Jump to content

Youtube geocaching videos


Sven.

Recommended Posts

The issue is not what I am doing, but what cachers wanting to find the caches are willing to do. For tricky hideouts, long multi caches and complex puzzle caches, searching around for spoilers is often easier and less time consuming than doing the cache without exploiting the spoilers.

 

cartoon-bang-head-jpg.gif?w=200&h=200

 

Mr Smith cannot find XYZ cache, stumped he turns to the internet.

 

Explain how Mr Smith might come from XYZ cache to finding Sven's videos? Impossible.

 

Infact, better still, I've got a real world example.

 

Remember the CO that complained? Well he's been bellyaching to the local people it seems, here is the most recent log on his cache:

 

2nd look, thought I knew what I was looking for this time. Couldn't even find the video on you tube. Found a fish though.

 

If these are spoilers they're not doing a very good job.

 

I like the animated .gif. Well I'll tell you what. I've been Geocaching for over 7 years, with about 2,300 finds. If someone posted Geocache spoiler videos of mostly local caches to me, I'll bet I'd know 90% of them. And I'm sure I'd be able to figure out what many of the caches I've never attempted were. And what about my dozens of DNF's over the years? Seeing as I've been there, I'd definitely recognize those for sure. So I can look up a video to one of my DNF's to see where it is? Not good, in my opinion.

 

It's really all about the locals. And of course the complainers to Groundspeak are locals.

Link to comment
Cup-“Explain how Mr Smith might come from XYZ cache to finding Sven's videos? Impossible.”

You asked the wrong question. The question should be can Mr. Smith watch Sven’s videos and find caches from those ‘spoilers’. Remember that in post #217 Sven said-“nothing is revealed in the video to say where the cache is anyway so nobody could find it.” It has already been shown by the video posted on June 8th that the GC code was clearly displayed, to which you replied: “blah blah 1/81?

 

By quickly checking a few other videos and comparing log data I identified 3 more caches from spoilers posted on 10-04-11, 08-11-11, and 06-24-11. In one of the videos Sven shows the owner’s logo making the connection really simple and the title of another was a dead giveaway. So make that 4/81 and counting.

 

Cup-“How?”

I’m sure any local cacher with little effort could match most of those videos to the respective caches. Just because you can’t see any connection by using simple clues others can see doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Cache title, type, D/T rating, Sven’s logs, etc., all give a resourceful cacher information to deduce which cache is being featured in the video.

Link to comment

Ideally, in the end, I think being a blogger sharing about geocaching experience is like being a geocacher hiding a cache.

 

One expects that one would get permission from every land owner (not necessarily private property) before placing a cache. That does not happen.

One expects that one would get permission from every cache owner before publishing a video that might contain spoilers. That does not happen.

 

A cache owner who hears from a property owner might be given permission, or told to bugger off with the cache. Those both happen.

A geocache blogger who hears from a cache owner might be praised and supported, or told to take the spoiler video down. Those both happen.

 

Groundspeak can step in and disable/archive a cache if a CO ignores the property owner's request, potentially even ban the CO.

Groundspeak can step in and ban a player if they ignore the spoiler removal request.

 

Granted one is a matter of laws and public access, and the other an internal definition and guidelines, but from a geocaching perspective, both the CO and the geocacher were acting in ways that are against the 'spirit of geocaching', and explicitly outlined in the TOU.

 

Bloggers should not feel that they need to get permission for every geocache they may discuss or visually display, just like every cache hider shouldn't feel they need to get explicit permission (adequate is presumed) from any land owner (private or public - ALL land is owned) - but the expectation is that they'll comply if there is an issue. It's the spirit of the game.

 

And the more people realize that Groundspeak is dictating the spirit of the game, the less surprise and complaints there will be (those who do will likely move along to something else, to Groundspeak's loss; ymmv)

 

(eta: that's 2 related analogies so far - photojournalism and cache placement)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

 

Bloggers should not feel that they need to get permission for every geocache they may discuss or visually display, just like every cache hider shouldn't feel they need to get explicit permission (adequate is presumed) from any land owner (private or public - ALL land is owned) - but the expectation is that they'll comply if there is an issue. It's the spirit of the game.

 

And the more people realize that Groundspeak is dictating the spirit of the game, the less surprise and complaints there will be (those who do will likely move along to something else, to Groundspeak's loss; ymmv)

 

(eta: that's 2 related analogies so far - photojournalism and cache placement)

 

A nice summation of what this whole issue is about ..... the spirit of the game.

 

If Sven is so intent on putting the caches to youtube, why not recreate them in his garage or garden or out in the woods or wherever need be. At least that would hide the site, no chance of the Cache name/number being present in the vid. then it would be all about the design, ingenuity of the cache and nothing more.

 

And still no answer to my question of why he wouldn't remove the cache from his channel when asked.

Link to comment

 

Google reports there are 9 million results for "geocache videos"

 

About 8,980,000 results (0.25 seconds)

 

Surely it would be quicker for Mr Smith to go and find the cache rather than look through all those?

You need to put those two words in quotes. Do that and you get About 1,160 results (0.24 seconds) After you take out the bogus and irrelevant hits, you are down to something that might be useful.

 

However... whether I agree with you in general, or not, I do understand that the point that I think you are trying to make in this instance is that there are no GC numbers or cache names on the videos in question, so a search would not help to provide spoilers to any specific cache.

Link to comment

Just for giggles, I googled 'Svens geocaching videos' and the 7th hit put me to emCache Geocache spoilers page.

 

And reading through the forum came upon this conv. Now bear in mind Sven all along, via Cup now, has denied he believes they are 'spoiler' videos. Read on, please:

 

scuba_2:

Im not sure if I want to look at the video I have only found 600 caches so there are still many more supprises out there for me to find I remember the feeling when I found my first bolt cache, It was great so if I see all types of cache in the video then its like seeing how a magic trick is done!

so Im still deciding to watch or not to watch!

Sven:

Quote from: scuba_2 on August 27, 2011, 10:39:58 AM

 

Im not sure if I want to look at the video I have only found 600 caches so there are still many more supprises out there for me to find I remember the feeling when I found my first bolt cache, It was great so if I see all types of cache in the video then its like seeing how a magic trick is done!

so Im still deciding to watch or not to watch!

 

Oh certainly do not. Definitely not. I don't recommend anyone local look at it, infact I was a bit peeved when this was posted on here. I never told anyone local about the channel. I thought it would get lost in the internet. Unfortunately(?) it suffered more success than i imagined.

 

I get angry when i meet people out caching and they say "have you seen the one under the"......"do you know about the one that's behind"....

 

I have videod what I consider to be the creme of the crop locally. So you're going to spoil the very best or hardest hides for yourself!

 

scuba_2:

ok not video for me! sorted.

 

The bold is my addition. He (Sven) tells scuba_2 not to watch, because it will SPOIL.

 

QED

Link to comment

Sven:

Quote from: JustAlan on August 30, 2011, 06:46:50 AM

 

Think that's a bit OTT from GS. They can't say what you can/can't post on youtube (unless it infringes copyright of some sort).

 

How many are 'many of the cache owners'? 1, 2, loads?

 

Sandy says "many" cache owners are not happy. But I've only had one complaint from ******, nobody else has said anything.

 

That was on page 10

 

Sven:

Also detailed here:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=280744&st=0&gopid=4823581

 

Incidentally don't be afraid to speak up, I tried to open up a forum of discussion on a youtube video but only received positive response.

 

Besides currently two negative ninnies the feedback has all been good. I'm a big boy, I'll gladly take all constructive criticism or indeed positive feedback. Hit me.

 

That was on page 5!

Link to comment

I just read all 10 pages today. I should get a smiley or something...

 

Do I understand correctly GS position that the TOU applies to the whole Internet? Violate the rules HERE anywhere ELSE and risk being banned?

 

Go to a site where we post nothing but curse words I can be banned here...

Go to a site and upload home made porn and I can be banned here...

Go to a site and post religious views and I can be banned here...

 

None of those things are allowed on this site. Seems like a very slippery slope to me. We are the group that tolerates it and allows it to happen. Obviously GS can do whatever they want with their web site. They can allow whoever they want to use it do so. But in the end they have to answer to the group because with out the group there is no GS.

