opencaching.com new mascot...

[+Manville Possum]

...but it is the PM's that are trying to force basic members to upgrade to play by making their caches PMO, not TPTB.

I am a PM. At one point, one of my caches was a PMO.

How exactly was that cache "forcing" you to become a PM?

If you wanted to hunt it, you could choose to become a PM, or ask me for the coords.

If you wanted to log it, you could choose to become a PM or utilize the backdoor.

In both instances, the choice is yours. You are not being "forced" to do anything.

Please leave your entitlement at the door.

I just live in a area where there are very few geocachers that hide caches. One group of users which each member has 300 + hides have littered the area with PMO hides. Instead of maintaing them the just leave them to be archived by the local reviewers.

How in the world can that be construed as forcing anybody to become a PM???

 

The crayon is purple.

 

(edited by Groundspeak)

I like purple. It is my favorite color. (edited by Groundspeak)

Edited January 31, 2011 by Sandy

[+joranda]

...but it is the PM's that are trying to force basic members to upgrade to play by making their caches PMO, not TPTB.

I am a PM. At one point, one of my caches was a PMO.

How exactly was that cache "forcing" you to become a PM?

If you wanted to hunt it, you could choose to become a PM, or ask me for the coords.

If you wanted to log it, you could choose to become a PM or utilize the backdoor.

In both instances, the choice is yours. You are not being "forced" to do anything.

Please leave your entitlement at the door.

I just live in a area where there are very few geocachers that hide caches. One group of users which each member has 300 + hides have littered the area with PMO hides. Instead of maintaing them the just leave them to be archived by the local reviewers.

How in the world can that be construed as forcing anybody to become a PM???

 

The crayon is purple.

 

 

(post and reply edited by Groundspeak) Just saying, since they are not aloud.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Sandy

[+Manville Possum]

I did not find their comment very nice. But it is hard to hide a disabality, and the user just rudely pointed mine out. I have not been feeling well lately. Guess it shows?

[+Sioneva]

I sincerely apologize to MPH, and I have edited the comment out. I should not have said it.

[GOF and Bacall]

Probably time for everyone to just step back and leave this one alone for a while. Take a break. Have a frosty beverage of your choice. Start fresh some other day.

[+WhoDis]

Probably time for everyone to just step back and leave this one alone for a while. Take a break. Have a frosty beverage of your choice. Start fresh some other day.

You forgot doughnuts. A frosty beverage and a doughnut.

 

Oops, forgot about the diet. My apologies.

[+Sioneva]

Probably time for everyone to just step back and leave this one alone for a while. Take a break. Have a frosty beverage of your choice. Start fresh some other day.

You forgot doughnuts. A frosty beverage and a doughnut.

 

Oops, forgot about the diet. My apologies.

 

It's very easy to do.

[Sandy]

Edited out references to the original text that upset one user. Seen the apology and accepted apology. Thanks, all.

[knowschad]

It's just another caching site guys. Relax, no one is making you list or even seek a cache over there. It will be ok. Take the five step program. Deny, deny, deny, deny, then forget about them. Good luck with it. I know it is hard to do.

Haven't really thought this through yet, have you, Joranda?

 

Well let me think to a second. It is just another caching site, well yeah, they have caches and it is a site. Check. They can't make you cachge on any site that you don't want to. True, they can't so check that one too. Is there a lot of people denying that, well yeah I think there is.

 

Answer to that. Yeap I have thought it thru. Pretty easy stuff. Why make it harder than it is.

I think you have not thought it through very well if you think that it is that simple. We have governmental groups around here that require registration that just barely tolerate caches from one organization. Wait until they here that there is a new kid in town that they need to worry about. But somehow I get the feeling that you really don't care about any of that stuff.

[+ArtieD]

It's just another caching site guys. Relax, no one is making you list or even seek a cache over there. It will be ok. Take the five step program. Deny, deny, deny, deny, then forget about them. Good luck with it. I know it is hard to do.

Haven't really thought this through yet, have you, Joranda?

 

Well let me think to a second. It is just another caching site, well yeah, they have caches and it is a site. Check. They can't make you cachge on any site that you don't want to. True, they can't so check that one too. Is there a lot of people denying that, well yeah I think there is.

 

Answer to that. Yeap I have thought it thru. Pretty easy stuff. Why make it harder than it is.

I think you have not thought it through very well if you think that it is that simple. We have governmental groups around here that require registration that just barely tolerate caches from one organization. Wait until they here that there is a new kid in town that they need to worry about. But somehow I get the feeling that you really don't care about any of that stuff.

 

Of course they don't care. Instead of fixed reviewers who know the local policies and have worked with agencies to advance caching, they have peer reviewers because they think cachers across the country and/or world can do better.

[+Ecylram]

 

Of course they don't care. Instead of fixed reviewers who know the local policies and have worked with agencies to advance caching, they have peer reviewers because they think cachers across the country and/or world can do better.

 

I'm getting less worried with each day. In our region, OC is not adding caches and they aren't being logged. The state of Wyoming doesn't have a single cache listing and there are several states with less than 10 caches listed. Looks like Garmin may have wasted a LOT of money.

[+Sioneva]

 

Of course they don't care. Instead of fixed reviewers who know the local policies and have worked with agencies to advance caching, they have peer reviewers because they think cachers across the country and/or world can do better.

 

I'm getting less worried with each day. In our region, OC is not adding caches and they aren't being logged. The state of Wyoming doesn't have a single cache listing and there are several states with less than 10 caches listed. Looks like Garmin may have wasted a LOT of money.

 

Within a 120 mile radius of me, there are 9, all cross-lists from GC, by two users. I see your point.

[+ArtieD]

Oh yeah, I forgot...don't say anything bad about Opencaching over there or they will try to get you banned.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Arthur & Trillian

[+tozainamboku]

It's just another caching site guys. Relax, no one is making you list or even seek a cache over there. It will be ok. Take the five step program. Deny, deny, deny, deny, then forget about them. Good luck with it. I know it is hard to do.

Haven't really thought this through yet, have you, Joranda?

 

Well let me think to a second. It is just another caching site, well yeah, they have caches and it is a site. Check. They can't make you cachge on any site that you don't want to. True, they can't so check that one too. Is there a lot of people denying that, well yeah I think there is.

 

Answer to that. Yeap I have thought it thru. Pretty easy stuff. Why make it harder than it is.

I think you have not thought it through very well if you think that it is that simple. We have governmental groups around here that require registration that just barely tolerate caches from one organization. Wait until they here that there is a new kid in town that they need to worry about. But somehow I get the feeling that you really don't care about any of that stuff.

Yep the govermental groups must be really irked that those letterboxers are hiding their boxes without getting them reviewed by the gecoaching.com reviewers.

 

There is no evidence yet that the review process on opencaching is doing any worse a job that Groundspeak's process or that caches that violate the guidelines of opencaching.com are not being archived just as caches that appear to violate guidelines get archived here. If a land manager was to have a requirement that caches must be listed on Geoaching.com, they are free to make that a requirement and let it be known to all groups. The local opencaching.com geocachers who review caches would know this and would only allow caches that are cross-listed on geocaching.com in areas where this is a requirement of the land manager.

 

The sky is not falling because there is another geocaching site. And it is not falling because that site uses a different model for reviewing caches and dealing with problem caches. True that only time will tell if one model is more effective (from the governmental groups' perspective) than the other. But I don't believe we are going to see a spat of geocaching bans from this. More likely it will result in more awareness that geocaching is growing in popularity and make land managers find better ways to accept it and deal with it.

Edited February 1, 2011 by tozainamboku

[knowschad]

It's just another caching site guys. Relax, no one is making you list or even seek a cache over there. It will be ok. Take the five step program. Deny, deny, deny, deny, then forget about them. Good luck with it. I know it is hard to do.

Haven't really thought this through yet, have you, Joranda?

 

Well let me think to a second. It is just another caching site, well yeah, they have caches and it is a site. Check. They can't make you cachge on any site that you don't want to. True, they can't so check that one too. Is there a lot of people denying that, well yeah I think there is.

 

Answer to that. Yeap I have thought it thru. Pretty easy stuff. Why make it harder than it is.

I think you have not thought it through very well if you think that it is that simple. We have governmental groups around here that require registration that just barely tolerate caches from one organization. Wait until they here that there is a new kid in town that they need to worry about. But somehow I get the feeling that you really don't care about any of that stuff.

Yep the govermental groups must be really irked that those letterboxers are hiding their boxes without getting them reviewed by the gecoaching.com reviewers.

 

There is no evidence yet that the review process on opencaching is doing any worse a job that Groundspeak's process or that caches that violate the guidelines of opencaching.com are not being archived just as caches that appear to violate guidelines get archived here. If a land manager was to have a requirement that caches must be listed on Geoaching.com, they are free to make that a requirement and let it be known to all groups. The local opencaching.com geocachers who review caches would know this and would only allow caches that are cross-listed on geocaching.com in areas where this is a requirement of the land manager.

 

The sky is not falling because there is another geocaching site. And it is not falling because that site uses a different model for reviewing caches and dealing with problem caches. True that only time will tell if one model is more effective (from the governmental groups' perspective) than the other. But I don't believe we are going to see a spat of geocaching bans from this. More likely it will result in more awareness that geocaching is growing in popularity and make land managers find better ways to accept it and deal with it.

There aren't enough letterboxes, terracaches, etc around to matter. Not enough opencaches yet to matter, either, but the day is young. You're right... only time will tell, but the potential consequences are certainly not something to scoff at.

[Clan Riffster]

There is no evidence yet that the review process on opencaching is doing any worse a job that Groundspeak's process or that caches that violate the guidelines of opencaching.com are not being archived just as caches that appear to violate guidelines get archived here.

Enter evidence, Stage Left:

I was testing Opencaching's upload process, cross listing all 64 of my active hides.

Many, if not most of these hides are on properties that require explicit permission.

I don't think i included any hint that I acquired permission for these hides on the cache pages.

So far, not a single one has been so much as challenged, much less archived.

In my book, that's a fail.

[Clan Riffster]

How can you seek geocaches that are PMO if you are a basic member?

It can be done, but it requires a little more effort. I'd rather not thwart Groundspeak by posting how to get around being a PM, as I think it's irrelevant to the discussion. Your earlier claim was that folks were being "forced" to become PMs due to a high percentage of PM hides in your area. That statement is patently false. It operates under the assumption that every single cache must be available for every single cacher. Should Groundspeak pay for all of us to go up to the International Space Station so we can all log that cache? How about buying us all a ride on a deep sea submersible so we can log the cache at the bottom of the ocean?

 

Sounds silly, right?

 

Not every cache is meant to be found by every cacher. Some folks are limited physically, others are limited financially. If those folks who are not PMs wish to seek PM caches, they have a choice. They can either pony up the $$$, or use one of the alternate methods oft mentioned in these forums. They are not being forced to do anything.

[+joranda]

It's just another caching site guys. Relax, no one is making you list or even seek a cache over there. It will be ok. Take the five step program. Deny, deny, deny, deny, then forget about them. Good luck with it. I know it is hard to do.

Haven't really thought this through yet, have you, Joranda?

 

Well let me think to a second. It is just another caching site, well yeah, they have caches and it is a site. Check. They can't make you cachge on any site that you don't want to. True, they can't so check that one too. Is there a lot of people denying that, well yeah I think there is.

 

Answer to that. Yeap I have thought it thru. Pretty easy stuff. Why make it harder than it is.

I think you have not thought it through very well if you think that it is that simple. We have governmental groups around here that require registration that just barely tolerate caches from one organization. Wait until they here that there is a new kid in town that they need to worry about. But somehow I get the feeling that you really don't care about any of that stuff.

 

Of course they don't care. Instead of fixed reviewers who know the local policies and have worked with agencies to advance caching, they have peer reviewers because they think cachers across the country and/or world can do better.

 

You guys say that 99% of the caches listed on there are GS caches which was oked by their reviewers so I am not too worried about caches that should not be there cause they are listed here. So if they are wrong there then they are wrong here too. It is silly making this bigger than what it is.

[+joranda]

 

Of course they don't care. Instead of fixed reviewers who know the local policies and have worked with agencies to advance caching, they have peer reviewers because they think cachers across the country and/or world can do better.

 

I'm getting less worried with each day. In our region, OC is not adding caches and they aren't being logged. The state of Wyoming doesn't have a single cache listing and there are several states with less than 10 caches listed. Looks like Garmin may have wasted a LOT of money.

 

So you know how much money they have put into it so far? It could be the maney they are spending there is what they used to spend here, so it would be no money lost. My knowledge of it is as good as yours.

[+joranda]

It's just another caching site guys. Relax, no one is making you list or even seek a cache over there. It will be ok. Take the five step program. Deny, deny, deny, deny, then forget about them. Good luck with it. I know it is hard to do.

Haven't really thought this through yet, have you, Joranda?

 

Well let me think to a second. It is just another caching site, well yeah, they have caches and it is a site. Check. They can't make you cachge on any site that you don't want to. True, they can't so check that one too. Is there a lot of people denying that, well yeah I think there is.

 

Answer to that. Yeap I have thought it thru. Pretty easy stuff. Why make it harder than it is.

I think you have not thought it through very well if you think that it is that simple. We have governmental groups around here that require registration that just barely tolerate caches from one organization. Wait until they here that there is a new kid in town that they need to worry about. But somehow I get the feeling that you really don't care about any of that stuff.

Yep the govermental groups must be really irked that those letterboxers are hiding their boxes without getting them reviewed by the gecoaching.com reviewers.

 

There is no evidence yet that the review process on opencaching is doing any worse a job that Groundspeak's process or that caches that violate the guidelines of opencaching.com are not being archived just as caches that appear to violate guidelines get archived here. If a land manager was to have a requirement that caches must be listed on Geoaching.com, they are free to make that a requirement and let it be known to all groups. The local opencaching.com geocachers who review caches would know this and would only allow caches that are cross-listed on geocaching.com in areas where this is a requirement of the land manager.

 

The sky is not falling because there is another geocaching site. And it is not falling because that site uses a different model for reviewing caches and dealing with problem caches. True that only time will tell if one model is more effective (from the governmental groups' perspective) than the other. But I don't believe we are going to see a spat of geocaching bans from this. More likely it will result in more awareness that geocaching is growing in popularity and make land managers find better ways to accept it and deal with it.

 

Just to add, was there not just a land manager on these forums asking for some caches to be closed cause they was not supposed to be there but was published by GS reviewers? No one is perfect.

[+joranda]

There is no evidence yet that the review process on opencaching is doing any worse a job that Groundspeak's process or that caches that violate the guidelines of opencaching.com are not being archived just as caches that appear to violate guidelines get archived here.

