Gc.com Tries To Muggleproof The Listings?

3.9k · October 19, 2005

I'm not trying to be facetious here...but why don't people pay?!

Regardless of all the bonuses you get (PQs, BMs, etc...) I would think those that enjoy the service would want to support it to ensure it continued success in the future. The fact that a corporation is willing to offer these amazing services for free makes me want to support it even more.

It's 30 bucks...

You would probably be surprised how many do pay. I paid a week before I ever found my first cache.

But, there are those who truely have trouble coming up withj $30 in one shot. Typically I see this with college kids and some teenagers. Typically they bike to caches and seldom trade because they feel they have nothing of value. I have a high degree of respect for these cachers.

Then.. there are those with a goal. An Ideal. A purpose. They are the self appointed representatives to the masses. These people would argue that you shouldn't have to pay for food if the thought were to come to thier mind. They will fight the fight and defend your cause. They will admit that they have the money, but it is in the interest of humanity that they do not pay and thus set the example that we must never have to pay to find a cache.

And there are those that were going to, but forgot.

October 19, 2005

By forcing people to register an account with your commercial website to access the coordinates, you force them to be active participants in your commercial venture in order to participate in the game.

No one is forcing anyone. Everyone has a free choice to participate with this listing site. This isn't the only site that helps to facilitate the game of geocaching. Anyone is free to go to another site if they don't like using this free one.

That is the common myth when someone blindly defends GC.com. Unfortunately, it's very naive. There are 2 terracaches even *near* me (NH and ME). 18 navicaches (a few I know don't exist anymore and a few that are cross-posted from here). I live in Boston...hardly the middle of nowhere, either. If I freely choose not to participate here, I can freely choose to do about 10 caches in my lifetime (those totals from navicache and terracaching haven't changed in months). In other words, if I choose to geocache without using this site, I freely choose not to geocache.

QED, I must use this site. And now, I must register in order to do so.

Jeremy, himself, used to believe in the idea that the coordinates would be left available to everyone, even non-members (there's a link to his forum post from a year ago in the General forum topic). Don't speak to (or at) me like I'm being absurd to believe that he was right then and wrong now.

Free will is not a myth. It's your right as a human being.

My optomotrist assures me I'm not blind yet.

I haven't been naive since I learned that birds and bees have nothing to do with sex.

And while I am at 558 feet above sea level, I guess it could be said that I'm talking down to someone from Brighton. Please don't let my altitude intimidate. I'm only borrowing it, anyway.

3.9k · October 19, 2005

I still fail to see where the problem is folks. Nobody has to pay, but they do have to create a valid account. I think that's more good than harm. So, no problem here.

7.2k · October 19, 2005

On the other hand, I find all the bashing ju66l3r is receiving over his concerns repugnant and offensive. I especially find the "go play elsewhere" comments unacceptable. His concern is legitimate, and his views deserve respectful consideration.

I concur.

While I disagree with this latest step as being "pay to play" it is a step in that direction. Face it, there is no question this site is not as open as it once was.

I also disagree strongly that everyone has to contribute. If it's in their nature to contribute they will. If not, then forcing them to will most likely not end with the results you are looking for.

October 19, 2005

Forcing them to create an account is not the same as forcing them to contribute. They only need to create the acount to see the coords... they still don't have to post in the forums or log their finds. As long as the email address doesn't find its way into the hands of spammers (which it has never for me), I don't see anything wrong with making a person log in to get the goods. I also don't think this is really going to have an effect on muggles, geopirates and maggots since anyone who truly wants to be bad will just create an account and be bad. You still can't trace a trashed cache back to any user. It very likely will reduce the scraping but not eliminate it.

ju66l3r has an opinion and concern. In my opinion it is a bit extreme and alarmist but it is his/her opinion none-the-less. I happen to disagree with it but would have no problem sitting next to them with underwear on my head if it made things better.

1.2k · October 19, 2005

If this was once a fad,

(not saying that this isn't still cool..

Maybe Mini's on to something.

9.1k · October 19, 2005

Smiling blondes who say "let's do it twice!" will never go out of style.

October 19, 2005

Smiling blondes who say "let's do it twice!" will never go out of style.

even with underwear on their head

24.7k · October 19, 2005

Smiling blondes who say "let's do it twice!" will never go out of style.

even with underwear on their head

It's a means of facilitation. If they are on their head then they are not somewhere else and that's whats important.

