NeverSummer
-
Posts
3119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NeverSummer
-
-
In my area the biggest rule that is repeatedly broken and when broken gets many favorite points, is screwing things into trees.
Mine too. Cup hooks mostly.
If on a branch, I'll often replace with a zip tie rather than an NA anymore, after my 2/3rds got harassed over what I do.
One, with a 3/8" hole actually drilled through a live branch was featured in our local news channel, during an "outdoors" segment.
The reporter and cacher both thought it clever...
I've actually seen hooks too. That's less of a concern to me than "no trespassing" signs.
If you replace hooks with zip ties, for all intents and purposes, you've essentially adopted that cache's tree. As the tree grows, the zip ties will have to be replaced on the limbs where they're attached so the bark's cambium layer isn't choked to death. Many arboreta and botanical gardens use plant labels attached with two screws so the label is visible at average eye level on the tree's trunk. The screws needs to be unscrewed a little each year to keep the label and its screws from being engulfed by the growth of the cambium layer. Arboreta usually have a management plan for this kind of thing. Contrary to what you might think, screws are not as injurious as fence wire or nylon rope when left securely-tied-yet-unmanaged on a tree.
Chris
And yet, we can't count on users to have a management plan, or to be knowledgeable arborists or foresters.
So, this is why perception of damage to trees is a trump card to any "sound science" that might exist. It's best to keep the face of the game in ship shape by not allowing caches which might be perceived to damage, harm, or cause alarm.
-
Austin,
Most people in this area probably don't get permission to hide caches in local strip-mall business parking lots, small local parks, brick retainer walls, public land, etc. I seriously doubt most people drop by the city/county land manager's office to find out how/where to get permission. It's an opinion. I hope I'm wrong. I apologize if I seem rude.
NeverSummer
There is a rule/guideline that you shouldn't put a cache on private property where it is posted, "no trespassing". When I'm ready to hide a cache, I'm likely to go one step further and make sure I have a written statement from the right authority.
There is no rule that says I am required to immediately report even mild offenders. If geocaching.com were to make that an unbreakable rule, the guidelines would be equivalent to dictatorship. I'd probably find a different hobby. At some point, when one offender or another fully offends my guideline sensibilities, and I'll report them. Until then, I'll keep my tongue civil with my local CO's and learn the ropes until I've established some credibility amongst the local geocaching community.
Wow.
So, this is an example to the rest of us of where the game could head... Not caring; just give me the find.
LaughingOnWater, I suggest you take a moment to consider that you're entering a game that has been around for a long time. There are guidelines to help people learn, but there are norms of gameplay that take time and care to engage in the greater construct of the game.
I'm not sure how you can even have "guideline sensibilities" when you're as new as you are to the game. It takes a LONG time to understand the nuance of the game. And, to boot, it takes great care to be a good steward of the game.
I'm not pulling my statement from my rear; rather, I'm taking from 14 years of experience, 10 years of being a member, and my time working very closely with a public land management system. I'll tell you how you "gain credibility amongst the local geocaching community": report this cache, and stick to the guidelines. You have documentation that the owner does not have permission for a hide in a private park. That is against the guidelines on a few levels, let alone your compassion or hope to "fit in".
A big issue here isn't just permissions required, it's the "what are you doing here?" that one might get from the police or rent-a-cop or whoever. I don't think risking arrest or creating an enemy of the game (HOA, local LEO, hired rent-a-cops, residents of the association, etc.) on the game is worth a cache in a private park without explicit permissions granted.
Quoth the "Hiding a Geocache" webpage:
"Did you seek permission from the land owner or manager? If you place a cache on private land, you must ask permission before hiding your cache. If you place it on public lands, contact the land manager to find out about any rules or restrictions."While not a requirement to report a cache, it is a requirement that owners get permissions. If we, as geocache seekers, find a cache that is not in compliance with the guidelines, we are encouraged to report that geocache:
"If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it."You quoted the "No Tresspassing " part well ("1. All local laws and documented land management policies apply.
This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" signs, or locally-defined markers that prohibit access."), but you missed #2:
"2. You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. If you have permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache listing for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.
