Jump to content

Blatant Commercial Listing


genegene
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

This has happend to me

 

Yes. We gathered that.

sorry about my typing and spelling first off !I think that this whole thing is sad why cant we post like these big companys yes some of us dont have the money these guys do ! someone said life not fair ,well this group geocaching.com i thought they were more concered about the earth not the money !but i quess this is not true ! yes i love the sport and try to promote it and with out us promoteing this sport somepeople would not be here is that true yes ! my sister told me about this and i told coworkers ! so yes these big companys can post if they ask but can I NO why ! we as THE CACHES have promoted this sport and in turn helped these big company make a profit ! so yes we aLL SHOULD BE THE SAME! we made them by loving this sport ,now they made so much money they make more and and forget where they came from!

JUST MY TWO CENTS ,NOT WANTING TO RUFFLE FEATHERS

Link to comment

My issue is Not Delorme or there sponsorship of Geocaching, but the listing and what it says.

 

I'm still confused as to what you take issue with. You feel that the wording on the cache page violates the guidelines. The guidelines explicitly state that Groundspeak has ultimate authority over what is approved and what isn't, regardless of what may have been approved in the past. Groundspeak specifically gave permission for the cache in question, which is well within their rights to due and well within the guidelines as many have shown.

 

Have you read the guidelines yet? And what was your issue again?

Link to comment

This has happend to me

 

Yes. We gathered that.

sorry about my typing and spelling first off !I think that this whole thing is sad why cant we post like these big companys yes some of us dont have the money these guys do ! someone said life not fair ,well this group geocaching.com i thought they were more concered about the earth not the money !but i quess this is not true ! yes i love the sport and try to promote it and with out us promoteing this sport somepeople would not be here is that true yes ! my sister told me about this and i told coworkers ! so yes these big companys can post if they ask but can I NO why ! we as THE CACHES have promoted this sport and in turn helped these big company make a profit ! so yes we aLL SHOULD BE THE SAME! we made them by loving this sport ,now they made so much money they make more and and forget where they came from!

JUST MY TWO CENTS ,NOT WANTING TO RUFFLE FEATHERS

 

Gotta jump in on this one :D You are basically saying that the founders and employees of Groundspeak do not care about geocaching and do not care about the environment and are in this for nothing but the money.... And then you say, "Not wanting to ruffle feathers"?!?!?!?!!?!?

 

Wowsers!!! :P Why do these threads always turn into "Groundspeak hates chilndren", "Groundspeak hates the USA", "Groundspeak hates the military", and now....... "Groundspeak hates the environment"..

Link to comment

3.) Most events are not in any way commercial that I have seen, Most

events however do get sponsors. Why can we not list them as say "special

friends of the event"? This would apply for everyone not just me.

 

I truly hope this was said tongue in cheek, because if it wasn't and you can not see the commercial aspect there, any further discussion will be fruitless.

 

That's half of my argument about the Delorme listing, There are no rules only guidelines. Every reviewer can interpret any listing anyway they want to.

 

Example:

Joe Schmo is holding an event in la la land, and Ben Schmo sees what they are doing and wants to do the same thing.

He makes up the listing only to have it turned down because it is deemed commercial by his reviewer. Ben tells his reviewer that Joe is doing the same thing and that Joes reviewer said it was OK.

Bens reviewer tells him that every reviewer is different and his listing will not be published because every reviewer reads the "guidelines" differently.

 

First, you really need to set aside the "guidelines being interpreted differently" thing when it comes to this Delorme event. The guidelines were followed not only in spirit, but to the letter.

 

Were a reviewer to tell me that "every reviewer is different" in their interpretations, I would escalate the issue for review. I think you will find that the reviewers for the most part are pretty consistant in the way they do things. They do communicate amongst each other and I know for a fact, discuss caches that fall into gray areas. I can't speak for the reviewer in question, however I would like to think that his intention was to convey that there is some latitude that exists, a very desirable guideline trait, that the reviewers have at their disposal.

 

As to someone saying they are tired of the answer that if you don't like it, go somewhere else. Sorry, but that is the reality. What else can be said. Groundspeak has their position, some of which they are not flexible in. Some I agree with, others I strongly oppose. I state my opposition and then, if they can not convince me to see their side, I make a conscious decision whether or not to give them my money. If the issue is big enough and enough people walk, or threaten to, it may have some effect. However as stated before, you do appear to be in the minority on this issue but if you feel strongly enough should take your hard earned dollars elsewhere.

