Weblog Of Cache Spoilers

March 9, 2004

There's a new cacher in an area (zip 94596) I sometimes visit who has a cellphone camera. His provider has some sort of weblog software that he can upload pictures to via his phone. He has taken to photographing the hiding spots of caches he finds and uploading them, then putting a link to the page in his log entry.

If he posted a spoiler picture right to the page, I, as a cache owner, would be upset. It's only a link, and he provides a disclaimer, but if you follow the link you can see the exact location of a given cache he has visited. That sneaky micro that someone hid in an "in there?" sort of place - he gives it away.

I really don't care, I don't follow the links, but I'm wondering what others think...

3.1k · March 9, 2004

As the owner of a few caches I can say it really doesn't bother me, unless he uploaded the pics to the cache page.

Recently I had a cacher post the exact whereabouts of my cache in his log. I encrypted his log but please, think a little.

March 9, 2004

This is obviously on the same sliding slope as any spoiler, like the hint, or descriptions in logs. Personally this is too far. It takes the fun out of it. i would only consider it as a last resort on a remote cache that was kicking my butt. Even then i would feel dirty about it. If i want to find something this easily, i'd look for numbers in the phone book. If someone posted these pictures to one of my caches (i'm working on it, ok?) i would be very frustrated, and i would remove the link, but not the log, if that is possible or ask them to remove it.

38.2k · March 9, 2004

I've seen cache logs with photos labeled as a spoiler. As a cache owner, if I had an issue with the photo, I'd delete it. If it was a link in a log, I might also ask that the finder to delete it. I say "might" because if it was a 1, or 2 star difficulty cache, I don't think I'd have a major issue if someone posted a spoiler. It would be up to the other hunters whether or not they want to look at it. BUT, if I had a 3 star + difficulty cache, I'd be extremely upset if someone posted a spoiler for it and would certainly want it deleted. I'd ask the logger to delete it first, explaining my reason and if they refuse, I'd delete it myself.

March 9, 2004

As long as it's clearly labeled as a spoiler, I wouldn't mind it. There's nothing to stop a cacher from e-mailing someone for a spoiler, so you can't totally prevent spoilers.

March 9, 2004

I have to agree that its not a big deal for level 1 and 2s, especially if the caches are just meant to be muggle-proof. I would have an issue with a direct link to spoiler images on 3+ caches, assuming they were spoilers. Typically the harder caches are set up to challenge the searcher.

Images set up for inspiration are another story. Its hard to really know how to set up a unique cache unless you've hunted it yourself. I'm maintaining a page of different containers but only email the link to out-of-towners.

March 9, 2004

Even as a newbie, it wouldn't bother me if the spoiler was added as a link with a disclaimer. But I wouldn't look at it, unless I had spent around 15hrs already looking for the cache.

20.7k · March 9, 2004

Perhaps it would bug me a little, but I probably would not ask that it be removed; nor would I delete the log. We all know cachers who routinely tell their friends the locations of caches (the infamous phone-a-friend). This is no different.

March 9, 2004

I agree with Briansnat. A 1 or 2, no big deal. Anything harder, I'd ask the person to remove the link. I don't care if it says it's a spoiler or not. If the hide was meant to be difficult, let's keep it difficult.

F_M

7.2k · March 9, 2004

Spoilers for difficult hides will be deleted if I can't get satisfaction from the logger.

If you want to work together on a puzzle no problem, but don't go giving people the answers.

This is similar to a pet peeve of mine, people who beg for solutions to the problem.

If you can't solve it, then you can't log it!

This wouldn't be as much of a problem if there was a mechanism that allowed people to take caches off their nearest list.

4.7k · March 9, 2004

i read this posting and thought about it a while. i would prefer that hints to difficult caches NOT be given. i am of the opinion that if i have to do the work to solve, so should those who come after me.

a puzzle cache loses some of its integrity when spoilers are openly offered. there are some people who want everything handed to them, and lathough i know they're out there, i don't want to see the evidence.

i'd ask the cacher to remove the link.

1.6k · March 9, 2004

I have issues with the people who feel they have to post the co-ords they got on every cache they find. I know of one cache that was purposely placed 'incorrectly' that went unfound until someone 'corrected' the co-ords, then everyone ran out to find it. If you want to post some interesting observational data, fine, just think if what you say will cause that big 'CACHE HERE --->' sign to light up.

Wulf

March 9, 2004

I have issues with the people who feel they have to post the co-ords they got on every cache they find. I know of one cache that was purposely placed 'incorrectly' that went unfound until someone 'corrected' the co-ords, then everyone ran out to find it. If you want to post some interesting observational data, fine, just think if what you say will cause that big 'CACHE HERE --->' sign to light up.

Wulf

In this specific instance I guess it depends on what you means by 'purposely placed incorrectly'. An off-set is a valid type of cache. So too is one where the owner warns you that the coordinates are only estimates and the cache is somewhere in a much wider area than we would normally expect due to the built in error.

But I've occasionally seen folks give coordinates that are deliberately off without any sort of note to that effect on the page. I think that kind of 'misdirection' can only lead to hard feelings. If my coordinates are off, I want to know.

As far as photos and other spoilers in logs, I generally don't mind them as long as they are clearly labeled as such. I've only once asked a finder to change their log entry, when it mentioned the container's specific hiding place.

Ron/yumitori

5.3k · March 10, 2004

I have a cache called easter egg hunt I hid laster year. Do to the heavy tree cover I went back a few weeks to add photo hints, Cachers were just having real problems satellite reception.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=58022

2.1k · March 10, 2004

If I had a cache hidden, regardless of the difficulty, I would leave any well-labeled linked spoilers. This goes to the very heart of the entire "I'm playing my game the way I want to so long as I don't hurt anyone doing so" argument that is often waved here as a banner flag. If you don't want to use spoilers, then don't. I respect any cache hider to delete my log if they don't like that I posted a spoiler, but I'd rather they didn't. I can easily keep my count with a log that says "due to the nature of the log I'd rather leave, this placeholder will have to do" and that will let me keep going on playing the game my way. At the same time, if someone were playing the game to be the overly generous giver of cache positions, so long as they don't do it directly on the page (thereby making it difficult for other's to play the game their way) then I don't care. The people who click the link and use their clues are playing the game their way, others choose not to, and that's fine too.

7.2k · March 10, 2004

Here's another take.

Say I complete a really difficult cache. I'm a finder on a cache that has taken me a year to complete because of it's extreme difficulty. Whoo Hoo! I completed The Killer Cache!

Then someone else comes along, finds it, and posts the final coords and pics on a web page. Then a whole bunch of people log it as found. They, too, say "Whoo who! I complete The Killer Cache!"

I'd feel cheated as a finder. Here are a bunch of cheaters who can rightfully log (because they actually found it, just not figured it out) and they can claim to be "equal" of me because they "found" The Killer Cache. There really is no distinction between "completing" the hunt and "cheating" on the hunt.

Being able to figure out a way to skip a step is not the same thing. That shows either a flaw in the hunt or the finder's skill or luck.

While the nature of the game puts people on different playing fields because of geography and timeline, thus the reason the cache found count is not a true measure of "cacherliness*," being able to claim that you completed certain hard caches puts you in sort of an elite class. There you can compete.

Having a permissive or easygoing attitude towards spoilers spoils it for not just the hidder or the person who uses the spoiler, but the person who doesn't use it, as well.

* What's a good word similar to "manliness", but gender neutral and relates to one's abilites or skills at caching?

38.2k · March 10, 2004

. I know of one cache that was purposely placed 'incorrectly' that went unfound until someone 'corrected' the co-ords

Now if the owner purposely placed it at incorrect coordinates (not sure what the point of that would be) and noted that fact in the cache page, then it would be wrong for someone to provide corrected coordinates in their log. But if there was no mention that this was done on purpose, then I don't see the problem with people posting corrected coordinates in their logs. It's a pretty common practice and I think many geocachers welcome it.

2.1k · March 10, 2004

I would say a link is harmless.

But, it should be up to the cache owner as to what should be posted on their cache page as far as that info goes. You can't control what other people are going to post and only the cache owner can remove info from the page besides the poster. Some owners don't give a rats butt about keeping things honest. Heck if you emailed them, they might not even reply to it. Just like people saying others would share "lidcodes", people do this same sort of thing on regular caches.

7.2k · March 10, 2004

So, you think the finders of Blood & Guts would think a spoiler is harmless? Took a year and half for the first find. Took a team of "Twelve people. Three weeks. Over 500 hours of work." to be first finders.

Now it's okay for someone to give a spoiler? Please!

I still say cheaters cheat everyone.

2.1k · March 10, 2004

I agree and don't like cheaters. But there is nothing you can do about it. It's going to be up to the cache owner to do that. Just the same as caches like virtuals and ones that are not allowed anymore (codewords), half the time the cache owners don't even respond or remove cheaters from the finds. Or just like people who don't sign log books, but claim them online. Cache owners aren't checking the logs to verify them. Only cache owners can keep their caches and their logs (both online and on paper) straight.

How about when someone posts something that may contain a spoiler that you let the cache owner know? Or if someone like this keeps doing the same thing over an over, then email them and ask them not to do that. Chances are you aren't going to have any luck. Work on where a difference can be made, the cache owner. It's a lot easier to control a cache owners listing on the site than it is to try and control the many cheaters out there.

6.4k · March 10, 2004

So, you think the finders of Blood & Guts would think a spoiler is harmless? Took a year and half for the first find. Took a team of "Twelve people. Three weeks. Over 500 hours of work." to be first finders.

Now it's okay for someone to give a spoiler? Please!

I still say cheaters cheat everyone.

I'm with CR on this one. That's why I've decided to leave out the hints on more challenging hides. Some people use the hints as they are intended, others seem to use them before even trying to find the cache. There is no way to totally level the playing field, but I try to keep it as level as possible on harder caches.

No hints, no spoilers in the logs.

1.6k · March 10, 2004

Here's the cache I mentioned, you decide if 'corrected co-ords' would be a spoiler.

Poor Japanese Translation Super Fun Cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...e3-95711555d111

Wulf

2.1k · March 10, 2004

Here's another take.

Say I complete a really difficult cache. I'm a finder on a cache that has taken me a year to complete because of it's extreme difficulty. Whoo Hoo! I completed The Killer Cache!

Then someone else comes along, finds it, and posts the final coords and pics on a web page. Then a whole bunch of people log it as found. They, too, say "Whoo who! I complete The Killer Cache!"

I'd feel cheated as a finder. Here are a bunch of cheaters who can rightfully log (because they actually found it, just not figured it out) and they can claim to be "equal" of me because they "found" The Killer Cache. There really is no distinction between "completing" the hunt and "cheating" on the hunt.

Being able to figure out a way to skip a step is not the same thing. That shows either a flaw in the hunt or the finder's skill or luck.

While the nature of the game puts people on different playing fields because of geography and timeline, thus the reason the cache found count is not a true measure of "cacherliness*," being able to claim that you completed certain hard caches puts you in sort of an elite class. There you can compete.

Having a permissive or easygoing attitude towards spoilers spoils it for not just the hidder or the person who uses the spoiler, but the person who doesn't use it, as well.

* What's a good word similar to "manliness", but gender neutral and relates to one's abilites or skills at caching?

To your scenario, CR, I say:

Big Hairy Deal.

I play some of the coolest video games around. I play through them from start to finish without opening a website or a guide and hope that I find every little secret hiding place in the game. I usually don't of course, but I try. When I finish the game, it's like "wow, that was a very cool and well-made game...I had a lot of fun beating it". Of course, my friend then says he beat it in a day using some guide online and a code that gave him invincibility. Big Hairy Deal. His cheating doesn't cheapen my experience because I played the game the way I wanted to and had a good time doing it.

The same goes for the Blood & Guts cache. In fact, lets say some really great puzzle solver goes out and completes B&G in 3 days without cheating but just being really good. Does that somehow reflect poorly on those 12 people's ability to find the cache because they're obviously less intelligent or wise than 1 guy with 3 days on his hands? The point is that the actions of one cacher do not reflect on another in this way. If all you want to do is find a cache no matter the difficulty and move on, then go ahead, just don't interfere with me while I figure it out for myself.

7.2k · March 10, 2004

In response to:

Poor Japanese Translation Super Fun Cache

Well, considering I see nothing in the poor double translation of it being an offset cache, not to mention it's listed as a traditional, I see nothing wrong with posting the coordinates of what you got.

This is very much preferable to moving the cache to your ground zero.

This is not a spoiler as it is not part of the puzzle, only poor GPS handling. The three coords I saw in the logs all were closer to each other than to the posted ones. I'd trust the log's coords over the ones given.

Edited March 10, 2004 by CoyoteRed

7.2k · March 10, 2004

Big Hairy Deal.

Then just what is the point?

First, your analogy is no even close to being accurate. You don't get anything by beating a game except the entertainment value. It might be more accurate if you got a high score without cheating and then they got a higher score and bumped you off the board by cheating. How fair is that?

Claiming a find where you cheated is very different from playing in "God mode."

I won't resent the person who completed a hard cache faster and easier than I did in the least as long as he didn't cheat. I know I'm not the best, smartest, fastest, or strongest out there and understand some can out do me. But, you know what? I know I try my best and I pride myself on my abilites. I don't have to cheat, but I also know I can't get them all.

It seems though that some people just can't accept not being the "best" to the point to think it's alright to cheat.

March 10, 2004

Here's the cache I mentioned, you decide if 'corrected co-ords' would be a spoiler.

Poor Japanese Translation Super Fun Cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...e3-95711555d111

Wulf

How far off is 40 feet, does not say it is purposely off unless the Poor Japanese Translation is suppose to tell you that. It is listed as a traditional and as such, I'd expect to find it at the posted coordinates. Also, this might be a moot point as the cache appears to be not their anymore and the owner should make a maintenance call to replace the cache or archive it.

edit:spelling

Edited March 10, 2004 by Car37&Shnde

2.1k · March 10, 2004

Big Hairy Deal.

Then just what is the point?

First, your analogy is no even close to being accurate. You don't get anything by beating a game except the entertainment value. It might be more accurate if you got a high score without cheating and then they got a higher score and bumped you off the board by cheating. How fair is that?

Claiming a find where you cheated is very different from playing in "God mode."

I won't resent the person who completed a hard cache faster and easier than I did in the least as long as he didn't cheat. I know I'm not the best, smartest, fastest, or strongest out there and understand some can out do me. But, you know what? I know I try my best and I pride myself on my abilites. I don't have to cheat, but I also know I can't get them all.

It seems though that some people just can't accept not being the "best" to the point to think it's alright to cheat.

Your arguments only hold true if there is some "best" or goal at geocaching (and the precise reason that Jeremy has dragged his heels on adding stats to the site's features). Skipping the hard part of a find is no different than running around in God Mode, because both allow you to go from start to finish without any effort. I have played numerous games where the top score on the site is clearly hacked to be 999,999. I don't sweat it, it's unimportant. I played the game at the site to have fun. There's no gold medal in geocaching and if you've invented one in your own mind, the cheaters are disqualified there anyways, are they not?

My point is simple, for those who play this game for fun and their own entertainment value, cheaters have no influence on how they play the game. Off-site spoilers are also of no consequence to these people. For people, such as you, who wish to generate a competition from the difficulty or number of their finds, the only problem is identifying whom cheated so that they can be taken off of your list of people you are competiting against. In either case, there is no problem with the off-site spoilers themselves.

This is a cheat-enabled game. If I wanted to simply start a new account and rack up all 50+ of my finds in one or two days to say I had some sort of speed record, you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the finds were from someone who had done those caches yet or not. Cheaters will cheat and you simply need to make sure that your fun comes without their influence on your life.

7.2k · March 10, 2004

There is a huge difference in accepting there will be cheaters and saying it's okay.

I accept there will be cheaters, but I'm not going to say it's okay because I can't stop them.

20.7k · March 10, 2004

I kind of liked the analogy, but lets take it back to this game.

In my area, there are cachers that will drive people around to rack up finds. My understanding is these individuals will go so far as to play hot-and-cold until the guest cacher makes the find. The help they give is not just on caches they own, but any cache.

These individuals also encourage their friends to call them for hints on any caches, not just those they have found.

Is this behavior 'cheating'? By your definition, it probably is. Personally, I could care less because it doesn't change my enjoyment of the game. It doesn't cheapen my enjoyment of a really good cache. (Heck, it probably only cheapens the experiences of the helped finders.)

In the same way, adding a link to a home page to a log doesn't affect me. I know that there may be spoilers in logs (and therefore in linked homepages). I can make my own decision as to whether I should follow that link to get help on caches I can't find.

Unlike false logs or cheating on LCs, this behavior does not cheapen the experience for anyone who doesn't want it cheapened. I couldn't care less about this issue and I would not request that the log be changed.

2.1k · March 11, 2004

There is a huge difference in accepting there will be cheaters and saying it's okay.

I accept there will be cheaters, but I'm not going to say it's okay because I can't stop them.

That is fine but it still does not address whether the fact that there are cheaters somehow devalues your entertainment value of your game. What influence does another person's actions in these respects have on how you personally play the game? The only way I can even think off is through statistics and then I'm sure you'd only want to consider the statistics of the non-cheating players, so anyone cheating isn't part of your game/statistics.

I think hot/cold or maybe phone-a-friend is another great idea for this game!

Imagine a cache placed somewhere within a rather large park. The coordinates of the cache on the webpage are technically "offset" to the parking lot. The first say 10 finders agree to join the hider at the parking lot at a certain time on a certain day. They are then given "hot/cold" clues or some sort of input from the hider in order to zero-in on the cache. Those 10 people are then qualified clue givers for the next people who want to find the cache and they must use the forums or notes to the cache page to arrange to meet someone who has finished the cache before to give the clues for them to find it.

Might not be an original idea, but I think it sounds like it'd not only be fun, but be like mini events to meet other geocachers every time someone went out to find the cache.

March 11, 2004

I think the idea of posting corrected coords is fine. In my area that is the norm. I can remember a cache, "Woodmen of the world" that I visited 3 times to get to that log. Huge power lines created a "mirror" for the signal,, and the coords were pretty far off. Some cachers will travel 100 miles to log a cache, and that has to be taken into consideration. I always average my coords for at least 3 minutes,, and if they are off, I appreciate the help.

Now,, as to the posting of links to spoilers. I have placed only 7 caches. Of the 7 ,, six are puzzles. I would ask the poster to remove the link on my puzzle caches. If they did not comply, I would delete it myself.

Also,, I am working on a monster multi-puzzle cache to be placed soon. On a puzzle cache that I put that much thought and time into, the post would be deleted as fast as my fingers can type. Not everyone has the willpower required to not look at a spoiler. An extra special cache is a creation. That creation would be altered by a "give away" spoiler. :rolleyes:

2.1k · March 11, 2004

You can only protect your children for so long before they grow up to be cowboys....or something like that.

Your creation stands on its own regardless of any linked spoilers. For those interested in the integrity and quality of a cache, it will be recognized on its merits regardless of how many spoilers there are available (and often this can even be a badge of honor....) or how many people logged it because they used spoilers.

If someone is going to go as far as clicking and reading through a link that was well-marked as containing a spoiler, then they didn't want to do your cache as you created it. It is not as if there are people trying to do your puzzle....but then spoiling their work because they were too weak not to click on a marked link... They were either going to let it live on their undone list or cheat and move on. It would be easy enough for me to hint at the existence of a spoiler and require people to mail me for the address. Or as long as all of the spoilers were warehoused on the same site, it would get around soon enough that anyone wanting spoilers would go to that site and its forums for the information. The idea that deleting logs with links somehow removes the information from the world and lessens the impact on your creation is a placebo at best if there is enough demand for an answer to your puzzles that does not require starting from scratch.

Again, it's every cache hider's right to delete any log they choose, but as we've seen in the past, deleting finders' logs does not always stack up to being beneficial for the cache or even other caches by the same hider. Deleting logs should always be seen as a last resort, in my ever-so-humble opinion.

7.2k · March 11, 2004

Never mind. The heartache just isn't worth it.

With any luck there won't be anyone in my area who thinks this way.

Edited March 11, 2004 by CoyoteRed

2.1k · March 11, 2004

CR....the problem is people that don't care. Mainly cache owners. I for one think there should be more stringnet rules placed on cache owners. I don't like the feeling that a cache owner does not care enough for the finders of their cache to try and keep things honest. At least for the honest cachers. I don't care if it's a traditional cache and someone places a spoiler in the online log or if it's a virtual and the owner is not responding to emails, it's wrong either way. But alas, there is nothing that the few of us that feel that way can do. I've owned 2 caches. I took very good care of them. I went back periodically whether they needed it or not to check on them. When I realized that I was moving 1000 miles away, I started looking for someone to adopt them weeks in advance, to ensure they were in capable hands before I left. If I had not found someone to adopt them. I would of archived them. It all falls on the cache owner. There is no official cache police. The cache owners have to police their own and should be doing so.

March 11, 2004

The subtext to this topic is "do find numbers matter". If they matter, than 'cheating' is bad and hurts everyone (or at least everyone who thinks numbers matter.) If numbers don't matter, than who cares? - the cheaters only impact themselves.

Big but: I believe in some absolutes. It's still cheating, one way or the other. The issue at question is if there is a real victim or not.

I know many cachers for whom numbers matter a whole lot. It's a normal human trait to want to measure things. (especially for males, and i suppose indirectly for females as well).

There are a few things I really like about geocaching. One of them is the way that the sport/pasttime is 'user generated' rather than being dictated from elsewhere. We find the caches, and we create the caches. There are rules, but the soul of the RASH belongs to us.

Another thing I like, as opposed to one of my other interests, baseball, is the way that the sport/pasttime resists quantification. Geocaching is very zen in that you don't measure it, you 'get' it - or not - and how you get it partly depends on who and what you are. Geocaching isn't just something you do, it's something that melds with you.

Ok. I'm starting to scare myself here. What is really satisfying to me these days is to get a cache off my 1st nearest page, regardless of type, even if it's just one cache.

Weblog Of Cache Spoilers

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation