Geocaching Australia

[nobby.nobbs]

As a relative caching newcomer, the question I still want to know is, who speaks on behalf of the UK?

GAGB? Deceangi? Whoever comes forward?

Or is this an opportunity for the UK to also re-look at the way its organised?

Its all very well airing views in the forum but is anyone from the UK going to act on them in a coordinated way?

We can air our opinions either on these forums or on the GAGB forums, please do join them, there is no hidden agenda or pledge or any ulterior motive in the constitution, or if there is then they forgot to tell me about it when i signed onto the committee!

 

I would suggest that , assuming he agrees, we use Deceangi as the main representative to voice the opinion of the UK cachers. If not then the committee can do so.

 

As an aside, it will be very interesting to see if there is a new jeep TB this year. Now that we are going to be a totally non commercial, non promoting organisation that only allows things that every cacher can do.

[+Happy Humphrey]

As an aside, it will be very interesting to see if there is a new jeep TB this year. Now that we are going to be a totally non commercial, non promoting organisation that only allows things that every cacher can do.

If I catch your drift, it's a remark that's a bit beneath you!

 

Actually, Groundspeak DO consider "commercial" TB's, geocoins, events (etc.) proposed by anyone at all. Obviously, there are qualifying criteria - as you'd expect - and not everyone will get their listing.

[Alan White]

I would suggest that , assuming he agrees, we use Deceangi as the main representative to voice the opinion of the UK cachers.

I would suggest not. Deceangi, like all the volunteer reviewers, is not a representative of the cachers in his review area. He "works" for Groundspeak. And, as DaveD and Peter will no doubt testify, the views of the reviewers are no more important to Groundspeak than those of any other cacher.

[nobby.nobbs]

I would suggest that , assuming he agrees, we use Deceangi as the main representative to voice the opinion of the UK cachers.

I would suggest not. Deceangi, like all the volunteer reviewers, is not a representative of the cachers in his review area. He "works" for Groundspeak. And, as DaveD and Peter will no doubt testify, the views of the reviewers are no more important to Groundspeak than those of any other cacher.

 

Works would imply a salary.

 

I suggested him as he is well known to all UK cachers and already has a relationship to the powers that be.

 

Who else would you suggest? bearing in mind that not all UK cachers visit these forums so anyone else voted in or otherwise could not say that they hold any authority?

 

We need to stand behind one representative person or team to show a professional authoritive front. Only then will we cease to be a group of disgruntled customers and become a large solid consumer group with any power.

[+stonefielders]

We need to stand behind one representative person or team to show a professional authoritive front. Only then will we cease to be a group of disgruntled customers and become a large solid consumer group with any power.

 

Nice to hear this. I've asked this several times - thought I was asking something stupid.

If as the "UK" we're gonna approach Groundspeak to try & resolve the differences, who's acting as the UK representative for all the cachers?

It currently feels like a load of individuals venting frustrations without any muscle or common voice.

And I'm increasingly thinking the answer to my question is a big NO-ONE.

 

Having commercial drivers, Groundspeak will change if the UK approaches them in a commercial, measured & collective way.

Words in a forum will amount to nothing. Makes me wonder why I'm writing this to no-one now

[+careygang]

Lets consider the facts here.

 

There are other caching sites already available, but the fact is that geocaching.com and Groundspeak are the dominate organization. They are the Microsoft of caching and the other sites are really not even up to the Linus level.

The top levels of GSP are clearly in the 'American Foreign Policy' mind-set that is the curse of the modern world. They are incapable of understanding what it is about themselves that makes other nations dislike them, even if given the facts on a plate. They feel the 'American Way' or in this case, the 'Seattle Way' is the only way. (I'm also not arrogant enough to think the 'UK Way' is the perfect solution, but it is the cultural solution that suites us)

 

To go-it-alone with a UK listing site is neither practical or needed. If anyone feels they are unable to 'work with' GSP then just stop caching through their website and go to one of the others. If however you wish to have access to over 560,000 caches worldwide, then live with it and continue using this organization.

 

GSP are not going to give any creednce to a few dozen 'self proclaimed activists' when the vast majority of UK cachers (many 1,000's) do not even know all this is going on.

 

Perhaps the GAGB should become a medium for speaking with GSP as well as negotiating Landowner agreements?

 

Two of our reviewers resigned, one did not. Whose to say the right or wrongs of either decision? Did 2 over-react or did one just not share their opinion. Did the one feel he could work better from the inside, whilst the other 2 had had enough? They all have their reasons and I support all 3 of them.

 

The only way to change GSP is to work with them and not throw a few of the collective teddies out of the cot.

Edited April 26, 2008 by careygang

[Alan White]

Works would imply a salary.

Not at all. There are many, many people for work for organisations without receiving payment either in money or kind. The Scouts has already been mentioned, the leaders of most other children's out-of-school activity groups, National Trust/English Heritage/etc volunteers, charity shop assistants, some emergency workers. All these people often give their time free and I'm sure many of them would argue that they work just hard as any paid employee - perhaps harder.

 

Who else would you suggest? bearing in mind that not all UK cachers visit these forums so anyone else voted in or otherwise could not say that they hold any authority?

I do have a shortlist in mind - as I expect most people will have - but it would be inappropriate to list their names here.

 

And, as I've said before here, it really doesn't matter how many people visit this and other UK forums. A representative is chosen by those who choose and are able to make the choice . How many people elected the Prime Minister, the leader of 60m people? Answer: 200 members of the Parliamentary Labour Party*. Who elected your MP? If your consistuency is typical, then the candidate will have been chosen by a dozen party members and voted for by a few dozen more, before being elected by 20% of those eligible to vote. Your Chief Constable? The governors of your local school? The list is endless. That's what we consider to be democracy. Yes, it could be better, but those who want to get involved generally do.

 

* Please don't quibble at the numbers. It's a general point: not a recount

[Alan White]

There are other caching sites already available, but the fact is that geocaching.com and Groundspeak are the dominate organization. They are the Microsoft of caching and the other sites are really not even up to the Linus level.

Exactly the point. They are, like all monopolies, too powerful. They are using their power over the listing to determine how the game itself should be played. The only way to prevent this worsening is for there to be other listing sites which choose their own criteria for listing. This will help the game to diversify (it had started to diversify but every time some new idea comes out Groundspeak slaps it down with a new rule).

 

The top levels of GSP are clearly in the 'American Foreign Policy' mind-set that is the curse of the modern world. They are incapable of understanding what it is about themselves that makes other nations dislike them, even if given the facts on a plate. They feel the 'American Way' or in this case, the 'Seattle Way' is the only way. (I'm also not arrogant enough to think the 'UK Way' is the perfect solution, but it is the cultural solution that suites us)

I entirely agree, and therefore cannot understand why you then go on to say:

 

To go-it-alone with a UK listing site is neither practical or needed.

 

If anyone feels they are unable to 'work with' GSP then just stop caching through their website and go to one of the others. If however you wish to have access to over 560,000 caches worldwide, then live with it and continue using this organization.

This is also a non-sequitur. Having said that Groundspeak is dominant, you suggest that the way to counter that is not to set up a UK listing site which we could manage to suit our own culture but to use another American one?

 

Two of our reviewers resigned, one did not. Whose to say the right or wrongs of either decision? Did 2 over-react or did one just not share their opinion. Did the one feel he could work better from the inside, whilst the other 2 had had enough? They all have their reasons and I support all 3 of them.

I wondered this, but I doubt we'll ever know the full story.

 

The only way to change GSP is to work with them and not throw a few of the collective teddies out of the cot.

Groundspeak have shown previously, not once but many many times (and you say it yourself above), that they really don't care what non-American cachers think or do. That problem is unsurmountable because it is ingrained into their culture just as strongly as our culture is into us. The only way to fix that is to take control of the hobby in the UK and manage it as we want it to be.

 

Edited to add: As noted much earlier in the thread, I don't think it appropriate to discuss here the desirability or otherwise of creating alternative listing sites so this will be my last post on the subject. If anyone is genuinely interested in further discussion please do mail me.

Edited April 27, 2008 by Alan White

[nobby.nobbs]

that's me told !

 

I still believe that it will be possible to end this on a positive note if we all stop and decide what we'd really like.

then as a unified body approach Groundspeak and request some negotiations.

 

the idea of just walking away from a perfectly good website that we have some issues with without trying is shortsighted.

 

I don't think any of us disagree with a desire to return to the more relaxed and flexible moderation and reviewing that we did have.

so it's just a matter of who is best placed to speak.

 

they have laws and rules in america that we don't have here why can't we have different from them without anyone being threatened ?

[+PopUpPirate]

I don't think any of us disagree with a desire to return to the more relaxed and flexible moderation and reviewing that we did have.

so it's just a matter of who is best placed to speak.

 

Hear hear! You can't create a rule for everything, so allow some DISCRETION please.

[+keehotee]

Who else would you suggest? bearing in mind that not all UK cachers visit these forums so anyone else voted in or otherwise could not say that they hold any authority?