 

Reading through the thread, there is not a lot more that can be said. You don't seem to be swayed from your position and it is obvious neither is GS. I think you are going to have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment

yes i get it gs.com is a buisness,they startout was about cleaning up this place ,but my view it looks like they got to big and want more ,just like any company outthere ! yes i believe gs.com is for cleaning up this place(earth)but this big company says they will support them hey they forget the little guys ! rich get richer poor get poorer i quess the voted bush

Link to comment

I think genegene should come along with me to the DeLorme CITO :P

 

I've been to several events here in New England...a few of them have had free raffles where donated Delorme products have been given away. They are very geocaching friendly.

 

I think its natural for companies of this type to work together on things...projects...CITO's. Forming relationships between such companies is a good business practice.

 

It is my belief that the guidelines or Rules are for the common geocacher like yourself and I.

 

DeLorme is not a common geocacher.....they are a company doing business with Groundspeak.

 

Come get your DeLorme Eartha Marble at the CITO! :D

Link to comment

And please stop calling them rules. They are not rules. The word "rule" only appears once in the guidelines. In that instance, it talks specifically about flexibility in terms of the proximity guidelines being a "rule of thumb". They are not rules.

 

That's half of my argument about the Delorme listing, There are no rules only guidelines. Every reviewer can interpret any listing anyway they want to.

 

Example:

Joe Schmo is holding an event in la la land, and Ben Schmo sees what they are doing and wants to do the same thing.

He makes up the listing only to have it turned down because it is deemed commercial by his reviewer. Ben tells his reviewer that Joe is doing the same thing and that Joes reviewer said it was OK.

Bens reviewer tells him that every reviewer is different and his listing will not be published because every reviewer reads the "guidelines" differently.

This is the point I was trying to make in this thread that was spun off from a thread about an event in California that came up against the commercial guidelines. The reviewers and many others (there's a word I could use but it probably will get me a warning) feel the guidelines are clear. And I agree that they are clear when it comes to blatantly commercial caches. Clearly Groundspeak is a business. Part of its business model is to sell ads. It would not make sense for it to allow geocachers to use a cache page to provide free advertising to someone who might otherwise pay for advertising on the site or might be a competitor of someone who does pay for advertising on the site. The advertisers may think, "Why should I pay Groundspeak for an ad when I can just post a cache page for free." This is the reason for the no commercial caches rule. At the same time, Groundspeak realizes that sometimes there is a benefit in having a company sponsor an event. They have stated that these case must get special approval from Groundspeak. Groundspeak evaluates the benefits on a case by case basis and of course doesn't reveal their standards but the Delorme cache clearly got Groundspeak permission.

 

If Joe Cacher wants to hold an event and get sponsors for his event he can. But if wants to use the Geocaching.com host webpage to advertise for his sponsor, then he needs to have this approved by Groundspeak. You might argue that if Groundspeak doesn't approve the mention or link to the sponsor the sponsor would withdraw and the event would fail. I don't know whether that would constitute enough of benefit. Generally Grounspeak is looking for benefit beyond the event itself. Many geocachers hold events without sponsors, so claiming you couldn't hold the event without the sponsor getting advertising space on your page is likely not going to get your cache approved.

 

My question is what happens when the cache page is not blatantly commercial. Where it contains links to other websites not meant to advertise but instead to provide information to help people decide whether to attend the event. What is wrong with a link to the restaurant's menu or to the site where you can reserve a place in campground if you decide you want to stay over the night of the event? Is Groundspeak really concerned that an advertiser is going to complain because a informative link was posted to a commercial site or a site which ran third party ads? If this is the case, could we get some guidelines on what information we can put on the cache page? What about putting information on a personal webpage? Can we link to that page? What if our personal webpage is hosted on a commercial site that has ads? None of this is clear. And the reason is that different reviewers would give different answers. Groundspeak needs to update the guidelines for commercial caches because as it stands now I can't hold the event because I'm not sure I can relay important information about the event to people who might potentially attend.

Link to comment

I personally don't see where the problem is with the event listing. Delorme followed the guidelines to the letter. Plus, they are a major advertiser on geocaching.com and should enjoy a little extra consideration for their advertising dollar. I'm sure if "Joes Steak House" paid to have an ad on gc.com, they would get the same consideration.

If you want the cachers that attend your event to know that "Joes" sponsored your event, hang a big banner there for everyone to see. "Joes" will get a lot more recognition that way, than from one sentence on a cache listing page.

