Commercial buisness names in geocache name or is it?

[cezanne]

Maybe not clever, but is there an issue with a cache being named after the thing dominating the area it's in? Caches are named after parks, land forms, nothing in particular. Why not the busienss who's shadow they are hiding within? All non commercial reasons to name a cache.

 

I agree with you. I think that your contribution touches one of the major issues in this discussion. There are reviewers who base their decision on the fact whether they feel that commercial reasons are behind placing the cache. These reviewers publish a cache where the title and/or the cache description contain references to businesses if they feel that it has not be placed for commercial reasons.There are other reviewers however who reject caches regardless of the reasons for hiding the cache. The resulting differences are enormous and I do not think that this procedure is fair (I am not concerned myself).

 

Cezanne

[+Okiebryan]

Why not just be a little more clever? I've seen walmart caches titled, "Always" or "Save money, live better" or my own favorite, "Evil hide at the evil empire". Using Walmart or even tramlaw is not terribly clever.

 

I liked the suggestion about Superlative Purchase... that's clever.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I would think that "Jeep" is considered to be one of those trademarks that has long since lost its association with one particular brand, just like Xerox and Kleenex. Just a guess.

 

Oh, what a conundrum.

 

What ever is a hapless reviewer to do when they find the Jeep, Xerox, Kleenex cache in their queue for approval as they are all clearly trademarks and clearly public domain words and clearly company names (Kleenex may not actually be a company name but I’m too lazy to look it up and check).

 

My muse is whispering to me...

[cezanne]

If there are examples from 2009 of caches with business names in the titles,

 

I listed quite a number of such caches.

 

The outrage ought then be directed at the reviewer who didn't apply the current interpretation correctly, or at the cache owner who changed the name post-publication. Getting angry at the reviewer who is doing their job correctly is not productive.

 

I feel that the topic is not important enough to warrant any sort of outrage and I do not feel that this a reason for getting angry with a reviewer. In any case I am just wondering about the wide spectrum in reviewer decisions. As I mentioned some reviewers reject caches with the name of a local football club in the name (i.e. not club empires that Real Madrid) or the name of a pop band while others accept caches with names of business in the cache name on a regular basis.

 

Sometimes I feel tempted to ask why a particular reviewer published or rejected a certain cache, but in the case of most reviewers it is very difficult to ask such questions as most of the ones in the areas I am familiar with either to decided to keep away from geocaching forums at all or do not answer questions about their reviewing policy (I can understand this behaviour to some extent given the high working load done on a volunteer basis). I rather feel that this is an issue of Groundspeak and not of individual reviewers.

 

Cezanne

[+sbell111]

...Here's the latest clarification from Groundspeak: "Business names should not be in geocache titles. In cases where business names must be mentioned (in some events, for example, it may make sense to do so), this can be done in the description."

 

It can't get much plainer that that.

 

Nice catch: I wasn't aware of the shift in rules stating no busines names in caches. That in itself is a shift away from the anti commercial rule because commercial is an intent and not a name. See my post above for how clear the rule really is. It's seemingly clear but has a lot of nuances.

I can't agree with this.

 

For years, this was the commercial guideline:

 

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.

 

As you can see, 'intent' was never a part of the 'commercial' determination.

Edited September 16, 2009 by sbell111

[cezanne]

For years, this was the commercial guideline:

 

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.

 

As you can see, 'intent' was never a part of the 'commercial' determination.

 

I think it depends to what "intent" refers to. The text mentioned above talks about the attempt to solicit customers. A cache called e.g. MIT or University of California certainly does not solicit any further student for these universities (which are businesses as well) and a cache named e.g. "Arsenal London" will typically not have the effect of increasing the number of people buying a ticket for a game of this team. Still such caches have a name of a business in the cache title.

 

Personally, I think that it quite a questionable approach to try to ban all caches that might solicit customers. It goes without saying that hiding nice hiking caches in a mountain area attracts cachers to visit the area and of course they will then spend some money in the area (for accomodation, food, probably cable cars, charges for using mountain roads etc). I appreciate cache descriptions that tell me about the beauty of an area and I would like to see just very neutral, boring cache descriptions that do not tell me anything about why this cache might be attractive for me.

 

Summing up, I feel that it is extremely hard to draw a precise borderline. Clearly, there are caches where the commercial character is pretty obvious, but most caches mentioned here do not belong at all to this group.

 

 

Cezanne

[+sbell111]

Given that, why don't we simply accept that the reviewers are doing their best and let this issue go?

[+Renegade Knight]

...For years, this was the commercial guideline:

 

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.

 

As you can see, 'intent' was never a part of the 'commercial' determination.

 

I put the intent in bold. The intent is the attempt.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+sbell111]

...For years, this was the commercial guideline:

 

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.

 

As you can see, 'intent' was never a part of the 'commercial' determination.

 

I put the intent in bold. The intent is the attempt.

How do you explain the bit that you didn't bold?

[cezanne]

...For years, this was the commercial guideline:

 

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.

 

As you can see, 'intent' was never a part of the 'commercial' determination.

 

I put the intent in bold. The intent is the attempt.

How do you explain the bit that you didn't bold?

 

I tried to explain already before that there are at least two different ways of using the term intent in this context. One is the your way, namely to relate intent to whether or not the attempt to solicit customers is undertaken intentionally or non-intentionally. The other way is to relate the term intent to the attempt. Almost none of the cases which I am familiar with in which the names of a business occurs in a cache name would qualify for the category "attempt to solicit customers" (regardless of whether intentionally or non-intentionally). I hope that I managed to explain the point I am trying to make.

