Proud Soccer Mom
-
Posts
626 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Proud Soccer Mom
-
-
I tend not to police my own posts but I'd just like to remind people here that the subject of the post was the existence of non-compliant caches and what players can do to identify and address the issue. I can easily agree that this subject expands to include debates regarding what defines a non-compliant cache, examples of past issues regarding non-compliant caches, and what words I used and their naughty implications. This topic cannot be expanded to include Groundspeak business practices and, I believe, that off-topic topic has been entertained more than enough in this thread.
Thanks!
-
Having just stumbled up on this thread once again, I cannot believe that this thread is still alive. My sense is that is what is really going on for at least a few of the posters is thinly-veiled amazement and fear along the lines of "Oh no! There is a gay geocacher among us! Eeek Quick! Get rid of it!"
When did we start letting the gays in? Soon the women will want to play, too.
-
As far as I've gathered, a popular philosophy goes as follows:
Don't hide a micro where you can hide a regular.
Don't hide a regular where you can hide a large.
If you hide a micro where you can hide a regular, make it a challenging one that's a bit unique that couldn't possibly be done with a regular.
Don't hunt sizes you don't like.
Walk softly and carry a big pile of sticks.
If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong.
-
I'll vouch for them. We took an emotionally charged discussion off line. They were Civil, Articulate, and someone who would make good company even if you wanted to talk Poltiics and Religion. Better still they have an opionion so you would actually have something to talk about beyond the wheather.
Thanks, man!
-
I have a Waymarking blog, if that counts.
-
Poets haven't had much to say on the subject of 'Cheese'.
~*
GK Chesterton
-
Grey-shaded decisions are the hallmark of this site - they don't have rules - they have guidelines, so they can interpret them however they want under the specific circumstances given at the time. Read carefully - "they", not we. If we interpret guidelines in a grey manner, we are blacklisted.
I believe those kind of guidelines and the way "they" interpret them give us just enough rope for THEM to hang us.
I think you would be a very successful rabble rouser for something important. You have a tenacity and provocation that withstands temperment of alternative views and compromise. Even though I know it is these qualities that will have you reject my suggestion, I still would like to suggest that you apply your skills to issues in arenas that could use such talents. You're wasting yourself on a crusade against a game.
-
.
I actually tried a category (listed in Games) that had ALR. Urban Legends and Superstitions. It received harsh criticism in Peer Review all three times it went. After the second rejection, Waymarking staff urged us to do what the officers and I were dredding, dropping the ALR, but we knew that if we wanted the category published at all, we'd have to do it. We did and we got our 2/3rds (just barely) on the third run.
Now, what was interesting about that experience was that the people who liked it, LOVED it, and the people who didn't like it, HATED it. There were no luke warm feelings about it. I still get messages from players complaining about whatever waymark in that category that they don't agree with being there, something that just doesn't happen in my other categories.
There was also a category proposed not too long ago about GPS Art. That was pretty kicky. It didn't make it through Peer Review and I don't know if it's being reworked. I'm amazed Lucky 7 made it through. I've posted a couple WayTours and I think those are fun.
I understand your criticism against the rigid standard that categories must provide lienency and minimal requirements for visits. At the moment, this is a poster's game, so I'd ask you to look at the requirements for some of the categories to post a waymark. I do appreciate that categories that appear on Google searches often due to collegiate and other scholar research do have more requirements for posting and visiting. In such a situation, waymarks aren't on an island where only Waymarkers can see them and they need to be worth their salt.
I always said that I'd Geocache more if it could be included in my Waymarking count. And while you have a neat reverse opinion on the plea to merge, I think requiring Geocachers to become Waymarkers as a subset of Waymarking would cause a riot. Please think of the children!
-
I tried to register a Virtual Cache and discovered geocaching.com is no longer accepting or posting those kinds of caches. Has anyone else discovered or was anyone else aware of this policy change?
My opinion is this is a very bad decision for people that travel extensively such as myself. While working to discover a "regular" cache is my preference, sometimes it is just not practical to place a "regular" cache in not just a location but in certain countries! Walking around with a GPSr in some countries is a sure fire way to attact the attention of authorities in those countries and then looking around, however subtly, for a hidden cache is a good way to suddenly find yourself arrested!
