opinion on cache that got censored

[+DocDiTTo]

 

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?

 

I was thinking that exact same thing. (Well, except for the shark jumping part).

At least the cache mentioned by the OP has a physical container to find and can't be logged from a few thousand miles away. I think the commercial aspect is a little fuzzy too, especially since no one has to register on the web site or pay anything to use the site. But since it is a commercial site, I'll concede that point as a direct link could be considered advertising, just as it is with sponsors who provide freebies for a geocaching event. Mentioning the site without a hyperlink should be permissable though.

Edited January 11, 2008 by DocDiTTo

[+dan8055]

I think the websight is really neat!

and wouldnt the person have to go and actually find the final location?

so they have to The point of Geocaching is to "get you outside" anyways.

it should have been approved i dont see any reason why it wasnt.

[+Strike Anywhere]

Man this is a harsh crowd... there are many puzzles that need to use online tools and I am sure they have ads on their websites... who doesnt... I am glad to have found the tool and will plan on using it myself now... thanks for the posting of this... very cool!

 

Where there is a will ... there is a way.

 

BTW that man icon gives me the willies... very very!

[+normandcat]

Man this is a harsh crowd... there are many puzzles that need to use online tools and I am sure they have ads on their websites... who doesnt... I am glad to have found the tool and will plan on using it myself now... thanks for the posting of this... very cool!

 

Where there is a will ... there is a way.

 

BTW that man icon gives me the willies... very very!

 

I agree that there have been a few puzzle caches i've seen that required the use of a comercial site (oh, my gosh, it had ads) to solve. Should these now be banned from the geocaching?

[+The Jester]

Yeah, will every cache that suggests a google search (which has lots of ads) be banned?

 

I don't think it was that the answer sites could be visited online that was the problem. But by making the finder use a particular website, that 'forces' the cacher to use that site.

 

And I agree with whoever it was that said a couple posts earlier, isn't the final still needing a trip "outside" to find it? Many of the posts in this thread seem to assume that everything was done online. It sounded to me that only the places where the info was gathered could be found online. Which isn't that different from most puzzle caches I've seen.

[+joranda]

I think it would be a great idea for a cache since may of the people here spend most of there time on the computer, I don't see the big deal.

[+Polgara]

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

 

No. And its not even the commercial solicitation thing that is bothering me here. What does bother me, is caching at one time was something that got people out in the world to explore, from a physical standpoint. If your cache can be done by going to the locations, then that is how it should be done. I don't support using the internet to find all the intermediate info needed for your cache. Your puzzle will probably be enjoyed by many cachers, so make them DO it, make them GO to the locations, otherwise what is the point in it all?

[+hukilaulau]

Coming late to the thread, but one thing stands out clearly to me:

The PRIMARY goal of the OP is to bring people to a website, not a geocache. That's enough to have it squashed right there. All the other words were simply attempts to skirt the main issue.

[+PhxChem]

I don't support using the internet to find all the intermediate info needed for your cache.

 

That's how I find ALL my caches. How do you find yours?

[Neos2]

Coming late to the thread, but one thing stands out clearly to me:

The PRIMARY goal of the OP is to bring people to a website, not a geocache. That's enough to have it squashed right there. All the other words were simply attempts to skirt the main issue.

I agree with hukilaulau...the OP makes the cache locations seem almost irrelevant. I like technology, but my fascination with caching is with the cache hides or locations. That really ought to be the focus. It doesn't sound like that's the case here. It would be interesting to see exactly where these 'favorite spots' of his were located. There are very few historical or tourist attractions for that city on the mapping site so far. The words below are the OPs, the bolding is mine:

 

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.

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?

[+TrailGators]

Yeah, will every cache that suggests a google search (which has lots of ads) be banned?

 

I don't think it was that the answer sites could be visited online that was the problem. But by making the finder use a particular website, that 'forces' the cacher to use that site.

 

And I agree with whoever it was that said a couple posts earlier, isn't the final still needing a trip "outside" to find it? Many of the posts in this thread seem to assume that everything was done online. It sounded to me that only the places where the info was gathered could be found online. Which isn't that different from most puzzle caches I've seen.

 

This is what I was thinking too. I'm wondering if the OP had only put the website in the hint if that would have made it look less like he was promoting the site... Edited January 13, 2008 by TrailGators

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I myself would just list it without the reference. I listed an event once where I was asked to remove the name of the store that was next to my chosen location (which I had only included as a reference point).

 

No big deal.

[+Loch Cache]

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!

 

I have already used Google Earth and EveryScape to check out cache locations. I have even used Google Earth to look for possible urban hiding locations. No one at Groundspeak can stop me from doing so. However, their guidelines prohibit commercial sites which EveryScape.com is clearly a commercial site. As TAR points out Groundspeak is a business and therefore, make the rules for using their site. I would fully expect that some people would use Google Earth or EveryScape to solve your puzzle even if you did not suggest it. Some people would go to every location in person. People will do both.

 

If you want to get the word out about the cool tool post a thread where you discuss it. (Oh wait, you already have.) Then on you cache page just say there are many cool tools on the web that could make finding this cache easier, check out the forums for some suggestions. And we are off to the races.

 

Loch Cache

 

PS. You can always vote with your feet and check out other sites. I have in the past but always come back to this one.

[+TeamGumbo]

I recently created a cache (Over Under) that has a photo of a shotgun. I got the photo from a site that said (a) I needed to ask permission, and ( I needed to put his website address on there. I did both, and added it to my cache page and submitted it for review.

 

Our local reviewer denied it, pointing out that it could be construed as commercial. I wrote the photo owner asking if I could simply put his name on there, and he said sure.

 

So I changed the photo to thank him by name instead of by website, uploaded it, and the cache was approved and published about 30 minutes later (thanks Palmetto!).

 

OK, this isn't as interesting as your story, but hey.

Edited March 12, 2008 by TeamGumbo

[+ReadyOrNot]

I've got a cache that requires some kind of satellite mapping to get the information to solve the puzzle. I don't tell them that, they need to figure it out. Or they can get the runway numbers by going to the actual location and getting arrested by homeland security.. The choice is theirs The point is, I don't tell them how to get the information or provide links for them. They get to decide the best way to get the information. Getting the information is part of solving the puzzle. One of the cachers that found the cache didn't use google earth or google maps, but was able to get the information because they were a pilot and were aware of the runway numbers.

 

If I posted a link to download google earth and told them they needed to download the 3rd party software to complete the cache, I'm sure the cache would not have been approved.

 

It's all about your approach... So far, I'd say you're coming in a bit fast... Pull your nose up a tad!

[Clan Riffster]

I've got a cache that requires some kind of satellite mapping to get the information to solve the puzzle.

My "Save it..." puzzle cache uses a similar approach. The top of the cache page has this image:

This is followed by a few zillion sets of coords. It's up to the cacher to figure out that the coords, if zoomed in on in Google Earth, reveal buildings shaped like numbers, letters, etc. These letters/numbers/etc spell out where the final is.

 

I'm thinking if I had mentioned Google Earth, that would've been viewed as being commercial in nature.

[+Too Tall John]

I'm thinking if I had mentioned Google Earth, that would've been viewed as being commercial in nature.

I've seen numerous caches that mention Google in many of its different flavors. How many puzzle caches out there have for a hint "Google Enigma"? Shouldn't they all be considered commercial?

 

Of course, Groundspeak has a working relationship with Google (at least they use their maps) so perhaps that is why. It would also explain why they object to linking a competitor's site.

 

Oh... Never mind that last part...

 

Has anyone figured out why a map clearly labeled "Yahoo!" takes you to Google maps?

[+joeluke]

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.

i totally agree

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

My preference is the opposite.

 

I enjoy seeking and finding caches *and* I enjoy solving puzzles but I would prefer to keep those activities separate.

 

The amount of available time that I have when I can go out seeking and finding caches is much more limited than the amount of time that I have at home in front of a computer that I can use to solve puzzles. Expect for an occasional exception (like taking a day off of work) my opportunities to go out seeking caches is essentially limited to a few hours on the weekend. However, I might have several hours every day available at home after work to solve puzzle caches using a computer. Given that the amount of time available to actually seek and find geocaches is very limited I would prefer to spend that time actually searching and finding geocaches rather than visiting a bunch of locations just to solve a puzzle outdoors, especially when I have to drive 30-40 miles to get to an area where I might be able to find more than one or two caches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Coming late to the thread, but one thing stands out clearly to me:

The PRIMARY goal of the OP is to bring people to a website, not a geocache. That's enough to have it squashed right there. All the other words were simply attempts to skirt the main issue.

 

I don't think that is the main issue at all. Perhaps the motives of the OP were questionable but from a reading of some of the responses it doesn't look like I'm the only one a little bothered by all the "those are the rules, if you don't like it suck it up, or go elsewhere".

 

To me the issue here is an interpretation of the rules and unless someone challenges an interpretation of what constitutes a commercial web site there is no precedent to judge future or existing cache listings that might be considered borderline. I found the posting about the "Over Under" cache and the elimination of the image owners web site in credits to be an interesting interpretation. There are several examples of the use of a specific search engine to obtain information necessary to solve a puzzle cache, that to me, could be judge borderline and be denied at the whim of a reviewer. Is it okay to use google as a verb but not add a hint such as "search for vigenere cipher on Google"?

[booksmart_streetdumb]

Ok, I guess I'll throw in my $.02, even though I am fairly new to caching (however, I'm a long time lurker on here )

 

I know we don't have all the info, but it does seem that, even by using the internet, you do have to actually go out and visit a location to complete the challenge. Therefore, would it not meet the requirements?

 

With respect to the issue of commercialism, (IMHO) I would edit it to something like this:

 

"I have listed all the co-ordinates to the 9 different locations. Please note, I will not delete logs if you used the internet to solve the puzzle. I do understand that the answers could be found on free sites, such as Google or EveryScape. However, in order to receive the smiley, you WILL need to locate, and sign the log of, the final cache! I do still recommend visiting the points, though, as they are some of my favorite areas".

 

I would put something like that, and then communicate with the reviewer. They will probably be willing to work with you. Geocaching.com can definitely make their own rules, but as long as you're willing to follow the guidelines and negotiate a bit, I'm sure there's a middle ground where both parties (and cachers) will be happy.

[+currykev]

Maybe if you provide a link to the many mapsites GC.com use and obviously benefit from you will have more luck.

edited to amend spelling error.

Edited March 13, 2008 by currykev