Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
GeeOCachers

Ordered to Remove a Menu Link

Recommended Posts

 

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.

When's the last time you walked into Wendy's and saw a menu for McDonald's or Burger King?

 

 

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.

From the Listing Requirements/Guidelines:

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing 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.

 

Some exceptions can be made. In these situations, permission can be given by Groundspeak. However, permission should be asked first before posting. If you are in doubt, ask first. If you do not have advance permission, your reviewer will refer you to Groundspeak.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

Whether Groundspeak has been doing this consistantly or not in the past is pretty irrelevant at this point. You've been given clarification by your reviewer. Your next step is to present your views to appeals @ geocaching.com. Giving your reviewer a ton of flak for something they (apparently now) have no control over is counter-productive.

Now, the remaining question is whether holding an event in a restaurant should be allowed, but that should probably be addressed in a different topic.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

For us cachers "it's all about the numbers" for GC.com "it's all about the numbers" as well - however their numbers are REVENUE.

 

Keeping us in the "dark" with fuzzy rules allows them to seize any revenue opportunity at any time and SQUASH any geocacher benefit that they cannot monetize.

 

The menu link would be instantly embraced IF GC.com could figure out how to get their cut.

Share this post


Link to post

The reaction to the reviewer may have been harsh, but basically, I agree. A menu link isn't advertising at all. It's helpful. The event is what's doing the advertising.

 

My god the things I have put into my body in the name of attending an event. I've been to restaurants I wouldn't be caught dead in to attend an event and chat caching with some locals. My heart is feeling weak and my stomach queasy thinking about that last grease soaked sandwich with french fries that I ate... The best restaurant events are the ones where I don't feel obligated to buy anything. I'd rather be eating tofu and kale than some fat oozing burger..... at least a menu link would tell me if I should eat beforehand or not bother going, plan on running an extra 10 miles, etc.

 

At least now I know that event hosts who don't post links to the menu aren't being inconsiderate.

Share this post


Link to post
When's the last time you walked into Wendy's and saw a menu for McDonald's or Burger King?

This would be a fantastic argument if GC.com was in the food hospitality business - completely irrelevant here!

Share this post


Link to post
When's the last time you walked into Wendy's and saw a menu for McDonald's or Burger King?

This would be a fantastic argument if GC.com was in the food hospitality business - completely irrelevant here!

It's a metaphor. As an operator, I want to be in control of the advertising in and on my property (web site). If something or someone was advertising a service on my property (web site), you can bet they would either be helping me make money (by advertising my business), or by paying me to do it. If I had a billboard on my lot, you can be darn sure the owner of the billboard would be leasing the space. Same thing with a web site - I would want complete control of what I was advertising.

 

Welcome to Capitalism. Enjoy your stay.

 

(edit to clarify)

Edited by PJPeters

Share this post


Link to post
When's the last time you walked into Wendy's and saw a menu for McDonald's or Burger King?

This would be a fantastic argument if GC.com was in the food hospitality business - completely irrelevant here!

 

Good point. I could see if some was posting a link to another caching site, then your argument would be valid. Please try to avoid metaphors and use clear arguments. Clarity is one of the issues being discussed here.

Share this post


Link to post

I remember the last GAG event in Ottawa was threathened with archival because of the same issue.

 

Here is my view on this question:

 

Holding an event in a restaurant or rented place does have a commercial element, but it is one that cannot be avoided without eliminating nearly all events.

 

To avoid any commercial element, we would have to do events only if the organizers have a big enough house or private terrain to hold an event. Very few events fall into that category. Outside events on public land (with people bringing their own food) might be a possibility, but there is only a short time of the year where it would be reasonably doable in this country, and weather is never predictable. I find that events let many new people discover geocaching, which ends up benefiting Groundspeak. So it is not in Groundspeak interest to eliminate events.

 

So, if we agree that holding events in commercial venue is ok because it cannot be reasonably avoided, then why shouldn't we be allowed to post useful information on that venue, such as which food will be available, and how much people should expect to pay?