2.1k · October 19, 2005

Free will is not a myth. It's your right as a human being.

My optomotrist assures me I'm not blind yet.

I haven't been naive since I learned that birds and bees have nothing to do with sex.

And while I am at 558 feet above sea level, I guess it could be said that I'm talking down to someone from Brighton. Please don't let my altitude intimidate. I'm only borrowing it, anyway.

You used my comment completely out of context because it suited your need to belittle my point. You ridiculed my choice of words because you don't respect my opinion.

I refuse to discuss a serious issue that I have with the direction of this website with someone who's unwilling to behave themselves and chooses instead to mock me in an attempt to shade my comments as rediculous.

3.9k · October 19, 2005

pot, meet kettle.

October 19, 2005

Smiling blondes who say "let's do it twice!" will never go out of style.

even with underwear on their head

It's a means of facilitation. If they are on their head then they are not somewhere else and that's whats important.

I agree. Mine was a statement and not a question.

October 19, 2005

You used my comment completely out of context because it suited your need to belittle my point. You ridiculed my choice of words because you don't respect my opinion.

All one-way streets where you live, eh?

2.1k · October 19, 2005

On the other hand, I find all the bashing ju66l3r is receiving over his concerns repugnant and offensive. I especially find the "go play elsewhere" comments unacceptable. His concern is legitimate, and his views deserve respectful consideration.

I concur.

While I disagree with this latest step as being "pay to play" it is a step in that direction. Face it, there is no question this site is not as open as it once was.

I do not suggest that this is a "pay to play" decision (although it would be the next step in progression of forcing scrapers and maggots to stop abusing the website). I do believe that this is a breach of being "non-commercial". Simply because you can lie to a website or that there is no cost does not mean anything about the commercial aspect of the arrangements in creating the account. Specifically, the Terms of Use of the site make it clear:

These Terms of Use form a legal agreement between the accountholder (“You”) and Groundspeak, Inc. (“Groundspeak”).

(emphasis mine)

If a person were to disagree with this Terms of Use for whatever reason, they used to be able to partake in the game of geocaching. This was the concern of the other formative players back when Jeremy put together the first site and why he felt obligated to make the pledge to assure the others that he wasn't going to blockade anyone from seeing the coordinates.

I'd also like to speak to "contribution". If you go to a geocache, you have contributed. The game of hide-and-seek would cease to exist if everyone only hid. As long as someone is hiding caches and someone is finding caches, then the game is healthy. No one who letterboxes suggests that their game is dying or going to die simply because they don't have to login to view letterbox info or add their experiences to the letterbox webpages. Geocaching existed and there was great contribution up until now. This is not a valid defense of mandated account creation at this website.

There is one reason why Jeremy has chosen to require account creation here: to stymie page scrapers. I agree that the simple scrapers will be stuck. I think those that still want to scrape will do so. You may see some of the premonitions of the past arise where scrapers share account information (ala bugmenot style) so as to spread the IP data to be less obvious. They can register multiple accounts and shuffle their scrapes to reduce raising red flags. They can do things that I'm sure I'm not even aware of.

There are people who like geocaching but do not like Geocaching.com and even more who haven't decided how they feel about geocaching, but now have to choose to join Geocaching.com to figure it out. Some screen scrapers have been halted at the expense of all of these people. On a practical and philosophical level, I disagree with this decision. I think I've also said my piece on this now.

9.4k · October 19, 2005

Enough flames for today, k?

(this was in reference to the attacks going on, not the above post which occured immediately before mine)

Edited October 19, 2005 by Jeremy

9.4k · October 19, 2005

These Terms of Use form a legal agreement between the accountholder (“You”) and Groundspeak, Inc. (“Groundspeak”).
(emphasis mine)

If a person were to disagree with this Terms of Use for whatever reason, they used to be able to partake in the game of geocaching.

The TOU is active regardless of whether you had an account with the web site, BTW.

2.1k · October 19, 2005

These Terms of Use form a legal agreement between the accountholder (“You”) and Groundspeak, Inc. (“Groundspeak”).
(emphasis mine)

If a person were to disagree with this Terms of Use for whatever reason, they used to be able to partake in the game of geocaching.

The TOU is active regardless of whether you had an account with the web site, BTW.

