Deleting a spoiler log

[+J Grouchy]

Had to delete my first "found it" log yesterday...and it angers me because I gave the guy a choice.

I have a D3 hide in a local park and it was intended to be a tricky hide with no hints given. It's had only one find in two + months...until yesterday. Some guy logs it found...then proceeds to describe the hiding spot in his log!

I got the notification and immediately contacted him, asking him to edit the spoiler out or I'd have to delete his log.

 

His response:

My apologies.

 

I believe that the lack of location description in the cache is a bit anti-geocaching.

 

If you disagree, you may delete my comment.

 

Excuse me...HUH???

 

To me, it's EXACTLY what geocaching is about...the challenge of the find! He essentially told me he wouldn't edit it and I was forced to delete it.

 

Was I too quick to do that?

 

I responded to his email:

 

When you talk to anyone and ask them whether it's okay to describe in detail the cache hiding spot on their difficulty 3 cache, you let me know. In my mind, it's "anti-geocaching" to give away the hiding spot on a cache...ESPECIALLY a Difficulty 3 cache. It was intentional on my part for the hunt to be difficult and tricky and I do not appreciate anyone posting photos of the cache hide or describing the hiding spot. For a higher difficulty rating, it's considered poor form to give it away.

 

Like I said, though...you found it, so you have every right to log it as found. Just don't write a spoiler about it in the log. I would have rather not deleted it, but your email basically came off sounding like you were giving me no other choice.

Thanks for finding my cache and signing the log. Hope you had fun searching for it...I just want to make sure others have as much fun in the search now.

 

How would you have handled it? Would you have let the spoiler slide? Would you have continued the debate, giving the person every opportunity to edit the spoiler out before deleting it?

[+T.D.M.22]

He said if you disagree, delete the log. I would have done it- it's what he wants isn't it?

[+Touchstone]

I probably would have encrypted the Log Entry and let it go at that.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I don't enjoy D3 caches with no description/hints, but since you properly rated the cache I can avoid it. Sounds like the finder should adopt the same practice.

[+Glenn]

It's your cache. I wouldn't feel guilty deleting the log and Groundspeak policies support you in this case.

 

That being said, I'm sorry to say that I think the days of keeping the surprise aspect of a cleverly hidden cache are gone. With the proliferation of cameras on smartphones it's too easy for someone to make a quick spoiler video. There are many spoiler videos on youtube. If you have a particularly clever or evil cache hide you should, unfortunately, expect it show up, without warning or your permission, on sites like youtube.

[Space*Cadet]

Had to delete my first "found it" log yesterday...and it angers me because I gave the guy a choice.

I have a D3 hide in a local park and it was intended to be a tricky hide with no hints given. It's had only one find in two + months...until yesterday. Some guy logs it found...then proceeds to describe the hiding spot in his log!

I got the notification and immediately contacted him, asking him to edit the spoiler out or I'd have to delete his log.

 

His response:

My apologies.

 

I believe that the lack of location description in the cache is a bit anti-geocaching.

 

If you disagree, you may delete my comment.

 

Excuse me...HUH???

 

To me, it's EXACTLY what geocaching is about...the challenge of the find! He essentially told me he wouldn't edit it and I was forced to delete it.

 

Was I too quick to do that?

 

I responded to his email:

 

When you talk to anyone and ask them whether it's okay to describe in detail the cache hiding spot on their difficulty 3 cache, you let me know. In my mind, it's "anti-geocaching" to give away the hiding spot on a cache...ESPECIALLY a Difficulty 3 cache. It was intentional on my part for the hunt to be difficult and tricky and I do not appreciate anyone posting photos of the cache hide or describing the hiding spot. For a higher difficulty rating, it's considered poor form to give it away.

 

Like I said, though...you found it, so you have every right to log it as found. Just don't write a spoiler about it in the log. I would have rather not deleted it, but your email basically came off sounding like you were giving me no other choice.

Thanks for finding my cache and signing the log. Hope you had fun searching for it...I just want to make sure others have as much fun in the search now.

 

How would you have handled it? Would you have let the spoiler slide? Would you have continued the debate, giving the person every opportunity to edit the spoiler out before deleting it?