 

Is Groundspeak's objection only to links to the restaurant's website? This could be undestandable, as they have no control on the content of that website and how it could change. Then, would a summary of the menu in the organizer's own words be allowable?

 

For example :

 

The restaurant where the event is held offers a Chinese buffet for about 15$

 

or

 

Food available includes burgers (5-10$), steaks (15-20$) and a few vegetarian choices (10-15$). Kitchen is certified Kosher and Halal.

 

or

 

Everything on the menu has seafood in it, be warned! Average cost of a meal is around 30$.

 

Would that type of description be acceptable? I don't see how it adds any commercial element to the cache page...

 

A clear indication of what is acceptable or not, and why, would be wonderful. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

"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."

 

Unless the organizer is befitting from the event, the location is providing consideration for the event, or has approached the organizer and said "Hey, come have your event here", I don't see any solicitation.

 

"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"

 

As stated many times now, it is accepted that an event may take place at a restaurant which clearly falls under this statement.

 

How can a reasonable person apply this to force a cache owner to remove a link to a menu from a cache listing?

Share this post


Link to post
How can a reasonable person apply this to force a cache owner to remove a link to a menu from a cache listing?

Can Groundspeak be considered a "reasonable person" given that everyone, except one agitator has replied "Allow the Menu Link"?

 

Just a question, not an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, I'm curious, about two things.

 

First, why a rep of Groundspeak hasn't responded to this thread, even when directly asked to do so?

 

Second, why I couldn't publish an event because of a menu link (had to be removed first due to the 'commercial nature' of it) yet a cache like this receives approval when the title is using a trademarked brand name?

 

I'll be anxiously awaiting a response now! Come on Groundspeak, please answer these questions!

Share this post


Link to post

When it comes down to it, it is Groundspeak's site. They can do whatever they want. If you got a complaint the complaint department is at N 91° 23.562 W 186° 43.123..

 

Oh, and they don't have email or a phone line.. so you gotta walk... backwards... up the hill both ways.. in the snow... without boots..

 

You may disagree, so go make your own site, and treat them like dog waste when they want an account! [:blink:]

Share this post


Link to post
How can a reasonable person apply this to force a cache owner to remove a link to a menu from a cache listing?

Can Groundspeak be considered a "reasonable person" given that everyone, except one agitator has replied "Allow the Menu Link"?

 

Just a question, not an opinion.

 

I love how the simple fact that I disagree with the OP makes me an instigator. I honestly believe that the OP went overboard and clearly has an agenda and a large chip to boot. I don't think it should be allowed. What's to keep "ME" as a restaurant owner from having an event at my restaurant and posting my menu to try to solicit business?

Share this post


Link to post

I can see the reason for it.

And should I be told to remove a link to a restaurants site with its menu, I would simply copy the menu and post a link to "my" menu. Problem solved, no?

Share this post


Link to post
How can a reasonable person apply this to force a cache owner to remove a link to a menu from a cache listing?

Can Groundspeak be considered a "reasonable person" given that everyone, except one agitator has replied "Allow the Menu Link"?

 

Just a question, not an opinion.

 

I love how the simple fact that I disagree with the OP makes me an instigator. I honestly believe that the OP went overboard and clearly has an agenda and a large chip to boot. I don't think it should be allowed. What's to keep "ME" as a restaurant owner from having an event at my restaurant and posting my menu to try to solicit business?

 

Apparently they aren't worried about that or they would insist on removing any reference to restaraunts as an event location.

 

The absence of any statement from Groundspeak speaks volumes here. They know they have created a situation they can't explain. And the only way out (banning everything commercial) would kill event caches. And they aren't prepared to do that. Ergo, impasse. Solution - Bury your head in the sand. Hide behind their "business".

 

It is a pity there isn't a viable competitive site to keep them customer focused.

Share this post


Link to post

Having just read this whole thread, here is my take on things:

 

1) Having a link on the cache page to the menu seems harmless enough. Could the concern be that links are often used to improve the rankings of the target sites in search engines and Groundspeak is concerned they may be inadvertently promoting the website of a business which is in direct competition with one of the paying sponsors?

 

2) The original response to the concerns raised was needlessly sarcastic. If I was on the other end of an email that started out "That is just about the most ridiculous thing I have heard..." you could be sure that the amount of attention I paid to your concerns would be something in the order approaching zero.

 

3) Anyone who is really that concerned over the menu for the restaurant is likely to look it up on their own anyway.

 

Even though it doesn't make sense to me, I am going to respect Groundspeak's right to have control over what their website links to.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is how crazy this is and is gonna get.

 

GC18QQJ has just been disabled because it includes the word Wal-Mart.

 

On the surface, perhaps that makes sense. But it raises many valid questions:

 

(1) Are we unable to hold an event at Wal-Mart? I know it is not an premier location but not totally unrealistic.

 

(2) Does that mean McDonalds, Boston Pizza et. al. are taboo? Where is the line?

 

(3) Assuming we can hold an event at Wal-Mart, does that mean there are different rules for Traditional descriptions and Event descriptions.

 

And the beat goes on.

Share this post


Link to post

My take from the UK is that it is an extraordinarily decision. As it appears to remain permissible for the event to take place in the commercial establishment it is difficult to see any logic or consistency in it. I'm pretty much in full agreement with Groundspeak's guidelines, but not with this interpretation of them.

 

This is obviously a pretty unpopular decision. Unfortunately it's difficult for us to know if it is official detailed Groundspeak policy or just a reviewer's interpretation.

 

If the former I would have hoped Groundspeak would have taken the heat off the reviewer by publicly acknowledging it, and trying to explain the rationale behind the inconsistency. If I was a reviewer and required by Groundspeak to enforce the interpretation without this support, then I would probably resign as a reviewer.

 

In the latter case I can see that Groundspeak may wish not to publicly disagree with their reviewer, but I would have hoped the reviewer would recognise they were in a minority and volunteer to reverse the decision. There's no shame in that.

 

Yes, it is Groundspeak's site, yes, they can do what they want with it, and yes, they have (more or less) a monopoly. But that doesn't mean they own the activity or the subscribers. They have to be sensitive to the mood of the majority, or over time they risk losing that monopoly. While this one strange decision is nothing like enough to make me look elsewhere, if they did it over and over again I would start to investigate alternatives.

 

Rgds, Andy

Share this post


Link to post

My take from the UK is that it is an extraordinarily decision. As it appears to remain permissible for the event to take place in the commercial establishment it is difficult to see any logic or consistency in it. I'm pretty much in full agreement with Groundspeak's guidelines, but not with this interpretation of them.

 

This is obviously a pretty unpopular decision. Unfortunately it's difficult for us to know if it is official detailed Groundspeak policy or just a reviewer's interpretation.

 

If the former I would have hoped Groundspeak would have taken the heat off the reviewer by publicly acknowledging it, and trying to explain the rationale behind the inconsistency. If I was a reviewer and required by Groundspeak to enforce the interpretation without this support, then I would probably resign as a reviewer.

 

In the latter case I can see that Groundspeak may wish not to publicly disagree with their reviewer, but I would have hoped the reviewer would recognise they were in a minority and volunteer to reverse the decision. There's no shame in that.

 

Yes, it is Groundspeak's site, yes, they can do what they want with it, and yes, they have (more or less) a monopoly. But that doesn't mean they own the activity or the subscribers. They have to be sensitive to the mood of the majority, or over time they risk losing that monopoly. While this one strange decision is nothing like enough to make me look elsewhere, if they did it over and over again I would start to investigate alternatives.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

I am guessing they have not spoken to the reviewer. He just disabled three local caches with variations of the word Wal-Mart in the cache name or description.

 

But he is gonna be a busy boy. There are 94 caches world wide that have Wal-Mart or WalMart in their name.

Share this post


Link to post

I am guessing they have not spoken to the reviewer. He just disabled three local caches with variations of the word Wal-Mart in the cache name or description.

