Questions about Facebook "like" buttons on cache pages.

[+Ambrosia]

So is Keystone the official voice of Groundspeak? I thought he was a reviewer only.

 

Reviewer only? Reviewer *only*?!?!

 

Surely you've been around long enough to know about the sordid history that swirls around a certain prominent Reviewer and our well loved green Geocaching mascot, and a certain substance we'll just call "Chemical X". Why do you think people want to be Platinum Members so badly? Lets just say that there's more than one reason that some of us call him Special K.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2010 by Ambrosia

[+journey4truth]

I have GOT to get me one of those leopard skinned bathrobes.

[+sTeamTraen]

And your deluding yourself if you think that Facebook isn't keeping a database for every hit they get and what region it theoretically comes from. Maybe privacy isn't the cleanest word to use but it is still in part correct.

The same potentially applies to absolutely every Web site in the world. Does your Web browser have a setting that alerts you whenever you load a page which contains an iframe or img link to a different site from the one in the address bar and asks you if you want to continue? Good luck with that.

 

You do know that your Internet Service Provider has a record of every page you ever visited, right? And you're still worried that Facebook knows that your IP address, together with about 40 million others, anonymously loaded a small chunk of HTML from their site six times in an evening?

[+journey4truth]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather not see Groundspeak or Facebook retain any info about my webcam sessions with Chesty McBoobs.

[+Lovernios]

I dont like Facebook, but I do like a posibillity to vote the quality of caches. A siply LIKE button is not the thing I want or I need.

BUT there is a god working rating-tool out there: GcVote

[+Vater_Araignee]

How about forcing support? Now every person that views one ore more of the 1,089,017 active caches is now forced to help generate revenue for FB.

huh? how does that bring revenue to FB? if anything, it costs them money, as it causes bandwidth. they don't show ads, and they're not likely to get many new users through it. they get information about traffic on a 3rd party website, but how does that help them? (other than when they know who's causing the traffic, i.e. facebook users - but those are in the game already anyway)

Lats say I actually did something with my website and I was generating revenue by way of advertisements.

I'm Have 100k unique IPs regularly coming and my fees are based on the potential mass exposure.

Now GC add an iframe to every cache listing that displays a page on my site that just says "Hello from warlocks-box".

Now I potentially have 5 million unique IPs regularly hitting my site and can attract new advertisers and justify raising prices.

 

When I was working for G.U.N. I spoke to about 2000 potential potential advertisers. I know, not even a molecule in a drop in the bucket, only a single one asked for page specific hit data, what the rest wanted was site wide and frequency. Hot Topic wanted additional advertising time on most heavily trafficked pages, so I assume had they not then they would have only wanted the site wide details.

 

Seven years have passed so it could be different now, but for smaller companies, I highly doubt it and it isn't like FB is getting most of their money from the big guys.

[+sTeamTraen]

Now I potentially have 5 million unique IPs regularly hitting my site and can attract new advertisers and justify raising prices.

Internet advertising is typically priced in two ways:

- per page view (display of the ad)

- per click on the ad

It is not priced on the basis of "our site gets X million hits per month". That would be closer to how TV sells advertising ("X million people watch our show").

 

Now, if non-Facebook members click on the link and sign up as a consequence, maybe Groundspeak gets a couple of cents back. Good for them.

Edited June 3, 2010 by sTeamTraen

[+Vater_Araignee]

The same potentially applies to absolutely every Web site in the world. Does your Web browser have a setting that alerts you whenever you load a page which contains an iframe or img link to a different site from the one in the address bar and asks you if you want to continue? Good luck with that.

Didn't ask me if I wanted to continue but it did alert me to the iframe.

You do know that your Internet Service Provider has a record of every page you ever visited, right?

I know my ISP can, I also know that I can pay an extra $5.00 fee so they wont. My choice.

And you're still worried that Facebook knows that your IP address, together with about 40 million others, anonymously loaded a small chunk of HTML from their site six times in an evening?

Disgusted by and worry about are two different things.

And where did six come from?

[AZcachemeister]

 

BUT there is a *good working rating-tool out there: GcVote

 

*I HAD to fix that for ya...it's good, but not THAT good!

 

...which (sadly) isn't working on individual cache pages at the moment.

Luckily it IS still working on the 'My Account' page, and I'm sure Bonner Guido will have it fixed in a couple of days.

 

I'm not overly concerned with the FB BS, but I must say it certainly is a feeble attempt to satisfy those of us who think a rating system is beneficial.

 

I can only imagine (as has been stated) that those FB users who find the cache will always 'Like It', and possibly even those who don't will too, just to increase their 'liked cache' numbers. Probably won't be long before caches that haven't even been visited physically will be getting 'Liked' just to boost someone's numbers on FB.

[+vossibär]

Hi all,

 

I don't use facebook and I do not have any intentions to disclose my privacy to the public by this huge leak. The amount of privacy leakage on FB can be seen here: http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/# - so we can wait for the time all data anytime entered became public -- up to the color and cleanliness of your pants.

 

I have installed in my Firefox an adblocker which can be configured to block single pinpointed sites. So this FB trash is also blocked. Additionaly I control which scripts are running on the sites I am visiting.

 

Nevertheless I am claiming the possibility to decide will I have the "dummy gimmick" or not.

 

Additionally: Who stole the plus/minus buttons on the detail maps in the cache description? They were so handy....

 

Thanks

 

Andy

[+Zop]

This is a terrible feature and should be removed. Even though I am on both sites I dont want my information shared in between the two. I can only imagine un needed traffic being brought to caches that cant handle them. Or it takes the hide and make it out in the open.

 

I am in complete agreement.

[+thebruce0]

First, I should make note that any browser-side scripting that simply removes or alters page display to how you like (ie Greasemonkey) still doesn't actually stop the browser from fully loading the initial page. That is, if you hide the L&F banner or the FB Like iframe, that's all done after you've already loaded those items in the browser. That kind of scripting is purely aesthetic and doesn't address the primary issue of still being 'forced' to load them -- a temporary fix for people who don't care as much (such as I, as far as non-mobile browsing is concerned)

Just had to throw that out there.

 

they get information about traffic on a 3rd party website, but how does that help them? (other than when they know who's causing the traffic, i.e. facebook users - but those are in the game already anyway)

Well, if your browser session still has you logged in to facebook, then they do know who visited what page and when, because in the FB iframe, you are logged in. If you're not logged in, then sure, but your IP is still available and the page the iframe is hosted on (as you mentioned above).

 

And the iframe is still hosted OFF GC.com

 

i still don't see the problem of hitting facebook when you're not a user or not logged in. see above, it's not different than hitting the google servers....tons of other websites have the same kind of buttons from 3rd party websites, be it facebook, twitter, digg, delicious and whatever else they have. do you also not use those websites?

And again, those are features that are hosted on gc.com (functions or links in the html page itself). Even then, the button images themselves may be hosted on their respective services (like digg.com instead of gc.com), but there's a difference between being forced to load an off-site subframe and an off-site image. The closest you might get are javascript files that are loaded from google's ad servers that generated the content (which is still not quite the same as loading full-out iframe content). Plus, as premium members, for various reasons, ads can be (should be *cough*L&F) removed, so 'hitting googles servers' in that context isn't a problem. But here, all users are forced to load the off-site Facebook iframe. Yes, the domain can be blocked so it's not loaded, but again (as stated elsewhere and eluded to above) that's simply addressing the symptom, not resolving the problem (putting the onus on the user to patchwork a fix after the fact, which is Not A Good Thing)

 

like i said, google gets the same kind of information, and nobody seems to have a problem with them doing that.

I'm one of those people. I really don't care. But it's the principle that's at issue here. I wouldn't build a website that forces this kind of privacy concern without an option to gives users the choice (at least if there's this much apparent backlash). For ads, that means looking to providing a tier that doesn't force them on people (here that's paid memberships, which offsets the purpose of embedded ads). So what about Facebook? There's more than enough concern over that website to merit at least discussion and decision over whether it's prudent to give users the choice, in this case, to load the off-site Facebook content.

 

I suggested before, and I'll suggest again - convert the "Like" button to one of Facebook's other options, such as the Share button. IIRC, that's not iframe content, the purpose of the button is clearer and more apparent, and I believe more appropriate to the reason for having the button in the first place.

[+JABs]

Ok I do not wish to see some link to facebook on GC site, I pay a Premium Membership and do not wish to see this add. What next a link to some under ground site. Please remove it It has nothing to do with the game sport obsession that we play.

[+IngRu]

Ok I do not wish to see some link to facebook on GC site, I pay a Premium Membership and do not wish to see this add. What next a link to some under ground site. Please remove it It has nothing to do with the game sport obsession that we play.

 

Yes. Please remove it!

[+northernpenguin]

Ok I do not wish to see some link to facebook on GC site, I pay a Premium Membership and do not wish to see this add. What next a link to some under ground site. Please remove it It has nothing to do with the game sport obsession that we play.

 

Yes. Please remove it!

 

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.

[+Bear and Ragged]

How can it be any form of recommendation for a cache, when my 'test page cache' which has never been seen, never published, is PM only, and has 27 people who "Like This"

[+dfx]

Well, if your browser session still has you logged in to facebook, then they do know who visited what page and when, because in the FB iframe, you are logged in.

of course, that's just FB for you. FB is completely designed around lack of privacy, it's the whole point of the site. all users have chosen to participate in that. if you don't like that, then don't use FB.

