Is this a guidelines violation?

2.1k · January 21, 2010

I got an email a few days ago notifying me of a new cache that was published.

The name of the cache is <companyname>.com. If you were to type that name into your web browser, it takes you to a commercial website that advertises the cache owner's business. (The name of the website, the cache owner's user name, and the business name are all the same.)

No, you don't need to visit the website to find the cache. There is no blatant advertising on the cache page, no link to the website. Just the name.

Still, I bet if you tried to publish a cache called WalMart.com or BuySwagHere.com it would not be allowed.

Am I being too sensitive? Is this perfectly ok? Pushing the edge of what is allowed? Or over the line completely?

3.8k · January 21, 2010

I got an email a few days ago notifying me of a new cache that was published.

The name of the cache is <companyname>.com. If you were to type that name into your web browser, it takes you to a commercial website that advertises the cache owner's business. (The name of the website, the cache owner's user name, and the business name are all the same.)

No, you don't need to visit the website to find the cache. There is no blatant advertising on the cache page, no link to the website. Just the name.

Still, I bet if you tried to publish a cache called WalMart.com or BuySwagHere.com it would not be allowed.

Am I being too sensitive? Is this perfectly ok? Pushing the edge of what is allowed? Or over the line completely?

Yep, you're being too sensitive. Stop being the self appointed cache cops. The reviewer approved it.

1.2k · January 21, 2010

I got an email a few days ago notifying me of a new cache that was published.

The name of the cache is <companyname>.com. If you were to type that name into your web browser, it takes you to a commercial website that advertises the cache owner's business. (The name of the website, the cache owner's user name, and the business name are all the same.)

No, you don't need to visit the website to find the cache. There is no blatant advertising on the cache page, no link to the website. Just the name.

Still, I bet if you tried to publish a cache called WalMart.com or BuySwagHere.com it would not be allowed.

Am I being too sensitive? Is this perfectly ok? Pushing the edge of what is allowed? Or over the line completely?

Yep, you're being too sensitive. Stop being the self appointed cache cops. The reviewer approved published it.

I shall be the word cop though...

January 21, 2010

I would say it is against the policy. And regarding the othe rpost. We need to monitor our hobby. It is not be ing a"cache cop" as he put it...it is being responisible to the lifespan of our ability to do this sport. Reviewers can only do so much. And is it possible he changed the name after publishing? In any case, business cards and promotions are not allowed, I believe...so why is this any different. if we allow this, then why stop there? Why not have every cache promote some type of bussiness? that will be a lanscape I would prefer not to see.

2.1k · January 21, 2010

[Yep, you're being too sensitive. Stop being the self appointed cache cops. The reviewer approved it.

I'm not being a cache cop. I never said I was going to post an NA log or anything. I'm just trying to figure out where the line is.

I may soon have a website of my own that I want to promote.

January 21, 2010

Every once in a while I'll publish one that has some content that I did not recognize at the time, and I appreciate it when someone sends me a "Hey, how about looking at that one again" note.

3.8k · January 21, 2010

I got an email a few days ago notifying me of a new cache that was published.

The name of the cache is <companyname>.com. If you were to type that name into your web browser, it takes you to a commercial website that advertises the cache owner's business. (The name of the website, the cache owner's user name, and the business name are all the same.)

No, you don't need to visit the website to find the cache. There is no blatant advertising on the cache page, no link to the website. Just the name.

Still, I bet if you tried to publish a cache called WalMart.com or BuySwagHere.com it would not be allowed.

Am I being too sensitive? Is this perfectly ok? Pushing the edge of what is allowed? Or over the line completely?

Yep, you're being too sensitive. Stop being the self appointed cache cops. The reviewer approved published it.

I shall be the word cop though...

No Archer. In this context, one in the same.

4.2k · January 21, 2010

I think the recent clarification regarding the use of a company name in the cache name would put this cache in violation of the guidelines.

Sometimes names are edited after they are published. Sometimes reviewers miss things.

Chances are it will be noticed in the near future and either edited by the owner or archived.

4.2k · January 21, 2010

Yep, you're being too sensitive. Stop being the self appointed cache cops. The reviewer approved it.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather not see geocaching not follow the NASCAR advertisement model.

