Jump to content

Photo Etiquette


CamerLot

Recommended Posts

...And sure if Groundspeak wrote and said that what I published on my Facebook page was a spoiler I could take it down and they probably would not ban me. But if I really believe that what I published was not a spoiler, why shouldn't I fight for my right to publish it...

 

You HAVE the right publish it. You DON'T have the right to have a geocaching.com account if Groundspeak tells you to get lost.

Link to comment

So I have to guess the unwritten secret guidelines of what Groundspeak considers a spoiler? Sorry that doesn't help.

If you really need help understanding what a spoiler is, then Groundspeak's glossary might assist you. There's a link to that entry at the start of each cache description page's log section.

 

The TOU actualy says you agree not to publish in any form of media the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner. I wonder what makes something a "hint".

I'm sure you have a good idea. If you think something might be a borderline hint, however, you can always contact Groundspeak and ask them: contact@Groundspeak.com.

 

And sure if Groundspeak wrote and said that what I published on my Facebook page was a spoiler I could take it down and they probably would not ban me. But if I really believe that what I published was not a spoiler, why shouldn't I fight for my right to publish it.

Even if Groundspeak asks you to remove a spoiler, you don't have to do so. Continue to publish it if you want to fight for your right. Just don't get upset if Groundspeak bans you from their website. They have the right to do that.

 

You have the right to fling your arms around wildly, but that right ends where my nose begins. When you opt to live with others in a civilized society, you sometimes should forgo some of your preferences when they conflict with the preferences of others.

 

After I find a cache, I'm unlikely to ever look for it again. Rather than go to the trouble of carefully rehiding it, I'd prefer to just drop it on the ground and walk away. But I don't to that because I respect the preferences of other cachers who want to share my experiences of finding a hidden cache. And I respect the preferences of other cache owners who don't want to constantly replace caches left in the open. Common courtesy often involves making some small personal sacrifices.

 

Some people prefer to publish spoilers even if that ruins the fun of other geocachers who would prefer to experience the thrill of discovering a cache. Because there are conflicting preferences, I can understand why Groundspeak has its Terms of Use Agreement.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

I know that my opinion is not a popular one, particularly here in the forums. I understand that many people don't like to have their experience "spoiled". If there is a surprise ending in a movie they want to be surprised when they see it. If there is quirky turn in a novel, they don't want to know in advance before they read it. Likewise they get more satisfaction out of finding a cache without any hints, or working the puzzle themselves to get the coordinates, or being surprised by a unique camo job. I'm one who really sympathizes with this view. I always log my DNF's and don't like it much when someone (owner or not) sends me a spoiler. I've gotten in the habit of specifically stating in my logs that I don't want any hints. Still at some point the frustration of not finding a cache outweighs the desire to find it without hint and I breakdown and ask. Or I put the cache on my watchlist in the hopes that someone will post a spoiler.

 

Geocaching would be a lot less fun for many people if they didn't have PAF or cache owners who provide hints. The point is to find caches. Surprises or heightened sense of accomplishment are secondary.

 

I agree that it may be good cacher etiquette to not post spoilers on the cache page and in fact believe that cache owners have every right to delete logs container spoilers. My complaint with the TOU is that it was a response to some puzzle cache owners whose sense of entitlement led them to complain in the Feedback section about so-called cheat sites that published the solutions of puzzles. The demanded Groundspeak do something and Groundspeak obliged them by adding the section to the TOU. Now they can point to this and tell owners of "cheat" sites that they are in violation of the TOU and if they can identify this person's Geocaching account(s) they can ban the account(s) for violating the TOU.

 

The problem for me is the "cheat" sites are easily avoidable. They don't ruin the experience for anyone who still wants to solve the puzzles. They are used by geocachers who have given up on solving the puzzle (even if only after a cursory look) but who want to find the cache. This seems to bother cache owners who made it a puzzle apparently because they don't want people to find their cache. IMO, this problem did not need to be addressed by Groundspeak.

 

By trying to go after cheat sites, Groundspeak has made a statement that is overly broad. It can apply to anyone's geocaching blog as well. Here the intention is not to spoil anyone's fun but to share geocaching experiences. Someone might describe a cool cache hide or even an interesting puzzle, not identifying the particular cache. Yet a cache owner who sees this might yell "spoiler" and demand it be taken down. It isn't clear who Groundspeak is going to side with in these cases. So I contend this has the effect of discouraging these types of blogs, which, BTW, are very popular. People are looking at some of these for ideas to hide caches. Having blogs with cool containers encourages better quality caches. Again Groundspeak could have just stated that courtesy dictates contacting the cache owner and getting permission to feature their cache. They didn't have to threaten loss of your account because anything you publish might be construed as a spoiler.

 

It is natural for geocachers to talk about caches and share information. In this day and age of social media like Facebook and YouTube, one way to share information with other geocachers is to publish it in our news feeds. The TOU phrase means you can't share this way and be a member in good standing of Geocaching.com. I think this is unfortunate. I believe the benefit of geocachers sharing information online far outweighs the risks that someone's experience will be spoiled. I also believe that cache owners should have no more expectation that people won't share information about their caches than a movie produces can expect that people won't share spoilers about their movies.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...