That may be your desire or intent, but it's not currently how it's drafted.

If I visit the site without creating an account, I can not be an "accountholder" and therefore all references to "You") are voided in context of an unregistered site visitor.

There are a few terms that apply to copyright and other terms that make no mention of "You" that would still hold.

But without language seen in other Terms of Use like:

Your use of this site means that you agree to these terms of use. If you do not agree to these terms of use, do not use the site.

I doubt it has the legal veracity to hold an unregistered user of the site to any stipulations placed upon the "You" that was specifically designated as "accountholder".

October 19, 2005

Ok, So I am really confused

Your agruement is that the by requiring a sign in Jeremy has gone against the plegde he made to keep geochaching free and non-comercial. right?

What makes signing in "commercial? (Since I assume it's not about the free thing)

October 19, 2005

I guess this new "feature" is the main reason why geocaching.com finally has a bugmenot.com entry.

9.4k · October 19, 2005

bzzt! Old account. Nice try though.

1.5k · October 19, 2005

bzzt! Old account....

:blink: I always wondered what sound Bugmenot accounts make when they get zapped by site admins :blink:

October 19, 2005

going back to the earlier discussion about visible bookmark info on cachepages:

i noticed that when i click the "ignore" button on a cache, it shows up as being on my ignore list when i refresh the cachepage. can others see this? i only ignore disabled caches, but i don't really want to hurt anyone's feelings.

October 19, 2005

Free will is not a myth. It's your right as a human being.

My optomotrist assures me I'm not blind yet.

I haven't been naive since I learned that birds and bees have nothing to do with sex.

And while I am at 558 feet above sea level, I guess it could be said that I'm talking down to someone from Brighton. Please don't let my altitude intimidate. I'm only borrowing it, anyway.

You used my comment completely out of context because it suited your need to belittle my point. You ridiculed my choice of words because you don't respect my opinion.

I refuse to discuss a serious issue that I have with the direction of this website with someone who's unwilling to behave themselves and chooses instead to mock me in an attempt to shade my comments as rediculous.

Your comment was not taken out of context... I quoted your entire text.

I had no need to belittle your point. I did, however, choose to disagree with it.

Your choice of words suggested that I was perhaps a.) blind (or uninformed) b.) naive and c.) attacking you. If you want to call my defense of these suggestions a ridiculing of the words used to make them, you're free to do so.

I respect yours (or anyone's) right to an opinion. That doesn't automatically translate into respect for the opinion itself. In this case, I disagree with your opinion. That's not the same as disrespect.

I am behaving myself. I'm being civil (well, except for that tough nuts comment. Got a bit impassioned there...) and doing my best to post my disagreeing opinion in the form of counterpoint and not personal attack. I am not mocking you. Again, I am disagreeing with you. If you feel that the presentation of a differing opinion shades your comments as ridiculous, then so be it, but I would disagree with that as well.

Now, where's that girl with the undies on her head?

October 19, 2005

going back to the earlier discussion about visible bookmark info on cachepages:
i noticed that when i click the "ignore" button on a cache, it shows up as being on my ignore list when i refresh the cachepage. can others see this? i only ignore disabled caches, but i don't really want to hurt anyone's feelings.

Ignore Listing [View all Bookmarks]

This is a private, confidential listing for those locations you do not want to show up on your search results. By default this is not a shared list so it will not be available for others to view. The owner of the listing will also not see that you are ignoring it.

Once you have added the item to your ignore list you can filter it out using the advanced search options and in Pocket Queries.

Yes, the Ignore List is technically a Bookmark List, but it can't be made public or shared. No feelings will be hurt.

9.4k · October 19, 2005

i noticed that when i click the "ignore" button on a cache, it shows up as being on my ignore list when i refresh the cachepage. can others see this?

No one else sees it.

9.1k · October 19, 2005

Yes, the Ignore List is technically a Bookmark List, but it can't be made public or shared. No feelings will be hurt.

Check the cache page for your first cache.

(I am just proving a point and will remove this shortly; no offense intended.)

October 20, 2005

thanks, everyone, that makes me feel better. no offense taken, leps, i like real life tests! :blink:

October 22, 2005

That is one benefit, but it has also been designed to combat the increased scraping abuse that we've had on the web site.

If it´s only to prevent abuse then it´s fine, but unfortunately now the interactive maps from geocaching.de are gone as well. I hope you don´t count interactive maps of other local communities as an abuse !

