Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
GeeOCachers

Ordered to Remove a Menu Link

Recommended Posts

Pretty much the only truely acceptible event:

 

"I am having a BBQ in my backyard, free burgers. Here are the coords..."

 

PS - i am not really having a BBQ, nor are there any free burgers in my backyard..

Share this post


Link to post

Pretty much the only truely acceptible event:

 

"I am having a BBQ in my backyard, free burgers. Here are the coords..."

 

PS - i am not really having a BBQ, nor are there any free burgers in my backyard..

 

Dang...and here I was booking my flight back to Ontario!

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

I'm going to assume that the mods understand that I did not call anyone terrorists. Go re-read my comment if you would. "Using terrorist tacticts".. What that means and I think I was fairly clear was trying to use intimidation to get your way is a terrorist tactic...

 

Please tone down the threats.. The only threats I can see are being directed at me.. Threats of Libel and claiming I am somehow not in conformance with guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to assume that the mods understand that I did not call anyone terrorists. Go re-read my comment if you would. "Using terrorist tacticts".. What that means and I think I was fairly clear was trying to use intimidation to get your way is a terrorist tactic...

 

well now your just not making sense.. I wasn't going to get involved, but you seem to keep popping your head in here and spouting nonsense.

 

questions for you:

who but a terrorist would use a "terrorist tactic"? And by terrorist tactic you are referring to 'getting all your friends online and telling them to agree with you'? How is the Oregon Primary going? have you heard any of the campaign speaches lately? What do you think of their tactics?

 

I have met the OP once (for sure, maybe twice). They are not in my inner circle, nor did they ask for my help. They have a legitimate concern, but instead of accusing them of terrorist tactics, I state that I agree or disagree, and state my reasons.

Share this post


Link to post

I think folks seem to not understand what a commercial cache is. Some have made statements like these -

 

Common sense also says that a commercial listing is only a commercial listing when it is the owner of a business or a product who is trying to advertise that via geocaching. Common sense says that an event organizer who does not gain anything for themself, a relation, a friend is not creating a commercial listing.

 

To interpret this otherwise is not common sense and is being far too rigid about the reading of the guidelines (again not they are not rigid rules but guidelines requiring the application of common sense). By any applied common sense, the menu is OK in the listing.

 

JD

 

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?

 

I'm afraid I don't see the logic here. If I marched back and forth in the parking lot of PJPeters' restaurant with a full-color placard for a local furniture store listing all of the brands and styles they carry, would I be in violation of their advertising policy if all I was getting out of doing so was sore feet? A reasonable person would say that that I was indeed advertising for that store and common sense says that I would indeed be in violation of the policy. Advertising is commercial in nature, by definition. The Internet has even facilitated a whole 'new' class of advertising where the folks spreading the message are getting little if anything out doing so, certainly no monetary compensation. But it's still advertising.

 

All I'm seeing in this over-lengthy discussion is a situation where a long-time guideline is being applied fairly to an event. Perhaps Groundspeak has clarified for the reviewers what constitutes commercial content of cache pages and the reviewers are in turn letting cache owners know. Maybe there have been times when commercial caches have slipped through and reviewers are now having to go back and 'fix' listings that violate the guidelines that the owner agreed to follow when they submitted their cache. And for their trouble the reviewers are getting raked over the coals by those who don't seem to understand the concept of 'commercial'. But the guideline itself is essentially the same as it was when I first started caching.

 

There's not many good ways around the need to sometimes hold events at commercial establishments, and I don't know that anyone should work too hard on finding ones. But a link to a restaurant's website is clearly commercial in nature and the request to remove it is clearly appropriate under the guideline in question. Any reasonable person should be able to see that.

 

Folks are smart; if they want to find out more about the venue they will look up the information themselves.

 

Leave the link out.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm afraid I don't see the logic here. If I marched back and forth in the parking lot of PJPeters' restaurant with a full-color placard for a local furniture store listing all of the brands and styles they carry, would I be in violation of their advertising policy if all I was getting out of doing so was sore feet? A reasonable person would say that that I was indeed advertising for that store and common sense says that I would indeed be in violation of the policy. Advertising is commercial in nature, by definition. The Internet has even facilitated a whole 'new' class of advertising where the folks spreading the message are getting little if anything out doing so, certainly no monetary compensation. But it's still advertising.

..

All I'm seeing in this over-lengthy discussion is a situation where a long-time guideline is being applied fairly to an event. Perhaps Groundspeak has clarified for the reviewers what constitutes commercial content of cache pages and the reviewers are in turn letting cache owners know.

 

...

 

But the guideline itself is essentially the same as it was when I first started caching.

 

 

I repeat that the guidelines indicate that commercial caches are restricted.... Not linking to a menu.