In the case of public property, permission can often be obtained from the agency or association that manages the land. Worldwide, there are many such agencies and organizations that regulate geocaching on their managed land. As the cache owner you are responsible for determining who to contact to obtain permission. As community volunteer reviewers become aware of geocache placement policies for a certain location, they may add it to the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki.
Even if you are certain that geocaching is permitted on particular public property, ensure that you have followed any and all requirements established by the land owner or land management agency before placing the cache. There may be locations in which cache hides are inappropriate, even though not prohibited by local laws.
If Groundspeak is contacted and informed that your cache has been placed inappropriately, your cache may be temporarily disabled or permanently archived."
Simply stating on the page that "I have permission" might pass muster on preliminary publication--where a Reviewer does not have direct view of the site or context of the hide in full and honest description--but we users are encouraged to participate in the game by using the provided log types; this includes Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived.
In this case, you've done due diligence by asking in the forums if it is ok, contacting the owner, and finding that they do not in fact have permission to place the cache in a private park. This is where you continue the process by reporting the cache via NA. It's not personal. If the cache owner takes it personally, then that's too bad. They really need to follow the guidelines and not fib about permissions on private property, or managed public lands either.
-
What is the protocol for replacing a damaged cache container that's not your hide? Numerous people have posted that a cache near me is damaged and soaking wet, and the owner hasn't been on since October of last year. Is it bad form to replace it? The owner only has 8 finds so I'm not even sure will be back to caching.
Post a "Needs Maintenance" on the cache.
You can also email the owner directly and ask them if they'd appreciate a replacement the next time you're there. But it doesn't end there--you need to go back and do it quickly if you offer to "help out".
Honestly, the best thing to do is post a NM log and be descriptive so that future finders (sometimes only moments on your heels) can know that something is wrong.
Cache maintenance is the owner's responsibility, and the general caching public shouldn't go out repairing caches and replacing them without first contacting the owner. All too often we see a cache "repaired" or "replaced" and the original is actually still right there, just fine, and ready to be found. In cases where you absolutely know you've found the actual cache, it's still best to let the owner know and to follow up with a NM.
-
I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there.
And the game would be better for it. Whether it's a private community or a lamppost, permission issues make the entire game look bad.
I agree. Even kids roll their eyes when they realize it's just another lamp post cache. But about whether or not caches have permission, the problem of publishing lies somewhere between the CO and the reviewer. Maybe more of the blame should be put on reviewers. If reviewers are lax, CO's are going to be lax.
The problem is simple. Enough of ignoring land rights and geocaching will be illegal. Game over. It has already happened in several communities in the US. You would not be a cache cop, you would be protecting the game for everyone.
Austin
I understand what LOW is saying. It's a difficult social situation. To have a friendly honest interaction with a cache owner and then to post an NA on the cache would feel hostile. Going to the reviewer would also feel hostile since the cache owner will know who reported him. Is there an easier, friendlier way of dealing with something like this?
If a NA were posted, or an email to the Reviewer ended in a Disabled cache or Archived cache, I'd hope the Reviewer has the tact and ability to inform the CO why the cache is archived, and not let the conversation end there. A good Reviewer will be able to help lay out the reasons the cache is not allowed, and the owner can take it or leave it.
I'd hope they'd take it, but some people are going to feel entitled to "bend the rules". And to the detriment of the game, they continue to do so. That still doesn't render that CO "right", and certainly isn't the community member we all want to have around these here parts, am I right?
-
Austin,So I've emailed the CO. He responded and said that he lives within a 500 yards of the cache. He said that so long as I'm respectful of other people's property, I'll be fine. He's a member of the HOA, though he has not expressly asked permission, fearing they would not understand. The cache has been there for years, and cache logs suggest others have visited it without problems.
I would suggest he needs to either get permission or archive the cache. They will certainly understand this: He is inviting non-members to trespass.
Austin
I entirely agree with you. However, as I said earlier, I'm a noob. For me to come in and start acting like Mister-Know-It-All-Rent-A-Cache-Cop will only estrange me from other geocachers that I would prefer to befriend.
