Questions about Facebook "like" buttons on cache pages.

[+t4e]

what strikes me the most in this whole fiasco with the "like" button is that when i asked that the watchlist be made so i can see the users watching my caches i was told that GC sees it as a privacy issue...and what does GC do now?...incorporates FB, the place on the internet with the worst privacy record, and instead of making it such that ones username from GC is used actually their real name is used, or whatever user name they have on FB, which i understand in most cases is not the same (i don't have a FB account anymore, this is what i see everyone saying)

 

if that's the case what's the point to see that John Doe liked my cache when i have no clue what their geocaching name is so i can relate to their log?

Edited June 6, 2010 by t4e

[+tozainamboku]

what strikes me the most in this whole fiasco with the "like" button is that when i asked that the watchlist be made so i can see the users watching my caches i was told that GC sees it as a privacy issue...and what does GC do now?...incorporates FB, the place on the internet with the worst privacy record, and instead of making it such that ones username from GC is used actually their real name is used, or whatever user name they have on FB, which i understand in most cases is not the same (i don't have a FB account anymore, this is what i see everyone saying)

 

if that's the case what's the point to see that John Doe liked my cache when i have no clue what their geocaching name is so i can relate to their log?

I agree. Groundspeak should let me see which of my friends is watching my cache. If John_d is my friend, instead of it saying: "6 user(s) watching this cache"; it should say "John_D and 5 other user(s) are watching this cache". If it's good enough for Facebook, it's good enough for GC.com.

Edited June 6, 2010 by tozainamboku

[CoyoteRed]

I've only read a bit of this thread, but one person asked what is this new feature for? Sorry if this has been answered. I think it's a networking scheme designed primarily to get in front of as many people as possible. Facebook is a massive site with millions of users. With friends looking at friends' pages when a "like" pops up and is seen by someone who doesn't know what geocaching is, it's a potential future PM. On the surface, this is good business decision. However, I don't think this is good hobby stewardship--for various reasons I've mentioned in the past. Some hobbies shouldn't be run like a business as sometimes the eye on the bottom line causes the core hobby to suffer.

[+Kiwi Nomad]

Hi!

 

I want to have at least a little bit of control who is able to see my caches. And with this "like" feature as I understand it closeto every Facebook user might be pointed to my caches if omeone likes them. And I definitely don't want that at all!

 

It's not about ME using FB or not (and I will also definitely not use FB!). It's about giving others the ability to make ads for my caches at a non caching related site with too many stupid people on it.

 

So what I did now is converting all my caches to member only and I wil fight for an option to set FB on/off for MY caches from now on until it's finally there.

 

I don't care if others want to have this FB link. If so, fine. But I want to decide by myself!

 

Bye,

Christian

 

Sorry if this repeats what someone else has said but I've only read 1/3 of all the posts.

 

People who are *not* members will only see *some* of the information. This does not include the coordinates or the map. So they have to feel interested enough to click on the link and then create an account before they find where your cache is. Then and only then can they (if they can be bothered) go and try to find it.

 

It saddened me that you have changed your caches to members only, I have paid for pm just am just not paid up at the moment. How about waiting untill someone actually clicks on the like button before reacting. I don't see that this is as big of a concern is what seems to have been made of it.

 

Unfortunately this is what they have choosen so this is what I'll make use of while still supporting those who would prefer an in house sollution that could be usefull as a search function instead of just an add on that you can see when looking at a cache page.

 

GC please create a rating system that is actually usefull rather than just window dressing.

[+Original A1]

Why does Groundspeak feel the need to link in with Facebook and not just have its own "Like" link within this website?

If you go to watch football, does the stadium sell its own brand of cola, or Coke? It sells Coke, because Coke is good at soft drinks.

I take your point, although it should also be noted that when I go to the football, I have the choice not to to purchase either my team's cola or someone else's. The choice is not offered to us here.

 

[+dfx]

It's trendy. Everyone's doing it. Nothing wrong with that.

no, not everyone's doing it. maybe everyone on FB is doing it, but this isn't FB and not everyone's on FB. all the FB users need to realize that.

 

I simply don't want to find MY caches on a Facebook page at all. That's it for me!

but there's nothing you can do against that. people can put the links to their caches on FB, on twitter, on their blog, heck they can print it out in large letters and hang it out their window for everyone to see. whether there's a button on the listing or not doesn't make a difference, except that maybe it makes it easier for them to put it on FB. but removing the button will not keep the listings from going to FB.

 

Hit Connect, Aggregate Knowledge, Akamai Technologies, Poindexter Systems, Yahoo ect ect have been blocked at one point or another with write protected cookies most before I ever came here. And if I find myself using say a yahoo service, I'll unblock their add tracking.

ok, so you choose to block everything that you think may have privacy issues. so why don't you also just block FB and be done with it? instead you continue to rant about it, while not mentioning the other "privacy invasion" links on the website at all. where's the difference? except that the FB link is actually useful to some people, just not to you.

 

Ok no idea what you are talking about IP tracking or such, I just noted the I do not like it on there and do not see how it will help or can assist me with caching.

 

I see a benefit with a Mapping program in this case been Google. But Remind me or educate me on how Facebook will help or improve my caching/ caching experiance?

i said it before and i'll say it again: if you have privacy concerns, you should really have them regardless of whether you find the service useful or not.

[+thebruce0]

It's trendy. Everyone's doing it. Nothing wrong with that.

no, not everyone's doing it. maybe everyone on FB is doing it, but this isn't FB and not everyone's on FB. all the FB users need to realize that.

I was referring to the appearance of the "Like" button, not usage of Facebook. And it was clearly an exaggeration meant to highlight the uber-popularity and rollout of this button.

It's trendy. Everyone's doing it. Ultimately there's nothing wrong with that (people choosing to put the like button on their pages and sites).

Now continue on with the rest of my comment regarding how GS decided to implement this feature for all customers including paying ones... =P

[+dfx]

Now continue on with the rest of my comment regarding how GS decided to implement this feature for all customers including paying ones... =P

interpret my silence towards the rest of your post as agreement

 

i just get really annoyed when somebody asks me for my facebook page and i tell them that i don't have one, the reply i get is along the lines of "what? seriously?! you need to make one! go with the times!" (occasionally even verbatim)

Edited June 6, 2010 by dfx

[+sTeamTraen]

Yeah, that makes sense. So the Facebook 'Like' connection is a way to pull in more paying customers...more cachers, more premium accounts, more revenue. Never mind what the already paying premium members want. Hmmmmm.

Well, firstly, the fact that you're currently a Premium Member suggests that you want to pay for the extra benefits that that brings you, whereas the "Like" button appears for everybody. I'm also going to guess that the percentage of "basic" versus "paying" members who hate this new feature is pretty much identical.

 

But in any case, growing your business is all about choosing the compromise between making yourself attractive to the people who currently aren't your customers, versus continuing to give the existing ones what they know and love (plus gently nudging the product along so that the existing customers don't feel that things are getting stale). The complexity comes when the timescales needed for payback are radically different: in this case, everyone who hates the "Like" feature will complain about it immediately, whereas the potential customers for whom this will be one of the factors that puts them into the "Geocaching seems pretty cool" category haven't seen it yet.

 

People don't like change unless they're taking the decisions. A change in the layout of one of your favourite sites is something in which you're never going to be involved as an individual (and even if Groundspeak had polled all of the PMs about this change, you don't know that your point of view would have carried the day). Becoming a geocacher is also a change, a nice one, one which you decide to make. But you already had your shot at that one, whereas others are yet to put their toes in the water. Maybe they'd like that water a degree or two warmer than you needed it to be when you started.

Edited June 6, 2010 by sTeamTraen

[+monsterbox]

I want to have at least a little bit of control who is able to see my caches. And with this "like" feature as I understand it close to every Facebook user might be pointed to my caches if omeone likes them. And I definitely don't want that at all!

 

Sorry if this repeats what someone else has said but I've only read 1/3 of all the posts.

 

People who are *not* members will only see *some* of the information. This does not include the coordinates or the map. So they have to feel interested enough to click on the link and then create an account before they find where your cache is. Then and only then can they (if they can be bothered) go and try to find it.

 

It saddened me that you have changed your caches to members only, I have paid for pm just am just not paid up at the moment. How about waiting untill someone actually clicks on the like button before reacting. I don't see that this is as big of a concern is what seems to have been made of it.

 

Unfortunately this is what they have choosen so this is what I'll make use of while still supporting those who would prefer an in house sollution that could be usefull as a search function instead of just an add on that you can see when looking at a cache page.

 

GC please create a rating system that is actually usefull rather than just window dressing.

 

1. I don't want to see ANYTHING about my caches on Facebook at all!

 

2. As long as I don't have a chance to decide by myself if I want to have this link on MY cache pages I will at least make it as difficult as possible for Facebook geocaching newbies to see any info!

 

3. I don't care about a rating system as it simply isn't really working at all. People like different things so it's quite hard to find out who has similar interests than I have. I prefer the personal suggestions from people I know way more that any rating system.

 

4. Please also understand changing my caches as a sign of protest against this Facebook crap!

 

Bye,

Christian

[+monsterbox]

Hi!

 

I simply don't want to find MY caches on a Facebook page at all. That's it for me!

but there's nothing you can do against that. people can put the links to their caches on FB, on twitter, on their blog, heck they can print it out in large letters and hang it out their window for everyone to see. whether there's a button on the listing or not doesn't make a difference, except that maybe it makes it easier for them to put it on FB. but removing the button will not keep the listings from going to FB.

 

You're right but it makes it way more easy if there is this facebook link on my cache pages. So if there's no such link it's at least more difficult and will result in just SOME if any such links on facebook. If this link still exists I'm prteey sure I can't count the links any more in some weeks.

 

You see the difference?

 

And with changing my caches into PMO caches I made it at least way more difficult and useless for most of the people trying to access these links!

 

Bye,

Christian

[+Hoppingcrow]

Repeating myself from a different thread on the same subject, I do not see the functionality of this Facebook "like" feature.

 

A new multicache popped up in my area a few days ago. Within minutes, it had two "likes" on it even though it had never been found. Because of the owner's history of bad coordinates, I did not attempt to find it but friends of mine did. The coordinates on the first WP were 60-70 feet off. They could not find the second WP even with additional hints from the owner. They made two trips to the site. With three more waypoints to go, this cache has still not been found...and from the sounds of it, probably never will be, yet it is "liked" by two people. WHY? And to what purpose, other than to say, "I am one of the owner's friends/family?"

 

For the record, I do not want my caches associated with Facebook. Period.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Hoppingcrow

[+Harry Dolphin]

But. It appears now that one needs to have a facebook account to use the 'like' feature. I do not ever plan on having a facebook account, thus I am discriminated againt for nominating a cache that I 'like'.

This definitely goes against the concept of 'Geocaching is open to everyone'.

I found a spectacular cache today, and tried to nominate it. I was told that I would have to sign in to facebook, or create an account to nominate it.

[+dfx]

But. It appears now that one needs to have a facebook account to use the 'like' feature. I do not ever plan on having a facebook account, thus I am discriminated againt for nominating a cache that I 'like'.

of course, that's been clear from day one. that's also why i wouldn't mind if the button was removed again, or at least made optional for everyone. that being said, i also don't mind it being there, if it wasn't for the occasional hiccups where it prompts me to download like.php from facebook.com. (happens not only on gc.com, but on other websites as well.)

 

This definitely goes against the concept of 'Geocaching is open to everyone'.

I found a spectacular cache today, and tried to nominate it. I was told that I would have to sign in to facebook, or create an account to nominate it.

yes and no. again, my biggest beef with the button is that people may be made to believe that it's a kind of rating system (as apparently it happened to you), which it totally isn't. all it's good for is for posting an update to your spambook account, if you have one. it's only and solely a feature of FB, and not at all a feature of gc.com. which also means that the button has no relevance to gc.com at all, which in turns means it doesn't matter if you can't use it, because there's totally no influence on your gc.com experience, which again in turn means there's no discrimination, because it's really all meaningless and useless.

Edited June 7, 2010 by dfx

[+ar_kayaker]

This FB thing may well be the last straw for me. I debated for a long time last year when my membership came due about renewing or not. What used to be a fun semi-clandestine activity has already become a soccer-mom game where if you are spotted with electronics in your hand just about anyplace people ask "are you geocaching? I've got an ap for that..." Plus I now have to spend an hour or more sorting and re-sorting PQ's to find caches worth visiting instead of powertrails across wal-mart parking lots before I can go out caching. Basically the fun-to-effort ratio has gone way down in the past four years, but not quite enough to make me quit....yet.

 

This FB thing though? I despise FB and all it will do is draw in more of the masses who think PNG's are the coolest ever and who will hide caches with little or no thought about placement, much less proper permission. It could easily end up killing the sport, not only driving away people who dispise FB, but also by pushing it a little too far into the public eye and getting caching banned because of all the irresponible masses that FB will draw in.

 

Just my 2¢

[+tozainamboku]

This FB thing may well be the last straw for me. I debated for a long time last year when my membership came due about renewing or not. What used to be a fun semi-clandestine activity has already become a soccer-mom game where if you are spotted with electronics in your hand just about anyplace people ask "are you geocaching? I've got an ap for that..." Plus I now have to spend an hour or more sorting and re-sorting PQ's to find caches worth visiting instead of powertrails across wal-mart parking lots before I can go out caching. Basically the fun-to-effort ratio has gone way down in the past four years, but not quite enough to make me quit....yet.

 

This FB thing though? I despise FB and all it will do is draw in more of the masses who think PNG's are the coolest ever and who will hide caches with little or no thought about placement, much less proper permission. It could easily end up killing the sport, not only driving away people who dispise FB, but also by pushing it a little too far into the public eye and getting caching banned because of all the irresponible masses that FB will draw in.

 

Just my 2¢

 

Snoogans - does this mean we have reached the mainstream event horizon?

[CoyoteRed]

It could easily end up killing the sport, not only driving away people who dispise FB, but also by pushing it a little too far into the public eye and getting caching banned because of all the irresponible masses that FB will draw in.

For many it's already dead.

 

Geocaching is not like what it was back when we first started. We found a lot of micros before we found the first one that didn't have trinkets in it. At first, I thought these "high risk" micros where kind of cool. You're kind of like Jame Bond attempting to retrieve a secret message right under the noses of the enemy. That got old quick.

 

Then, it seemed as though folks simply got lazy. Non-trading micros in town in places with nothing of interest around whatsoever. The reason given, "All of the good spots are gone." Which only meant they recognize where they placed the cache is not a good spot.

 

You then have those who think any cache is a good cache. Why? The smilie. The hobby with the smilie and other aggregates attracts the type of person who seems to think their worth is based on how much they can consume. Well, when the consumption is restricted by the available to be consumed then it's okay to place a cache simply for more consumption. Smiley aggregation is so popular that sites devoted to it have popped up and are more popular than sites devoted to stories of geocaching adventures. This is certainly a "it's all about me" phenomena.

 

Groundspeak is a for profit business which has a priority list and it seems as though the bottom line (profits) are higher on that list than the health of the hobby or maintaining the original feel of the hobby. You'll hear all sorts of counter arguments to the case I've just presented. "Over a million caches and growing. X number of active cachers." Blah, blah, blah. Fat doesn't mean healthy. I know first hand what happens when someone plops down a micro in every cemetery in the area without knowing the culture of the area. Sure there's a lot more caches to find, but what are the repercussions? It wasn't pretty. South Carolina was in struggle to keep geocaching viable in this state. A few eyes watched with interest. Yet, when we prevailed and it was over, it seemed few learned a lesson.

 

Geocaching of today is nothing like it was a few years ago. Groundspeak, in an effort to maximize profits, allow anyone and everyone in with little restriction or guidance beyond the listing guidelines to place a cache. The lowest common denominator, as a result, had taken over and now drives the hobby to place unrecognizable to those coming back to the hobby from a short hiatus.

 

To many, like Sissy, the hobby is already dead.

[+northernpenguin]

Why does Groundspeak feel the need to link in with Facebook and not just have its own "Like" link within this website?

If you go to watch football, does the stadium sell its own brand of cola, or Coke? It sells Coke, because Coke is good at soft drinks.

I take your point, although it should also be noted that when I go to the football, I have the choice not to to purchase either my team's cola or someone else's. The choice is not offered to us here.

 

 

You are given the choice. Don't hit the "like" button.

 

When you go to the football game, you are NOT given the choice to avoid seeing the Coca-Cola or Budweiser advertisements plastered all over the stadium. So to make the analogy stick - they show you the "like" button ... do you click, or not click?

[+L0ne.R]

Why does Groundspeak feel the need to link in with Facebook and not just have its own "Like" link within this website?

If you go to watch football, does the stadium sell its own brand of cola, or Coke? It sells Coke, because Coke is good at soft drinks.

I take your point, although it should also be noted that when I go to the football, I have the choice not to to purchase either my team's cola or someone else's. The choice is not offered to us here.

 

 

You are given the choice. Don't hit the "like" button.

 

When you go to the football game, you are NOT given the choice to avoid seeing the Coca-Cola or Budweiser advertisements plastered all over the stadium. So to make the analogy stick - they show you the "like" button ... do you click, or not click?

 

But we're premium members. Aren't PM accounts supposed to be ad-free?

[+Semper Questio]

 

But we're premium members. Aren't PM accounts supposed to be ad-free?

 

Guess it depends what you call an ad. It isn't trying to sell you something, it is asking for nominations for something being done by the site. For that reason I would not call it an ad. Annoyingly ugly? Yes. An ad? No. YMMV

[+L0ne.R]

 

But we're premium members. Aren't PM accounts supposed to be ad-free?

 

Guess it depends what you call an ad. It isn't trying to sell you something, it is asking for nominations for something being done by the site. For that reason I would not call it an ad. Annoyingly ugly? Yes. An ad? No. YMMV

 

If it's not a rating system, then it's Facebook advertising. If it is a rating/nomination system then it's discriminatory because it's not open to all geocaching.com members.

[+northernpenguin]

 

But we're premium members. Aren't PM accounts supposed to be ad-free?

 

Guess it depends what you call an ad. It isn't trying to sell you something, it is asking for nominations for something being done by the site. For that reason I would not call it an ad. Annoyingly ugly? Yes. An ad? No. YMMV

 

If it's not a rating system, then it's Facebook advertising. If it is a rating/nomination system then it's discriminatory because it's not open to all geocaching.com members.

 

Last time I checked, Facebook was open to pretty much anyone.

 

I could argue that the Twitter functionality is discriminatory because it's only available to people who are on Twitter, or that the Upload an Image function is discriminatory because it's only available to people who own a camera.

 

It's a feature, that adds value to the site for Facebook users, while costing non-Facebook users a kilobyte or two on their bandwidth bill. There is no "massive privacy hole" on the site due to an iframe.

 

I have seen a lot of people who are upset their IT department (via http requests for the ifram on the firewall) will notice them goofing off at Facebook as opposed to goofing off at Geocaching.com, which I'm sure the boss is more than ok with

[+sTeamTraen]

I have seen a lot of people who are upset their IT department (via http requests for the ifram on the firewall) will notice them goofing off at Facebook as opposed to goofing off at Geocaching.com, which I'm sure the boss is more than ok with

Unfortunately, bosses don't think like that. There may be 100 people goofing off on Facebook in the company, and 200 goofing off on 100 different sites. Blocking Facebook gives the impression of doing something. The fact that the 100 Facebookers now go and goof off on 50 different sites, of course, is irrelevant.

 

Of course, the Facebook "Like" link is becoming so ubiquitous that pretty much any non-government site will generate Facebook hits.

 

Now, if we could just all do our social networking on Buzz. I'd like to see the first employer who bans Google for that reason. In fact one of the reasons my workplace has a very relaxed approach to Web usage is because clearly identifying the difference between work-related and personal usage of Google's domains is so hard.

[+Original A1]

Why does Groundspeak feel the need to link in with Facebook and not just have its own "Like" link within this website?

If you go to watch football, does the stadium sell its own brand of cola, or Coke? It sells Coke, because Coke is good at soft drinks.

I take your point, although it should also be noted that when I go to the football, I have the choice not to to purchase either my team's cola or someone else's. The choice is not offered to us here.

 

 

You are given the choice. Don't hit the "like" button.

 

When you go to the football game, you are NOT given the choice to avoid seeing the Coca-Cola or Budweiser advertisements plastered all over the stadium. So to make the analogy stick - they show you the "like" button ... do you click, or not click?

Well technically I don't need to click the "like" button, but that doesn't stop anyone else doing so and thereby exposing my activities to all those on Facebook who happen to read about it. I have no choice about that.

 

Luckily, to the best of my knowledge, my football team doesn't plaster the ground with drinks adverts of any kind, so I do still have the choice to avoid the tooth rot. And in Scotland, you wouldn't be allowed to buy a Bud in a football stadium even if they were advertised.

 

[knowschad]

Ok, but if we're going all tin-hat here about off-content IP tracking stuff, better remove all those interactive Google Maps too. Google can get your IP address.

 

Remind me how Facebook is evil for tracking your IP and web usage but Google is not - even though Google has FAR more ability to build a personally identifiable identity profile than Zuckerberg will ever have.

 

And we know Google is much better with opt-in privacy issues (*cough* Google Buzz *cough*). If you really wanna go all tin-hat, I'd suggest using TOR to access the Geocaching.com site from a public computer. Oh and stop using credit cards, those companies can track your purchases too.

 

If you are not logged into Facebook, and really, the type of person yelling for the removal of the "Like" button has no business having a Facebook account, if you're not logged in the only thing Zuckerberg gets to see is that your IP address made an http: request to his webserver.

 

If you're browsing GC.com on your lunch, and you're worried that the I.T. dept is going to see you're goofing off at facebook.com there are workarounds. But seriously, what makes you think your employer is going to be any happier to see geocaching.com in the logs, unless you work for a company that manufactures trackables?

 

LEAVE THE LIKE BUTTON RIGHT WHERE IT IS. SOME OF US "LIKE" IT.

I'd sure appreciate it if you would stop the "tin-hat" routine. That really is just a thinly veiled way of calling those that disagree with you "nut cases", and if you tried using that phrase instead, I think you would very quickly find yourself unable to continue your arguments in these forums. None of us here are "tin-hatters", thank you, no matter how much you may disagree with them.

[knowschad]

I say it's about time we create our own internet.

I have, and I'm not sharing it with a soul.

[+northernpenguin]

 

Well technically I don't need to click the "like" button, but that doesn't stop anyone else doing so and thereby exposing my activities to all those on Facebook who happen to read about it. I have no choice about that.

 

Luckily, to the best of my knowledge, my football team doesn't plaster the ground with drinks adverts of any kind, so I do still have the choice to avoid the tooth rot. And in Scotland, you wouldn't be allowed to buy a Bud in a football stadium even if they were advertised.

 

 

I'm not sure how my clicking the Like button on your cache exposes your activities --- a person would be able to discern that someone under the handle "Original A1" placed a geocache that I "liked". None of your personal information is revealed, unless you have published that on your cache listing, or your real name is "Original A1".

 

Enjoy the Irn Bru, and Tizer Been a while since I've been to a Man U game *ducks*

[+northernpenguin]

And we know Google is much better with opt-in privacy issues (*cough* Google Buzz *cough*). If you really wanna go all tin-hat, I'd suggest using TOR to access the Geocaching.com site from a public computer. Oh and stop using credit cards, those companies can track your purchases too.

 

I'd sure appreciate it if you would stop the "tin-hat" routine. That really is just a thinly veiled way of calling those that disagree with you "nut cases", and if you tried using that phrase instead, I think you would very quickly find yourself unable to continue your arguments in these forums. None of us here are "tin-hatters", thank you, no matter how much you may disagree with them.

 

No, I was making a point that there are extreme viewpoints, there are some people who viciously hate everything Facebook, no matter what the facts are. You'll note I'm not mentioning anyone specific there. The rest of the post doesn't mention "tin hat", just that one statement.

[knowschad]

And we know Google is much better with opt-in privacy issues (*cough* Google Buzz *cough*). If you really wanna go all tin-hat, I'd suggest using TOR to access the Geocaching.com site from a public computer. Oh and stop using credit cards, those companies can track your purchases too.

 

I'd sure appreciate it if you would stop the "tin-hat" routine. That really is just a thinly veiled way of calling those that disagree with you "nut cases", and if you tried using that phrase instead, I think you would very quickly find yourself unable to continue your arguments in these forums. None of us here are "tin-hatters", thank you, no matter how much you may disagree with them.

 

No, I was making a point that there are extreme viewpoints, there are some people who viciously hate everything Facebook, no matter what the facts are. You'll note I'm not mentioning anyone specific there. The rest of the post doesn't mention "tin hat", just that one statement.

 

You've used that term at least three times, I believe. I don't think that name calling like that helps your argument at all, aside from the personal fact that I happen to find it annoying. Just letting you know. I'm not deeply invested in this thread.