 

And again, those are features that are hosted on gc.com (functions or links in the html page itself). ... Plus, as premium members, for various reasons, ads can be (should be *cough*L&F) removed, so 'hitting googles servers' in that context isn't a problem.

i'm talking about the google maps images. every cache page has two map images loaded off the google servers, which are automatically loaded, just like an iframe (in fact even more automatically, as some browsers may not support iframes or may have them disabled). i know that content in an iframe can do a lot more than just an image, but that's neither the problem nor the concern here. the concern is that loading a cache page tells a 3rd party site which page you're looking at, which is now true for spambook, but also true for google. they see your IP address and they see which page you're looking at (either through the referer or in the very least through the embedded coordinates, which are pretty much unique). do why didn't anyone ever complain about that, but now suddenly complain about FB getting the same information? (again, of course FB, unlike google, will know exactly who is looking at the page through the credentials if you're logged in, but that's really your problem for using FB in the first place.)

Edited June 4, 2010 by dfx

[+dakboy]

Our corporate firewall blocks Facebook (which I have no problem with), so I get a big "Access Denied" where the Facebook stuff is on the cache page. Visual issue (nothing really breaks), it's annoying, I'll get over it.

 

However, this "integration" also turns every cache page hit I generate into a Facebook hit, in the eyes of the firewall logging & monitoring. So now it looks like I've spent half my lunch hour trying to look at Facebook. That I do not like.

 

I'm with you dakboy. You and I don't want to turn up on the firewall logging due to GC hitting facebook against our will.

 

Try this: Find your HOSTS file. On XP machines, it is in the C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc folder.

Edit the HOSTS file and add this line:

 

0.0.0.0 facebook.com

 

Save HOSTS, purge your browser cache, then have a look at cache pages again. Instead of the facebook hit to the firewall logging, your browser can't resolve facebook.com and will return a 'page not found' in that little space on the cache page.

 

Problem free lunch time GC browsing again. FTW!

I AdBlocked anything touching Facebook too.

[+thebruce0]

Ok I should preface any comment I make with the disclaimer that I personally don't care about the existance of connections with FB. I am a fairly common user of it, and it's fine by me having that added functionality.

 

That said, as a wb developer, I am not yet sold on the integration GS has used for FB connectivity. The "Like" button itself is under heavy flak Internet-wide. This is why I advocate rather for An optional "Share" button.

 

1) it addresses all the outcry from GC users who hate Facebook for its privacy issues

2) if it's optional it addresses the concerns people have about their own caches being connected to Facebook (yes even though it's already public and a user simply need to share the link there of their own accord)

3) it's more in gear with what I believe the generally agreed upon purpose of the button is: to share favoured caches with friends

3b) it would remove the confusion over the "Like" status text implying a GC rating cache system, which it is not

 

These are all concerns I've seen raised repeatedly since this rollout. That is my professional opinion, as a professional web applications developer (implying that yes I understand the technicalities and similarities of web content elements, such as between Google's and Facebook's )

 

Again, I'm not anti-Facebook, I'm pro-user-friendliness

 

eta: Also, I typed all this on the iPhone, so please excuse any typos

Edited June 4, 2010 by thebruce0

[+Vater_Araignee]

DFX,

 

Do you truly not understand the difference between Google and and BF?

Google is giving something meaningful that the site does not.

BF is giving something less meaningful than what the site already gives.

BF is an just an intruder, Google is Santa.

[+dfx]

Do you truly not understand the difference between Google and and BF?

Google is giving something meaningful that the site does not.

BF is giving something less meaningful than what the site already gives.

BF is an just an intruder, Google is Santa.

i understand the difference quite well, it's you who mixes up two completely seperate issues.

 

issue 1: the button is useless for people who don't use spambook, yet it's on every page. i agree, i also don't care for it. but it's small, i can just ignore it. if it doesn't have any negative effect on the rest of the page, i don't see a reason why it shouldn't be there, as some other people may find it useful.

 

this has nothing to do with:

 

issue 2: privacy concern because off-site content is loaded from each page. this comes in two flavors:

a) you're a FB user and so FB will know that specifically you looked at this and that page. non-issue, because you chose to be a FB user and therefore chose to give up your privacy, and you can choose to stop using FB at any time.

you're not a FB user and therefore FB will see that your IP address loaded this and that page. potentially a privacy issue, but if you have a problem with that, you have to complain about the embedded google images as well, because the same problem applies there. but you don't, so obviously you don't really have a problem with that.

 

your point seems to be that you don't care if a 3rd party gets your IP address and what page you're looking at if you find their service useful, but if you don't find it useful then you do care. seriously?

Edited June 4, 2010 by dfx

[+Vater_Araignee]

Do you truly not understand the difference between Google and and BF?

Google is giving something meaningful that the site does not.