This game is like a microcosm of real life. For example, there are times when everyone speeds on I-85 between 316 and Spaghetti Junction in Atlanta, even when signs expressly say 55MPH. People often find themselves traveling at 80MPH. If you don't speed along with all the other traffic, you're likely to become an accident victim as others attempt to drive around you. Every time that stretch of I-85 is blocked by a major accident, the city's economy loses millions of dollars in revenue. For local LEO's to stop everyone every time they speed, it would actually cause a huge economic loss to the city. So they make sure people are at least safe. And they do it well.
Life isn't always about following rules, but adapting to how the rules are bent right now.
Chris
Let go of the "cache cop" idea. We are ALL cache cops, and are called to action within the guidelines and the community input we provide cache owners and in turn Reviewers/Groundspeak while they can't inspect every single hide that gets published.
The game worked well when it was community policed, and now there's more and more of the "don't rock the boat" or "don't be a cache cop" attitude out there. Sadly, this only muddies the waters when it comes to enforcing the guidelines and helping to have hides which do not cause problems with individual land owners, public land managers, etc.
This isn't a case of "bending the rules", it's a case where a cache was hidden in a private place without permissions--that's against the guidelines, and the cache owner may have misled the Reviewer by saying that they had permission. Yet, they've now admitted that they don't.
Simply put, with this information, the Reviewer would not have even published the cache in the first place...
-
So I've emailed the CO. He responded and said that he lives within a 500 yards of the cache. He said that so long as I'm respectful of other people's property, I'll be fine. He's a member of the HOA, though he has not expressly asked permission, fearing they would not understand. The cache has been there for years, and cache logs suggest others have visited it without problems.
I'm just a noob, and as others have pointed out, I must live with my neighbors. Also as others have pointed out, what is seen in the real world is not a truly iron-clad adherence to geocaching.com rules. I will not be reporting the cache. However, there are plenty of other caches out there for me to explore. Should I decide to go out there again, if I were accosted by a LEO, I could simply say I'm the guest of a member and give the officer his name and number.
I esspecially appreciate so many disparate-yet-civil viewpoints. This is an awesome thread. Thanks!
Chris
Woah, woah, woah. Let's just stop at the bolded...
That's absolutely NO excuse to let a cache stick around. In fact, this has simply proven that proper permission was not granted for the hide. Unfortunately, this needs a NA, and an email to the Reviewer with a cut-and-paste of what the CO said to you about "not expressly asked for permission...fearing they would not understand..."
Being neighborly sometimes means telling them to pick up their dog poo off your lawn, or asking the kids to get off your lawn. You don't have to be friends with everyone, but all of us cachers need to follow the guidelines and be the best stewards of the game as we can be. If it sullies a "friendship", that's too bad--all you're doing is holding caches to the standard we all say we will when we "check the boxes" upon publication of our caches, and when we sign up for an account here at Geocaching.com
Then, to the bold and underlined:
What makes anyone think that anyone else will have this information to provide to a LEO when they arrive on scene? You, Chris, are the lone person with that info--I don't have it! So, if I show up and get handcuffed for tresspass after old Jane Doe sees something suspicious out her window one day, what help is that?
This cache needs to be archived, and a lesson will be learned by the cache owner about permissions and "why" we do what we do with the guidelines and following them...
-
But the question the OP is asking is "Should this cache be flagged for archive?" Personally, I would say "yes". That, or email the reviewer, if that's what they're more comfortable with.
Why not ask the CO first instead of "going over his/her head" to a reviewer. NA is certainly not necessary as it might well be there is permission and thus nothing wrong with the cache.
Most of the NA I see around here is if nothing happens after a few NM (mostly because CO's are no longer active or interested). I see NA as a last resort.
This gets my vote. The order in which I'd attempt communication would be as follows:
- Contact the CO and ask if permission was obtained from the homeowners association, advising that it would be good to state that in the description if they did.
- If the CO doesn't respond after a reasonable amount of time or gives some variation of "I don't care" or "Get stuffed", either contact a reviewer or log a Needs Archive (depending on your comfort level).