 

Perhaps I am reading the incorrect area? Anyone wish to correct me? Seriously... I can't see anywhere it says menus are restricted. Just commercial caches. (In which case shouldn't all commercial event caches be removed that don't already have explicit permission? )

 

This is what I am reading: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#commercial

 

Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted.

-- Seems like *someone* involved has a commercial agenda, but its not the person who placed the cache,

(Obviously Groundspeak has a commercial agenda, but I fail to see how linking to a menu harms them or their profits in any way)

 

Question: Can I put a menu link in my profile? What about a commercial adverstisement? What about religious scripture? (Just curious.)

 

I think the lengthy discussion that has come out of this is that many people see it as a ridiculous restriction on their gathering...

 

Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

Interesting to see that in the guidelines.... given the obvious agenda we are seeing in this service.

Share this post


Link to post

I repeat that the guidelines indicate that commercial caches are restricted.... Not linking to a menu.

 

<sigh> A link to a restaurant's website is not commercial? How could it not be?

Share this post


Link to post

Pretty much the only truely acceptible event:

 

"I am having a BBQ in my backyard, free burgers. Here are the coords..."

 

PS - i am not really having a BBQ, nor are there any free burgers in my backyard..

 

/begin offtopic

 

Well that's just.. just... dangit...I'm pretty sure I can find the coords to your backyard from someone.. The question now is.. why aren't you having a BBQ? Seems like you have made a reasonable event, just pick and date and I bet a lot of people show up! (including me!)

 

Also, I heard you had an outer circle, but an inner circle? Dang again!

 

/end Offtopic

 

Jokes aside, if Groundspeak doesn't give some definitive rules, maybe our juicy friend here is on to something. Will all event caches end up with these type of descriptions? It seems only a matter of time before someone figures out that having an event a restaurant and mentioning that restaurant on the cache page is actually advertising for them. More specific rules in this area can only help us create great events and avoid these pitfalls.

Edited by eelow&beelow

Share this post


Link to post

I repeat that the guidelines indicate that commercial caches are restricted.... Not linking to a menu.

 

<sigh> A link to a restaurant's website is not commercial? How could it not be?

 

I think the main point (At least the one I was trying to make) is that actually naming the restaurant is more advertising than pointing to a pdf of a menu. If naming the venue is allowed, why isn't posting the menu? As some have stated here, the menu is extremely helpful to them in planning what meals they might be able to eat or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

 

Exactly. I have resisted jumping in so far but can hold my peace no longer.

 

The issue that kicked this off seems to me to be a bizarrely narrow and unreasonable interpretation and application of an otherwise reasonable rule. It has clearly generated significant negative reaction towards Groundspeak from its constituency outweighing by a long chalk the benefit that the rule was intended to provide in the first place.

 

For heaven's sake allow the link and let's get back to reasonable interpretation and application of the rules such as we used to have in the past. Let's have flexibility applied where appropriate so that geocaching can remain a light, fun activity. I am certainly having second thoughts about placing caches and hosting events in this kind of overly dogmatic environment for fear of the hassle it will bring me should I step even one millimetre out of line (in someone's opinion).

Share this post


Link to post

I repeat that the guidelines indicate that commercial caches are restricted.... Not linking to a menu.

 

<sigh> A link to a restaurant's website is not commercial? How could it not be?

 

lol, Sorry you find it so tiring ;)

 

The link is to PDF of the menu, not even a link to the website. (Generally a website consists of html/scripts, PDF files being generally static documents.. in this case anyway.). It has the name of the restaurant on it, menu items, and that is all. No address or anything.

 

Perhaps you should read the thread before commenting.

 

From the guidlines:

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.

-- This indicates to me that all events taking place in a commercial establishment are against the "guidelines". That was my point (at least for the sentence you quoted). The menu link doesn't further the violation in any way that I can see.

 

Edit - fixed bad sentence. I think we can all agree that an all out banning of events in any commercial establishment is not in anyones benefit. (I'm in no way wishing that to happen.)

 

Exit X2- I also fail to see how this cache could be perceived to be of a commercial nature, which is what the guidelines say is restricted. -- at least, it's definintely the "spirit" of the guideline.

(I also feel the need to point out that guidelines are *not* policies, and just the use for the word guideline indicates it is supposed to be flexible. Funny how the guideline page says guidelines/requirements! :ph34r: )

Edited by bandc9

Share this post


Link to post

The link is to PDF of the menu, not even a link to the website.

 

You mean the one hosted by the commercial website http://www.huetherhotel.com/barleyworks/ ?

 

Perhaps you should read the thread before commenting.

 

Perhaps you should remember that this is supposed to be a civil discussion and not make unfounded assumptions.

 

That's okay. Your response tells me everything I need know regarding your willingness to actually consider other points of view regarding this matter. My apologies for interrupting your jihad.

Share this post


Link to post

...Folks are smart; if they want to find out more about the venue they will look up the information ...