 

But he is gonna be a busy boy. There are 94 caches world wide that have Wal-Mart or WalMart in their name.

Well, tell him to leave any near Mt. Tremblant well alone for the next 12 days, after that he can do what he wants with them :blink:

 

Rgds, Andy

Share this post


Link to post

2) The original response to the concerns raised was needlessly sarcastic. If I was on the other end of an email that started out "That is just about the most ridiculous thing I have heard..." you could be sure that the amount of attention I paid to your concerns would be something in the order approaching zero.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. Groundspeak can decide tomorrow to allow a menu to be linked to for an event cache or not. They can allow it for "Bob", but not for "Mary" if they want... If "Bob" feels entitled and comes across like the OP did, I wouldn't allow it either. If "Mary" asked for permission and didn't feel entitled, I would seriously consider allowing it.

 

Groundspeak gets to decide what is allowed and what isn't based on whatever criteria they want to use. The entitlement attitude I'm seeing in this thread is baffling to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Hoo boy. This could get interesting. GC10Y4F has actually been archived. How about GC110GG where it could be construed I am promoting funeral services?

Let the fireworks begin. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

2) The original response to the concerns raised was needlessly sarcastic. If I was on the other end of an email that started out "That is just about the most ridiculous thing I have heard..." you could be sure that the amount of attention I paid to your concerns would be something in the order approaching zero.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. Groundspeak can decide tomorrow to allow a menu to be linked to for an event cache or not. They can allow it for "Bob", but not for "Mary" if they want... If "Bob" feels entitled and comes across like the OP did, I wouldn't allow it either. If "Mary" asked for permission and didn't feel entitled, I would seriously consider allowing it.

 

Groundspeak gets to decide what is allowed and what isn't based on whatever criteria they want to use. The entitlement attitude I'm seeing in this thread is baffling to me.

 

What is more baffling, is the how Groundspeak has left two volunteer cache approvers hung out to dry and take all the flak. After Andy's comment above, I have come to feel sorry for them.

Share this post


Link to post

2) The original response to the concerns raised was needlessly sarcastic. If I was on the other end of an email that started out "That is just about the most ridiculous thing I have heard..." you could be sure that the amount of attention I paid to your concerns would be something in the order approaching zero.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. Groundspeak can decide tomorrow to allow a menu to be linked to for an event cache or not. They can allow it for "Bob", but not for "Mary" if they want... If "Bob" feels entitled and comes across like the OP did, I wouldn't allow it either. If "Mary" asked for permission and didn't feel entitled, I would seriously consider allowing it.

 

Groundspeak gets to decide what is allowed and what isn't based on whatever criteria they want to use. The entitlement attitude I'm seeing in this thread is baffling to me.

 

What is more baffling, is the how Groundspeak has left two volunteer cache approvers hung out to dry and take all the flak. After Andy's comment above, I have come to feel sorry for them.

 

How's that? They seem to understand the guidelines just fine. Groundspeak backed them up when the issue was escalated. That's not hung out to dry.. Seems like they backed them up to me.

Share this post


Link to post

2) The original response to the concerns raised was needlessly sarcastic. If I was on the other end of an email that started out "That is just about the most ridiculous thing I have heard..." you could be sure that the amount of attention I paid to your concerns would be something in the order approaching zero.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. Groundspeak can decide tomorrow to allow a menu to be linked to for an event cache or not. They can allow it for "Bob", but not for "Mary" if they want... If "Bob" feels entitled and comes across like the OP did, I wouldn't allow it either. If "Mary" asked for permission and didn't feel entitled, I would seriously consider allowing it.

 

Groundspeak gets to decide what is allowed and what isn't based on whatever criteria they want to use. The entitlement attitude I'm seeing in this thread is baffling to me.

 

What is more baffling, is the how Groundspeak has left two volunteer cache approvers hung out to dry and take all the flak. After Andy's comment above, I have come to feel sorry for them.

 

How's that? They seem to understand the guidelines just fine. Groundspeak backed them up when the issue was escalated. That's not hung out to dry.. Seems like they backed them up to me.