19k · January 21, 2010

Yep, you're being too sensitive. Stop being the self appointed cache cops. The reviewer approved it.

Not neccessarily. Cache names can be changed after publication.

Edit:

I got an email a few days ago notifying me of a new cache that was published.

OK, if it was in the notification email, then the name contained the .com at the time of publication, and the reviewer had to have known about it.

Edited January 21, 2010 by knowschad

2.3k · January 21, 2010

No Archer. In this context, one in and the same.

There, fixed.

--The Grammar Police

January 21, 2010

My first thought was it could be a web site that most of us would never be interested in so who cares. But looking it up it is an advertisement for services and goods for outdoor types so IMO it should not have been approved.

January 21, 2010

I got an email a few days ago notifying me of a new cache that was published.

The name of the cache is <companyname>.com. If you were to type that name into your web browser, it takes you to a commercial website that advertises the cache owner's business. (The name of the website, the cache owner's user name, and the business name are all the same.)

No, you don't need to visit the website to find the cache. There is no blatant advertising on the cache page, no link to the website. Just the name.

Still, I bet if you tried to publish a cache called WalMart.com or BuySwagHere.com it would not be allowed.

Am I being too sensitive? Is this perfectly ok? Pushing the edge of what is allowed? Or over the line completely?

I hasten to speculate, considering we don't have the cache/website in question.

It sounds like a puzzle cache -- is it? A lot of geocachers I notice have websites under their own name and also sell things through the same website. Perhaps part of the puzzle is find something on the webpage.

The difference between a personal website that the CO uses for puzzle clues (I've seen a few now) that may have advertisements or other pages on the site with an online store, versus a blatant commercial website can be subtle for some.

Before passing judgement, I'd like to see the cache and website in question.

Just a thought, sometimes people use ".com" as a kind of adjective slang - as an expression. Could it be the CO is using it in this way but it happens to be the name of a business? Maybe not since you state that his username is stated on the website in question.

4.2k · January 21, 2010

Can somebody post a link to the Miss Jenn thread that clarified this? I left my search engine voodoo doll in my other smock.

3.2k · January 21, 2010

I got an email a few days ago notifying me of a new cache that was published.

The name of the cache is <companyname>.com. If you were to type that name into your web browser, it takes you to a commercial website that advertises the cache owner's business. (The name of the website, the cache owner's user name, and the business name are all the same.)

No, you don't need to visit the website to find the cache. There is no blatant advertising on the cache page, no link to the website. Just the name.

Still, I bet if you tried to publish a cache called WalMart.com or BuySwagHere.com it would not be allowed.

Am I being too sensitive? Is this perfectly ok? Pushing the edge of what is allowed? Or over the line completely?

I hasten to speculate, considering we don't have the cache/website in question.

It sounds like a puzzle cache -- is it? A lot of geocachers I notice have websites under their own name and also sell things through the same website. Perhaps part of the puzzle is find something on the webpage.

The difference between a personal website that the CO uses for puzzle clues (I've seen a few now) that may have advertisements or other pages on the site with an online store, versus a blatant commercial website can be subtle for some.

Before passing judgement, I'd like to see the cache and website in question.

Just a thought, sometimes people use ".com" as a kind of adjective slang - as an expression. Could it be the CO is using it in this way but it happens to be the name of a business? Maybe not since you state that his username is stated on the website in question.

Not a puzzle and looking at the site it is a violation. A quick note to the reviewer to take a look would be appropriate, then find it and forget about it.

Edited January 21, 2010 by baloo&bd

January 21, 2010

Can somebody post a link to the Miss Jenn thread that clarified this? I left my search engine voodoo doll in my other smock.

http://ncdeerman.com/

3.2k · January 21, 2010

Can somebody post a link to the Miss Jenn thread that clarified this? I left my search engine voodoo doll in my other smock.

I think the appropriate contact would be the reviewer that published it.

January 21, 2010

http://ncdeerman.com/

in more than 2 years he has only found 8 and hid 1. maybe doesn't know the rules. but the reviewer should.

2.1k · January 21, 2010

Can somebody post a link to the Miss Jenn thread that clarified this? I left my search engine voodoo doll in my other smock.

Is this the link you are looking for?

Guideline Changes and Clarifications

January 21, 2010

No Archer. In this context, one in and the same.

There, fixed.

--The Grammar Police

Thanks! That was "bothering" me too.

Mrs. Car54

January 21, 2010

in more than 2 years he has only found 8 and hid 1. maybe doesn't know the rules. but the reviewer should.

Thinking about this more with the number of finds he has it looks like he placed this one with the idea of advertising

20.7k · January 21, 2010

You guys realize that the guidelines allow for the listing of the cache in question, right?

January 21, 2010

I just did a name search on gc.com and found 3 pages worth of caches with .com's in the name. Some published recently too... I assume that at least some of these got published by reviewers with the name in place.

Well, it doesn't bother me anyway, if I found a cache with a website title I wouldn't even think about it twice - I might or might not check the website out depending.

But it sure is good to know there is an ever vigilant presence of curtain twitchers in the geocaching community, watching every move to make sure no-one puts a foot wrong.

19k · January 21, 2010

Can somebody post a link to the Miss Jenn thread that clarified this? I left my search engine voodoo doll in my other smock.

I think the appropriate contact would be the reviewer that published it.

Which would be NCreviewer.

One minor point about this... while he doesn't, the cache owner could have a link to his website on his profile page, which is just one click away from the cache page.

2.1k · January 21, 2010

You guys realize that the guidelines allow for the listing of the cache in question, right?

That's what I was trying to find out when I made the original post in this thread. There seems to be some disagreement on that point.

Miss Jenn's Post on the new guidelines says "Business names should not be in geocache titles." The dot-com in question is the name of the cache owner's business.

Maybe the reviewer didn't know that when he published it. Or maybe it's permitted under the guidelines. I don't know the answer. That's why I asked the question.

4.2k · January 21, 2010

You guys realize that the guidelines allow for the listing of the cache in question, right?

That's what I was trying to find out when I made the original post in this thread. There seems to be some disagreement on that point.

Miss Jenn's Post on the new guidelines says "Business names should not be in geocache titles." The dot-com in question is the name of the cache owner's business.

Maybe the reviewer didn't know that when he published it. Or maybe it's permitted under the guidelines. I don't know the answer. That's why I asked the question.

Thanks, that's kind of what I was getting at.

4.2k · January 21, 2010

very interesting to read this thread

i had a cache published, but not until i was told to remove the link to Wikipedia that explained what The Flying Spaghetti Monster is, i don't remember the exact wording of the reviewers reply but was something along the lines that is viewed as trying to solicit membership.....even though i explained twice that the whole FSM thing is a parody

18.9k · January 21, 2010

I really don't see that as a blatent violation. No link. No encouragment to type it in your browser. No fluff about the content at all. Just a title.

At most it is a bit in the gray area and given that it got published - I think that swings it back in the ok category.

January 21, 2010

We've got one near us that I feel is commercial but they approved it so who am I to complain? The cache is full of business brochures and the like. A recent article in our local paper about the business placing the cache said they thought it was a great way to market to a younger crowd to get them interested in the business as well. If that isn't outright admitting the cache was placed for a commercial venture or gain I don't know what is. It's still active, we found it after two go's at it, and the reviewer seems to let it float. Who am I to argue the rules. They are the ones that don't get paid to approve or deny them.

18.9k · January 21, 2010

We've got one near us that I feel is commercial but they approved it so who am I to complain? The cache is full of business brochures and the like. A recent article in our local paper about the business placing the cache said they thought it was a great way to market to a younger crowd to get them interested in the business as well. If that isn't outright admitting the cache was placed for a commercial venture or gain I don't know what is. It's still active, we found it after two go's at it, and the reviewer seems to let it float. Who am I to argue the rules. They are the ones that don't get paid to approve or deny them.

There has always been a very big difference between promoting a business in the online listing in any way (very akin to advertising) and any object you or any individual places in the physical cache itself.

January 21, 2010

If one person gets away with it cos its a grey area, whats to stop a multitude of business related caches popping up. Then it would be harder to police

3.8k · January 21, 2010

No Archer. In this context, one in and the same.

There, fixed.

--The Grammar Police

Thanks! That was "bothering" me too.

Mrs. Car54

So, then, it wasn't REALLY bothering you then? If we're going to stroke the grammar cops, then maybe the grammar cops should point out your misuse of quotes.

4.8k · January 21, 2010

SWEET!!

I was wondering how I was going to promote my new website. Now that I know it's OK to have caches with a website as their name, I can have a series of caches. I will just name them "www.bittsen.com 1" "www.bittsen.com 2" "www.bittsen.com 3" etc.

I will place 500 caches. All fim cannisters.

WHEW, there's one less thing I have to worry about.

Yes, I am being fecetious

8k · January 21, 2010

very interesting to read this thread

i had a cache published, but not until i was told to remove the link to Wikipedia that explained what The Flying Spaghetti Monster is, i don't remember the exact wording of the reviewers reply but was something along the lines that is viewed as trying to solicit membership.....even though i explained twice that the whole FSM thing is a parody

Thank you for the proof once againg that a requirement for being a reviewer is to have no sense of humor. FSM is of course a parody of organized religions / cults. Since the no agenda rule is used to keep religion off of web pages, a sense of humor impaired reviewer might mistake FSM for a cult and apply the guideline.

Strangely, my guess is that the Wikipedia link would explain this (unless those FSM members are editing the information out of the wiki pages much as Scientologist have been know for editing articles on Scientology). I suppose that for a real religion, one could argue there is no such thing as an unbiased article and therefore a wikipedia link would constitute an agenda on the cache page.

20.7k · January 21, 2010

You guys realize that the guidelines allow for the listing of the cache in question, right?

That's what I was trying to find out when I made the original post in this thread. There seems to be some disagreement on that point.

Miss Jenn's Post on the new guidelines says "Business names should not be in geocache titles." The dot-com in question is the name of the cache owner's business.

Maybe the reviewer didn't know that when he published it. Or maybe it's permitted under the guidelines. I don't know the answer. That's why I asked the question.

Thanks, that's kind of what I was getting at.

The guidelines allow for this (along with all manner of 'violations' if permission is obtained from GS first. Given that this is a rather in-your-face 'violation', it is likely that permission was obtained.

January 21, 2010

Doing a keyword search for ".com" turned up quite a few geocaches with .com in the title. A couple of them were pretty blatant! The description for one of them goes on and on about the history of the company, the name of the CEO, etc.

January 21, 2010

Well, half.com and hotwire.com were both allowed as cache titles. Bad precedent if you ask me.

Still, I bet if you tried to publish a cache called WalMart.com or BuySwagHere.com it would not be allowed.

19k · January 21, 2010

Doing a keyword search for ".com" turned up quite a few geocaches with .com in the title. A couple of them were pretty blatant! The description for one of them goes on and on about the history of the company, the name of the CEO, etc.

Including a few with geocaching.com in the titles!

4.2k · January 21, 2010

The guidelines allow for this (along with all manner of 'violations' if permission is obtained from GS first. Given that this is a rather in-your-face 'violation', it is likely that permission was obtained.

What are the chances that the caches listed with guideline exceptions out-number the caches that have been edited after publication or that were released into the wild due to human error on the part of a reviewer?

In either case, it doesn't hurt for a cacher to ask the question if that question leads to a better understanding. Assuming the answers are written to educate as opposed to patronize.

4.2k · January 21, 2010

Well, half.com and hotwire.com were both allowed as cache titles. Bad precedent if you ask me.

Did you just use the "P" word??

3.6k · January 21, 2010

I was wondering how I was going to promote my new website. Now that I know it's OK to have caches with a website as their name, I can have a series of caches. I will just name them "www.bittsen.com 1" "www.bittsen.com 2" "www.bittsen.com 3" etc.

That would sure look good to the search engines with your site suddenly having so many link-backs.

January 21, 2010

Interestingly, there's apparently no such restriction on user names. So I could change my name to paleolith.com (which is not mine; I link to mine from my profile), the domain name would be splashed all over the place, and that would not violate the letter of the guidelines, though it would violate the spirit.

Edward

January 21, 2010

Doing a keyword search for ".com" turned up quite a few geocaches with .com in the title. A couple of them were pretty blatant! The description for one of them goes on and on about the history of the company, the name of the CEO, etc.
Including a few with geocaching.com in the titles!

So who's going to be the first to try and get these published as titles?

opencaching.com

navicache.com

terracaching.com

cachingusa.com

Seriously though, I'm not going to lose my sleep over it....

2.2k · January 21, 2010

very interesting to read this thread

i had a cache published, but not until i was told to remove the link to Wikipedia that explained what The Flying Spaghetti Monster is, i don't remember the exact wording of the reviewers reply but was something along the lines that is viewed as trying to solicit membership.....even though i explained twice that the whole FSM thing is a parody

WHAT!?!? I'm going to talk to the frog.

5.8k · January 21, 2010

Doing a keyword search for ".com" turned up quite a few geocaches with .com in the title. A couple of them were pretty blatant! The description for one of them goes on and on about the history of the company, the name of the CEO, etc.
Including a few with geocaching.com in the titles!

We need to remember the difference between a website and a business. Groundspeak Inc is a Business, Geocaching.com is just one of their websites.

For the Cache questioned in the OP, I doubt the guy's business and website have the same name.

5.8k · January 21, 2010

very interesting to read this thread

i had a cache published, but not until i was told to remove the link to Wikipedia that explained what The Flying Spaghetti Monster is, i don't remember the exact wording of the reviewers reply but was something along the lines that is viewed as trying to solicit membership.....even though i explained twice that the whole FSM thing is a parody

WHAT!?!? I'm going to talk to the frog.

Careful, I hear he likes Meatballs for breakfast.

4.2k · January 21, 2010

very interesting to read this thread

i had a cache published, but not until i was told to remove the link to Wikipedia that explained what The Flying Spaghetti Monster is, i don't remember the exact wording of the reviewers reply but was something along the lines that is viewed as trying to solicit membership.....even though i explained twice that the whole FSM thing is a parody

WHAT!?!? I'm going to talk to the frog.

/bows at His Noodleness

this is for you master :mad:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...dd-310e4d4dd5a4

January 21, 2010

Miss Jenn's Post on the new guidelines says "Business names should not be in geocache titles." The dot-com in question is the name of the cache owner's business.

Maybe the reviewer didn't know that when he published it. Or maybe it's permitted under the guidelines. I don't know the answer. That's why I asked the question.

I tried listing a cache named "Exxon/Barclay's" which was located in a min-park between the Exxon building and the Barclay's building in NYC and I was told by the reviewer that I had to change the name because of the "Use of corporate names in the cache page" I wasn't promoting the companies but just referring to the location. oh well.

19k · January 21, 2010

Doing a keyword search for ".com" turned up quite a few geocaches with .com in the title. A couple of them were pretty blatant! The description for one of them goes on and on about the history of the company, the name of the CEO, etc.
Including a few with geocaching.com in the titles!

We need to remember the difference between a website and a business. Groundspeak Inc is a Business, Geocaching.com is just one of their websites.

For the Cache questioned in the OP, I doubt the guy's business and website have the same name.

Yeah, it's his business, alright, although its a bit unclear exactly what he sells there:

OUR NINTH YEAR IN BUSINESS SUPPORTING SPORTSMEN
NORTH CAROLINA'S #1 SPORTSMANS WEBSITE

Edited January 21, 2010 by knowschad

January 21, 2010

We've got one near us that I feel is commercial but they approved it so who am I to complain? The cache is full of business brochures and the like. A recent article in our local paper about the business placing the cache said they thought it was a great way to market to a younger crowd to get them interested in the business as well. If that isn't outright admitting the cache was placed for a commercial venture or gain I don't know what is. It's still active, we found it after two go's at it, and the reviewer seems to let it float. Who am I to argue the rules. They are the ones that don't get paid to approve or deny them.

There has always been a very big difference between promoting a business in the online listing in any way (very akin to advertising) and any object you or any individual places in the physical cache itself.

That is true. However, when they openly and freely admitted that it was placed with the primary purpose of bringing in new business (aka commercial) I have to wonder. They've also tried shopping out to Ghost Hunters as well in order to try and garner extra attention to the business. As I said though if the Frog is cool with it fine. I'm just not going to be all that shocked to see more pop up like that in my area.

Is this a guidelines violation?

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation