Stop the insanity!

[+CO Admin]

 

<snip>

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.

 

<snip>

 

Proactive communication goes a long way.

Great idea. It would probably look like this.

 

Commercial Caches

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services. If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial. (this is an example not the guideline-CO)

 

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.

 

O wait, it does already its the current 18 month old guideline.

 

Groundspeak makes an exception for the Venue name so people can find it. It surprises me to see people demanding that the reviewers not allow the name on their page to be consistent. All caches are looked at on a case by case basis. This is the reason for no precedent. This allows more caches to be listed. If Groundspeak went to the hard and fast rule some people demand a lot less caches would get listed. The fact that they are guidelines is a good thing.

[+Keith Watson]

What about cache listing that display ads for local geocaching groups. Would that be considered solicitation? Keep in mind, some groups sell memberships, produducts, and even require membership to participate in events put on by that local group.

[+sbell111]

What about cache listing that display ads for local geocaching groups. Would that be considered solicitation? Keep in mind, some groups sell memberships, produducts, and even require membership to participate in events put on by that local group.

I would imagine that any cache listing that displays ads of any kind other than the ones that TPTB put on the page would require prior approval.

[+Glenn]

What about cache listing that display ads for local geocaching groups. Would that be considered solicitation? Keep in mind, some groups sell memberships, produducts, and even require membership to participate in events put on by that local group.

I would imagine that any cache listing that displays ads of any kind other than the ones that TPTB put on the page would require prior approval.

I believe that permission is implied for links to geocaching groups and clubs. Darn, I think I accidentally left my Frisbee at the park.

[+sbell111]

What about cache listing that display ads for local geocaching groups. Would that be considered solicitation? Keep in mind, some groups sell memberships, produducts, and even require membership to participate in events put on by that local group.

I would imagine that any cache listing that displays ads of any kind other than the ones that TPTB put on the page would require prior approval.

I believe that permission is implied for links to geocaching groups and clubs. Darn, I think I accidentally left my Frisbee at the park.

You're probably correct. I was thrown off by the term 'ads'.

[+Renegade Knight]

What about cache listing that display ads for local geocaching groups. Would that be considered solicitation? Keep in mind, some groups sell memberships, produducts, and even require membership to participate in events put on by that local group.

I've seen requests to pull links to geocaching groups that have a "please help us fund this site" line. That's being targeted under soliciting.

 

I'm not sure how widespread it is, but it's going on enough to where I've heard about it from more than one source.

[+AdventureRat]

 

<snip>

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.

 

<snip>

 

Proactive communication goes a long way.

Great idea. It would probably look like this.

 

Commercial Caches

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services. If the finder is required to go inside the business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, then the cache is presumed to be commercial. (this is an example not the guideline-CO)

 

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.

 

O wait, it does already its the current 18 month old guideline.

 

Groundspeak makes an exception for the Venue name so people can find it. It surprises me to see people demanding that the reviewers not allow the name on their page to be consistent. All caches are looked at on a case by case basis. This is the reason for no precedent. This allows more caches to be listed. If Groundspeak went to the hard and fast rule some people demand a lot less caches would get listed. The fact that they are guidelines is a good thing.

 

As I stated, that was an example. There seem to be many things missing from the guidelines that are being treated as black and white, with only a few exceptions. These may include (not a complete list) event caches, and more specifically, menu links for the establishments hosting the events. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say that mentioning the venue name in an event cache is acceptable, yet it seems to be a standing and understood exception to the commercial posting information. Similarly, the guidelines don't mention that posting a link to the menu for said event venue is unacceptable, even though it seems like a logical extension of the undocumented venue exception.

 

I think that more information made available to the geocaching community up front would translate into less time wasted by users, reviewers and Groundspeak personnel.

 

BTW, not that sticks and stones will break my bones or anything, but I am a little surprised by the sarcasm in the second line of your post. I tried to make my post factual and constructive, and I don't believe that I was sarcastic in any way (even towards Groundspeak), or made a personal attack at any individual. I would not be surprised at such coming from another forum user, but I would expect forum moderators to be held to a little higher standard.

[+KidRipley]

[+sbell111]

... BTW, not that sticks and stones will break my bones or anything, but I am a little surprised by the sarcasm in the second line of your post. ...

Given that the title of this thread is 'Stop the Insanity!', I'm quite surprised that there hasn't been much more sarcasm.

[+JabbaTHutt]

Wow I wonder just what it is this PERSON has against the NIAGARA Cachers?

 

Seems THIS PERSON is going through EVERYONES caches and if there is even a hint of comercializm in them he is reporting them.

 

Come one now someones cat's name had to have the cache redone because there is a tv charactor whith the same name.

 

Before you know it we will be seeing caches with Fred in it being pulled, or Niagara Falls cache, or Welcome to Niagara Falls all because of the name in it.

 

Maybe it is about time this PERSON, well you know!

[+Too Tall John]

Come one now someones cat's name had to have the cache redone because there is a tv charactor whith the same name.

Hrm...

 

My mother-in-law had a cat named Wal-Mart once.

 

 

 

 

 

Your post sounds rather conspiracy-theory-esque and overly dramatic without any links to back it up. What was the cat's name, at least?

[Mr.Yuck]

Come one now someones cat's name had to have the cache redone because there is a tv charactor whith the same name.

Hrm...

 

My mother-in-law had a cat named Wal-Mart once.

 

 

 

 

 

Your post sounds rather conspiracy-theory-esque and overly dramatic without any links to back it up. What was the cat's name, at least?

 

I just noticed this, I thought this thread was dead. No, Jabba is correct, there were at least a dozen caches in his area named after breakfast cereals, or whimsical cartoon spokespersons for breakfast cereals, such as Count Chocula or Tony the Tiger. Now these caches (placed by several different cachers) are all re-named after peoples house pets????