Just my opinion.

Link to comment

yes i get it gs.com is a buisness,they startout was about cleaning up this place ,but my view it looks like they got to big and want more ,just like any company outthere ! yes i believe gs.com is for cleaning up this place(earth)but this big company says they will support them hey they forget the little guys ! rich get richer poor get poorer i quess the voted bush

 

That's a little dramatic don't you think? Groundspeak and Bush are apparently responsible for all the woes of the world. :P

Link to comment

And please stop calling them rules. They are not rules. The word "rule" only appears once in the guidelines. In that instance, it talks specifically about flexibility in terms of the proximity guidelines being a "rule of thumb". They are not rules.

... Every reviewer can interpret any listing anyway they want to.

 

The difference in the perceptions of each reviewer is the reason you can then go ask GS directly. Once you recieve your answer from GS, that will not be subject to any variations in perception.

Link to comment
all you people making jokes because he/she thinks its not fair are idiots !

In addition to what has been said, calling anyone (but yourself I guess) an "idiot" is clearly against the forum guidelines. Please post with respect to other community members or you might find your ability to post removed for some period of time.

Yes, you must remember to remain respectful in these forums...Unless you can think of a way to be rude and disrespectful without getting caught.

 

 

Dude, it's a CITO event, not a cookout. I don't think they'd be eating, from the listing, and I doubt they'd be charged to pick up trash. :P

 

And you really should lay off the "!" and try using "." instead, maybe? Calm down...

 

(Edited to note, off the subject, that !all means 'not all', in programmer-speak. Which isn't what I think you meant.)

We will be grilling food all day...

If they're eating, I hope they wash their hands.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

The problem is not blatant commercial listings. The guidelines are clear if you want a blatant commercial listing you have to contact geocaching.com directly and get permission in advance. Geocaching will approve blatant commercial listings if they see a benefit in doing so. The benefit might be a tangible benefit to Groundspeak, Inc. - e.g., the purchase of advertising space on Geocaching.com or agreeing to develop platforms for the Wherigo game. Or there may be intangible benefits - e.g. allowing geocachers limited rights to use the sponsor's copyrighted product in a challenge or puzzle cache or allowing placement of caches on the sponsor's property.

 

The problem with the guidelines are the non-blatant commercial listings. A geocacher wants to organize an event for other geocachers in his area. He can mention the restaurant where the event will be held. But can he include a link to restaurant's webpage? Can he put the restaurant's logo on the page? How about a picture of the restaurant? Suppose Joe's Sporting Goods donated some stuff for door prizes. Can he thank Joe's Sporting Goods on his page? Can he link to Joe's website? Can he link to a website that has additional information about the town or location where the even will be held? What if the website is non-commercial? Does having a few banner ads to support that site make a website commercial? Can the cache owner create his own page on a non-commercial site that contains links to the restaurant, Joe's, and the site with additional information?

 

Every day caches and events are submitted to the volunteer reviewers. The volunteers review them and determine if they are blatantly commercial and therefore need to be referred to Groundspeak for approval or if they can be approved by the reviewers without going to Groundspeak. The guidelines are flexible and some reviewers are may let things through that another reviewer wouldn't. Groundspeak participates in the reviewers' private forum where the guidelines are discussed. From time to time the reviewers get new direction on how to interpret the guidelines. Probably the guidance is only meant to try and get more consistency between reviewers but usually this means that something the your reviewer used to allow is now considered commercial. The problem is all this occurs out of sight of the general geocaching community.

 

Now people submit a cache fully expecting it to be approved and instead they get an email saying "Your cache has commercial content and therefore needs to be approved by Groundpeak." Of course they weren't trying to be blatantly commercial. So it comes as a shock when they are told only Groundspeak can approve your cache. Most would really like the reviewer to explain what part of their listing is unacceptable and how the can change it so the cache is approved. But some reviewers are interpreting the latest guidelines as saying "If you think there is something commercial on the page you should tell the cacher that it needs to be reviewed by Groundspeak. You can't tell them what you think is commercial or how they can change it so that it doesn't need Groundspeak approval." Because of this many people are interpreting the commercial guideline as unfair. If there are some limits that Groundspeak wants on thanking sponsors or providing information related to an event location they should post what these are in the guidelines. Then one can decide if you can live with a cache page that meets those guidelines or if you need to get permission from Groundspeak.

Just in case this was missed by all those who are bickering at one another, it covers the points very well.