BF is giving something less meaningful than what the site already gives.

BF is an just an intruder, Google is Santa.

i understand the difference quite well, it's you who mixes up two completely seperate issues.

 

issue 1: the button is useless for people who don't use spambook, yet it's on every page. i agree, i also don't care for it. but it's small, i can just ignore it. if it doesn't have any negative effect on the rest of the page, i don't see a reason why it shouldn't be there, as some other people may find it useful.

 

this has nothing to do with:

 

issue 2: privacy concern because off-site content is loaded from each page. this comes in two flavors:

a) you're a FB user and so FB will know that specifically you looked at this and that page. non-issue, because you chose to be a FB user and therefore chose to give up your privacy, and you can choose to stop using FB at any time.

you're not a FB user and therefore FB will see that your IP address loaded this and that page. potentially a privacy issue, but if you have a problem with that, you have to complain about the embedded google images as well, because the same problem applies there. but you don't, so obviously you don't really have a problem with that.

 

your point seems to be that you don't care if a 3rd party gets your IP address and what page you're looking at if you find their service useful, but if you don't find it useful then you do care. seriously?

Privacy doesn't perfectly describe the issue, it is just a partial concern.

Why do you care that we want the option to turn it off?

Your defending it like a person who believes that either GS is infallible or you benefit from everyone being forced.

Groundspeak has screwed up and I hope I know your not being compensated.

How about some empathy?

If a user is given a check box on their profile so that they can turn it off and lay to rest ANY concern (regardless of how urological to you) they may have, how is this wish something worth arguing against?

I can't empathize with your stand point because there is nothing to empathize with and that means I can never agree with it.

Yes sometimes empathy flying in the face of logic is stupid but in this instance it is not.

[+dfx]

Why do you care that we want the option to turn it off?

Your defending it like a person who believes that either GS is infallible or you benefit from everyone being forced.

Groundspeak has screwed up and I hope I know your not being compensated.

How about some empathy?

If a user is given a check box on their profile so that they can turn it off and lay to rest ANY concern (regardless of how urological to you) they may have, how is this wish something worth arguing against?

I can't empathize with your stand point because there is nothing to empathize with and that means I can never agree with it.

Yes sometimes empathy flying in the face of logic is stupid but in this instance it is not.

my point of view is a neutral and objective one. i'm not defending anyone. GS has implemented the spambook button: i don't care, it doesn't affect me. if they remove it again: i also don't care, it still doesn't affect me. if they create a profile option to turn the button on or off: so much the better, but i still won't care.

 

however, your point is that the button poses a privacy risk and that GS has "screwed up" by putting it on the pages and that this is why it needs to go. this point is invalid because there simply isn't a privacy risk, at least not more than having embedded google maps on the pages.

 

you're still free not to like the button of course (i also don't like it) and free to request it to be removed, made optional or any other changes being made to it (which i also support). but don't try to publicly back up your opinions and requests with incorrect facts - other people may start believing what you say is actually true.

[+thebruce0]

Make it an optional, non-iframe/embedded "Share on Facebook" button.

Problem solved.

 

Seriously, this is a VERY quick fix. The code is third party, provided by FB. No intense testing really is even needed.

I'd use it.

Edited June 4, 2010 by thebruce0

[+northernpenguin]

Why do you care that we want the option to turn it off?

Your defending it like a person who believes that either GS is infallible or you benefit from everyone being forced.

Groundspeak has screwed up and I hope I know your not being compensated.

How about some empathy?

If a user is given a check box on their profile so that they can turn it off and lay to rest ANY concern (regardless of how urological to you) they may have, how is this wish something worth arguing against?

I can't empathize with your stand point because there is nothing to empathize with and that means I can never agree with it.

Yes sometimes empathy flying in the face of logic is stupid but in this instance it is not.

my point of view is a neutral and objective one. i'm not defending anyone. GS has implemented the spambook button: i don't care, it doesn't affect me. if they remove it again: i also don't care, it still doesn't affect me. if they create a profile option to turn the button on or off: so much the better, but i still won't care.

 

however, your point is that the button poses a privacy risk and that GS has "screwed up" by putting it on the pages and that this is why it needs to go. this point is invalid because there simply isn't a privacy risk, at least not more than having embedded google maps on the pages.

 

you're still free not to like the button of course (i also don't like it) and free to request it to be removed, made optional or any other changes being made to it (which i also support). but don't try to publicly back up your opinions and requests with incorrect facts - other people may start believing what you say is actually true.

 

+1

[+sTeamTraen]

Privacy doesn't perfectly describe the issue, it is just a partial concern.

Why do you care that we want the option to turn it off?

Your defending it like a person who believes that either GS is infallible or you benefit from everyone being forced.

Groundspeak has screwed up and I hope I know your not being compensated.

