Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
GeeOCachers

Ordered to Remove a Menu Link

Recommended Posts

I can see some snarkiness in your response to the reviewer's original request. Which probably led to some stronger reactions from both sides...not saying who's right or wrong, just commenting that a bit of diplomacy might have made things smoother.

 

Now, that being said, I fail to see how listing a menu for the VENUE of a cache event is commercial. Yes, I agree that listing "go eat at joe's restaurant" on your general cache page would be over the line.

 

But everyone KNOWS the event is at a commercial venue and some of them MAY feel inclined to support said commercial venue for hosting the event....so those event caches would always fail the commercial rule on general principle.

 

Won't change anything for your event, but if this is the new direction of event guidelines, I'd strongly register a "this is loopy" vote to TPTB.

 

P.S. I don't believe any of the commercial guidelines have ever been put forth to protect Groundspeak's ad revenue. It's more a case of they don't want the cache listings becoming big ads themselves.

Share this post


Link to post

I think if GC.com used "common sense" as frequently as JD & DD we wouldn't have a problem here. :huh:

 

Is everyone aware the discussion is over the posting of a MENU? A MENU folks - not exactly the axis of evil!

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently, humour is no longer allowed on Geocache listings...

 

Please do not place unneeded or unnecessary links on the page. For humor or other reasons. Please leave the page as it now is.

 

Michael

Groundspeak.

 

This is after they yet again removed my attempt at humour at having to remove the link to the menu.

 

Making fun of a decision that Groundspeak made clearly is pushing an agenda. You can't use the cache page to push your agendas either. What's the big deal? They said NO, you appealed.. you lost.. Move on. They have every right to say NO. I believe it even says in the guidelines that just because a cache is approved doesn't mean that a cache exactly the same must be approved (paraphrase)

 

Trolling your mindless views is also pushing an agenda.

 

I did appeal, they told me to create a forum thread, so I did. I also removed the link. What did I do wrong exactly? Also, my attempt at humor the second time had nothing to do with Groundspeak, yet it was removed.

 

If we don't question the rules, we become mindless drones...

 

Careful bub, next stop suspension.. Don't call me nor my views mindless.. Your reaction to the situation was childish. And your reaction to my comments (in a public forum where I have every right to voice my opinion) was childish..

 

What'cha gonna do?

 

Can we please stay on the broader topic of Commercial Caches and the more specific topic of the removal of the menu? Threatening me is not on topic. If you have nothing of value to say towards the topic, I suggest that you not post. Trolling is usually not permitted in forums.

 

Thanks for your thoughts though, "bub"..

Share this post


Link to post

As much as I hate to say it, eelow, I think you have brought a dull knife to a gun fight.

 

Groundspeak holds all the cards. The fact that no one (volunteer or paid representative of the organization) has even attempted to answer your question tells me they never will. They can't. They don't have a definitive answer. There are so many contradictions in the enforcement of their "guidelines" that any answer will open another pandora's box of "what about"?

 

Which certainly begs the question of why did they suggest you post to the forum in the first place.

 

The best we can hope for is to have as many cachers as possible post a note here saying "Allow the Menu Link" and hopefully they will see the tidal wave and relent.

 

Let me be the first:

 

ALLOW THE MENU LINK

Edited by Tequila

Share this post


Link to post
and the more specific topic of the removal of the menu?

 

Ok, I've held an event that included a copy of the menu on the cache page so maybe I have something to offer, maybe not. I read your thread when it first started but nothing since, have you posted the link that was denied? I'd like to see it.

Edited by BlueDeuce

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion, let grounspeak do what they want.

They have control of the website and you are just using it.

And besides, what if I didn't have geocaching, I would just be another tech nerd playing on the computer :huh:

 

Note:I'm not taking sides

Edited by Caching Scout

Share this post


Link to post

Hello to my northern (and sometimes southern) neighbors-

 

Please know that Michigan cachers are feeling your pain too!

 

All the rules pertaining to listing a cache on GC.com are in constant evolvement. This commercial issue is one that seems to affect many of us personally and we are perhaps a little more sensitive.