 

We need to stand behind one representative person or team to show a professional authoritive front. Only then will we cease to be a group of disgruntled customers and become a large solid consumer group with any power.

 

Isn't that one of the tasks GAGB appointed itself to ???

There doesn't seem to have been much input from GAGB on this forum other than offering their own forum as an alternative........ what is the official line from the committee on recent events?

 

For some time, it has been becoming more and more apparent that Geocaching in the United Kingdom needs to be represented by a body recognised in the UK by the cachers and acting on behalf of the cachers.

 

acting as intermediaries, and being the first point of call for all interested parties in Great Britain

[+Stuey]

the idea of just walking away from a perfectly good website that we have some issues with without trying is shortsighted.

 

Quite. I for one though won't be walking away from Geocaching.com. All my finds are here, and I won't start logging new caches on other cache listing sites, be it established alternatives or any new one that might grow from this current debate. I suspect that 99.9% of UK cachers will do the same.

Edited April 27, 2008 by Stuey

[nobby.nobbs]

 

Isn't that one of the tasks GAGB appointed itself to ???

There doesn't seem to have been much input from GAGB on this forum other than offering their own forum as an alternative........ what is the official line from the committee on recent events?

 

For some time, it has been becoming more and more apparent that Geocaching in the United Kingdom needs to be represented by a body recognised in the UK by the cachers and acting on behalf of the cachers.

 

acting as intermediaries, and being the first point of call for all interested parties in Great Britain

 

We did not self appoint ourselves as we are voted in each year and anyone can stand against each member of the committee.

 

There are ongoing discussions on the forums as to how to proceed and ideas on what we can do. We do not have an official position because we are the voice of the UK cachers and as such the UK cachers have yet to decide on how we should proceed. Our own personal comments on this or any other forum are just that PERSONAL thoughts.

 

but let's not expand this problem. If the GAGB site did not exist then we'd have nowhere to discuss these matters other than here and some people would find that very difficult.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I suspect that 99.9% of UK cachers will do the same.

99.99% I'd say, which is why I believe that any "breakaway" UK listing site is doomed before it starts.

[+Bill D (wwh)]

I'd overlooked this thread until it was drawn to my attention today - I hadn't, from the subject, realized it related to certain current issues.

 

Though I'm Chairman of GAGB, I'm posting my personal views here, which may or may not reflect the views of GAGB's committee.

 

I'm sorry that a few people don't want to use GAGB's forums because they don't want to become members of GAGB - I don't really understand why joining GAGB is a problem, but I do fully accept that some people see it as such, and as it happens we've recently been discussing the possibility of separating membership of the organization from use of the forums, so that could shortly cease to be an issue.

 

I can't see GAGB ever becoming a listing site as such, as we aim to support UK caching generally, and to become a listing site would make us, in a sense, "competitors" with other sites that list caches in the UK. As Alan has pointed out, we would perhaps be breaching our own constitution if we did so.

 

However, the "independent" national sites that have been mentioned in this thread and elsewhere recently, Australia, Hungary, Belgium and the Netherlands (and I imagine there might be others that I'm not aware of), are all independent national sites in one sense, but (unless I'm missing anything) they're not actually listing sites. The links to cache pages from those sites lead to gc.com. The sites themselves are autonomous, but the caches are still listed on gc.com. (I'm given to understand that some caches are listed only on the Australian site, but all those I've looked at myself have been on gc.com).

 

That seems to me to be a good compromise. They have a unique national identity, but cachers using them don't lose their caching history (caches listed and found, TBs owned and discovered, etc.), and no-one is starting again with a blank record sheet. I myself (and I stress that I'm speaking personally) would be quite happy to see GAGB provide something on those lines.

 

It's been suggested that GAGB might liaise or negotiate with gc.com on behalf of UK caching - if that's what UK cachers want, I'd would be quite happy with that, though this too is just my personal view.

 

Tim (keehotee) asked what GAGB's position is on all this, and I think that has been very well answered by one of our committee members, Matt (nobby.nobbs). We don't at the moment have an official position - we exist to represent cachers in the UK, and we're listening to what you're saying on matters before drawing any conclusions.

 

I hope I've covered everything in this thread that relates to GAGB, but now that I'm aware of the thread I shall be following it closely, so if I've missed anything please do post again to let me know.

 

And if you're still reading, thanks for wading through...!

 

---

Bill, Chairman of GAGB, but speaking personally.

[+keehotee]

Thanks Bill

[Alan White]

Thanks, Bill. Interesting post.

