Hints in logs

[+humspuds]

We're sure this topic has been covered exhaustively somewhere in these forums, but we've started to see a trend of cachers - often novices - adding to their found logs, "Hint: check under the big rock to the left of the picnic table," or something similar, a complete spoiler. At first we were politely contacting the cacher and asking if they'd edit the log to preserve the experience for other seekers. Lately we've just been deleting them. Where is the idea that it's okay to drop a big ol' hint coming from? Don't even get us started on photos - but we don't feel as bad deleting those.

[+narcissa]

Yeah, that's ridiculous. Just delete and don't look back.

[+lamoracke]

Call me crazy but I figure most of the times this happens (and I want to actually do something about it) I let them know why I am deleting their log. It would take a very strange outlier for me to delete a log and not say why.

[+NanCycle]

Whenever I wanted to contact them, they had an unvalidated email address. So I'd just delete it. If they even noticed, they can ask me and I'll be glad to explain.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Is it any surprise, given that on every cache page above the logs it says, "Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links"?

 

They may.

 

It says right there.

[+narcissa]

Is it any surprise, given that on every cache page above the logs it says, "Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links"?

 

They may.

 

It says right there.

 

That's a warning to cachers who are looking through the logs. It doesn't obligate cache owners to tolerate spoilers.

[+niraD]

Is it any surprise, given that on every cache page above the logs it says, "Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links"?

 

They may.

 

It says right there.

And in the terms of use, it says "You agree not to: [...] xxiii. Publish on our websites the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the geocache owner.”

 

Spoilers without the consent of the cache owner are TOU violations.

 

It says right there.

[+frinklabs]

Is it any surprise, given that on every cache page above the logs it says, "Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links"?

 

They may.

 

It says right there.

 

That's a warning to cachers who are looking through the logs. It doesn't obligate cache owners to tolerate spoilers.

 

Of course you are right, but a pedant like myself allows for the minority interpretation.

 

Like when the help desk phone menu announcement says that "your call may be recorded for quality control purposes" -- in my mind, it is giving me permission to record the call.

[+Viajero Perdido]

The point I was trying to make was, it depends on the subtleties of the English language, in particular the meaning of "may".

 

Not everybody has English as their first language.

 

"Might" would've been less ambiguous.

[+narcissa]

Is it any surprise, given that on every cache page above the logs it says, "Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links"?

 

They may.

 

It says right there.

 

That's a warning to cachers who are looking through the logs. It doesn't obligate cache owners to tolerate spoilers.

 

Of course you are right, but a pedant like myself allows for the minority interpretation.

 

Like when the help desk phone menu announcement says that "your call may be recorded for quality control purposes" -- in my mind, it is giving me permission to record the call.

 

I like that.

[+jellis]

I would delete ones like that and photos of the caches if I feel they give away too much. But at the same time in some of my puzzles I allowed a few friends to leave in some hints to help out other cachers to solve them. I still get emails or asked at events how to solve them. I just say did you read the logs?

[+justintim1999]

Most of my caches are easy enough to find so "Hints" like that don't bother me to much. After all I want people to find the cache. Many of my caches are unique in construction so pictures are another story. Not sure if that's the case here but new cachers make mistakes all the time while there learning. Nothing to get too worked up about. You've already asked that the log be edited. Any responsible caacher would do so. Deleting the log would be the next logical thing.

[+redsox_mark]

My caches tend to have clear hints anyway, so this wouldn't bother me, but I agree if it is a clear spoiler you can delete it.

 

The example the OP gave was an obvious one; of course it can be less obvious about what is a spoiler. Often logs will say things which could help other finders (e.g. "I could not reach it but my tall friend was able to"), but are not a complete spoiler.

[+Ladybug Kids]

I simply shrug when spoilers get posted on my cache pages. I place my caches so they can be found (providing a generous hint most of the timme), not so they waste a lot of cachers' time with needle in the haystack type hunts. Cachers who don't want spoiler help won't read the logs and the hint. Cachers who want spoiler help will. Everyone plays the game differently and I'm not about to cause angst for a cache finder or myself by deleting a log and subsequently responding to or reporting the corresponding angry e-mail that will come at me.