 

Since the issue has come up again, please look at these archived listings of mine, and give an opinion of whether they would now be considered commercial.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...10-358dd69161fd

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...67-15eb0dd94b77

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...73-d10bf952d7ee

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...59-eb6d67897615

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

Not again.

 

Yes, unfortunatley, Again...I think we will continue to see these typs of threads opened as long as there are players who misunderstand the guidelines as they are written. One way to minimize these threads would be to add some clarification over what exactly is viewed as commercial(or an agenda).

 

Do we all agree that there used to be things allowed that are now forbidden? It should be understandable that some players would look at what they see on listings and not understand thet the same thing would not be allowed today. You can look at the links in my previous post, and see that those listings would probabaly have to be changed to conform today.

 

So, when were the changes to what's allowed made, and were there specific occurances that made the changes necessary?

 

On a side note, perhaps, rather than to reply like this

 

Not again.

 

it might be more productive to reply something like this...

 

If you look through this recent thread http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=190625

 

you might find some explanation of what has caused the misunderstanding.

Link to comment

 

Since the issue has come up again, please look at these archived listings of mine, and give an opinion of whether they would now be considered commercial.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...10-358dd69161fd

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...67-15eb0dd94b77

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...73-d10bf952d7ee

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...59-eb6d67897615

 

 

1.) Depending on the reviewer

2.) Same as above

3.) I would say yes (personal opinion)

4.) YES....... If I tried that, I would be laughed at

Link to comment

yes i get it gs.com is a buisness,they startout was about cleaning up this place ,but my view it looks like they got to big and want more ,just like any company outthere ! yes i believe gs.com is for cleaning up this place(earth)but this big company says they will support them hey they forget the little guys ! rich get richer poor get poorer i quess the voted bush

 

Please articulate your point using factual data that Groundspeak has caused the poor to get poorer. Do they teach this type of drivel in "liberalism 101," or "class envy 101" or my favorite course, "blame capitalism for the destruction of the earth, and for poverty. :(

 

 

Nakia,

 

Have you ever stopped to think that Groundspeak had no choice to expand?

 

I started caching in May of 2004. In a few weeks shy of Four years, the number of members listed on this website has increased by 1,346,059 members. So with an increase of over 1 million members, this site has no choice but to expand.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

 

Since the issue has come up again, please look at these archived listings of mine, and give an opinion of whether they would now be considered commercial.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...10-358dd69161fd

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...67-15eb0dd94b77

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...73-d10bf952d7ee

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...59-eb6d67897615

 

 

1.) Depending on the reviewer

2.) Same as above

3.) I would say yes (personal opinion)

4.) YES....... If I tried that, I would be laughed at

All four examples are 3-4 years old, so they really aren't relevent to the current guidelines.

Link to comment
I was told that my event could be archived if any reviewer or GS looked into the WMG.org site and saw the word raffle or drawing listed in the event schedule.

 

I see peoples points about most of the stuff mentioned, but this one stumps me, sure GS can dictate what is placed on their site but stating that they'll archive your listing if raffle or drawing is listed on another site is lame

Link to comment

Not again.

 

<snip>

 

On a side note, perhaps, rather than to reply like this

 

Not again.

 

it might be more productive to reply something like this...

 

If you look through this recent thread http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=190625

 

you might find some explanation of what has caused the misunderstanding.

 

Please don't tell me how I should reply to posts. And I will continue to extend you that courtesy as well.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment

Some testy people out here today. Wow. :(

----

I was told that my event could be archived if any reviewer or GS looked into the WMG.org site and saw the word raffle or drawing listed in the event schedule.

 

I see peoples points about most of the stuff mentioned, but this one stumps me, sure GS can dictate what is placed on their site but stating that they'll archive your listing if raffle or drawing is listed on another site is lame

There was an event in Michigan recently that uses a silent auction for fund raising. This year, they still did it, but had to be a bit more circumspect in their naming of it.

 

Times change. It's the only thing that's inevitable anymore.

Link to comment

Not again.

 

<snip>

 

On a side note, perhaps, rather than to reply like this

 

Not again.

 

it might be more productive to reply something like this...

 

If you look through this recent thread http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=190625

 

you might find some explanation of what has caused the misunderstanding.

 

Please don't tell me how I should reply to posts. And I will continue to extend you that courtesy as well.

 

Thank you.

