Jump to content

The "unwritten rules" of geocache approval


ExTechOp

Recommended Posts

Me and some of my geocaching buddies have occasionally found "unwritten rules", ie. things not mentioned in the official guidelines that still will make it impossible to get a cache approved.

 

The latest thing I personally found out was that it won't be possible to get approval for a geocache that uses a Navicache as part of a mystery, or even mentions the existence of this independent caching site. The simple solution of course is to not mention the cache in question is registered in Navicache, but this kind of political hair-splitting just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And before someone chimes in with "websites requiring personal information", no, you do not need to register with navicache.com to see full cache details, as opposed to geocaching.com

 

Unfortunately, as lacking properly written rules the approvers are pretty much free to do what they want, the current situation is somewhat reminiscent of a pyramid marketing scheme. The lower echelon approvers are free to make hyperbolic claims about what is allowed and what is not, which the upper echelons can easily distance themselves from, or vice versa.

 

I believe initially the approval mechanism was simply intended as a quality control measure, these days the balance seems to be moving towards secondary goals, such as securing the commercial interests of Groudspeak, Inc. Unfortunately this means that there will be more mediocre "tupperware hidden under the rock" caches which have nothing even slightly controversial about them, and less highly innovative and exciting caches which push the envelope.

Link to comment
Really? Another "agenda" and "Groundspeak is killing caching thread"?

So, you feel there are no problems in having hidden agendas, and everything that can be said about the subject has already been said?

 

Are you serious? That's like asking Coca-Cola to put the name "Pepsi" on their website. That's just plain stupid.

 

If you don't like the way Groundspeak does business, you are welcome to find somewhere else to play :laughing:

Link to comment

I would think that this would fall under the "rule" about usage and downloads at external websites not being permitted.

 

From the guidelines:

>Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website.

Edited by ekitt10
Link to comment

I would think that this would fall under the "rule" about usage and downloads at external websites not being permitted.

 

From the guidelines:

>Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website.

It'd be nice if you'd actually read my original posting before writing.

And before someone chimes in with "websites requiring personal information", no, you do not need to register with navicache.com to see full cache details, as opposed to geocaching.com
Link to comment
The latest thing I personally found out was that it won't be possible to get approval for a geocache that uses a Navicache as part of a mystery, or even mentions the existence of this independent caching site. ...
Why in the world would someone imagine that a cache like that should be listed on GC.com?
Link to comment

So, you feel there are no problems in having hidden agendas, and everything that can be said about the subject has already been said?

 

Oh my god yes... like 30 pages worth :lol:

 

DOH! I wasn't going to reply to this thread... please disregard.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment

I would think that this would fall under the "rule" about usage and downloads at external websites not being permitted.

 

From the guidelines:

>Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website.

It'd be nice if you'd actually read my original posting before writing.

And before someone chimes in with "websites requiring personal information", no, you do not need to register with navicache.com to see full cache details, as opposed to geocaching.com

Perhaps you could also explain why the 'commercial' and 'agenda' guidelines wouldn't come into play.

Link to comment

So, you feel there are no problems in having hidden agendas, and everything that can be said about the subject has already been said?

 

Oh my god yes... like 30 pages worth :lol:

 

DOH! I wasn't going to reply to this thread... please disregard.

I also have no self control.

Link to comment
So, you feel there are no problems in having hidden agendas, and everything that can be said about the subject has already been said?
Are you serious? That's like asking Coca-Cola to put the name "Pepsi" on their website. That's just plain stupid.

I have nothing against a written rule like this (for example, this is what TerraCaching does), however, as I indicated in the original subject, what I don't like is having "unwritten rules" you just have to know to get things done.

 

If you don't like the way Groundspeak does business, you are welcome to find somewhere else to play :lol:

Thank you, I would prefer trying to change the processes and procedures to ones I like better. In a community-based effort (which geocaching most certainly still is, in spite of the corporate core providing the infrastructure) this is known as democracy, I'm sure you are familiar with the word?

Link to comment
The latest thing I personally found out was that it won't be possible to get approval for a geocache that uses a Navicache as part of a mystery, or even mentions the existence of this independent caching site. ...
Why in the world would someone imagine that a cache like that should be listed on GC.com?

Why in the world would someone imagine that a cache like that could not be listed on geocaching.com, unless this were not stated in the guidelines? Everything that is not explicitly allowed is forbidden?

Link to comment
The latest thing I personally found out was that it won't be possible to get approval for a geocache that uses a Navicache as part of a mystery, or even mentions the existence of this independent caching site. ...
Why in the world would someone imagine that a cache like that should be listed on GC.com?