 

I know of a cacher who has a couple of caches with clever, & unique, containers. The CO asks not to post any images in the log so seekers will be surprised. It has not worked, there are still finders who think it's okay to post pics of the cache in their logs. The CO has deleted the images and contacted the finder that they deleted it because its a spoiler and they want all seekers to have the surprise. Fortunately, you can delete the image without deleting the log. But I think if the Cacher describes the hide then they should expect their log to be deleted!

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I would have deleted and skipped the wordy respoonse.

[+ngrrfan]

Those of us that hide D3+ caches and also find said types appreciate the cleverness of the hide thus the majority of finders respect the unstated rule of "no spoilers". Now that isn't to say that we won't discuss a particular cache at an event amongst ourselves or that we won't give hints to someone looking for a cache but to blatantly post in the online log the exact location is a big "no no".

[+Yuma4]

I think I would have permanently encrypted the log, Either way you are backed by policy. The cacher can always re-log his find without the spoiler.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Those of us that hide D3+ caches and also find said types appreciate the cleverness of the hide thus the majority of finders respect the unstated rule of "no spoilers". Now that isn't to say that we won't discuss a particular cache at an event amongst ourselves or that we won't give hints to someone looking for a cache but to blatantly post in the online log the exact location is a big "no no".

 

+1.

[+dprovan]

I'm OK with what you did. His was an odd response, but he gave you an option, so I don't see any problem with you taking it. If it had been me, my response to him would have been acknowledging his position while stating the reasons behind my own rather than arguing with him about which of us can claim knowledge about the true nature of geocaching. I don't have any problem with your response, but it strikes me that it will leave an unpleasant taste in both of your mouths.

 

On the other hand, I would have deleted the spoiler first and discussed it second, so I might never have gotten the chance to make nice.

[+dprovan]

His response:

My apologies.

 

I believe that the lack of location description in the cache is a bit anti-geocaching.

 

If you disagree, you may delete my comment.

Oh, by the way, it sounds like he thinks if you delete his log there's no harm done, so you should probably make sure he's aware that people watching the cache -- and there will always be some on a hard hide like that -- get his spoiler before the CO has a chance to delete it.

[+J Grouchy]

His response:

My apologies.

 

I believe that the lack of location description in the cache is a bit anti-geocaching.

 

If you disagree, you may delete my comment.

Oh, by the way, it sounds like he thinks if you delete his log there's no harm done, so you should probably make sure he's aware that people watching the cache -- and there will always be some on a hard hide like that -- get his spoiler before the CO has a chance to delete it.

 

There are two people watching it, but I'm 100% positive the FTF was one of them since he almost immediately contacted me and expressed his own disappointment that the guy did that.

[+TheOldfields]

Think you were perfectly reasonable to do what you did.

 

Out of interest, does the finder own any caches?

[+J Grouchy]

Think you were perfectly reasonable to do what you did.

 

Out of interest, does the finder own any caches?

 

Owns one cache.

22 finds (8 of which are virtuals)

 

The one he owns is a D1...and the "hint" is unencrypted (the brackets are already on it):

 

"[if you can find the tree growing out of the rocks next to the seawall, you are there. Under two small rocks located in the roots of the tree stump feet to the east of the only tree growing out of the rocks.]"

 

Might as well add "and if you can't find it, I'll come out and hand it to you!".

Edited January 21, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+JohnnyVegas]

Had to delete my first "found it" log yesterday...and it angers me because I gave the guy a choice.

I have a D3 hide in a local park and it was intended to be a tricky hide with no hints given. It's had only one find in two + months...until yesterday. Some guy logs it found...then proceeds to describe the hiding spot in his log!

I got the notification and immediately contacted him, asking him to edit the spoiler out or I'd have to delete his log.

 

His response:

My apologies.

 

I believe that the lack of location description in the cache is a bit anti-geocaching.

 

If you disagree, you may delete my comment.

 

Excuse me...HUH???

 

To me, it's EXACTLY what geocaching is about...the challenge of the find! He essentially told me he wouldn't edit it and I was forced to delete it.

 

Was I too quick to do that?

 

I responded to his email:

 

When you talk to anyone and ask them whether it's okay to describe in detail the cache hiding spot on their difficulty 3 cache, you let me know. In my mind, it's "anti-geocaching" to give away the hiding spot on a cache...ESPECIALLY a Difficulty 3 cache. It was intentional on my part for the hunt to be difficult and tricky and I do not appreciate anyone posting photos of the cache hide or describing the hiding spot. For a higher difficulty rating, it's considered poor form to give it away.