 

Cache-tech and CacheDrone are feeling the pain of being put in the middle of this whole mess. They are just the messenger. And venting against your reviewers is counter productive.

 

While I don't agree with this recent enforcement action or the way it was handled, it is GC.com's sandbox and they get to set the rules.

 

We had a Michigan cacher (who is a web developer) step up and offer a free web page to any Michigan cacher who wanted to make a page listing all the things that are now banned on a GC.com event listing. Not a perfect solution but one that works.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

Share this post


Link to post

If the prices were blurred out would posting the menu then be allowed?

Share this post


Link to post

While I don't agree with this recent enforcement action or the way it was handled, it is GC.com's sandbox and they get to set the rules.

 

What bothers me, is that eelow&beelow were told to 'take it the forums', which to me implies that TPTB are willing to listen to what the community has to say on this matter. So far I don't think *anyone* has said 'great, they did the right thing. A menu listing on a cache page is a ridiculous abuse of the site and shouldn't be allowed'. There have been a few people say that its 'Their site, their rules', but that just avoids the question.

 

What I would really like to see is a paid Groundspeak employee come here and tell us why this rule exists the way it does, and why this is ruled 'commercial' (or at least make their presence known), when to most it seems no more commercial than holding an event in a restaurant in the first place. I assume TPTB are aware of this thread?

Share this post


Link to post

"CacheDrone"

 

Who does he take commands from?

 

Cache Agent?

Cache Tech?

cachechisme?

Keystone?

 

Not very much intelligence in those either!

Share this post


Link to post

I assume TPTB are aware of this thread?

 

Yes, I have made them aware of this thread, including an official from Groundspeak.

Share this post


Link to post

 

While I don't agree with this recent enforcement action or the way it was handled, it is GC.com's sandbox and they get to set the rules.

 

The problem is that they haven't really set a rule for this type of thing. There are many other types of questions that have come from this episode that have no rules specified on the site either. Honestly I don't mind if a rule is a rule, but if there isn't a rule or there isn't a truly valid reason for a rule, then we should question it and get a proper answer.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't allow the menu link. I can tell from the emails that you are only looking for a fight, otherwise, you would have just removed the link and it would have been the end of the story. There's obviously more going on here. And then after removing the link, you post a "humorous" attack at TPTB. If I were in charge, it would be rather icy down south before I gave you what you wanted.

Share this post


Link to post

If I were in charge, it would be rather icy down south before I gave you what you wanted.

 

A prevailing attitude among those who are, I suspect. (Based on many other similar issues I have witnessed here and there in various forums.) Sad and unfortunate.

Share this post


Link to post

If I were in charge, it would be rather icy down south before I gave you what you wanted.

 

Thankfully, you're not.

 

BTW, they DO get frost in Florida once in a while.

Share this post


Link to post

I can tell from the emails that you are only looking for a fight, otherwise, you would have just removed the link and it would have been the end of the story. There's obviously more going on here.

 

Actually, I wasn't looking for a fight at all. I simply wanted to post a menu for people to view prior to attending the event. TPTB came to me and asked me to remove it. I said no because of the many reasons listed. I feel, as do many others, that the link was important and shouldn't be removed and "it would have been the end of the story". If you choose to blindly follow the rules that others arbitrarily make even if you feel they are wrong, that is your prerogative. I don't choose that path.

 

This is the first time I have really ever had any contact with reviewers or Groundspeak on any level (other than a misplaced cache that wasn't approved and I obeyed because the rule was about being too close to rail lines and seemed to make sense to me for safety sake), so there is nothing "more going on here".

 

And then after removing the link, you post a "humorous" attack at TPTB.

 

Actually it wasn't an attack. It was a clarification that the link was removed by Groundspeak and not me.

 

Anything else?

Share this post


Link to post

"CacheDrone"

 

Who does he take commands from?

 

Cache Agent?

Cache Tech?

cachechisme?

Keystone?

 

 

CacheDrone answers to Michael who answers to Miss Jenn.

 

Michael and Miss Jenn would be excellent places to politely express your views.

 

 

While I don't agree with this recent enforcement action or the way it was handled, it is GC.com's sandbox and they get to set the rules.