Virtual caches solve a multitude of problems since they allow you to "discover" something new or see something you wouldn't otherwise notice.
I vote we reinstate Virtual Caches immediately, or at least be told the reason WHY geocaching.com has decided to no longer list them.
People post Waymarks while traveling all the time without any problem whatsoever.
Funny, that.
As Prince Humperdink said in The Princess Bride, "Please consider Waymarking an alternative to Virtuals."
Or he said something like that. I don't really remember.
-
I can't understand why EarthCaches don't have strict enough criteria to establish them as special and consistent enough for a Waymarking category. [...] The truth is that Waymarking can support this kind of category; but some people complain that people would then have legitimated "visits" denied because they didn't have the requirements for that EarthCache printed out.
I think about categories like Places of Geologic Significance and other outstanding categories in the Nature directory and they just blow Earthcaches out of the water. Yes, Earthcaches can be supported as Earthmarks, but Waymarking has already done better.
The Waymarking model promises to provide a more general location based GPS game than geocaching. In fact, geocaching can be seen as simply a category of waymarks with the additional requirement of finding the cache and signing the log. The idea that Waymarking would be compromised if it were more integrated with geocaching is shortsighted. Instead of viewing Waymarking as a wide open platform for developing location based activities, some simply want it to be only a fancy waypoint listing service.I don't think it's appropriate to make presumptions about the desire of some players in a game that you haven't checked into for some time. With that said, yes, there is some disagreement amoungst players on the direction that the categories, and therefore the game, should take. Mind you, the category system is incompatible to the Geocaching game and it is the category system that is vital to the game.
I actually prefer the Geocaching.com model with a few individuals with a clear vision of what the game should be making decisions rather than the mob rule over at Waymarking. I haven't followed new category approval recently. At one time it seemed like peer review was simply advisory and Groundspeak were the ones who decided what categories would be listed. That worked well. If now you need to get a majority of yes votes to list a new category I fear creativity will be stifled.Geocaching and Waymarking are two different games. If you accept them as separate games, you'll begin to accept Waymarking's differences better. You may not like it, and you're not required to like it, but you will understand it. I don't think these two should ever reconcile their differences and become one again. I really appreciate Waymarking on its own legs.
I agree that Geocaching has an appropriate management system for the game that it is. I disagree with Waymarking being referred to as a "mob rule." We're quite civilised unless somebody says they don't like Hooters. I do think there is a possibility that "mob rule" may result in a similiar structure were permitted in the Geocaching game. In truth, we don't know. But I agree that things work just fine as they are so I doubt we'll ever find out one way or the other.
As the game stands now, Peer Review is a voting period of three days where premium membership players are able to vote (yea, nay, abstain) on a proposed category. A Peer Review vote is considered successful if it has rendered 2/3rds 'yea' vote. At the close of the three-day voting period, the proposed category goes to Groundspeak where Waymarking staff makes a final decision on whether the category should become part of the directory. This final stage could take anywhere from a few hours to a week. The Peer Review results are viewable to the category leader and officers, including comments made, but the voting is anonymous. More players are beginning to sign their name on their comments as a matter of courtesy.
I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that creativity will be stifled. I wrote Omnivorous Trees and it passed Peer Review with 90% approval.
-
Did you verify they are not listed on another site?
That was my first thought.
-
Oh crud... I gotta go to atlasquest and check on my letterbox. It's been MONTHS!!!
-
Now, what was the topic again??
I believe it was that I said the word "ignorant" to avoid using a lot of words to articulate my point.
-
Oh boy, yet another hundred sentences to drag on this totally meaningless topic.
Believe it or not, I prefer someone who can be cordial and coherent with a discussion, even if I vehemently disagree with them, more than someone whose only contribution to a thread is to say, "why are people talking? oh no, why are people talking?"
That's just my preference. You obviously prefer to conduct yourself differently and that's okay, too.
-
And I believe you are trying to make things more complex and more involved than they are.