 

We may have our views on what is and is a spoiler and if the should or shouldn't be posted with or without a CO permission, but I'm real hesitant to feel okay with a member being banned for what they do offsite and the review process to determine what is and isn't acceptable.

Link to comment

I just read all 10 pages today. I should get a smiley or something...

 

Do I understand correctly GS position that the TOU applies to the whole Internet? Violate the rules HERE anywhere ELSE and risk being banned?

 

Go to a site where we post nothing but curse words I can be banned here...

Go to a site and upload home made porn and I can be banned here...

Go to a site and post religious views and I can be banned here...

 

None of those things are allowed on this site. Seems like a very slippery slope to me. We are the group that tolerates it and allows it to happen. Obviously GS can do whatever they want with their web site. They can allow whoever they want to use it do so. But in the end they have to answer to the group because with out the group there is no GS.

 

We may have our views on what is and is a spoiler and if the should or shouldn't be posted with or without a CO permission, but I'm real hesitant to feel okay with a member being banned for what they do offsite and the review process to determine what is and isn't acceptable.

 

GS have stated they cannot control what happens elsewhere, but by posting something against the wishes of the CO, is not in the spirit of things, and I guess they want to disassociate themselves from him. Hence the ban.

I infer it's more about the attitude than the action now.

Link to comment

Just seems like it opens a real can of worms. What if a CO takes offense to my posting objectionable (in his opinion) posts and links and decides to contact GS?

 

This time it was about spoilers on another site...maybe next time it's just me mentioning "caches in a park" or maybe he has it in for me and finds a post of mine on another forum where I dropped the "F" bomb repeatedly? Doesn't this set a precedent where I could be banned here for swearing on another forum? It does seem the rules set forth in the TOU now apply to the entire Internet, so how's that such a leap?

 

 

Edited to clean up the line of thought...

Edited by GeotaggedBloger
Link to comment

All i can say on that one is forum's are a place to put opinions, and I would find it unlikely they would ban anyone for expressing opinion on another site, including the 'F' bomb.

 

As they have explained, it's not the production of the video they have banned him for, as much as they would discourage against it, they cannot control it. But the lack of acceptance of the CO's initial wishes, and following complaint to themselves about this, and then their request to remove not all the vid just the cache of the CO in question. Deemed as a lack of respect for the CO, GS and the spirit of the game. Hence they don't want to be associated.

 

On GS's part:

Heavy handed approach ? Maybe.

Within their rights ? By the TOU's, definitely.

 

On Svens part:

Up to him what cache he video's and postson utube ? Definitely.

Respectful approach to doing it ? Questionable.

 

Thats where I side on GS & CO I suppose. It could all have been done in such a better manner.

Like how about asking the CO BEFORE you go and film it, or before you edit.

 

I read on another forum (same as my previous 2 posts) about he having done 51 vid'! For the length of time he had been caching , it was almost 1 vid per 3 days.! Some going that is.

Edited by JimJoolz
Link to comment

How about I steer this topic for a second.

 

At what point would one find it acceptable to listen to the cache owner?

 

I take a photo 10 feet from the cache. Acceptable?

20?

30?

40?

etc

 

The first complaint

 

Having read the description Sven excitedly went to a geocache.

The description said the geocache was in a nuclear bunker.

The description specifically said that you could take photos of the bunker, but not of the container.

Sven respects this request, to keep within the co's wishes and takes a video of the area BUT NOT OF THE CONTAINER.

 

--Is it a spoiler? CO tells all that the cache is in a bunker, Sven only videos a bunker....nothing else. What is spoilt? Nothing.

 

So question, must we do as the cache owner orders regardless of if we think it's justified? According to Groundspeak we must.

Link to comment

No offence, but I had this thread steered just right. It's not about the filming of A bunker. It's about this site owner reaching out and trying to control what we do on other sites. It's not at what distance you take a picture, it's at what level on a third party site does GS step in and try to modify behaviour on that site...

 

Strategically I see no point on trying to enforce GS rules on behaviour outside of this site. It is WAY too easy to circumvent. Wouldn't GS be better served having the OP on the inside working with them? To do that all they had to do is tell the CO that they have no control over YouTube. Instead they tried to modify the behaviour by asking nicely and then further by suspending his account.

 

Okay, so now what? The OP is upset and all he has to do is set up another sock puppet account when his 500 previous downloaded caches run out and keep on filming and posting the video. Only now he's upset, feels jilted, and who's to say that now that he's anonymous he won't up the stakes and go right to posting GC codes, cache containers and step by step directions to all man nor of caches? I just don't see the benefit of trying to regulate what is totally unregulatable.

 

At least that's how I see it.

Link to comment

You respected the CO's wishes by only taking video of the bunker not the cache. So you accept his wishes and respect them. When he requests them not to be posted on youtube, you find that unacceptable.

Where was the line drawn, because you obviously must have drawn one as to what are/aren't acceptable wishes by the CO.

My guess,

 

I'm basically being asked to delete hours, no days of my life! A lot of hard work has gone into this.

 

There, thats where I suspect it was drawn. The very first post in the thread.

When time had been spent producing/editing/uploading it for youtube.

Link to comment

[He] respected the CO's wishes by only taking video of the bunker not the cache. So [he] accept his wishes and respect them. When he requests them not to be posted on youtube, [he] finds that unacceptable.

 

*corrected

 

So where is the line, why is it unacceptable?

 

The question I asked .... why would he not remove it when asked?

Link to comment

There seems to be some who believe the cache owner has the absolute right to control everything related to their cache and that other cachers should, out of respect for the cache owner, accept this.

 

At one time cache owner could create silly rules for who could log finds on their caches. These were call ALRs. Well some folks decided to no longer respect the wishes of cache owners by doing these silly thing before they logged a find online. They complained to Groundspeak and the rules were changed to allow cachers to ignore the owner's silly request and log their finds.

 

Some cache owners feel that a blank log or a TFTC log is disrespectful, yet Groundspeak has stated that you don't have to write any thing in a log and cache owners can't create a ALR requiring you to do so.

 

Most of us have a pretty good idea of what a spoiler is. We know that some finders don't want to see spoilers before they look for a cache. We try to keep such spoilers out of our logs or at least to label these as spoilers so they can be avoided. Even Sven realized that some people might not want to view his videos before looking. So he clearly labeled them as spoilers. It seems he was even willing to abide by request that cache owners made a priori on the cache page to avoid showing hiding places of caches. But he considered that a lack of such a request meant he was free to share his caching experiences with the world. So he posted videos. Now he clearly felt that some request from cache owners to take down videos were reasonable, but other request weren't. And I would guess that a demand to take down a video, backed by an implied threat of Groundspeak sanctions, was going to be seen as more unreasonable than a effort by a cache owner to work with him to edit a video or restrict access to it to people outside of the UK for example.

 

From Sven's point of view these videos provided far more benefits by allowing people to see some nice hides than any problems caused by East Midlands cachers who might be trying to find a spoiler. Since he did not identify the cache by name or GC number in title or description, one would have to watch all his videos in the hoped of recognizing something. (In fact several people in this thread said they would have less a problem with a site that was worldwide and had many more videos. The objection seems not that there are spoiler but how easy it may be to find them, and have claimed that Sven's site was much easier to use to find a spoiler than what actually appears to be the case).

 

While it's easy for us to state how simple it would be for Sven to comply with cache owner requests and avoid the controversy, this fails to acknowledge that these request may be unreasonable and somewhat disrespectful of those who want to share their geocaching experiences.

 

As I have stated, it is natural to share our experiences. We do so at events. We do so with phone-a-friends. We do so by posting videos and blogs. The wording of Section 4(m) does not acknowledge this simple truth. Instead it gives a power to cache owners that they can abuse just as they abused the power to have ALRs. We don't have the details of the requests that Sven received; we only know he accepted some and refused others. Groundspeak has sanctioned him because he didn't comply with the terms of use. But this doesn't make him the monster who disrespects cache owners that some would make him out to be.