 

The problem is that they haven't really set a rule for this type of thing. There are many other types of questions that have come from this episode that have no rules specified on the site either. Honestly I don't mind if a rule is a rule, but if there isn't a rule or there isn't a truly valid reason for a rule, then we should question it and get a proper answer.

 

Now ellow&beelow, you've been around here long enough to know that isn't how GC.com operates. :blink:

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

Share this post


Link to post

"CacheDrone"

 

Who does he take commands from?

 

Cache Agent?

Cache Tech?

cachechisme?

Keystone?

 

 

CacheDrone answers to Michael who answers to Miss Jenn.

 

Michael and Miss Jenn would be excellent places to politely express your views.

 

 

While I don't agree with this recent enforcement action or the way it was handled, it is GC.com's sandbox and they get to set the rules.

 

The problem is that they haven't really set a rule for this type of thing. There are many other types of questions that have come from this episode that have no rules specified on the site either. Honestly I don't mind if a rule is a rule, but if there isn't a rule or there isn't a truly valid reason for a rule, then we should question it and get a proper answer.

 

Now ellow&beelow, you've been around here long enough to know that isn't how GC.com operates. :blink:

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

I have been around long enough, and through personal experience, and according to postss in this thread, caches are dealt with on a cache by cache basis sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post

I found this interesting too.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...31-7fb68dbd7749

 

interesting links on that page.. guess it is not a two way street.

 

I stand by my monopoly comments. And what an interesting monopoly it is. We give Groundspeak their product (caches hidden) for free and then turn around and pay them to allow us to find them.

 

That person that is standing behind you forcing you to use geocaching.com and forcing you to find the caches should be placed under arrest immediately!

Must be one hell of a good restaurant, WHAT is on the menu!

Share this post


Link to post

Anything else?

 

Sure, i'll have a large fry and a medium coke

 

OK Cache-Tech. If one of us posted a comment like this, you would be all over us. So let's see you respond to this guy's obvious sarcasm. A technique he gave someone else flack for using.

Share this post


Link to post

Anything else?

 

Sure, i'll have a large fry and a medium coke

 

Since you have nothing useful to add on this thread and just seem to want to stir things up, please refrain from further posts.

Share this post


Link to post

Anything else?

 

Sure, i'll have a large fry and a medium coke

 

Since you have nothing useful to add on this thread and just seem to want to stir things up, please refrain from further posts.

 

I'm sorry, but Eelow is clearly sporting a rather large chip. Could the "Anything Else?" be any more sarcastic? Sarcasm is met with sarcasm... Sorry, if you want to ride me for being sarcastic, let's share the love with Eelow&Beelow.

 

Anything else?

Share this post


Link to post

Anything else?

 

Sure, i'll have a large fry and a medium coke

 

Since you have nothing useful that I agree with to add on this thread and just seem to want to stir things up, please refrain from further posts.

 

I fixed your comment for you.. If you need anything else, please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post

Anything else?

 

Sure, i'll have a large fry and a medium coke

 

Since you have nothing useful to add on this thread and just seem to want to stir things up, please refrain from further posts.

 

I'm sorry, but Eelow is clearly sporting a rather large chip. Could the "Anything Else?" be any more sarcastic? Sarcasm is met with sarcasm... Sorry, if you want to ride me for being sarcastic, let's share the love with Eelow&Beelow.

 

Anything else?

 

Hmmm ... Sarcasm is met with sarcasm. Maybe from your perspective that's the way it works in the forums, but from Groundspeak's perspective, I think not. From the Forum Guidelines:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Complaints: If you have an issue with a specific post/topic on this board, please use the ‘report a post’ link in the lower right hand corner of the post. We will review the post and edit/delete if necessary.

 

I'm not saying that you are the only one within the scope of this thread that isn't exactly playing by these rules, but in my opinion, you're certainly coming across with a more "holier than thou" attitude than anyone else. It's hardly distancing you from the behaviour you're condemning. And of the half dozen or so posts you've made within this topic, I would have to stretch it to say that one of them directly addressed any of the four questions posed by the OP in the initial post. :D

 

And now to the most important forum guideline you've crossed ...