It is not being irrational to state that a business should listen to their users. This site has decided to not even allow polls - seems like that would be a reasonable way to get people's opinions on things. I believe there are two reasons for this decision - one is that they get silly polls (which was explained to me, and I accept), but also that they don't want to have to ignore when they have a large number of people wanting something they don't.
I'm not making any kind of conspiracy theory. It is simple - its his website, his rules. Does that make it right? No. Does that make it correct for the game? No. It would be like Parker Brothers saying "If you want to play Monopoly, you will agree to follow the rules, or we won't sell you the game. You're going to sign a contract, and if you choose not to follow the rules we state, you will have your game forcibly removed by the police for violating the contract". Silly example, but similar - you don't want to follow the rules, go somewhere else... don't try to get them changed... just accept them, or move on. Not a good business model.
I don't mind arguing or debating with people. I do have a problem when it comes down to "This is the way it is - live with it, accept it, or go somewhere else".
You've stated many times that you do not believe that you and others have been listened to when it comes to various issues regarding features and functions of the website and overall rules of the game. I validate your upset at experiences that you've had and know that others have had. Please understand that I can accept your feelings but cannot adopt your views based on the information that you've given me.
You've listed changes that I do not consider a detriment to the game so our differing perception of what is a problem will not allow us to resolve this disagreement between us. We also have differing perceptions of how Groundspeak is run as a company.
In a previous comment you mentioned the Archived Caches on the Google Maps and I addressed it flippantly. I do understand that the issue is not with the feature itself as much as it is with the fact that a statement made by Groundspeak regarding the feature was not followed-through in a timely manner and you believe that no follow-up has been provided. I do beg to differ that "if you turn something off, you can turn it back on just as easily." The electric company proves that. (There's probably few people here who know firsthand what I'm referring to, though.) You have to remember that these are programmers and developers. Developer time is not Customer time. This makes little sense to people who want things done in a reasonable time-frame, but there is a complexity that has to be respected on this level. There is often a separate time-table where initiatives are organised into separate releases. Depending on how things change, certain initiatives may be reorganised into a later release.
I always believe a company should be up front and honest about their development with their customers in as much as is reasonable to inform the public while protecting the company itself. I also believe in the responsibility of individuals to be reasonable and accept explanations that are given in earnest. Consistency is a key element in preventing confusion and here is where we question whether Groundspeak has been too communicative with its customers, as opposed to not communicative enough. When initiatives are detailed and then changed for unanticipated reasons, confusion can result and a perception of inconsistency, and even bias and corruption can result. In truth, it may just be the workings of people doing their best to make something work when there is not a model in existence to immitate. The Geocaching game was in existence but the website was a fresh approach. Waymarking and Wherigo are also new ideas. There is no template for developers to fall back on.
You want polls. I don't consider polls to be beneficial to a business. They're nothing but filler to the media, what good are they going to be in the application of a high-traffic business? I think polls would give players a misapprehension that a poll result would guarantee that change to the game. Often in business, and I am assuming the same with Groundspeak, changes are made on much more than a whim or public vote. This isn't a board game. The game may be simple in premise but the business is not simple.
You have a great deal more experience in the Geocaching game than I do. You have more experience and time dealing with the Geocaching site than I do. Your experiences are valued and are worthy of the time to consider them carefully, however, please mind that my experiences are recent and are not tarnished by rougher waters from years ago. I do not know your experience with programmers, developers, or dotcom business models. I can hope that you will respect my experience when I tell you that there is nothing to be alarmed about in the business handling that I have witnessed as a player in the past two years. It still may not be to your liking, but we've discussed your options, and I hope you can agree with me that what we individually may want might not be what is best.
-
Gives me an idea for an evil magnetic!
Brilliant!
-
Jeremy makes the decisions on here
for geocaching, there is one person making the decisions.
When that person single-handedly makes the rules and decides what is part of the game and what isn't
Your game wouldn't exist except for the fact that Jeremy decided that these components didn't fit his idea of geocaching.
he is the man behind the curtain pulling the switches.