 

In any case, I feel that there is a big difference between the old wording of the commercial rule and forbidding the names of businesses in cache names. BTW: there are quite a lot of businesses which carry names which occur in a non-business related context as well - for example, there is a company called Dachstein in Austria, but also a famous montain with the same name (the company has been inspired by the mountain in their choice of the name).

 

Or take another example: What's the difference between a cache with the name "Graz Main Square" to

a cache with the name "Graz, Porsche Square"? In both cases, the name is just an address in a city where in the second case the name's place is in connection with a business. If someone calls his cache according to the name of the place where it is located, it appears quite ridiculous to me to refer to this as an attempt to solicit customers.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited September 17, 2009 by cezanne

[+sbell111]

...For years, this was the commercial guideline:

 

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.

As you can see, 'intent' was never a part of the 'commercial' determination.

I put the intent in bold. The intent is the attempt.

How do you explain the bit that you didn't bold?

I tried to explain already before that there are at least two different ways of using the term intent in this context. One is the your way, namely to relate intent to whether or not the attempt to solicit customers is undertaken intentionally or non-intentionally. The other way is to relate the term intent to the attempt. Almost none of the cases which I am familiar with in which the names of a business occurs in a cache name would qualify for the category "attempt to solicit customers" (regardless of whether intentionally or non-intentionally). I hope that I managed to explain the point I am trying to make.

 

In any case, I feel that there is a big difference between the old wording of the commercial rule and forbidding the names of businesses in cache names. BTW: there are quite a lot of businesses which carry names which occur in a non-business related context as well - for example, there is a company called Dachstein in Austria, but also a famous montain with the same name (the company has been inspired by the mountain in their choice of the name).

 

Or take another example: What's the difference between a cache with the name "Graz Main Square" to

a cache with the name "Graz, Porsche Square"? In both cases, the name is just an address in a city where in the second case the name's place is in connection with a business. If someone calls his cache according to the name of the place where it is located, it appears quite ridiculous to me to refer to this as an attempt to solicit customers.

 

Cezanne

Given that 'intent' is the root of the words 'intentionally' and 'non-intentionally', I have to believe that it's TPTB's position that the cache hider's intent has never mattered to TPTB. Further, since the guidelines have been made more strict regarding commercial caches, I would believe that their previous position on intent has not changed.

 

The test related to this is clear in the guidelines. If TPTB have determined that it is commercial, than it is. It has been made clear on previous occasions that the official position is that caches with business names in the title are commercial caches. Permission to list these must be obtained from TPTB prior to submitting the cache.

[cezanne]

Given that 'intent' is the root of the words 'intentionally' and 'non-intentionally', I have to believe that it's TPTB's position that the cache hider's intent has never mattered to TPTB.

 

I agree with you. What has mattered before was, however, the outcome, i.e. whether or not an attempt to solicit customers resulted. If no such solicitation showed up, the cache was ok. This is what has been changed by the new formulation.

 

Further, since the guidelines have been made more strict regarding commercial caches, I would believe that their previous position on intent has not changed.

 

I still agree.

 

The issue on which we apparently disagree is another one. As I mentioned there are two ways of using the word intent in connection with the commercial cache issued. The one Groundspeak is using and the other one. The attitude of Groundspeak with regard of the way you use the word intent has not changed. It has, however, changed with respect to the other way one could use intent in this context because according to the current guidelines a cache that contains the name of a business in its name requires special permission by Groundspeak regardless of whether it makes

an attempt to solicit customers.

 

 

The test related to this is clear in the guidelines.

 

That's essentially true, but I am not sure whether the intent of Groundspeak is really to forbid caches with names like Dachstein or turn them into caches for which permission has to be obtained (that's the most natural name for a cache hidden on that mountain, isn't it?).

 

Moreover, despite of the clarification of what is regarded as a commercial caches there are reviewers who publish every single cache with a business name in the cache name (provided that there is no other reason to reject the cache) and other reviewers that even reject caches the names of which contain the name of a small local football team. Do you really think that this is a desirable practice? Of course there will always exist borderline cases, but I feel that too much diversity in such issues leads to too many completely unnecessary discussions.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 17, 2009 by cezanne

[+Renegade Knight]

...For years, this was the commercial guideline:

 

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.

 

As you can see, 'intent' was never a part of the 'commercial' determination.

 

I put the intent in bold. The intent is the attempt.

How do you explain the bit that you didn't bold?

It was covered by the indirectly that I did bold. If the goal is to have it so the reviewer at their sole discression, call it "commercial" they should just say that in the guidlines and not beat around the bush with the broad wording they are using that ends up being the the reviewers sole opinion anyway.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+sbell111]

Given that 'intent' is the root of the words 'intentionally' and 'non-intentionally', I have to believe that it's TPTB's position that the cache hider's intent has never mattered to TPTB.

 

I agree with you. What has mattered before was, however, the outcome, i.e. whether or not an attempt to solicit customers resulted. If no such solicitation showed up, the cache was ok. This is what has been changed by the new formulation.

 

Further, since the guidelines have been made more strict regarding commercial caches, I would believe that their previous position on intent has not changed.

 

I still agree.

 

The issue on which we apparently disagree is another one. As I mentioned there are two ways of using the word intent in connection with the commercial cache issued. The one Groundspeak is using and the other one. The attitude of Groundspeak with regard of the way you use the word intent has not changed. It has, however, changed with respect to the other way one could use intent in this context because according to the current guidelines a cache that contains the name of a business in its name requires special permission by Groundspeak regardless of whether it makes

an attempt to solicit customers.

 

 

The test related to this is clear in the guidelines.

 

That's essentially true, but I am not sure whether the intent of Groundspeak is really to forbid caches with names like Dachstein or turn them into caches for which permission has to be obtained (that's the most natural name for a cache hidden on that mountain, isn't it?).

