Jump to content

Today's Cacher magazine


Haffy
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

The magazine is stalled at this point. We've lost several key members due to regular life. This magazine has alway been made up of volunteers, and over the years they have come and gone for one reason or another.

 

Unless we can get more cachers that are interested in making this magazine survive, I'm afraid it just might fade away.

 

If you are interested in volunteering for this magazine please let me know. We need writers, editors, and most importantly people with HTML skills.

 

El Diablo

Edited by El Diablo
Link to comment

The magazine is stalled at this point. We've lost several key members due to regular life. This magazine has alway been made up of volunteers, and over the years they have come and gone for one reason or another.

 

Unless we can get more cachers that are interested in making this magazine survive, I'm afraid it just might fade away.

 

If you are interested in volunteering for this magazine please let me know. We need writers, editors, and most importantly people with HTML skills.

 

El Diablo

 

Is it a printed magazine or is it an online thing?

Link to comment

The magazine is stalled at this point. We've lost several key members due to regular life. This magazine has alway been made up of volunteers, and over the years they have come and gone for one reason or another.

 

Unless we can get more cachers that are interested in making this magazine survive, I'm afraid it just might fade away.

 

If you are interested in volunteering for this magazine please let me know. We need writers, editors, and most importantly people with HTML skills.

 

El Diablo

 

Is it a printed magazine or is it an online thing?

 

Both. There is a monthly online issue and a what is meant to be a quarterly printed issue, though there have only been two so far.

 

But El D right. The mag needs more contributors and staffers. There are many more geocachers now than when TC was first published, yet the number of contributors has fallen off. So if you can write, or ever thought about writing, drop Ed D a line.

Link to comment

I want to thank the people that have contacted me so far. Your help is greatly appreciated and I'll be in touch with you soon. :laughing:

 

Just to clear up the time involvement needed here, and what we need. The time involvement is probably less than 2 hours per week depending on what your role is with the magazine. If you are a writer it's not expected for you to write every month unless you want to. Editors mainly chase others for articles, so that means keeping up with what's going on in your topic and sending emails pursuing articles. Copy editors make sure all the P's and Q's are correct. Writers, are writers. If you like to write but you are not confident in your skills, that's ok. We have people that can help you clean it up. Everytime I write an article my editors fix my mistakes and make me look good.

 

We've learned from experience that the more people working on this the better, since not everyone can participate every week, or month. We hold on line meetings once a week to keep everyone on the same page. Attend if you can. If you don't, it's not a big deal. Criminal has been with the magazine since forever and I can count on one hand the number of meetings he has been to.

 

Once again thanks for your help. This magazine has always been for cachers written by cachers.

 

El Diablo

Edited by El Diablo
Link to comment

I recall a thread from at least a year ago I believe, where there was some discussion concerning the involvement of cache sites other than geocaching.com.

 

IIRC, you more or less didn't want to include those other sites for whatever reason.

 

If you are having trouble getting participation I am curious if you are now accepting articles with a slant different than the geocaching.com flavor or is the desire to keep it geocaching.com centric?

Link to comment
IIRC, you more or less didn't want to include those other sites for whatever reason.

 

You recall incorrectly. Today's Cacher is geocaching.com centric because the geocaching world is geocaching.com centric. TC had no problem including mention of other sites and in fact other sites have been mentioned.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
IIRC, you more or less didn't want to include those other sites for whatever reason.

 

You recall incorrectly. Today's Cacher is geocaching.com centric because the geocaching world is geocaching.com centric. TC had no problem including mention of other sites and in fact other sites have been mentioned.

 

What Brian said. Also we will be happy to accept any article as long as it doesn't criticize or attempt to show any site in a bad light.

 

We've had some great responses so far for volunteers. Thank you! We can use more though.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
IIRC, you more or less didn't want to include those other sites for whatever reason.

 

You recall incorrectly. Today's Cacher is geocaching.com centric because the geocaching world is geocaching.com centric. TC had no problem including mention of other sites and in fact other sites have been mentioned.

 

The article written by Diablo (the first link) starts out objective and then goes into the subjective and communicates pure negativity toward the other sites (my opinion|perception).

 

The second link is much more objective and stays away from personal opinions.