 

we've recently been discussing the possibility of separating membership of the organization from use of the forums, so that could shortly cease to be an issue.

That would be very useful. It would enable a UK forum without the baggage which goes with GAGB membership. It might also encourage some members .

 

GC:UK used to provide a useful UK forum but the problems on that site mean that the forum doesn't yet seem to have recovered. There are regional forums but at times like these - and hopefully, like other countries, forever - we need a UK forum.

 

The links to cache pages from those sites lead to gc.com. The sites themselves are autonomous, but the caches are still listed on gc.com.

I can't say I've investigated things extensively, but that's not my experience. What I've seen is that caches are listed on the national sites and, usually, also on GC.com. The same is true of Navicache and Terracaching: caches are often cross-listed. This is what's required: to remove the monopoly of GC.com by having other listing sites.

 

cachers using them don't lose their caching history

No-one loses their history by having caches listed on other sites. I would hope that people keep their own information rather than relying on GC.com to do it. Suppose GC.com crashed irreparably? And anyone logging a cache which isn't listed on GC.com would always have to keep their own records. GSAK is very good at that sort of thing . I just don't buy the premise that the only way to do anything to do with caching is to use Groundspeak.

 

It's been suggested that GAGB might liaise or negotiate with gc.com on behalf of UK caching - if that's what UK cachers want, I'd would be quite happy with that, though this too is just my personal view.

I would love to see GAGB expand its horizons into a "real" umbrella organisation for UK (or GB ?) cachers. Something along the lines of the work the RSGB does for radio amateurs: protect the interests of UK cachers and caching, no matter what direction the issues are coming from.

[+careygang]

I thought about response in great detail to "Alan White Posted Apr 27 2008, 10:39 AM", but decided better of it as the overall point was clearly missed and he likes to try and use clever words. (surprisingly I knew what 'non-sequitur' meant, though I've not seen it hyphened before).

The post was not meant to be a cohesive document, just a collection of statements. E.g. stating that GSP were in the 'we know best mindset' was not intended to be supported by the statement 'To go-it-alone with a UK listing site is neither practical or needed.'

 

But he(they) and others are confusing fact with fantasy. The vast majority of geocachers don't know about or care about this forum or who provides their website, they just want to cache. Those of us that leave the shores of the UK like the fact that it is an international website.

 

There is no way on this earth that anything comparable could be set up in opposition, unless Sir Alan Sugar happens to be a cacher, but then he's got more sense that to waste his money.

For Alan's benefit that is not meant to be a totally correct statement, by reference to Sir Alan I am implying that it wil take more money than a few disgruntled forum posters can rustle up.

 

As Bill D said, the other 'national' sites are not as independent of GSP as some would have us think.

 

To take some of the wild statements on this forum to their logical conclusion, we should have regional websites even within the UK; let's face it the Scots have their own everything else, why not an independent Scottish caching site?

 

Learn from this and work with Groundspeak.

[+Happy Humphrey]

The links to cache pages from those sites lead to gc.com. The sites themselves are autonomous, but the caches are still listed on gc.com.

I can't say I've investigated things extensively, but that's not my experience. What I've seen is that caches are listed on the national sites and, usually, also on GC.com. The same is true of Navicache and Terracaching: caches are often cross-listed. This is what's required: to remove the monopoly of GC.com by having other listing sites.

Checking the "Top Ten" caches on the Australian site revealed that they were all links to Groundspeak caches. It looked like there may be some listed on the site itself, but further investigation was hampered by some sort of bug locking up IE. That might have been bad luck, but it's the sort of thing a new UK listing site would have to cope with.

No-one loses their history by having caches listed on other sites. I would hope that people keep their own information rather than relying on GC.com to do it. Suppose GC.com crashed irreparably? And anyone logging a cache which isn't listed on GC.com would always have to keep their own records. GSAK is very good at that sort of thing . I just don't buy the premise that the only way to do anything to do with caching is to use Groundspeak.

That might be true, but who really bothers to keep their own complete records? For example, I would have no idea where all my geocoins and travel bugs are without GC.com. If GC.com crashed, I have a lot of confidence that it would be back again within a few days at worst: if that didn't happen (GC.com had gone bust) I would have "my finds" (thanks to a recent Groundspeak feature). But it wouldn't be the same game any more.

I still have no confidence that a UK Listing site would work at all. Not without the generous sponsorship of a billionaire and the cooperation of GC.com.

It's been suggested that GAGB might liaise or negotiate with gc.com on behalf of UK caching - if that's what UK cachers want, I'd would be quite happy with that, though this too is just my personal view.

I would love to see GAGB expand its horizons into a "real" umbrella organisation for UK (or GB ?) cachers. Something along the lines of the work the RSGB does for radio amateurs: protect the interests of UK cachers and caching, no matter what direction the issues are coming from.

That seems like a good suggestion.

[+Mad H@ter]

Is it time for the UK to follow the Australian model?

Either in full or parts of it, what are your views?

Is it practical, or is it too late?

 

As has been pointed out numerous times in the last couple of days there are huge cultural differences between the UK & USA so maybe this would be a solution.

As I started this I thought it was about time I stuck my head above the parapet and gave my two-penneth worth.

As I see it there are two issues here and I think that they can be considered quite independently of each other.

1. Listing site - Although it would remove Groundspeaks undesirable monopoly position I cannot see that it would be possible to set up a competing listings site without Groundspeaks full co-operation. Even with Alan Sugar's money and motivation the site would either fail due to people wanting a single source for there Geocaching, or it would be a huge success with everyone moving over to it (as they still want a single source) causing Groundspeak to fold and giving us another monopoly . Therefore I do not think that it is even worth wasting time and resources on this. As has been mentioned a few times above I think that the best approach is negotiations with Groundspeak by a UK Geocaching body, either existing, GAGB or a new one, which to me would be total unnecessary.
    
    
   
2. Forum - A forum independent of Groundspeak is I believe something that we should be able to do and most certainly should strive to achieve. These forums are far to restrictive on cachers outside of the US (and probably within to a lesser extent), as to all intense and purposes gives us only one area to discuss issues, and these must be directly related to Geocaching, and preferably specific to UK issues, and must comply with Groundspeaks T&Cs. Yes I know that there are other areas where other issues can be discussed (as long as they are within Groundspeaks T&Cs) but these tend to be very much dominated by US Geocachers and US issues. It is my belief and experience that most UK Geocachers do not feel comfortable posting there. With an independent UK site we would be able to discuss issues directly concerning UK Geocaching without fear of censorship from Groundspeak. We could also organise it far better with multiple folders, and yes we could even have a separate one for congratulations threads . Don't get me wrong regarding Groundspeaks control of the forum, it is there site so they call the tune, and at the end of the day they are a commercial concern who need to protect there own interests.
    
   So how do we do this? Well we already have a site set up at GAGB (although I do know that at least one Geocacher has a problem with this, which for the life of me I do not understand and wish that he would explain) which I think would be perfect providing the team that manage it would be happy and able to adequately moderate it. We then would need to move everyone over, which will be the hard bit. I'm not sure how we would go about this other than, 1) Posting a locked sticky thread re-directing everyone, probably against Groundspeak T&Cs, or 2) emailing all UK Geocachers with the info, probably an almost impossible task and if we could it would perhaps be considered as SPAM by some. The Australians have somehow managed it though, perhaps we could ask them how they did it.
    
   Another problem that we have with forums here in the UK is the numerous regional ones, all on different websites all requiring you to register and login. If like me, most users are lazy and don't like having to move around to different sites for the regional discussions. Our own forum would allow us to easily set up sub folders for the regional forums elevating this problem and almost certainly increase the traffic to these forums. I know this will not be a popular suggestion for some (runs for cover), but it is IMHO the way to go.
   

Well thats my two-penneth worth, where do we go from here?

Edited April 29, 2008 by Phillimore Clan

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

With you almost all the way.

 

Simply put... I think the UK needs...

 

a) Listing Site - Really there's little option other than to stick with Groundspeak and I currently have no problem with that.

 

A UK Caching Body - If we're talking about an organisation to represent all UK based cachers, then I'm not convinced that the current set up of the GAGB is ideal. I have to say that when I started caching and really until last year with the discussion of Regional Forums when I spoke with many of the GAGB members, I never understood what the GAGB did, apart from arranging permission with several big landowners.

 

They GAGB need to stand up and decide what they are - what they offer to UK cachers and then tell everyone quite clearly what they stand for.

 

c) A National Forum - If Groundspeak can be flexible and let the UK forums be moderated locally then I'd go along with that, that's the place that most cachers will go anyway.

 

An alternative national forum could be hosted by GAGB or could just be a forum not affiliated to anyone.

 

d) Regional Forums - I've argued strongly for them in the past - and I'll do so again. The Cornish Forum attracts quite a number of cachers who don't post on the national forum and I suspect wouldn't visit other regional forums, we organise local events, Geocoins and so on and it's been really really useful. I'd suggest we stick with what the GAGB Forum currently has - which is links to all local forums.