Guidelines Suggestion

[+Yamar]

"If you have a cache idea you believe is novel, contact Geocaching.com before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site."

 

Might I suggest you put in a quick () note saying what method to use when contacting the web site? There are a number to pick from (many of which discussed above). A link would be even better.

[Charles Iverson]

Um ok whats this fourm about again??

 

"If you have a cache idea you believe is novel, contact Geocaching.com before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site."

 

Might I suggest you put in a quick () note saying what method to use when contacting the web site?  There are a number to pick from (many of which discussed above).  A link would be even better.

 

so what you are saying is to by past the fourms and just contact geocaching.com

To get your cache answer?

Is that not why we have forums?

 

A note saying what method to use when contacting the web site??

 

a note on what?

 

there are a number to pick from (many of which discussed above)???

looks up nope don't see anything

 

they are posted on the web site and on jeremy's profile aka: contact@geocaching.com

Edited June 8, 2005 by Charles Iverson

[+Yamar]

Um ok whats this fourm about again??

It's about the website, right? I was merely trying to help by posting suggested edits to the guidelines.

[+Tharagleb]

Um ok   whats this fourm about again?? 

It's about the website, right? I was merely trying to help by posting suggested edits to the guidelines.

I think your post was perfectly reasonable. The web page should either have "mailto:" link or at least reference contact@Groundspeak.com

 

I believe if you want a definite answer to whether or not a "novel" cache should be placed you need to email an approver, not discuss it in the forums.

[+StarBrand]

I believe if you want a definite answer to whether or not a "novel" cache should be placed you need to email an approver, not discuss it in the forums.

However, bringing it into the forums for discussion amongst the "community" can sometimes alter, bend and reshape the guidelines based on feedback from other cachers. Maybe not acceptable today but with a few modest community alterations it may become acceptable.

 

Just a thought.

[+LaPaglia]

"If you have a cache idea you believe is novel, contact Geocaching.com before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site."

 

Might I suggest you put in a quick () note saying what method to use when contacting the web site? There are a number to pick from (many of which discussed above). A link would be even better.

Instead of tearing the guidelines apart one at a time. I suggest you rewrite them and send then to Contact@geocaching.com. This way it happens all at once and not one little "suggestion" at a time.

[+Renegade Knight]

Why?

[Jeremy]

There's your friendly neighborhood contact link displayed on every page on the web site. We were nice enough to make that one of the major links on the left-hand navigation bar.

[+Yamar]

There's your friendly neighborhood contact link displayed on every page on the web site. We were nice enough to make that one of the major links on the left-hand navigation bar.

Good, so you have html code you can cut and paste from ;-)

 

:-) :-) :-)

[Jeremy]

And paste where? The link is at the top and the bottom of every page.

[+Yamar]

And paste where? The link is at the top and the bottom of every page.

This:

 

"If you have a cache idea you believe is novel, contact Geocaching.com before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site."

 

to this:

 

"If you have a cache idea you believe is novel,

<a href="http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=Post&CODE=00&f=6">contact Geocaching.com</a>

before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site."

 

Actually... there are a number of instances in the guidelines where the link would be useful. This is one example out of 4ish.

Edited June 8, 2005 by Yamar

[Jeremy]

I'll consider it when we make any significant changes to the guidelines (since we would have to change the updated date for something so insignificant as this). In the meantime it may be just a way to deter the lazy folks who can't seem to do a general browsing of any page to find out how to contact the web site.

[Charles Iverson]

JEREMY!!!

 

i like the way it is now don't change it..

 

so some new person needs to get a hold of you

how have they done it in the past

 

well thru the forums or just looking at the web site

i meen if they had a question on geocacheing they look in the FAQ and theres there answer..

[+Hynr]

I'll consider it when we make any significant changes to the guidelines (since we would have to change the updated date for something so insignificant as this).

Jeremy, do you really want to treat your clients like this? Here is a person who is making a good-faith effort to provide helpful suggestions and you pompously evaluate it in front of the world as being insignifcant.

 

I am used to this crap from other forum posters, but not from you.

 

In the meantime it may be just a way to deter the lazy folks who can't seem to do a general browsing of any page to find out how to contact the web site.

Again, why are you name-calling your clients "lazy"? The problem is just as likely to be with web page design or some sort of other handicap by the person you deem to be lazy.

 

Why are you biting the hand that feeds you? Are you having a bad day?

 

And since you take to abusing Yamar in particular in this thread and an earlier one today, I suggest you take a look at some of his caches. He has put on a number of new and innovative caches unlike anything you are likely to have seen before (see, in particular, The Knowledge Tree). The message that you are not getting is that he has some really interesting ideas, knows that here at the forums they will get trashed, and that he probably wants to communicate with persons in positions of authority who understand the issues he has and can give his ideas some thought and feedback.

[+Yamar]

You should wait till you see my "Can't we all get along cache" I've been meaning to place for a while... Might be a good time to start planning it I think.

[+Glenn]

I'll consider it when we make any significant changes to the guidelines (since we would have to change the updated date for something so insignificant as this). In the meantime it may be just a way to deter the lazy folks who can't seem to do a general browsing of any page to find out how to contact the web site.