 

Still, what I recall was a geocaching.com centric publication that shunned the offered participation of *members* from the other sites. At the time I was a paying member of 2 of the 'alternative' sites and recall much discussion on their forums concerning folks trying to volunteer and being rejected because they were not members in good standing with GC.com. I believe I recall a well written, completely non GC.com bashing article being flat out rejected for some reason that I thought silly at the time.

 

Since the periodical is presently suffering from lack of volunteer support my question could be rephrased as "If a member of an alternate site offers to produce an article reflecting the perspetive of the alternative site, would it be welcomed?"

 

Certainly I don't expect a GC.com bash fest to make the editorial cut, but what about a terracache member who no longer plays at GC.com who offers an article that represents only the TC.com experience and doesn't mention the GC.com flavor?

 

Put even more plainly, does Today's Cacher want articles form non GC.com members or not?

Link to comment
IIRC, you more or less didn't want to include those other sites for whatever reason.

 

You recall incorrectly. Today's Cacher is geocaching.com centric because the geocaching world is geocaching.com centric. TC had no problem including mention of other sites and in fact other sites have been mentioned.

 

Put even more plainly, does Today's Cacher want articles form non GC.com members or not?

 

I believe I've already answered that question with my previous post. We will accept any article tht is geocaching related and doesn't attempt to bash another site and is not commercial in nature.

 

Also the article you mentioned by me was an editorial. Which means it was written to reflect my personal thoughts and opinions which may or mat not reflect that of the magazine as a whole.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
The article written by Diablo (the first link) starts out objective and then goes into the subjective and communicates pure negativity toward the other sites (my opinion|perception).

 

The second link is much more objective and stays away from personal opinions.

 

Well stands to reason because the first article was an opinion piece in the editorial section. The second was a regular article.

Link to comment
The article written by Diablo (the first link) starts out objective and then goes into the subjective and communicates pure negativity toward the other sites (my opinion|perception).

 

The second link is much more objective and stays away from personal opinions.

 

Well stands to reason because the first article was an opinion piece in the editorial section. The second was a regular article.

 

I can accept that, but it would seem to contradict the 'no bashing' idea. Would an 'editorial' piece reflecting a negative opinion of geocaching.com make the cut?

 

Really my only point in this is it would appear that early on there was a good deal of support for the concept, but that support died by being forced into a geocaching.com centric view that expressed hostility toward anything not geocaching.com.

 

My advice to future endeavors would be to recognize that while geocaching.com is the granddaddy of them all and with good reason, shunning alternatives and even bashing them under the guise of 'editorials' alienates a lot of people. Perhaps so many people that subscribers are left feeling ripped off that they paid for a subscription, but the mag couldn't get enough volunteers to even honor the subscription.

 

Just a thought.

Link to comment

I subscribed to this magazine and only received one issue. I sent two emails and never even received a reply. I feel that I was ripped off and would never subscribe again.

Bayonets4u

 

Having actually participated in the first brainstorming sessions for Today's Cacher, in a private forum, on Woodster's old website, contributed to TC a couple times, and sent my own $30 in for a subscription, I feel your pain.

 

However, the project has merit. No one can say that the final product wasn't good no matter what the slant and it could be good again.

 

I don't really feel ripped off so much as disappointed and a little sorry that my initial spider sense was right. The $30 means exactly bupkus to me. It was worth a shot, but the shot missed the mark.

 

I might subscribe again because of my belief that a geocaching publication could actually make it some day. I might even contribute again, but that remains to be seen, and by that I mean the mag would have to be in production again and structured a bit differently. I have no desire to pick up a shovel and start digging.

 

If anyone else were to give the old college try at producing a mag I'd give that as much support as I'd give TC if it were to rise from the ashes.

 

Just because it failed once DOESN'T mean it will fail again.

 

Keep workin' on it Jerry. Lots of folks would like to see TC back in business.

Link to comment
The article written by Diablo (the first link) starts out objective and then goes into the subjective and communicates pure negativity toward the other sites (my opinion|perception).

 

The second link is much more objective and stays away from personal opinions.

 

Well stands to reason because the first article was an opinion piece in the editorial section. The second was a regular article.

 

I can accept that, but it would seem to contradict the 'no bashing' idea. Would an 'editorial' piece reflecting a negative opinion of geocaching.com make the cut?

