Jump to content

Is this a guidelines violation?


GeoGeeBee

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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...

B)

Link to comment

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. B)

Link to comment

[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.

Link to comment

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...

B)

 

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

Link to comment
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 by knowschad
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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 by baloo&bd
Link to comment

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. B)

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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 B)

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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

There, fixed.

 

--The Grammar Police

 

;)

 

Thanks! That was "bothering" me too. :mad:

 

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. :(

Link to comment

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

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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

Link to comment
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! :mad:

 

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....

Link to comment

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 :mad:

 

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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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 :mad:

 

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

Careful, I hear he likes Meatballs for breakfast.

Link to comment

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

Link to comment

 

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.

Link to comment
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 by knowschad
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...