 

Like I said, though...you found it, so you have every right to log it as found. Just don't write a spoiler about it in the log. I would have rather not deleted it, but your email basically came off sounding like you were giving me no other choice.

Thanks for finding my cache and signing the log. Hope you had fun searching for it...I just want to make sure others have as much fun in the search now.

 

How would you have handled it? Would you have let the spoiler slide? Would you have continued the debate, giving the person every opportunity to edit the spoiler out before deleting it?

I always delete spoiler logs. If the person that post the spoiler does not get it well To bad for them

[+Ambrosia]

Think you were perfectly reasonable to do what you did.

 

Out of interest, does the finder own any caches?

 

Owns one cache.

22 finds (8 of which are virtuals)

 

The one he owns is a D1...and the "hint" is unencrypted (the brackets are already on it):

 

"[if you can find the tree growing out of the rocks next to the seawall, you are there. Under two small rocks located in the roots of the tree stump feet to the east of the only tree growing out of the rocks.]"

 

Might as well add "and if you can't find it, I'll come out and hand it to you!".

Most of the hints on my caches are very spoilery. Probably because I'm not as much into the finding part, and I'm not very good at it. I used to have people complain about my hints, now they compliment me on them. I think that the geocaching mindset has changed over time, probably with the influx of newer cachers.

[+wmpastor]

Think you were perfectly reasonable to do what you did.

 

Out of interest, does the finder own any caches?

 

Owns one cache.

22 finds (8 of which are virtuals)

 

The one he owns is a D1...and the "hint" is unencrypted (the brackets are already on it):

 

"[if you can find the tree growing out of the rocks next to the seawall, you are there. Under two small rocks located in the roots of the tree stump feet to the east of the only tree growing out of the rocks.]"

 

Might as well add "and if you can't find it, I'll come out and hand it to you!".

 

Sounds like he should reclassify his hide as "D 0." Although something that easy is probably "anti-geocaching."

 

Maybe the seawall is made of rocks & he doesn't want someone to take it apart and flood the town!

[+J Grouchy]

Think you were perfectly reasonable to do what you did.

 

Out of interest, does the finder own any caches?

 

Owns one cache.

22 finds (8 of which are virtuals)

 

The one he owns is a D1...and the "hint" is unencrypted (the brackets are already on it):

 

"[if you can find the tree growing out of the rocks next to the seawall, you are there. Under two small rocks located in the roots of the tree stump feet to the east of the only tree growing out of the rocks.]"

 

Might as well add "and if you can't find it, I'll come out and hand it to you!".

Most of the hints on my caches are very spoilery. Probably because I'm not as much into the finding part, and I'm not very good at it. I used to have people complain about my hints, now they compliment me on them. I think that the geocaching mindset has changed over time, probably with the influx of newer cachers.

 

I agree that not every hide needs to be "evil" or "tricky"...and indeed many of mine are actually pretty straightforward and relatively easy. But that's why they have the 1 to 5 Difficulty rating, so there can be some variety and challenge to the hide. To me, giving a useful hint on a traditional automatically prevents it from being a D3 or higher. Obviously, everyone's definition of "useful" can be different...but if I give a hint, it won't be on a cache that I intend to make very difficult to find. And that's just hints! This person essentially wrote a description of where to look and what to look for in his log. I don't trust that simply encrypting the log would make a difference. Do people actually NOT decrypt those?

[+Lieblweb]

That's exactly what I would've done. Emailed him/her and kindly requested they EDIT their log to get rid of the spoilers. I would specifically explain why I do not want spoilers listed.

 

He/She has the opportunity to abide by your request....and failed to do so.

 

DELETE.

 

In some cases, I'll be nice and email them again and say....I just deleted your log. Feel free to log it again without spoilers. Thanks

 

And if they do it again, I'll just delete it a 2nd time and never tell them I did it.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Lieblweb

[+GopherGreg]

Delete it. I don't know which cache this is, but if it doesn't say to not post spoilers in the description, then that might be something to consider adding.

[+TheOldfields]

Delete it. I don't know which cache this is, but if it doesn't say to not post spoilers in the description, then that might be something to consider adding.

 

I would say that adding spoilers into a log would be classed as non-standard behaviour. Thus shouldn't really need to be requested.

Edited January 21, 2014 by TheOldfields

[Clan Riffster]

How would you have handled it?

I would have asked them to edit the log.

If that didn't happen, I would've encrypted it.

To date, I have not deleted a log.

[+J Grouchy]

How would you have handled it?

I would have asked them to edit the log.

If that didn't happen, I would've encrypted it.

To date, I have not deleted a log.

 

Encryption is a joke. You're not serious.

[+RobDJr]

Sounds like someone who got confused about the difference between letterboxing and geocaching.

 

This kind of thing is a big reason why I almost never read logs before I search for a cache.

 

I don't have any hides of my own yet, but when I do I suspect I'd lean towards deleting logs like that. As far as encrypting goes, if I put the effort into creating a difficult cache and people are going to find it in an unconventional manner that I didn't intend, I'd just as soon they not be doing it using my own cache page.

[+lamoracke]

I like that you tried to have him edit the entry first, I would never delete a log without emailing.

 

Encrypting a log? To me that just tells finders to look at that one more closely, might as well draw a big arrow and say, hey, read this log!

 

I once asked a finder to delete mention of a hide but now years later, I wish I had not because really, that hide was not intended to be tough. With PAFs, folks will get their info. I think if someone deliberately put a spoiler picture on a intended to be tough find or clearly gave away the hide, I'd have done what you did. Course, with a photo, you can just delete the picture and leave the log alone. Personally I do not have any hides like that at the moment I would do that on, top of my head.

Edited January 22, 2014 by lamoracke

[Clan Riffster]

How would you have handled it?

I would have asked them to edit the log.

If that didn't happen, I would've encrypted it.

To date, I have not deleted a log.

 

Encryption is a joke. You're not serious.

Yes. I am serious. Since I am unwilling to delete such a log, turning it into something like a hint, through encryption, is the next best solution. I will be the first to agree that for those with control issues, encrypting a spoiler may not seem like a very good solution, but it works for me. You asked how I would handle it. I was foolish enough to believe you were actually seeking opinions from other people, rather than simply seeking justification for your opinion.

[+J Grouchy]

How would you have handled it?

I would have asked them to edit the log.

If that didn't happen, I would've encrypted it.

To date, I have not deleted a log.

 

Encryption is a joke. You're not serious.

Yes. I am serious. Since I am unwilling to delete such a log, turning it into something like a hint, through encryption, is the next best solution. I will be the first to agree that for those with control issues, encrypting a spoiler may not seem like a very good solution, but it works for me. You asked how I would handle it. I was foolish enough to believe you were actually seeking opinions from other people, rather than simply seeking justification for your opinion.

 

Opinions are fine and I'm not seeking justification. ROT13 decryption is as simple as tapping the screen on my smartphone, so it offers only the bare minimum of 'protection'. I'd be fooling myself if I thought people had the self-control to keep from tapping an encrypted log.

 

Not sure if you have some principle or odd self-imposed rule that keeps you from deleting any log...but encryption of a spoiler log is not at all a useful tool as it is the equivalent of hint which, as I stated previously, automatically reduces the difficulty rating on a cache. I did not put in a hint, therefore I would not allow someone else to do so for me.

Edited January 22, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+dprovan]

I once asked a finder to delete mention of a hide but now years later, I wish I had not because really, that hide was not intended to be tough.

I've noticed that spoilers often seem less important as time goes on. On the one hand, once a cache has been around a while, the people that wanted the raw challenge have typically found it already, so it becomes less important (to seekers, anyway) that there's a spoiler. On the other hand, a spoiler at the end of a log today quickly becomes lost to history as more logs are posted unless someone goes digging for it.

 

ROT13 decryption is as simple as tapping the screen on my smartphone, so it offers only the bare minimum of 'protection'.

Although Clan Riffster used the term "encrypt", ROT-13 isn't used to prevent people from reading the log, merely to force them to confirm that they want to read the log. I assume Clan Riffster isn't worried about the spoiler itself, only about people that don't want spoilers seeing it. This is the way I feel about my hides, although I'd be a little more strict about my puzzles.

[+cheech gang]

How would you have handled it?

I would have asked them to edit the log.

If that didn't happen, I would've encrypted it.

To date, I have not deleted a log.

 

Encryption is a joke. You're not serious.

