Photo of cache container

[+Lellynelly]

I was just reading the logs of a cache I plan to search for later, and in the logs I found that someone had posted a photo of the actual container. 
Although a common basic container, what a spoiler. I now know exactly what I am looking for 😞. 
I have always understood spoilers like this were against Geocaching etiquette?

[+barefootjeff]

26 minutes ago, Lellynelly said:

I was just reading the logs of a cache I plan to search for later, and in the logs I found that someone had posted a photo of the actual container. 
Although a common basic container, what a spoiler. I now know exactly what I am looking for 😞. 
I have always understood spoilers like this were against Geocaching etiquette?

 

I guess the answer is "it depends". For my own hides, unless it's a novelty container I usually say in the description what the container is, for example on a recent one, "The container is a black 1 litre Duratech instrument case with a pencil included." The challenge I set for the finder is getting to the cache, but once there I want it to be easily found. If someone wants to post a photo of themselves or their kid holding the container that's fine, it's not giving away anything that's not already in the description, just as long as it doesn't reveal the hiding place. Here's an example of such a photo someone posted on another of my instrument case hides:

 

 

Way back on about my third day of caching, I was looking for a cache that said "bison tube" in the description. Being fresh out of muggledom, I had no idea what that was and imagined it to be something resembling a bison's horn, so it was no surprise I couldn't find it. A photo of someone holding it would have been a big help, but anyway I looked it up when I got home and then, knowing what I was looking for, went back and easily found it.

 

If the container is something special that's meant as a surprise, I'd rather finders didn't post photos of it, and on one occasion asked someone to delete their photo, which they happily did. Otherwise, snap away!

[+JL_HSTRE]

3 hours ago, Lellynelly said:

I was just reading the logs of a cache I plan to search for later, and in the logs I found that someone had posted a photo of the actual container. 
Although a common basic container, what a spoiler. I now know exactly what I am looking for 😞. 
I have always understood spoilers like this were against Geocaching etiquette?

 

If you're looking through the logs you're basically looking for spoilers. 

 

If the cache is a typical container this should usually be stated in the description or hint. It's not required, but I consider it basic information that should be shared. To aid seekers, especially since there has always been a lot of confusion about what is Micro vs Small. Also, to help potential seekers filter out caches with container types they dislike. 

 

Edited May 21 by JL_HSTRE

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, Lellynelly said:

I have always understood spoilers like this were against Geocaching etiquette?

 

Yes they are. You have been warned

There is also a ranking method for spoilers.

 

 

It is up to you how strictly you follow the etiquette.

[+ecanderson]

On 5/21/2025 at 5:47 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

 

If you're looking through the logs you're basically looking for spoilers. . 

 

Certainly not necessarily true.  Especially for certain COs, we peruse the logs to see if a previous finder has provided us with a useful set of ALTERNATE coordinates that more closely reflect reality!

 

[+brekkcaching123]

the annoying thing about being a CO is when a cacher will post a pic of a cache container that isn't meant to be posted. For example, a pill bottle cache, whatever. Who cares? But, what about an outlet cover? Or Fake Dog Poop? Fake Piece of Wood? Those are annoying and I normally remove those logs and have the cacher post their log without their photo. 

[+The A-Team]

56 minutes ago, brekkcaching123 said:

the annoying thing about being a CO is when a cacher will post a pic of a cache container that isn't meant to be posted. For example, a pill bottle cache, whatever. Who cares? But, what about an outlet cover? Or Fake Dog Poop? Fake Piece of Wood? Those are annoying and I normally remove those logs and have the cacher post their log without their photo. 

 

There's no need to delete the entire log. That was the only way to do it many years ago, but HQ long ago gave us the ability to delete just the images from a finder's log.

 

If you go to a log on one of your hides (for example, this one on your recent "Pit Stop" hide) and click "Edit image" above the photo, you can click "Delete image" to remove just the image and leave the log in place.

 

This would be the preferred way of dealing with the issues you pointed out. I value having my logs in the correct order, so getting a log deleted and having to re-log it out-of-order would be annoying and I would probably appeal to have it restored.

[+brekkcaching123]

1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

 

There's no need to delete the entire log. That was the only way to do it many years ago, but HQ long ago gave us the ability to delete just the images from a finder's log.

 

If you go to a log on one of your hides (for example, this one on your recent "Pit Stop" hide) and click "Edit image" above the photo, you can click "Delete image" to remove just the image and leave the log in place.

 

This would be the preferred way of dealing with the issues you pointed out. I value having my logs in the correct order, so getting a log deleted and having to re-log it out-of-order would be annoying and I would probably appeal to have it restored.

Ok, thank you. That is very helpful.