 

TPTB said to take it to the forums, and have left poor cache tech to deal with the mess. Doesn't seem fair to me.

Share this post


Link to post

TPTB said to take it to the forums, and have left poor cache tech to deal with the mess. Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

Some guy named Ted and "Cache-Drone" said to take it to the forums. <--- Quoting the ops original post. Perhaps some guy named Ted would like to chime in? The issue was dealt with and I believe is CLOSED. TPTB said remove the link, the link was removed. CASE CLOSED. What more do you want? Do you want Jeremy himself to waste his time on this issue when he could be dealing with... Oh I don't know.... SERVER ISSUES?

 

How about the OP close this thread so we can debate more important topics like whether or not micros are evil.

Share this post


Link to post

But he is gonna be a busy boy. There are 94 caches world wide that have Wal-Mart or WalMart in their name.

 

And hundreds more in disguise - funny though only those in close proximity to the menu crisis have been archived.

 

....But still we wait for the TPTB to listen to the request of the caching populous to "Allow the Menu Link".

Share this post


Link to post

TPTB said to take it to the forums, and have left poor cache tech to deal with the mess. Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

Some guy named Ted and "Cache-Drone" said to take it to the forums. <--- Quoting the ops original post. Perhaps some guy named Ted would like to chime in? The issue was dealt with and I believe is CLOSED. TPTB said remove the link, the link was removed. CASE CLOSED. What more do you want? Do you want Jeremy himself to waste his time on this issue when he could be dealing with... Oh I don't know.... SERVER ISSUES?

 

 

If he isn't any better at dealing with this issue than he is dealing with server issues, I now understand why he hasn't waded in. Thanks for clarifying that.

Share this post


Link to post

TPTB said to take it to the forums, and have left poor cache tech to deal with the mess. Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

Some guy named Ted and "Cache-Drone" said to take it to the forums. <--- Quoting the ops original post. Perhaps some guy named Ted would like to chime in? The issue was dealt with and I believe is CLOSED. TPTB said remove the link, the link was removed. CASE CLOSED. What more do you want? Do you want Jeremy himself to waste his time on this issue when he could be dealing with... Oh I don't know.... SERVER ISSUES?

 

 

If he isn't any better at dealing with this issue than he is dealing with server issues, I now understand why he hasn't waded in. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

Wow. I guarantee you that TPTB have seen this thread and have read it. I pray that they completely ignore this thread and focus their attention somewhere that will be more appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post

TPTB said to take it to the forums, and have left poor cache tech to deal with the mess. Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

Some guy named Ted and "Cache-Drone" said to take it to the forums. <--- Quoting the ops original post. Perhaps some guy named Ted would like to chime in? The issue was dealt with and I believe is CLOSED. TPTB said remove the link, the link was removed. CASE CLOSED. What more do you want? Do you want Jeremy himself to waste his time on this issue when he could be dealing with... Oh I don't know.... SERVER ISSUES?

 

How about the OP close this thread so we can debate more important topics like whether or not micros are evil.

 

If I gave up after the first 5 times I was told I couldn't have a virtual cache I wouldn't have one.

 

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.

Thomas A. Edison

Share this post


Link to post

How about the OP close this thread so we can debate more important topics like whether or not micros are evil.

 

Well, yes, micros are evil, there’s no question of that. Especially micros in a forest. (But we still do ‘em, simply ‘cause they’re there!)

This may be slightly off-topic, but I think this whole discussion about menus is just a manifestation of a much bigger problem: how much input do/should we have, as players of this game? My trade-unionist background makes me yearn for a system where, for instance, a representative of the OGA (Ontario Geocaching Association) could take concerns from Ontario cachers (perhaps compiled by the Regional Reps from each of their regions?) to TPTB, either directly or through other levels (Canadian? International?) and have TPTB (who are no longer TPTB because they realize who actually employs them) listen carefully, and then seriously consider each proposal for change.

Pipe dreams, I guess. But then I always was an idealist! (and, obviously naïve!)