Please do me and the german cachers community a favor and make sure that this maps are back soon.

Beardieteam

October 22, 2005

I thought the interactive maps have been limited to premium members for a long time. However, they could see the map before.

6.4k · October 22, 2005

That is one benefit, but it has also been designed to combat the increased scraping abuse that we've had on the web site.

If it´s only to prevent abuse then it´s fine, but unfortunately now the interactive maps from geocaching.de are gone as well. I hope you don´t count interactive maps of other local communities as an abuse !

Please do me and the german cachers community a favor and make sure that this maps are back soon.

Beardieteam

If a regional site is obtaining the data with Groundspeak's permission, then I would think Groundspeak would provide an alternate solution, like they have with other sites such as Buxley's.

If the website has been stealingscraping the data without permission (in violation of the site's Terms Of Use), then I would think they should have expect to get blocked.

Since interactive maps are one of the premium services that this site sells to cover the costs of running the site, my personal opinion is that another website scraping the data and offering the service themselves without compensating Groundspeak would be an abuse.

Edited October 22, 2005 by Mopar

October 23, 2005

That is one benefit, but it has also been designed to combat the increased scraping abuse that we've had on the web site.

If it´s only to prevent abuse then it´s fine, but unfortunately now the interactive maps from geocaching.de are gone as well. I hope you don´t count interactive maps of other local communities as an abuse !

Beardieteam

If a regional site is obtaining the data with Groundspeak's permission, then I would think Groundspeak would provide an alternate solution, like they have with other sites such as Buxley's.

Sorry! In my opinion this discussion goes in a wrong direction.

Instead of discussing, on how Geocachers could be banned from GC.COM, we better should talk about reasons of some unwanted activities.

Here are a few samples:

1. Becoming PM without owing a credit-card it's like 5 star rated mystery. (Btw. in Germany credit-cards are very often not welcome - we use other cards!)

2. When mailing the problem to contact@Groundspeak.com, no answer received.

3. Needs of Interactive Maps.

4. Needs of Ranking - Sites.

5. Next problem is, how to get cache-decriptions completly easily downto local hard-disk and/or PDA. The results of those PQ's are not really a solution, because of missing spoiler pictures and so on. In my opinion, this is the most important reason for the existence of all the spider-programs in the web. What do you think about this idea:

- Generate PQs (GPX) optional as [x] WP-Lists only with (external) links, [x] add descriptions in .html with [x] pictures to zip-file including ../Local_GCxxxx.html -links. Mail it, or put this in an FTP-Userspace.

6. Or in otherwords, how would you like to prepare geocache-descriptions for a 3 week trip with a mobile home cross the country?

Just my 2 ct's

Andreas

October 23, 2005

If a regional site is obtaining the data with Groundspeak's permission, then I would think Groundspeak would provide an alternate solution, like they have with other sites such as Buxley's.

Mopar,

did you ever user the maps of Buxley's to prepare a geocaching trip ?

Don´t get me wrong, I really appreciate all the work that geocachers are doing to make this hobby interesting, but the Buxley´s maps are not very helpful, because you can´t zoom in.

For example: Try to find a cache close to the town Siegen here at Buxley´s :

http://www.brillig.com/geocaching/germany.shtml

and then look at this map:

http://geocaching.homelinux.net/maps/mapde...liches%20Hessen

or at this zoomed version:

http://geocaching.homelinux.net/maps/mapde...l=hessen&zoom=1

As you can see most of the german cache owners are moving their caches now from Geocaching.com to Navicache.com and/or Opencaching.de.

Beardieteam

October 23, 2005

As you can see most of the german cache owners are moving their caches now from Geocaching.com to Navicache.com and/or Opencaching.de.

Is this true? There is a mass exodus of German cachers? I'm not trying to be contradictory, but I just looked it looks like Navicache has 117 caches listed. I'm not sure how many the other you mentioned has. Correct me if I searched incorrectly though.

I certainly understand your angst though... I know I would be terribly frustrated.

6.5k · October 23, 2005

Mopar,

did you ever user the maps of Buxley's to prepare a geocaching trip ?

Don´t get me wrong, I really appreciate all the work that geocachers are doing to make this hobby interesting, but the Buxley´s maps are not very helpful, because you can´t zoom in.