 

Some cachers are obsessive about no spoilers. I recently posted a wide-angle photo of ground zero of a cache my daughter and I found in Hawaii. Six weeks after I posted the "found it" log and photo, it was deleted without explaination, goobering up my stats. I e-mailed asked why and was told it was because it was my photo. Fortunately, I'd already captured my log in a "My Finds" PQ, so I simply copied and pasted it back to the cache page sans photo. I would have been happy to delete the photo from my original log had the Cache Owner simply e-mailed me.

 

But, that would mean politely communicating with a fellow cacher and some cachers aren't interested in doing that.

[+The A-Team]

I recently posted a wide-angle photo of ground zero of a cache my daughter and I found in Hawaii. Six weeks after I posted the "found it" log and photo, it was deleted without explaination, goobering up my stats. I e-mailed asked why and was told it was because it was my photo. Fortunately, I'd already captured my log in a "My Finds" PQ, so I simply copied and pasted it back to the cache page sans photo. I would have been happy to delete the photo from my original log had the Cache Owner simply e-mailed me.

Fun fact #1: Cache owners can delete photos from logs without deleting the entire log. Apparently that CO wasn't aware that they could do that. That ability has been in place for a few years now, though most don't know about it.

 

Fun fact #2: Logs are never actually deleted, they're just archived. If you know the unique GL-code/have a link to it, the account that originally created it can still access the log. The log deletion email you received should have contained a link to the original archived log, from which you could retrieve the text for re-posting.

[+jellis]

I had to delete some photos and I like the pop up window that you have to give a reason for deleting the photo. Just still wish GC can do that with the cache log too.

[+Sagefox]

Call me crazy but I figure most of the times this happens (and I want to actually do something about it) I let them know why I am deleting their log. It would take a very strange outlier for me to delete a log and not say why.

 

Exactly.

 

Some new people still need to be gently trained just like in the days of old. The rate is higher now, though, due to the ease of access to the game and the minimal financial commitment needed to get started. We are seeing more people doing stuff we never would have thought of.

 

And with this ease of access often comes a lesser commitment from the new players. It is harder to tell now which of the newbies are serious about the game and which are trying it out on a lark with the free phone app and not likely to go very far.

 

We spent a long caching day recently with two people that started out with phone apps and are now dynamite cachers deeply committed to the game and having an absolute ball. They were a joy to cache with. They want to do it right and highly respect the experienced cachers they meet. I can imagine how a couple of cold log deletions in their first months of geocaching would have made them feel and I don't like the thought of it.

 

This wave of newbies might be frustrating to us, and it can be very frustrating, but we can't be so impatient with them that it leads us act unkindly.

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

I keep a personal spreadsheet of my finds with notes about where I found the cache. When I'm caching, I use field notes and then convert them into logs when I get home. When I do a field note, I note the details of the hide. I once accidentally clicked the button that immediately posted the field note as a log and as a result inadvertently posted a bunch of spoilers. As soon as I became aware of this, I fixed it, but it wasn't until a CO alerted me that I even knew.

 

Btw: I hate it when the CO's hint requires local knowledge or says "no hint needed." If no hint was needed, I wouldn't have looked.

[knowschad]

I simply shrug when spoilers get posted on my cache pages. I place my caches so they can be found (providing a generous hint most of the timme), not so they waste a lot of cachers' time with needle in the haystack type hunts. Cachers who don't want spoiler help won't read the logs and the hint. Cachers who want spoiler help will. Everyone plays the game differently and I'm not about to cause angst for a cache finder or myself by deleting a log and subsequently responding to or reporting the corresponding angry e-mail that will come at me.

 

Some cachers are obsessive about no spoilers. I recently posted a wide-angle photo of ground zero of a cache my daughter and I found in Hawaii. Six weeks after I posted the "found it" log and photo, it was deleted without explaination, goobering up my stats. I e-mailed asked why and was told it was because it was my photo. Fortunately, I'd already captured my log in a "My Finds" PQ, so I simply copied and pasted it back to the cache page sans photo. I would have been happy to delete the photo from my original log had the Cache Owner simply e-mailed me.

 

But, that would mean politely communicating with a fellow cacher and some cachers aren't interested in doing that.

 

Of course, there is a middle ground between "needle in a haystack" hides and hides that just want to be easily found. Those are the clever in-your-face hides and gimmick hides and such. Spoilers on that type can ruin it for everyone to come.

 

As far as having your log deleted because of a photograph, apparently that cache owner wasn't aware that for several years now, cache owners are able to delete spoiler photographs without deleting the actual log.

[knowschad]

I had to delete some photos and I like the pop up window that you have to give a reason for deleting the photo. Just still wish GC can do that with the cache log too.

Nice! I didn't know that. I agree that the same feature should be applied to deleted logs. Its puzzling why they don't.

[knowschad]

I keep a personal spreadsheet of my finds with notes about where I found the cache. When I'm caching, I use field notes and then convert them into logs when I get home. When I do a field note, I note the details of the hide. I once accidentally clicked the button that immediately posted the field note as a log and as a result inadvertently posted a bunch of spoilers. As soon as I became aware of this, I fixed it, but it wasn't until a CO alerted me that I even knew.

 

Btw: I hate it when the CO's hint requires local knowledge or says "no hint needed." If no hint was needed, I wouldn't have looked.

 

Yeah, useless hints are subject for another thread (in fact, there are a number of them).

[+kunarion]

Where is the idea that it's okay to drop a big ol' hint coming from?

When I started caching, I had no idea that everybody and his monkey was reading my logs. OK, I had a vague idea, and therefore didn't post spoilers. I did type "TFTC" as seemed the practice (retroactively changing it to human text once I wised up).

 

When they're new, and read that the cache logs should say "something about the cache", typing TMI about the cache probably makes sense to some people.

Edited April 1, 2015 by kunarion

[+narcissa]

Where is the idea that it's okay to drop a big ol' hint coming from?

When I started caching, I had no idea that everybody and his monkey was reading my logs. OK, I had a vague idea, and therefore didn't post spoilers. I did type "TFTC" as seemed the practice (retroactively changing it to human text once I wised up).

 

When they're new, and read that the cache logs should say "something about the cache", typing TMI about the cache probably makes sense to some people.

 

It just goes to show you that there's just no pleasing some people when it comes to logs.

[+humspuds]

Just to clarify, we don't "cold-delete," for the very reason Team Sagefox touches on; if there's a valid email address available, we send a nice little note explaining why we deleted the log and asking the cacher to re-log. And as knowschad observes, the "in your face" hides are especially vulnerable to spoiler hints. We've hidden a few of those.

[+DarkZen]

I just encrypt and lock and posts that spoiler too much.

[knowschad]

Where is the idea that it's okay to drop a big ol' hint coming from?

I did type "TFTC" as seemed the practice (retroactively changing it to human text once I wised up).

 

That was YOU?!?

[knowschad]

Where is the idea that it's okay to drop a big ol' hint coming from?

When I started caching, I had no idea that everybody and his monkey was reading my logs. OK, I had a vague idea, and therefore didn't post spoilers. I did type "TFTC" as seemed the practice (retroactively changing it to human text once I wised up).

 

When they're new, and read that the cache logs should say "something about the cache", typing TMI about the cache probably makes sense to some people.

 

It just goes to show you that there's just no pleasing some people when it comes to logs.

 

Ohhh... is THAT the point he was trying to make?! Thanks... I almost missed the negativity.

[+DanOCan]

I simply shrug when spoilers get posted on my cache pages. I place my caches so they can be found (providing a generous hint most of the timme), not so they waste a lot of cachers' time with needle in the haystack type hunts. Cachers who don't want spoiler help won't read the logs and the hint. Cachers who want spoiler help will. Everyone plays the game differently and I'm not about to cause angst for a cache finder or myself by deleting a log and subsequently responding to or reporting the corresponding angry e-mail that will come at me.

 

Pretty much my approach as well. I figure everyone will find caches in a way they most enjoy. Those who want a completely unspoiled experience should know not to read logs or look the gallery while those who don't care if an awesome cache is spoiled will read every available bit of information about the cache.

 

When I'm struggling to find a cache, I can guarantee you there are never enough spoilers in the logs!

[+L0ne.R]

I had to delete some photos and I like the pop up window that you have to give a reason for deleting the photo. Just still wish GC can do that with the cache log too.

Nice! I didn't know that. I agree that the same feature should be applied to deleted logs. Its puzzling why they don't.

 

I'd like to see the opposite happen. A reason for deleting a log but not one for deleting a photo.

 

I hide caches that have unique handcrafted containers. The surprise of finding the container is a big part of the fun IMO (at least that's why it was hidden). Sometimes finders post the container in their log. I realize they think it's cool and want to share and remember it. I assume when I remove it from our cache page it removes it from their inventory of photos, correct? I'm worried if I delete their photo and they get a notice, they'll be unhappy and may remove their favourite point or be less happy with our cache hides. Maybe I just need to come up with an super friendly and polite message to send that would not irk the person who posted the spoiler photo. Anyone got any suggestions? There are 2 photos on our cache pages I'd like to delete but haven't because I must give a reason.

Edited April 2, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+Ladybug Kids]

Anyone got any suggestions?

I wouldn't worry about it. Think of kids are Christmastime when they find the stash of wrapped presents. Some can't stand the suspense and will use all sorts of means to determine what they are going to receive on the big day. Others won't even bother looking for the stash that just has to be somewhere in the house. Cachers who really enjoy a surprise won't go looking for the spoilers.

[+The A-Team]

Cachers who really enjoy a surprise won't go looking for the spoilers.

It may not be a matter of going and looking for the spoilers. If someone is reading the recent logs of a cache to determine if people were having any issues finding it, if it had any maintenance issues, etc., it may not be appreciated to accidentally read a spoiler. I know that warning is there, but it would be better if the spoilers weren't there at all, because then there can't be any accidental spoiling.

 

I had never thought about interpreting the warning in a different way, but now that it's been pointed out, I really think it needs to be re-worded, as well as made more prominent. Here's a suggestion for the wording:

Warning! Spoilers should not be posted, but you might still encounter some spoilers in the logs.

There are three main things I did here:

• I linked to the Terms of Use where it explicitly says spoilers aren't allowed. It would be better if there were anchor links in the ToU so it could link directly to the relevant clause.
  
• I changed "may be included" to "might encounter" to lessen the ambiguity and double-meaning.
  
• I changed "descriptions or links" to "logs". It doesn't make any sense to warn about spoilers in the sections you've already passed to get to the warning, and the vast majority of spoilers would be in the logs anyway. After all, a spoiler in the description is really just a hint.
  

[+humspuds]

Maybe I just need to come up with an super friendly and polite message to send that would not irk the person who posted the spoiler photo. Anyone got any suggestions?

"Congratulations on finding our cache _________! We hope you had as much finding it as we did hiding it. Because we hand-built the container and it's pretty unique, the photo you posted might take some fun out of the hunt for the next cacher, so we've deleted it. Hope to see you out there, and happy caching!"

 

Is that nice enough?

Edited April 2, 2015 by humspuds

[+cerberus1]

I don't go to cache pages looking for spoilers.

Only looking at caches I might do kinda requires some log reading.

I read logs for maintenance issues (and the frequent no NMs posted), "actual" terrain, etc, and finding a "it's blue and 10' in the blue spruce" log may not ruin it for me, but not what I was looking for.

I'd appreciate it if they aren't there at all, thanks.

 

Anyone else remember the thread of a person who wrote average logs, but left pics with arrows pointing at cache locations?

[knowschad]

Cachers who really enjoy a surprise won't go looking for the spoilers.

It may not be a matter of going and looking for the spoilers. If someone is reading the recent logs of a cache to determine if people were having any issues finding it, if it had any maintenance issues, etc., it may not be appreciated to accidentally read a spoiler. I know that warning is there, but it would be better if the spoilers weren't there at all, because then there can't be any accidental spoiling.

 

I had never thought about interpreting the warning in a different way, but now that it's been pointed out, I really think it needs to be re-worded, as well as made more prominent. Here's a suggestion for the wording:

Warning! Spoilers should not be posted, but you might still encounter some spoilers in the logs.

There are three main things I did here:

• I linked to the Terms of Use where it explicitly says spoilers aren't allowed. It would be better if there were anchor links in the ToU so it could link directly to the relevant clause.
• I changed "may be included" to "might encounter" to lessen the ambiguity and double-meaning.
• I changed "descriptions or links" to "logs". It doesn't make any sense to warn about spoilers in the sections you've already passed to get to the warning, and the vast majority of spoilers would be in the logs anyway. After all, a spoiler in the description is really just a hint.

 

I like it. Make it happen!

[+hukilaulau]

Is it any surprise, given that on every cache page above the logs it says, "Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links"?

 

They may.

 

It says right there.

 

That's a warning to cachers who are looking through the logs. It doesn't obligate cache owners to tolerate spoilers.

 

Of course you are right, but a pedant like myself allows for the minority interpretation.

 

Like when the help desk phone menu announcement says that "your call may be recorded for quality control purposes" -- in my mind, it is giving me permission to record the call.

 

When I was a kid there were signs on the Air Force Base shuttle bus that said, "No smoking allowed." My father jokingly said that meant you don't HAVE to smoke.

Back on topic, I get the OP's point that this seems to be a trend. I've noticed it much more in the past couple of years. In many cases the spoiler IS the found it log, as in "It's in the wall" or "Look in the hole in the tree."

I blame the intro app (as I do for most of the things that are wrong in the world today). How many intro app users do you think have read the TOU agreement? Or a forum thread? Or a cache page? They have no idea what the game is about or how to play it.

[+Fridge01]

I've had logs deleted for pointing out wrong information. "The hint is wrong" and "coordinates 20 feet off" were both considered spoilers by one CO because the wrong info was intentional and I wasn't supposed to give it away.

[+narcissa]

I've had logs deleted for pointing out wrong information. "The hint is wrong" and "coordinates 20 feet off" were both considered spoilers by one CO because the wrong info was intentional and I wasn't supposed to give it away.

 

That's hideous.

[+NanCycle]

I've had logs deleted for pointing out wrong information. "The hint is wrong" and "coordinates 20 feet off" were both considered spoilers by one CO because the wrong info was intentional and I wasn't supposed to give it away.

 

That is worth going to GS to get your logs locked.

[+KC2WI]

Personally, I don't mind reading spoilers in logs but sometimes you can't trust that they are correct.

 

However I don't think it is correct to put them in a log. The CO hid the cache and wrote up the description a certain way presumably with the intent of a certain difficulty rating. Finders should not be changing that by adding hints.

 

I let some things slide, but if I were to find log entries or pictures that made it much easier for subsequent cachers to get to or find one of my caches, I would take action to remove that info. I don't think it is fair to the people who found it "the hard way."

 

I have only I have added possibly significant info in a log of a cache that I have found once. In that instance it was still only some clarification on how to get to the place to park, and it was only because I spent probably an lot of time driving around and trying to avoid private roads and driveways, and because the trailhead parking area was at the end of a road that looked like it might be private. The hike to the cache was still a mile and a significant climb.

[knowschad]

I've had logs deleted for pointing out wrong information. "The hint is wrong" and "coordinates 20 feet off" were both considered spoilers by one CO because the wrong info was intentional and I wasn't supposed to give it away.

 

The cache owner was wrong for that, and you were right. Deliberately "soft" coordinates are not allowed. The guidelines state that the coordinates are to be as accurate as possible.

[+M 5]

I've had logs deleted for pointing out wrong information. "The hint is wrong" and "coordinates 20 feet off" were both considered spoilers by one CO because the wrong info was intentional and I wasn't supposed to give it away.

 

The cache owner was wrong for that, and you were right. Deliberately "soft" coordinates are not allowed. The guidelines state that the coordinates are to be as accurate as possible.

 

I agree with no intentional soft coords, but I also get annoyed with the finders that repeatedly state the coords are off by 20 feet or less. I guess they think their gps is the gold standard. 20 feet is fine by me.

[+L0ne.R]

I've had logs deleted for pointing out wrong information. "The hint is wrong" and "coordinates 20 feet off" were both considered spoilers by one CO because the wrong info was intentional and I wasn't supposed to give it away.

 

The cache owner was wrong for that, and you were right. Deliberately "soft" coordinates are not allowed. The guidelines state that the coordinates are to be as accurate as possible.

 

I agree with no intentional soft coords, but I also get annoyed with the finders that repeatedly state the coords are off by 20 feet or less. I guess they think their gps is the gold standard. 20 feet is fine by me.

 

As a hider I do tend to wince a bit when that happens (but I have a lemon of a 62s). But as a finder I kind of like those. Because if I can't find it, I check the logs and usually my gps ends up closer to the guy that posted he found it 20 feet off. Maybe he's got a lemon of a 62s too.

Edited April 5, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+BCandMsKitty]

 

As I hider I do tend to wince a bit when that happens (but I have a lemon of a 62s). But as a finder I kind of like those. Because if I can't find it, I check the logs and usually my gps ends up closer to the guy that posted he found it 20 feet off. Maybe he's got a lemon of a 62s too.

Seems a lot of that going around!

[+PlantAKiss]

Hints in logs. Personally I hate 'em! I don't want them in my cache logs. I really never saw a problem with that until "now." [There was my Previous Caching Life...a gap of years...and Current Caching Life.] I see so many things that are different now and that is one of them. People actually logging, not just HINTS, but actually telling you where to look!! I think that absolutely spoils the whole intent of the game ....a hunt for "hidden treasure!" I don't mind if someone makes kind of riddle-like comments that makes the cacher's wheels turn and think. But to outright state where it is? OR post photos of specially camo'ed container. Nope...I made up my mind not to tolerate it. Neither am I going to tell somebody exactly what the container is ("a painted peanut butter jar hidden in under the holly shrubs"). I don't get that either. Why do people TELL what they are looking for? I thought that was part of the game??! NOT knowing everything and everywhere. Figure it out...look around....HUNT! Then feel the wash of satisfaction when you find it.

 

So...I will be deleting spoilers.And that will be clearly stated up front.

[+-CJ-]

From our local perspective I see two reasons for this "idea" to come from.

 

a) Cachers originating from the Russian community used not to search for hidden boxes at all. In the national variant of the game it's typical that seekers have exact descriptions, detailed hints and spoiler photos with big red arrows. It can be that one is advised to look for the only one birch among pines at the GZ and still the spoiler photo is provided. There's more sightseeing in this hobby then cache hunt. So, when a box cannot be found for any reasons it sounds like a problem that should be fixed and you're (usually) welcome to publish additional hints in your logs, except for the very limited number of creative puzzle caches. When people with such experience join the game at geocaching.com it's sometimes hard to get rid of old habits.

 

b ) Many cachers seem to suffer from their inability to publish creative logs. The most obvious way of avoiding pure "TFTC" log is to add a story "how I found this cache". This is how spoilers appear.

 

Besides, spoilers can be different. As with photo spoilers, someone may say "I don't demonstrate the hiding place so it's not any spoiler". However, this is what I can get from this photo:

 

- how the container looks like (can tell me more about the hiding place),

- the area where to search for the box (people usually don't walk 30 meters away to sign the logbook, so the hiding place should be somewhere close to where the logbook is seen on the photo),

- and if I know that the CO takes care of spoilers I will probably exclude the area on the photo from my searches because I know that if the cache was there this photo would not exist on the website.

Edited April 5, 2015 by -CJ-

[+Team Microdot]

I agree with no intentional soft coords, but I also get annoyed with the finders that repeatedly state the coords are off by 20 feet or less. I guess they think their gps is the gold standard. 20 feet is fine by me.

 

If my GPS is performing well that day and I find that at GZ my GPS tells me that I'm a distance away from GZ then that's exactly what I'll post in my log:

 

At GZ my GPS reckoned I was x metres from the cache.

 

That way I'm not making any claims that my coords are any better than anyone elses - but I am providing feedback that might be useful going forward.

 

If someone else has previously found the need to post additional coordinates and I find the cache using their coordinates I'll probably mention that too.

 

If enough people have provided additional coordinates that agree with each other and differ from the posted coordinates I might post a Needs Maintenance log, suggesting that the CO update the coordinates to those provided by multiple finders.

[knowschad]

I've had logs deleted for pointing out wrong information. "The hint is wrong" and "coordinates 20 feet off" were both considered spoilers by one CO because the wrong info was intentional and I wasn't supposed to give it away.

 

The cache owner was wrong for that, and you were right. Deliberately "soft" coordinates are not allowed. The guidelines state that the coordinates are to be as accurate as possible.

 

I agree with no intentional soft coords, but I also get annoyed with the finders that repeatedly state the coords are off by 20 feet or less. I guess they think their gps is the gold standard. 20 feet is fine by me.

 

While I probably wouldn't do it for only 20 feet, when I do post alternate coordinates or mention coords being off by a certain amount, I will generally say something to the effect of "FOR ME" they were off by this much (and in what direction! I hate it when people don't specify the direction). If several people say the same thing, then its a pretty good bet that they are off.

[+RobDJr]

I had only one log deleted. I posted it in the evening, and the next morning I found two emails from the CO that simply said, "Please delete your log" and a third stating that the log had been deleted, all within the span of a few hours during the night. Because I had found the cache and had signed the log, I contacted the CO to find out why the log was deleted and was told that my log contained a spoiler. The CO basically said, "any mention of XXXX is a spoiler", which I disagreed with because the mention of XXXX in my log was a direct reference to something that was stated on the cache page in a large and bold red font. It wasn't worth fussing over, so I simply did a new log. In my opinion, it was a loss for the CO because I replaced a long and creative log with a simple paragraph about how much fun the cache was, and it is unlikely that I'll ever invest much more effort than that in future logs for that person's caches.

 

A more polite and personable email in the first place, including an explanation of why the log should be deleted, would have been better. I would still have disagreed, but would also have been willing to write better logs in the future for caches by that particular CO.

 

I make an effort to not give anything away in my logs, but I never assume others do the same. This is why I never read logs in advance. If I get stuck and am in danger of a dnf, I check the hint and the logs and I often pick up a great deal of information even if there are no hints, subtle or outright, in the logs.

 

Mention of incorrect coordinates or posting more accurate coordinates is not a spoiler in my opinion. If I did that and the information was deleted because it was deemed a spoiler, at the very least I would send an email to the local reviewer to inform them of the situation.

[+NanCycle]

 

I hate it when people don't specify the direction

 

LOL I found one cache by going to GZ as shown by my GPSr, walking out the 70 ft radius and then walking the circumference of the circle; sure enough, it was about 70 ft out.

[+Sagefox]

I don't mind if someone makes kind of riddle-like comments that makes the cacher's wheels turn and think.

 

Yes, this is what I miss from the earlier years and it was almost standard practice. For tough hides or hides you just couldn't see, a couched hint, often found in one of the five logs the download gave you, was just enough to make the find substantially on you own.

 

With the smartphone as a backup (I'm still a dedicated gps user) I can now dig back the 42 logs it might take to find something that helps.

 

I thought that was part of the game??! NOT knowing everything and everywhere. Figure it out...look around....HUNT! Then feel the wash of satisfaction when you find it.

 

Yep. That is why we play the game.

 

So...I will be deleting spoilers.And that will be clearly stated up front.

 

I am curious about how big a problem this actually is. I see Tons of TFTCs and CandPs but not a whole lot of direct spoilers. Maybe I am ignoring them.

 

It does downgrade a good thoughtfully hidden cache to accidentally read exactly how it is hidden so I won't harp on people who want to delete those logs.

 

As for a green bison tube in a wall of ivy hide, though, I say bring on the spoilers!