Enter evidence, Stage Left:

I was testing Opencaching's upload process, cross listing all 64 of my active hides.

Many, if not most of these hides are on properties that require explicit permission.

I don't think i included any hint that I acquired permission for these hides on the cache pages.

So far, not a single one has been so much as challenged, much less archived.

In my book, that's a fail.

 

It is a cache listing siye just like GS is. You got permission for a cache to be placed there. So it seems ok to me. Most people on OC add a GC to the listing to see if it is already a listed cache. It makes oking it much easier. Kind of a no brainer.

[+briansnat]

There is no evidence yet that the review process on opencaching is doing any worse a job that Groundspeak's process or that caches that violate the guidelines of opencaching.com are not being archived just as caches that appear to violate guidelines get archived here. If a land manager was to have a requirement that caches must be listed on Geoaching.com, they are free to make that a requirement and let it be known to all groups. The local opencaching.com geocachers who review caches would know this and would only allow caches that are cross-listed on geocaching.com in areas where this is a requirement of the land manager.

 

The sky is not falling because there is another geocaching site. And it is not falling because that site uses a different model for reviewing caches and dealing with problem caches. True that only time will tell if one model is more effective (from the governmental groups' perspective) than the other.

 

No evidence that YOU'VE seen. Common sense tells me that NY Admin reviewing cache submissions in NY will have a better knowledge of the numerous state wide and local regulations in the state than Joeopencacher from Arizona will.

 

I've paged through the OX review queue and have seen people rejecting caches for the most ridiculous reasons and others who are just rubber stamps. There are also some who seem to be taking the responsibility quite seriously and trying their very best. But no matter how hard they try are they going to know about the policies of Red Cliffs Desert Reserve in Utah, or have a shape file of its borders so they can plot the coordinates? How about the policy of Goetchius Preserve in NY? Do they know about the NY DEC requirement of .25 mile cache separation? Do they know who the contact is for approval of placements around South Perth Council Area in Australia? Do they even know that this approval is required? Will they know about the agreements that GAGB has forged with various entities? Do they even know what GAGB is?

 

The list of state and local regulations in many states is extensive and mastering them takes some doing. Nobody can be familiar the thousands of policies worldwide, yet these people are reviewing caches all over the world.

 

You are correct, the sky is not falling because there is another geocaching site. Right now OX is about as significant as the other listing alternatives. Thankfully the volume of unique submissions is minimal, which limits (but does not eliminate) the potential for damage to the sport. But if they ever come remotely close to the volume of GC.com the sky may well fall.

Edited February 1, 2011 by briansnat

[+Geoscouts.eu]

Twice now, I have found a letterbox within 10 feet of a geocache.

 

You guys have it good. In France we have to suffer Cistes. On more than one occasion I have located the cache - a nice cammo box in a good location BUT with a bright yellow margerine tub half-full of water sitting on top. Bienvenu sur la piste des cistes! They really are lame and why they think it's a good idea to plant them in the exact position of a cache is beyond me.

 

Back on topic, I will be watching the new site with interest. There are very few listings in France currently.

[Clan Riffster]

It is a cache listing siye just like GS is. You got permission for a cache to be placed there. So it seems ok to me.

You are almost right. It is a cache listing site, but it is not "just like" Groundspeak. As someone else pointed out, Groundspeak has a team of volunteer Reviewers who scrutinize every submission to determine if newly submitted caches meet the site's guidelines. Typically, these Reviewers live in, or close to, the geographic location they review for. These Reviewers are provided with tools and training to ensure they do the job properly. Opencaching, on the other hand, has no dedicated team of Reviewers. Instead, they have the players doing this job, without checking to see if they are qualified. When I logged in to Opencaching, I conducted a test review of some "nearby" caches. They were half a continent away. I have no idea if the property these caches were hidden on required explicit permission or not, yet I was able to decide their fate, or at least, have a significant impact in their fate. By some convoluted logic, my "yes" vote on the matter carried 20 points. Oddly enough, the owner of these caches was able to vote. He only had 10 points per vote. Not sure how many votes it takes to pass muster. What are the odds that a cache owner is going to vote "No"?

 

You say that I got permission for a cache to be there, prior to listing it on Groundspeak, so it must be OK. This seems pretty naive to me. If Opencaching was "just like" Groundspeak, as you claim, at some point in the process someone would have checked to see if I really did have permission for those hides of mine on properties requiring explicit permission. Heck, some of mine are on properties that explicitly prohibit caches that are listed on any site other than Groundspeak. Yet, the Opencaching process let them through without question.

 

If we operate under the assumption that a functioning reviewing system is beneficial to the overall health of the game, (not everyone agrees with that), then it must also be true that allowing caches to be listed without a functioning review process could be bad for the overall health of the game. Opencaching has no functioning review system, as my tests have pointed out. The process is utterly flawed, because Opencaching refuses to take the steps necessary to ensure accuracy.

[+Ecylram]

So you know how much money they have put into it so far? It could be the maney they are spending there is what they used to spend here, so it would be no money lost. My knowledge of it is as good as yours.

 

You sure do spend a lot of time defending OC.

 

I have no way of knowing what your knowledge is here, but for myself, this part of my career.

 

A couple of issues:

 

1. Money - If they were paying going rates, they have put far more money into OC.com than they spent advertising on Geocaching.com over the same period. It takes an enormous amount of money to setup the infrastructure for that type of website. They've got to pay for salaries, equipment, consulting, bandwidth, licensing, etc. It's a VERY LARGE number and there is no payback whatsoever during the many months of rampup.

 

2. Marketing exposure - They went from advertising with a very well traffic'd website to one that is barely visited.

Alexa Page View ratings:Geocaching.com is ranked 5,500. OC.com is ranked 409,604th.

Alexa Page Views per User (1 month): Geocaching.com is 12.8 views. OC.com is 1.3 views.

Alexa Daily Time On Site (1 month): Geocaching.com is:12.49. OC.co is 3.03

So what this boils down to...

 

They are spending more money, but getting FAR LESS for the dollars spent. And, no matter whether you measure OC by page views, new caches listed, or log entries...OC has gone stagnant since the initial opening bounce.

 

It's as if they took the money they were going to spend on Superbowl advertising, and instead spent that money on billboards in Nome, Alaska. They may not have cut their budget, but they cut the effectiveness of their budget.

[+joranda]

So you know how much money they have put into it so far? It could be the maney they are spending there is what they used to spend here, so it would be no money lost. My knowledge of it is as good as yours.

 

You sure do spend a lot of time defending OC.

 

I have no way of knowing what your knowledge is here, but for myself, this part of my career.

 

A couple of issues:

 

1. Money - If they were paying going rates, they have put far more money into OC.com than they spent advertising on Geocaching.com over the same period. It takes an enormous amount of money to setup the infrastructure for that type of website. They've got to pay for salaries, equipment, consulting, bandwidth, licensing, etc. It's a VERY LARGE number and there is no payback whatsoever during the many months of rampup.

 

2. Marketing exposure - They went from advertising with a very well traffic'd website to one that is barely visited.

Alexa Page View ratings:Geocaching.com is ranked 5,500. OC.com is ranked 409,604th.

Alexa Page Views per User (1 month): Geocaching.com is 12.8 views. OC.com is 1.3 views.

Alexa Daily Time On Site (1 month): Geocaching.com is:12.49. OC.co is 3.03

So what this boils down to...

 

They are spending more money, but getting FAR LESS for the dollars spent. And, no matter whether you measure OC by page views, new caches listed, or log entries...OC has gone stagnant since the initial opening bounce.

 

It's as if they took the money they were going to spend on Superbowl advertising, and instead spent that money on billboards in Nome, Alaska. They may not have cut their budget, but they cut the effectiveness of their budget.

 

And you spend a lot of time slamming a company/cache site that you don't care about. So what gives? In a whole, I enjoy geocaching and my stats show it. When I go on vacation I go to cache. Let it be a GS cache, a OC cache or even a terracache, I do them all. I'll be going to Nevada in a month. By the time I come home I will log 2000+ GS caches, a dozen or so OC caches and a couple of terracaches. Until everyone figures out that caching sites are here to allow us to have fun then they can sit here on their computers and burn the other places.

Now you stated that I sure do spend a lot of time defending OC, Yeah I guess I do, cause like any new company, I hope they do well and make it. I enjoy caching.

I used to let guys like you get me down with your flaming and make me say things that would get me in trouble with the forum guidelines. Now I just state what is I feel but not to let the feelings flow into the trouble.

[+Ecylram]

And you spend a lot of time slamming a company/cache site that you don't care about. So what gives? In a whole, I enjoy geocaching and my stats show it. When I go on vacation I go to cache. Let it be a GS cache, a OC cache or even a terracache, I do them all. I'll be going to Nevada in a month. By the time I come home I will log 2000+ GS caches, a dozen or so OC caches and a couple of terracaches. Until everyone figures out that caching sites are here to allow us to have fun then they can sit here on their computers and burn the other places.

Now you stated that I sure do spend a lot of time defending OC, Yeah I guess I do, cause like any new company, I hope they do well and make it. I enjoy caching.

I used to let guys like you get me down with your flaming and make me say things that would get me in trouble with the forum guidelines. Now I just state what is I feel but not to let the feelings flow into the trouble.

 

There's a difference between flaming and critiquing. As you may have noticed, there is also a fair bit of that here that is aimed at Groundspeak as well.

 

Fact is, there are a number of real issues with OC:

• Their encouragement of cross-posting of caches which rubs a lot of cachers the wrong way.
• Their "unique" review system that allows CO's to vote on their own caches and N00bs to vote on caches a thousand miles away.
• Their more lax policies on the placing of caches.
• Their inability to handle travelbugs in cross-posted caches.

