'Write note' on unpublished caches

[+TheOldfields]

I published a cache a while ago where, while it was going through the setup process, I posted a note for clarification for the reviewer. The cache was a slightly sneaky type and that note basically gave away the entire idea. The trouble was that I used 'Write note' rather than 'Post reviewer note'. The reviewer then published the cache which left that note visible for everyone to see. I did realise that this had happened within a few minutes of the cache being published and quickly deleted that note, but not before at least one person had seen it. I know this because he said as much in his 'found' log a few weeks later. He also said that the same thing had happened to him.

 

Could I suggest that the option to add a 'Write note' is removed for unpublished caches. It would avoid this situation and I can't think of any reason why it would be needed. If there is a reason that I've missed then maybe switch this request to say "When adding a 'write note' for unpublished caches, then pop up a warning to say it will be visible to everyone, are you sure you want to do this?"

[+The A-Team]

It would avoid this situation and I can't think of any reason why it would be needed.

When dropping a TB in a soon-to-be-published cache, "Write note" is the only viable option, so it's definitely still needed.

[+Great Scott!]

It would avoid this situation and I can't think of any reason why it would be needed.

When dropping a TB in a soon-to-be-published cache, "Write note" is the only viable option, so it's definitely still needed.

 

You could still post a Found log to drop the TB and delete the Found log afterward.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Sounds like a learning experience, to me.

 

Not trying to be snarky, but it does tell you that a reviewer note will not show on the published cache.

If you fail to heed what it tells you this time, well......... you have learned something.

There are occasions that the standard "note" is needed, even on unpublished caches.

 

With that, I'd say changing the current procedure is not necessary.

[+The A-Team]

It would avoid this situation and I can't think of any reason why it would be needed.

When dropping a TB in a soon-to-be-published cache, "Write note" is the only viable option, so it's definitely still needed.

 

You could still post a Found log to drop the TB and delete the Found log afterward.

This has been shown to have other consequences, though, like affecting your favourite point count.

[+abanazar]

Sounds like a learning experience, to me.

 

Not trying to be snarky, but it does tell you that a reviewer note will not show on the published cache.

If you fail to heed what it tells you this time, well......... you have learned something.

There are occasions that the standard "note" is needed, even on unpublished caches.

 

With that, I'd say changing the current procedure is not necessary.

Maybe it is a learning experience, but it's an unnecessary one that could easily be improved.

 

Instead of telling you a Note (Type: Reviewer) will not show, it would be most useful for it to tell you that a Note (Type: Normal) will show.

 

I am the other cacher to whom the OP refers, who saw their note and who has also had the same experience on one of my own caches - I wasn't a rookie hider at the time either. Whilst some cachers would enjoy seeing a secret spoiler, I would actually have preferred not to see the OP's note in this case.

 

To be honest, I'd expect the Reviewer's Publishing Toolkit (however it works) to give them a warning of logs that would remain visible before making it go live, and perhaps give the CO the option of tidying them up if the logs were other than simple TB drops.

 

To drop a TB, I expect you could log a Note then delete it; I don't see why it would need to be a Found It. But if I want to drop a TB, I hold off logging a note until just after it goes live - I prefer it showing above the publication note

[+dprovan]

I'm sorry this happened to you, and I won't be at all surprised if it happens to me some day, but, nevertheless, it seems unreasonable to brand the action of posting a note to an unpublished cache as a mistake, even if you don't personally see any reason to use that feature.

 

On the other hand, I hope your note has raised the awareness of this pitfall so both COs and reviewers are more likely to consider whether a simple note contains secrets.

[+dprovan]

To drop a TB, I expect you could log a Note then delete it; I don't see why it would need to be a Found It. But if I want to drop a TB, I hold off logging a note until just after it goes live - I prefer it showing above the publication note

At least you do see the value of a note about a TB drop being in the log rather than deleting it. But inaccurately setting the date of the drop doesn't seem reasonable, particularly since you're going to be aiming for dropping the TB in the window between the publication and the first find. Personally, I see no advantage to having the drop note be chronologically after the publication note to begin with, but it just seems like a poor choice when you consider the problems it creates versus a note that correctly dates the drop.

[+stijnhommes]

To me it sounds like one of those things that is easily overlooked. An additional warning won't hog the servers and avoid this problem in the future (at least for the people who read warnings).

[+dprovan]

To me it sounds like one of those things that is easily overlooked. An additional warning won't hog the servers and avoid this problem in the future (at least for the people who read warnings).

An additional warning that is rarely valid is exactly why so many people don't read warnings.