Lest we forget. May I remind you, that certian state representatives need all the help they can get in finding an good point of contact.

Sometimes the obvious just isn't enough.

[Jeremy]

I'll consider it when we make any significant changes to the guidelines (since we would have to change the updated date for something so insignificant as this).

Jeremy, do you really want to treat your clients like this? Here is a person who is making a good-faith effort to provide helpful suggestions and you pompously evaluate it in front of the world as being insignifcant.

You're reading far too much information into this. There is no point in making a minor change if it changes the "last modified" date on the guidelines. So until there are some larger (significant) changes to the guidelines (like actual policy) a change that adds two more contact links on the page is not required.

Edited June 9, 2005 by Jeremy

[+The Leprechauns]

Jeremy, I assume that the Guidelines will need to be updated when the new functionality for virtual and locationless caches is introduced. So, by proceeding full tilt on that project as you have been, you serve to hasten the day when the extremely valuable two additional hyperlinks might be added to the Guidelines. Hundreds of geocachers, who are among the many that don't notice the two contact links already on each page, will then be able to see the light and know how to contact the website. The world will be a better place.

[Jeremy]

Again, why are you name-calling your clients "lazy"? The problem is just as likely to be with web page design or some sort of other handicap by the person you deem to be lazy.

Zing. Well you got me there. Sorry to include some personal honesty in my posts. It just seems somewhat shocking to me that someone couldn't find a contact link on the web site, and instead, try to find it buried within the text of the guidelines. But granted I haven't put the contact link through a UI test. However we get plenty of emails and phone calls that do seem to indicate that the web site design isn't flawed, and that folks are somehow making it to that elusive contact page.

 

The forums are far more difficult to navigate and use, and since the OP was able to post this particular topic I doubt s/he has any difficulty contacting the web site. So although it would be nice to make this kind of change on the guidelines it would modify the change date. And since most folks feel comfortable reading the guidelines whenever we change them (last in February), I really don't think people need to re-read them because we're forced to change that date.

 

Sorry to call folks who can't seem to find any way to contact the web site lazy. Apparently they're just ignorant about the general standard for contact links on web sites (namely, linked at the bottom of most navigation and at the bottom of every web page). And ignorant is not a "bad thing" or a name, so no need to "go there."

[+Allen_L]

I see the contact link in the left navigation bar.

 

But am I missing something, I thought there was a link to contact at the bottom of every web page or at least there use to be one. But now all I see is

 

[Main] [Getting Started]

[Hide & Seek a Cache] [Track a Travel Bug] [Find a Benchmark]

[My Account] [Forums] [Resources]

 

Copyright © 2000-2005 Groundspeak Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the

Groundspeak Terms of Use. Read our Geocaching Logo Usage Guidelines

[Jeremy]

I'll be darned. The Groundspeak link goes to the Groundspeak site with a contact link, but the contact link is gone from the bottom of the page. Something good has come out of this thread. I will add it posthaste!

[+Muggermots]

Might I suggest you put in a quick () note saying what method to use when contacting the web site? There are a number to pick from (many of which discussed above). A link would be even better.

I don't read their suggestion as -not being able to find the links- since the poster explicity states that they see "many to choose from". It appears that they are inquiring about the preferred method of contact... and requesting that the preferred method of contact be highlighted.

 

Example: Many company websites have different emails/phone numbers/addresses that go to different people, different departments, or even different states. An email sent to the billing department is unlikely to quickly resolve a technical problem.

 

Apparently, the poster doesn't want to make the mistake of choosing the wrong method of contact and having that contact fall into a no-man's land.

 

As for me, I have no idea of all contacts and emails would end up at the same location or not. It's quite an impressively done website, and is rather easy to navigate, which definitely lends the impression that there are likely a large group of people "behind the screens".

[+Yamar]

Sorry to include some personal honesty in my posts. It just seems somewhat shocking to me that someone couldn't find a contact link on the web site, and instead, try to find it buried within the text of the guidelines. But granted I haven't put the contact link through a UI test. However we get plenty of emails and phone calls that do seem to indicate that the web site design isn't flawed, and that folks are somehow making it to that elusive contact page.

Jeremy,

 

The website design is far from broken. It's quite good. It's not perfect, IMHO, and hence my attempt at suggestions to help you out.

 

Anyway, the problem I was originally trying to get around in some of these threads was not how to contact the Groundspeak staff. The guidelines say to contact your local approver. IMHO, that's where things are lacking and where a link would help. (I wouldn't think that adding a link would justify changing the date, actually, since you're not changing the wording of the policy).

 

Feel free to close this thread if you're tired of listening to us. I'll personally leave it open for now as it does seem discussion is still continuing.

[+Cardinal Red]

Muggermots Posted on Jun 11 2005, 01:03 PM

It's quite an impressively done website, and is rather easy to navigate, which definitely lends the impression that there are likely a large group of people "behind the screens".

It's probably not as "large" as you think.

 

In this recent magazine interview, the size of the "group" is revealed

[+treasure_hunter]

Huh????