Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Nozzletime

Stop the insanity!

Recommended Posts

In the Canada forums a topic regarding the removal of a restaurant menu at an upcoming event has turned into archiving all caches in Ontario with the name "Walmart" in the title.

Is GC planning on revisiting all caches with a business reference and archiving them too??

Edited by Nozzletime

Share this post


Link to post

In the Canada forums a topic regarding the removal of a restaurant menu at an upcoming event has turned into archiving all caches with the name "Walmart" in the title.

Is GC planning on revisiting all caches with a business reference and archiving them too??

Does a Cache need to have the name of a nearby bussiness in the title?

Of course not, so the cache owner should just change the name of the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak has made it clear that a business name is not permitted to appear in a cache title without special permission from Groundspeak. I'm glad to see that the reviewers in Canada are following Groundspeak's instructions.

 

If a cache owner is dead-set on using the business name in their cache title, they should write to Groundspeak and ask. If it's not important enough to ask about it, then (1) it shouldn't be worth the energy of complaining about it in the forums, and (2) it should be easy enough to change the cache title to something else.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak has made it clear that a business name is not permitted to appear in a cache title without special permission from Groundspeak. I'm glad to see that the reviewers in Canada are following Groundspeak's instructions.

 

If a cache owner is dead-set on using the business name in their cache title, they should write to Groundspeak and ask. If it's not important enough to ask about it, then (1) it shouldn't be worth the energy of complaining about it in the forums, and (2) it should be easy enough to change the cache title to something else.

 

Would not the existing caches be grandfathered?

Share this post


Link to post

Do we really need yet ANOTHER thread on this topic?

 

The question can be asked in multiple ways, but it won't change the answer.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak has made it clear that a business name is not permitted to appear in a cache title without special permission from Groundspeak. I'm glad to see that the reviewers in Canada are following Groundspeak's instructions.

 

If a cache owner is dead-set on using the business name in their cache title, they should write to Groundspeak and ask. If it's not important enough to ask about it, then (1) it shouldn't be worth the energy of complaining about it in the forums, and (2) it should be easy enough to change the cache title to something else.

 

Would not the existing caches be grandfathered?

 

"They" have not been allowing business names in the cache title for several months, and this one (Wally World Oshawa) apparently got by Cache Drone. I would say, just from personal observation, that existing business name caches are grandfathered. Keystone? :ph34r:

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak has made it clear that a business name is not permitted to appear in a cache title without special permission from Groundspeak. I'm glad to see that the reviewers in Canada are following Groundspeak's instructions.

 

If a cache owner is dead-set on using the business name in their cache title, they should write to Groundspeak and ask. If it's not important enough to ask about it, then (1) it shouldn't be worth the energy of complaining about it in the forums, and (2) it should be easy enough to change the cache title to something else.

 

Would not the existing caches be grandfathered?

 

"They" have not been allowing business names in the cache title for several months, and this one (Wally World Oshawa) apparently got by Cache Drone. I would say, just from personal observation, that existing business name caches are grandfathered. Keystone? :ph34r:

 

Wouldn't using someone else's business name be a possible copyright/trademark issue? I would think that grandfathering would not be an issue if there are possible legal repurcussions.

 

but I'm certainly not a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak has made it clear that a business name is not permitted to appear in a cache title without special permission from Groundspeak. I'm glad to see that the reviewers in Canada are following Groundspeak's instructions.

 

If a cache owner is dead-set on using the business name in their cache title, they should write to Groundspeak and ask. If it's not important enough to ask about it, then (1) it shouldn't be worth the energy of complaining about it in the forums, and (2) it should be easy enough to change the cache title to something else.

 

Would not the existing caches be grandfathered?

 

"They" have not been allowing business names in the cache title for several months, and this one (Wally World Oshawa) apparently got by Cache Drone. I would say, just from personal observation, that existing business name caches are grandfathered. Keystone? :ph34r:

Are we considering 'Wally World' to be an actual business name?

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak has made it clear that a business name is not permitted to appear in a cache title without special permission from Groundspeak. I'm glad to see that the reviewers in Canada are following Groundspeak's instructions.

 

If a cache owner is dead-set on using the business name in their cache title, they should write to Groundspeak and ask. If it's not important enough to ask about it, then (1) it shouldn't be worth the energy of complaining about it in the forums, and (2) it should be easy enough to change the cache title to something else.