This is a very problematic group of statements. Your views about this one person that you don't know really makes me uncomfortable.
Waymarking isn't "my game." It's a game that I play and enjoy. It is not perfect and, dare I say, there are more technical and website difficulties in that website than exist in Geocaching. This is no reason to lash out at the hardworking technical and customer service team. In fact, it is an opportunity to be understanding and productive.
I believe that you are disregarding the realistic ability to run a high-traffic interactive dotcom and you are demonstrating a complete lack of business awareness. If you do not wish to be perceived as a conspiracy theorist, I suggest you examine the weight and frequency of your statements. While I do appreciate your calm and respectful manner towards me in the discussion, you don't seem to be accepting my side of this argument when I highlight the problematic and irrational views that are being described.
-
Alternatively, you could just take a quick peek at the 'hidden' date to see if the cache predates the guideline. That way you wouldn't waste teh reviewer's time.As the owner of a grandfathered cache that violates three of the current guidelines I have to wonder why you would refer these grandfathered caches to a reviewer.
So a reviewer could explain that this cache was grandfathered in.
As far as I understand, grandfathered caches are non-compliant but secure. So there ought to be no reason why a reviewer cannot handle answering a simple question about the cache from an interested player. It's not a secret and nothing to be ashamed of.
I wouldn't presume that everyone is able to contrast a hide date against a guideline implementation date.
It would be nice not to waste a reviewer's time, but I think they'd rather receive a cordial email asking about something simple and accepting that answer than having a huge blow-up OMG IT'S NOT FAIR on the forum.
-
I don't believe that advancement of the game requires that things be removed or banned simply because one person feels that they shouldn't be a part of the game.
I think your claim of "one person" is dramatic and unrealistic to the point of the discussion. We are talking about an evolution of the game. I believe the players begin the evolution and Geocaching.com sets perimeters as it feels is necessary to accomodate this evolution, instead of telling players, "This is never allowed. The game will always remain the same." That would be catering to a minority of the players or "one person", and I believe you've already criticised the notion of that.
Your statement that Terracaching allows these but this site doesn't, and only because of the size, makes no sense. Just because something is small doesn't mean it can allow more things. If it works over there, it would work here - they just have to be willing to accept it, rather than making excuses and banning those types of caches.I strongly disagree. Locationless, webcams and virtuals are organised at Waymarking.com with a directory of categories. Geocaching could not have accomodated that without a severe change. Since you have already voiced your disagreement against minor changes, I don't think you would have appreciated such a change to the Geocaching game. Back when there were a handful of these types of caches, they were manageable and there did not need any further organisation for them to properly handle them. Terracaching experiences this low volume, which allows them to be tossed in with the container caches without much mind.
At a time when Terracaching has a higher volume and sees that the quality of these types of caches is insecure and unmanageable, they may have to reconsider organisation.
So 2 cache types (Event and Mega-Event) exist directly in contradiction to the rule which states that "event caches" are not permitted - they must be permanent (as permanent as a cache can be - not a point of debate for this argument). Virtuals and webcams have actually more right under the current rules to exist than do event caches. But again, as I said, decisions are made by the person in charge, not by the people who, without them, the site wouldn't exist. Take away the people who list the caches, and you have an empty website.I understand that point. You've made it before. I said in return that Events would be more than welcome in Waymarking if we were allowed to work a category for them that was to our own liking. Many Waymarking discussions have been had about Earthcaches and we've come to the consensus that Earthcaches don't have strict enough criteria to establish them as special and consistent enough for a Waymarking category. We've got categories that blow Earthcaches out of the water. At Waymarking, we can't really put all the blame for our unhappiness on "The Powers That Be" or pretend there's a man behind the curtain pulling all the switches. Waymarking is very player-dependent with the staff and volunteers helping players along with the official bits.
Of course, I see Geocaching as very player-dependent with the staff and volunteers helping players along with the official bits, but there seems an eagerness to compose conspiracy theories and doomsday hypothesis about the staff and volunteers from a certain population of the players. I could spectulate as to why this is but I don't understand it and honestly don't know why this population behaves this way.
In many cases, there is absolutely no wow factor in a lot of caches today. Why make that requirement, if you don't have it for all kinds of caches. That LPC I picked up, and the one I placed as a cache, have no WOW factor - only a smiley for anyone wanting to get it.Why blame Groundspeak for that? You're suggesting here that staff and volunteers are obligated to make a subjective judgment on something they cannot physically see, and leave the cache owner completely unaccountable for his/her own lack of sensibility in placing a perceivably un'wow' cache. The 'wow' factor exists as a guideline but it is one that an individual should take personally accountable when placing the cache, not require reviewers to decide based on the limited information available through a website.
I just don't think they listen to the people. I think they just do what they want to do, and we have to accept it because it is his website (even if not his game). As for taking it to the next level, yes, Jeremy did. But I think he did a disservice to the game as well. He has turned it essentially into his game, rather than a game for everyone. Even the person who came up with the concept felt it had been corrupted. We have to deal with google ads (even premium members... just not as many) - I, and others as well, as evidenced by the complaints when they first came out, think that degraded the website immensely. I know they're not rolling in money, but they definitely have more than enough to get by, based on the way they run their business, send people out to various events, etc. I don't pretend to know their financial situation, but I can't see them hurting at this point.Well, if none of them are hurting, God bless them. My family's hurting right now. That said, I might still make it to Tennessee in May and I wouldn't get to claim it as a business expense for my taxes. Google ads do not bother me. They are on-topic and g-rated. I have Gmail. There's Google ads all over that in a much less subdued way than they are here.
This is more of making Jeremy Irish the boogieman. While I understand that he's burned in effigy occassionally when someone doesn't like something about the website, I don't accept it. It might be my work history that realises what is required to run a professional website of this caliber, it might just be my preference not to blame all my problems on someone who's not responsible. It's just not acceptable behavior to blame it all on one person.
While there are plenty of people calling for locationless, virtuals and webcams to return to Geocaching, there are plenty more of us in Waymarking who don't want our game compromised. Groundspeak makes decisions based on the entire player base, not just a section who feels they've squeeked their wheels the loudest and don't bother to listen to what the others are saying. My opinion here isn't a unique and unshared opinion. Have you listened to what other people are saying that don't agree with you? Have you considered that maybe there are more who think like I do and want things a certain way, too? I'm not being confrontational with these questions. These are sincere questions.
Finally, there is always more to the story. There are always reasons which are not explained. This website has a history of hiding things often from people. I am not a conspiracy person - but many times we are told "that is the way it is, live with it", in somewhat nicer terms, but that is basically what is being said. Since they are so good at preserving history, you can find many of these examples throughout the forum threads - why this was done, why this cache was canned, why this guideline was changed. "Because we said so" or "because it violates a policy" - as I point out in my sig file, everything is offensive to someone somewhere at sometime. So simply because I state my opinion on here, it offends someone - and I should be suspended for it - and have been, in several cases. Most times, with no recourse, with little answer, and even calling the company, being brushed off or not getting return phone calls with messages which have been left. (Except for one case... I was able to speak with someone at GS who could answer my questions - but got the same "this is what we're doing so you have to live with it" speach at the end anyway.) And in many cases, people who oppose the system get suspended from posting - i have spoken with several. Many times, it is not out of disrespect. It is simply because they aren't willing to take the company line and just accept it. Something's wrong with a company who doesn't listen to the people who use it.Or that promise things and never deliver (returning Archived caches to the google maps being the prime example).
In my honest opinion, I think there's a percentage of forum participants who take their stake in the game far too seriously than is healthy. I think they've allowed the specific individual decisions of minor things to affect the joy they have in playing the game. Archived caches on Google Maps... Really?! This is important? It can see where it might be nice for one specific use but important enough to cause a stir? No. That's plain out petty.
A premium account does not buy an individual holdings into Groundspeak. It just doesn't work as a democracy and to expect that everyone should get a vote and private audience over every pocket issue is unreasonable and disrespectful. This sense of entitlement is inappropriate.