A good host makes it easy for them. Extending a simple courtesy should not be a problem. The venue was approved with the cache. Thus it's fair for the host to extend that partucular courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post

While I can see how linking to a menu could be interpreted as promoting a company that isn't likely to be a sanctioned GC advertiser, if an event is being held at that establishment, how is that any less of a commercial advertisement?

 

For example, if you hold an event at a Golden Corral (a regional favorite for large groups), you'll have a hard time seating 20+ people if each one isn't paying for a meal! Does that not in fact make the venue of the event grounds to not list the event, as it means a payment is required to attend?

 

Even more nonsensical to me is the ability to magically waive this "no commercial links" rule by putting the offending link in an externally hosted web page, and linking to that from the GC page. I had to go through the exact same shenanigans with TPTB for the GCF event I hosted, and while I complied to get my event listed, it doesn't make any more sense to me now than it did then!

 

If the rule is enforced, it should be applied not just to the GC page, but to anything that page links to, regardless of how many levels of indirection are involved. Otherwise, it is just a mockery of a rule with an annoying way to subvert the intent.

Share this post


Link to post

That's okay. Your response tells me everything I need know regarding your willingness to actually consider other points of view regarding this matter. My apologies for interrupting your jihad.

I have no wish to argue. You misunderstood my point and quoted me out of context. Please accept my apology (sorry!), I had no wish to offend. I do however disagree that a pdf menu is a commercial website. (Regardless of where it is hosted)

 

Website - Wikipedia

 

A PDF is not a website, and the hypertext transport protocol that the www happens to use is used for many other things. I think this is an important difference in this case, because a listing to their website would be significantly different. (IMO, still quite fine though) A menus purpose is to show what the restaurant serves. A website is usually far more advertising oriented.

 

My points were, and remain:

-> Unless I am misreading/reading the wrong guidelines, they say no to caches that require entering a business, purchasing things,etc. How does having a menu on the listing further the commercial listing violation? (The cache WAS and IS in violation without the menu!)

-> How can this cache be perceived to have a commercial agenda? It is clearly a meeting of geocachers, with no intended benefit to the restaurant. (Unless there is a conspiracy here that I am simply not seeing)

-> A guideline is meant to be flexible. Protocols & policies are not.

 

Clearly the spirit of the guideline is to stop business owners from using geocaching to their personal gain. The guidelines are even worded (for the most part) to that effect, though they seem mildly schizophrenic in nature.

 

Cheers, really, lets keep it light. My apologies to everyone if I came off as anything but.

 

(Love the jihad comment though! lol)

Edited by bandc9

Share this post


Link to post

I think all of these threads would stop if one thing happened.

 

Someone from Groundspeak stepped up and said:

 

"My name is X and I work for and speak for Groundspeak. We have decided to be more stringent enforcing rules around commercialism as it relates to cache names and descriptions. There will the odd discrepancy in the enforcement and we will deal with those on a case by case basis. Our intention is to treat all players fairly and equitably.

 

Please understand that cache approvers are volunteers and acting as directed by Groundspeak. They are not authorized to make policy. Nor are they authorized to speak on behalf of Groundspeak beyond approving caches."

 

 

I am appalled at how Groundspeak has let the approvers to take a ton of abuse (some from me) here without stepping in and supporting their volunteers. I am a volunteer with a K9 Search and Rescue group and I know for a fact my team and the police forces we serve would immediately step in and take responsibility for the volunteers doing what they are told to do.

 

Groundspeak doesn't seem to recognize that the players are customers. And as we all know: The customer comes first in everything we do at Compass!

 

My only regret is that there isn't a competitive website where we could take our business and still enjoy the same volume of caches available. But of course, Groundspeak have made that impossible. Reminds me of buying a PC a few years ago and having no choice for the O/S on it.

 

That is my final two cents on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post

My apologies for interrupting your jihad.

 

uncalled for... but LOL none the less :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

That is my final two cents on this topic.

 

I'm in 100% agreement. I think it's really important people don't blame the volunteers for this. This is an issue Groundspeak needs to step in on. Seems to me the reviewers are just doing as they have for a long time..... but I'm very new around here.

 

I think there would be many competitive sites, but Groundspeak copyrights the data they are given. Until people are willing to submit cache data to two sites (or just one alternative), Groundspeak will be the only significant site. It would be easy to create a (superior) replacement site, but not easy to replace the data.

 

Anyway, I'm also done with this subject. I have no wish to create enemies.

Share this post


Link to post

There have been some interesting posts on this topic since I last read it 9-10 hours ago. I for one had been looking for a response from Groundspeak, since it didn't appear to be coming, I went looking for it.

 

I contacted Groundspeak, and without a lot of issues or questions, was talking to one of (what I would consider) the 'higher ups' They told me ifI wished I could mention their name in a reply to this thread, I am going to opt out though since I don't want to encourage them being flooded with people contacting them. I will say I was given direct, and easy access, without question (other than who I was, and the reason for the call, a common courtesy anyway) to this individual.