 

Sock Puppet accounts will not be allowed. ;)

 

Now that I've made this post, put me down for one on topic and one off. :D

Share this post


Link to post

 

I fixed your comment for you.. If you need anything else, please let me know.

 

I stand by my comment. You didn't "fix" anything. You only seem to want to antagonize others for not agreeing with Groundspeak. And since you asked, no, I don't need anything else from you.

Share this post


Link to post

To continue with the original topic. Links to menus, and/or links pointing people to 'commercial content'.

 

As I stated earlier, I had a link to a restaurant for an event, so that people could check out the menu for themselves. I was asked to remove it before it would be published, which I did, the reason being given was the 'commercial content' one. In my case, I didn't really object, but partly because the link was simply to the restaurant (if I recall correctly) since I didn't seem to be able to link directly to the menu itself.

 

I would like to ask though, is this something that has come down from 'the powers to be', or just where? It seems like Groundspeak tends to do things without consulting with the users/customers, and then there's no way to either revert, or modify it after the fact, regardless of the response from the users. I can think of two examples of that easily, but don't wish to go off topic.

 

If Groundspeak made an announcement now and then something along the lines of

 

"as of xxx date, there will be no links to any form of commercial site, restaurants, hotels, parks, etc that have a charge incurred, in keeping with it's policy on avoiding commercial content. Though not strictly enforced up to current, we will be more particular in future about these issues. In addition, current caches MAY be looked at, particularly if there is a concern, for the same issues."

 

I'd be willing to bet that if a statement like this were made, such that 'joe public' is aware of it, then the reviewers asked to enforce it (I'm sure here are guidelines/definitions they are asked to observe, beyond what we as users see) there would be a lot less issues.

 

Out of curiosity I did some searching, maybe it was just luck , but about the 3rd cache listing (in a U.S. state) had a note about being asked to remove links to nearby hotels in case someone from out of the area were looking for accommodations for an event. So to me that indicates it's not a particular reviewer. However, why hasn't either a reviewer, or someone from Groundspeak, came here to say where this 'decree' (for lack of a better term) came from and why?

 

Groundspeak, IMO, needs to better communicate with the users (aka CUSTOMERS) of the site. Hitting the 'contact us' link takes one to a page, though informative, doesn't even provide a direct email address for general inquires and the like, it took me another two pages before I found a general email address for Groundspeak. Yet, there are two live links for advertisers looking to advertise with Groundspeak on that same page?

 

Personally, I feel that since I've paid for a premium membership, I should have the option of the ads being removed....(will stop there on that one, again, not wanting to get off topic.)

 

I hope this thread is allowed to continue, so that somewhere along the line some of these questions get answered. (Including some from the original poster of this thread!) These answers will be an indicator to myself as to groundspeaks interest in input from it's users, rather than just grabbing our money and running with it.

Share this post


Link to post

"CacheDrone"

 

Who does he take commands from?

 

Cache Agent?

Cache Tech?

cachechisme?

Keystone?

 

Not very much intelligence in those either!

I guess I over stepped a bit far, CT I will avoid put downs directed at any cacher here on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post

If Groundspeak made an announcement now and then something along the lines of

 

"as of xxx date, there will be no links to any form of commercial site, restaurants, hotels, parks, etc that have a charge incurred, in keeping with it's policy on avoiding commercial content. Though not strictly enforced up to current, we will be more particular in future about these issues. In addition, current caches MAY be looked at, particularly if there is a concern, for the same issues."

 

I'd be willing to bet that if a statement like this were made, such that 'joe public' is aware of it, then the reviewers asked to enforce it (I'm sure here are guidelines/definitions they are asked to observe, beyond what we as users see) there would be a lot less issues.

 

That would be great.. but it would mean that Groundspeak would likely need to change it's corporate policy of keeping it's clients in the dark on matters such as this. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Commercial Caches

 

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.

I have an event coming up where I required to remove the menu link as well. Of course, I removed it, and the cache was posted immediately (my link was to the apres-meet restaurant, and not the venue)

 

Looking at the guidelines above, it would seem to me that the intent of the guideline is to prevent blatant solicitation of a particular commercial enterprise.