From what I have observed of the choices that Groundspeak has made as a business, there is no attempt to soak people for money. Google ads do not turn to players for money. Google ads annoy people who are easily annoyed. When the easily annoyed people are annoyed, should this make news and should the world change revolution to suit their preferences? Of course not.
I like the game - I like the sport - I don't like the way this website has twisted it for their own profit and limited the playability of it for their own protection. I don't dislike it enough to stop playing on here, because there isn't another website which has the number of caches available. But it isn't good enough to keep me from expressing my dissatisfaction with some decisions and the way some people are treated because they question Jeremy's decisions.Respectfully, I think you need to own your hypocrasy. You have the choice to only Terracache or Navicache. You even have the choice to create your own FireRefCaching.com to establish the game how you believe it would be done fairly and rightly. When you find yourself short of revenue, remember that you are ad-free. Taking advantage of the ability to be productive for your own ideas is far more respectable than claiming Jeremy Irish runs an unfair business. To reject your own capability to take responsibility for your displeasure in Geocaching in favor of taking advantage of what the site offers while complaining incessantly about the things you don't like is not reasonable adult behavior.
I don't mean these words to be a personal attack against you. You have placed yourself into the context of the argument so I'm addressing you as part of my response, but I feel confident extending this statement on a general level.
Frankly, I think it's irrational to continually throw darts at Jeremy Irish just because he is "the face" of Geocaching.com. He's not a man behind the curtain pulling switches. Groundspeak is a company. There's more than just him. There are several people. They have meetings. They probably even have a table that they sit around for these meetings. Has there been unprofessional missteps in dealing with the customer base? I don't doubt it and there are a few forum discussions that can be interpreted to fit this accusation. All my experiences with Groundspeak Customer Service has been cordial, professional and prompt. I also don't see any of the hissy fits against the company in Waymarking that go on in Geocaching. I can conclude that the staff is improving in their public relations and therefore claims of unprofessionalism and bias using old forum correspondence is irrelevant to a current discussion.
-
As the owner of a grandfathered cache that violates three of the current guidelines I have to wonder why you would refer these grandfathered caches to a reviewer.... As I understood the previous explanations, non-compliant caches may happen as a result of:1. An already published cache is grandfathered in after a new rule would make it non-compliant;
2. A published cache is changed into a non-compliant way without a reviewer being aware that this change was made;
3. A new cache is published in err by a reviewer who is either ignorant or willfully negligent (probably most likely ignorant) of the cache's non-compliance.
... After you're done with that, recover your laptop and write a message to your local reviewer, asking what is up with this particular non-compliant cache. ...
So a reviewer could explain that this cache was grandfathered in.
As far as I understand, grandfathered caches are non-compliant but secure. So there ought to be no reason why a reviewer cannot handle answering a simple question about the cache from an interested player. It's not a secret and nothing to be ashamed of.
-
(Takes a few minutes to mop up the puddle of sarcasm dripped into this thread by the first responding paragraph from above, and then continues...)
I believe that originally, there was a consideration for what was best for the game. I believe then that as it became more of a business, and there was more of a profit potential, and as the game grew, more of a liability potential, that many decisions for what is allowed and what is not were made in the best interests of the business rather than the game.
As you stated, a number of things have been moved to Waymarking, mainly because TPTB decided that, in their opinion, things which they said were geocaches to start with, were no longer geocaches. If we go back to the original definition, most of what is considered a geocache today wouldn't count. No meetings, no micros with only a log (because you can't trade anything, and that was 2/3 of the original rules of the game), no webcams, no virtuals, no reverse/locationless, no multis, no mystery/unknowns. You would have containers placed in places with things to trade. Oh wait, considering what was in the original cache, food would be ok - so would alcohol. And if I remember correctly, even the person who actually started the game didn't agree with the way it was being run. I would think that since he created the game, he gets the final say...
Many of these things have changed - some for the better, and some to the detriment of the game. new cache types have been added in the past - and some have been removed. As I said before - if you use the excuse that a virtual isn't really a cache, then a micro with no room for trade items isn't either - but they haven't made that decision. Both don't match the original rules. But decisions were made whereby one was kicked out, and the other was kept. This makes little sense, and the explanations which were given make just as little sense.