 

We chatted about this particular thread, and a few other concerns I've had as of late, for some time, likely in the range of 30-45 minutes. At no time did they appear to be rushing me, brushing me off, or any other 'tactic' to make me go away. I would state a concern, or ask a question, and would receive a reply. Of course, similar to any decent discussion, sometimes that would prompt more input from one side or the other, and it would continue.

 

As to this particular thread and topic. Due to privacy rules/regulations, they couldn't disclose all details, nor, to be honest, did I want them to. Therefore we couldn't discuss the particular case of the OP, and, I think some will agree, this thread has grown to envelop more than the original 'menu link' in itself.

 

Now, let's take a step back. Geocaching is? Using a gps, and co-ordinates, to go find something, or someplace, someone else is trying to share with us. Technically, in reality, we would really only need to publish co-ords, (and for an event, a time and date,) and us 'cachers' should be able to find it, right?

 

This has been expanded on, difficulty and terrain ratings have been added, descriptions of what you'll find/do, sometimes times that work better (or worse) due to people, etc.

 

As the rep from Groundspeak said to me, their is no reason to identify the name of the place for an event, and in reality, to keep within the guidelines, it shouldn't be listed. However, it's allowed, primarily for one reason. So that non-geocachers, or at least those without a gps, can find the location. Beyond that, it is a courtesy to other cachers to have an idea what to expect. So because of this, they allow the name (and often the address) of the place to be listed, so those without the gear can find it.

 

Up until now, I had not stated whether I had, or hadn't wanted the link to be allowed. I did ask for someone to explain why it was or wasn't being allowed, for a rep to come tell us if the reviewers couldn't, etc. As of now, I will state, don't allow the use of the link. If someone wants to summarize the menu options and price ranges on the listing, I would expect it would likely be allowed without issue. (Maybe one of our reviewers can give us an idea of what they would or wouldn't allow in this manner.)

 

As to the menu link discussion, I don't believe I will have anything more to say on the matter.

 

To go somewhat off topic, I will state, that the individual at Groundspeak I spoke with was polite, courteous, and wanted to hear my concerns. When I stated I wasn't trying to tell them how to run things, he stated that, in a way, I was. (BTW, I don't recall exact words, so this is paraphrased.) As a user, and customer, calling to voice my opinions, I was having an input on what, and how, things are done, and they welcome that input. My one voice isn't going to change everything they do, but it is added to the considerations. I will also say that after speaking to this individual, I now feel somewhat better about some of the how's and why's that I had concerns with. They also gave me more contact information, so that if I wanted to email them directly, I could do so.

 

If you really feel strongly about something.....I would suggest trying to contact them directly, and see what you receive for a response.

Share this post


Link to post

There have been some interesting posts on this topic since I last read it 9-10 hours ago. I for one had been looking for a response from Groundspeak, since it didn't appear to be coming, I went looking for it.

 

I contacted Groundspeak, and without a lot of issues or questions, was talking to one of (what I would consider) the 'higher ups' They told me ifI wished I could mention their name in a reply to this thread, I am going to opt out though since I don't want to encourage them being flooded with people contacting them. I will say I was given direct, and easy access, without question (other than who I was, and the reason for the call, a common courtesy anyway) to this individual.

 

We chatted about this particular thread, and a few other concerns I've had as of late, for some time, likely in the range of 30-45 minutes. At no time did they appear to be rushing me, brushing me off, or any other 'tactic' to make me go away. I would state a concern, or ask a question, and would receive a reply. Of course, similar to any decent discussion, sometimes that would prompt more input from one side or the other, and it would continue.

 

As to this particular thread and topic. Due to privacy rules/regulations, they couldn't disclose all details, nor, to be honest, did I want them to. Therefore we couldn't discuss the particular case of the OP, and, I think some will agree, this thread has grown to envelop more than the original 'menu link' in itself.

 

Now, let's take a step back. Geocaching is? Using a gps, and co-ordinates, to go find something, or someplace, someone else is trying to share with us. Technically, in reality, we would really only need to publish co-ords, (and for an event, a time and date,) and us 'cachers' should be able to find it, right?

 

This has been expanded on, difficulty and terrain ratings have been added, descriptions of what you'll find/do, sometimes times that work better (or worse) due to people, etc.

 

As the rep from Groundspeak said to me, their is no reason to identify the name of the place for an event, and in reality, to keep within the guidelines, it shouldn't be listed. However, it's allowed, primarily for one reason. So that non-geocachers, or at least those without a gps, can find the location. Beyond that, it is a courtesy to other cachers to have an idea what to expect. So because of this, they allow the name (and often the address) of the place to be listed, so those without the gear can find it.

 

Up until now, I had not stated whether I had, or hadn't wanted the link to be allowed. I did ask for someone to explain why it was or wasn't being allowed, for a rep to come tell us if the reviewers couldn't, etc. As of now, I will state, don't allow the use of the link. If someone wants to summarize the menu options and price ranges on the listing, I would expect it would likely be allowed without issue. (Maybe one of our reviewers can give us an idea of what they would or wouldn't allow in this manner.)

 

As to the menu link discussion, I don't believe I will have anything more to say on the matter.

 

To go somewhat off topic, I will state, that the individual at Groundspeak I spoke with was polite, courteous, and wanted to hear my concerns. When I stated I wasn't trying to tell them how to run things, he stated that, in a way, I was. (BTW, I don't recall exact words, so this is paraphrased.) As a user, and customer, calling to voice my opinions, I was having an input on what, and how, things are done, and they welcome that input. My one voice isn't going to change everything they do, but it is added to the considerations. I will also say that after speaking to this individual, I now feel somewhat better about some of the how's and why's that I had concerns with. They also gave me more contact information, so that if I wanted to email them directly, I could do so.

 

If you really feel strongly about something.....I would suggest trying to contact them directly, and see what you receive for a response.

 

All very good information from a nice level head. But how many 30-45 minute phone calls could they avoid and how many angsty threads would stop if a representative would post a similar explanation here? or any another forum thread.

 

What seems to happen a lot is a guideline starts to tighten and no one's really told about that until they submit a cache and the reviewer kicks it back because it doesn't meet the new higher standard. And people get mad because they've ALWAYS been allowed to do it in the past. And yes, I know about no precedents.

 

If I was running a business like this, I'd try to communicate with the customers a bit more. I'm not talking about just asking for opinions (a plus though), but when a business decision is made that affects us as hiders, why not post a forum announcement, send it in the weekly emails, or something, to tell people that guidelines are being interpreted differently now, so act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post

So now that we have beaten this one to death, will Groundspeak actually respond to either this thread or the one from Nozzletime in the website forum? It would certainly go a long way!

 

It is clear to me that everything in this area is absolutely unclear and should be defined more. I didn't realize that an entire storm would brew from my stance on the menu issue, but I am glad that it has. I truly hope that Groundspeak can step up on this and the greater issues surrounding it and really focus on getting it right for their customers.

 

greywynd you certainly went above and beyond to talk to them and that is great. I also spoke directly via email and this was the result. Although I am sure there was some great info shared with you, I just wish they would share it with us and give some feedback here.

 

Anyway, the actual event is tomorrow night and menu link or no menu link, it will be a delicious gathering.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello to my northern (and sometimes southern) neighbors-

 

Please know that Michigan cachers are feeling your pain too!

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

Yeah, but that's mainly 'cause there are a very few, small-minded individuals that have nothing better to do than constantly attack our Org, and our good reviewers. It's just like elementary school, and the 3rd graders are jealous of the 5 th graders, but all they can do is shout and yell a lot. Eventually they will implode from everybody ignoring them to make them go away.

Share this post


Link to post

I just skimmed through this topic so have probably missed many a fine point. Just to add my 2 cents

 

Has anyone considered that Groundspeak may be taking this action to avoid litigation from other companies against them, and not just the lost revenues from advertising?

 

When another company’s name, trademark or other intellectual property is used in a cache listing, AND, Groundspeak endorses the use of that property by publishing the listing they may become liable for damages to the property owner.

 

The use of the trademark “WAL-MART” in a cache listing to “attract” finders and encourage the geocaching activity so that Groundspeak makes more money from premium memberships is simple and a logical conclusion that some lawyers will come too.

 

Sounds ridiculous huh. - Its not.

 

If I owned a Company and saw the unauthorized use of my property so that Groundspeak could make money, or, some not for profit Geocaching club could fund raise, I may consider my options for litigation and getting some damages back. Of course I can’t sue all those premium paid geocachers but I sure can find and sue Groundspeak.

 

I am not an expert in this but I do have experience in these matters through my place of business.

 

BTW when cachedrone asked me to modify a cache listing I had with the word Walmart in it I modified it. It is still listed. Don’t feel any worse over it as I believe I understand what is going on.

Share this post


Link to post

Since there has been no change in the guidelines, there is really nothing to announce. One thing as a reviewer I try to maintain is consistency, with the number of reviewers (most being sock accounts of mtn-man) there is bound to be some inconsistency. Interpretations may also vary, after meeting with Groundspeaks guideline expert

 

92f5f681-6e2f-40f2-a799-fb376fe84adc.jpg

 

coupled with my years dealing with the customer in my real world job, I do understand that the guidelines are there for a reason and the need for consistency. While in my reviewing duties, items such as this was never meant to be a point of contention. A simple solution is to appeal the decision, which was done. As an alternative to the direct link to the commercial website or menu (which does contain commercial logos) you can add the following, "Venue and menu info is available upon request" and can be done through email by the event host while maintaining the event guidelines. I do hope you event every success and I wish we could attend.