Yes. I am serious. Since I am unwilling to delete such a log, turning it into something like a hint, through encryption, is the next best solution. I will be the first to agree that for those with control issues, encrypting a spoiler may not seem like a very good solution, but it works for me. You asked how I would handle it. I was foolish enough to believe you were actually seeking opinions from other people, rather than simply seeking justification for your opinion.

 

I can see the point Clan Riffster makes. All he is saying is that this is how he would handle it. If he had said he would handle it by throwing a cup of coffee at his computer screen he would protest if we were to say that was silly as well.

[+J Grouchy]

How would you have handled it?

I would have asked them to edit the log.

If that didn't happen, I would've encrypted it.

To date, I have not deleted a log.

 

Encryption is a joke. You're not serious.

Yes. I am serious. Since I am unwilling to delete such a log, turning it into something like a hint, through encryption, is the next best solution. I will be the first to agree that for those with control issues, encrypting a spoiler may not seem like a very good solution, but it works for me. You asked how I would handle it. I was foolish enough to believe you were actually seeking opinions from other people, rather than simply seeking justification for your opinion.

 

I can see the point Clan Riffster makes. All he is saying is that this is how he would handle it. If he had said he would handle it by throwing a cup of coffee at his computer screen he would protest if we were to say that was silly as well.

 

He protests everything. Must be tough to always have to correct all of us simple cavemen.

 

Anyway, he's free to handle it however he sees fit, but my comment was merely to express my belief that choosing to encrypt it "is a joke" in the sense that I don't see it as a useful option when I had previously stated that posting a hint compromises the difficulty rating...TO ME. See...that was me expressing my own opinion. That's how it works.

[+cerberus1]

If mine, a cache with a higher D rating (meaning it's meant to be tough to find) and no hints and someone purposely left a hint spoiler as their log, I'd delete first and send 'em an email why afterwards.

I wouldn't encrypt logs. To me, it would simply give any others attempting, hints I didn't want to provide in the first place.

If someone wants to share at an event, paf, I wouldn't mind much (usual done here anyway), but not on the cache page.

[Clan Riffster]

How would you have handled it?

I would have asked them to edit the log.

If that didn't happen, I would've encrypted it.

To date, I have not deleted a log.

 

Encryption is a joke. You're not serious.

Yes. I am serious. Since I am unwilling to delete such a log, turning it into something like a hint, through encryption, is the next best solution. I will be the first to agree that for those with control issues, encrypting a spoiler may not seem like a very good solution, but it works for me. You asked how I would handle it. I was foolish enough to believe you were actually seeking opinions from other people, rather than simply seeking justification for your opinion.

 

I can see the point Clan Riffster makes. All he is saying is that this is how he would handle it.

Exactly. I made an error in assuming, when Grouchy asked for opinions, that he actually wanted opinions. It was my mistake, and I'll own it. Since it was only an opinion, and not a call for action, I hope no one thinks that my methods are necessarily suitable for others. Just because I would react a particular way to given stimuli, does not mean anyone else should. Some folks feel a need to have a higher degree of control over how other folks log their caches. Nothing wrong with that. It just doesn't work for me.

[Clan Riffster]

He protests everything..

Edited January 23, 2014 by Clan Riffster

[+DanOCan]

It comes down to your Geocaching mindset. For me:

 

- I believe the purpose of a clever hide is to keep the cache hidden from muggles, not from other Geocachers. If I hid a more difficult cache it would be as a signal to seekers that they might need to look at things a little closer than normal, to expect something unusual, but I'd still want them to come away with the Find at the end of the search. Even on a difficult cache I would provide a decent hint to increase the seeker's chance for success.

 

- I believe each person will cache in a away that brings them satisfaction. If someone enjoys difficult hides, they are free to not decrypt my hint, to not read previous logs, to not view the gallery for potential spoilers, and to not phone a friend. If someone doesn't enjoy the searching aspect of the game, they can use any of those methods and it is no skin off my nose.

 

Essentially, I would take CR's approach. I would encrypt the spoiler log so someone reading it has to make a conscious decision to read it or not. The presence of an encrypted log is rare enough that people should know it likely contains a spoiler and if they are worried it will ruin their personal enjoyment of the hunt they should be grown-up enough to not decrypt it.

[+Colonial Cats]

Encryption is a joke. It, in no way, does the job of preventing unwanted spoilers. Figuratively, if it were a speed bump in a road, no one would feel the bump when driving over it.