 

The problem isn't Sven. The problem is Section 4(m) which was a horrible idea that does nothing to actually stop spoilers. In my opinion cache owners should accept facts and stop trying to control things they cannot (and should not) control.

Link to comment
The problem isn't Sven.

 

The problem is Sven. There were those cache owners who asked that their caches not be spoiled and requested they be removed. He refused to do so even when Groundspeak asked him to comply.

 

He made the bed he sleeps in right now and has no one to blame but himself.

Link to comment

If it were possible to post videos to the cache pages in question, they would be considered spoilers. So, I think they are spoilers here. Had Sven had the common courtesy to ask the cache owners if they minded this PRIOR to posting on YouTube, received an answer in the affirmative, then OK. I prefer not to have this spoiling the fun. Pictures of cache containers is one thing, but showing the location is something else entirely.

There are so many better geocaching videos out there.....

Link to comment
The problem isn't Sven.

 

The problem is Sven. There were those cache owners who asked that their caches not be spoiled and requested they be removed. He refused to do so even when Groundspeak asked him to comply.

 

He made the bed he sleeps in right now and has no one to blame but himself.

I agree that Sven is in violation of the TOUs and that Groundspeak can punish him because of it.

 

I do not agree that Groundspeak is doing the right thing. This is because the reference section of the TOUs makes no sense to me. Groundspeak seems to agree with the control freak cache owners who want to stop the natural sharing of information. They should realize that they are not going to stop spoilers. I believe that Sven will be only one of many that will ignore unreasonable requests to remove "spoilers". What will happen is that many of these blogger will make sure to hide their Groundspeak account from their blog or YouTube posts. You have only driven the spoilers underground where they will more blatant and difficult to control. Sven believes there are people who want to share this information and they have as much of a right to share as a cache owner has to stop the sharing.

 

I know from experience that when Groundspeak sanctions someone, there will be those who believe that person was justly punished no matter what anyone says. I wish people would question more what is going on than rush to pile on someone who certainly thinks they were justified in doing whatever it is they did. Groundspeak is a private company, so they get to make the rules, enforce the rules, and adjudicate the rules. Per Groundspeak, what Sven did deserved the ban. Per tozainamboku, what Sven has done is stand up to a stupid rule that Groundspeak shouldn't have adopted in the first place. Again I say the problem is not Sven it is Section 4(m) of the TOUs.

 

If it were possible to post videos to the cache pages in question, they would be considered spoilers. So, I think they are spoilers here. Had Sven had the common courtesy to ask the cache owners if they minded this PRIOR to posting on YouTube, received an answer in the affirmative, then OK. I prefer not to have this spoiling the fun. Pictures of cache containers is one thing, but showing the location is something else entirely.

There are so many better geocaching videos out there.....

There is a difference.

 

When the spoiler is on the cache page, a finder who wants to do the cache without the spoiler has a difficult time avoiding it. It is possible to avoid looking at logs, but often someone will look at logs just to seen when the cache was last found or to be sure they are in the correct location.

 

When the spoiler is on a different site, it is relatively easy to avoid the spoiler. Of course someone might accidentally stumble upon the videos while looking at other Geocaching videos. But in this case there was a warning these were potential spoilers.

 

If someone wants to find a spoiler to help them find the cache (and this is what cache owners seem to want to stop), they have several methods to do this. The easiest might be to ask a previous finder for a hint. There are some spoilers that identify the cache by name, gc code, or location. For these you could Google the cache and find the spoiler. For Sven's caches this information was not given. Sven's videos would not show up in a Google search for a particular cache. If you knew that Sven is a local cacher, you could look at his videos and hope you would recognize the cache who wanted the spoiler for. I doubt that many people had their experience spoiled either intentionally or unintentionally through Sven's videos. But when a cache owner asks to you to take down a "spoiler", Groundspeak's one-size-fits-all policy is you have to "respect" the wishes of the cache owner.

Link to comment

 

While it's easy for us to state how simple it would be for Sven to comply with cache owner requests and avoid the controversy, this fails to acknowledge that these request may be unreasonable and somewhat disrespectful of those who want to share their geocaching experiences.

 

 

At some point, he gave figures of 1/81 complaints then 2/81 complaints. I would argue it would have had little or no impact on sharing and people enjoying his experience to have removed the said complaints.

Removing 2/5 yes, but not from 81.

As you state, we don't know the full facts, and haven't read the full correspondence and therefore we cannot draw the conclusion that the request was 'unreasonable and somewhat disrespectful'. Maybe it wasn't in the first instant.

And the fact that his was willing to respect his wishes when he asked not to 'photograph the cache itself' but you can the bunker, but then was unwilling to to remove it from utube when requested. Begs the question, if the CO had said no pics at all, would he have gone ahead and done it anyway?

Link to comment

If it were possible to post videos to the cache pages in question, they would be considered spoilers. So, I think they are spoilers here.

 

At least for the Nuclear Bunker Cache - in my opinion, the video does not "spoil" the cache anymore than the many photos in the cache page gallery. In both cases they clearly show the bunker, and you get a very good idea of what the location is like.

Link to comment

Most of us have a pretty good idea of what a spoiler is. We know that some finders don't want to see spoilers before they look for a cache. We try to keep such spoilers out of our logs or at least to label these as spoilers so they can be avoided.

 

Most cache owners I know that remove spoilers are not doing so for the reason you mention, but they themselves do not want their caches spoiled.

 

From Sven's point of view these videos provided far more benefits by allowing people to see some nice hides than any problems caused by East Midlands cachers who might be trying to find a spoiler. Since he did not identify the cache by name or GC number in title or description, one would have to watch all his videos in the hoped of recognizing something.

 

No, one does not have to watch all of them. Watch a single one, look at the date and look at Sven's list of finds.

Moreover, in at least one video the container which is labeled with the GC code is shown.

Before making your claims, have a closer look into the matter. I am not local and was able to identify several caches within a few minutes.

 

(In fact several people in this thread said they would have less a problem with a site that was worldwide and had many more videos. The objection seems not that there are spoiler but how easy it may be to find them, and have claimed that Sven's site was much easier to use to find a spoiler than what actually appears to be the case).

 

What do you mean with "what actually appears to be the case"? Several cachers not from the UK have proved that they were easily able to identify some of the caches shown in the videos. I guess with some work it would be possible to match almost all of them also for non locals. Many locals will be able to make a match without any work at all.

 

Regarding the world wide site my stress was not on it being worldwide, but that if the site is down in the manner I have in mind there would be no spoilers at all, but just a video form of the CCC thread. For example, there should be no mention of the country of the cache, who has found the cache, no dates associated to real log dates etc

 

While it's easy for us to state how simple it would be for Sven to comply with cache owner requests and avoid the controversy, this fails to acknowledge that these request may be unreasonable and somewhat disrespectful of those who want to share their geocaching experiences.

 

You seem to ignore that Groundspeak was involved and will be involved in such cases if troubles arise. They can well check whether the request is disrespectful. Showing the containers of found caches at their exact location is not what I regard as sharing one's geocaching experiences. For me that is comparable to posting the final coordinates of multi caches and mystery caches that are hidden at locations the finder likes and to which he would like to attract the attention of other cachers. In this manner caches become senseless. There needs to be a limit on what is regarded as an acceptable way of sharing one's geocaching experiences.

 

The problem isn't Sven. The problem is Section 4(m) which was a horrible idea that does nothing to actually stop spoilers. In my opinion cache owners should accept facts and stop trying to control things they cannot (and should not) control.

 

In my opinion, the attitude that welcomes any form of spoilers ruins geocaching and is against what I regard as the spirit of geocaching.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

If someone wants to find a spoiler to help them find the cache (and this is what cache owners seem to want to stop), they have several methods to do this. The easiest might be to ask a previous finder for a hint.

 

No, there are many cachers for whom this is not the easiest way. It is much more difficult for some caches to find the few previous finders that might be willing to provide as many information as the full solution of a puzzle or the exact hideout of a cache than using spoiler sites like Sven's. Spoiler sites can be used without the local community becoming aware of the way a cacher is caching. I also think that hardly anyone will provide very inexperienced cachers with spoilers for quite sensitive caches.