Why in the world would someone imagine that a cache like that could not be listed on geocaching.com, unless this were not stated in the guidelines? Everything that is not explicitly allowed is forbidden?

 

Do you really need a guidelines to specify that a private, for-profit, company is not going to give free advertising to its competitors? Groundspeak is based in a Republic, not a socialist state. Where are you from anyways?

Link to comment
The latest thing I personally found out was that it won't be possible to get approval for a geocache that uses a Navicache as part of a mystery, or even mentions the existence of this independent caching site. ...
Why in the world would someone imagine that a cache like that should be listed on GC.com?

Why in the world would someone imagine that a cache like that could not be listed on geocaching.com, unless this were not stated in the guidelines? Everything that is not explicitly allowed is forbidden?

Again, I believe that the denial of your cache is rooted in the Commercial and agenda sections of the guidelines:

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.
Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.
Link to comment
Perhaps you could also explain why the 'commercial' and 'agenda' guidelines wouldn't come into play.

I assume this was directed to me?

 

I fail to see why having (let's say) the final coordinates of a multicache being available in a cache registered at another caching site like Navicache would fall within either of these cases. No customers are solicited (no registration is required for viewing cache listings at Navicache, and in any case basic registration is free), nor any religious, political, charitable or social agendas are being pushed (well, at least beyond the "international cooperation" one that geocaching.com also implicitly pushes).

Link to comment

I would prefer trying to change the processes and procedures to ones I like better. In a community-based effort (which geocaching most certainly still is, in spite of the corporate core providing the infrastructure) this is known as democracy...

 

"Geocaching" is a community based game.

 

"Geocaching.com" is a privately held business, and is in no way a democracy. TPTB may choose to listen to suggestions from the community, but are in no way bound to do so. They've been pretty clear that they don't want to support free advertising on their website, especially for a competitor.

 

DCC

Link to comment

I would think that this would fall under the "rule" about usage and downloads at external websites not being permitted.

 

From the guidelines:

>Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website.

It'd be nice if you'd actually read my original posting before writing.

And before someone chimes in with "websites requiring personal information", no, you do not need to register with navicache.com to see full cache details, as opposed to geocaching.com

 

I did, and you indicate that someone needs to go to the nc site to do the cache. As such, the cache does not meet the guidelines regarding other sites that ekitt10 pointed out. This has been discussed to death and, among other reasons, TPTB have stated that depending on the availability of other websites is not acceptable.

 

Also, as stated above, if you were holding a event at you local Burger King, I am fairly certain Culver's would not allow you to put a poster up about it. Simple common sense.

 

What did your reviewer say when you asked for an explanation before posting here?

Link to comment

The latest thing I personally found out was that it won't be possible to get approval for a geocache that uses a Navicache as part of a mystery, or even mentions the existence of this independent caching site.

 

I dunno, maybe it's just me. But it just seems that common sense dictates that this website isn't going to reference a geocache on a competing website.

Just like I wouldn't expect to see a poster for a Ford at a Chevy dealership, either. Or even a mention that Fords exist at all on Chevy property. I don't cry 'foul' on the Chevy dealership for supressing my ability to purchase the car I want. I just go to the Ford dealer if that's what I want.

Link to comment
I believe initially the approval mechanism was simply intended as a quality control measure, these days the balance seems to be moving towards secondary goals, such as securing the commercial interests of Groudspeak, Inc. Unfortunately this means that there will be more mediocre "tupperware hidden under the rock" caches which have nothing even slightly controversial about them, and less highly innovative and exciting caches which push the envelope.

 

I don't understand how someone would remotely think it's OK to advertise a competitor on their cache pages. That's a common sense thing, even if there wasn't a guideline addressing it.

 

You are wrong about the review process. It was never intended as a quality control measure. In fact it's been stated many times that reviewers are not in the QC business. If the cache conforms to the guidelines it will be published even if it's a cardboard oatmeal container, filled with total garbage and hidden in the most unappealing place the owner could find.

 

The commercial/agenda guideline has existed for many years. Geocaching.com has a perfect right to decide what content appears on their site, and I think that advertising for a competitor deserves to be a no-no.

 

Finally, I've seen hundreds of awesome and/or innovative caches published since the commercial/agenda guideline was implemented. If someone needs to advertise for a pizza joint, The American Cancer Society or a competing website to make their cache "innovative", I think the problem is with that person's lack of imagination, not this website's rules.

Link to comment

So don't try to list the cache here. You could include a note in each of your caches, providing part of the co-ords for an additional cache not listed here.

As I understand it, the cache belongs to you and if you want to include a hint and a note about an additional cache that can be found on navicache or terracaching then you should be able to.

You won't be able to include that info. here. So no including it in your description of the multi, but anyone that actually finds your cache and completes the multi, would then have all the info necessary to then go to navicache or terracache and complete the multi and log the find there.

As far as listing it here goes I understand GC's point of view, I may not agree with it but I understand it and it is thier website and they have the right to list or not list anything they want on it.

As long as you're not too inflexible there should always be a "work around".

Link to comment
Do you really need a guidelines to specify that a private, for-profit, company is not going to give free advertising to its competitors? Groundspeak is based in a Republic, not a socialist state.

Actually, from the end user's point of view it's based on a dictatorship (I don't remember voting in a Groundspeak Inc. board election, do you?), but this is totally beside the point.

 

I repeat: I'm not objecting to the fact that linking to alternate caching sites may be disallowed, what I am objecting to the fact that this policy is not written down.

 

Where are you from anyways?

Look left, it says it right under my handle. One of those strange little European countries which had the unenviable choice in Word War II of either siding with Nazi Germany or becoming a Soviet Socialist State…

Link to comment

Hello ExTechOp.

 

Your timing is rather interesting to say the least. I would suggest that you read this topic, which was just closed a few days ago. It is currently down at the bottom of page 2. It is a long read.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=189866

 

The other site does not make you pay to play, but it does solicit donations. There is a solicitation link right on main page. There is also a link to a sales area for their merchandise linked on the main page as well. Reviewers are not able to make the decision regarding the issue of cache pages that link to commercial web sites. This is stated in the guidelines you linked and is not "unwritten" as you allege. I understand that your intent is most likely not intentional, but the guideline states:

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

 

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

Groundspeak makes this decision. I would suggest that you write to appeals@geocaching.com for resolution on this issue. As you can see in the topic linked above, it will not be solved in a forum topic.

 

I had no idea I would use this line today, but...

 

I am sorry that you do not understand the decision regarding commercial caches, but at this time that decision is final. I cannot explain it any further. Please write the site directly at the email address given above. I do sincerely hope that you are able to enjoy the game.

 

And Rockin Roddy... hehe. Yeah. Took the words right out of my mouth.

Link to comment

Let me ask two questions:

 

- if you had a very popular website, and it had clickable links that generate revenue, would you want a link on there that *didn't* generate revenue?

 

- if you had a very popular website that relied in part on people becoming paying members, would you divert them to a competitor's site that dealt with the same subject?

 

Eagerly awaiting your response(s)!

Link to comment

I think it is rather unrealistic to expect Groundspeak have a clearly define a “rule” for every conservable scenario. It is obvious that from other threads whatever “rules” there are will be dissected, misunderstood, and misquoted by someone trying to find a way around it. At times common sense should prevail. Figure it out! Groundspeak is not a public service it’s a business. In what world would one business freely advertise its competitors websight?

Link to comment

Me and some of my geocaching buddies have occasionally found "unwritten rules", ie. things not mentioned in the official guidelines that still will make it impossible to get a cache approved.

 

The latest thing I personally found out was that it won't be possible to get approval for a geocache that uses a Navicache as part of a mystery, or even mentions the existence of this independent caching site. The simple solution of course is to not mention the cache in question is registered in Navicache, but this kind of political hair-splitting just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And before someone chimes in with "websites requiring personal information", no, you do not need to register with navicache.com to see full cache details, as opposed to geocaching.com

 

Unfortunately, as lacking properly written rules the approvers are pretty much free to do what they want, the current situation is somewhat reminiscent of a pyramid marketing scheme. The lower echelon approvers are free to make hyperbolic claims about what is allowed and what is not, which the upper echelons can easily distance themselves from, or vice versa.

 

I believe initially the approval mechanism was simply intended as a quality control measure, these days the balance seems to be moving towards secondary goals, such as securing the commercial interests of Groudspeak, Inc. Unfortunately this means that there will be more mediocre "tupperware hidden under the rock" caches which have nothing even slightly controversial about them, and less highly innovative and exciting caches which push the envelope.

 

I am not familiar with Navicache so forgive me if this is not possible for some reason that is unknown to me. Couldn't you just list the coords to the Navicache as your final? Or is it your intention to have the seeker to go onto the Navicache Website to obtain the coords for the final? If that is your intention, surely you can understand why GC.com would not support this.