How about some empathy?

If a user is given a check box on their profile so that they can turn it off and lay to rest ANY concern (regardless of how urological to you) they may have, how is this wish something worth arguing against?

I can't empathize with your stand point because there is nothing to empathize with and that means I can never agree with it.

Yes sometimes empathy flying in the face of logic is stupid but in this instance it is not.

Wow. Dude, chill. Step away from the keyboard. You asked for some empathy and then three lines later complained that you can't empathize with dfx, who never asked you to. (You could maybe check out the meaning of the word "empathy", while you're at it. It doesn't require agreement or sympathy.)

 

Here's the bottom line:

- If you have a Facebook account, *and* if you're logged in or have the "keep me logged in" cookie, then this link erodes your privacy by a further 0.01% compared to all the other ways that Facebook erodes your privacy.

- If you don't, this link erodes your privacy to the extent that the orbit of the planet Mars causes tides in your bathtub.

- If your concern is about something else other than privacy, then please let us know what it is.

 

Make it an optional, non-iframe/embedded "Share on Facebook" button.

Problem solved.

 

Seriously, this is a VERY quick fix. The code is third party, provided by FB. No intense testing really is even needed.

I'd use it.

You can be sure that if they've done it this way, it's because Facebook's terms of use for the "Like" feature require it.

 

Don't forget that for many people today, the Internet *is* Facebook, just as 3 years ago the Internet was IM and 3 years before that it was eBay and 3 years before that it was e-mail. Groundspeak needs to constantly attract new customers and these will increasingly expect to find Facebook integration. It's part of the reality of doing business on the Internet.

 

I have a Facebook account, mostly so I can keep up with my college-ages kids (as long my doctor says it's still OK for my blood pressure). I don't think I have ever "Like"d anything and I'm not about to start, but I can see how it's another great dimension to the sport at a very low cost for Groundspeak to implement. Maybe if people use it a lot, we will finally get that rating system. (No, I don't like rating systems either, but if one appears, I shall simply ignore it.)

Edited June 4, 2010 by sTeamTraen

[+L0ne.R]

Make it an optional, non-iframe/embedded "Share on Facebook" button.

Problem solved.

 

Seriously, this is a VERY quick fix. The code is third party, provided by FB. No intense testing really is even needed.

I'd use it.

 

Really? I sure hope Groundspeak implements the optional option asap. My guess is they won't, and if not, why not? My guess is they won't answer that last question.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Lone R

[+Ambrosia]

I have GOT to get me one of those leopard skinned bathrobes.

 

It's smoooth, baybee.

[+Vater_Araignee]

however, your point is that the button poses a privacy risk and that GS has "screwed up" by putting it on the pages and that this is why it needs to go. this point is invalid because there simply isn't a privacy risk, at least not more than having embedded google maps on the pages.

Where face book is concerned it is at risk. It has been proven that click stream can be used to identify an individual.

Sure it takes huge resources to do it by ip alone but it has been and can be done again.

that aside,can you say that the bacon is not recording my Username from here in the BF server?

I'll point out that there is only one person that performs under the name Vater Araignee so the fact that that person is using it here shows a lack of concern for his privacy. It isn't about me it is about others and what is simply right.

Nice thing about google...

Google Analytics Opt-out Browser Add-on

 

Where is the BF data collection opt out?

[+Lil Devil]

How can it be any form of recommendation for a cache, when my 'test page cache' which has never been seen, never published, is PM only, and has 27 people who "Like This"

Knock it off with the made-up drama. I just looked at your test cache and I see "Be the first of your friends to like this."

 

If you're going to allege stuff, better make sure no one can disprove it

[+dfx]

Where face book is concerned it is at risk. It has been proven that click stream can be used to identify an individual.

Sure it takes huge resources to do it by ip alone but it has been and can be done again.

of course. and google can do the same, or any other 3rd party website which has content referenced from gc.com. let's see, there's ads loaded from yahoo.com (are you blocking them?) and a hidden statistics link to quantserve.com (omg they're tracking you!!!!). i still don't see you complaining about that. but i'm repeating myself.

 

that aside,can you say that the bacon is not recording my Username from here in the BF server?

actually yes, i can. that information is not present in the URL loaded from the spambook servers, only the GUID of the current cache is sent (plus some static formatting information). your username is not even present in the gc.com login cookie, only the user-id is - but that cookie is only sent back to gc.com itself anyway and nowhere else.

 

Nice thing about google...

Google Analytics Opt-out Browser Add-on

oh yeah. do you actually have that installed?

but like i said above, it's not the only 3rd party site that has content loaded on gc.com websites. google was just an example.

 

Where is the BF data collection opt out?

it's in your /etc/hosts file

[+larryc43230]

How can it be any form of recommendation for a cache, when my 'test page cache' which has never been seen, never published, is PM only, and has 27 people who "Like This"

Knock it off with the made-up drama. I just looked at your test cache and I see "Be the first of your friends to like this."

 

If you're going to allege stuff, better make sure no one can disprove it

Bear and Ragged isn't the only one who is seeing this behavior. Earlier today, out of curiosity, I displayed a cache page (it was an archived event cache created by The Blorenges) and clicked on the Facebook "Like" button. Now every cache page I look at, even a cache page I've never before visited, has "Larry Cunningham and 28 others like this." displayed in the Facebook widget. I just now chose a cache listing totally at random, and I see exactly the same Facebook message.

 

It would appear that I've clicked "Like" for every cache in the GC database.

 

--Larry

[+thebruce0]

Make it an optional, non-iframe/embedded "Share on Facebook" button.

Problem solved.

 

Seriously, this is a VERY quick fix. The code is third party, provided by FB. No intense testing really is even needed.

I'd use it.

You can be sure that if they've done it this way, it's because Facebook's terms of use for the "Like" feature require it.

Um, no.

The code is provided as is to use how you like. "Like" is done in an iframe, "Share" is done either via loading an offsite javascript (much like google ads) OR just via a direct link. No TOU.

 

As far as I'm concerned, GS implemented the "Like" button as is because it's the latest Facebook trendy method of sharing pages and links, and connects everything together in Facebook's "Open Graph" strategy.

 

It's trendy. Everyone's doing it. Nothing wrong with that. Except that many here don't like the way it's been implemented; it's forced, and there's no way around it - even though I don't personally care that it's there, I realize that many do, and understand the feeling of being "trapped" into it without being able to opt out.

 

IMO, yes, it's paranoia; yes, it's childish. But again, as a web developer, I would not force this kind of feature on paying customers who do not want it, WHEN there's a simple, quick, and effective workaround that can be implemented to make everyone (relatively speaking) happy.

 

Once again.

Make it an optional, non-iframe/embedded "Share on Facebook" button.

Problem solved.

 

Heck, link: http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/Facebook_Share

make a custom Facebook Share button image, hosted on GC.com (or use an existing one); make it an A link, with the destination

http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=<cache url>&t=<cache title>

Then provide an option in a user profile to allow the button not to appear on cache listings.

Really, it's not that hard. I don't know why this is causing such a freaking uproar.

 

I don't care if it stays or goes. I'm just trying to provide a solution that, apparently, to:

1) People who don't care - shouldn't care either way!

2) People who hate FB - have an out

3) People who love FB - can still use the feature!

 

Rather than all this drama:

1) People who don't care - defending GS's decision

2) People who don't care - would rather GS address the problem

3) People who hate FB - going nutso over privacy paranoia

4) People who love FB - well, just like the addition anyway

 

Less drama.

User friendly solution.

Most importantly - more happier user-peoplez!

[+monsterbox]

IMO, yes, it's paranoia; yes, it's childish. But again, as a web developer, I would not force this kind of feature on paying customers who do not want it, WHEN there's a simple, quick, and effective workaround that can be implemented to make everyone (relatively speaking) happy.

 

Once again.

Make it an optional, non-iframe/embedded "Share on Facebook" button.

Problem solved.

 

It's not just paranoia ;-) I simply don't want to find MY caches on a Facebook page at all. That's it for me!

 

And what I would need to have it fixed is an option that allows ME to decide if this link is being shown on MY caches!

 

I don't care about this link on the cache pages of others if they feel fine with it, you see? If I don't want to see this link at all I already can use adblock or greasemonkey of just the hosts file workaround.

 

Bye,

Christian

[+Vater_Araignee]

Where face book is concerned it is at risk. It has been proven that click stream can be used to identify an individual.

Sure it takes huge resources to do it by ip alone but it has been and can be done again.

of course. and google can do the same, or any other 3rd party website which has content referenced from gc.com. let's see, there's ads loaded from yahoo.com (are you blocking them?) and a hidden statistics link to quantserve.com (omg they're tracking you!!!!). i still don't see you complaining about that. but i'm repeating myself.

 

that aside,can you say that the bacon is not recording my Username from here in the BF server?

actually yes, i can. that information is not present in the URL loaded from the spambook servers, only the GUID of the current cache is sent (plus some static formatting information). your username is not even present in the gc.com login cookie, only the user-id is - but that cookie is only sent back to gc.com itself anyway and nowhere else.

 

Nice thing about google...

Google Analytics Opt-out Browser Add-on

oh yeah. do you actually have that installed?

but like i said above, it's not the only 3rd party site that has content loaded on gc.com websites. google was just an example.

 

Where is the BF data collection opt out?

it's in your /etc/hosts file

Quantserve is Quantcast.

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.

You want to track off site browsing habits? Pay for it so your not violating privacy.

I don't block Google because Google compensates me. I'd say having a free phone number is one hell of a compensation.

All BF ever gave was one headache after another.

I'll point out that if BF is giving the frog money for this I'll be the one of the first to tell the privacy advocates to shut the hell up because it benefits us for GS to profit so that they can afford to shunt funds toward projects that that better our on site experience.

 

But I know lets belittle anyone's reason concern regardless of what they are and just call it inconsequential.

I mean what are they really going to do right?

It's not like places I have never even heard of send me junk mail with Vater Araignee on it, oh wait it has happened, but it's only junk mail right? (never got Vater_Araignee and I don't want to either, this is the only place with an underscore in it)

It's not like if everyone keeps quiet they wont decide to see if they can take it all further. (thank goodness people where screaming before I ever thought it could be an issue.)

You see harmless little grains of sand, I see little harmless little grains of sand that can be compressed into something not so harmless. (IE working for free.)

 

Oh, opt-out and a denial by hosts file are two different things. Opt-out cookies don't cause an ugly element to look hideous. It sure would be nice if that pic was gone and it was just some small black, possibly underlined non iframed text.

That's what I see when not using nix white space.

I only selected to kill that iframe to show another how to do it, but why bother turning it back? I'm not getting any benefit from BF.

[+Vater_Araignee]

IMO, yes, it's paranoia; yes, it's childish. But again, as a web developer, I would not force this kind of feature on paying customers who do not want it, WHEN there's a simple, quick, and effective workaround that can be implemented to make everyone (relatively speaking) happy.

Dude, being able to see potential does not equate to paranoia.

 

I'm I capable of seeing how the U.S. government can abuse the Patriot act? You bet.

Do I think they will use it in it's current form on me? I cant say they wont, I don't know who I'm going to be in the future but I can say it ain't likely.

Will I oppose them trying to stretch the definition to make it more likely that people will fall under it. Yup.

Is it paranoid to think they would try? No.

 

Am I capable of seeing how a bunch of tiny little bits of seemingly unrelated data can identify an individual? Yup.

Do I think they are collecting it to use it for a nefarious purpose? Define nefarious purpose, we would have to start tracking who owns what and their connections to politics and how it would relate to harming the populace. I will say as soon as a connection to WallyWorld is made I'll be pointing at them saying eeeeeeeeeeviiiiiiiiil

Will I oppose them trying to collect even more identifying data? Yup.

Is it paranoid to think they would try? Nope.

Is it paranoid to want compensation for the data? Do I even have to answer that?

[+thebruce0]

Vater, I'm trying to help you, amongst others. You're not helping yourself

[+JABs]

Ok I do not wish to see some link to facebook on GC site, I pay a Premium Membership and do not wish to see this add. What next a link to some under ground site. Please remove it It has nothing to do with the game sport obsession that we play.

 

Yes. Please remove it!

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

Again Please remove this Facebook link as it has nothing to do with the game sport obsession we play.

[+DanOCan]

I have no problem with the button, or with Facebook.

 

If I start seeing that my friends "liked" a certain cache in my News Feed on Facebook, cool, maybe I'll check out that cache too. Do I care that FB might know every cache page I visit? Not at all.

 

I imagine the possibilities -- based on caches I like and my friends like gc.com could start offering up suggestions on "here are some other nearby caches we think you might enjoy", the same way a site like last.fm recommends new music to me based on what I already listen to.

 

Sometimes people are SO worried about privacy I wonder why they turn on their ethernet connection at all.

[+pppingme]

If a lot of the concerns here are about privacy, I'm surprised some other issues haven't been questioned.

 

For example, quantserve.com is called from EVERY SINGLE PAGE on gc (not just cache pages like this facebook thing appears to be), actually, its called twice, once with javascript, which is able to collect and send back way more info, and once without, in case you have javascript disabled (but would still send the refferal url, which in the case of a "nearest caches" search, would include your home coordinates). That means if you do something as simple as looking at a list of caches to your home coordinates, you've given quantserve the coordinates to your home. A prime breach of trust for gc to do this, but its there.

 

Google-analytics.com is another big one. Why do I want google analyzing MY surfing habits (this one is used by a ton of other sites as well, if you don't thing google can build your surfing history, and now they know exactly where you live thanks to gc handing your coordinates over to them your nuts).

 

Both of these are called from EVERY SINGLE PAGE on gc, not just cache listings, but nearest listings (which the referral url would contain your home coordinates), and every other page on the site.

 

Why does gc do this? Since quantserve doesn't seem to be providing any services, the only thing left to speculate is that quantserve is paying gc for this opportunity to collect info.

 

I've brought this quantserve issue up before, but since they aren't spashing on the page, no one seemed to notice or care.

 

At one time I counted almost half a dozen sites between the main site and the forums that gc would either plant 3rd party cookies, or have some type of postback, pixle plant, or other privacy issue.

[+JeremyR]

If a lot of the concerns here are about privacy, I'm surprised some other issues haven't been questioned.

I think you'll find most people who take a proactive approach to protecting their privacy online will have the domains of the services you mentioned blocked already (along with a couple of others). I know I have!

 

Edited for grammar FAIL

Edited June 5, 2010 by JeremyR

[+Original A1]

OK, after speed-reading down the postings, I'm not sure that I read the answer to:

 

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

 

I'm gratified to see that I'm not the only person in the world who refuses to use Facebook. I thought I was a lone soldier, but it appears others too don't want every last detail of their private lives splayed across the world's forums for all to see. My logs tell enough already as it is.

[+sTeamTraen]

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.

 

By having people say "I liked geocache XYZ", Groundspeak is allowing all of their friends to see that they "liked" a "geocache", whatever that is. Hmmm, maybe if I click, I'll find out. Hmm, geocaching eh? Sounds cool, I might try it. Compare that to an on-site rating system which is invisible to the rest of the planet.

 

Groundspeak has a business to run. Their continued ability and inclination to do that (and I imagine that the company owners' satisfaction with the income it generates may be in some way a factor in that inclination) is what keep the game going in its present form.

[+JeremyR]

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 marketing itself as a good thing.

 

There, I fixed that for you

[+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.

 

By having people say "I liked geocache XYZ", Groundspeak is allowing all of their friends to see that they "liked" a "geocache", whatever that is. Hmmm, maybe if I click, I'll find out. Hmm, geocaching eh? Sounds cool, I might try it. Compare that to an on-site rating system which is invisible to the rest of the planet.

 

Groundspeak has a business to run. Their continued ability and inclination to do that (and I imagine that the company owners' satisfaction with the income it generates may be in some way a factor in that inclination) is what keep the game going in its present form.

 

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.

[BCProspectors]

So somehow people are thinking that a little Like button on a cache page is invading you're privacy? Wow. You're IP address will be recorded on one more server. Who really cares?

 

The Like button is showing up all over the Internet. It's not a cache rating system. Like thebruce0 said:

...GS implemented the "Like" button as is because it's the latest Facebook trendy method of sharing pages and links, and connects everything together in Facebook's "Open Graph" strategy.

 

Ok I do not wish to see some link to facebook on GC site, I pay a Premium Membership and do not wish to see this add. What next a link to some under ground site. Please remove it It has nothing to do with the game sport obsession that we play.

 

***

 

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.

 

Again Please remove this Facebook link as it has nothing to do with the game sport obsession we play.

The entire Internet cannot simply be designed to your liking. If you don't like the Like button, don't use it.

[Rhialto]

If a lot of the concerns here are about privacy, I'm surprised some other issues haven't been questioned.

 

For example, quantserve.com

Interesting... true that way too much people don't care. I mean they care when someone discuss the settings in facebook but nobody care of code that do not pop out clearly on the screen.

 

Since I use ABP+ I took a look at what you said and I found this :

 

http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel;r=524237526;fpan=0;fpa=P0-289324870-3663818354191;ns=0;url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.Groundspeak.com%2FGC%2Findex.php%3Fshowtopic%3D251353%26st%3D50%26%23entry4357982;ref=;ce=1;je=1;sr=1600x1200x24;dg=E12506-W-MO-5;dst=1;et=1275789997459;tzo=240;a=p-f6VPrfmR4cujU

 

I cannot decode all of it but sure they like to know what screen res I use, what I was reading and a few more. Ok that may not be big deal but on the other hand why they feel free to use my data or trace I left and do business with that? Is it written somewhere in the agreements that GS do that?

 

I added a new filter in ABP+, thanks.

[+monsterbox]

Hi!

 

The entire Internet cannot simply be designed to your liking. If you don't like the Like button, don't use it.

 

You're missing the point! I don't like OTHERS using it on MY cache pages as I don't want to see any of my caches on Facebook at all!

 

So I changed all my caches into PMO caches to avoid allwoing most of the Facebook users to see them.

 

Bye,

Christian

[+pppingme]

So somehow people are thinking that a little Like button on a cache page is invading you're privacy? Wow. You're IP address will be recorded on one more server. Who really cares?

Because most people have the expectation that their info will only be used internally by gc, not passed around and matched up by 3rd parties to build a complete profile of you.

 

GC has told multiple people things that you may not want out, like your exact coordinates, and other pieces of info.

 

By the way, just so everyone is clear, the facebook icon is an iframe, NOT a link, which means its getting called every time you simply load a page that the button is on, so without your knowledge, facebook has now collected your ip, and various things that they can pull off the gc page to match you up.

[+BlueDeuce]

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