For example: Try to find a cache close to the town Siegen here at Buxley´s :

http://www.brillig.com/geocaching/germany.shtml

and then look at this map:

http://geocaching.homelinux.net/maps/mapde...liches%20Hessen

or at this zoomed version:

http://geocaching.homelinux.net/maps/mapde...l=hessen&zoom=1

As you can see most of the german cache owners are moving their caches now from Geocaching.com to Navicache.com and/or Opencaching.de.

Beardieteam

Buxley's maps don't zoom to the same levels in all places, Germany doesn't seem to zoom at all.

I'm not Mopar but I don't think he uses Buxley's for much...

Buxley's maps caches from both Navicache and GC.com so I must have missed how you've determined that german caches are leaving gc.com?? I've heard Navicache is relatively strong in Germany, but I have no idea how to find numbers for this, any help?

5.2k · October 23, 2005

3. Needs of Interactive Maps.

Well I can't say about Germany, but here in the US there are plenty of third-party mapping solutions that don't require scraping the site. I can load my PQ into MapSource, MapSend, ExpertGPS, or any of several other programs and view maps to my hearts content. Surely there is something that would also work in Germany.

4. Needs of Ranking - Sites.

That's not a need, it's a "want." You don't "need" ranking to be able to geocache.

5. Next problem is, how to get cache-decriptions completly easily downto local hard-disk and/or PDA. The results of those PQ's are not really a solution, because of missing spoiler pictures and so on.

I've found over 2,000 caches with just a PDA. If I run across one that can't be found because some important info is missing from the PDA, I skip it. So what? There are plenty of others to find. :mad:

6. Or in otherwords, how would you like to prepare geocache-descriptions for a 3 week trip with a mobile home cross the country?

I haven't done a 3 week trip but I have done 10 days. IIRC I had to skip 2 caches out of the 110 I found during that trip, due to missing data. Again, so what? From looking at the Buxley maps linked above, it doesn't look like there is any shortage of caches over there.

5.3k · October 23, 2005

5. Next problem is, how to get cache-decriptions completly easily downto local hard-disk and/or PDA. The results of those PQ's are not really a solution, because of missing spoiler pictures and so on.

I've found over 2,000 caches with just a PDA. If I run across one that can't be found because some important info is missing from the PDA, I skip it. So what? There are plenty of others to find.

Not to be too contradictory, LD, but not everywhere in the world is like where we live. And it is not always possible to know before you go for a cache whether you will need the pictures or not.

I was in Germany last month, and was staying a night in Schwangau. There were almost no caches anywhere nearby, so I planned on doing the only one that looked OK for both me and my wife (e.g. not too long a hike). It was (like practically all other caches in the area) a multi, naturally. We hiked up to the cache location, figured out the final coords, and went over there. I couldn't find the cache after about a half-hour search, and started looking at past logs. Turns out the coords were really, really bad (30 m off), but the owner had posted a spoiler picture so people could find it.

Guess what my PQ I was working from didn't include? The picture.

Reasonably long hike. No find. No other caches nearby. Not happy.

For some areas, the lack of pictures in PQs is a serious problem. Dismissing people's desire for it with a "rolling eyes" icon doesn't strike me as helpful.

9.1k · October 23, 2005

If the owner went to the trouble of posting a spoiler picture, why could he not have corrected the coordinates? I prefer finding geocaches based on ferreting out the hidden container based upon reasonably accurate coordinates. I can think of *one* cache out of 1600+ hunts where I peeked at a spoiler picture. It felt like a cheapened find.

I would focus my disappointment towards a cache owner who needs to fix his cache page, rather than the website's present limitations in regard to downloading photos. I thought Lil Devil's post was right on point.

October 23, 2005

Hi again,

a discussion in a foreign language is sometimes not so easy, I am sorry for that! Probably "demand" maybe a better word instead of "needs".

Again, my intension was to push the discussion from "how to ban geocachers from gc.com" in another direction, like "what are the reasons and what can be improved to fit their needs"

Personally I don't need rankings and interactive maps, but it seems a lot of other peoples are interested. Personally I would be happy having complete PQs (with images) on my Notebooks harddisk!

A lot of cache-owners here using pictures instead of Hints. I won't skip them all.

I've found over 2,000 caches with just a PDA. If I run across one that can't be found because some important info is missing from the PDA, I skip it. So what? There are plenty of others to find.

Seems to be nice to go caching in the U.S. If I had your found-score, the area around my home (Hamburg) in a radius of 200km would be empty, and we pay aprx. $1.30 per litre Diesel... :mad:

Ciao

Andreas

9.1k · October 23, 2005

But this thread *is* for the purpose of talking about the new requirement to log in to see the cache coordinates, and the side benefit of shutting down more of the unauthorized site-scraping.

It is a large forum with room for lots of threads. If you want to demand "site rankings" then open a thread demanding "site rankings."

October 23, 2005

If the owner went to the trouble of posting a spoiler picture, why could he not have corrected the coordinates?

I would focus my disappointment towards a cache owner who needs to fix his cache page, rather than the website's present limitations in regard to downloading photos. I thought Lil Devil's post was right on point.

Hi,

look here for a small sample: The german text decribes a story of a strange map, probably orginated from an ancient Aliens.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCJ3YH

When offline, all you need is a complete description and a Garmin Topo Map or a paper map.

This the way of geocaching I love, I really won't miss caches like this. Search for some pictures within the logs to see what I mean.

5.3k · October 23, 2005

If the owner went to the trouble of posting a spoiler picture, why could he not have corrected the coordinates? I prefer finding geocaches based on ferreting out the hidden container based upon reasonably accurate coordinates.
...

I would focus my disappointment towards a cache owner who needs to fix his cache page, rather than the website's present limitations in regard to downloading photos.

Believe me, I did! The owner has still not fixed the coordinates. I didn't want to post a pointer to the cache, but you ought to be able to find it. [ :mad: ]

I agree, though, that this discussion is off-topic for this thread, so I won't pursue it any more.

October 23, 2005

History was faster than my writing ... sorry.

Edited October 23, 2005 by tobsas

9.2k · October 23, 2005

For some areas, the lack of pictures in PQs is a serious problem. Dismissing people's desire for it with a "rolling eyes" icon doesn't strike me as helpful.

What pictures are you talking about? Pictures that are embedded in the short or long descriptions? Seems like that could better be done by the GPX utility (it could cache them, and only retrieve the new ones). Pictures that the cache owner uploaded to the page? I've seen cache pages with 40 or 50 pictures uploaded to it (from the disposable cameras in the cache). Is that really worth the massive size increase in the GPX file that it would create? Remember, jpeg images are already compressed. And for an image to be included in a GPX file, it's going to have to be encoded to an ascii format (base64, etc.) which only makes it bigger.

5.2k · October 24, 2005

5. Next problem is, how to get cache-descriptions completely easily down to local hard-disk and/or PDA. The results of those PQ's are not really a solution, because of missing spoiler pictures and so on.

I've found over 2,000 caches with just a PDA. If I run across one that can't be found because some important info is missing from the PDA, I skip it. So what? There are plenty of others to find.

Not to be too contradictory, LD, but not everywhere in the world is like where we live. And it is not always possible to know before you go for a cache whether you will need the pictures or not.

Not arguing there. There have been times where I too have gotten to the cache site only to realize important pictures were not available in the PDA. At that point, select four-letter words were aimed at the cache owner. Not at the website or the PQ. I maintain that the fault lies with the cache owner, not with the website.

For some areas, the lack of pictures in PQs is a serious problem. Dismissing people's desire for it with a "rolling eyes" icon doesn't strike me as helpful.

I wasn't dismissing their desire. I was dismissing the proposed solution. I firmly believe the problem can be solved by re-training cache owners, not by re-designing the PQ system. If the pictures are important to the solution of the cache, then they, or their url, should be embedded in the cache description. Seems simple to me.

And given the history around here for getting changes made to the website, I think that re-training these cache owners is easier to accomplish.

5.3k · October 24, 2005

I wasn't dismissing their desire. I was dismissing the proposed solution. I firmly believe the problem can be solved by re-training cache owners, not by re-designing the PQ system.

Oh. I misunderstood. Yes, I agree that re-training cache owners is the best way to proceed.

There are some interesting issues related to pictures attached to cache pages. If they aren't linked in the page text, then they simply don't show up on PQs. But if they are linked, then they do show up in the cache text. If someone set Plucker to retrieve them, wouldn't that be a violation of the GC.com TOU, since technically Plucker is a spider?