Doing nothing is not an option. IMO, looking the other way and potentially letting someone else be the victim of a bad encounter is just being a bad geocaching community member. If you see a potential problem, do your best to deal with it. That will help keep geocaching in a good light and your fellow cachers out of sticky situations.
This.
I'd actually ping the owner first, AND email your local Reviewer to just give a notice that you're working on it with the owner as a "CC" to assist if there are appeals or things start heading south with interacting with the cache owner. The Reviewer can choose to respond, watchlist the cache, just sit back and wait to hear more, or whatever. Then you can escalate with a NA if need be, and the Reviewer will already have some background to work with the situation. JM2C
- Contact the CO and ask if permission was obtained from the homeowners association, advising that it would be good to state that in the description if they did.
-
But it still doesn't say Vertical or Horizontal. If it is 528ft up a mountain it is still 528 ft away from the nearest no matter what angle
I'm going to go with an earlier explanation that it should be easily verified on the website and the tools available to the Reviewers in order to streamline the review process as much as possible. We've been down the road of, "..I know there only 50 feet apart, but the walking distance is more than a mile...", etc.
The new maps available during the submission process makes it pretty black and white nowadays (aside from the hidden AW's of course). If you can't get past that step without throwing a red flag, I wouldn't expect an exception of any sort.
And that's how every cache I've placed has been handled. I've actually appealed a cache location where it was ~500ft apart, but down a steep, steep embankment to the best possible hiding location next to a waterfall. But every other cache I've tried to place gets the "It's not the required 0.10 miles away from the next geocache or physical waypoint. Please move it..." response.
So, even a 528' vertical distance cache will get Reviewed, and it has more to do with 2D mapping than 3D.
-
I know it's a bit late, wouldn't have made any difference anyway, but,,, i'm curious to know how the GCCO knows that these notes/threats are actually from a land owner(s)? I took a look at the pictures of the notes and to be honest, they looked to be purposely scribbled to hide any resemblance of the person's hand writing. If it is indeed landowners doing the complaining, just how many are doing it? I realize there is probably miles of land owned by some owners where some of the caches were placed but it's still hard to believe that there would be enough to cause this much conflict. How many caches were threatened? As big a project as this was, i would think caches could be moved to keep conflict down. All this stuff sure seems fishy to me.
This being said and even though it may not be right, bottom line is that the caches needed to be archived to keep everyone safe.
Even if it is disgruntled geocachers, that still renders the caches in need of routine maintenance. The owners will have to decide how to best deal with the required maintenance on their caches. In this case, it appears that the owners took the threat seriously (as they should) and archived the caches. Right move, IMO.
-
Then you add the dimension of numbers... hiding a lot of caches in an area is more likely to be noticed then just a few.
Hiding a lot of caches in a sparsely populated area not used to visitors = high chance of issues.
You do understand that there is a huge density here of a little more than one cache for every four square miles (1 every 10 square kilometers), right?
The art is in an area of roughly 60 square miles, but the actual caches cover an area of 4,000 square miles.
Austin
None of that matters when a land manager or property owner complains...repeatedly. And when the discussion wasn't clear with property owners about specific placements--just that "the art isn't the actual placement, it's on public roads..." yadda yadda. It all means nothing when not 100% of the property owners are on board for those 1000+ caches, and some have proven to be on/too near someones property boundary.
It's all about nuance, and these caches really shouldn't be missed. Just like any other cache, they should be handled on a case-by-case basis, and those caches which are causing problems should be archived. If that means the whole of the "geo-art" project, so be it.
Even less so than with Three-cache-monte on a true 528' power trail, these "spread out" caches should still be maintained. If a cache listing isn't acting on maintenance issues (missing caches, missing logs, etc.), land manager issues (neighbors/adjacent property owners are really not keen on the placements...), and so on, then the caches should be archived. Again, there's nothing to see here. It was the right decision by the "geo-art" owners, and action really should have been taken sooner (IMO).
-
The geocaching map is flat. It doesn't allow for vertical differences, like one cache on the sidewalk at the base of the Freedom Tower and another 1xxx feet up in the observation area of the building.
