock out type of situation for me.

 

If some of the finders are sharing some info with their caching friends, it still would work to limit the number of visitors in a reasonable way (this type of approach worked well for years). Offering spoilers in the internet, does not allow to limit anything.

 

What you suggest would mean that many caches of the type I enjoy would not be hidden at all (including long hiking multi caches).

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

if I pose a challenge and this challenge is circumvented

 

How is the challenge circumvented?

 

My statement above was more general (with the main focus on multi caches and mysteries), but to reply to the specific situation you asked about: Suppose I were a local cacher who has already found most of the caches you have found and

are missing just a few of them. By looking at the videos, I could quickly single out those videos which show a cache where I have not been and this of course provides a lot of information. The dates of videos, photos etc in blogs often provide even further evidence. I am aware of photo sites of local cachers where each of the photos can be assigned

to the logs of the same day and this makes it very easy to narrow down the set of caches that are eligible candidates.

Sometimes there are even cachers who upload photos that contain the GPS-coordinates of the location where they have been taken without them being aware of this fact.

It even gets worse if puzzle caches or multi caches are involved. If I got to see a video with a hideout at a location I am able to recognize, but where I have not yet found a cache, I do know that it must concern one of those few caches I have not yet found.

 

For example, if a local cacher from my area who has found this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ff9047c1-9247-4030-b1a7-fdb8e9219c9e

would offer a site similar to Sven's, I'd immediately know where to search for this cache. It is one of the few ones that are missing to me - it is quite tricky (the D rating is too low).

 

I agree that the videos appear to be harmless for non locals, but this does not apply to locals.

 

In contrast to some occasional post of someone with a photo of a cool container in the CCC thread, Sven's videos provide an organized site for caches from a not very large area. Data collections like this can be used in an organized way using a data mining like approach and this allows to draw many more conclusions than one can draw from just having available a singe video or photograph.

 

A final word: I believe you that you and Sven did not upload the videos with bad intent. I can well imagine that the data collecting aspect I mentioned above did not occur to you when uploading the videos.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Cezanna you're missing the key point: Unless Sven is lying, he said every video had the COs' permissions.

 

The question asked by Cup was why such videos are indeed spoilers. I replied to that question.

Moreover, I provided arguments for taking actions if spoilers are provided against the will of cache owners.

 

If Sven's main argument was that he has asked all cache owners and had their permission, then his video on you tube

where he defends his right to publish whatever he wants on his blog does not make much sense.

Moreover, he there defends his videos by saying that they are no spoilers which is simply wrong (and that was my key point).

Do you know this video

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW8Yy_HChuk&feature=related ?

 

If Sven has asked all involved cache owners *before* publishing his videos (not *after* being contacted by Groundspeak),

I welcome this, but then this is an exceptional case. Among the hundreds of blogs/foto/video sites on geocaching, I know hardly any whose owners take care to ask

all involved cache owners in advance. Moreover, unfortunately lying is getting an established approach in geocaching. Just a few weeks ago a cacher

was lying to me and claimes that he has not provided fake coordinates for his mystery cache. (I have a proof for this claim.)

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Cezanna you're missing the key point: Unless Sven is lying, he said every video had the COs' permissions.

 

Sven said every video he linked to on this forum had CO permission (to conform to section 4(m))

 

On this forum, or on his personal site?

It seems to me that he seems to claim that on his web sites he can publish whatever he wish to publish while the intent of section 4m was not

only to frown upon spoilers on sites owned by Groundspeak, but spoilers in the internet in general.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Cezanna you're missing the key point: Unless Sven is lying, he said every video had the COs' permissions.

The key point is the "I got permission" thing was false, and at least one cache owner called him on it. If he were to spoil one of my caches online, I'd have two choices, archive it or live with it. If I don't archive it, that's completely different from "giving permission". The fact that people defend this practice is disgusting.

 

I'd be devastated if I spoiled a cache which then had to be archived -- the premise being "let's show you how to Geocache", in practice it's more like "Hey everybody! Someone told me a SECRET!!" Once you invite non-cachers to the place, you're inviting huge problems. Permission or not.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
The key point is the "I got permission" thing was false

Right now it's your word against his then. Like I said, unless he's lying - CO permissions were granted. To presume he is lying is not just. If he is not lying, then all caches depicted have permission.

 

and at least one cache owner called him on it.

And if you read the thread(s), you'd know that that CO changed their mind.

Regardless of how you feel about how their mind was changed, and if Sven is not lying, then permission was granted.

 

If he were to post one of my caches online, I'd have two choices, archive it or live with it. If I don't archive it, that's completely different from "giving permission".

...or stand your ground and report it, hoping to have the video removed by big brother. (not a Bad move either for the CO, given the alternatives)

 

The fact that people defend this practice is disgusting.

I don't think anyone is defending being a disrespectful idiot and forcing publishing of videos that spoiler caches either for the seeker (regardless of CO permission) or the CO (without permission).

Personally, I'm simply referring to the facts at hand and how they're being dealt with, leaving my feelings about Right and Wrong out of it, unless disclaimed.