Of course, once again, you fail to read what I said before sniping back with some smart alec reply. I have in no way told you how to reply, I have simply pointed out that it

...might be more productive...
to reply differently. MAYBE you should take a look back in general and read the way you often reply to people. You are very rude and dismissive much of the time, and that is not generally viewed as being "Respectful" as is required in the forum guidelines. Gee, I wonder if you have gotten any warnings over this. I doubt it. I suppose if one has no interest in being productive, then there's no point to my point. Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

 

Since the issue has come up again, please look at these archived listings of mine, and give an opinion of whether they would now be considered commercial.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...10-358dd69161fd

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...67-15eb0dd94b77

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...73-d10bf952d7ee

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...59-eb6d67897615

 

 

1.) Depending on the reviewer

2.) Same as above

3.) I would say yes (personal opinion)

4.) YES....... If I tried that, I would be laughed at

All four examples are 3-4 years old, so they really aren't relevent to the current guidelines.

What I'm trying to show is that there are MANY currently active(these are not, but one of then was as recently ar last week) listings that include elements that are getting new listings refused or reffered to GS. This will clearly be confusing and seem unfair, or inconsistant to those trying to list Caches that are written just like the ones they see active all around them. Until there is some clarification added to the guidelines(of all examples of the violations have disappeared), this will continue to be a problem, and we will continue to see the issue brought up in the forums.

 

As for my second example, there are a lot of generic looking links there, but there are also links to the ferry service, and the tour service, which I guess would not be allowed today.

Link to comment

GeneGene, you still haven't articulated what exactly you would like to see happen. There are only a few options that I can see:

 

1) Turn the guidelines into hard rules and deny all commercial content through events

2) Turn the guidelines into hard rules and allow all commercial content through events

3) Leave as guidelines and allow Groundspeak to determine what commercial content is allowed

4) Leave as guidelines and allow GeneGene to determine what commercial content is allowed

5) Leave as guidelines and allow the community to vote, causing events to take 6 months to be approved

6) ????

 

What do you want? Or do you just want to make noise?

Link to comment

Back on topic please. The topic is about the one cache, not other caches from years ago. Let's keep our focus. Good discussion for the most part.

 

Thanks.

 

There are MANY currently active listings that include elements that are getting new listings refused or refered to GS. This will clearly be confusing and seem unfair, or inconsistant to those trying to list Caches that are written just like the ones they see active all around them. Until there is some clarification added to the guidelines (or all examples of the violations have disappeared), this will continue to be a problem, and we will continue to see the issue brought up in these forums.

 

Other references removed to keep my point on topic

Link to comment

Back on topic please. The topic is about the one cache, not other caches from years ago. Let's keep our focus. Good discussion for the most part.

 

Thanks.

In that case this thread is in the wrong forum. If this is a discussion of about why one blatantly commercial event was listed it's not really a web site issue. On the other hand if it is a discussion on whether the guidelines need to be clarified it is in the right place. When you split my post from the thread on the the event in Death Valley and put it here, that was a good thing.

 

Threads which start "Why was my cache denied?" very often end up as a discussion as to whether the guidelines need to be clarified. Examples of other caches that were accepted (in the past or recently) often illustrate that the guidelines are unclear even to the reviewers and that they get applied unfairly.

Link to comment

1.) Edit the listing. Have any event listing follow the same rules, no matter what. Don't treat one event different then the other, sponsor or no sponsor.

 

 

Again, I must disagree. If I was a GS sponsor, paying money for advertising, I would anticipate having avenues to promote my products...that is what I'm paying for afterall.

 

 

On a side note...and strictly in a joking tone...everytime I am reading your posts, I keep looking for a big gong I can bang and get you off the stage! ;)

 

(OK, I know I just dated myself, but as a kid, I used to watch The Gong Show, and they always had this guy called "Gene Gene The Dancing Machine" on it...he got gonged every time. :(

Link to comment
If this is a discussion of about why one blatantly commercial event was listed it's not really a web site issue.

Thank you for trying to derail the topic further, but I split off a topic regarding the larger guidelines issues you want to discuss into a separate topic in this forum. I am sorry that no one wants to discuss it with you, but if you want to discuss it further with yourself, feel free to bump your own topic I guess.

 

The original post was asking why DeLorme got permission. The questions have been answered. The web site gave that permission, so it is indeed a web site related issue. This topic is about corporate sponsorship rather than commercial links in cache pages. It is a specific issue with this cache and is typically unrelated to the broader issues you seem to be attempting to bring into this topic. By keeping the focus on the one cache and its unique nature, we can discuss it's merits and the reason why it was listed with permission from Groundspeak.