I know of three caches that are above each other. They are in Ulm in Germany (GCJ7DQ, GCJ7DW and GCJ7E0) and have been there since 2004. They have been placed in the tallest church tower in the world.
Exceptions exist, and these represent a few of them. Plus, as you said, they were placed in 2004.
Guidelines have changed and clarified through the years. "Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is."
Also, note that there are more proximity issues than you've listed. Many were published more recently than 2004. Unknown, Multi, Wherigo, Letterbox hybrid, Traditional... 8 caches within 0.1 miles of the next, and many of them physical caches. the 2004 placements likely meet guidelines from grandfathering, but the others are...interesting. Greetings from Germany?
That is true but has anyone found the guideline that says vertical placements are NOT allowed.
I'm pretty sure this is covered by the saturation guideline. 528' is 528' is 528'. Then Reviewers are allowed to work with Groundspeak (appeals) to see if a placement can be made within the 528'. Sometimes this is an easier discussion when we include a large physical barrier such as a tunnel or cliff. But to place 3 caches stacked on top of one another at differing altitudes? I'd say that's best as a multi.
Then some will argue, "But I want credit for each individual waypoint, not just 1 for the multi! Waaaaah!"
-
And for a piece of "geo-art" in a National Forest, has the impact of said "geo-art" been presented to the Superintendent of that NF? I know that USDA National Forest lands have been "open" to geocaching for some time, but has the additional impact from a de facto power trail of geocaches been described to staff at the respective public land office?
National forest lands vary a great deal - some require formal permits (and fees), some impose no restrictions, some allow caching within certain frameworks. The North Carolina Star was mentioned above as being on national forest land. Assuming that the geocaching policy for national forests in North Carolina remain in effect, it would require prior approval and a special use permit should the cache remain in place for over a year. If that was done, then the forest service would have been aware of the placement and impact.
Right. And that policy only applies to those listed National Forests in the state of NC.
Has anyone from NCGO checked on those pieces of geo-art since they were first submitted? Have those caches been removed after a year? It's things like that which require a lot more work for Reviewers and cache owners, but often slip through the cracks.
These caches in CO aren't much different. If a set of caches (1000+!) aren't being maintained, and there is an agreement of any kind with land managers or property owners, part of the initial conversation includes an assumption that those caches would be taken care of. When people are acting untoward in any way, especially where borders and ownership is a contentious issue already, it invites trouble. I see nothing to worry about with these caches being archived. In fact, that's the best outcome based on what logs and experiences are saying about interactions with adjacent land owners.
Yes, people "plan a vacation" to "do that power trail", but they can still visit the area, find some caches, and still enjoy what that place has to offer aside from 1000 geocaches. Finding 1000 caches on a power trail or geo-art of any kind is quite a challenge that many are excited to complete. But that excitement should never trump proper cache maintenance and a solid reputation for the game on the whole.
-
And for a piece of "geo-art" in a National Forest, has the impact of said "geo-art" been presented to the Superintendent of that NF? I know that USDA National Forest lands have been "open" to geocaching for some time, but has the additional impact from a de facto power trail of geocaches been described to staff at the respective public land office?
From the perspective of a Federal or State lands manager, the original introduction and possible approval of geocaching activities was likely not given with a power trail or "geo-art" level of pilgrimage (use) to those lands. It is irresponsible for geocachers to continue to assume that their activities are all permitted because of an earlier permission. Each cache and cache series should be evaluated by the placer, Reviewer, and even the land manager if we're talking about something the land manager may consider saturation levels above the original permitted level.
It's like this: Q: "Can I place a cache here?" A:"Sure; it meets our land use compatibility determinations." ...and then the next geocacher assumes it's ok, and the Reviewer isn't familiar with state or federal requirements for compatibility determinations or conservation plans for that parcel of land, so...we get a bunch of caches placed under the assumption that it's just fine. It's as if someone gave me permission to camp on their yard this weekend, then I invite a hundred acquaintances to camp the next weekend while they're out of town. It just doesn't look good, and it really isn't going to help the gameplay on public lands in the long run.
-
The geocaching map is flat. It doesn't allow for vertical differences, like one cache on the sidewalk at the base of the Freedom Tower and another 1xxx feet up in the observation area of the building.
I know of three caches that are above each other. They are in Ulm in Germany (GCJ7DQ, GCJ7DW and GCJ7E0) and have been there since 2004. They have been placed in the tallest church tower in the world.
Exceptions exist, and these represent a few of them. Plus, as you said, they were placed in 2004.
Guidelines have changed and clarified through the years. "Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is."
Also, note that there are more proximity issues than you've listed. Many were published more recently than 2004. Unknown, Multi, Wherigo, Letterbox hybrid, Traditional... 8 caches within 0.1 miles of the next, and many of them physical caches. the 2004 placements likely meet guidelines from grandfathering, but the others are...interesting. Greetings from Germany?
-
Well...and where were the caches hidden? On a fence post? On the guard rail?
This looks and sounds to me more like these caches weren't really that well thought out. Found an open road (geocachely-speaking) and placed as many caches as possible for a power trail. If the owner wasn't going to plan on maintaining their own caches when they placed them, people aren't going to log a NM or NA on the cache--they'll place throwdowns and keep trying for the 1000-cache outing.
This is a perfect example of cache ownership and use of proper log types. If a cache is in a "problem area" like a homeless camp or on a piece of private property, that cache usually will get a NM or NA log and get "taken care of" by the owner or the Reviewer. When you have a power trail that won't be properly maintained or dealt with when problems arise, we see this kind of black mark on the game we all like to play.
Archive them unceremoniously and move on. There's nothing to see here.
-
I've recently tried to make a series based on our local NHL team, the Calgary Flames.
Well, it seems that our local reviewer won't allow the use of the team name "Calgary Flames" or the team logo on the cache pages. (Actually, the reviewer is "not sure" whether it is allowed) The reviewer has forced me to contact appeals, which I have done. But, this a big inconvenience and I'm left wondering if the work I've put in will be for naught?
Wait, wait! What about these caches?
http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC53AN2_ebbp-nhl-series-flames
http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2JNC2_nhl-hockey-team-challenge
http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4PNQP_canada-loon-know-your-canadian-hockey-teams
It appears that the use of the team name and the logo is allowed there? Are these reviewers missing the violations? Are reviewers not created equal?
I have to assume, when I am designing a cache, that other geocaches have been reviewed with the same scrutiny that I will face. In that case, doesn't it make sense that I can follow what I see around me? (The exception is, of course, grandfathered rules, which this is not)
The best case scenario is that the reviewer just didn't know and the appeals will approve the idea. But I have to admit I will be upset if the appeals board rejects my idea, even though I understand "rules are rules".
I'm curious to hear other people's opinions on this topic or perhaps you could share a story on your similar experiences.
Your work is not "for naught". You have still placed a cache for people to find. The focus should be less on the need or desire to use the Calgary Flames as the central issue of placement, and more on the desire to place enjoyable caches to be found without a connection to your desire to use the Calgary Flames as the description of the cache.
Caches are about locations and interesting ways to bring people to them. If there is a commercial aspect to a cache, it will receive more scrutiny by Reviewers and Appeals. There is no precedent for placement or publishing of caches; meaning, there is no way to use those 3 caches as examples of why your cache should be published because rules may have changed, Reviewers may have changed, and more.
So, work with your Reviewer and Appeals--stop viewing Reviewers as the enemy or a barrier to getting what you want. Reviewers are people too, unless they are dogs.
-
-
- What do you like most about challenge caches? The ability to have something different to seek
- What do you not like about challenge caches? They all go against the simple idea of the game where we hide, find, sign, and log online. They are all inflated and encouraged ALR caches.
- What would you like to see changed about challenge caches? No additional rules beyond what exists, but give them a new cache type of their own; amputate from the "?" Mystery/Unknown cache type completely.
- If you could describe your favorite challenge cache type, what would it be? Fizzy Challenges, Calendar fill. Maintain only a set of specific types that relate more to milestones and other "souvenirs"
- What types of challenge caches do you avoid? Honestly? All of them. If I happen to come across one for which I easily qualify, I'll do it. But I don't cache to complete another or a new "challenge cache".