If OC was to gain significant marketshare without changing their policies, it would create problems with many land managers who are only now starting to get comfortable with geocaching. That is what many here fear might happen and, IMO, are reasonable concerns.

 

As it sits now, OC is dead in the water. The marketplace has responded with a big "eh" to the new website. Visits have dropped sharply after the initial flurry and, at least in our region, cachers are not placing new caches or logging finds on their website. Maybe Garmin will listen and address the concerns that geocachers have with the site. If so, they might still be able to gain some marketshare but as for now....they're flatlined. That's a fact, not a flame. Sorry.

[+joranda]

And you spend a lot of time slamming a company/cache site that you don't care about. So what gives? In a whole, I enjoy geocaching and my stats show it. When I go on vacation I go to cache. Let it be a GS cache, a OC cache or even a terracache, I do them all. I'll be going to Nevada in a month. By the time I come home I will log 2000+ GS caches, a dozen or so OC caches and a couple of terracaches. Until everyone figures out that caching sites are here to allow us to have fun then they can sit here on their computers and burn the other places.

Now you stated that I sure do spend a lot of time defending OC, Yeah I guess I do, cause like any new company, I hope they do well and make it. I enjoy caching.

I used to let guys like you get me down with your flaming and make me say things that would get me in trouble with the forum guidelines. Now I just state what is I feel but not to let the feelings flow into the trouble.

 

There's a difference between flaming and critiquing. As you may have noticed, there is also a fair bit of that here that is aimed at Groundspeak as well.

 

Fact is, there are a number of real issues with OC:

• Their encouragement of cross-posting of caches which rubs a lot of cachers the wrong way.
• Their "unique" review system that allows CO's to vote on their own caches and N00bs to vote on caches a thousand miles away.
• Their more lax policies on the placing of caches.
• Their inability to handle travelbugs in cross-posted caches.

If OC was to gain significant marketshare without changing their policies, it would create problems with many land managers who are only now starting to get comfortable with geocaching. That is what many here fear might happen and, IMO, are reasonable concerns.

 

As it sits now, OC is dead in the water. The marketplace has responded with a big "eh" to the new website. Visits have dropped sharply after the initial flurry and, at least in our region, cachers are not placing new caches or logging finds on their website. Maybe Garmin will listen and address the concerns that geocachers have with the site. If so, they might still be able to gain some marketshare but as for now....they're flatlined. That's a fact, not a flame. Sorry.

 

The only caches that are cross listed are from the cache owners that are members of both sites. It is their cache so if they want them listed on both sites then so be it. If GS did not want the caches cross listed they would archive them. If GS is not worried about it then why are you? If the cache owner is not worried about it why are you?

 

You are beating a dead horse with the travelbug topic. Once they are out of your hands and placed in a cache you pretty much sealed there fate. Any muggle or cacher will do with them what they want. Ask the GS cacher in Canada that has held my TB for over 3 years now. He logs on every now and then so I know he checks his account but still will not let it go. He must like my army man more than I so now it is his. Before you ask, yes I have sent him emails thru his GS account.

[+joranda]

There's a difference between flaming and critiquing. As you may have noticed, there is also a fair bit of that here that is aimed at opencaching as well. Just saying.

[+ArtieD]

There's a difference between flaming and critiquing. As you may have noticed, there is also a fair bit of that here that is aimed at opencaching as well. Just saying.

 

Personally, I have seen no flaming against OC going on in this thread. Now on many threads on OC, well...Groundspeak is pretty much charred by now. Just saying.

[+joranda]

There's a difference between flaming and critiquing. As you may have noticed, there is also a fair bit of that here that is aimed at opencaching as well. Just saying.

 

Personally, I have seen no flaming against OC going on in this thread. Now on many threads on OC, well...Groundspeak is pretty much charred by now. Just saying.

 

If you go back and read the topics that the flaming is going on it leads back to someone that is not interested in OC and is only there to start trouble for the other players.

[+ArtieD]

There's a difference between flaming and critiquing. As you may have noticed, there is also a fair bit of that here that is aimed at opencaching as well. Just saying.

 

Personally, I have seen no flaming against OC going on in this thread. Now on many threads on OC, well...Groundspeak is pretty much charred by now. Just saying.

 

If you go back and read the topics that the flaming is going on it leads back to someone that is not interested in OC and is only there to start trouble for the other players.

 

Funny, most threads on that forum have some element of complaining about Groundspeak from established members. You might go back and read again.

[+joranda]

It is a never ending battle. People there will cheer on their members against their site trouble makers and the same happens here. So really, who wins? Like I say and say again. Caching is for fun. Sites lists caches for people to go out and enjoy them. If anyone wants to be silly enough to make a boogus account and try to list a cache on the white house lawn, let them do it. In the long run it will be the one submitting the cache that gets the worst of it. If you don't believe that just try it.

[+Ecylram]

The only caches that are cross listed are from the cache owners that are members of both sites. It is their cache so if they want them listed on both sites then so be it. If GS did not want the caches cross listed they would archive them. If GS is not worried about it then why are you? If the cache owner is not worried about it why are you?