So now we're back on topic! Should there be a recommendation in the guidelines that requests that cache hiders not require the use of embedded images to find the cache? After all, for those of us who cache paperless, having caches with that property indirectly encourages picture-scraping.

Edited October 24, 2005 by fizzymagic

2.4k · October 24, 2005

I wasn't dismissing their desire. I was dismissing the proposed solution. I firmly believe the problem can be solved by re-training cache owners, not by re-designing the PQ system.

Oh. I misunderstood. Yes, I agree that re-training cache owners is the best way to proceed.

There are some interesting issues related to pictures attached to cache pages. If they aren't linked in the page text, then they simply don't show up on PQs. But if they are linked, then they do show up in the cache text. If someone set Plucker to retrieve them, wouldn't that be a violation of the GC.com TOU, since technically Plucker is a spider?

So now we're back on topic! Should there be a recommendation in the guidelines that requests that cache hiders not require the use of embedded images to find the cache? After all, for those of us who cache paperless, having caches with that property indirectly encourages picture-scraping.

Or, require such pictures to be hosted somewhere other than geocaching.com, then Plucker wouldn't be scraping gc.com to get the images. :lol:

October 24, 2005

I didn't understand all the Jeremy's cryptic talk about Buxley's, how Ed is getting his data in some undescribeable way.

I don't think they have been any updates on Buxley's after the 17th of October change. Does it mean that the mapping site is *not* getting any new info from GC.com anymore?

Do you also imply that I *must* install all these stuff like GSAK, Google Earth, whatnot, just to visualize some caches on a map? All I used to need was a public library terminal with web access, and I think it is actually not uncommon among the cachers to use the computers which they may not / can not / are afraid of customizing. Could anybody comment on this?

October 24, 2005

Personally, I have no problem with the login requirement.

I am actively caching both here and on terracaching.com, which also requires a login to view the data. Seems like a logical method to somewhat muggle proof it. if the real issue lies with data 'scraping,' if that scraping is being done by regional/additional service (not listing) sites trying to provide an enhancement to cachers, then it would be nice to see something being done to address that need. At one point, Buxley and Skydiver both provided very useful tools to geocachers, as do many others. I am seeing more and more of those features popping up on geocaching.com (thumbs up for notifications!), but the fact remains that there are many people out there who can offer services that shouldn't necessarily fall under the Groundspeak umbrella. For those people, it would be nice to have some method of obtaining data that didn't undercut geocaching.com TOU.

Oddly enough, I was recently told by Hydee that a crossover cache I wanted to do, where I expected searchers to login on both sites, was unapprovable due to the requirement to create an account on the other site. :lol: I have retooled the caches, and they will stand as two separate caches...if they get approved. It might be that the objection no longer stands, but I think I have two great caches I want to get out there, and would rather not burn more time fighting over it that could be spent caching!

Keep on cachin'!

10.2k · October 24, 2005

As you can see most of the german cache owners are moving their caches now from Geocaching.com to Navicache.com and/or Opencaching.de.

Is this true? There is a mass exodus of German cachers? I'm not trying to be contradictory, but I just looked it looks like Navicache has 117 caches listed. I'm not sure how many the other you mentioned has. Correct me if I searched incorrectly though.

I certainly understand your angst though... I know I would be terribly frustrated.

The last I checked (and this was a month ago or so), about 48% or so (out of about 6,000 total) Navicache listings were in Germany! As far as a mass exodus, I guess I'd defer to the opinion of a poster who lives there.

10.2k · October 24, 2005

I didn't understand all the Jeremy's cryptic talk about Buxley's, how Ed is getting his data in some undescribeable way.

I don't think they have been any updates on Buxley's after the 17th of October change. Does it mean that the mapping site is *not* getting any new info from GC.com anymore?

This is correct. Buxley's was working the way it always used to in the old days for about a month or two. And since October 17th, nothing is happening. The only listing in my area to show up since then (out of at least 10 new listings), just happens to be the only one that is cross-listed on Navicache.

As far as Buxley, he hasn't given any official updates on Groundspeak discussions since March, 2005. He didn't really even "announce" the maps were working again in September 2005.

Jeremy is not being cryptic, he has mentioned (in this thread I'm pretty sure) that he is not personally involved in the discussions.

Gc.com Tries To Muggleproof The Listings?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment