[suggestions] Spoilers in logs

[+-CJ-]

I'm one of the COs who has dozens of active geocaches in the area where the game hasn't been much developed and English is not a common language. I face the problem of spoiler logs and photos.

 

Spoilers are generally considered to be no good. Geocaching Glossary: "In geocaching, a spoiler gives away details of a cache location and can ruin the experience of the find". Sadly, the glossary has not been translated into our language so few people can read it. The only hyperlink to this phrase is shown in small letters above logs on a cache page. It's only a warning, no negative wording about spoilers. When one posts a new log there's nothing at this page about spoilers. Spoilers aren't mentiioned in Geocaching 101 and on the "Finding your first geocache" webpage. There are some explanations in the Help Center but they aren't linked from other pages and haven't been translated.

 

As I see it, newbies don't even think about whether they post spoilers or not. Each time I have to write a PM to such person (if their emails were validated).

 

My suggestions are:

 

1. Add the Geocaching Glossary to the list of materials available for translation.

 

2. Slightly change the string above logs from "**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links" to something like that: "**Warning! Spoilers are considered bad but still may occur in the descriptions or links".

 

3. Add a warning string to the log submission form, something like "Please avoid publishing spoilers both in text or photos!" with a hyperlink to the Glossary.

 

4. Add similar strings to Geocaching 101 and the "Finding your first geocache" webpage.

 

With this, I hope, we could increase understanding of publishing of spoilers as poor practice in geocaching.

[team tisri]

Interesting thought, I wonder if people see "spoilers may be included" and reading "you may include spoilers" rather than "spoilers might be present". A specific note to discourage spoilers on the log submission page (on the web site and on the different flavours of the app) would make a lot of sense and should be trivial to implement.

[+Bear and Ragged]

YES!

 

2. Slightly change the string above logs from "**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links" to something like that: "**Warning! Spoilers are considered bad but still may occur in the descriptions or links".

 

The may be included seems to be read as you CAN include... by those posting logs, rather than as a warning to those reading logs.

Rather ambiguous, and does need a change!

[+cerberus1]

YES!

 

2. Slightly change the string above logs from "**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links" to something like that: "**Warning! Spoilers are considered bad but still may occur in the descriptions or links".

 

The may be included seems to be read as you CAN include... by those posting logs, rather than as a warning to those reading logs.

Rather ambiguous, and does need a change!

Agreed.

Never thought of it that way.

Edited June 24, 2014 by cerberus1

[+kunarion]

YES!

 

2. Slightly change the string above logs from "**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links" to something like that: "**Warning! Spoilers are considered bad but still may occur in the descriptions or links".

 

The may be included seems to be read as you CAN include...

If that's the case, the "Warning" implies there are problems if you don't post Spoilers.

[+T.D.M.22]

Just put a note saying any and all spoiler will be deleted without notice. If those that are not validated won't get the email,'they probably won't notice and/or care enough to rewrite the log.

Edited June 24, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[+ADKer]

I have to be honest, I've never thought of that this way before, but you make an excellent point! The wording should be changed.

[+-CJ-]

I look at this not as a single error in a phrase but as a problem that could/should be solved (at least partially) so different means would help.

 

Currently we (in our national community) explain "the spoiler problem" to cachers - because people often don't think about spoilers at all. Geocaching.com lacks user-friendly explanations. In some cases people know what are spoilers and believe they're doing good by publishing them: "I had some troubles with satellite reception in the area and it took me long to find the cache; I wish other players don't want to be in such situation so they might enjoy additional help from me".

 

Just put a note saying any and all spoiler will be deleted without notice.

 

I thought about doing this. However, geocaching has been (to certain extent) a social game and most spoilers have been published by newbies. Log deletion seems to be too strict and straigtforward action and may leave a newbie confused.

[Moun10Bike]

Don't delete the log, just delete the spoiler. Photos can be deleted from logs by cache owners and when doing so you can specify the reason for the deletion.

[jholly]

Don't delete the log, just delete the spoiler. Photos can be deleted from logs by cache owners and when doing so you can specify the reason for the deletion.

What if the spoiler is explicit text describing the hide and/or the custom container?

[Moun10Bike]

Delete away.

[+T.D.M.22]

 

Just put a note saying any and all spoiler will be deleted without notice. If those that are not validated won't get the email,'they probably won't notice and/or care enough to rewrite the log.

 

I thought about doing this. However, geocaching has been (to certain extent) a social game and most spoilers have been published by newbies. Log deletion seems to be too strict and straigtforward action and may leave a newbie confused.

 

Ok, then if the user has a validated account send them a message. If they don't, well that's not your fault you can't contact them. And even just having that warning could make some people stop and think about what they post.

 

As for it being too strict, well we only have a few options. Delete the log/picture. Send the user a message to ask them to change it(which we can't do with an unvalidated user) or just ignore the spoilers(then we can't complain about them) It's not like we can change someone else's log....

Edited June 24, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[+-CJ-]

Thank you but the question was not about how/what COs should delete in logs; it was about changes that could be made to the website interface for cache seekers to understand the "spoiler theme" better. (This is why I posted to the "Website" forum and not to "How do I..." forum). Just an idea, but isn't it worth doing? Small changes to make everyone happier? On my part I'll be happy to translate the Glossary as soon as it is available for translation.

[+ADKer]

Thank you but the question was not about how/what COs should delete in logs; it was about changes that could be made to the website interface for cache seekers to understand the "spoiler theme" better. (This is why I posted to the "Website" forum and not to "How do I..." forum). Just an idea, but isn't it worth doing? Small changes to make everyone happier? On my part I'll be happy to translate the Glossary as soon as it is available for translation.

 

I wholeheartedly agree. It's a simple change in the text on the cache page, but it would have a large benefit.

[+Walts Hunting]

It seems a pretty big assumption is being made. That is that people actually see the page, then read past the description and then pay attention to what is there. Is this age of phone users, many who are unvalidated that never occurs. Throw in that many times a set of caches is sent directly to the device or through a 3rd party app to it and the cacher finds and logs it without going to any page the likelihood of it being read is minuscule at best. Personally I go weeks without actually reading a cache page.

 

My vote is for delete the log if it offends and if the logger contacts you deal with that very rare occasion. Setting up a whole set of steps to deal with a rare event seems overkill.

[+-CJ-]

Dear Walts Hunting, I nevertheless believe that the practice of grabbing geocaches without reading anything about the game is not a good reason for leaving the website without improvements.

 

My vote is for delete the log if it offends and if the logger contacts you deal with that very rare occasion. Setting up a whole set of steps to deal with a rare event seems overkill.

 

"Whole set of steps"? We're talking about adding several new strings to the website - very small changes that are made, and this should be done only once.

[+ADKer]

 

My vote is for delete the log if it offends and if the logger contacts you deal with that very rare occasion. Setting up a whole set of steps to deal with a rare event seems overkill.

 

A whole set of steps?

 

The fix that has been suggested literally only involves someone at HQ holding down the backspace button for a couple seconds and then typing a sentence. (Well, to put it simply at least!)

[+Walts Hunting]

I was talking about all that emailing the finder. If it makes people feel good to change the website that is great but that change will have no impact on the issue because no one will read it.

[+-CJ-]

no one will read it

 

Please don't talk on behalf of the whole world