 

Really my only point in this is it would appear that early on there was a good deal of support for the concept, but that support died by being forced into a geocaching.com centric view that expressed hostility toward anything not geocaching.com.

 

My advice to future endeavors would be to recognize that while geocaching.com is the granddaddy of them all and with good reason, shunning alternatives and even bashing them under the guise of 'editorials' alienates a lot of people. Perhaps so many people that subscribers are left feeling ripped off that they paid for a subscription, but the mag couldn't get enough volunteers to even honor the subscription.

 

Just a thought.

 

As to if an editorial would be permitted that reflected negatively on Geocaching.com...Nope! That may seem unfair, but it's my magazine and I make the decisions. Also I won't accept editorials from anyone else try to reflect negativity on any other site.

 

As to the "Early on" part. Early on there were people that wanted on the magazine for the sole purpose of bashing GC.com. We parted company very quickly.

 

As to "Being forced into a GC.com centric view". There was no force. I'm a GC.com fan. Besides that, look at it this way. If I were selling boats I would target Florida over Kentucky. I wouldn't ignore Kentucky, but my main focus would be on Florida.

 

As to "Not having enough volunteers" We have enough volunteers to keep the magazine going, we just need more to make it more productive. I now have those volunteers and it seems I'm getting more everyday. Also to my knowledge no one has been ripped off. If subscriber would like a refund all they have to do is ask.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
I subscribed to this magazine and only received one issue. I sent two emails and never even received a reply. I feel that I was ripped off and would never subscribe again.

Bayonets4u

 

I, too, have found that <xx xxxxxx> does not respond to e-mails, so I am certainly glad I never subscribed to this magazine. I would need to see a slightly different leadership before I forked over money. As much as I'd love to get involved with a project such as this, this is the same reason I didn't volunteer to help when the call went out earlier in this thread. I would have enjoyed being involved with a caching magazine.

Link to comment
The article written by Diablo (the first link) starts out objective and then goes into the subjective and communicates pure negativity toward the other sites (my opinion|perception).

 

The second link is much more objective and stays away from personal opinions.

 

Well stands to reason because the first article was an opinion piece in the editorial section. The second was a regular article.

 

I can accept that, but it would seem to contradict the 'no bashing' idea. Would an 'editorial' piece reflecting a negative opinion of geocaching.com make the cut?

 

Really my only point in this is it would appear that early on there was a good deal of support for the concept, but that support died by being forced into a geocaching.com centric view that expressed hostility toward anything not geocaching.com.

 

My advice to future endeavors would be to recognize that while geocaching.com is the granddaddy of them all and with good reason, shunning alternatives and even bashing them under the guise of 'editorials' alienates a lot of people. Perhaps so many people that subscribers are left feeling ripped off that they paid for a subscription, but the mag couldn't get enough volunteers to even honor the subscription.

 

Just a thought.

 

Your point fits very well with a point that I have been bringing up at geocaching events of late.

 

A whirlwind of changes for our sport are on the horizon once geocaching crosses the event horizon toward becoming mainstream.

 

There is one glaringly TRUE fact in your argument......Grandparents DIE. It's their job to die and we must all face the fact that GC.com, in its present form, may not last forever.

 

If at some point geocaching were to become a mainstream activity, meaning millions of geocachers worldwide geocaching on a daily basis, someone would NEED to step in with loads of money and resources that the current powers that be don't possess. We're talkin' sell out, or die, and possibly BOTH, plus a much deserved payday for the folks that have brought us thus far. Can the Groundspeak shareholders/partners give a hearty CHA-CHING!!!?

 

Anyone up for Google cachin'? Microsoft Cachin'? Disney Cachin'? No, I'm not privy to inside information, but remember where you heard it. B) It would take a branch of the resources of an entity such as those to handle geocaching as a mainstream activity and all the possibilities/problems that entails.

 

My point here is that ANY future geocaching publication, will need to be neutral in ALL respects regarding geocaching, because the activity is what it is and will evolve (has evolved) over time. Blinkered viewpoints are a disservice to itself and its customers.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

I doubt geocaching could survive going mainstream.

 

I certainly would get tired of replacing caches because a band of folks thought it would be cool to make a competition of how many caches they could raid. The more eyes you get the hobby in front of the more likely it would happen. In the end, the hardcore cachers would go underground and limit access to lists. Many smaller sites would spring up reducing the viability of a single huge project.

 

Geocaching, along with related hobbies, is unique in that the game pieces are at the complete mercy of the public. There is no security except obscurity.

 

Given the rise in visitors who have absolutely no concept of what the hobby is about, I'd immediately remove all of our caches if this site was picked up by Google or some other giant. I suspect that many would abandon the site was caches start disappearing at a much higher rate for reasons that they disappear now.

 

Come to think about it, how many of these mega-sites have core elements that live in the real world?

Link to comment

I doubt geocaching could survive going mainstream.

 

I certainly would get tired of replacing caches because a band of folks thought it would be cool to make a competition of how many caches they could raid. The more eyes you get the hobby in front of the more likely it would happen. In the end, the hardcore cachers would go underground and limit access to lists. Many smaller sites would spring up reducing the viability of a single huge project.

 

Geocaching, along with related hobbies, is unique in that the game pieces are at the complete mercy of the public. There is no security except obscurity.

 

Given the rise in visitors who have absolutely no concept of what the hobby is about, I'd immediately remove all of our caches if this site was picked up by Google or some other giant. I suspect that many would abandon the site was caches start disappearing at a much higher rate for reasons that they disappear now.

 

Come to think about it, how many of these mega-sites have core elements that live in the real world?

 

Dang, I wish you went to the same events as me. Excellent counterpoint proving the main point of my post. B)

 

My point here is that ANY future geocaching publication, will need to be neutral in ALL respects regarding geocaching, because the activity is what it is and will evolve (has evolved) over time. Blinkered viewpoints are a disservice to itself and its customers.

 

At this point, further discussion along these lines begs its own thread. Don't ya think?

Link to comment

 

My point here is that ANY future geocaching publication, will need to be neutral in ALL respects regarding geocaching, because the activity is what it is and will evolve (has evolved) over time. Blinkered viewpoints are a disservice to itself and its customers.

 

Obviously you don't read the magazine. You might want to read these articles and then comment if we are neutral or not.

 

June Editorial

September Editorial

January Editorial

February Editorial

 

Also out of the hundreds of articles we've done I bet you can't find 6 that even mention Geocaching.com.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
At this point, further discussion along these lines begs its own thread. Don't ya think?

 

It certainly is a discussion with merit and I really should have clarified "going mainstream" as similar to going "big box." It certainly could get bigger and in front of more people--go mainstream--without going big box and being a real danger to the hobby.

 

A neutral source of entertainment and guidance would be a boon to the hobby, no doubt about that.

Link to comment

 

My point here is that ANY future geocaching publication, will need to be neutral in ALL respects regarding geocaching, because the activity is what it is and will evolve (has evolved) over time. Blinkered viewpoints are a disservice to itself and its customers.

 

Obviously you don't read the magazine. You might want to read these articles and then comment if we are neutral or not.

 

June Editorial

September Editorial

January Editorial

February Editorial

 

Also out of the hundreds of articles we've done I bet you can't find 6 that even mention Geocaching.com.

 

El Diablo

 

Obviously you didn't understand my post. I was talking conceptually and NOT about YOUR magazine. B)

Link to comment

 

My point here is that ANY future geocaching publication, will need to be neutral in ALL respects regarding geocaching, because the activity is what it is and will evolve (has evolved) over time. Blinkered viewpoints are a disservice to itself and its customers.

 

Obviously you don't read the magazine. You might want to read these articles and then comment if we are neutral or not.

 

June Editorial

September Editorial

January Editorial

February Editorial

 

Also out of the hundreds of articles we've done I bet you can't find 6 that even mention Geocaching.com.

 

El Diablo

 

Obviously you didn't understand my post. I was talking conceptually and NOT about YOUR magazine. B)

 

My bad. B) I aplogise. B)

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

Geocaching will never become 'mainstream'.

 

How many of your peers give you a blank look when you explain the game?

 

How many people have you personally introduced to the game who still cache? Very few, I suspect.

 

If GPS were free and freely available not a whole lot more folks would join our game.

 

Ed

 

EXCELLENT!

 

Look for a thread on this subject in a little over an hour. Let's not hijack this one.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...