[Clan Riffster]

Encryption is a joke. It, in no way, does the job of preventing unwanted spoilers. Figuratively, if it were a speed bump in a road, no one would feel the bump when driving over it.

By definition, preventing unwanted spoilers, from a seeker perspective, is exactly what encryption does. Those who choose not to see the spoiler will not see it. Just like the hint field. Those who want to see it, will.

[+Colonial Cats]

Encryption is a joke. It, in no way, does the job of preventing unwanted spoilers. Figuratively, if it were a speed bump in a road, no one would feel the bump when driving over it.

By definition, preventing unwanted spoilers, from a seeker perspective, is exactly what encryption does. Those who choose not to see the spoiler will not see it. Just like the hint field. Those who want to see it, will.

You just proved my point. In order to maintain the cache difficulty level, we do not want ANYBODY to see the spoilers.

[4wheelin_fool]

The problem here is that you allowed a spoiler being posted on a hide to raise your blood pressure. Its something that should be expected, but not necessarily tolerated. Deleting the log and allowing them to repost it should not raise his blood pressure either. Unless he just started, he should know not to do that, and unless someone says something he will probably continue to do so. Encripting the log works well if there is more to the cache than just a clever hide, such as a nice location, or if you don't want to sweat the small stuff. You could always invite someone else to post a log which seems like it gives a spoiler, but doesn't, and encript it to throw off anyone else.

[+WarNinjas]

We once posted some pics on a cool cache and didn't think anything of it. They didn't show the cache or anything but in a way was a give away. A few months later I got a email asking us to remove the pics. They were removed in minutes. It is the CO's cache so why not let them have it how they want. I think you did the right thing if that is how you want your page. You asked them to change it and if they didn't and even said to delete it then do so. I don't think we would delete it but you are free to do so with no reason not to.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I don't know. I think if it's tricky because it's a special camo job, by all means people shouldn't be posting spoilers. And, yes, you should feel free to delete his log.

 

However, if it's a needle-in-the-haystack type search, for instance, nano in a forest, which requires no effort on the part of the hider, but is difficult to find...I would probably not only have written spoilers in my log, but would have left some helpful flagging tape at GZ.

[+DanOCan]

I don't know. I think if it's tricky because it's a special camo job, by all means people shouldn't be posting spoilers. And, yes, you should feel free to delete his log.

 

However, if it's a needle-in-the-haystack type search, for instance, nano in a forest, which requires no effort on the part of the hider, but is difficult to find...I would probably not only have written spoilers in my log, but would have left some helpful flagging tape at GZ.

I like this approach.

[+DanOCan]

The problem here is that you allowed a spoiler being posted on a hide to raise your blood pressure. Its something that should be expected, but not necessarily tolerated. Deleting the log and allowing them to repost it should not raise his blood pressure either.

I can only recall one time when I had a log deleted for posting a spoiler. My log mentioned something about having to turn over a number of rocks before finding the correct one. Given that the cache was called something like "Under a Rock" I certainly didn't think it was much of a spoiler. It raised my blood pressure even though it wasn't a big deal to relog the find with a simple "."

[+MKFmly]

I can only recall one time when I had a log deleted for posting a spoiler. My log mentioned something about having to turn over a number of rocks before finding the correct one. Given that the cache was called something like "Under a Rock" I certainly didn't think it was much of a spoiler.

We have had a similar experience. Our log included a comment that (in our minds) was painfully obvious from the cache name and description but was interpreted to be spoiler by the CO. We complied with the request to edit our log, but did not see the point.

 

I believe each person will cache in a away that brings them satisfaction. If someone enjoys difficult hides, they are free to not decrypt my hint, to not read previous logs, to not view the gallery for potential spoilers, and to not phone a friend. If someone doesn't enjoy the searching aspect of the game, they can use any of those methods and it is no skin off my nose

Dan sums it up nicely (above), cache owners aspire (or should) to create great cache experiences but if people choose to experience them other than by the owners intended design or method its no skin off my nose. In response to the OP questions 1) email a request to edit the log 2) if edit not acceptable, then 3) encrypt the log.

 

Judging by most threads on here cachers do not use smart phones (or use the intro app) and never read cache pages or logs anyway...