 

If you want to discuss this broader focus, your topic is waiting.

 

(Added in the quote for clarity.)

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

...What do you want? Or do you just want to make noise?

 

They want caching to be a light fun non commercial activity as written in the guidlines across the board. No blatant commercial exceptions to the light fun non commercial spirit of caching.

 

I've just read the universal human rights passed by the UN a long time ago (Google earth link). It's interesting to read that while the UN thinks all countries should honor these rights, they except themselves from a few of the rights. Much like this site has done via the permission clause. The OP is pointing out this incongruity.

 

My own opinion hasn't changed and probably lines up with yours on the issue. But that's my summary of the OP's position.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Of course, once again, you fail to read what I said before sniping back with some smart alec reply. I have in no way told you how to reply, I have simply pointed out that it

...might be more productive...
to reply differently. MAYBE you should take a look back in general and read the way you often reply to people. You are very rude and dismissive much of the time, and that is not generally viewed as being "Respectful" as is required in the forum guidelines. Gee, I wonder if you have gotten any warnings over this. I doubt it. I suppose if one has no interest in being productive, then there's no point to my point.

 

...where did I put that graphic of the pot and kettle...?

Link to comment

In that case this thread is in the wrong forum. If this is a discussion of about why one blatantly commercial event was listed it's not really a web site issue. On the other hand if it is a discussion on whether the guidelines need to be clarified it is in the right place. When you split my post from the thread on the the event in Death Valley and put it here, that was a good thing.

 

Threads which start "Why was my cache denied?" very often end up as a discussion as to whether the guidelines need to be clarified. Examples of other caches that were accepted (in the past or recently) often illustrate that the guidelines are unclear even to the reviewers and that they get applied unfairly.

 

I'm not quite sure if you are making a statement on the direction of the thread or that clarification is needed.

 

Assuming the latter, the guidelines state that permission needs to be sought prior. Not sure how more clear that can be made. Asking permission, by it's very nature, means that there is a possibility of a negative response.

 

Through all of this and other similar threads, no one has stated how to make this particular guideline more clear.

Link to comment

...What do you want? Or do you just want to make noise?

 

They want caching to be a light fun non commercial activity as written in the guidlines across the board. No blatant commercial exceptions to the light fun non commercial spirit of caching.

 

I've just read the universal human rights passed by the UN a long time ago (Google earth link). It's interesting to read that while the UN thinks all countries should honor these rights, they except themselves from a few of the rights. Much like this site has done via the permission clause. The OP is pointing out this incongruity.

 

My own opinion hasn't changed and probably lines up with yours on the issue. But that's my summary of the OP's position.

 

So, it's a basic sense of entitlement? Groundspeak somehow owe's him something because they gave something to Delorme. What does the OP want? That's all I want to know.. They want Groundspeak to treat everyone equal, regardless of circumstances. I wonder if the OP's world actually works that way. Does it work that way in their job? In their marriages? With their children?

 

There's be so much of this entitlement attitude lately in these forums.

Link to comment

They want caching to be a light fun non commercial activity as written in the guidlines across the board. No blatant commercial exceptions to the light fun non commercial spirit of caching....

 

So, it's a basic sense of entitlement? Groundspeak somehow owe's him something because they gave something to Delorme. What does the OP want? That's all I want to know.. They want Groundspeak to treat everyone equal, regardless of circumstances. I wonder if the OP's world actually works that way. Does it work that way in their job? In their marriages? With their children?

 

There's be so much of this entitlement attitude lately in these forums.

 

There is a lot of entitlement blame going around. This thread isn't about entitlement. It's about the larger philosopy that even Groundspeak espouses. Paraphrasing. "Caching is a light fun activity"..."So we don't allow agendas or commercial caches" ..."We reserve the right to except ourseves from that rule via permission". In other words. "Do as we say, not as we do". That makes a lot of folks bristle. Try that in a marraige, at work, in life, and with kids. It happens all the time, but it doesn't make people happy.

 

They are championing the idea that maybe this site should consider keeping commercialism out of the caches like they have us all do. It's a fair idea. They used the example of what's good for the goose is good for the gander.. That's not about entitlement. It's about fairness, it's about this site living up to the higher standard imposed on us mere cache owners.

 

When you think about it, entitlemenet would actually apply to Groundspeak reserving for themselves the privlidge of not complying with their own rule.