 

Happy Geocaching!

Share this post


Link to post

I just skimmed through this topic so have probably missed many a fine point. Just to add my 2 cents

 

Has anyone considered that Groundspeak may be taking this action to avoid litigation from other companies against them, and not just the lost revenues from advertising?

 

 

 

That doesn't explain why the over 90 other caches that have the name Walmart in them have not been touched.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak also owns Waymarking.

There are numerous categories with trade mark names.

McDonald's, Walmart, and Star Bucks to name a few.

 

So I have to wonder about the commercial caches, and the enforcement of the rules/guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak also owns Waymarking.

There are numerous categories with trade mark names.

McDonald's, Walmart, and Star Bucks to name a few.

 

So I have to wonder about the commercial caches, and the enforcement of the rules/guidelines.

 

Waymarking from its inception specifically allowed marks with a commercial bent. The McDonald's category as I'm sure you are aware was one of the pilot categories.

 

Geocaching is different, and while I can't say that its always been different, its been that way as long as I've been caching. There is a reason the two are on seperate sites. They are different games, and have a different set of rules.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak also owns Waymarking.

There are numerous categories with trade mark names.

McDonald's, Walmart, and Star Bucks to name a few.

 

Good point!

 

Suspect the difference might be the fact that Waymarking really just documents "public" information. Be it by coordinates/locations or photographs. Since this is in the public domain it is owned by all. Much like you cannot be sued for speaking the word "wal-mart".

 

Placing your own opinion in the waymark does not infringe on property rights. Now if you enticed people to visit the waymark by use of someone else’s property then an issue may arise. Suspect that may be the issue behind some of the geocache listings.

Share this post


Link to post

I just skimmed through this topic so have probably missed many a fine point. Just to add my 2 cents

 

Has anyone considered that Groundspeak may be taking this action to avoid litigation from other companies against them, and not just the lost revenues from advertising?

 

 

 

That doesn't explain why the over 90 other caches that have the name Walmart in them have not been touched.

 

Maybe they just have not got to them yet. If they are still there after a period of time then maybe there has been some other driver behind these actions. That reason I will be interested in as I had changed one of my listings to comply

Share this post


Link to post

I vote for leaving the menu link in.

 

My reason is because it gives people the chance to see the entrance fee before hand, plan around diet restrictions and set a budget.

 

I also believe that if you are hosting an event at the establishment you have called a head and have permission to tell people where and what is on the menu.

 

The address and name is important as not everyone who comes has a GPS.

 

I say this as the host of monthly get togethers where we encourage newbies to come out and meet with us. We have been doing them at the same place for over a year now with crowds of 50+.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, let's try a new twist on this. We've been focusing so much on the "commercial" guideline I'm not surprised no one mentioned this one:

 

"In the interest of file security, caches that require the downloading, installing or running of data and/or executables may not be published."

 

If I recall correctly, the original link which caused so much angst was a direct link to a PDF file. Certainly you can make the case that the PDF was not required as part of the cache and therefore the above guideline does not apply. Of course, if it wasn't required then it shouldn't have been such a big deal to just remove it in the first place and move on.

 

I still stand by my original position: Anyone who is that concerned over the menu could easily find it themselves. Heck, I just typed in Barleyworks into Google (oo, two commercial words!) and what did I find? The restaurant was link #1 and the PDF of the menu was Link #2. Talk about a whole lot of gnashing of teeth over nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
The address and name is important as not everyone who comes has a GPS.

 

100% agree. If this information had been what was requested to be removed then I would be as up in arms as the majority of the people in this thread. These gatherings are valuable to new people who do not have a GPSr yet and want to learn. This is vital information, linking to the menu from the cache page is not, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, quite the soap opera here in the Canadian forums.

 

Here I thought Canadians were known to just let stuff roll off their backs and say, "Oh well, whatever!"

 

My take on this is... I don't care. Groundspeak makes the rules, and rules are rules. If the cache page has a lack of information (no menu) or a dumb nickname (Wally World, Crappy Tire, Future Scrap, Taco Hell, McChoke & Puke's, Burger Thing, etc.) the co-ordinates are still going to take me to this place that has a fake name and I could find out for myself what they have on the menu or what the place is actually called when I get there. But that's just me and I'm a "Oh well, whatever!" kind of guy, so... whatever!

 

My vote on the menu ordeal: Reviewers, do your job.

 

*prepares to get flamed*

 

K bye!

Share this post


Link to post

The address and name is important as not everyone who comes has a GPS.

 

Not to be a jerk or anything but if someone doesn't have a GPS, what the hell are they doing on gc.com website?? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Not to be a jerk or anything but if someone doesn't have a GPS, what the hell are they doing on gc.com website?? :unsure:

 

See Post #183 above.

 

I know I was checking out the website before I bought a GPS.