Edited by hamgran

Share this post


Link to post

This may be slightly off-topic, but I feel the whole discussion is just a manifestation of a much bigger problem: how much input do/should we have, as players of this game? My trade-unionist background makes me yearn for a system where, for instance, a representative of the OGA (Ontario Geocaching Association) could take concerns from Ontario cachers (perhaps compiled by the Regional Reps from each of their regions?) to TPTB, either directly or through other levels (Canadian? International?) and have TPTB (who are no longer TPTB because they realize who actually employs them) listen carefully, and then seriously consider each proposal for change.

 

I remember the old days when a message to GC.com was actually returned by Jeremy and you felt a part in shaping the game. Sadly it is now a bureaucratic juggernaut concerned only with self realized commercialism. Paraphrasing what others have said, indifference towards the wishes of the players of the game is to be expected without viable competition or consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
:blink: I just opened the page to one of my caches and, what do you know.... There's an Amazon.com advertisement there. It seems the only commercial ads allowed are ones that Groundspeak gets paid for. AMAZING! I didn't ask for an advertisement on my page. I never thought anything about it until now. Edited by JustAFan

Share this post


Link to post

I picked up this little slogan on a website. Thought it was appropriate and maybe Groundspeak could learn from it:

 

The customer comes first in everything we do at Compass!

Share this post


Link to post

TPTB said to take it to the forums, and have left poor cache tech to deal with the mess. Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

Some guy named Ted and "Cache-Drone" said to take it to the forums. <--- Quoting the ops original post. Perhaps some guy named Ted would like to chime in? The issue was dealt with and I believe is CLOSED. TPTB said remove the link, the link was removed. CASE CLOSED. What more do you want? Do you want Jeremy himself to waste his time on this issue when he could be dealing with... Oh I don't know.... SERVER ISSUES?

 

How about the OP close this thread so we can debate more important topics like whether or not micros are evil.

 

Actually, what I said was "Ted, and some guy named Cache-Drone".. It was also suggested by Michael as well in an email.

 

What YOU believe isn't the issue here. You can have a say just like everyone else, but you don't get to decide what happens to this thread or this topic.

 

If Jeremy wants to come in here and make a ruling, I would certainly welcome it. I'm not asking that though. I am asking (as are several others) that Groundspeak give us an explanation of the ruling so that we can ALL better understand it.

 

If you have a problem with Server Issues, please start a new topic as is off topic here. Micros being evil is also off topic.

Share this post


Link to post

I pray that they completely ignore this thread and focus their attention somewhere that will be more appreciated.

 

Please keep your posts on the topic of commercial caches and whether or not the menu link should be allowed and not on your opinions of this thread in general.

 

I would like to keep this thread alive and going on topic. If you are determined to get this thread closed by posting off topic, that is unfair and unjustified.

Share this post


Link to post

How about the OP close this thread so we can debate more important topics like whether or not micros are evil.

You can debate that topic on a relevant thread if you so choose, regardless of whether this thread is still active or not. If you feel that you have nothing further to add here, please feel free to contribute to one of the seventeen or so active discussions elsewhere in the forums on the subject of micros.

 

As for the original question, it is still not clear why requiring that people visit a particular place of business in order to claim credit for an event cache is acceptable, despite it being a direct violation of the rules as written, yet providing information ahead of time about what to expect at that place of business requires the intervention of the reviewers.

 

dave

Share this post


Link to post

Most reasonable people will often ask, "why?"

Failing to receive a reasonable explanation only leads to more speculation and/or negativity.

Very much akin to "no comment" responses. They have very negative connotations.

ALLOW MENU LINKS.

They are beneficial to attendees and in a commercial sense, much less harmful than allowing the name of of the venue to be posted.

Share this post


Link to post

I pray that they completely ignore this thread and focus their attention somewhere that will be more appreciated.

 

Please keep your posts on the topic of commercial caches and whether or not the menu link should be allowed and not on your opinions of this thread in general.

 

I would like to keep this thread alive and going on topic. If you are determined to get this thread closed by posting off topic, that is unfair and unjustified.

 

Maybe you should start over... Here's some advice:

 

1) Apologize for your attitude

2) Privately deal with Michael and Groundspeak to find a resolution

 

I watched many threads like this one over the past few years. The Groundspeak folks generally don't give in to terrorist tactics like this, where you think you can strong arm them into getting your way. Almost always, not only in this venue, but anywhere in life, this kind of behavior will only make things worse.

 

I think this post is more on topic than having all your buddies post "ALLOW THE MENU LINK".. As if this is some kind of democratic system. It's a business and a business decision was made.

 

If you need further help, don't hesitate to ask :D

Share this post


Link to post

The Groundspeak folks generally don't give in to terrorist tactics like this, where you think you can strong arm them into getting your way.

 

I'll take hyperbole for 1200, Alex.

Share this post


Link to post

I pray that they completely ignore this thread and focus their attention somewhere that will be more appreciated.

 

Please keep your posts on the topic of commercial caches and whether or not the menu link should be allowed and not on your opinions of this thread in general.

 

I would like to keep this thread alive and going on topic. If you are determined to get this thread closed by posting off topic, that is unfair and unjustified.

 

Maybe you should start over... Here's some advice:

 

1) Apologize for your attitude

2) Privately deal with Michael and Groundspeak to find a resolution

 

I watched many threads like this one over the past few years. The Groundspeak folks generally don't give in to terrorist tactics like this, where you think you can strong arm them into getting your way. Almost always, not only in this venue, but anywhere in life, this kind of behavior will only make things worse.

 

I think this post is more on topic than having all your buddies post "ALLOW THE MENU LINK".. As if this is some kind of democratic system. It's a business and a business decision was made.

 

If you need further help, don't hesitate to ask :D

 

Referring to people as terrorists is once again not in conformance with the Groundspeak guidelines, and may also be considered libel.

Edited by Keith Watson

Share this post


Link to post

Yesterday I received this curious Watchlist Log entry:

 

Cache-tech retracted Wal-Mart Superstore Scarborough West (Archived) (Traditional Cache) at 2/4/2008

 

This action appears to have completely wiped GC10Y4F off the system. As a result my caches found count is now one less than it should be. I have written to Cache-tech requesting that he fix this.

 

I am not a happy cacher.

Share this post


Link to post

Yesterday I received this curious Watchlist Log entry:

 

Cache-tech retracted Wal-Mart Superstore Scarborough West (Archived) (Traditional Cache) at 2/4/2008

 

This action appears to have completely wiped GC10Y4F off the system. As a result my caches found count is now one less than it should be. I have written to Cache-tech requesting that he fix this.

 

I am not a happy cacher.

 

You didn't lose your find and your count didn't go down. The cache is gone but pre-existing finds remain. You just can't look at them.

Share this post


Link to post

Yesterday I received this curious Watchlist Log entry:

 

Cache-tech retracted Wal-Mart Superstore Scarborough West (Archived) (Traditional Cache) at 2/4/2008

 

This action appears to have completely wiped GC10Y4F off the system. As a result my caches found count is now one less than it should be. I have written to Cache-tech requesting that he fix this.

 

I am not a happy cacher.

 

You didn't lose your find and your count didn't go down. The cache is gone but pre-existing finds remain. You just can't look at them.

 

 

Guess again. Yesterday (and currently in my GSAK) I had 118 finds. Now I have 117.

Share this post


Link to post

Yesterday I received this curious Watchlist Log entry:

 

Cache-tech retracted Wal-Mart Superstore Scarborough West (Archived) (Traditional Cache) at 2/4/2008

 

This action appears to have completely wiped GC10Y4F off the system. As a result my caches found count is now one less than it should be. I have written to Cache-tech requesting that he fix this.

 

I am not a happy cacher.

 

You didn't lose your find and your count didn't go down. The cache is gone but pre-existing finds remain. You just can't look at them.

 

 

Guess again. Yesterday (and currently in my GSAK) I had 118 finds. Now I have 117.

 

I just ran a My Finds PQ and GC11905 shows up.

 

Could the owner of the cache have deleted the logs?

Share this post


Link to post

Yesterday I received this curious Watchlist Log entry:

 

Cache-tech retracted Wal-Mart Superstore Scarborough West (Archived) (Traditional Cache) at 2/4/2008

 

This action appears to have completely wiped GC10Y4F off the system. As a result my caches found count is now one less than it should be. I have written to Cache-tech requesting that he fix this.

 

I am not a happy cacher.

 

You didn't lose your find and your count didn't go down. The cache is gone but pre-existing finds remain. You just can't look at them.

 

 

Guess again. Yesterday (and currently in my GSAK) I had 118 finds. Now I have 117.

 

I still have my find for Walmart Whitby and it got zapped too. Look at your account and select all caches and see if it is there. If not, I would file an appeal with appeals@geocaching.com Point out that there are 94 other walmart caches around the world that didn't get zapped.

Share this post


Link to post

I just received this prompt reply from Cache-tech:

 

The cache was retracted so the owner could edit them, you cannot edit an

archived cache. Once the edits are completed and within the guidelines, the

cache will be republished, if not within the guidelines, they will still be

republished and archived. Your find count will not be affected as I will

not be removing any logs.

 

CT

Share this post


Link to post

Yesterday I received this curious Watchlist Log entry:

 

Cache-tech retracted Wal-Mart Superstore Scarborough West (Archived) (Traditional Cache) at 2/4/2008

 

This action appears to have completely wiped GC10Y4F off the system. As a result my caches found count is now one less than it should be. I have written to Cache-tech requesting that he fix this.

 

I am not a happy cacher.

 

You didn't lose your find and your count didn't go down. The cache is gone but pre-existing finds remain. You just can't look at them.

 

 

Guess again. Yesterday (and currently in my GSAK) I had 118 finds. Now I have 117.

 

I just ran a My Finds PQ and GC11905 shows up.

 

Could the owner of the cache have deleted the logs?

 

No. CacheTech and CacheDrone archived and then retracted them last night. Interesting that the other Walmart caches around the world are untouched.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I have to admit disappointment from Groundspeaks lack of response. I know right now I'm not certain how much more I'll be concerned about logging finds, placing caches, etc. I may just go explore the places I wish without the concern of the 'smiley', since these inconsistencies with the 'rules' are showing up, I'll have to think about it.

 

From what I've seen in this thread, I would think there may be a lot of others here that may be willing to do the same. Shame on you Groundspeak.

Share this post


Link to post
When's the last time you walked into Wendy's and saw a menu for McDonald's or Burger King?

This would be a fantastic argument if GC.com was in the food hospitality business - completely irrelevant here!

It's a metaphor. As an operator, I want to be in control of the advertising in and on my property (web site). If something or someone was advertising a service on my property (web site), you can bet they would either be helping me make money (by advertising my business), or by paying me to do it. If I had a billboard on my lot, you can be darn sure the owner of the billboard would be leasing the space. Same thing with a web site - I would want complete control of what I was advertising.

 

Welcome to Capitalism. Enjoy your stay.

 

(edit to clarify)

 

This has turned into quite the thread. Apparently folks in support of the menu are anti-capitalist whining terrorists. :D

 

I would say your metaphor is more of an analogy, and a bad one at that. I think you will find that most successful companies (regardless of size) listen quite well to what their customers want. The exception (often) being monopolies. The fact is that a good capitalist company will often do what it takes to please the customers. (Your billboard comment is also a horrible example -- a billboard is quite different than a link!)

 

Allow the menu link! That it is even against policy is ludicrous.... Though from what I've read of the policy, it seems that cache events taking place at commercial locations are against the policy, not the menu link.

 

I don't expect much for $3/mo, but if it really is against policy, Groundspeak would be doing themselves a favour to explain why. Of course I realize it is their website and they can do as they please.

Share this post


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

×