Based on previous comments, it's a concern of a number of people, not just me. Reasons have been listed in this thread before, but the arguments seem to boil down to the issue of information such as logs, NM's, and NA's aren't synced across the sites. These issues affect the searchers, not just the hiders.

 

You are beating a dead horse with the travelbug topic. Once they are out of your hands and placed in a cache you pretty much sealed there fate. Any muggle or cacher will do with them what they want. Ask the GS cacher in Canada that has held my TB for over 3 years now. He logs on every now and then so I know he checks his account but still will not let it go. He must like my army man more than I so now it is his. Before you ask, yes I have sent him emails thru his GS account.

So, your argument is "Things happen to Travelbugs, so its no big deal if more risks are added." Ohhh kay....

 

At this point, it's all academic. OC listings aren't getting logged so there is virtually no issue with syncing information and there are virtually no OC-only cachers to take TB's.

[+joranda]

The only caches that are cross listed are from the cache owners that are members of both sites. It is their cache so if they want them listed on both sites then so be it. If GS did not want the caches cross listed they would archive them. If GS is not worried about it then why are you? If the cache owner is not worried about it why are you?

Based on previous comments, it's a concern of a number of people, not just me. Reasons have been listed in this thread before, but the arguments seem to boil down to the issue of information such as logs, NM's, and NA's aren't synced across the sites. These issues affect the searchers, not just the hiders.

 

You are beating a dead horse with the travelbug topic. Once they are out of your hands and placed in a cache you pretty much sealed there fate. Any muggle or cacher will do with them what they want. Ask the GS cacher in Canada that has held my TB for over 3 years now. He logs on every now and then so I know he checks his account but still will not let it go. He must like my army man more than I so now it is his. Before you ask, yes I have sent him emails thru his GS account.

So, your argument is "Things happen to Travelbugs, so its no big deal if more risks are added." Ohhh kay....

 

At this point, it's all academic. OC listings aren't getting logged so there is virtually no issue with syncing information and there are virtually no OC-only cachers to take TB's.

 

Now how do you know that no OC caches are being logged? Have you gone thru and checked every cache listed there? You do know it is winter in most places and not everyone is a active winter cacher. Most wait until spring to go out and cache. Why not give it the benefit of the doubt and see what spring brings for the caches.

[+Ecylram]

Now how do you know that no OC caches are being logged? Have you gone thru and checked every cache listed there? You do know it is winter in most places and not everyone is a active winter cacher. Most wait until spring to go out and cache. Why not give it the benefit of the doubt and see what spring brings for the caches.

 

Hope springs eternal.

 

Actually, I did check the caches in our state (and I've seen the web traffic numbers for their website). Caches aren't getting added and log entries are non-existent in the last month. Meanwhile, Geocaching.com continues to add caches and logs in our area. Even in winter.

 

Over the last month I've written more log entries on Geocaching.com caches than were written on all the OC caches by all cachers within my state during the same period.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Ecylram

[+joranda]

Now how do you know that no OC caches are being logged? Have you gone thru and checked every cache listed there? You do know it is winter in most places and not everyone is a active winter cacher. Most wait until spring to go out and cache. Why not give it the benefit of the doubt and see what spring brings for the caches.

 

Hope springs eternal.

 

Actually, I did check the caches in our state (and I've seen the web traffic numbers for their website). Caches aren't getting added and log entries are non-existent in the last month. Meanwhile, Geocaching.com continues to add caches and logs in our area. Even in winter.

 

Over the last month I've written more log entries on Geocaching.com caches than were written on all the OC caches by all cachers within my state during the same period.

 

Well I have too but that still don't make me talk down about their caching site. They are still a beta site, just getting started. When this site got started I heard from the old timers that you had to drive all day to get two caches which is how it is for me on their site. So if I am out caching and see any other cache site listing out there in my travels I will stop and get it. Most of the time it will be a two-fer but that is ok with me. I just enjoy caching.

[knowschad]

Funny, most threads on that forum have some element of complaining about Groundspeak from established members. You might go back and read again.

Currently, the thread with the most posts over there is the one titled, "Banned by Groundspeak?" That is also the thread with the most views, followed by "President of Groundspeak Intimiated By New Site?".

[+Ecylram]

Alright, the last question about people logging on OC reminded me that I can pull data from OC using GSAK.

 

So I pulled down the nearest 1000 OC caches. The area it covers ranges from the Canadian Border to the north and to the Mexican Border on the south. It ranged from Las Vegas, NV to La Crosse on the Wisconsin border. (For comparison, there are over 1000 Geocaching.com caches within six miles of my house.)

 

Of those 1000 nearest OC caches, 50 had a log entry in January. Of the nearest 933 Geocaching.com caches nearest my house (5.5 mile radius), 591 had been logged in January. In percentages, 5% of OC caches were logged and 63.3% of the Geocaching.com caches were logged.

 

Other fun stats:

 

Of all the OC caches within 700 miles of my house only 50 had a log entry in January.

61.8% of the 1000 nearest OC caches have NEVER been logged.

On OC, within 700 miles of my house, 19 caches were placed in January. 187 were placed in December. That's a drop of 90% from December to January.

In December within 700 miles of my house, 96 OC caches were logged compared to the 50 in January. That's a drop of 48% in one month.

 

That last stat is the most troubling sign about the future of OC.com. They haven't gotten any traction since the initial announcement and, in fact, usage is going in the wrong direction.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Ecylram

[+joranda]

Yeah those are two heated threads. Been some trollin' on them.

[knowschad]

Yeah those are two heated threads. Been some trollin' on them.

Been some trollin' here.

 

Neither of those threads were created by trolls.

[+tozainamboku]

No evidence that YOU'VE seen. Common sense tells me that NY Admin reviewing cache submissions in NY will have a better knowledge of the numerous state wide and local regulations in the state than Joeopencacher from Arizona will.

I started a reply to Clan Riffster last night but didn't post because I ended up agreeing with the sort of argument you make here.

 

Yes it is true that right now the local Groundspeak volunteer reviewers will tend to be more aware of local regulations than the opencaching peer reviewers. Given some time however, I think we might see a open wiki style database of regulations developed that both cacher hiders and peer reviewers could use in evaluating cache placements. There is nothing particularly better about using hand picked "volunteer" to review caches. It seems to me that allowing peers who truly volunteer and have getting multiple sets of eyes reviewing each cache would work just as well if not better. Of course there needs to be some way to evaluate the peers so they are encouraged to do a thurough and competent job and not just rubber stamping caches or rejecting them for reason having nothing to do with the guidelines. Opencaching weights the votes of the peer reviewers based on their reviewing history. I'm not completely satisfied with the somewhat secret algorithm they use for this, but they have shown a willingness to make adjustments when they see a need. One adjustment they have made is to sort (and possibly filter) the review queue so each peer reviews the caches closest to their homes. You may see someone reviewing caches in New Jersey who lives in Arizona (or perhaps on the island of Jersey), but as opencaching grows and gets more submissions, peer reviewers will tend to get more local. Right now the opencaching review process in a work in progress. Perhaps a better statement is that there is no evidence that peer review can't work as well in principal as the "volunteer" Groundspeak system.

[+Ecylram]

One adjustment they have made is to sort (and possibly filter) the review queue so each peer reviews the caches closest to their homes. You may see someone reviewing caches in New Jersey who lives in Arizona (or perhaps on the island of Jersey), but as opencaching grows and gets more submissions, peer reviewers will tend to get more local.

 

I truly hope that they are improving the process. When I tried the review system a few days ago the first two offered were each half way across the country from me.

[+The Blorenges]

One adjustment they have made is to sort (and possibly filter) the review queue so each peer reviews the caches closest to their homes. You may see someone reviewing caches in New Jersey who lives in Arizona (or perhaps on the island of Jersey), but as opencaching grows and gets more submissions, peer reviewers will tend to get more local.

 

I truly hope that they are improving the process. When I tried the review system a few days ago the first two offered were each half way across the country from me.

 

I thought this sounded a bit odd so I've just been to have a look at what might need reviewing near me:

 

The nearest cache that I could review was in Hamburg, N Germany, about 550 miles away. As it was all in German I thought I'd pass on that one.

So I looked at the next nearest in my "Review Queue"...

 

At first I thought it was another German one because the nearby city/town was Berlin but as I zoomed out I discovered it's Berlin, SE of Philadelphia, US! - About 3,400 miles from me. At least it's in English. It's in a park, a micro, but it looks very close to Camden County Airport to me... hmmm... I hope it's no terrorist threat... but it's already got +56 votes so I guess those who know reckon it'll be OK.

 

Dead easy this reviewing lark, isn't it?

 

MrsB

[knowschad]

Dead easy this reviewing lark, isn't it?

MrsB

Anybody can do it.

[knowschad]

Nearest to me was a Canadian cache. I'm in Minnesota. But since it was a cache by our own dxf, I gave it my full 8 votes because he's a friend.

[+Chokecherry]

Nearest to me was a Canadian cache. I'm in Minnesota. But since it was a cache by our own dxf, I gave it my full 8 votes because he's a friend.

 

I thought you had caches down in your neck of the woods listed on that site.

[July4Patriot]

You don't have to worry about cross listing since I archived all of my hides and they are ONLY available on OC.com now. I will no longer hide caches on here. I like OC.com and think they have a good chance in succeeding.

 

 

- Cody

[+ArtieD]

You don't have to worry about cross listing since I archived all of my hides and they are ONLY available on OC.com now. I will no longer hide caches on here. I like OC.com and think they have a good chance in succeeding.

 

 

- Cody

 

Yeah...keep your rose-colored glasses on, there...

Edited February 2, 2011 by Arthur & Trillian

[+joranda]

July4Patriot is not a sock puppet. He is his own account. But they do both live in Las Vegas. You need to go out there sometime and meet the cachers from that area. They are all nice folk.