 

My .02 on the cache concept as I understand it. Unless this is intentional, this type of hunt is going to rule out some folks. Again, this is just me but I would not personally appreciate being given a homework assignment in the middle of a multi cache hunt that required me to stop hunting and go look up ANY website. There's some people, myself included, that don't have the time or patience for that type of thing.

 

Just wondering....Would anyone else consider this tedious?

Link to comment

Me and some of my geocaching buddies have occasionally found "unwritten rules", ie. things not mentioned in the official guidelines that still will make it impossible to get a cache approved.

 

The latest thing I personally found out was that it won't be possible to get approval for a geocache that uses a Navicache as part of a mystery, or even mentions the existence of this independent caching site. The simple solution of course is to not mention the cache in question is registered in Navicache, but this kind of political hair-splitting just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And before someone chimes in with "websites requiring personal information", no, you do not need to register with navicache.com to see full cache details, as opposed to geocaching.com

 

Unfortunately, as lacking properly written rules the approvers are pretty much free to do what they want, the current situation is somewhat reminiscent of a pyramid marketing scheme. The lower echelon approvers are free to make hyperbolic claims about what is allowed and what is not, which the upper echelons can easily distance themselves from, or vice versa.

 

I believe initially the approval mechanism was simply intended as a quality control measure, these days the balance seems to be moving towards secondary goals, such as securing the commercial interests of Groudspeak, Inc. Unfortunately this means that there will be more mediocre "tupperware hidden under the rock" caches which have nothing even slightly controversial about them, and less highly innovative and exciting caches which push the envelope.

 

I am not familiar with Navicache so forgive me if this is not possible for some reason that is unknown to me. Couldn't you just list the coords to the Navicache as your final? Or is it your intention to have the seeker to go onto the Navicache Website to obtain the coords for the final? If that is your intention, surely you can understand why GC.com would not support this.

 

My .02 on the cache concept as I understand it. Unless this is intentional, this type of hunt is going to rule out some folks. Again, this is just me but I would not personally appreciate being given a homework assignment in the middle of a multi cache hunt that required me to stop hunting and go look up ANY website. There's some people, myself included, that don't have the time or patience for that type of thing.

 

Just wondering....Would anyone else consider this tedious?

 

Actually, I'd consider it ignored!

Link to comment

this is known as democracy, I'm sure you are familiar with the word?

 

Actually, I'm not aware of any true democracies.. Probably because they would fail very quickly.. I am familiar with the word Republic though. I'll leave the commentary on Republic vs. Socialism to the off-topic thread, but let's say I'm glad Groundspeak is based in the USA and not some socialist country.

Link to comment
I repeat: I'm not objecting to the fact that linking to alternate caching sites may be disallowed, what I am objecting to the fact that this policy is not written down.
It most certainly is. Read the section in the guidelines about commercial/agenda caches.

You'll need to spell it out to me, as I have read this section several times without being able to see the relevance as currently phrased.

Link to comment
Where are you from anyways?
Look left, it says it right under my handle. One of those strange little European countries which had the unenviable choice in Word War II of either siding with Nazi Germany or becoming a Soviet Socialist State…
Wow. I thought Pennsylvania had a chip on it's shoulder...
Link to comment
I repeat: I'm not objecting to the fact that linking to alternate caching sites may be disallowed, what I am objecting to the fact that this policy is not written down.
It most certainly is. Read the section in the guidelines about commercial/agenda caches.

You'll need to spell it out to me, as I have read this section several times without being able to see the relevance as currently phrased.

 

It has been spelled out:

 

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

 

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

 

Why would one website business WANT you to advertise or try to bring traffic to their competitors site???

 

And more curious, many people have explained this to you but you still persist. Why are you so adamant on advertising another caching site on GC.com??? What is your motive? Can you not just slip a piece of paper in the step cache giving the final cache coords or is there a reason you are trying to get people to navicache?

 

And as far as written rules and guidelines, not everything in life needs to be spelled out for people to have common sense about issues. Do you read a rulebook every day telling you it is against policy to chop your left pinkie off or do you somehow make it through the day without doing it EVEN though its not written down somewhere?

Edited by Mike and Mitya
Link to comment
I repeat: I'm not objecting to the fact that linking to alternate caching sites may be disallowed, what I am objecting to the fact that this policy is not written down.
It most certainly is. Read the section in the guidelines about commercial/agenda caches.

You'll need to spell it out to me, as I have read this section several times without being able to see the relevance as currently phrased.

 

Because your cache page is ADVERTISING a competing commercial site.

What is so blasted hard to understand that so many want to advertise for others on Groundspeak owned sites.

If the other site wants to advertise here they can pay the going rate just like the rest of the advertisers.

Link to comment
I repeat: I'm not objecting to the fact that linking to alternate caching sites may be disallowed, what I am objecting to the fact that this policy is not written down.
It most certainly is. Read the section in the guidelines about commercial/agenda caches.

You'll need to spell it out to me, as I have read this section several times without being able to see the relevance as currently phrased.

Several people have already spelled it out. I'll try to do it, again.

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.
Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.
Link to comment

I think it is rather unrealistic to expect Groundspeak have a clearly define a “rule” for every conservable scenario. It is obvious that from other threads whatever “rules” there are will be dissected, misunderstood, and misquoted by someone trying to find a way around it. At times common sense should prevail. Figure it out! Groundspeak is not a public service it’s a business. In what world would one business freely advertise its competitors websight?

Very well said! Thank you for putting it so clearly! And... I really cannot believe that we have yet another thread started by someone with a sense of entitlement and even a tad of outrage that they did not receive their entitlement! Amazing!

Link to comment

Very well said! Thank you for putting it so clearly! And... I really cannot believe that we have yet another thread started by someone with a sense of entitlement and even a tad of outrage that they did not receive their entitlement! Amazing!

Aye! Also, have you ever noticed how they always seem to lack the basic manners and respect for other discussion participants that would be taken for granted in a face-to-face conversation? Every time this sort of thread comes up, it is always instigated by a pot-stirring, disgruntled, over-entitled miscreant who claims that Groundspeak is an evil corporation that's holding him down. It never seems to occur to these people that: 1) some ideas are just dumb or unfeasible, and 2) Groundspeak is a business and not a democracy, so they have no reason to change their operating procedures unless those procedures are driving customers away. TPTB are benevolent not only because they are decent people, but because we respond favorably to their benevolence by lingering on the site and driving up ad-traffic revenue. Clearly, if Groundspeak web traffic volume is not decreasing, most of us (the users) approve of the way things are run, because we're sticking around. Unsatisfied customers are always free to leave.

Edited by MountainRacer
Link to comment
I repeat: I'm not objecting to the fact that linking to alternate caching sites may be disallowed, what I am objecting to the fact that this policy is not written down.
It most certainly is. Read the section in the guidelines about commercial/agenda caches.

You'll need to spell it out to me, as I have read this section several times without being able to see the relevance as currently phrased.

NaviCache is a commercial site. They sell ads on their home page. They sell stuff through a Cafe Press type on-line store (when it works :lol: ).

 

From the guidelines: 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.

 

Putting a commercial link on a cache page comes under "soliciting customers, directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally)".

 

What about this do you not get?

Link to comment
Caches which defy common sense may not be listed without permission from Groundspeak.

 

Too much wiggle room!!!

 

:lol:

Wiggle room? Did someone say wiggle room? I'll show you

.

 

Seriously dude-does your employer have ads for their competition on their website?

Why do you need to have something so obvious spelled out for you? :lol:

 

Somehow I don't think the denial of this idea will lead to the downfall of the creative cache. :D

 

Groundspeak isn't a democracy nor a dictatorship. It's a privately owned company.

Link to comment

So they should spell out the existing rules in detail, because one person chooses not to try to understand them?

 

If the Navicache needs maintenence, you would expect someone from Groundspeak to enforce it? They would also have to review the Navicache location, and then ask permission from Navicache to have it's name mentioned on the Groundspeak cache page. Seems obviously like an agenda to promote another site..

Link to comment

I once found a puzzle cache that required me to first go and find 10 letterboxes listed on letterboxing.org. It was an old cache, before the guidelines changed, so it is possible that it would not be allowed not. But it brings up a interesting point - to what degree can I have a puzzle cache that requires me to visit any other website? The guidelines are clear about two cases

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

 

Caches that require a geocacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website.

 

Less clear seems to be requiring you to visit a website that contains commercial advertising or solicits donations. My guess is that what why the OP cache was turned down. It may be that the rule in effect here is the same that is being used in events. Had the OP posted information on the Navicache on his personal website would this have be OK?

 

I disagree with the OP that restrictions on puzzles leads to mediocrity. The most creative puzzles I have seen are solvable just from the information on the cache page. In a few cases - due to formating constraints or the design of the puzzle - I seen some excellent puzzles where I had to download a photo, video, or PDF file - stored on the cache owner's personal web space. Puzzle requiring searching the internet for an online site with the tools needed to solve are fun but not very original. Caches requiring a visit to a specific commercial site or downloading and running a executable are generally not so challenging. Once I solved one enigma machine cipher the next was as boring as a lamp post.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...