 

I think trying to stop public posting of information out on the wild blue internet is a futile effort. But GS has the right to ban at their discretion for whatever reason. If someone isn't "playing nice", that might not be a popular reason for a ban, but it's perfectly within their rights. Especially if it's looking out for the peace of the greater community. It won't stop "spoilers" from being shared though.

 

And frankly, in today's day and age, the more someone is 'bullied' into stopping something they feel is not wrong to do, the more of an uproar that will arise.

 

Problem is - there are two kinds of spoilers.

* Spoilers for the geocache seeker

* Spoilers for the geocache hider

 

GS repeatedly has shown that spoilers for the seeker are not an issue, by linking and sharing bloggers' and videographers' documentations of their experience. Seekers can choose whether or not to expose themselves to spoilers (presuming they're labeled as such).

 

The issue here (with as much information as we've been given) has to be about spoiling caches from the perspective of the owner. If I put effort into a puzzle, I don't want the answer shared without my knowledge or permission. But here's the problem...

1. You cannot guarantee that will not happen on the internet

2. You cannot stop that from happening on the internet

3. You can hope, and plead, that people be mindful and respectful enough not to spoil it

4. You can be open and excited that someone appreciated it and wants to share it while respecting the identity of the source

 

The COs need to realize #1.

Groundspeak needs to realize #2.

The community needs to realize #3.

#4, well, that's a choice on how as a CO you react to 1, 2, and 3, in the context of the puzzle you've created. Some wouldn't care, because it's more about fun; some would because it's more about the 'aha' moment of the solving experience they want to provide.

 

Sven could have chosen to be mindful and remove any contentious content in his videos.

But, Sven said he received permission from the all COs. So in his mind, there was no further issue to be resolved. All videos clearly marked as potential spoilers for anyone who may see them, and all videos given permission from their COs.

 

So, where's the problem? Why the ban?

 

Either

1. Groundspeak is overstepping their bounds (ethically speaking, while technically they're within their rights) or

2. There's more to this under the surface which prompted the banning of Sven from GC (except as a community we're left in the dark)

 

Back to the initial point: I don't think anyone is saying it's ok, proper, nice to forcefully expose solutions and hides without the cache owner's permission. But this situation is far more complex than that.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
The key point is the "I got permission" thing was false

Right now it's your word against his then. Like I said, unless he's lying - CO permissions were granted. To presume he is lying is not just. If he is not lying, then all caches depicted have permission.

 

and at least one cache owner called him on it.

And if you read the thread(s), you'd know that that CO changed their mind.

Regardless of how you feel about how their mind was changed, and if Sven is not lying, then permission was granted.

 

Maybe they talk about two different things? Sven only about having asked for permission for those links that he published on Groundspeak sites, but not for the videos he

published on his own site? This interpretation would make sense taking all information together we have.

 

I think trying to stop public posting of information out on the wild blue internet is a futile effort.

 

I fully agree. I think, however, that if cache owners send a complaint to Groundspeak, this is a more limited case and can be dealt with.

 

It won't stop "spoilers" from being shared though.

 

Again I agree. I can live with that. What I would like to have, however, is that geocachers become more sensitive about the spoiler issue and that someone who is throwing around openly with spoilers is not admired for doing so. This is related to your point #3 about the community.

 

 

Sven could have chosen to be mindful and remove any contentious content in his videos.

But, Sven said he received permission from the all COs. So in his mind, there was no further issue to be resolved. All videos clearly marked as potential spoilers for anyone who may see them, and all videos given permission from their COs.

 

Did he really say that? In the video I have watched he claims that his videos are no spoilers and that he can upload to his internet site whatever he wants to.

 

Back to the initial point: I don't think anyone is saying it's ok, proper, nice to forcefully expose solutions and hides without the cache owner's permission. But this situation is far more complex than that.

 

Unlike you, I feel that there are many cachers out there who feel that it is ok to provide spoilers without the cache owner's permission.

There are even many cachers who deny that such videos like Sven's provide spoilers and make him a kind of hero for posting ideas for creative hides.

 

I agree, however, on your last point. The issue is very complex and what different groups in the community want is contradictory. So Groundspeak cannot do anything which will find the applause of everyone regardless of what they do. I feel however that viewing upon the matter from the hiders' point of view makes sense as hidden geocaches are the capital of geocaching.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Maybe they talk about two different things? Sven only about having asked for permission for those links that he published on Groundspeak sites, but not for the videos he published on his own site? This interpretation would make sense taking all information together we have.

That confusion was already discussed, and he clearly stated, here, that it was the permission from each cache owner of each cache depicted in his videos that he had permission to share - not referring to linking here, but to the existence of the videos on youtube. That was clarified in the forum, here. (whether it's true or not, I don't know, but that's his argument). As far as I recall for this incident, in the forum one video was linked, along with his channel, before the links were removed.

 

"I think trying to stop public posting of information out on the wild blue internet is a futile effort."

 

I fully agree. I think, however, that if cache owners send a complaint to Groundspeak, this is a more limited case and can be dealt with.