-
-
Email notifications - if this were more like a message inbox for the website, then email notification of a new message would make more sense. Forums with private messaging do this. But if the feel is more like a conversation/chat, then email notification of new comments is strange. So I agree that if you email notifications, then send any unread comments from the conversation in the email itself; user still needs to go to the site to catch up and reply.
Email notification of new chat messages without the text is strange.
Email notification of new inbox messages is typical. This isn't a message inbox, it's a chat system.
Email notification with the text of new messages is the way to go.
This.
My first tests prove that this is more cumbersome than just having the "email user" link to send an email directly, and then handle messages within my own email inbox. I struggle to see how this will be better for things like logging Earthcaches or Virtuals or whatever over just going to a profile and sending an email to their inbox.
Also, I peeked at the survey. I think that the survey shouldn't mention features not yet available--we can't email from the App yet, so how can any of us say if we like that feature or not?
-
So far, so good. But I need to test it with a non-validated email member, and be able to see how it will look and work within the Apps.
When I get the chance to test within those situations, I'll add feedback to the survey.
But, so far so good...
(Would have been nice to hear a run-up in the threads related to this release, however! Had I known something like this was coming, I bet our conversations would have had less angst.)
-
Ironically, this "Friends" side-discussion is going a bit off-topic in this discussion now.
However, I should point out that since the current "Friends" functionality is only accessible through the website, and unvalidated accounts can't log into the website, those users can't use the functionality anyway.
Aside from the fact that mandatory email validation relates to that topic--you've outlined clearly why in your own post, as I have in my posts as well.
What i see in this thread (and the others which have discussed this issue of non-validated accounts) is that there is a feeling that validated emails are fundamental to many aspects of the game: Logging finds, communicating with other users, developing "friends", correcting behaviours, Cache review, etc. This validation issue is a starting point for integrating and repairing many things, including providing frameworks for making friends and communicating.
My last post is interesting, and I wonder why there's such tight lips--Moun10bike said there is something in the works to deal with validated emails which we "will start to see soon". I'd love to know what that plan is...
-
Additionally, Moun10bike said there's something we might see rolled out to address this issue. I'm all ears to hear what it is they're looking at doing.
-
Well, there's the whole idea that the current "Friends" function is nothing more than a quick link to profiles of those you've had added as "friends". From there, you can view their profile with fewer clicks.
To me the "Friends" feature is more than just looking at a profile, it also the ability to communicate quickly and with fewer clicks. That is how I use the "Friends" function--to email those who I collaborate with, or want to have conversations with. So yes, I've also thought and mentioned that adding in the Personal Message feature to the geocaching.com website and profiles would be a good "fix".
But then.... It becomes a situation where we can't get notification if someone friends us if we don't have a validated email. And to me that's foundational in the whole of the existing "Friends" function, and therefore also foundational in the development of future functions.
Also, we are looking at the importance of validated emails from another angle within this (and other) threads on the subject. We all really do need to be able to get in touch with other users to discuss issues or to collaborate. If I can't reach a user, I can't talk with them about their DNF. I can't contact them to try and let them know why their log on my Earthcache was deleted. I can't get in touch to invite them to go caching, or to attend an event they might not have seen.
Other social media requires valid email addresses, and if we're trying to integrate more ways to share, to collaborate, and to communicate, a validated email is necessary for Geocaching.com
-
I wouldn't mind seeing the friend functionality be a user controlled filter for who can see what on a profile. For example we can hide statistics from everyone. Maybe have an option that those are available to friends but not everyone else. Give everyone the option of what they want the whole world to find in one place with a single click and what they don't. It would still be available on the individual cache pages but not in one place and within a click or two. Make the stalkers work for it.
I like the idea of being able to hide statistics, but to share with friends. For a while, when I was being harassed by a user, I hid my stats so he couldn't "track" me. I'd have to toggle them on and off to check in on dates and D/T grid, etc.
I agree that all settings should be default set to "off" for any integrated Friends/Followers feature. We should be able to toggle things on and off based on who we would like to share it with.