Share this post


Link to post

The address and name is important as not everyone who comes has a GPS.

 

Not to be a jerk or anything but if someone doesn't have a GPS, what the hell are they doing on gc.com website?? :unsure:

They may have just heard about geocaching and wanted to find out more about the activity before going out and buying a GPS. Kind of like when I first started to play paintball, I rented my equipment, now I own my own and still have fun (when the wife lets me).

Share this post


Link to post

Sure looks like that cache should not be approved.

 

Are we talking double standard??

 

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 think that would fall under the "no commercial caches without prior approval from Groundspeak" piece. I'm guessing that Groundspeak gave approval for this obvious commercial tie-in. As they've stated in the guidelines. Any cacher may apply for that exception. Whether you get it or not, well that's another question.

 

Edit to add actual guideline quote:

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.

 

No double standard really.

Edited by KoosKoos

Share this post


Link to post

Actually it is becoming more about WORDS used in cache listings.

 

There have been a whole bunch of caches recently that have had to have the names changed in the niagara area.

 

They all had to do with cereal.

 

So it now looks like any cache that has the name of anything in it is going to have to be removed.

 

Seems if it is a copywrited name or owned by some company it is going to have to be changed.

 

Here is one, you don't want to mess with the movie industry

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...78-c66e9b62b286

 

Or how about the oscars?

 

They have already gone after radio stations holding oscar parties.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...81-2a59f7546744

 

Or how about the candy people?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...5a-f7c151e65bd4

 

And you really don't want to mess with the muppets do you?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...37-9a26785ab539

 

How about a shopping mall?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...69-f637c4e788c1

 

How about messing with disney?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f0-c2184a272819

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ea-9b364d7291e7

 

I am sure there are many more caches that could be found using some companies names.

 

Geocaching is going to become Orwellian?

 

 

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

 

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

After reading this LONG thread, it seems likely that the reason GC.COM stood so hard and fast on the ruling is that the person submitting the cache was arrogant, rude, defiant, argumentative, accusatory, demanding and disrespectful. Had they replied with a polite response and a reasonable explanation, it is entirely plausible that either a mutually agreeable compromise could have been reached, or the cache might even have been approved as it was. Some people have mentioned "the old days" and I remember them, too - times when people were polite and respectful, in the forums and in cache logs.

 

The reason GC.COM will not "clarify the rules", may be that a more strict definition, or a more "even enforcement", might tie their hands and force them to ban a cache, or part of a cache - such as a word or a link - to someone who had politely offered a reasonable explanation for having it on the listing. The guidelines are reasonable and rarely too limiting, allowing a broad spectrum of caches and events to be published, with varied possibilities in the listings.

 

My personal experiences with cache approvers/reviewers has rarely been anything short of a positive experience. I haven't always agreed with their decisions or their reasons for their decisions, but I certainly respect that, for the most part, they seem to be reasonable people, doing an enormous amount of work. I can certainly see that when attacked by such a rude and arrogant letter (as that which opened this thread), one might just say, "No. Not this one. Never THIS ONE."

 

I'm actually shocked that so many people, many of whom I know personally, and KNOW to be reasonable people, have sided with someone who so very clearly is simply on a personal rampage. The cause, in this particular case, must come second to the attitude.

 

Count me very firmly, as DO NOT ALLOW THIS MENU LINK.

 

However, that does not preclude the possibility of allowing other MENU (or other) LINKS.

Share this post


Link to post

After all of this discussion it might be a good time to put this one to bed. The decision may not be a popular one but the fall out is now turning cacher against cacher. Players are pointing out other caches and in turn those caches are being advised that they must be edited. If that is how everyone wants the Reviewers to spend the time they are willing to volunteer then you can expect lengthy delays in reviewing new caches and further angst being created.

 

You may feel that expressing "Why is this cache allowed?" or "These people did it, why can't I?" might be helpful but unless the cache is actually detrimental to the game the only result that will happen is fueling this fire further. By the same token, if you see an actual problem that needs addressing then you should bring it up.

 

On a case by case basis,

If you feel your cache has been treated unfairly you can email appeals@geocaching.com

If you feel a reviewer has acted or treated you unfairly you can email reviewers@geocaching.com

Share this post


Link to post

The biggest thing that has YET to be ANSWERED is,

WHY THE HECK DID THIS ALL START?

 

WHO THE HECK STARTED THIS?

Share this post


Link to post

If some company contacted TPTB about its name being used in a listing then we are not ever going to see any caches published for a couple of months at the very least.

 

There are thousands and thousands of caches that are going to have to be renamed and that will included archived caches.

 

Maybe its time to take a stand on all this till a proper answer is given on it all from TPTB!

 

Maybe everyone should just stop putting out new caches?

 

Let their PAID membership lapse?

 

As it stands this has been going on for a week now, so TPTB do know about this thread, they do know WHY it is being done, but they choose to leave everyone in the DARK!