 

Moreover, despite of the clarification of what is regarded as a commercial caches there are reviewers who publish every single cache with a business name in the cache name (provided that there is no other reason to reject the cache) and other reviewers that even reject caches the names of which contain the name of a small local football team. Do you really think that this is a desirable practice? Of course there will always exist borderline cases, but I feel that too much diversity in such issues leads to too many completely unnecessary discussions.

 

Cezanne

I guess that I don't understand the difference between your two 'definitions'.

 

Also, if you believe that your cache has been denied inappropriately, you should appeal the decision.

[+sbell111]

...For years, this was the commercial guideline:

 

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.

 

As you can see, 'intent' was never a part of the 'commercial' determination.

 

I put the intent in bold. The intent is the attempt.

How do you explain the bit that you didn't bold?

It was covered by the indirectly that I did bold. If the goal is to have it so the reviewer at their sole discression, call it "commercial" they should just say that in the guidlines and not beat around the bush with the broad wording they are using that ends up being the the reviewers sole opinion anyway.

But they have already told us that teh guidance from TPTB was that they should deny all of these unless prior approval had been attaineed.

[+Renegade Knight]

...But they have already told us that teh guidance from TPTB was that they should deny all of these unless prior approval had been attaineed.

Now we come full circle to where we started.

 

The word is "No" to all caches that indirectly (meaning accidently though no fault of the cacher) are commercial which is as clear as mud when someone just want to place a cache and they though their name was fine.

 

I'm not thinking the cacher has the problem.

[+sbell111]

...But they have already told us that teh guidance from TPTB was that they should deny all of these unless prior approval had been attaineed.

Now we come full circle to where we started.

 

The word is "No" to all caches that indirectly (meaning accidently though no fault of the cacher) are commercial which is as clear as mud when someone just want to place a cache and they though their name was fine.

 

I'm not thinking the cacher has the problem.

The guidance was 'Caches with a business name in the title will be denied'. How is that unclear?

[cezanne]

The guidance was 'Caches with a business name in the title will be denied'. How is that unclear?

 

It is unclear for several reasons when viewed upon from the point of view of a cache hider.

First and foremost, because some reviewers stick to this guidance very rigidly and some do not apply it at all.

Second, the guidance depends on the definition for business which is not clear.

Third, the outcome depends on the knowledge of the reviewer and how much time he is willing to invest to research whether a business exists with a certain name. (A reviewer knowing that Dachstein is also the name of a company ought to reject a cache with that name and a less knowledgeable will publish it - is that what makes sense?)

Fourth, as long as some reviewers believe that a cache called Arsenal London or a cache called Porsche Square

has to be denied while other believe that this not the case and even laugh at cachers who complain about publication of such caches, there must be something which is unclear.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 17, 2009 by cezanne

[+sbell111]

The fact that some slip through doesn't make the guideline unclear. It just makes those people lucky.

 

BTW, are you arguing that none of these caches should be denied, or that all of them should be?

[cezanne]

The fact that some slip through doesn't make the guideline unclear. It just makes those people lucky.

 

As I have already mentioned and tried to back up with quite a number of examples, I am not talking about the occasional caches that slip through (caches that slip thorugh arise also for most of the other aspects covered in the guidelines - that's normal as nobody is perfect and I would not write several postings about such a trivial fact).

 

Note, moreover, that the guidance that names of businesses should not be used in cache titles is not part of the guidelines - it is only part of the posting in the Groundspeak forums that attempts to clarify the guidelines. That's a difference.

 

Now let's just focus on what the guidelines say about commercial caches and ignore for the moment the posting in the Groundspeak forums.

Take this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...67-6be602016826

as example. It is not necessary to understand the description. It suffices to know that it tells a lot of details about a modern shopping centre. The cache is an extreme cache and anyone going for it (one has to do some dangerous climbing) does not go there to visit one of the shops of the centre and buy something there.

 

Now the task of the reviewer comes in. The guidelines assign him the job to decide whether the cache

has been set up with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain.

The reviewer who has published this cache is of the opinion that the answer is no (which I share in this cache though I have other concerns about the cache) and thus published it.

 

Another sentence in the guidelines dealing with commercial caches talks about cache listings that have overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion. It is hard to decide on this in an objective manner.

As I mentioned there are reviewers where already caches that contain the name of a small local football club in the name, get denied and other reviewers which even publish caches like the one I linked to above on a regular basis. The trouble is that both type of reviewers feel that they have done their best to live up to the spirit of the guidelines on commercial caches. As long as this is the case, I feel that something is wrong in the system (note this is not to be seen as a complaint about any of the reviewers).

 

 

BTW, are you arguing that none of these caches should be denied, or that all of them should be?

 

My personal preference would be that those caches to which the following statement (which is also part of the new formulation of the guidelines) applies

 

Caches with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

 

are denied. I do not think that denying any cache the name of which contains the name of a business makes sense (if they really wish to do that, it should however be part of the guidelines which are available to all cachers and it should be explained what exactly is meant by a business). One of the reasons why I feel it does not make sense is demonstrated by the following example. Consider a cache A with the name Huber

(this is indeed the name of a widely known company at least in the German speaking area) hidden at a place with no connection at all to a business with the name Huber and with no relation between the cache and the business. I feel that cache A should be published. Now consider a cache B with the same name, hidden closely to a location owned by the company Huber and where the cache description deals with that company. Personally, I would feel that cache B should be denied, but still there are reviewers who would deny it only if the description text would be very enthusiastic about the company or it would be necessary to buy something there in order to be able to log the cache.

 

 

If Groundspeak decides to use a different policy which is set into practice in a reasonably homogeneous manner (at least in areas which do not differ from each other by culture, language etc), this would be fine for me as well (it is their website, not mine). What I do not like, however, is the chaotic situation which prevails at least in some parts of the world and which leaves it to chance which caches are rejected and which are published (depending on which reviewer handles them).