All these barriers do not exist as internet spoiler sites are concerned.

 

If you knew that Sven is a local cacher, you could look at his videos and hope you would recognize the cache who wanted the spoiler for. I doubt that many people had their experience spoiled either intentionally or unintentionally through Sven's videos. But when a cache owner asks to you to take down a "spoiler", Groundspeak's one-size-fits-all policy is you have to "respect" the wishes of the cache owner.

 

As I and other have mentioned before, even as non local it is possible to match quite a number of videos with their corresponding cache. The approach is not to look at a particular cache and search out for a spoiler for it, but rather look around for all available spoilers for caches in an area and that collecting all of them. YOu seem to think in the same 1:1 scheme as Sven and Cup which is simply only one of many possible approaches to look for spoilers and to work with them. Do not assume that all people share the same pattern of thinking. Separate pieces of information provided do not stay separate, but can linked to each other and then typically lead to new information/conclusions. I am often wondering whether most cachers who visit several caches during the same caching tour are never thinking about which information they disclose about cache A when logging cache B. If the final of a mystery is close to a traditional, it is very annoying if some finders write something like "Walking 200m further from cache ..., we found this cache".

Certainly this can happen, but it would do no harm if most cachers would invest a little bit more thinking and analysis when writing logs, writing blogs, uploading photos to their photo sites etc

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

How about I steer this topic for a second.

 

At what point would one find it acceptable to listen to the cache owner?

 

I take a photo 10 feet from the cache. Acceptable?

20?

30?

40?

etc

 

Quite simple answer: It depends on the situation. If the photo shows the final of a multi cache or a mystery cache,

the area can often be identified also if the distance is much larger.

What's important is always whether the provided information considerably helps a cacher who applies it in a clever way.

 

The description specifically said that you could take photos of the bunker, but not of the container.

Sven respects this request, to keep within the co's wishes and takes a video of the area BUT NOT OF THE CONTAINER.

 

A side question:

Do you think that we really need to write in all our cache descriptions that the containers and hideouts should not be shown? Isn't that something we should do automatically in each case where a non standard container is used and we do not have explicit permission?

For me this sort of behaviour is what I expect to be part of the geocaching spirit.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

As I and other have mentioned before, even as non local it is possible to match quite a number of videos with their corresponding cache.

 

You, here, are privvy to more information than anyone in the wild. Nobody happening on the "geocachespoilers" youtube channel will know the username of the cacher who filmed them, infact if you read through the comments lots of people asked for Sven's username and were ignored.

 

The historical caches cannot be fixed because he's banned, but I challenge you to find any of the caches SINCE he was banned.

 

I got $50 says you can't.

Link to comment

As I and other have mentioned before, even as non local it is possible to match quite a number of videos with their corresponding cache.

 

You, here, are privvy to more information than anyone in the wild. Nobody happening on the "geocachespoilers" youtube channel will know the username of the cacher who filmed them, infact if you read through the comments lots of people asked for Sven's username and were ignored.

 

I agree that is easier for me as I do not need to invest time to research. Of course it makes it easier for people if they are told the user's name, but it can be found out in other ways by investing more time. You appear tro assume that cachers are quite naive, only are able to use directly available data and not able to link different sorts of data sources together (e.g. by using GSAK, writing a few lines of code etc).

 

Moreover, some cachers have met Sven in person and are able to recognize him. Even if does not know him, his accent e.g. tells already something about the country where he likely seems to come from etc

Using more refined approaches a whole lot can be concluded.

 

The historical caches cannot be fixed because he's banned, but I challenge you to find any of the caches SINCE he was banned.

 

I got $50 says you can't.

 

I am not willing to invest time into this project. I might succeed or fail, but that's not the issue here.

It is certainly possible to make it harder to draw conclusions that it has been for Sven's site, but that does not mean that

sites like Sven's are ok and are not usable as spoilers by those who want to use them that way.

 

As I have mentioned before, as a local I would not need any log data at all - just looking at the videos would help me for the very few caches that I have not found in my area.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

but it can be found out in other ways by investing more time.

 

What other ways?

 

I am not willing to invest time into this project. I might succeed or fail, but that's not the issue here.

 

That says it all, I think you realise it's not possible. And it IS the issue here, if you cannot link the cache to the video (or the video to the cache) then it spoils nothing.

Edited by Cup.
Link to comment

Strategically I see no point on trying to enforce GS rules on behaviour outside of this site. It is WAY too easy to circumvent. Wouldn't GS be better served having the OP on the inside working with them?

 

Agree 100%, from a marketing point of view if nothing else. Reading the posts in the "petition" and on the "I got banned" video he brought an awful lot of people to the sport.

Link to comment

I am a beginner at geocaching and have been doing it for only a few months with my partner. The caches we find are in urban area's and tend to be the usual magnetic nana, 35mm film case type and click lock boxes. Yesterday I decided to search for 'unusual cache containers' just to get an idea of what kind of thing to look out for whilst caching when I came upon Sven's You Tube channel and started watching some of his video's.

 

I thought they were fantastic and really enjoyed seeing the inventive ways caches are hidden, way more exciting than the caches we have found! It's really opened my eyes.

 

Sven does state on his channel where he is from and so if you are likely to come across these caches, don't watch the video's - simple! How can you moan about them being spoilers for you but still watch them?

 

I feel that Svens videos will help beginners become better cachers, both at spotting tell tale signs and finding caches and also when it comes to hiding their own caches. Sven is obviously a dedicated and serious cacher and would never do anything to spoil anyone's fun, but rather to educate people and show how rewarding it can be to find these clever caches. Remember not all of us have found thousands of different caches all over the world! Some of us genuinely want to learn as much as we can and what to expect from caches.

 

He should not be banned, if people want to 'cheat' to find caches that is no fault of Svens, I have seen in logs people ringing other cachers to 'get help' finding a cache, yet that is fine? There have also been photographs and logs that give away alot of information. These Videos are a log of Svens favourite finds as well as his own hides and are really great to see.

Link to comment

Groundspeak seems to agree with the control freak cache owners who want to stop the natural sharing of information. They should realize that they are not going to stop spoilers.

"Control freaks"? I don't think that people that want to protect their work should be considered "control freaks", Toz. I think the situation is comparable to copyrights. You aren't going to stop copyright theft either, but that doesn't mean that those that want to should be considered "control freaks", nor that nothing should be done in an attempt to stop the problem.

Link to comment

Once again, it's not about whether these videos spoil caches for people who are finding them, but whether the cache owners feel that the existence of solutions to their puzzles/hides are readily accessible publicly, effectively diminishing the integrity of the puzzle (without them, someone who can't solve the puzzle or locate the container can't log it found (strictly speaking) - if they exist, people may log it found without having put the effort into solving the puzzle or visually locating the container)

Regardless of your opinion as to what should be required to 'log a smiley', that is the opinion of many COs who put a lot of effort into the puzzle-solving, and geocache-locating experience. That is the type of spoiler we're talking about.

 

As a finder, you don't have to look up a spoiler if you don't want to, whether it exists out there or not. So. It's not an issue to geocachers, local or otherwise. It's that the answer is out there.

 

Once again, that does not mean that as a CO I have any rights to demand every spoiler be taken down. I'd explode in a flurry of stress and fury. The best I can do is understand that it may happen, and express my strong desire that people who find my hide don't provide spoilers for others. I can't demand it, but I can respectful request it and hope that other players heed my request - in the spirit of the game.

 

Once again, that doesn't mean that Groundspeak has any right to stop videos from being shared if they contain spoilers. But Groundspeak has set a 'standard' of community respect and spirit, and if they think that a player is not living to that standard, they reserve the right to ban the user. It's simple. The user can still share videos. Just not as a member of the website. Groundspeak is no longer taking their money.

 

Actually what would be more interesting is if the last subscription fee's period of coverage is being honored. I believe it was a suspension though, and if it's in the TOU that a suspension is a period of lock-out which doesn't need to be compensated, then the point is moot. But if he's banned, it would be interesting to know if the same applies, or if he's out whatever's left on the year/period subscription.

 

Anyway.

Again.