In the end, my point is that many times, perfectly good caches become non-compliant caches (even though they are still perfectly good caches) because of decisions made by TPTB that do not necessarily advance the game, but are made for liability reasons. There was no reason for that non-compliant cache to become non-compliant in the first place. That was my point.
Obviously some changes had to be made to gain a broader acceptance of Geocaching and keep it from getting banned. If food and alcohol were still allowed, I doubt there would be many parks willing to cooperate with geocachers. In this respect, there is a liability issue but there is also the advancement of the game. I do not believe decisions are made to intentionally damage the integrity or enjoyment of the game, although we all know that you can't please everyone all the time. And micros... well, I'm sure there's a thread or two already about those! Hehehe.
It's understandable that inconsistency can be confusing. But I think there is a balance being struck between honoring the roots of the game with the elements of challenge and change. Games have to evolve. Virtuals, Webcams and Locationless cannot be included in these claims of inconsistency. For the sake of those caches themselves, Geocaching could not support them to their potential. That became Waymarking. These types of caches still work on Terracaching because Terracaching is still small. If Terracaching ever experiences the growth spurt that Geocaching has, they may have to reconsider their organisation as well.
I won't comment on the origins of Geocaching, except to say that Jeremy Irish was the one who took it to the next level where so many globally could play as a unified community.
Your apparent experience with senseless changes and explanations is an experience that I don't have, so I'm not really qualified to comment one way or the other about that. You say that explanations given to you about specific situations did not make sense to you, so I can do nothing more than take you at your word. I do believe there is more to the story. There always seems to be three sides to a story. But I can accept your feelings about what happened without trying to argue something I know nothing about. I hope you can accept my skepticism about this being a system-wide problem.
I don't believe Groundspeak staff is rolling in money from the decisions they've made. It is a very popular game but since they don't receive revenue on each individual cache being published and found, the real action isn't bringing them money. There's advertising, merchandising and premium accounts as far as I can tell. They haven't even taken the opportunity to charge separately for premium accounts to the games. If you have a premium account for Geocaching, it's through Groundspeak, which gains you the same privileges to Waymarking and Wherigo. From these decisions, I don't think they are looking to soak players for all that they can. If increasing revenue in obvious and easy ways isn't viewed as being in the best interests of the company because it's not in the best interests of the game, I have to wonder how different Groundspeak running like a business really is from Groundspeak running games. I'm seeing the games being put before the owner's pocketbook. But, again, I'm spectulating based on my gutt. I have no numbers or inside information to back up my statements.
Thank you again for a cordial and insightful reply on the counter-argument of this debate.
-
I think that the OP is correct in that #1 is an issue. It never really made sense for a number of the rules/guidelines changes that this website has made over the years. Many of these have done nothing to advance the game - they have only limited, excluded, or removed certain kinds of cache types or the ability to place or maintain certain kinds of caches.
I'm not saying that all changes that have been made are bad. I'm saying that most of the ones which have made caches "illegal" under the current guidelines have done little to advance the game. Most have only been changed because of the possibility of legal issues for the website, or because the person in charge (of the website, not the "game") decided that the kind of cache on the site wasn't what he wanted to have as a part of geocaching. Some were kept - such as virtuals and webcams, with no new ones being allowed. Some were completely locked out - locationless. Events and Mega events were added - good ideas...but if you go by the original concept of geocaching, even these aren't technically "allowed".
A number of normal caches have been removed or archived because of changes in the guidelines, when the issue wasn't hurting anyone or anything - mainly under the "no agendas" rule (or guideline, as they like to call them). And many still exist with this issue, but have been grandfathered (or no one has complained about them, so no one chose to enforce the rule/guideline, etc).
It isn't fair. Doesn't mean life has to be fair, but you should work to be as fair as possible.
And the easiest way to do this is to stop changing the guidelines restricting what can and cannot be done with this website. New ideas? Those are fine - but stop saying "oh, we don't like that anymore, so you can't do it".