Certainly. And that's what's happening here, with the controversial banning of his account as the response. Won't change the fact that spoiler videos can and will continue to exist regardless.

 

"It won't stop "spoilers" from being shared though."

 

Again I agree. I can live with that. What I would like to have, however, is that geocachers become more sensitive about the spoiler issue and that someone who is throwing around openly with spoilers is not admired for doing so. This is related to your point #3 about the community.

Exactly.

 

"Sven could have chosen to be mindful and remove any contentious content in his videos.

But, Sven said he received permission from the all COs. So in his mind, there was no further issue to be resolved. All videos clearly marked as potential spoilers for anyone who may see them, and all videos given permission from their COs."

 

Did he really say that?

Here - yes. There - what he says is not contradictory. Expressing that he has the right to post whatever he wants, as arrogant as that sounds, doesn't mean that he doesn't have the permissions he says here he has.

 

Unlike you, I feel that there are many cachers out there who feel that it is ok to provide spoilers without the cache owner's permission.

There are even many cachers who deny that such videos like Sven's provide spoilers and make him a kind of hero for posting ideas for creative hides.

Oh I'm sure there are. But here, there doesn't seem to me to be anyone here supporting Sven's implied attitude towards spoiling caches against CO request.

 

I really wish we could understand more about the situation, but it's likely we won't, and probably better that way anyway (YMMV):huh:

Link to comment

Groundspeak has rarely responded to threads of this nature. However, we will take this opportunity to explain recent events that led to this site suspension.

 

This user has drawn many people to geocaching through his YouTube channel. This is one of the reasons that Groundspeak featured Sven. in one of our Blog (Latitude 47) posts (unfortunately removed due to recent events).

 

However, our Terms of Use state that a user may not, "Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner." (Section 4m).

 

With cache owner permission, videos can be created and posted on other forms of media. Groundspeak has never requested that this user remove all the videos he has posted on YouTube. Rather, two months ago we were contacted by the cache owner of a featured cache, who asked that we intervene in having the video of his cache removed from YouTube.

 

This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his YouTube channel. We then explained that not complying with the Terms of Use would result in site suspension, and Sven. complied, removing the video from YouTube.

 

At that time, we thanked him for his cooperation, and explained that other cache owners may come forward, meaning we would need to follow up on any subsequent complaints.

 

Another cache owner came forward about three videos that featured his caches. He wanted them removed. When we contacted Sven. he failed to respond for some time. When pressed about removing the videos, he refused, knowing that the consequence was site suspension from Geocaching.com.

 

Importantly, Sven. did not seek permission from the cache owners who requested that Groundspeak intervene. As a follow up on this matter, he has subsequently posted another video on his Youtube channel featuring a cache by the same cache owner who complained to us about the three videos - again without obtaining permission.

 

Sven. has had ample opportunities to comply with our Terms of Use. He has also had the opportunity to partner more closely with Groundspeak, but has chosen instead to dig in his heels. Groundspeak cannot partner with someone who openly and actively ignores our Terms of Site use. We consider this unfortunate, as we see how a partnership could benefit the game - under better circumstances. However, the decision has been Sven.'s, not ours.

Link to comment

It seems to me that he seems to claim that on his web sites he can publish whatever he wish to publish while the intent of section 4m was not

only to frown upon spoilers on sites owned by Groundspeak, but spoilers in the internet in general.

 

Cezanne

 

If that were the intent, they did a really poor job. Instead of tacking in onto the existing section, they should have modified that sections heading and introductory paragraph to reflect the expansion to other sites.

 

Of course they do have the "we can do whatever we want to do regardless of whether or not you break the TOU" clause. So I guess their lawyer did earn his money. <_<

Link to comment

Thanks Sandy for that clarifying post.

 

So then it seems Sven wasn't completely honest in saying that every cache featured in his videos has permission from their COs to be published (regardless of linking from the forum)

 

there doesn't seem to me to be anyone here supporting Sven's implied attitude towards spoiling caches

There's 521 signatures on the unsolicited "petition"

I was referring to supporting the "implied attitude" of publishing of a spoiler even though the CO request it not be published - not simply supporting the right to publish videos. The former is bad form and essentially disrespectful to the community and spirit of the game; the latter is the unavoidable nature of the internet (and more related to the feedback petition).

Link to comment

Sven. has had ample opportunities to comply with our Terms of Use. He has also had the opportunity to partner more closely with Groundspeak, but has chosen instead to dig in his heels. Groundspeak cannot partner with someone who openly and actively ignores our Terms of Site use. We consider this unfortunate, as we see how a partnership could benefit the game - under better circumstances. However, the decision has been Sven.'s, not ours.

 

It's probably because Groundspeak is incorrectly applying its TOU. As written, it does not apply to Youtube. If Groundspeak wishes to extend their TOU to cover other sites, it should rewrite the header and introductory paragraph of that section or move the spoiler clause to its own, expanded section. As written, the TOU is restricted to Groundspeak's servers.

 

That is at the crux of this argument. If your TOU actually covered other sites, then we could move on to the "are they spoilers or not" argument for which Sven would lose hands down.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...