 

Would not the existing caches be grandfathered?

 

"They" have not been allowing business names in the cache title for several months, and this one (Wally World Oshawa) apparently got by Cache Drone. I would say, just from personal observation, that existing business name caches are grandfathered. Keystone? :ph34r:

Are we considering 'Wally World' to be an actual business name?

 

No. The cache in question had to be changed to Wally World. It used to be Wal-Mart. After reading the thread in the Canada forum (and my head is hurting), it appears three Wally World micros were retracted, and two of them were almost a year old. Most of the discussion about that begins with This post.

Share this post


Link to post

There are over 90 other caches world wide with the word WalMart or Wal-Mart in it. Why are they not being targeted??

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak has made it clear that a business name is not permitted to appear in a cache title without special permission from Groundspeak. I'm glad to see that the reviewers in Canada are following Groundspeak's instructions.

 

If a cache owner is dead-set on using the business name in their cache title, they should write to Groundspeak and ask. If it's not important enough to ask about it, then (1) it shouldn't be worth the energy of complaining about it in the forums, and (2) it should be easy enough to change the cache title to something else.

 

Would not the existing caches be grandfathered?

 

"They" have not been allowing business names in the cache title for several months, and this one (Wally World Oshawa) apparently got by Cache Drone. I would say, just from personal observation, that existing business name caches are grandfathered. Keystone? :ph34r:

Are we considering 'Wally World' to be an actual business name?

 

No. The cache in question had to be changed to Wally World. It used to be Wal-Mart. After reading the thread in the Canada forum (and my head is hurting), it appears three Wally World micros were retracted, and two of them were almost a year old. Most of the discussion about that begins with This post.

I skimmed part of that ugly thread this morning. I'll not be returning to it.

 

So basically, the reviewers are enforcing a policy. That enforcement requires some very minor tweaking to cache titles.

 

I'm over it.

Share this post


Link to post

There are over 90 other caches world wide with the word WalMart or Wal-Mart in it. Why are they not being targeted??

 

Got a list? I'm sure the local reviewers would appreciate the assistance in tracking down caches whose owners are violating the guidelines so they can take appropriate action.

 

The matter seems simple enough... You want to have a commercial cache, contact Groundspeak first. That's what the guidelines say. They are a business; pay them enough money and they'll probably say yes.

Share this post


Link to post

There are over 90 other caches world wide with the word WalMart or Wal-Mart in it. Why are they not being targeted??

If they are 'targeted', the cache owners can change the names. No big.

Share this post


Link to post

There are over 90 other caches world wide with the word WalMart or Wal-Mart in it. Why are they not being targeted??

 

So basically, the issue is Cache Drone and Cache Tech going after "old" Wal-Mart caches, where no other reviewers anywhere else in the world appear to be doing so?

Share this post


Link to post

There are over 90 other caches world wide with the word WalMart or Wal-Mart in it. Why are they not being targeted??

 

Give them time. They have other things going on I'm sure, besides getting paid the big bucks to review caches. Maybe if you write some emails demanding that they change the names, it will get done faster?

Share this post


Link to post
There are over 90 other caches world wide with the word WalMart or Wal-Mart in it. Why are they not being targeted??
Got a list?
From the Hide & Seek a Cache Page, i did a search for both "Wal-Mart" and "WalMart" and came up with a total of 94 caches. Click the links to see them.

 

As to Tequila's initial question of why they aren't being targeted, wouldn't that just be more commercialism?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

target_logo.jpg

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

There are over 90 other caches world wide with the word WalMart or Wal-Mart in it. Why are they not being targeted??

 

Got a list? I'm sure the local reviewers would appreciate the assistance in tracking down caches whose owners are violating the guidelines so they can take appropriate action.

 

What - the reviewers can use the keyword search? That proves the keyword search feature is broken.

Share this post


Link to post

There are over 90 other caches world wide with the word WalMart or Wal-Mart in it. Why are they not being targeted??

 

natlampvacation.jpg

 

I'm sure someone is working on it..

Share this post


Link to post

The caches in this area (Home of WalMart) are called Tramlaw. Maybe that's how they can be used in the cache title.

Share this post


Link to post

There are over 90 other caches world wide with the word WalMart or Wal-Mart in it. Why are they not being targeted??

 

So basically, the issue is Cache Drone and Cache Tech going after "old" Wal-Mart caches, where no other reviewers anywhere else in the world appear to be doing so?

 

I have had to change a cache that had a referance to a commercial endevor...

In New York State...

After a polite e-mail I got from the reviewer, I have no problem with the restriction...

So Canada, don't feel you are being singled out...

Them's the rules... either play nice or don't play...

Edited by Peconic Bay Sailors

Share this post


Link to post

I have read, on another forum, that all events are now being approved by Groundspeak Lackeys. AND, once they are submitted, they may not be edited? Is there anything official on this?

Share this post


Link to post

I have read, on another forum, that all events are now being approved by Groundspeak Lackeys. AND, once they are submitted, they may not be edited? Is there anything official on this?

 

I've got a friend in the sign business who purchased some photography to use in his business. The person sold the photos to him, waited for him to use it on a sign and then sued him for $10,000, claiming that he owned the rights to the photos and did not give explicit permission to use them. Turns out this person makes a living doing this and the vast majority of people settle out of court because they are small businesses and don't have the money to fight it.

 

The result: Whenever he buys photography, the seller is required to fill out tons of paperwork and is basically required to sign their life over to him. Does he tell this whole story everytime someone complains about having to fill out the paperwork? Probably not.

 

It sucks for everyone, but unfortunately, that's the world we live in. If they start allowing the names of businesses and downloads from other businesses websites to be posted on groundspeaks websites, it seems to me it might open up avenues for litigation...

Share this post


Link to post

I have read, on another forum, that all events are now being approved by Groundspeak Lackeys. AND, once they are submitted, they may not be edited? Is there anything official on this?

Two of the issues which absolutely require escalation to Groundspeak are commercialism and solicitation. So, any event where there's "sponsors" and sales of geocoins and t-shirts will get kicked upstairs. That covers a pretty fair percentage. Or, any event that talks about passing the hat for charity X or bringing a toy to give to a needy kid would also get kicked upstairs.

 

If someone sets up a nice, simple event ("let's get together at picnic shelter #8 in City Park for a picnic lunch, followed by geocoin and travel bug trading") then the reviewer will publish them. There's no issue to refer up to Groundspeak.

 

Once an event cache is listed, it is fairly common for owners to edit the event page to add "details." If those "details" are about who is bringing which food item to the potluck, that's fine. If the "details" are to add sponsor logos, and your reviewer sees this or receives a complaint, then the owner is going to hear some follow-up feedback.

Share this post


Link to post

I really have to hand it to the reviewers and moderators...... some of the most petty stuff gets the biggest attention and whining here...... ;)

 

I had a cache submitted with the title "Is Your Pet Smart?" and was kindly asked by the reviewer to not use the phrase "Pet Smart" even though it's not the real name of the store. Big whoop. I change the name to "My Pet Goat." Geez. I had to type a dozen letters..... broke my heart it did. I don't think I'll ever list another cache..... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I have read, on another forum, that all events are now being approved by Groundspeak Lackeys. AND, once they are submitted, they may not be edited? Is there anything official on this?

Two of the issues which absolutely require escalation to Groundspeak are commercialism and solicitation. So, any event where there's "sponsors" and sales of geocoins and t-shirts will get kicked upstairs. That covers a pretty fair percentage. Or, any event that talks about passing the hat for charity X or bringing a toy to give to a needy kid would also get kicked upstairs.

 

If someone sets up a nice, simple event ("let's get together at picnic shelter #8 in City Park for a picnic lunch, followed by geocoin and travel bug trading") then the reviewer will publish them. There's no issue to refer up to Groundspeak.

 

Once an event cache is listed, it is fairly common for owners to edit the event page to add "details." If those "details" are about who is bringing which food item to the potluck, that's fine. If the "details" are to add sponsor logos, and your reviewer sees this or receives a complaint, then the owner is going to hear some follow-up feedback.

 

Not so for Michigan Keystone. Michael has micro-managed his way into reviewing ALL events for the forseeable future.

 

It would appear that the definition and/or enforcement of "commercial" caches and events has evolved recently. Thank you Keystone for stepping up and adding some official clarification.

 

It sure would be nice if the published guidelines pertaining to these issues would be updated to reflect these changes. I'm sure it would have a calming effect on the "insanity" we have been experiencing lately.

 

The Michigan and Canadian reviewers sure have been left hanging in the breeze with this recent policy change. I feel for them. Not a good move on GroundSpeaks part to put their VOLUNTEER reviewers in positions like this.

 

I'm not disputing GroundSpeaks right to make, change, or enforce anything they want. I am disputing the way it is being handled.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

Share this post


Link to post

I have read, on another forum, that all events are now being approved by Groundspeak Lackeys. AND, once they are submitted, they may not be edited? Is there anything official on this?

Two of the issues which absolutely require escalation to Groundspeak are commercialism and solicitation. So, any event where there's "sponsors" and sales of geocoins and t-shirts will get kicked upstairs. That covers a pretty fair percentage. Or, any event that talks about passing the hat for charity X or bringing a toy to give to a needy kid would also get kicked upstairs.

 

If someone sets up a nice, simple event ("let's get together at picnic shelter #8 in City Park for a picnic lunch, followed by geocoin and travel bug trading") then the reviewer will publish them. There's no issue to refer up to Groundspeak.

 

Once an event cache is listed, it is fairly common for owners to edit the event page to add "details." If those "details" are about who is bringing which food item to the potluck, that's fine. If the "details" are to add sponsor logos, and your reviewer sees this or receives a complaint, then the owner is going to hear some follow-up feedback.

 

How would it be handled if the event is at a restaurant? Are we allowed to have the name & address and perhaps a link to their website or menu on the cache page? Those are things potential attendees are usually interested in

Share this post


Link to post

How would it be handled if the event is at a restaurant? Are we allowed to have the name & address and perhaps a link to their website or menu on the cache page? Those are things potential attendees are usually interested in

 

If the event is being held at a restaurant-

 

name & address - Yes, once on the cache page

link to their website - not without prior permission from Groundspeak

link to their menu - not without prior permission from Groundspeak

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

Share this post


Link to post

I have not significantly changed the way in which I apply the commercial cache guidelines over the past year or two. Gradual tweaks, yes. But there's been no major recent policy change of which I am aware. If there was, I would have heard about it, and at some point, the listing guidelines would be updated.

 

Probably the biggest adjustment I've made is to refer more commercial caches to Groundspeak, rather than trying to negotiate changes in the wording with the cache owner. I think this is a good thing. It ensures consistency, and takes the burden off me as a volunteer to make decisions on behalf of a company as to what commercialism they are willing to allow.

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post

I really have to hand it to the reviewers and moderators...... some of the most petty stuff gets the biggest attention and whining here...... :huh:

 

I had a cache submitted with the title "Is Your Pet Smart?" and was kindly asked by the reviewer to not use the phrase "Pet Smart" even though it's not the real name of the store. Big whoop. I change the name to "My Pet Goat." Geez. I had to type a dozen letters..... broke my heart it did. I don't think I'll ever list another cache..... ;)

 

Not that I think that this will ever be a problem but I find it odd that I won't be able to use my own sir name in a cache title without asking Groundspeak for permission first because my name is similar to the name of a luggage company. But like I just said, I doubt this will ever be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post

I have not significantly changed the way in which I apply the commercial cache guidelines over the past year or two. Gradual tweaks, yes. But there's been no major recent policy change of which I am aware. If there was, I would have heard about it, and at some point, the listing guidelines would be updated.

 

Probably the biggest adjustment I've made is to refer more commercial caches to Groundspeak, rather than trying to negotiate changes in the wording with the cache owner. I think this is a good thing. It ensures consistency, and takes the burden off me as a volunteer to make decisions on behalf of a company as to what commercialism they are willing to allow.

 

Keystone, I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but C'mon now. People know darn well they weren't seeing demands to remove menu's from event cache pages, or established Wal-Mart caches publications revoked, as recently as a few months ago.

 

And you should really back off taking that statement as far back as two years, seeing as you gleefully published a Sheetz cache 13 months ago. ;) Elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Sheetz caches have been published as recently as October 31, 2007, and November 20th 2007, including one with their corporate logo as a background image. It's all about the consistency. :huh:

 

It would be very nice if these poor Canadians could hear from Michael, most notably in the super-angsty 7 page thread in the Canadian forum.

Share this post


Link to post

I have not significantly changed the way in which I apply the commercial cache guidelines over the past year or two. Gradual tweaks, yes. But there's been no major recent policy change of which I am aware. If there was, I would have heard about it, and at some point, the listing guidelines would be updated.

 

Probably the biggest adjustment I've made is to refer more commercial caches to Groundspeak, rather than trying to negotiate changes in the wording with the cache owner. I think this is a good thing. It ensures consistency, and takes the burden off me as a volunteer to make decisions on behalf of a company as to what commercialism they are willing to allow.

 

Keystone, I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but C'mon now. People know darn well they weren't seeing demands to remove menu's from event cache pages, or established Wal-Mart caches publications revoked, as recently as a few months ago.

 

And you should really back off taking that statement as far back as two years, seeing as you gleefully published a Sheetz cache 13 months ago. ;) Elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Sheetz caches have been published as recently as October 31, 2007, and November 20th 2007, including one with their corporate logo as a background image. It's all about the consistency. :huh:

 

It would be very nice if these poor Canadians could hear from Michael, most notably in the super-angsty 7 page thread in the Canadian forum.

Whatsa 'Sheetz'?

Share this post


Link to post

I have not significantly changed the way in which I apply the commercial cache guidelines over the past year or two. Gradual tweaks, yes. But there's been no major recent policy change of which I am aware. If there was, I would have heard about it, and at some point, the listing guidelines would be updated.

 

Probably the biggest adjustment I've made is to refer more commercial caches to Groundspeak, rather than trying to negotiate changes in the wording with the cache owner. I think this is a good thing. It ensures consistency, and takes the burden off me as a volunteer to make decisions on behalf of a company as to what commercialism they are willing to allow.

 

Keystone, I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but C'mon now. People know darn well they weren't seeing demands to remove menu's from event cache pages, or established Wal-Mart caches publications revoked, as recently as a few months ago.

 

And you should really back off taking that statement as far back as two years, seeing as you gleefully published a Sheetz cache 13 months ago. :huh: Elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Sheetz caches have been published as recently as October 31, 2007, and November 20th 2007, including one with their corporate logo as a background image. It's all about the consistency. ;)

 

It would be very nice if these poor Canadians could hear from Michael, most notably in the super-angsty 7 page thread in the Canadian forum.

Whatsa 'Sheetz'?

 

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetz. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

AGAIN??

 

GC1941T

From "SHREDDIES-The Cereal Killer"

 

to "SHREDDED MEAT-The Cereal Killer"

 

I hope I never mention Tupperware, or a Lock and Lock

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect that the answer from any reviewer regarding caches that are already listed is that they slipped by. I don't know whether it's Groundspeak policy or personal policy that makes some reviewers go back and take care of these retroactively, nor do I think it matters.

Share this post


Link to post

AGAIN??

 

GC1941T

From "SHREDDIES-The Cereal Killer"

 

to "SHREDDED MEAT-The Cereal Killer"

 

I hope I never mention Tupperware, or a Lock and Lock

 

Speaking of cereal, do not look at the Niagara Region. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect that the answer from any reviewer regarding caches that are already listed is that they slipped by. I don't know whether it's Groundspeak policy or personal policy that makes some reviewers go back and take care of these retroactively, nor do I think it matters.

 

The folks that frequent these forums can and will find anything relevant to any topic. For that reason alone, one shouldn't make any sweeping or guaranteed statements about anything unless there's 100% certainty. I know that I didn't realize that part of the title of that cache that TheWhiteUrkel linked to was a business name, so perhaps neither did Keystone. I don't know.

 

Since I don't believe that Groundspeak has any complete documentation of instructions that they've provided to various reviewers over the last little while pertaining to perceived commercial caches, nor do I believe that they have a complete history of their direct communication with various cachers over this issue, I don't think that they could make a statement about anything with any certainty.

 

What is very, very disappointing is that with this kind of vocality from the user community, Groundspeak hasn't directly communicated anything, even without a guarantee. ;)

 

** Edits for spelling :huh:

Edited by AdventureRat

Share this post


Link to post

Keystone, I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but C'mon now. People know darn well they weren't seeing demands to remove menu's from event cache pages, or established Wal-Mart caches publications revoked, as recently as a few months ago.

 

And you should really back off taking that statement as far back as two years, seeing as you gleefully published a Sheetz cache 13 months ago. ;) Elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Sheetz caches have been published as recently as October 31, 2007, and November 20th 2007, including one with their corporate logo as a background image. It's all about the consistency. :huh:

1. I've been referring events to Groundspeak for commercialism for quite some time. There is one recurring event in my review territory where Groundspeak allowed a link to the restaurant's website. The point is, you have to ask them.

 

2. It's been quite awhile since I've published a cache with "Wal-Mart" in the title -- June 2006, to be precise, and September 2005 prior to that. I recall publishing one in West Virginia a few years ago, but the owner geocided awhile later because, among other things, I wouldn't let him list all the restaurants that were available at an expressway interchange.

 

3. You'll find the occasional "play on words" like "Fall Mart" (construction of a nearby Wal-Mart was halted due to a massive landslide), "StuffMart," "Muggle Mart," "Dome Hepot" and even one "Home Depot" cache where I grilled the owner and learned that the cache was hidden at his house near a commuter train station or something like that. With thousands of caches published, there are always going to be a few where someone can take issue with the judgement. Often the end result is a compromise effort. But these examples are few and far between. In contrast, not a week goes by without me referring a cache to Groundspeak due to commercial content. In my review territory, you cannot use superlatives or words of endorsement. You can say "parking is available with permission behind the Dairy Queen" but you cannot say "be sure to stop by the Dairy Queen for a yummy treat after finding the cache" or even "my very favorite ice cream stand is located nearby." I've been getting complaints about this strict treatment for a long, long time, so it is no surprise to read about it happening elsewhere.

 

4. I don't know how you would arrive at the characterization of "gleeful" from a one-word log that says "Published," but I do know that in December 2006 I regarded "Three Sheetz to the Wind" caches as a permissible play on words. Today I would likely refer the cache owner to Groundspeak. I cannot speak to what other reviewers might do. I am not their boss and I have no control over their decisions. I trust them to do what's right and to uphold the listing guidelines as best they can.

 

5. Reviewers see the cache pages differently during the review process. One consequence of this is that we do not see the background image displayed (this was fixed recently). I would not hold a commercial background image against the reviewer as an inconsistency, because it's quite likely that (1) the reviewer never saw it, or (2) it was added to the page post-publication when people like to "dress up" their cache pages.

 

So, I stand by my prior post.

Share this post


Link to post

Sheetz is a chain of gas station/convenience stores privately owned by a family in Pennsylvania.

Edited by KJcachers

Share this post


Link to post

Keystone, I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but C'mon now. People know darn well they weren't seeing demands to remove menu's from event cache pages, or established Wal-Mart caches publications revoked, as recently as a few months ago.

 

And you should really back off taking that statement as far back as two years, seeing as you gleefully published a Sheetz cache 13 months ago. ;) Elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Sheetz caches have been published as recently as October 31, 2007, and November 20th 2007, including one with their corporate logo as a background image. It's all about the consistency. ;)

1. I've been referring events to Groundspeak for commercialism for quite some time. There is one recurring event in my review territory where Groundspeak allowed a link to the restaurant's website. The point is, you have to ask them.

 

2. It's been quite awhile since I've published a cache with "Wal-Mart" in the title -- June 2006, to be precise, and September 2005 prior to that. I recall publishing one in West Virginia a few years ago, but the owner geocided awhile later because, among other things, I wouldn't let him list all the restaurants that were available at an expressway interchange.

 

3. You'll find the occasional "play on words" like "Fall Mart" (construction of a nearby Wal-Mart was halted due to a massive landslide), "StuffMart," "Muggle Mart," "Dome Hepot" and even one "Home Depot" cache where I grilled the owner and learned that the cache was hidden at his house near a commuter train station or something like that. With thousands of caches published, there are always going to be a few where someone can take issue with the judgement. Often the end result is a compromise effort. But these examples are few and far between. In contrast, not a week goes by without me referring a cache to Groundspeak due to commercial content. In my review territory, you cannot use superlatives or words of endorsement. You can say "parking is available with permission behind the Dairy Queen" but you cannot say "be sure to stop by the Dairy Queen for a yummy treat after finding the cache" or even "my very favorite ice cream stand is located nearby." I've been getting complaints about this strict treatment for a long, long time, so it is no surprise to read about it happening elsewhere.

 

4. I don't know how you would arrive at the characterization of "gleeful" from a one-word log that says "Published," but I do know that in December 2006 I regarded "Three Sheetz to the Wind" caches as a permissible play on words. Today I would likely refer the cache owner to Groundspeak. I cannot speak to what other reviewers might do. I am not their boss and I have no control over their decisions. I trust them to do what's right and to uphold the listing guidelines as best they can.

 

5. Reviewers see the cache pages differently during the review process. One consequence of this is that we do not see the background image displayed (this was fixed recently). I would not hold a commercial background image against the reviewer as an inconsistency, because it's quite likely that (1) the reviewer never saw it, or (2) it was added to the page post-publication when people like to "dress up" their cache pages.

 

So, I stand by my prior post.

 

1. If you considered "Sheetz to the wind" a play on words in late 2006, but probably would refer it to Groundspeak now, that makes sense, and is perfectly acceptable.

 

2. So it sounds like there was no directive from the secret underground bunker to tighten up on the guidelines as far as the "commercial" clause, and I believe you. But it sure seems like there was, with all these recent reports from all over North America. Seeing major inconsistencies within the same U.S. State, as I noted, is, well, inconsistent.

 

3. This is just a rumor, but I've heard that you gleefully (or cheerfully) publish all caches. You even published a couple of mine way back when there were no N.Y. reviewers, and NJAdmin was off doing whatever it is that NJAdmin runs off to do. I would characterize those publications as gleeful.

 

4. I stand by my post that a representative from Groundspeak HQ needs to address the nation of Canada (Ontario, more specifically) in the forums.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel

Share this post


Link to post
4. I stand by my post that a representative from Groundspeak HQ needs to address the nation of Canada (Ontario, more specifically) in the forums.
I disagree.

 

As I understand the situation, the reviewer made a decision based on the guidelines. The cache owner went to Groundspeak who stood by the reviewer's decision. The cache owner then brought the beef to the forums. More reviewers chimed in to support the original reviewer.

 

Why would TPTB need to address this issue, again? Certainly, they aren't expected to pop into every complaint thread to give the company line, especially since they've previously made statements on teh record.

Share this post


Link to post
4. I stand by my post that a representative from Groundspeak HQ needs to address the nation of Canada (Ontario, more specifically) in the forums.
I disagree.

 

As I understand the situation, the reviewer made a decision based on the guidelines. The cache owner went to Groundspeak who stood by the reviewer's decision. The cache owner then brought the beef to the forums. More reviewers chimed in to support the original reviewer.

 

Why would TPTB need to address this issue, again? Certainly, they aren't expected to pop into every complaint thread to give the company line, especially since they've previously made statements on teh record.

 

So they don't have to take 30-45 minute phone calls from every reader of the 7 page thread in the Canada forum?

 

Actually, KoosKoos already said it.

Share this post


Link to post

What is very, very disappointing is that with this kind of vocality from the user community, Groundspeak hasn't directly communicated anything, even without a guarantee. ;)

 

Personally, I'd rather they be working on the servers (which is probably what they are doing) and working on the version 2.0 upgrade.

 

I'd be a bit upset if they were in here wasting their time over a ridiculous argument in the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
4. I stand by my post that a representative from Groundspeak HQ needs to address the nation of Canada (Ontario, more specifically) in the forums.
I disagree.

 

As I understand the situation, the reviewer made a decision based on the guidelines. The cache owner went to Groundspeak who stood by the reviewer's decision. The cache owner then brought the beef to the forums. More reviewers chimed in to support the original reviewer.

 

Why would TPTB need to address this issue, again? Certainly, they aren't expected to pop into every complaint thread to give the company line, especially since they've previously made statements on teh record.

So they don't have to take 30-45 minute phone calls from every reader of the 7 page thread in the Canada forum?

 

Actually, KoosKoos already said it.

True. Someone wasted 30-45 minutes of the Groundspeak person's time to learn exactly what he/she already knew. Alternatively, they could have simply took the word of the original reviewer, whoever at Groundspeak handled the appeal, or the reviewers that spoke in support of the decision.

 

Perhaps the other participants of that thread can also call and waste the person's time. Alternatively, they can accept the word of the original reviewer, the Groundspeak representative who worked the appeal, the other reviewers, the person at Groundspeak who was called, or the person who made the call.

 

Good gravy.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

What is very, very disappointing is that with this kind of vocality from the user community, Groundspeak hasn't directly communicated anything, even without a guarantee. ;)

 

Personally, I'd rather they be working on the servers (which is probably what they are doing) and working on the version 2.0 upgrade.

 

I'd be a bit upset if they were in here wasting their time over a ridiculous argument in the forums.

 

Groundspeak is a large company with employees to perform different functions. I don't expect that the people that support the servers or the online applications also perform public relations functions, so a Groundspeak reply in this thread shouldn't impact that effort.

 

IF Groundspeak wants to streamline the process surrounding the commercial or not issue, simply update the guidelines to list the items that they have decided are black and white. For example:

 

Cache listings may not have business logos, or direct links to any business web sites or documents displaying business names. The only exceptions that will be granted require review and pre-approval by Groundspeak (document the pre-approval process here), and proof of the pre-approval needs to be provided to the reviewer at cache listing submission time.

 

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree completely with what has been done to this point, but as it stands now, a lot of effort is being wasted by cachers and reviewers on things that are perceived to be reviewer judement calls, when in actual fact many of them are quite black and white from Groundspeak's perspective.

 

Proactive communication goes a long way.

Share this post


Link to post
4. I stand by my post that a representative from Groundspeak HQ needs to address the nation of Canada (Ontario, more specifically) in the forums.
I disagree.

 

As I understand the situation, the reviewer made a decision based on the guidelines. The cache owner went to Groundspeak who stood by the reviewer's decision. The cache owner then brought the beef to the forums. More reviewers chimed in to support the original reviewer.

 

Why would TPTB need to address this issue, again? Certainly, they aren't expected to pop into every complaint thread to give the company line, especially since they've previously made statements on teh record.

So they don't have to take 30-45 minute phone calls from every reader of the 7 page thread in the Canada forum?

 

Actually, KoosKoos already said it.

True. Someone wasted 30-45 minutes of the Groundspeak person's time to learn exactly what he/she already knew. Alternatively, they could have simply took the word of the original reviewer, whoever at Groundspeak handled the appeal, or the reviewers that spoke in support of the decision.

 

Perhaps the other participants of that thread can also call and waste the person's time. Alternatively, they can accept the word of the original reviewer, the Groundspeak representative who worked the appeal, the other reviewers, the person at Groundspeak who was called, or the person who made the call.

 

Good gravy.

 

I have not seen a controversy this big for a single issue in a long time. I mean it's not signing DRR on the outside of containers big, but pretty big. ;) There are some ticked off cachers in Canada, and I just don't want them to invade us or anything.

 

But seriously, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse or anything, I'm just answering replies. Seeing as this is the forum TPTB look at, and will reply in if they decide to.

Share this post


Link to post

What is very, very disappointing is that with this kind of vocality from the user community, Groundspeak hasn't directly communicated anything, even without a guarantee. ;)

 

Personally, I'd rather they be working on the servers (which is probably what they are doing) and working on the version 2.0 upgrade.

 

I'd be a bit upset if they were in here wasting their time over a ridiculous argument in the forums.

 

God forbid they listen to customers. For as we all know, The customer comes first in everything we do at Compass!

Share this post


Link to post

 

I have not seen a controversy this big for a single issue in a long time. I mean it's not signing DRR on the outside of containers big, but pretty big. ;) There are some ticked off cachers in Canada, and I just don't want them to invade us or anything.

\

 

We did burn the White House once. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

What is very, very disappointing is that with this kind of vocality from the user community, Groundspeak hasn't directly communicated anything, even without a guarantee. ;)

 

Personally, I'd rather they be working on the servers (which is probably what they are doing) and working on the version 2.0 upgrade.

 

I'd be a bit upset if they were in here wasting their time over a ridiculous argument in the forums.

 

God forbid they listen to customers. For as we all know, The customer comes first in everything we do at Compass!

 

I really don't think the issue is as big as you are making it out to be. Change the name or remove the link. Please drive forward. Has it been really cold up there lately or something?

Share this post


Link to post
I have not seen a controversy this big for a single issue in a long time. I mean it's not signing DRR on the outside of containers big, but pretty big. ;) There are some ticked off cachers in Canada, and I just don't want them to invade us or anything.
We did burn the White House once. ;)
All because your Parliament buildings 'accidently' got burned down. (We'll take the blame for the first time they burned, but not the second.)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...