Thank you for a response that delves sensibly and respectably into the issue on the counterside of the debate. I'm of the nature that I don't mind the bit of unfairness or the occassional mistakenly placed cache. It certainly is not something worth panicking about. However, approaching the issue maturely and calmly as you've done here, a proper argument is presented about non-compliant caches that can be considered. You've set a tone on that side of the issue that hasn't been set before. I really appreciate that.
With that said, I do believe that both volunteers and Groundspeak staff do work to be as fair as possible in the determination and enforcement of guidelines. I don't think we can expect everyone to know and apply everything all the time. I would not even rule out the possibility of there being a bad apple from time to time, although I completely trust Groundspeak to appropriately handle such a rare circumstance internally.
Groundspeak is a business and with that comes considerations towards the Geocaching game that players wouldn't have to entertain. Groundspeak runs another game called Waymarking. Waymarking, borne from the Geocaches that weren't really Geocaches, grew into its own game and provided a venue for these non-cache caches that far exceeded what the Geocaching game could provide. It makes sense why the company would begin weening players off of these types of caches. Perhaps it does not appear fair that Events stay because they are also non-cache caches. I can only tell you that I think they'd have a comfy home at Waymarking.
Grandfathering is a courtesy. I don't believe it's for the purpose of preventing lawsuits, although I couldn't speak for the business management and considerations of Groundspeak in that area. It is only my opinion that it is not a big consideration in the decision. I think people made the best decisions that they could based on a case-by-case basis in what they believed to be the best interests of the game at that time given the information that they had. This may give an appearance of unfairness or bias in the opinions of players whose caches may have been selected while others were grandfathered, but I suspect that a review would reveal more sensible explanations than expose bad decisions. Since we know a review won't ever happen, even if it was possible, I am comfortable relying on my hunches.
-
But I suspect you weren't around, or were too young, when he had his one hit, and two minor hits, all in 1977.
Ooo, I like that.
-
All in all I think there are relatively few "aggresive cyber fights" compared to other boards.
The other forum I frequent is a motorcycle forum. Fewer rules and less moderation. Surprisingly a much friendlier place over all than here.
The nastiness, meaniest, most unforgiving forum I was ever on was a newsgroup for bisexual women. That was the mid-90's. Very fierce. At meet-ups we'd discuss who made who cry. This is a sandbox by comparison.
The nicest, most polite, cordial and professional forum is ghostvillage. There's an occassional thorn but they like to stick on the religious board. Ghosthunters love each other.
Non-compliant Caches
in General geocaching topics
Posted
First of all, thank you so much for respecting my wishes to stay on topic in my own thread. That really speaks to your depth of character and strength of constitution to place one's intentions about a post before your own personal agenda.
I am not a volunteer reviewer. I do not have any employment, volunteering, or any official or unofficial representation of Groundspeak and its games. I have no idea what you're babbling on about when you say "deputy badges". I only know that you've gone on tirelessly about the meaningless and pointless phrase, and I have next to no patience with someone who disregards my polite requests to continue their selfish rants. I am an individual who will not tolerate this infantile and irrational behavior. Aren't you lucky? You're the one whose got me when I've just run out of diplomacy.
In my experience on the forums, moderators always defend Geocaching as it is. Don't expect anything different. It's almost predictable whenever anybody suggests anything. Just because a moderator gives a reply that things are sunshine and rainbows does not indicate that the Moderators and Groundspeak Staff are not still considering the information. However, if you're continually bringing up the same issue that's already been addressed on unofficial and official levels, then you'll need to contemplate the differences between where you sit and where you speak.
You want to discuss Groundspeak business practices? Start a thread. If you've had bad experiences with that, man up to it. It's cowardly to hide behind me in my thread with your wild conspiracy theories, lack of business management awareness, and outright liable. Take your tinfoil hat and play elsewhere. Got it?
On the off-chance you're right and this thread is so convoluted with entitlement brats wanting to grab for a microphone to talk about things they know nothing about (ie. Groundspeak business practices) then I respectfully ask the Moderators to close this thread because it will have no hope of ever getting back on track. Thank you!