 

 

 

Cezanne

Edited September 17, 2009 by cezanne

[+texasgrillchef]

PS: It is "dead end" (two words), not "deadend" (one word)

 

Deadend as one word is pronounced differently in Texas then dead end. Deadend is a southern "slang" term pronounced as though it is one word. While dead end is pronounced as two seperate words.

 

But yes, in correct, proper english. Dead end is two seperate words. L8R & other similar slang terms don't exist in true proper english.

 

Interesting fact. When I was growin up. My mom always said "ain't" ain't a word. Yet now ain't is in the dictionary, (It wasn't back then) and now acceptable in our english language and no longer considered a slang term by language studies.

 

TGC

[+BlueDeuce]

ain't was commonly used in the 1600-1700's as a contraction of are not (am not) but it fell out of favor leading people to believe that it wasn't a proper word. It was and still is proper.

Edited September 18, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+texasgrillchef]

Xerox strenuously defends its trademark. As, I believe, does Kleenex. Likewise, Tupperware is a brand name. Jeep, on the other fin, was an army vehicle during the Second World War, and may not have that trademark protection. Aspirin, for instance, was a trademark of the Bayer Corportion, but was appropriated by the US during the Second World War. It is now a generic word.

 

You are correct about aspirin. Jeep because they are still a company making vehicles is still in fact a trademarked name.

 

TGC

[+texasgrillchef]

Its a dead-end. That should tell you its a guardrail hide.

 

Not all dead-ends have gaurdrails. Some just have a concrete barrier with a big huge "Dead-End Sign".

 

TGC

[+Cpl. Klinger]

Its a dead-end. That should tell you its a guardrail hide.

 

Not all dead-ends have gaurdrails. Some just have a concrete barrier with a big huge "Dead-End Sign".

 

TGC

 

Not all dead ends have to have caches, either. Something for some to ponder...

[+texasgrillchef]

Given that, why don't we simply accept that the reviewers are doing their best and let this issue go?

 

Because I DON'T feel the reviewers are doing their best. Volunteer or not. If I am doing my weekly volunteer work at the local soup kitchen & I mess up cooking whatever it is I was suppose to be cooking, I expect to hear about it. I am sorry but I don't believe anyone is ever at their best 100% of the time.

 

TGC

[GOF and Bacall]

Its a dead-end. That should tell you its a guardrail hide.

 

Not all dead-ends have gaurdrails. Some just have a concrete barrier with a big huge "Dead-End Sign".

 

TGC

 

Not all dead ends have to have caches, either. Something for some to ponder...

 

Are you sure? I could of swore there was a rule that said if you came within 100 feet of a dead end (deadend, dead-end, whatever) you had to through a film can or key safe in its general direction and post it on GC.com.

[+Cpl. Klinger]

Its a dead-end. That should tell you its a guardrail hide.

 

Not all dead-ends have gaurdrails. Some just have a concrete barrier with a big huge "Dead-End Sign".

 

TGC

 

Not all dead ends have to have caches, either. Something for some to ponder...

 

Are you sure? I could of swore there was a rule that said if you came within 100 feet of a dead end (deadend, dead-end, whatever) you had to through a film can or key safe in its general direction and post it on GC.com.

 

I guess I must have missed that rule...

 

But then again: “Not every end is the goal. The end of a melody is not its goal, and yet if a melody has not reached its end, it has not reached its goal. A parable. -- Friedrich Nietzsche"

 

Much like this thread: it has neither no goal, nor an end. But it does (did?) have ponies. And I want mine.

[knowschad]

PS: It is "dead end" (two words), not "deadend" (one word)

 

Deadend as one word is pronounced differently in Texas then dead end. Deadend is a southern "slang" term pronounced as though it is one word. While dead end is pronounced as two seperate words.

 

But yes, in correct, proper english. Dead end is two seperate words. L8R & other similar slang terms don't exist in true proper english.

 

Interesting fact. When I was growin up. My mom always said "ain't" ain't a word. Yet now ain't is in the dictionary, (It wasn't back then) and now acceptable in our english language and no longer considered a slang term by language studies.

 

TGC

 

 

Correction: "Dead End" (or "Dead-End") is pronounced as one word in Texas. "Deadend" is pronounced as "You may stay after school again, Mr. Texasgrillchef"".

 

 

Definition of "ain't" on the internet: link

 

Ain't, according to Wikipedia: Ain't is a colloquialism

 

 

That said, I use a lot of colloquilisms in my speech, so I really don't care. But "deadend" is still two words, or maybe a hyphenated word. But you may not care, and that's fine with me. Just letting you know. Life goes on.

[knowschad]

ain't was commonly used in the 1600-1700's as a contraction of are not (am not) but it fell out of favor leading people to believe that it wasn't a proper word. It was and still is proper.

 

No it ain't!!!

[knowschad]

Not all dead ends have to have caches, either. Something for some to ponder...

 

You can't imagine what a relief that is!! Have you any idea how many dead-ends there are in my neighborhood that don't yet have a cache? Guess I can cancel that huge bison tube order! Thanks!!

[knowschad]

Given that, why don't we simply accept that the reviewers are doing their best and let this issue go?

 

Because I DON'T feel the reviewers are doing their best. Volunteer or not. If I am doing my weekly volunteer work at the local soup kitchen & I mess up cooking whatever it is I was suppose to be cooking, I expect to hear about it. I am sorry but I don't believe anyone is ever at their best 100% of the time.

 

TGC

 

 

Oops! Minor backslide. LOL!

 

 

(Sorry... you've been doing great. I just couldn't resist a little jab)

[+BlueDeuce]

ain't was commonly used in the 1600-1700's as a contraction of are not (am not) but it fell out of favor leading people to believe that it wasn't a proper word. It was and still is proper.

 

No it ain't!!!

 

Thank you, Donny Baker.

[+CTYankee9]

ain't was commonly used in the 1600-1700's as a contraction of are not (am not) but it fell out of favor leading people to believe that it wasn't a proper word. It was and still is proper.

 

No it ain't!!!

 

Thank you, Donny Baker.

 

I was going to post that too! But alas it took so long to read through this thread just to get to a good punch-line {punchline}{punch line} I was beaten to it.

[Clan Riffster]

Tell me... should mine be allowed or not? And if NOT why?

IN simple TERMS, my ANSWER is "NO", it SHOULD not BE published.

AS for THE "why NOT?", see THE many ANSWERS below YOUR original POST.

 

I've noticed that nearly every post of yours is agitational.

Glad I'm not the only one seeing that. I keep waiting for us to be called un-American...

 

So then what everyone is saying is that I should let it go...

and then go issue SBA's on all those that are using commercial names in their cache name.

Shall we do the math?

12 posts before this one.

4 incorporate words to the effect of "Let it go".

0 incorporate words to the effect of "Issue SBAs"

Not exactly "everyone", at least in my book.

Maybe you had that new math in high school?

That was before my generation.

 

A Pony? What the heck am I suppose to do with a pony?

1 ) Feed it well and care for it so it grows into a horse.

2 ) After a long, loving healthy life, it passes on in its sleep.

3 ) Now you have a dead horse to beat...

[+Cpl. Klinger]

Not all dead ends have to have caches, either. Something for some to ponder...

 

You can't imagine what a relief that is!! Have you any idea how many dead-ends there are in my neighborhood that don't yet have a cache? Guess I can cancel that huge bison tube order! Thanks!!

 

Let me be as kind as I can be in my response, good sir:

 

Stuff it. Unless you think I have no IQ, or am illiterate, your sarcasm to a point not directed at you is uncalled for and sophomoric at best.

 

I also predict this thread to be locked in 5.... any one care to place a bet?

Edited September 18, 2009 by Cpl. Klinger

[+traildad]

Sometimes it seems like you are looking for trouble. But that is not a scientific observation.

 

You may get a chuckle out of a cache I placed back a while when there was another round of debate about commercial content. Link

 

Yep your absolutely right. I do look for trouble. I look for problems. I love solving problems & issues. When I find trouble. I try to find a final resolution to the issue. Just in my nature. It's the drummer that I march too. This is one of the reasons I loved being in EMS so much as well as being a volunteer law enforcement officer at one time as well. One of the other reasons I am very politcally invovled with the political process, as well as with lobyists.

 

While I love geocaching, I believe in regulation, laws, rules and policies. On all levels. Including Federal, State, Local and those who control geocaching.com. I believe in those so long as they are fair & just.

 

All I am asking is that "reviewers" have some consistancy to their process. It isn't that hard to do. Even if the person is a volunteer & not paid. I have worked many jobs both in a paid position as as a volunteer. Consistancy was expected from both the paid person as well as the volunteer. No excuses just because you were were an unpaid volunteer. No not all of my volunteer work has been with EMS/Fire/S&R or Law Enforcement either. I have volunteered my time as a cook for soup kitchens. I tell you this, everyone expects consistancy when you cook various items. Volunteer or otherwise.

 

My biggest issue & pet peeve with geocaching.com & Groundspeak.com is their consistancy to being inconsitant.

 

I am just very very glad that our legal system isn't run the same way that they run the implementation and enforcement of the rules, policies and regulations here!

 

TGC

 

I think you may be overlooking the fact that things have changed over the years. Geocaching was not always as you see it now. If those inconsistently approved "commercial" caches are to be "made" consistent then they must be archived. Maybe tptb thought it was a better thing to leave what is and already approved, than to upset those cache owners by revoking the permission that had been granted. So what is the right way to handle it. Things can never change when a small hobby web site goes national? We must revoke permission from the existing caches because new cachers will feel they deserve similar status?

 

As for your volunteer cook example, let me ask you this. Lets say you are running a soup kitchen staffed with volunteers. Your kitchen is struggling to feed the people that come in because you don't get enough donations to buy all the food you need. You instruct your volunteers to serve very small portions to make the food last longer. Then your soup kitchen and your good work gets mentioned in a national article and the donations flood in. Now in the name of pure and unbending consistency do you continue your food portion policy? Would you seek out all the people that had been served in the past and send them the difference of the larger portion so they would all get a consistent amount of food? In this sometimes messy "real world" our ideals just can't always make things perfect. We simply must work with what we have, make the best out of it and move "forward". Pointing at others that seem to have gotten a better deal than you did and trying to take it away to make things "consistent", will not make your life better. Is this why you referred to your EMS and law enforcement work in a "past tense"? Is that why you have worked "many" jobs? I suggest that you owe an apology to all that you threatened to SBA their caches.

[Clan Riffster]

don't butt in with your own two cents when it doesn't matter

It's not "butting in" when the OP specifically asks for our opinions.

 

That's why the debate.

The opening post was not a debate. It was a rant by someone apparently used to throwing tantrums.

 

Wouldnt it just be so much easier to just create firm policy on some of the contentious items that way it's uniform and not grey?

I believe that any such all inclusive policy would grow astronomical with such rapidity that even an expert would be hard pressed to keep up with it. It's reminiscent of my days working for Mickey Rat. TPTB there tried to ensure that every conceivable circumstance was covered in their rules. The rules for a steam cleaner operator looked like a phone book. Guidelines offer flexibility. Rule books only offer more rules.

 

Getting angry at the reviewer who is doing their job correctly is not productive.

But it does make for great drama!