 

However, most events that are held at restaurants, etc. are to held to gather geocaching participants (NOT simply to drive traffic to the venue), and in that light, this is a win-win situation for geocaching/Groundspeak and the venue. The venue does potentially gain revenue, but geocaching as whole gets a free venue, and has to potential to attract more geocachers, and thus generate more interest in the game and potentially more ad or premium member revenue to Groundspeak.

 

My link was to a restaurant's menu where we would meet up after the event - the restaurant was not giving us a space for the event for free, thus I can see the reason that my reviewer requested removal. However, if the venue is hosting the event, it seems bad policy to refuse the innocuous link - as they are tacitly promoting and sponsoring both geocaching and Groundspeak.

Share this post


Link to post

If Groundspeak made an announcement now and then something along the lines of

 

"as of xxx date, there will be no links to any form of commercial site, restaurants, hotels, parks, etc that have a charge incurred, in keeping with it's policy on avoiding commercial content. Though not strictly enforced up to current, we will be more particular in future about these issues. In addition, current caches MAY be looked at, particularly if there is a concern, for the same issues."

 

I'd be willing to bet that if a statement like this were made, such that 'joe public' is aware of it, then the reviewers asked to enforce it (I'm sure here are guidelines/definitions they are asked to observe, beyond what we as users see) there would be a lot less issues.

 

That sounds a lot more fair than being told to fix it

Share this post


Link to post

I work for a rather major restaurant chain, as a manager. I can tell you that the only people advertising anything on my property are the people I work for. If somebody wanted to sell anything (even the Girl Scouts and their cookies), the answer would be "no thanks, please leave the property." The lawn care and snow plow people can't even put a sign out front.

Whether you agree with it or not, you have to play by the rules TPTB set forth. They decide what can go where. Not "the masses" (though we do occasionally listen, just not all that often :ph34r: ).

Share this post


Link to post

That would be great.. but it would mean that Groundspeak would likely need to change it's corporate policy of keeping it's clients in the dark on matters such as this. :ph34r:

 

I think a lot of these issues really stem back to just this (okay, this could be considered 'off topic', sorry). Hopefully since we are back into the working week, a Groundspeak rep will respond to this thread. IMO, it's the only good solution, actually. Guess in a way, if they don't, it will show me what (or if) they care about geocaching versus revenues.

 

So, Groundspeak, are you willing to step up and comment on this matter? Now that I've asked directly, I do hope that one of our reviewers or someone will let them know about this thread if they don't already.

Share this post


Link to post

I work for a rather major restaurant chain, as a manager. I can tell you that the only people advertising anything on my property are the people I work for. If somebody wanted to sell anything (even the Girl Scouts and their cookies), the answer would be "no thanks, please leave the property." The lawn care and snow plow people can't even put a sign out front.

Whether you agree with it or not, you have to play by the rules TPTB set forth. They decide what can go where. Not "the masses" (though we do occasionally listen, just not all that often :ph34r: ).

 

There's no question (in my mind anyways) that we should play by the rules. However, two of the issues being discussed in this thread are "Are menu links REALLY commercial advertising and WHY?", and if Groundspeak is actively ensuring that menu links are not included on event cache listings, then why isn't this particular no-no specifically included in the "Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines"? Perhaps you can provide some restaurant insider insight into the first one.

 

Policies can be changed. If a convincing argument is made to support the policy-opposing viewpoint, Groundspeak may change their direction. I'm not willing to lay any odds on that, but it's a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post

I work for a rather major restaurant chain, as a manager. I can tell you that the only people advertising anything on my property are the people I work for. If somebody wanted to sell anything (even the Girl Scouts and their cookies), the answer would be "no thanks, please leave the property." The lawn care and snow plow people can't even put a sign out front.

Whether you agree with it or not, you have to play by the rules TPTB set forth. They decide what can go where. Not "the masses" (though we do occasionally listen, just not all that often :ph34r: ).

 

I think one of the complaints here, is they are not posting clear enough rules, or applying them evenly. The company you work for has a blanket policy of not allowing solicitation, and from you claim, enforces it on everyone that violates it. Groundspeak does not appear to me to be doing that, or not doing it very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12

×