 

Again, I'm explaining the OP's position as I understand it. My opinion is in agreement with this site and it's treatment of sponsors. Assuming that they are sponsors in some way.

Link to comment

It happens all the time, but it doesn't make people happy.

 

I think the vast majority of cachers are happy.. There's a few vocal few in the forums that keep bringing this topic up that appear to be unhappy. When did Groundspeak become responsible for making these people happy? If they aren't happy caching, perhaps finding a different hobby that makes them happy would be in order? They need to be responsible for their own happiness, not blame others and put the responsibility on others to make them happy.

 

:( <-- Happy

 

Maybe this will help: http://www.happynews.com

 

[edit to add happy link]

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment

Of course, once again, you fail to read what I said before sniping back with some smart alec reply. I have in no way told you how to reply, I have simply pointed out that it

...might be more productive...
to reply differently. MAYBE you should take a look back in general and read the way you often reply to people. You are very rude and dismissive much of the time, and that is not generally viewed as being "Respectful" as is required in the forum guidelines. Gee, I wonder if you have gotten any warnings over this. I doubt it. I suppose if one has no interest in being productive, then there's no point to my point.

 

...where did I put that graphic of the pot and kettle...?

Was that the one of the kettle stiring the pot, or the one of the pot calling the kettle black????????????

Link to comment

It happens all the time, but it doesn't make people happy.

 

I think the vast majority of cachers are happy.. There's a few vocal few in the forums that keep bringing this topic up that appear to be unhappy. When did Groundspeak become responsible for making these people happy? If they aren't happy caching, perhaps finding a different hobby that makes them happy would be in order? They need to be responsible for their own happiness, not blame others and put the responsibility on others to make them happy.

 

:) <-- Happy

 

Maybe this will help: http://www.happynews.com

 

[edit to add happy link]

Maybe I'm not seeing the same thing, but what I see is a trickle of new people bringing up the topic as it becomes an issue for them, rather than a few vocal people bringing it up over and over (granted, that has happened to some degree, but I don't think that's the case for the most part)

Link to comment

The topic come up over and over because caches and events are being turned down do to commercial content. People who have had a event turned down and later see one like this will of course think that the system is unfair. In almost all case it is either a failure to read or understand the guideline.

[ ] Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

In spite of checking this box many people don't read the guidelines and more don't understand some of the more nuanced legalism.

 

If your cache was turned down for commercial content it was one of the following reasons

  1. Unlike DeLorme, you did not contact Groundspeak for a exception prior to trying to get your cache listed. If you did not get permission before posting, the reviewer will tell you to contact Groundspeak.
  2. You did contact Groundspeak for an exception but you were turned down because Groundspeak did not feel your event or cache provide enough of benefit to Geocaching to justify an exception. Groundpeak may tell you how you can change your listing so it is not commercial.
  3. You did not think your cache had commercial content but the reviewer did. Your reviewer will tell you to contact Groundspeak. (A nice reviewer may tell you what part of you listing he thinks is commercial so you can change this and avoid need to get an exception from Groundspeak).

<Suggestions for changes to guidelines and review process snipped and put into another thread because the moderator feel this topic is for discussion of the DeLorme cache and not other people's caches that were turned down because of the commercial guideline.>

Link to comment

The topic come up over and over because caches and events are being turned down do to commercial content. People who have had a event turned down and later see one like this will of course think that the system is unfair. In almost all case it is either a failure to read or understand the guideline.

 

I disagree.. Because even after being informed about the guidelines, they continue to rant. They simply feel entitled, regardless of what the guidelines say...

 

I'm honestly quite sick of the whole thing. My new response to these folks will be

 

"Please read the guidelines and if you disagree with them, you are welcome to find your cache listings elsewhere"

Link to comment

They want caching to be a light fun non commercial activity as written in the guidlines across the board. No blatant commercial exceptions to the light fun non commercial spirit of caching....

 

So, it's a basic sense of entitlement? Groundspeak somehow owe's him something because they gave something to Delorme. What does the OP want? That's all I want to know.. They want Groundspeak to treat everyone equal, regardless of circumstances. I wonder if the OP's world actually works that way. Does it work that way in their job? In their marriages? With their children?

 

There's be so much of this entitlement attitude lately in these forums.