[cezanne]

Also, if you believe that your cache has been denied inappropriately, you should appeal the decision.

 

Just to make that point clear: I have neither ever have got any cache denied due to the commercial argument nor due to any other argument.

 

The reason for me to participate in this thread is that I do not like the enormous inconsistency that arises in the decision between different reviewers when the commercial cache topic is concerned. Let me stress again, I am not taking about caches that have been published before the modified formulation of the commercial rule came up and I am not talking about some rare examples that obviously slipped through. I am referring to the general reviewing practice which shows these extreme diversity. I do not think that everything is ok with the system if the same type of cache would consistently be denied for example in Frankfurt/Main and consistently published in Vienna (just an arbitrary example - the issue is not about these two cities).

 

Cezanne

[+texasgrillchef]

As per a previous post.... I said I washed my hands of this matter & simply renamed my cache hide to a name that was better anyways.

 

HOWEVER....

 

FYI... I received a response back to my reply & I WON my appeal so if I desired I could go back and rename my cache what I originally named it.

 

This is a FYI post only. I am NOT going to make further comment in regards to this issue.

 

Thank you

 

TGC

[cezanne]

Sometimes it seems like you are looking for trouble. But that is not a scientific observation.

 

You may get a chuckle out of a cache I placed back a while when there was another round of debate about commercial content. Link

 

Yep your absolutely right. I do look for trouble. I look for problems. I love solving problems & issues. When I find trouble. I try to find a final resolution to the issue. Just in my nature. It's the drummer that I march too. This is one of the reasons I loved being in EMS so much as well as being a volunteer law enforcement officer at one time as well. One of the other reasons I am very politcally invovled with the political process, as well as with lobyists.

 

While I love geocaching, I believe in regulation, laws, rules and policies. On all levels. Including Federal, State, Local and those who control geocaching.com. I believe in those so long as they are fair & just.

 

All I am asking is that "reviewers" have some consistancy to their process. It isn't that hard to do. Even if the person is a volunteer & not paid. I have worked many jobs both in a paid position as as a volunteer. Consistancy was expected from both the paid person as well as the volunteer. No excuses just because you were were an unpaid volunteer. No not all of my volunteer work has been with EMS/Fire/S&R or Law Enforcement either. I have volunteered my time as a cook for soup kitchens. I tell you this, everyone expects consistancy when you cook various items. Volunteer or otherwise.

 

My biggest issue & pet peeve with geocaching.com & Groundspeak.com is their consistancy to being inconsitant.

 

I am just very very glad that our legal system isn't run the same way that they run the implementation and enforcement of the rules, policies and regulations here!

 

TGC

 

I think you may be overlooking the fact that things have changed over the years. Geocaching was not always as you see it now. If those inconsistently approved "commercial" caches are to be "made" consistent then they must be archived. Maybe tptb thought it was a better thing to leave what is and already approved, than to upset those cache owners by revoking the permission that had been granted. So what is the right way to handle it. Things can never change when a small hobby web site goes national? We must revoke permission from the existing caches because new cachers will feel they deserve similar status?

 

I cannot speak for the poster to whom who have responded above. Maybe he aims at a greater level of consistency than will ever be possible in an activity like geocaching and when many different people are involved in a decentralized manner. Please note, however, that the degree of inconsistency between the various reviewers is extremely high when you look at their decisions they have made on exactly the same day. I do agree that changes and modifications are necessary as time goes by. What I do not think that is immanent within the system is however that when a certain type of cache is submitted tomorrow to reviewers A and B (both acting in similar parts of the world and no differences in legal issues etc are involved) the outcome will be that the cache has a probability to be accepted in this form by reviewer A of 100% and a probability of 0% for reviewer B. This issue is not related to the fact that geocaching is changing over time (BTW: I have been watching its changes since 2002).

 

Cezanne

Edited September 18, 2009 by cezanne

[+texasgrillchef]

Correction: "Dead End" (or "Dead-End") is pronounced as one word in Texas. "Deadend" is pronounced as "You may stay after school again, Mr. Texasgrillchef"".

 

Phonetically I pronounced Dead End or Dead-End as "Ded" "end"

 

Where as "Deadend" is phonetically pronounced as "Dedin" (Notice the d gets dropped)

 

TGC

[+texasgrillchef]

I think you may be overlooking the fact that things have changed over the years. Geocaching was not always as you see it now. If those inconsistently approved "commercial" caches are to be "made" consistent then they must be archived. Maybe tptb thought it was a better thing to leave what is and already approved, than to upset those cache owners by revoking the permission that had been granted. So what is the right way to handle it. Things can never change when a small hobby web site goes national? We must revoke permission from the existing caches because new cachers will feel they deserve similar status?

 

IMHO yes.... Just like in real legal criminal/cival law that is passed by the congress's of our states as well as our federal government. Not all laws allow for grandfathering. Sometimes a law will have grandfathering stipulations. Sometimes it won't & everybody has to change. Like it or not. In regards to nameing caches, instead of grandfathering, they could have been given a time limit to change their name. It's honestly a moot point. My honest opinion I feel there is a issue with the core basis to the system. Obviously others don't feel this way. Obviously I have come to the conclusion I won't be able to change this unless I just buy out Groundspeak.com/geocaching.com from the owners & become sole owner. So be it.

 

As for your volunteer cook example, let me ask you this. Lets say you are running a soup kitchen staffed with volunteers. Your kitchen is struggling to feed the people that come in because you don't get enough donations to buy all the food you need. You instruct your volunteers to serve very small portions to make the food last longer. Then your soup kitchen and your good work gets mentioned in a national article and the donations flood in. Now in the name of pure and unbending consistency do you continue your food portion policy? Would you seek out all the people that had been served in the past and send them the difference of the larger portion so they would all get a consistent amount of food? In this sometimes messy "real world" our ideals just can't always make things perfect. We simply must work with what we have, make the best out of it and move "forward". Pointing at others that seem to have gotten a better deal than you did and trying to take it away to make things "consistent", will not make your life better. Is this why you referred to your EMS and law enforcement work in a "past tense"? Is that why you have worked "many" jobs? I suggest that you owe an apology to all that you threatened to SBA their caches.