Additionally, I think being able to link to a social media profile could be helpful. But, on a site where we all use "web handles" for names, it could get iffy when people do or don't want to share their real name with each other. It's pretty much taboo in my experience to "out" someone unless they've publicly provided their name to everyone on the forums, in their logs, or via their public profile.
It could be nice to add a link to profiles that could be populated with a social media profile of their choice. Then, when you are "friended" on geocaching.com, you can toggle on and off the ability to share that social media profile link with your friends.
Essentially, the ideas of integrations that I like are
- toggled
- set by default to "Off"
- and only visible to those who you've added as "friends" or "followers"
- toggled
-
The bottom line is to ask staff if they think that Groundspeak wants to head the direction of creating a competition between users, or to simply continue to host geocaches which encourage people to engage in locations in a new and interesting way--all while being able to track their own experiences through cache logs and find counts. (The count as inventory number, not a score: My cache #156 was GX12345A, and here's the log I posted...e.g.)
We're not trying to direct things one way or another; instead, we posted some possible ways to use a Friends/Followers feature in order to initiate the conversation and stimulate brainstorming. We are relying on users to tell us which way they want things to go.
Ok, and then I ask if feedback from some users includes facilitating or de facto encouragement of competition, does it fit the Mission and Vision of Groundspeak?
Since Groundspeak launched in 2000, we've been inspiring discovery, exploration and adventure. We do this by providing tools for the creation and sharing of story-worthy moments. Our goal is to make everyone an explorer and to put an adventure in every location.We're essentially discussing the philosophy of the game--what is the service that Groundspeak is providing? If it is in line with the Mission, I think that any suggestion that integrated site updates would include anything of a competitive nature would take away from the focus which developed the foundation--that it was about location-based adventures, not about finding more than the next person. Mission statements can help focus the
company on what really matters--to itself as well as to its stakeholders. An effective mission statement defines the fundamental, unique purpose that sets a business apart from other firms of its type and identifies the scope of the business's operations in product and marketing teams (Pearce, 1987).
I do think that there are great partner sites that help users of Geocaching.com integrate interesting side-games. This would include the ability to foster competition if one chooses to be motivated by that aspect of what one can do with the service Groundspeak provides. Someone can compete if they like, and another can enjoy the service Groundspeak provides in another way.
I think that an improved "friends" feature would be a great way to meet the mission statement of the company--to "inspire discovery, exploration and adventure" with others around them. To be able to meet, communicate, follow, collaborate, and share experiences is really a fundamental part of the game. And I think that developing a way to meet, greet, discuss, and share experiences out "in the field" with each other is a really fun part of what the Geocaching.com website provides us all.
Exploring and sharing is what this site is really all about. And to share, creating a robust and specialized way to connect with "friends" would be an improvement. Right now all we get is a way to keep "friends" in a single location for reference. There's no interaction, no collaboration, and no clear way to communicate beyond the existing "email user" link on everyone's profile. I don't think that you need to create another social media platform however. I do think that you can simply upgrade the way we "friend" and can view our "friends":
-Add our friends to our profile page for others to see who we interact with on a regular basis.
-Create a new collaborative Bookmarking process
-Develop a more in-depth way to view someone's profile if you're "friends" versus if you aren't
But the bottom line is, what is the goal of a Groundspeak/Geocaching.com "Friends/Followers" function? How does it serve the mission? How does it meet the needs of users within the construct of the company's mission?
So I'd throw the question back to you, Moun10bike: What is the staff of Groundspeak hoping to create if it were to improve or develop a "more robust" peer-to-peer interaction (friends/followers) on Geocaching.com?
Pearce II, John A. Corporate Mission Statements: The Bottom Line. Academy of Management Executive, 1987. Vol 1, No. 2. http: //www.simpsonexecutivecoaching.com/pdf/orgmission/corporate-mission-statement-bottom-line-pearce-david.pdf
Folding up that LOOONNNNG scroll of log paper
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Ahhhhh....
You're talking about those historic caches where there was room for swag, a logbook, a "Geocache Note to Welcome Finders", and even a white Jeep trackable or two? I've heard of them!