 

There is a lot of entitlement blame going around. This thread isn't about entitlement. It's about the larger philosopy that even Groundspeak espouses. Paraphrasing. "Caching is a light fun activity"..."So we don't allow agendas or commercial caches" ..."We reserve the right to except ourseves from that rule via permission". In other words. "Do as we say, not as we do". That makes a lot of folks bristle. Try that in a marraige, at work, in life, and with kids. It happens all the time, but it doesn't make people happy.

 

They are championing the idea that maybe this site should consider keeping commercialism out of the caches like they have us all do. It's a fair idea. They used the example of what's good for the goose is good for the gander.. That's not about entitlement. It's about fairness, it's about this site living up to the higher standard imposed on us mere cache owners.

 

When you think about it, entitlemenet would actually apply to Groundspeak reserving for themselves the privlidge of not complying with their own rule.

 

Again, I'm explaining the OP's position as I understand it. My opinion is in agreement with this site and it's treatment of sponsors. Assuming that they are sponsors in some way.

 

I've never really seen it as "Do as we say, not as we do". More that "We're a business, you're a customer. You want to play? great. If you want to bring business into the equation you need to talk to us first."

 

I don't have a problem with that.

Link to comment

They want caching to be a light fun non commercial activity as written in the guidlines across the board. No blatant commercial exceptions to the light fun non commercial spirit of caching....

 

So, it's a basic sense of entitlement? Groundspeak somehow owe's him something because they gave something to Delorme. What does the OP want? That's all I want to know.. They want Groundspeak to treat everyone equal, regardless of circumstances. I wonder if the OP's world actually works that way. Does it work that way in their job? In their marriages? With their children?

 

There's be so much of this entitlement attitude lately in these forums.

 

There is a lot of entitlement blame going around. This thread isn't about entitlement. It's about the larger philosopy that even Groundspeak espouses. Paraphrasing. "Caching is a light fun activity"..."So we don't allow agendas or commercial caches" ..."We reserve the right to except ourseves from that rule via permission". In other words. "Do as we say, not as we do". That makes a lot of folks bristle. Try that in a marraige, at work, in life, and with kids. It happens all the time, but it doesn't make people happy.

 

They are championing the idea that maybe this site should consider keeping commercialism out of the caches like they have us all do. It's a fair idea. They used the example of what's good for the goose is good for the gander.. That's not about entitlement. It's about fairness, it's about this site living up to the higher standard imposed on us mere cache owners.

 

When you think about it, entitlemenet would actually apply to Groundspeak reserving for themselves the privlidge of not complying with their own rule.

 

Again, I'm explaining the OP's position as I understand it. My opinion is in agreement with this site and it's treatment of sponsors. Assuming that they are sponsors in some way.

 

I've never really seen it as "Do as we say, not as we do". More that "We're a business, you're a customer. You want to play? great. If you want to bring business into the equation you need to talk to us first."

 

I don't have a problem with that.

 

Hey! That's not what I said!!! I think the quotes got messed up :blink: That quote above is much too elegant to have come from me :unsure: (And you put my quote as RK's -- We don't want him getting suspended or anything)

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment

The topic come up over and over because caches and events are being turned down do to commercial content. People who have had a event turned down and later see one like this will of course think that the system is unfair. In almost all case it is either a failure to read or understand the guideline.

 

I disagree.. Because even after being informed about the guidelines, they continue to rant. They simply feel entitled, regardless of what the guidelines say...

 

I'm honestly quite sick of the whole thing. My new response to these folks will be

 

"Please read the guidelines and if you disagree with them, you are welcome to find your cache listings elsewhere"

 

Careful, there. You, too, might be labelled as rude and dismissive.

 

Some people just do not want to take 'no' for an answer. This isn't necessarily a bad trait! But it doesn't look like arguing this is going to change anything.

Link to comment

We went to the event today and It was great!

We have been to many events and have been handed discount coupons (that we never used).

We have been to events where cacher's bought and donated items to be given away.

We have been to events where business's donated items to be given away. In some cases the donator's names were listed as event sponsors, other times they weren't.

Today was about CITO.

We collected about twelve bags of trash and everyone that I saw at the event brought trash.

DeLorme paid to dispose of the trash. They also donated food and had some nice prises to give away. The event was outside and no one ever said "here take a coupon and go spend money in our store". The coupons were on a table you could take one or not.

I thank DeLorme for holding the event we had a good time and a lot of trash got cleaned up.

Maybe the trash would have been picked up with out an event maybe not. Either way it was nice to gather and meet fellow cachers for a good cause.

In the end where we choose to spend our money is up to us.

 

Cache Happy ~ Team Richards

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...