 

Again as someone said, its fine for Waymarking so there is no reason it can't be fine here.

 

The only reasons I can maybe toss this way that it is not fine will again require the renaming all all caches that even think might use a copywritered name, and it would also apply to Waymarking.

Share this post


Link to post

If some company contacted TPTB about its name being used in a listing then we are not ever going to see any caches published for a couple of months at the very least.

 

There are thousands and thousands of caches that are going to have to be renamed and that will included archived caches.

 

Maybe its time to take a stand on all this till a proper answer is given on it all from TPTB!

 

Maybe everyone should just stop putting out new caches?

 

Let their PAID membership lapse?

 

As it stands this has been going on for a week now, so TPTB do know about this thread, they do know WHY it is being done, but they choose to leave everyone in the DARK!

 

Again as someone said, its fine for Waymarking so there is no reason it can't be fine here.

 

The only reasons I can maybe toss this way that it is not fine will again require the renaming all all caches that even think might use a copywritered name, and it would also apply to Waymarking.

 

I have already stopped putting out new caches. My Premium Membership is up in July.

Share this post


Link to post

After all of this discussion it might be a good time to put this one to bed. The decision may not be a popular one but the fall out is now turning cacher against cacher. Players are pointing out other caches and in turn those caches are being advised that they must be edited. If that is how everyone wants the Reviewers to spend the time they are willing to volunteer then you can expect lengthy delays in reviewing new caches and further angst being created.

 

You may feel that expressing "Why is this cache allowed?" or "These people did it, why can't I?" might be helpful but unless the cache is actually detrimental to the game the only result that will happen is fueling this fire further. By the same token, if you see an actual problem that needs addressing then you should bring it up.

 

On a case by case basis,

If you feel your cache has been treated unfairly you can email appeals@geocaching.com

If you feel a reviewer has acted or treated you unfairly you can email reviewers@geocaching.com

 

You can start with the 94 other caches worldwide that have the name WalMart in them that were not singled out. Then move on to Home Depot (about 50 of those). And the list goes on.

Share this post


Link to post

I think I explained my position before in this thread. The what and definately the who will not be named as that is something between the "who", Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers. The commercial guidelines are being followed as we were requested, if you want to boil it down to someone, then that would be me followed by my interpritation of the guidelines which may have lead to some inconsistencies here. Personally, I would just like to go caching without any commercial intent directed at me, intended or not, I would just like to program my GPS and go find a cache. As for the other caches named, well, I am not going to comb the listings for them and I am not going to look over the shoulders of other reviewers to point out they are wrong. I am going to deal with anything in my review area when needed.

 

I think this weekend, after tonight, that is what I am going to do, go caching and not worry about reviewing this weekend.

Share this post


Link to post

I think I explained my position before in this thread. The what and definately the who will not be named as that is something between the "who", Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers. The commercial guidelines are being followed as we were requested, if you want to boil it down to someone, then that would be me followed by my interpritation of the guidelines which may have lead to some inconsistencies here. Personally, I would just like to go caching without any commercial intent directed at me, intended or not, I would just like to program my GPS and go find a cache. As for the other caches named, well, I am not going to comb the listings for them and I am not going to look over the shoulders of other reviewers to point out they are wrong. I am going to deal with anything in my review area when needed.

 

I think this weekend, after tonight, that is what I am going to do, go caching and not worry about reviewing this weekend.

 

Cache-tech, if I lived up there I would go cacheing with you, sounds like you need a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe its time to take a stand on all this till a proper answer is given on it all from TPTB!

 

Maybe everyone should just stop putting out new caches?

 

Let their PAID membership lapse?

 

I should let me paid membership lapse and stop placing caches because a reviewer requested a link on a cache page be removed?

 

Seems a wee bit melodramatic to me. :D

 

It's great fun to come into the forums and see this thread still alive and well. The passionate reaction amazes me. I'd hate to see how up in arms people would get if there was an issue that was actually worth caring about rearing its head.

Share this post


Link to post

If some company contacted TPTB about its name being used in a listing then we are not ever going to see any caches published for a couple of months at the very least.

 

There are thousands and thousands of caches that are going to have to be renamed and that will included archived caches.

 

Maybe its time to take a stand on all this till a proper answer is given on it all from TPTB!

 

Maybe everyone should just stop putting out new caches?

 

Let their PAID membership lapse?

 

As it stands this has been going on for a week now, so TPTB do know about this thread, they do know WHY it is being done, but they choose to leave everyone in the DARK!

 

Again as someone said, its fine for Waymarking so there is no reason it can't be fine here.

 

The only reasons I can maybe toss this way that it is not fine will again require the renaming all all caches that even think might use a copywritered name, and it would also apply to Waymarking.

 

I have already stopped putting out new caches. My Premium Membership is up in July.

 

Do I smell a geo-cide coming on?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...