 

Now to my food example. Yes of course I would reduce to portion servings to allow us to feed as many people as possible. When more donations & funds come in so that we can feed more people larger portions again, then of course portion sizes would increase as well. Maybe even allowing 2nd's and thirds again.

 

HOWEVER... That doesn't speak on consistancy. Things change over time. What I would have a problem with, in my soup kitchen & in my restaurant (Before I sold out to retire) is that ALL severs would server EVERYONE the same portion size. Example Becky a server, & Jessica another server would both be required & taught to serve the same portion size to everyone. Becky wouldn't have one portion size & Jessica wouldn't be serving a different portion size.

 

In addition to that... Everyone coming through the line would get the exact same portion size as well. Someone coming through the line wouldn't get a bigger or smaller portion than the next person in line.

 

I believe this is what is happening with the reviewers... Each reviewer is giving a different portion size than other reviwers. The reviewers aren't all on the same page giving everyone the same equal portion. IMHO...THATS THE PROBLEM!

 

But like I said in a previous post. I have washed my hands of this matter. As well as any other "issues" that I may or may not have with geocaching.com/Groundspeak.com & the reviewers. It no longer really matters to me. Like I said in a previous post, I will no longer make any complaints in regards to any policies or guidlines. I will no longer make comments on suggestions for geocaching.com/Groundspeak.com. I will also no longer involve myself with the policies &/or how geocaching.com/Groundspeak.com does their business. Obviously my opinions on these matters aren't something that anyone (But a few) agree with. I will just wait for government regulation to step in where & when needed & thats where my efforts will have the greatest impact. (Or at least has in the past).

 

What I have found interesting in reading all the posts in this thread is the following:

 

A few wondered why such a fuss was being made over something so "little". To that I say. Whats little to you, is big to others. Thats the life with issues. Most issues have people who could care less about them, where as others consider that issue something major. Again whats small to you is big to others and vice versa.

 

Others cited basic policy, rules, guidlines that are in place with geocaching.com. They never said if they agreed with, or disagreed with those policies, rules, guidlines. Not one to assume, but from my POV it appeared to me as though they were sheep. (People who don't question the law but just follow it blindly just because)

 

The only reason I responded to your post, is it appeared that it required an reply.

[+texasgrillchef]

I have no idea how my same post #143 got posted again to become post #144 as well????

 

Therefore I edited #144 and erased it & put this comment in....It wouldn't just let me delete.

 

Oh well...

 

TGC

Edited September 18, 2009 by texasgrillchef

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Just a note that users cannot delete their own posts. If you get a duplicate post for some reason, you can use the "Report" button to request that a moderator delete for you.

[knowschad]

Not all dead ends have to have caches, either. Something for some to ponder...

 

You can't imagine what a relief that is!! Have you any idea how many dead-ends there are in my neighborhood that don't yet have a cache? Guess I can cancel that huge bison tube order! Thanks!!

 

Let me be as kind as I can be in my response, good sir:

 

Stuff it. Unless you think I have no IQ, or am illiterate, your sarcasm to a point not directed at you is uncalled for and sophomoric at best.

 

I also predict this thread to be locked in 5.... any one care to place a bet?

 

 

My response was intended to be taken as a light jab at myself, not at you, Cpl Klinger. I was trying to make myself look stupid. I guess that wasn't clear. Sorry.

[+Stargazer22]

 

A few wondered why such a fuss was being made over something so "little". To that I say. Whats little to you, is big to others. Thats the life with issues. Most issues have people who could care less about them, where as others consider that issue something major. Again whats small to you is big to others and vice versa.

...

 

I understand why you feel that things may be unfair when you perceive that one person gets different treatment than another. Grandfathering is not getting different treatment, though. That is different because those folks submitted their caches at an earlier time when the guidelines were different.

 

However, I have a real, real hard time understanding why what name you can put on a geocache would be a "big" life issue to anyone. Big life issues are when the doctor tells you that you have cancer, or when you lose your job unfairly, or when you lose your spouse.

 

Five years from now, will anyone except me care what my cache is named? Will anyone besides me even remember that I have a cache?

[+sbell111]

The fact that some slip through doesn't make the guideline unclear. It just makes those people lucky.

As I have already mentioned and tried to back up with quite a number of examples, I am not talking about the occasional caches that slip through (caches that slip thorugh arise also for most of the other aspects covered in the guidelines - that's normal as nobody is perfect and I would not write several postings about such a trivial fact).

 

Note, moreover, that the guidance that names of businesses should not be used in cache titles is not part of the guidelines - it is only part of the posting in the Groundspeak forums that attempts to clarify the guidelines. That's a difference.

 

Now let's just focus on what the guidelines say about commercial caches and ignore for the moment the posting in the Groundspeak forums.

Take this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...67-6be602016826

as example. It is not necessary to understand the description. It suffices to know that it tells a lot of details about a modern shopping centre. The cache is an extreme cache and anyone going for it (one has to do some dangerous climbing) does not go there to visit one of the shops of the centre and buy something there.

 

Now the task of the reviewer comes in. The guidelines assign him the job to decide whether the cache

has been set up with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain.

The reviewer who has published this cache is of the opinion that the answer is no (which I share in this cache though I have other concerns about the cache) and thus published it.

You appear to be assuming that TPTB do not give the reviewers any guidance as to guideline interpretation. This incorrect assumption leads your entire argument astray.

Another sentence in the guidelines dealing with commercial caches talks about cache listings that have overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion. It is hard to decide on this in an objective manner.

As I mentioned there are reviewers where already caches that contain the name of a small local football club in the name, get denied and other reviewers which even publish caches like the one I linked to above on a regular basis. The trouble is that both type of reviewers feel that they have done their best to live up to the spirit of the guidelines on commercial caches. As long as this is the case, I feel that something is wrong in the system (note this is not to be seen as a complaint about any of the reviewers).

If you believe that a reviewer denied your cache in error, you should appeal the decision. If you believe that a reviewer listed your cache in error, be happy.

BTW, are you arguing that none of these caches should be denied, or that all of them should be?

My personal preference would be that those caches to which the following statement (which is also part of the new formulation of the guidelines) applies

Caches with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

are denied. I do not think that denying any cache the name of which contains the name of a business makes sense (if they really wish to do that, it should however be part of the guidelines which are available to all cachers and it should be explained what exactly is meant by a business). One of the reasons why I feel it does not make sense is demonstrated by the following example. Consider a cache A with the name Huber

(this is indeed the name of a widely known company at least in the German speaking area) hidden at a place with no connection at all to a business with the name Huber and with no relation between the cache and the business. I feel that cache A should be published. Now consider a cache B with the same name, hidden closely to a location owned by the company Huber and where the cache description deals with that company. Personally, I would feel that cache B should be denied, but still there are reviewers who would deny it only if the description text would be very enthusiastic about the company or it would be necessary to buy something there in order to be able to log the cache.

I suspect that most or all of the reviewers would publish cache A if the cache owner gave further explanation. Otherwise, the appeal process would likely be helpful.

If Groundspeak decides to use a different policy which is set into practice in a reasonably homogeneous manner (at least in areas which do not differ from each other by culture, language etc), this would be fine for me as well (it is their website, not mine). What I do not like, however, is the chaotic situation which prevails at least in some parts of the world and which leaves it to chance which caches are rejected and which are published (depending on which reviewer handles them).

 

Cezanne

TPTB have set a policy and given the reviewers guidance as to how it should be implemented. Since there are numerous reviewers who are almost all human, there will be some variance. That is why the appeal procedure exists.

[cezanne]

You appear to be assuming that TPTB do not give the reviewers any guidance as to guideline interpretation. This incorrect assumption leads your entire argument astray.

 

No, I did not assume that. I do not care about the guidance the reviewers obtained. What is relevant for me is the outcome.

 

If you believe that a reviewer denied your cache in error, you should appeal the decision. If you believe that a reviewer listed your cache in error, be happy.

 

Let me repeat again: My caches are not touched at all by the commercial rule (even if some company unknown to me would exist with a name of one of my caches, it would only concern caches that are grandfathered anyway.

 

I suspect that most or all of the reviewers would publish cache A if the cache owner gave further explanation.

 

I agree with you. The reason is that I am pretty much sure that Groundspeak did not even think about the case of cache names which contain business names that are not recognizable as such at the first glimpse and where there is no relation whatsoever to any sort of business. I brought up the example only because you asked me about my personal opinion on which caches I would deny respectively publish.

 

The real issue, however, are not caches of the type where some name of a company occurs just by chance (like in my Huber example and in the Dachstein example), but are caches where it depends on the judgement of the reviewer handling the cache whether or not the cache is considered as commercial one.

 

TPTB have set a policy and given the reviewers guidance as to how it should be implemented.

 

Right. My claim starts from here and goes further. I think that the guidance apparently has not been sufficiently clear and leaves to much freedom of personal interpretation. I appreciate the fact that the reviewers are given some degree of freedom, but what happens in connection with handling caches that are denied by some reviewers as commercial and are published by others clearly shows that the degree of freedom is too large. One of the reasons why you might have difficulties to understand my point is that it is quite likely that the variance that arises with respect to the commercial cache rule for caches hidden in the US is much smaller than when looking at some other parts of the world.

 

Since there are numerous reviewers who are almost all human, there will be some variance. That is why the appeal procedure exists.

 

In my understanding, the appeal process exists to deal with relatively rare examples and not to discuss a general line in the reviewing policy.

 

As I mentioned I can both live with the situation that caches like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...67-6be602016826

are generally denied (provided the cache description and the cache name are not changed)

as well as with the decision that such caches are generally published. I am explicitely ignoring in both cases that there will always exist exceptions where some cache slips through either way. I am not talking about single caches, but about a general reviewing policy.

 

I simply do not like the situation that the outcome whether a cache like the one above is denied or published does not depend on the cache, but on the reviewer who handles it.

 

Let me repeat that I agree with you that there will always be variance involved in human decisions even when we look at decisions of the same person, but taken at different points in time. The variance just should not become too large. The key message I am trying to convey in this thread is that I think that the variance with regard to "commercial caches" when only looking at caches published according to the newest version of the guidelines is too large. I feel that something must be wrong if caches like the cache I linked to above are generally published by reviewers belonging to group 1 and a cache with the name "University of South Carolina Football Team" with a harmless description (just some questions about the team) is generally denied by reviewers belonging to group 2. (Clearly there are also groups in between these two groups representing the two extreme poles of the issue.) I do not think that this big variance can be just explained by the presence of the human factor in every decision process.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited September 18, 2009 by cezanne

[+sbell111]

Honestly, I can't figure out why you are fighting this issue so hard given that you haven't been affected by it.

 

If a cache slips by and gets listed, who cares? If one gets denied improperly, it will be fixed on appeal. This is the very reason that the appeals process exists. This will have to do until the Reviewer 2.0 cybernetic units are released to your area.