opinion on cache that got censored

January 10, 2008

Hi, I'd like some feedback on a cache that Groundspeak is refusing to list.

In a nutshell, it is a mystery cache where you need to collect information at various locations to derive the final coordinates. You can either visit the locations in person, OR make use of a new website (everyscape dot com).

a) Yes, it is a commercial site in that they have ads, but it is actually less intrusive than say google. You don't need to sign up and would likely not even see the ads by doing this cache.

You don't HAVE to use this site at all to do the cache.

Here is my email:

---

Hi,

I created a new cache and have been advised by the regional admin to send you an email.

Basically, it is a puzzle cache where you need to find out certain info from various locations (i.e. how many letters in a sign), then use it to calculate the final coordinates. There are two ways to get the info - one is to go to the actual intermediate coordinates. The other is the "virtually" visit these locations by using a new, free website.

The website is basically similar to google earth, but instead of giving you an overhead view of locations, it gives you eye level 360 degree views from the street. The easiest way to understand is to look at the website: everyscape.com. (I am not affiliated in any way with it.) You do not need to pay anything or even sign up to use the site. Like google, they are making money by placing ads on their pages. Actually there are no traditional ads on the page - instead they are trying to get local businesses to buy "ads" which allows the user to "visit" inside the establishment (i.e. see what the inside of a restaurant looks like). In my mind it is similar to using google - a free public service to get geographic based information.

I know there are many caches which use outside links to solve puzzles, whether it is wikipedia, google, or a users own website. And in fact you don't need to use this site at all, as you can just go and visit these coordinates in a traditional manner. I was thinking that as long as the information was publicly accessible it would be okay. (Also it's a pretty cool website!)

---

Here is their response:

---

Since the information can be gathered without the website we would prefer that you not use that site. The point of Geocaching is to get you outside not show you cool sites on the internet. The site you mention does sell ads and has a business locater. This make it a commercial site and not allowable. Even without the ads its not the what geocaching is all about. Let the people find the locations in real life. There is a big difference than seeing them on the web.

---

I would reply that geocaching is a GAME, and that many if not most puzzle caches require users to spend time at the computer solving the puzzles before going out in the field. (Further I would say that many people like this part!) There is nothing stopping someone from going to all the sites in person - let them choose.

As for the commercial aspect, this is the Groundspeak policy:

"Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services. If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial."

Take a look at the site. I think it is pretty harmless. There is no fee of money or information required, no interaction, no purchase required.

Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-bruce

Edited January 10, 2008 by bruceagent

20.7k · January 10, 2008

Why don't you simply submit the cache without reference to the commercial website?

3.9k · January 10, 2008

I would agree with the response you got and suggest that if the website isn't required, why include it? It doesn't sound like it adds anything to the cache experience that can't be gotten by getting off the couch and outside.

Are you unwilling to list it without the links to the other web site?

January 10, 2008

I could post the listing without the website, but it involves about 9 locations spread over several miles of terrain. I point out personal favorite spots as a kind of guided tour of the city. It would be a real gas burner. It is really meant to be done using the tool. Remember the first time that you saw Google Earth? I thought this would be a nice introduction to another cool tool.

I would agree with the response you got and suggest that if the website isn't required, why include it? It doesn't sound like it adds anything to the cache experience that can't be gotten by getting off the couch and outside.

Are you unwilling to list it without the links to the other web site?

2.2k · January 10, 2008

Why don't you simply submit the cache without reference to the commercial website?

Bingo.

Unwillingness to do so raises a red flag that there may be more to including the links than just to be helpful.

January 10, 2008

I agree with the response from Groundspeak.

Simply remove the reference to the commercial website and let the cache stand on it's own.

There are plenty of multis out there that require considerable hiking to finish.

Some of them are very popular with the folks that enjoy a nice hike in the woods.

January 10, 2008

As I mentioned, it is also a tour of the city and covers a lot of ground. It is an informal introduction to my favorite spots. It is pretty unnecessary to visit all the locations at once, but I think it might be useful to be made aware of them for later enjoyment.

Would people feel differently if the tool used were google earth? I.e. you zoom in on a coordinate and identify maybe how many fans on a roof, or how many loading docks on a building etc?

18.9k · January 10, 2008

Why don't you simply submit the cache without reference to the commercial website?

bingo!!

January 10, 2008

I could post the listing without the website, but it involves about 9 locations spread over several miles of terrain. I point out personal favorite spots as a kind of guided tour of the city. It would be a real gas burner. It is really meant to be done using the tool. Remember the first time that you saw Google Earth? I thought this would be a nice introduction to another cool tool.

Sorry, but in your own words, it is really meant to be done using that tool. When that tool becomes primary and getting out and actually visiting becomes secondary, it does not fit. One could say that finding any caches is a waste of gas. A citywide, well constructed, series of caches would be very cool and I would love to get out and follow it. I'll bet many others would also.

Personally, I do not like using Google Earth, it takes away from the surprise. But would never presume to tell people how to play the game.

1.7k · January 10, 2008

I have a multi cache in my area that requires visiting 5 covered bridges and requires about 25 miles of driving. The purpose of Geocaching is to go outside and explore and you would have the same problem if you used Google earth instead of the one you want to list.

The website is a commercial venture that has advertisments, it doesn't matter how unobtrusive they are.

January 10, 2008

I understand what most people are saying. The point I would like to make is that geocaching is a GAME, where ultimately the rules are dictated by how you want to play the game. That is one of the best aspects of it. If you want to follow other peoples tracks in the snow to find a cache, that is up to you. If you want to go out at midnight to be the FTF, that is up to you. If you want to collect as many TB's as you can, or none at all, that is up to you. There are as many ways of geocaching as there are people playing it.

Yes, there is a "go out and get it" aspect to all caches. But many people enjoy solving puzzles at home as part of the experience. The intention of my cache was to allow either method - however you wanted to play the game. I do have a preference as to how I would choose to do it, but was in no way was dictating it to others.

I do understand that the commercial part is tricky. I am considering submitting the cache without explicit reference to the site, but with enough of a clue that someone could find it.

Edited January 10, 2008 by bruceagent

20.7k · January 10, 2008

I understand what most people are saying. The point I would like to make is that geocaching is a GAME, where ultimately the rules are dictated by how you want to play the game. That is one of the best aspects of it. If you want to follow other peoples tracks in the snow to find a cache, that is up to you. If you want to go out at midnight to be the FTF, that is up to you. If you want to collect as many TB's as you can, or none at all, that is up to you. There are as many ways of geocaching as there are people playing it. ...

You are absolutely correct. However, in order to get a cache listed on GC.com, it has to fit with their idea of what is correct.

January 10, 2008

I understand what most people are saying. The point I would like to make is that geocaching is a GAME, where ultimately the rules are dictated by how you want to play the game. That is one of the best aspects of it. If you want to follow other peoples tracks in the snow to find a cache, that is up to you. If you want to go out at midnight to be the FTF, that is up to you. If you want to collect as many TB's as you can, or none at all, that is up to you. There are as many ways of geocaching as there are people playing it.

Yes, there is a "go out and get it" aspect to all caches. But many people enjoy solving puzzles at home as part of the experience. The intention of my cache was to allow either method - however you wanted to play the game. I do have a preference as to how I would choose to do it, but was in no way was dictating it to others.

I do understand that the commercial part is tricky. I am considering submitting the cache without explicit reference to the site, but with enough of a clue that someone could find it.

Initially I understood your point, but the more you resist the simple solution of posting without reference to the site, the more I am convinced you have an agenda.

You can still get what you want without arguing with the reviewer. Post the cache without reference to the site. Mention to a friend that they could also use your site rather than driving around. Have your friend do the cache using your site, and mention so in their log.

20.7k · January 10, 2008

Danger, Will Robinson.

I think that suggesting that people find ways to undermine the guidelines is a mistake. Further, I suspect that if it was clear that he was allowing people to find the locations virtually that the cache might be archived.

January 10, 2008

Better solution. There are people who would love to solve these at home, using their computer. Fully develop the concept and start a website. I think you are onto a great idea, just the application is not quite perfect.

January 10, 2008

Remember the Golden Rule

He who has the Gold makes the Rules

In order to get a cache listed on GC.com,

it has to fit with their idea of what is correct.

January 10, 2008

I am not resisting removing the site - in fact I have removed all explicit links and have asked the appeals board to take another look. (It was the official corporate appeals board, NOT the local reviewer.)

Again, I understand that the commercial part is tricky and am removing it. What really wrankled me was the fact that someone else, (representing a private company), was trying to push their views of what geocaching is on me.

To quote:

"Even without the ads its not the what geocaching is all about."

It's a bit Big Brotherish that there is a corporation dictating, not whether a commercial site is okay to list, but how you should design your caches. PLEASE read their response carefully before responding!

38.2k · January 10, 2008

I could post the listing without the website, but it involves about 9 locations spread over several miles of terrain. I point out personal favorite spots as a kind of guided tour of the city. It would be a real gas burner. It is really meant to be done using the tool. Remember the first time that you saw Google Earth? I thought this would be a nice introduction to another cool tool.

Personally I'd have more fun visiting the sites.

Make use of the tool optional. For example you can mention on the cache page that online tools that will give you the required information are available and let the potential searchers do a little research to find the tool themselves.

January 10, 2008

I am not resisting removing the site - in fact I have removed all explicit links and have asked the appeals board to take another look. (It was the official corporate appeals board, NOT the local reviewer.)

Again, I understand that the commercial part is tricky and am removing it. What really wrankled me was the fact that someone else, (representing a private company), was trying to push their views of what geocaching is on me.

To quote:

"Even without the ads its not the what geocaching is all about."

It's a bit Big Brotherish that there is a corporation dictating, not whether a commercial site is okay to list, but how you should design your caches. PLEASE read their response carefully before responding!

That seems to be their role. They interpret the rules and apply them using established guidelines. If they did not, and allowed anything you come up with to be posted, then why bother having local reviewers?

Since it is *your cache* why even list it here?

Edited January 10, 2008 by Texsox

11.3k · January 10, 2008

I have two Multi caches that involve driving hundreds of miles . . . People have found my caches, and others are working on them.

Nothing wrong with posting a cache that requires visiting different locations and driving some distance. I would rather do your "Mystery" cache that way than by sitting in front of a computer.

January 10, 2008

Remember the Golden Rule

He who has the Gold makes the Rules

In order to get a cache listed on GC.com,

it has to fit with their idea of what is correct.

I completely understand this, and am willing to use their website by their rules. I am in no way trying to go around them.

January 10, 2008

That seems to be their role. They interpret the rules and apply them using established guidelines. If they did not, and allowed anything you come up with to be posted, then why bother having local reviewers?

Since it is *your cache* why even list it here?

Don't get me wrong. I like this site, and I think it is well done in many ways. I admire the local reviewer system. I understand that ultimately they decide what is "GOOD" and what isn't. I am willing to play by the rules.

I guess it just boils down to interpretation, and a matter of opinion.

And yes, if you don't like the rules here, there are other site to post a cache.

8k · January 10, 2008

There are plenty of puzzle caches that require you to gather information off the internet in order to get information needed to solve the problem. You certainly can have a puzzle that requires you to visit websites to get information. There are guidelines regarding commercial caches and cache that solicit. Whether intended or not, is sounds like you created this puzzle to get people to see the neat new website you found. "The point of Geocaching is to get you outside not show you cool sites on the internet."