[+niraD]

Encryption is a joke. It, in no way, does the job of preventing unwanted spoilers. Figuratively, if it were a speed bump in a road, no one would feel the bump when driving over it.

By definition, preventing unwanted spoilers, from a seeker perspective, is exactly what encryption does. Those who choose not to see the spoiler will not see it. Just like the hint field. Those who want to see it, will.

You just proved my point. In order to maintain the cache difficulty level, we do not want ANYBODY to see the spoilers.

The point of ROT13 has never been to prevent people from reading something.

 

The point of ROT13 has always been to allow someone to ignore something unless they deliberately chose to read it.

 

So from a geocache seeker's perspective, ROT13 prevents me from seeing unwanted spoilers (i.e., spoilers I don't want to see).

 

But from a geocache owner's perspective, ROT13 does not prevent people from seeing unwanted spoilers (i.e., spoilers I don't want them to see).

[cezanne]

I don't know. I think if it's tricky because it's a special camo job, by all means people shouldn't be posting spoilers. And, yes, you should feel free to delete his log.

 

However, if it's a needle-in-the-haystack type search, for instance, nano in a forest, which requires no effort on the part of the hider, but is difficult to find...I would probably not only have written spoilers in my log, but would have left some helpful flagging tape at GZ.

I like this approach.

 

I neither like needle-in-the-haystack searches nor this approach. I have the option to stop my search and to write a DNF log where I mention that I do not like such caches. I do not need to find every cache.

 

Making an effort not to provide spoilers belongs for me to the type of respect that I wish to offer to each hider regardless of how much I like the cache. The next cacher might think that he is allowed to spoil a puzzle because at the final only a micro is hidden or because there is no swag in the container etc. or because he and others prefer to be outdoors.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 24, 2014 by cezanne

[Clan Riffster]

Encryption is a joke. It, in no way, does the job of preventing unwanted spoilers. Figuratively, if it were a speed bump in a road, no one would feel the bump when driving over it.

By definition, preventing unwanted spoilers, from a seeker perspective, is exactly what encryption does. Those who choose not to see the spoiler will not see it. Just like the hint field. Those who want to see it, will.

You just proved my point. In order to maintain the cache difficulty level, we do not want ANYBODY to see the spoilers.

Dude. It's your cache. If you don't want ANYBODY to see a spoiler, you have the right to delete it. Grumpy was asking what I would do. If my method doesn't work for you, that is not a critique of you. We just have different ways of viewing these things. Encrypting the log would serve my purpose, which is to hide the information from those who don't wish to see it. From my perspective, it is not a joke.

 

Hopefully, Grumpy won't see this as me protesting...

[+Colonial Cats]

Encryption is a joke. It, in no way, does the job of preventing unwanted spoilers. Figuratively, if it were a speed bump in a road, no one would feel the bump when driving over it.

By definition, preventing unwanted spoilers, from a seeker perspective, is exactly what encryption does. Those who choose not to see the spoiler will not see it. Just like the hint field. Those who want to see it, will.

You just proved my point. In order to maintain the cache difficulty level, we do not want ANYBODY to see the spoilers.

Dude. It's your cache. If you don't want ANYBODY to see a spoiler, you have the right to delete it. Grumpy was asking what I would do. If my method doesn't work for you, that is not a critique of you. We just have different ways of viewing these things. Encrypting the log would serve my purpose, which is to hide the information from those who don't wish to see it. From my perspective, it is not a joke.

 

Hopefully, Grumpy won't see this as me protesting...

Yes, I see your point.

[+Fridge01]

I've had a few logs deleted for some odd reasons. I once mentioned that the hint was wrong and it got deleted as a spoiler, apparently the hint was supposed to be misleading and I'm not supposed to give that away. Another time I said I fell for the decoy, I thought that was a tribute to the COs cleverness but it got deleted for hinting that their might be a decoy. and I've had a DNF deleted because I said quick search it's too cold for a long search and the CO thought I hadn't put in enough effort to justify a DNF. Bottom line, each CO has their own ideas of what they want revealed. no reason to argue, just let them manage their hides as they see fit. At least they are active CO's, that's a good thing.

[+cheech gang]

I've had a DNF deleted because I said quick search it's too cold for a long search and the CO thought I hadn't put in enough effort to justify a DNF.

 

Oh brother. Being judged on the quality of your DNF is a little much.