 

Here's the gist:

It's not about the videos spoiling a cache for the players (who have the choice to ignore them).

It's about the videos being unapproved spoilers of caches for which the owner would prefer spoilers not exist.

 

The owner can't make them not exist. But if the player insists on posting them, Groundspeak has every right to suspend/ban the player from here for 'unsportsmanlike conduct', as it were.

Link to comment

but it can be found out in other ways by investing more time.

 

What other ways?

 

One can e.g. use some data mining approach on all logs in the whole area and compare

which persons are logging caches (not only found it logs) in certain periods. Doing that manually

costs a lot of time. Using computer methods makes the work much easier. Today's computing

power opens a lot of options that have not existed in earlier times. It appears to me that

you experiences with computers and data processing does not go beyond navigating to web sites,

posting in forums, writing e-mails and using Google in the most basic way. There is a whole world

beyond that.

 

 

That says it all, I think you realise it's not possible. And it IS the issue here, if you cannot link the cache to the video (or the video to the cache) then it spoils nothing.

 

Please read carefully what I wrote. I mentioned that I might succeed or fail which is the truth. The motivation to invest quite some time (as a non local) just to prove you something is simply not there.

A lot of what you refer as impossible is possible and unlike me you have been made some claims in this thread which have been proven to be wrong within this thread.

 

Moreover, you and Sven still claim that his old videos are no spoilers. He is only banned from gc.com for the moment, not from You Tube. If he wanted, he could delete all his videos.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

Here's the gist:

It's not about the videos spoiling a cache for the players (who have the choice to ignore them).

It's about the videos being unapproved spoilers of caches for which the owner would prefer spoilers not exist.

 

The owner can't make them not exist. But if the player insists on posting them, Groundspeak has every right to suspend/ban the player from here for 'unsportsmanlike conduct', as it were.

 

I fully agree with what you wrote. The only reason why I am also posting on whether something is a spoiler or not is because Sven and Cup are still insisting that the videos do not contain any spoilers. Suppose someone shows apples and peaches in a video and a cache owner would complain, the certainly Groundspeak would take no action. So indeed the issue that cache spoilers were involved plays a role and do does the notion of what is a spoiler.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

Sven does state on his channel where he is from and so if you are likely to come across these caches, don't watch the video's - simple! How can you moan about them being spoilers for you but still watch them?

 

 

I'm told Sven is from 2 places, acutally. Expect Geocache Spoilers to come to America soon. If he's not banned for life at that point. You really don't think GeocacheSpoilers was his first run-in with the authority of The Frog, do you? Trust me it isn't. That's a lot of drama and controversy to pack into a 4 1/2 month Geocaching career. :o

Link to comment

Most of us have a pretty good idea of what a spoiler is. We know that some finders don't want to see spoilers before they look for a cache. We try to keep such spoilers out of our logs or at least to label these as spoilers so they can be avoided.

 

Most cache owners I know that remove spoilers are not doing so for the reason you mention, but they themselves do not want their caches spoiled.

What does that mean that owners don't want their caches spoiled? Either they want to provide an environment where cachers who want to find the cache sans spoilers can do so, or they don't want people to find their cache using spoilers even if those cacher want to use spoilers. If it's the former then you accept spoiler sites so long as they can be easily avoided, if it the second you are simply trying to exert a level of control on the finders that cache owners don't really have. You can't stop people from phoning a friend or talking about a cache at an event and you shouldn't be able to stop people from sharing information on the internet either.

From Sven's point of view these videos provided far more benefits by allowing people to see some nice hides than any problems caused by East Midlands cachers who might be trying to find a spoiler. Since he did not identify the cache by name or GC number in title or description, one would have to watch all his videos in the hoped of recognizing something.

 

No, one does not have to watch all of them. Watch a single one, look at the date and look at Sven's list of finds.

Moreover, in at least one video the container which is labeled with the GC code is shown.

Before making your claims, have a closer look into the matter. I am not local and was able to identify several caches within a few minutes.

Until Google announces that its software is indexing any text it recognizes in YouTube videos, the fact that a GC code was recognizable in a video does not mean it spoils the cache. If you are looking for a spoiler for cache X, there was no identifying information in the title or description of the video that let you find the cache. It is possible that if you look at the date Sven found the cache, you'd only have to look at his videos that he posted after that date. If he posted one for the cache it would not be too hard to find. But still you have know that Sven posted the videos and you have to be actively looking for a spoiler.

While it's easy for us to state how simple it would be for Sven to comply with cache owner requests and avoid the controversy, this fails to acknowledge that these request may be unreasonable and somewhat disrespectful of those who want to share their geocaching experiences.

 

You seem to ignore that Groundspeak was involved and will be involved in such cases if troubles arise. They can well check whether the request is disrespectful. Showing the containers of found caches at their exact location is not what I regard as sharing one's geocaching experiences. For me that is comparable to posting the final coordinates of multi caches and mystery caches that are hidden at locations the finder likes and to which he would like to attract the attention of other cachers. In this manner caches become senseless. There needs to be a limit on what is regarded as an acceptable way of sharing one's geocaching experiences.

I don't see it the same way. The fact is spoilers will exists in one form or another. And likely, there will be spoilers on the internet - only now the people who post them will make sure they can't be linked back to their geocaching.com account. Cache owners cannot control what methods people will use to find their caches. They may be disappointed that people go to the final of their multi or puzzle without doing the work. For clever camouflage, they may be disappointed that people didn't spend an hour searching because they knew already what to look for. But people will phone-a-friend, talk to other cachers, and even look for hints and spoilers on the internet. There is no point in cache owners trying to stop this.

 

The only reasonable argument against spoilers is to allow those finders who don't want inadvertently see a spoiler to be able to see the cache without it. I'd accept a TOU that allows cache owners to ask bloggers to put a warning that a video shows spoilers so that people who want will be able to avoid them.

 

The problem isn't Sven. The problem is Section 4(m) which was a horrible idea that does nothing to actually stop spoilers. In my opinion cache owners should accept facts and stop trying to control things they cannot (and should not) control.

 

In my opinion, the attitude that welcomes any form of spoilers ruins geocaching and is against what I regard as the spirit of geocaching.

The spirit of geocaching is the community that has been created through the exchange of information. While geocachers should understand that not everyone wants to see or hear a spoiler before looking for a cache, they also know through experience that some geocachers want help on a tough cache, and even that some geocachers want park and grabs and will look for spoilers before they search. There are different geocachers and they cache in different ways. Cache owners don't get to decide what ways people use to find their caches.

Link to comment

What does that mean that owners don't want their caches spoiled? Either they want to provide an environment where cachers who want to find the cache sans spoilers can do so, or they don't want people to find their cache using spoilers even if those cacher want to use spoilers.

 

I meant the latter which I thought would be obvious within the context of not agreeing with you.

 

If it's the former then you accept spoiler sites so long as they can be easily avoided, if it the second you are simply trying to exert a level of control on the finders that cache owners don't really have.

 

At the log level (which has been the topic in your statement to which I replied it has been an well established policy that owners are able to act against spoilers in the logs for their caches.

 

You can't stop people from phoning a friend or talking about a cache at an event and you shouldn't be able to stop people from sharing information on the internet either.

 

I do not even want to stop them from phoning a friend or talking at an event.

 

Until Google announces that its software is indexing any text it recognizes in YouTube videos, the fact that a GC code was recognizable in a video does not mean it spoils the cache.

 

First, it still makes the claim that no cache code is shown wrong. That does not depend on how one searches for spoilers.

 

If you are looking for a spoiler for cache X, there was no identifying information in the title or description of the video that let you find the cache. It is possible that if you look at the date Sven found the cache, you'd only have to look at his videos that he posted after that date. If he posted one for the cache it would not be too hard to find. But still you have know that Sven posted the videos and you have to be actively looking for a spoiler.

 

Yes, of course one has to look actively for spoilers, but that's the case for people who wish to exploit spoilers for example because they want to find every cache in their region, but are not able on their own. Such cachers typically do not obtain support from others for special caches, but with the internet approach this changes.

 

I do not agree that spoiling caches is only done in a 1:1 way. One might well look through all local material one comes across and then use this collective effort to find several caches one has not found before without knowing before starting the approach for which caches one will end up with solutions/help.

 

 

The only reasonable argument against spoilers is to allow those finders who don't want inadvertently see a spoiler to be able to see the cache without it.

 

According to your definition of reasonable, not to mine. Reasonable in this setting is quite subjective.

 

If a cache is massively effected by spoilers, most cache hiders I know will archive their cache and this is not in the interest of those people who enjoy that type of cache.

So your definition of reasonable means you accept the anger of the cache hider and those who would like to find a cache, but cannot any longer, for the happyness of those

who are not interested into such caches at all and just do not like that there are caches around that they do not like and that are not directed to them.

 

 

The spirit of geocaching is the community that has been created through the exchange of information. While geocachers should understand that not everyone wants to see or hear a spoiler before looking for a cache, they also know through experience that some geocachers want help on a tough cache, and even that some geocachers want park and grabs and will look for spoilers before they search. There are different geocachers and they cache in different ways. Cache owners don't get to decide what ways people use to find their caches.

 

Apart from the wishes of cache owners the following needs to be taken into account:

There are many caches which do not tolerate a high number of visitors. Keeping the tasks to be solved in advance (terrainwise or difficuly-wise or both) is the only reasonable way to keep the number of visitors sufficiently low. That works quite well in my area as long as there are no organized spoiler sites.

There are areas which should only be visited by those who have dealt with what will wait for them before starting off - for example if the cache deals with some sad episodes from history (genocides, wars, accidents etc). There are many more aspects that are problematic about spoilers than just the aspect you have in mind about sharing experiences. If a cacher phones another cacher, they typically will know each other at least as cachers and it will easier to judge what could/should be told to whom.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
You can't stop people from phoning a friend or talking about a cache at an event and you shouldn't be able to stop people from sharing information on the internet either.

No one is saying you can. No one is saying you should be able to.

But you can, most certainly, reasonably expect that people respect your wishes and not do that.

If they do, and a conflict arises sufficient for Groundspeak to take action here, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles here.

 

toz, you're arguing about opinion of what should be right or wrong in the ethics of the game. Due to that, many will have very different opinions, and this will go around in circles.

 

The existence of spoiler videos and revealing blogs on the internet will never end, will never stop, and shouldn't be stopped.

The existence of disrespectful cachers interacting with and toying with a positive 'spirit of the game' as defined by Groundspeak? Yeah, that can be dissuaded in Groundspeak territory, very easily.

Link to comment

Groundspeak seems to agree with the control freak cache owners who want to stop the natural sharing of information. They should realize that they are not going to stop spoilers.

"Control freaks"? I don't think that people that want to protect their work should be considered "control freaks", Toz. I think the situation is comparable to copyrights. You aren't going to stop copyright theft either, but that doesn't mean that those that want to should be considered "control freaks", nor that nothing should be done in an attempt to stop the problem.

I like the copyright argument. If I was on that side of the debate I would have used it a long time ago. But since I'm not, I have a response.

 

Copyrights and patents are meant to provide some protections to creative works so the creator is able to make some profit from their work. Geocache ownership is a bit different because nobody earns any money from hiding caches. You might argue that the payment for hiding a cache are the logs you get and that a spoiler cheats you of a glowing log praising your hide or a DNF describing the frustration of not finding the cache. Some spoilers may result in a TFTC log where you might have gotten a more interesting log if there was no spoiler. More often the spoiler will result in a log where you might not have gotten any log at all. It would be hard to show that spoilers deprive cache owners of their profit of getting good logs.

 

While the real world benefits because copyrights and patents give some incentive to creative people to create, it's not clear that geocaching benefits more from preventing spoilers than it does from accepting them. Sure some cache owners have said they would archive their caches if someone were posting spoilers. But I don't see evidence this would be a substantial number of caches. And one cannot argue that Section 4(m) is needed to ensure caches are hidden; many caches were hidden prior to this clause being added to the TOUs and despite the numerous complaints about spoilers, cacher owners continued to hide caches.

 

Geocaching, as I see it, is more like the Open Source movement. Geocaching benefits from the free exchange and sharing of information. Someone finds something on vacation and hides a similar cache when they get home. People post cool cache containers in the forum thread for others to see and copy. People write about caches they have found and post pictures and videos in their blogs. New ideas for hiding caches spread this way. Sure it would be nice to give credit when you copy a someone's hide, perhaps even ask permission to do so; but this isn't always done. Sven's intent seems to have been to post videos of clever hides to inspire others to hide caches like these. Perhaps geocaching should adopt a Creative Commons license where cache ideas can be freely shared. Those that don't want to participate could opt out. Imagine if the person who hid the first LPC were to argue copyright protection and demand that all the other LPCs be archived because they didn't get permission. :ph34r:

 

Finally, copyright includes an exception for fair use. It would be easy to argue that if copyright applied to geocaches, a video review of a cache including spoilers would be fair use.

 

Here's the gist:

It's not about the videos spoiling a cache for the players (who have the choice to ignore them).

It's about the videos being unapproved spoilers of caches for which the owner would prefer spoilers not exist.

 

The owner can't make them not exist. But if the player insists on posting them, Groundspeak has every right to suspend/ban the player from here for 'unsportsmanlike conduct', as it were.

True Groundspeak has made a decision that accords to cache owners a right to demand the removal of "the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache" in any media. Ostensibly, their reasoning was one of respecting the cache owner (which you can call "unsportsmanlike conduct" if you'd like). Groundspeak desire is for geocachers to respect each others wishes. Nice idea, but in reality there are conflicts. There are many cachers who desire the ability to find spoilers. There are others who wish to share their experiences and post videos and reviews of the caches they have found. Groundspeak has decided to deal with this conflict by choosing sides. I believe they chose the side that will cause more problems for geocaching in the long run. This rule will not stop spoilers. It will only drive spoliers underground as people find ways to post that cannot be traced to their geocaching.com account. They have created a cache owner "right" that will be abused just as ALRs were, with demands to take down videos or blogs that reasonable people would agree are not spoilers. There will be a cache owner that allows a video to be posted by a friend, but get some they have a personal grudge against banned for posting the same video. There will be cache owners who will flip-flop on whether they consented. When Groundspeak has to start dealing with the mess they have created one can only hope they will correct their mistake.

Link to comment

Groundspeak seems to agree with the control freak cache owners who want to stop the natural sharing of information. They should realize that they are not going to stop spoilers.

"Control freaks"? I don't think that people that want to protect their work should be considered "control freaks", Toz. I think the situation is comparable to copyrights. You aren't going to stop copyright theft either, but that doesn't mean that those that want to should be considered "control freaks", nor that nothing should be done in an attempt to stop the problem.

I like the copyright argument. If I was on that side of the debate I would have used it a long time ago. But since I'm not, I have a response.

 

Copyrights and patents are meant to provide some protections to creative works so the creator is able to make some profit from their work. Geocache ownership is a bit different because nobody earns any money from hiding caches. You might argue that the payment for hiding a cache are the logs you get and that a spoiler cheats you of a glowing log praising your hide or a DNF describing the frustration of not finding the cache. Some spoilers may result in a TFTC log where you might have gotten a more interesting log if there was no spoiler. More often the spoiler will result in a log where you might not have gotten any log at all. It would be hard to show that spoilers deprive cache owners of their profit of getting good logs.

 

While the real world benefits because copyrights and patents give some incentive to creative people to create, it's not clear that geocaching benefits more from preventing spoilers than it does from accepting them. Sure some cache owners have said they would archive their caches if someone were posting spoilers. But I don't see evidence this would be a substantial number of caches. And one cannot argue that Section 4(m) is needed to ensure caches are hidden; many caches were hidden prior to this clause being added to the TOUs and despite the numerous complaints about spoilers, cacher owners continued to hide caches.

 

Geocaching, as I see it, is more like the Open Source movement. Geocaching benefits from the free exchange and sharing of information. Someone finds something on vacation and hides a similar cache when they get home. People post cool cache containers in the forum thread for others to see and copy. People write about caches they have found and post pictures and videos in their blogs. New ideas for hiding caches spread this way. Sure it would be nice to give credit when you copy a someone's hide, perhaps even ask permission to do so; but this isn't always done. Sven's intent seems to have been to post videos of clever hides to inspire others to hide caches like these. Perhaps geocaching should adopt a Creative Commons license where cache ideas can be freely shared. Those that don't want to participate could opt out. Imagine if the person who hid the first LPC were to argue copyright protection and demand that all the other LPCs be archived because they didn't get permission. :ph34r:

 

Finally, copyright includes an exception for fair use. It would be easy to argue that if copyright applied to geocaches, a video review of a cache including spoilers would be fair use.

 

 

Would you care to summarize, or should I assume that your main point is made in the first sentence and that all the rest is just supporting your argument?

 

Edit: Just kidding... I did read enough, I believe, to get the gist of your argument.

 

 

.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

At the log level (which has been the topic in your statement to which I replied it has been an well established policy that owners are able to act against spoilers in the logs for their caches.

The guidelines give cache owners the responsibility for maintaining the quality of the logs on their cache pages. There is no mention of spoilers. Cache owner have generally been allowed to delete spoilers for the reason I gave - that finders who wish to find the cache without spoilers can do so. A spoiler on the cache page - even in the logs where there is a spoiler warning - is hard to avoid. Cache owners also have the option to encrypt the log if it has spoilers.

 

Until Google announces that its software is indexing any text it recognizes in YouTube videos, the fact that a GC code was recognizable in a video does not mean it spoils the cache.

 

First, it still makes the claim that no cache code is shown wrong. That does not depend on how one searches for spoilers.

I'm tired of this nonsense of attacking Sven and Cup by parsing everything they say in order to catch them is some sort of lie. When they said they didn't show the GC code it was not in the context that of whether the GC code was visible in the video or not. The videos are not identified in any way that the can be found by searching for that cache. If you know the GC code, the only way to find the video is to watch all the videos until you get to the one that has the code. If you don't know that Sven's videos even exist you aren't likely to stumble across this video. Furthermore, my understanding is that the video that shows the GC number is not one of the videos that was asked to be removed.

 

The only reasonable argument against spoilers is to allow those finders who don't want inadvertently see a spoiler to be able to see the cache without it.

 

According to your definition of reasonable, not to mine. Reasonable in this setting is quite subjective.

 

If a cache is massively effected by spoilers, most cache hiders I know will archive their cache and this is not in the interest of those people who enjoy that type of cache.

So your definition of reasonable means you accept the anger of the cache hider and those who would like to find a cache, but cannot any longer, for the happyness of those

who are not interested into such caches at all and just do not like that there are caches around that they do not like and that are not directed to them.

I can't do much if a cache owner insists on archiving his cache because he cannot control spoilers on a third party site. I happen to believe that this will not happen that often. But you say most cache owners would archive the cache. I guess we will disagree here.

 

Section 4(m) isn't going to put an end to unwanted spoilers. It may make them a bit harder to find as they are driven underground, though I suspect that those who want to share this information will find ways to do so. So now we have a rule that for the time being simply makes some cache owners happy, because they can get some videos that are already out there removed. My concern are the cache owners who will abuse this rule and get non spoiler videos removed - like the one of the bunker which any reasonable person would agree is a. not a spoiler and b. shows just what the cache owner says is ok to post pictures of on the cache page.

 

 

Apart from the wishes of cache owners the following needs to be taken into account:

There are many caches which do not tolerate a high number of visitors. Keeping the tasks to be solved in advance (terrainwise or difficuly-wise or both) is the only reasonable way to keep the number of visitors sufficiently low. That works quite well in my area as long as there are no organized spoiler sites.

There are areas which should only be visited by those who have dealt with what will wait for them before starting off - for example if the cache deals with some sad episodes from history (genocides, wars, accidents etc). There are many more aspects that are problematic about spoilers than just the aspect you have in mind about sharing experiences. If a cacher phones another cacher, they typically will know each other at least as cachers and it will easier to judge what could/should be told to whom.

Perhaps these are not appropriate places to hide geocaches. Cache owners can't control what finders do.

 

toz, you're arguing about opinion of what should be right or wrong in the ethics of the game. Due to that, many will have very different opinions, and this will go around in circles.

 

The existence of spoiler videos and revealing blogs on the internet will never end, will never stop, and shouldn't be stopped.

The existence of disrespectful cachers interacting with and toying with a positive 'spirit of the game' as defined by Groundspeak? Yeah, that can be dissuaded in Groundspeak territory, very easily.

By now you know that is what I like to argue about. I fully understand there is a large portion of cachers who think spoilers are something bad and the cache owners have every right to try and stop them.

 

I'm arguing that spoilers are natural in a game like geocaching. Some will avoid them and others will seek them out. Cache owners should accept there are things they cannot control. Because you cannot stop people from sharing information, I am also arguing that Groundspeak was wrong to add a section to the TOUs to try to stop this. It only opens a can of worms and creates another cache owner right that can be abused.

 

While Groundspeak has every right to ban Sven for violation of the TOUs, this thread provides ample evidence, IMO, that there are people who want these spoilers. I haven't been convinced by any of the arguments why the cache owner's wishes should trump other cacher's wishes. To me the argument of respecting the desires of the cache owner is hollow, since to do so Sven would have to disrespect the desires of the many people who want him to keep these videos available.

Link to comment

The guidelines give cache owners the responsibility for maintaining the quality of the logs on their cache pages. There is no mention of spoilers. Cache owner have generally been allowed to delete spoilers for the reason I gave - that finders who wish to find the cache without spoilers can do so.

 

That seems to be your interpretation or can you show me a reference with an official statement proving that your claim about the reason to be allowed to deal with spoilers in logs is true?

 

A spoiler on the cache page - even in the logs where there is a spoiler warning - is hard to avoid. Cache owners also have the option to encrypt the log if it has spoilers.

 

Encryption does not help at all if the focus is the hider's point of view. The encryption approach is only used around here for very mild spoilers and never for mystery caches when it concerns the solution process. Sometimes updated hints if the old hint became wrong (e.g. tree cut down and cache owner is not reachable) are written in an encrypted manner.

 

I'm tired of this nonsense of attacking Sven and Cup by parsing everything they say in order to catch them is some sort of lie.

 

It might be nonsense for you - it is still true. I simply wrote that they made wrong claims. Claims of that type are either true or false - there is nothing in between. I did not use the term lie. 4+4 is not nine, but I never would accuse someone who answered with 9 to be lying.

 

When they said they didn't show the GC code it was not in the context that of whether the GC code was visible in the video or not. The videos are not identified in any way that the can be found by searching for that cache. If you know the GC code, the only way to find the video is to watch all the videos until you get to the one that has the code. If you don't know that Sven's videos even exist you aren't likely to stumble across this video. Furthermore, my understanding is that the video that shows the GC number is not one of the videos that was asked to be removed.

 

Yes, that's true, but does not change whether a statement is true or false. Your and their approach to the matter apparently assumes only one of many possible ways of using spoiler information, namely the 1:1 approach. There are caches that are almost unsolvable for some cachers and so investing say 5 hours in searching for spoilers is still a discount compared to spending several days.

 

 

I can't do much if a cache owner insists on archiving his cache because he cannot control spoilers on a third party site. I happen to believe that this will not happen that often. But you say most cache owners would archive the cache. I guess we will disagree here.

 

Most cache owners of complex caches (not most owners of caches in general!) and those with tricky hideouts in my area would do it if the spoilers were not removed.

 

Consider caches like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bf1fbe4b-3df6-44e3-80ad-1ef4a93543be

Any massive spoiler or just a video showing the area around the location would completely ruin the cache.

The cache involves quite a lot of work to obtain the coordinates, both at home and then by travelling around in the city where it is located. In the end, also the hideout offers a challenge. There is a good reason that the cache has so far only have 8 "found it" logs. With a spoiler site it would theoretically (theoretically because the owner would archive it before that going to happen) have about 150 to 200 logs (taking estimates from traditional caches in the same area).

 

 

Perhaps these are not appropriate places to hide geocaches. Cache owners can't control what finders do.

 

No, they can't. But the approach I mentioned works in practice as long as there are no spoiler sites.

Phone jokers, events etc do not pose any issue, spoiler sites do.

 

I'm arguing that spoilers are natural in a game like geocaching. Some will avoid them and others will seek them out. Cache owners should accept there are things they cannot control. Because you cannot stop people from sharing information,

 

We cannot stop it, but rather strongly discourage it when it comes to publishing spoiler sites instead of classifying it as natural as you are doing it. Natural somehow has the flavour of being a welcomed and good behaviour or put differently the flavour of a virtue and not of a vice.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

By now you know that is what I like to argue about. I fully understand there is a large portion of cachers who think spoilers are something bad and the cache owners have every right to try and stop them.

 

Well, you know... come to think of it, I guess I always thought the word, "spoiler" came from the word, "spoil", as in "spoiled", or rotten, moldy, diseased, etc. You get the picture. But when you think about it, the word "spoiler" could actually have been used as a Good Thing, like cheese, sauerkraut, and lutefisk. Does anybody here know the true history of the word, "spoiler"? Was it actually intended to mean something GOOD, and not something BAD?

Link to comment

By now you know that is what I like to argue about. I fully understand there is a large portion of cachers who think spoilers are something bad and the cache owners have every right to try and stop them.

 

Well, you know... come to think of it, I guess I always thought the word, "spoiler" came from the word, "spoil", as in "spoiled", or rotten, moldy, diseased, etc. You get the picture. But when you think about it, the word "spoiler" could actually have been used as a Good Thing, like cheese, sauerkraut, and lutefisk. Does anybody here know the true history of the word, "spoiler"? Was it actually intended to mean something GOOD, and not something BAD?

OK, call them hints or solutions (Section 4(m) includes these words as well).

Link to comment

By now you know that is what I like to argue about. I fully understand there is a large portion of cachers who think spoilers are something bad and the cache owners have every right to try and stop them.

 

Well, you know... come to think of it, I guess I always thought the word, "spoiler" came from the word, "spoil", as in "spoiled", or rotten, moldy, diseased, etc. You get the picture. But when you think about it, the word "spoiler" could actually have been used as a Good Thing, like cheese, sauerkraut, and lutefisk. Does anybody here know the true history of the word, "spoiler"? Was it actually intended to mean something GOOD, and not something BAD?

OK, call them hints or solutions (Section 4(m) includes these words as well).

 

But they don't call them hints or solutions. Not even Sven calls them that.

 

Maybe they should call them Lutefisks.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

By now you know that is what I like to argue about. I fully understand there is a large portion of cachers who think spoilers are something bad and the cache owners have every right to try and stop them.

 

Well, you know... come to think of it, I guess I always thought the word, "spoiler" came from the word, "spoil", as in "spoiled", or rotten, moldy, diseased, etc. You get the picture. But when you think about it, the word "spoiler" could actually have been used as a Good Thing, like cheese, sauerkraut, and lutefisk. Does anybody here know the true history of the word, "spoiler"? Was it actually intended to mean something GOOD, and not something BAD?

OK, call them hints or solutions (Section 4(m) includes these words as well).

 

But they don't call them hints or solutions. Not even Sven calls them that.

 

Maybe they should call them Lutefisks.

Lutefisk is too disgusting, how about sauerkraut?

Link to comment

While Groundspeak has every right to ban Sven for violation of the TOUs, this thread provides ample evidence, IMO, that there are people who want these spoilers. I haven't been convinced by any of the arguments why the cache owner's wishes should trump other cacher's wishes. To me the argument of respecting the desires of the cache owner is hollow, since to do so Sven would have to disrespect the desires of the many people who want him to keep these videos available.

Your the ice cream guy, so try this (non-ice cream, more real world):

 

Let's say I know your personal information (SSN, Driver's license, DOB, etc), by your reasoning I should share this as there are lots of people who would like to know and use said info in way you don't want (for the slow: identity theft). So why should I 'respect' your desire to keep it private, when there are many who desire to use it?

 

BTW copyright doesn't just cover monetary gain situations. Any intellectual propery is covered whether you profit from it or not. As a magician my act is copyrighted whether I get paid for a performance or not. Just because I've performed in public, no one has rights to the material without my say so.

Link to comment
Nice idea, but in reality there are conflicts. There are many cachers who desire the ability to find spoilers. There are others who wish to share their experiences and post videos and reviews of the caches they have found. Groundspeak has decided to deal with this conflict by choosing sides. I believe they chose the side that will cause more problems for geocaching in the long run. This rule will not stop spoilers. It will only drive spoliers underground as people find ways to post that cannot be traced to their geocaching.com account. They have created a cache owner "right" that will be abused just as ALRs were, with demands to take down videos or blogs that reasonable people would agree are not spoilers. There will be a cache owner that allows a video to be posted by a friend, but get some they have a personal grudge against banned for posting the same video. There will be cache owners who will flip-flop on whether they consented. When Groundspeak has to start dealing with the mess they have created one can only hope they will correct their mistake.

Boy that's one big slippery slope!

The only people this will be an issue for are people who don't "respect the spirit of the game" - that is, play nice with cache owners. Be nice. Be selfless. In situations where the cache has an integrity the owner wishes to keep.

I'd argue that's less often than you suppose.

This is not a situation that will threaten any and all, let alone most, geocaching videos containingin spoilers. It's only for those for which the cache owners emphatically wish there not to be spoilers out there.

 

Section 4(m) isn't going to put an end to unwanted spoilers.

Good riddance, imo. I'm all for spoiler videos. I'm also all for respect towards difficult puzzles and hides. I might search for an answer to a puzzle I can't solve, but I would be impressed and thankful regardless, if the owner made every effort to avoid the solution being published publicly. Then I'd resort to a PAF, and possibly begging if I really really couldn't solve and I really really wanted to log it.

Changes nothing. unwanted spoilers is against the spirit of the challenge, whether puzzles or difficult hides. If Groundspeak's response is to deny access to their own sites for people who insist on providing unwanted spoilers anywhere, then so be it. Make them go "underground", doesn't bother me; I'll just respect that blogger even less :P

 

I'm arguing that spoilers are natural in a game like geocaching. Some will avoid them and others will seek them out. Cache owners should accept there are things they cannot control. Because you cannot stop people from sharing information

Never disagreed with that. Not sure why you're still arguing for that... that doesn't seem to be to be a contentious issue here.

 

I am also arguing that Groundspeak was wrong to add a section to the TOUs to try to stop this. It only opens a can of worms and creates another cache owner right that can be abused.

They're not trying to stop sharing of spoilers. They're trying to discourage avoidable conflict within the community and provide a better geocaching experience overall (this is good for the owner, and the seeker; the only problem is for people trying to find spoilers and answers to difficult caches for which the owner has made every effort to be difficult; in which case, imo, too bad for them; solve the puzzle, or find the cache =P)

 

While Groundspeak has every right to ban Sven for violation of the TOUs, this thread provides ample evidence, IMO, that there are people who want these spoilers

And nothing is stopping them from being available. Just, at the expense of an account here for the user who insists (to the angst of the cache owner) on spoiling over there.

 

Also, 2nding what The Jester and Cezanne said about cacher "rights" to spoilers, and cacher desire trumping the cache owner's.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

By now you know that is what I like to argue about. I fully understand there is a large portion of cachers who think spoilers are something bad and the cache owners have every right to try and stop them.

 

Well, you know... come to think of it, I guess I always thought the word, "spoiler" came from the word, "spoil", as in "spoiled", or rotten, moldy, diseased, etc. You get the picture. But when you think about it, the word "spoiler" could actually have been used as a Good Thing, like cheese, sauerkraut, and lutefisk. Does anybody here know the true history of the word, "spoiler"? Was it actually intended to mean something GOOD, and not something BAD?

OK, call them hints or solutions (Section 4(m) includes these words as well).

 

But they don't call them hints or solutions. Not even Sven calls them that.

 

Maybe they should call them Lutefisks.

Lutefisk is too disgusting, how about sauerkraut?

 

Too hard to spell correctly. Do you really want to see new threads titled "Geocaching Sour Crouts Videos"?

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