If you had written up your cache page and dropped a subtle hint that you might be able to find the answers on the internet by looking in every scape, some people would have found the website and solved the puzzle the way you intended while others would have visited the locations to get the information. But instead you took an approach that whether you intended it or not looks like you are advertising a new website. It doesn't matter that you are unaffiliated with that site, Geocaching.com does not allow volunteer reviewers to publish cache pages that appear to be advertising or reviewing other websites or promoting any agenda other than geocaching. Groundpeak itself makes the decisions when to allow such caches and in this case the originality and quality of the puzzle did not justify Groundspeak providing free publicity for another website.

January 10, 2008

You keep pounding a square peg into this round hole. Again, I think you have a great concept, why not develop it? I'll bet that website would love to hear about your idea and may even offer to help develop some web tools to make it happen.

To me it's like someone showing up at a screw factory with a wrench and then pounding on the wrench until it loosens screws.

January 10, 2008

First let me say that I appreciate all of the responses so far.

I think both I and this thread have gotten a bit off topic.

I understand that ultimately this is a Groundspeak game, and they have a right to make the rules. My orignial intent was to get other people's personal opinions on whether they thought the cache idea was one they would consider fair to publish.

It was NOT to complain that the cache got dinged.

I think a productive continuation of this conversation would be:

1) Do you personally think the site is too commercial? In your opinion, would a hint to the site be acceptable?

Thanks.

24.7k · January 10, 2008

Hi, I'd like some feedback on a cache that Groundspeak is refusing to list.

...

Any comments would be appreciated....

Your cache is probably fine in that creativity in placing a cache and trying to create a unique and rewarding experience won't always fit inside the box.

That said, reviewers are normally limited to the box as defined by the powers that they work for.

If you are going to innovate and think outside the box, your caches will not always be listed on this site. It's as simple as that. You may have to list elsewhere to follow your muse. Plan B is to trim off the parts of your caches that don't fit in the box. Yeah, it may not be much of what you had envinsioned but it gets listed here.

For the people who lare using "it's about the outside", wrong. That's a self imposed rule. Puzzle caches are also about solving for the coords before you even get the chance to go find the box. There is no rule that you have to use a puzzle that is only solvable "outside". Plus there is no rule that says the box has to be outside.

24.7k · January 10, 2008

...Initially I understood your point, but the more you resist the simple solution of posting without reference to the site, the more I am convinced you have an agenda....

My daughter recently ran into a situation where the principal of her school asked her to change her art to fit his vision (which he could not justify using any published guidelines). It did not sit well with her.

When you changes someones work, work they are vested in, work that their muse has laid out a certain way, you are 100% going to be rubbing someone wrong and you are going to meet resistance. You can call it "The Artists Agenda" if it helps.

January 10, 2008

There are plenty of puzzle caches that require you to gather information off the internet in order to get information needed to solve the problem. You certainly can have a puzzle that requires you to visit websites to get information. There are guidelines regarding commercial caches and cache that solicit. Whether intended or not, is sounds like you created this puzzle to get people to see the neat new website you found. "The point of Geocaching is to get you outside not show you cool sites on the internet."

If you had written up your cache page and dropped a subtle hint that you might be able to find the answers on the internet by looking in every scape, some people would have found the website and solved the puzzle the way you intended while others would have visited the locations to get the information. But instead you took an approach that whether you intended it or not looks like you are advertising a new website. It doesn't matter that you are unaffiliated with that site, Geocaching.com does not allow volunteer reviewers to publish cache pages that appear to be advertising or reviewing other websites or promoting any agenda other than geocaching. Groundpeak itself makes the decisions when to allow such caches and in this case the originality and quality of the puzzle did not justify Groundspeak providing free publicity for another website.

Yes, I would completely understand if the fact that it is a commercial website were the rationale for not allowing this cache. But if you read the response, it is not! The stated reason for not permitting it is because "its not the what geocaching is all about. Let the people find the locations in real life. There is a big difference than seeing them on the web."

24.7k · January 10, 2008

...The website is a commercial venture that has advertisments, it doesn't matter how unobtrusive they are.

This website is a commercial venture that has advertisments. Life in the Capitalist USA is a commercial venture with advertisments. You would be hard pressed to go through you non commercial anti big business day without ads.

The issue isn't ads. Those are not 'banned' per the guidelines. Nor is it commercial sites. Those are not banned per the guidelines. Caches get listed near billboards and on commercial property.

The issue is soliciation and also perhaps visiting a non caching website to gather information which skates on the edges of some of the sites newfound electronic conservatism in cache listing content.

24.7k · January 10, 2008

...The stated reason for not permitting it is because "its not the what geocaching is all about. ...

That's not in the guidlines. They really should find a way to articulate the real reason for the no. If that really is the reason then a nice long section about what caching is according to this site is in order so we all understand and can see why one puzzle that has you solve cyphers from information looked upon the web is different than this one that has information looked up on the web.

3.9k · January 10, 2008

I like Groundspeak's reply and their reasons. It sounds sane, balance and clear. Why not simply resubmit the listing, but this time mentioning and encouraging only real-world visits to the physical locations in question, and skip all mention of the website in question?

By the way, in listing the cache in the way that I have suggested above, you are not depriving prospective finders of any options available to them. If they are intelligent and creative and web-savvy, it may still occur to them to use the ground-level street-view features of either the site which you had earlier mentioned or the similar service at Google Earth, which is currently adding thousands of new images per day.

5.9k · January 10, 2008

The point of Geocaching is to get you outside not show you cool sites on the internet. The site you mention does sell ads and has a business locater. This make it a commercial site and not allowable. Even without the ads its not the what geocaching is all about¹. Let the people find the locations in real life. There is a big difference than seeing them on the web.

It’s hypocritical to make this statement while turning a blind eye to virtual caches that allow people to log a find by doing internet research from their couch. It’s also pretty silly to reject this cache while allowing listings to exist when the container is missing and people are still logging finds on strings and holes. Maybe Seattle needs to don their leather jackets and water-skis and just go ahead and jump the shark.

¹ Does anyone even remember what it was all about?

18.9k · January 10, 2008

1) Do you personally think the site is too commercial? In your opinion, would a hint to the site be acceptable?

Pushing one website so strongly over another at least suggests a commercial tie-in.

I actually agree with the reviewer that the idea of geocaching is to go out and find things. The company is fond of calling themselves "...the language of location" not the "language of URL mapping".

1.1k · January 10, 2008

I agree with everyone else. Using the site is wrong, don't do it.

8k · January 10, 2008

There are plenty of puzzle caches that require you to gather information off the internet in order to get information needed to solve the problem. You certainly can have a puzzle that requires you to visit websites to get information. There are guidelines regarding commercial caches and cache that solicit. Whether intended or not, is sounds like you created this puzzle to get people to see the neat new website you found. "The point of Geocaching is to get you outside not show you cool sites on the internet."

If you had written up your cache page and dropped a subtle hint that you might be able to find the answers on the internet by looking in every scape, some people would have found the website and solved the puzzle the way you intended while others would have visited the locations to get the information. But instead you took an approach that whether you intended it or not looks like you are advertising a new website. It doesn't matter that you are unaffiliated with that site, Geocaching.com does not allow volunteer reviewers to publish cache pages that appear to be advertising or reviewing other websites or promoting any agenda other than geocaching. Groundpeak itself makes the decisions when to allow such caches and in this case the originality and quality of the puzzle did not justify Groundspeak providing free publicity for another website.

Yes, I would completely understand if the fact that it is a commercial website were the rationale for not allowing this cache. But if you read the response, it is not! The stated reason for not permitting it is because "its not the what geocaching is all about. Let the people find the locations in real life. There is a big difference than seeing them on the web."

I actually started my response by stating that Groundspeak's argument that "The point of Geocaching is to get you outside not show you cool sites on the internet" was fallacious as many puzzle do require you to get information off of websites. But as I composed my response, I began to read this differently. It seems that you found a new website and wanted to share it. Perhaps you simply discovered a new website and thought that it would make an interesting puzzle cache, but the reviewers and Groundspeak can't read your mind and so long as the writeup appears to be soliciting traffic to a commercial site it will come in conflict with the commercial cache guideline. The purpose of the Geocaching.com website is to provide geocaches that people go out and find. Puzzle caches may have a component that can be solved in the house before you go out. That solution may involved finding information on a website. But the cache page cannot even have the appearance of trying to solicit customers. If the cache page emphasized going out and finding the cache and simply made some subtle reference to using the internet to solve the problem it probably wouldn't have raised the red flags that caused it to be turned down. It might still be salvageable by working with your reviewer and using suggestion people are making here for ways to give hints without promoting a particular website.

3.9k · January 10, 2008

1) Do you personally think the site is too commercial?

In my opinion the site you want to link to is not too commercial, but I'm glad they're not allowing it. This is only because that means they're also not going to allow all the other links, commercial caches, and caches with an agenda that I don't want to have to deal with.

Come find this cache to show your support for Hillary '08! (It makse me shudder just thinking about it)

To get the coords to this cache you must go to the Amway site and look up the following items....

You can find the cache by first going to this web site and.... (and then your computer becomes home to several spyware programs)

No thanks!

In your opinion, would a hint to the site be acceptable?

Not after they've made it clear already that they don't want you to direct people to that site. You asked, they said no. I'm not sure why you'd want to push this again after you've pushed it as far as you have.

January 10, 2008

Maybe Seattle needs to don their leather jackets and water-skis and just go ahead and jump the shark.

¹ Does anyone even remember what it was all about?

Heyyy! The Fonz is gonna jump OVER a shark!

24.7k · January 10, 2008

I took a look at the site. A mapping site of sorts. You could do the same thing with Google's streetview.

Nothing broken there. The problem must lie elsewhere.

6.4k · January 10, 2008

So.....

am I the only one who noticed that all the OP's cache finds just happen to be within 5-10 miles of the home address listed for the website he's pimping so hard?

18.9k · January 10, 2008

So.....

am I the only one who noticed that all the OP's cache finds just happen to be within 5-10 miles of the home address listed for the website he's pimping so hard?

:grin:

Making more sense now.......

6.7k · January 10, 2008

I understand what most people are saying. The point I would like to make is that geocaching is a GAME, where ultimately the rules are dictated by how you want to play the game.

Well, yes, geocaching is a game.

Groundspeak's geocaching.com listing service is, however, a business.

The listing guidelines explain their rules for listing a cache on their site.

Play the game your way, but you'll list the caches online their way or elsewhere!

Some have quoted Groundseak's response only in part and quibbled with sentences removed from the whole:

Since the information can be gathered without the website we would prefer that you not use that site. The point of Geocaching is to get you outside not show you cool sites on the internet. The site you mention does sell ads and has a business locater. This make it a commercial site and not allowable. Even without the ads its not the what geocaching is all about. Let the people find the locations in real life. There is a big difference than seeing them on the web.

So yes, the did express an opinion, but they also expressed a clear violation of the guidelines. They didn't refuse to list it because they want cachers outdoors, they refused to list it because it violates their published guidelines.

BTW, even if they HAD declined it on a whim... he who has the gold makes the rules!

Edited January 10, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

6.1k · January 10, 2008

So.....

am I the only one who noticed that all the OP's cache finds just happen to be within 5-10 miles of the home address listed for the website he's pimping so hard?

But it really might be a coincidence. :grin:

Vinny just posted a thread with a link to a "mystery waypoint" which is very close to the offices also..

5.7k · January 10, 2008

Hi, I'd like some feedback on a cache that Groundspeak is refusing to list.

In a nutshell, it is a mystery cache where you need to collect information at various locations to derive the final coordinates. You can either visit the locations in person, OR make use of a new website (everyscape dot com).

a) Yes, it is a commercial site in that they have ads, but it is actually less intrusive than say google. You don't need to sign up and would likely not even see the ads by doing this cache.

You don't HAVE to use this site at all to do the cache.

Here is my email:

---

Hi,

I created a new cache and have been advised by the regional admin to send you an email.

Basically, it is a puzzle cache where you need to find out certain info from various locations (i.e. how many letters in a sign), then use it to calculate the final coordinates. There are two ways to get the info - one is to go to the actual intermediate coordinates. The other is the "virtually" visit these locations by using a new, free website.

The website is basically similar to google earth, but instead of giving you an overhead view of locations, it gives you eye level 360 degree views from the street. The easiest way to understand is to look at the website: everyscape.com. (I am not affiliated in any way with it.) You do not need to pay anything or even sign up to use the site. Like google, they are making money by placing ads on their pages. Actually there are no traditional ads on the page - instead they are trying to get local businesses to buy "ads" which allows the user to "visit" inside the establishment (i.e. see what the inside of a restaurant looks like). In my mind it is similar to using google - a free public service to get geographic based information.

I know there are many caches which use outside links to solve puzzles, whether it is wikipedia, google, or a users own website. And in fact you don't need to use this site at all, as you can just go and visit these coordinates in a traditional manner. I was thinking that as long as the information was publicly accessible it would be okay. (Also it's a pretty cool website!)

---

Here is their response:

---

Since the information can be gathered without the website we would prefer that you not use that site. The point of Geocaching is to get you outside not show you cool sites on the internet. The site you mention does sell ads and has a business locater. This make it a commercial site and not allowable. Even without the ads its not the what geocaching is all about. Let the people find the locations in real life. There is a big difference than seeing them on the web.

---

I would reply that geocaching is a GAME, and that many if not most puzzle caches require users to spend time at the computer solving the puzzles before going out in the field. (Further I would say that many people like this part!) There is nothing stopping someone from going to all the sites in person - let them choose.

As for the commercial aspect, this is the Groundspeak policy:

"Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services. If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial."

Take a look at the site. I think it is pretty harmless. There is no fee of money or information required, no interaction, no purchase required.

Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-bruce

You simply MUST be a glutton for abuse and punishment. Monitoring these forums for even a few days ought to have provided the answer to this inquiry.

January 11, 2008

Dean once had a step of a multi-cache similar to this one. Where you went to a bunch of sign and storefronts and counted things and got numbers and letters.

A few folks actually finished the cache, but not many due to the amount of work needed. The comments we usually got about the step that involved visiting something like 16 different building locations was that Dean "must've taken coordinates at every stop on a busy shopping day". Nobody was really thrilled with that step and most considered it fairly annoying.

I was so happy when he finally agreed to archive that particular cache as it required fairly constant attention. :grin:

Please, take the time to ask yourself- Why am I taking people here and will they enjoy stopping here? Why am I creating this cache? If you can't answer that "folks will enjoy visiting these places and I am creating this cache to share them with people who will then log my cache with nice things to say about these places I have shared" you may want to re-think your reasons for cache creation.

Your answer should not be that you "think more people should be stopping by Costco, Wal-Mart and Taco Bell to read their signs and count how many letters are in their names".

-Jen

10.1k · January 11, 2008

I like Groundspeak's reply and their reasons. It sounds sane, balance and clear. Why not simply resubmit the listing, but this time mentioning and encouraging only real-world visits to the physical locations in question, and skip all mention of the website in question?

By the way, in listing the cache in the way that I have suggested above, you are not depriving prospective finders of any options available to them. If they are intelligent and creative and web-savvy, it may still occur to them to use the ground-level street-view features of either the site which you had earlier mentioned or the similar service at Google Earth, which is currently adding thousands of new images per day.

Hmm... I can think of one cache owner who has not forgiven me for doing that to solve his mystery cache. Very well done, and interesting cache! I've never seen another like it. But... Hey! Look at this!

2.5k · January 11, 2008

I've always thought caches ought to have some redeeming quality--such as an interesting container, a unique hide, a great location.

You've said that folks might think it wasn't worth their time to go to all these places in person, and you've suggested they would prefer to visit them virtually. That ought to send up a red flag to you right there that this whole cache needs rethinking.

The caches that are listed here usually have at least one "goal" --and that is to get people to use coordinates to visit a location --perhaps to experience an earthcache, perhaps for a physical cache, perhaps to prove they have been able to solve some puzzle by signing a log--but to visit. In the past, some of the caches were even placed just to get you to visit an interesting feature (virtual) or to be the first to log some type of place in your little neck of the woods (locationless). I'll even address the armchair caches that allow virtual finds via the Internet--no matter what else you think of them, they point out really interesting places. I don't know of a single one that is to the "Big Box Store on 1st street in nowhereville"--Most of them that survive do so because they also accept physical visits, as far as I am aware.

The point? Caches really ought to take you to a place worth visiting for some reason. I'll give you this much, the idea of the maps with panoramic views and interior views is cool, and I liked it when I saw it last year. However, pointing out specific retailers in a cache is advertising for those shops--whether that's the intent or not. A puzzle that can be solved by clicking on links to advertising doesn't sound very interesting or challenging, either. I wouldn't be proud of myself for completing something like that (and I'm so bad at puzzles I'm usually estatic when I fgure one out).

And as long as my post is too long already anyway...While one cache like that might be mildly amusing, I can't imagine that even you would think that it would be "really cool" if there were 4000 caches just like yours across the country. (Unless perhaps you owned stock in all the companies that were listed on the cache). I can already hear the complaining in the forums about all the people who had artificially high find counts from doing the 4000 virtual shop-a-holic caches.

So put me in the list of people who aren't thrilled with the idea.

9.4k · January 11, 2008

It's a bit Big Brotherish that there is a corporation dictating, not whether a commercial site is okay to list, but how you should design your caches. PLEASE read their response carefully before responding!

I assume you mean "Groundspeak" is the corporation dictating what is allowable on their site. I don't have a problem with that. To many people Groundspeak is geocaching, but really it's just the most popular listing site for geocaching and always has been. If you don't like their guidelines, you don't have to list your caches on their site. Go somewhere else or open your own site.

My vote: list the cache without the commercials for this other website.

9.4k · January 11, 2008

The point of Geocaching is to get you outside not show you cool sites on the internet. The site you mention does sell ads and has a business locater. This make it a commercial site and not allowable. Even without the ads its not the what geocaching is all about¹. Let the people find the locations in real life. There is a big difference than seeing them on the web.

It’s hypocritical to make this statement while turning a blind eye to virtual caches that allow people to log a find by doing internet research from their couch. It’s also pretty silly to reject this cache while allowing listings to exist when the container is missing and people are still logging finds on strings and holes. Maybe Seattle needs to don their leather jackets and water-skis and just go ahead and jump the shark.

¹ Does anyone even remember what it was all about?

Once they realized virtuals could be done from home, they made the guidelines tougher. People still found ways around them so they were discontinued. What's hypocritical about that?

5.9k · January 11, 2008

The point of Geocaching is to get you outside not show you cool sites on the internet. The site you mention does sell ads and has a business locater. This make it a commercial site and not allowable. Even without the ads its not the what geocaching is all about¹. Let the people find the locations in real life. There is a big difference than seeing them on the web.

It’s hypocritical to make this statement while turning a blind eye to virtual caches that allow people to log a find by doing internet research from their couch. It’s also pretty silly to reject this cache while allowing listings to exist when the container is missing and people are still logging finds on strings and holes. Maybe Seattle needs to don their leather jackets and water-skis and just go ahead and jump the shark.

¹ Does anyone even remember what it was all about?

Once they realized virtuals could be done from home, they made the guidelines tougher. People still found ways around them so they were discontinued. What's hypocritical about that?

Look the word up. Armchair caches still exist.

5.7k · January 11, 2008

My opinion: It is never going to get approved as you propose. Get over it already.

opinion on cache that got censored

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