opencaching.com new mascot...

[+Chokecherry]

 

As to what percentage of Garmin owners are cachers, I would have to guess it would be pretty small.

Certainly less than 10%. Probably closer to 1%. But both numbers are just guesses. I have no data to support either claim.

 

 

I think that this would be interesting as well. I would like to see how you figure your percentages as probably 90% of the cachers I know are Garmin owners. Or am I reading into what you are writing and are you saying Garmins customer base flipping the whole thing from a caching thing to just a "I own a Garmin" thing?

 

Does that make any sense at all? It's early for me on a Sunday!

 

I would guess a lower percentage of garmin users are cachers. It makes sense that a lot of cachers use garmin devices but not everyone owns a garmin device uses it for geocaching. Lots of people just use them in their cars, up here hunters and fisherman use them but don't necessarily cache, some hikers use them but don't cache. Etc. Garmin's market is much bigger than just geocachers.

[+teamvoyagr]

Two points to note:

 

Garmin's sales in automotive are down:

• Automotive/Mobile segment revenue decreased

19% to $2.1 billion

 

Garmin's sales in outdoor are up.

• Outdoor/Fitness segment revenue increased

10% to $469 million

 

These are taken from Garmin's 2009 Annual Report found here:

http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGarmin/invRela...nual_report.pdf

 

Based on last year's numbers Outdoor accounted for 16% of Garmin's sales.

 

YTD through Q3: Outdoor/Fitness segment revenue increased 22% to $389 million

 

The automotive market is saturated and cars are now coming with GPS built in. Outdoor is the growth market. Garmin is trying to protect that market. They aren't trying to kill Groundspeak, even though it feels that way, they are trying to protect their market. A 19% decline in automotive something like a $400 million dollar loss. Building the site for Garmin (guesstimate - 8 people X $100k/year + $200k infrastructure = $1 million per year) is a cheap marketing proposition to protect it's growth market.

 

Garmin devices make up such a large part of the market that Groundspeak would have a hard time employing device integration (or de-integration as the case may be) as Garmin has. For instance it would not be in Groundspeak's best interest to make Garmin users download a GPX file as Garmin has done for other manufacturers on oc.com.

 

With the number of iPhones out there what is to say that Apple won't create a iGeocache? I don't think the will but they could.

 

The reality is that focusing on how much another site "sucks" is pointless. That site and other sites will continue to exist. More will be launched. From where I sit, Groundspeak needs to innovate to keep its user base. Give geocachers something that a manufacturer can't - interoperability. Every manufacturer on the planet is going to try and build a better mouse trap. Let them. Just make sure that the easiest, fastest, most friendly place to get the info is geocaching.com.

 

Instead of denying cachers stat addiction Groundspeak should embrace it. Enhance the user profile. All Groundspeak needs to do is a little audit of how users have customized their own profiles to find what they like. Right now no other site on the planet can give the user a better stat profile than Groundspeak. This is ground that Groundspeak cannot afford to give up.

 

The folks running Groundspeak are not stupid. What I've said here is not a surprise to them. I'm sure we'll see announcements in this area in the future, hopefully the near future.

[+sseegars]

I would guess a lower percentage of garmin users are cachers. It makes sense that a lot of cachers use garmin devices but not everyone owns a garmin device uses it for geocaching. Lots of people just use them in their cars, up here hunters and fisherman use them but don't necessarily cache, some hikers use them but don't cache. Etc. Garmin's market is much bigger than just geocachers.

 

Agreed. Just saying what I see although I suspect that the original meant Garmin owners to include auto/hunters/fisherman/cachers as you have stated. I was looking at it from a purely cacher point of view. Sorry for any mixup!

Edited December 12, 2010 by Freekacher

[+addisonbr]

The real cache owner may have his own reasons for not wanting the cache listed on GC or OC.

I don't think you should be able to list someone else's cache as your own without permission, on that or this or any site. Another reason why a review policy makes sense.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The real cache owner may have his own reasons for not wanting the cache listed on GC or OC.

I don't think you should be able to list someone else's cache as your own without permission, on that or this or any site. Another reason why a review policy makes sense.

Hi Mopar! Did you ask the owner if he gave someone permission, or if that's the owner using a different name on OC?

[+briansnat]

The real cache owner may have his own reasons for not wanting the cache listed on GC or OC.

I don't think you should be able to list someone else's cache as your own without permission, on that or this or any site. Another reason why a review policy makes sense.

Hi Mopar! Did you ask the owner if he gave someone permission, or if that's the owner using a different name on OC?

 

The "new" CO admits what he did in the listing:

 

"After the original was lost, archived, then found... I pestered (the owner) undelessly to un-archive the Cache. He politely declined, and so I have re-hidden the Cache in memory of his cache. (Original Container and Log book, I cant throw away a five year old log!)."

 

I think he means "re-listed" rather than re-hidden because the original cache was still in place.

[+BCandMsKitty]

The real cache owner may have his own reasons for not wanting the cache listed on GC or OC.

I don't think you should be able to list someone else's cache as your own without permission, on that or this or any site. Another reason why a review policy makes sense.

Hi Mopar! Did you ask the owner if he gave someone permission, or if that's the owner using a different name on OC?

 

The "new" CO admits what he did in the listing:

 

"After the original was lost, archived, then found... I pestered (the owner) undelessly to un-archive the Cache. He politely declined, and so I have re-hidden the Cache in memory of his cache. (Original Container and Log book, I cant throw away a five year old log!)."

 

I think he means "re-listed" rather than re-hidden because the original cache was still in place.

 

I can't ever imagine something like this happening to me, but if it ever did, I'd simply go out and remove my cache, leaving it for the "listing thief" to deal with the DNFs, which will mean one less cache for everybody! Could get to be a recurring theme which will not be good for geocaching!

 

As has been stated here, competition is a good thing, if it is healthy competition. Things like allowing people to re-list someone else's caches, and walk all over your pre-existing cache site, isn't "healthy" to me.

 

The OC site, from what I've been able to work out considering the clumsiness of it all is poorly done and not thought out well at all!

 

I think I'll just stay here and plod along in my own way.

No thanks, Garmin!

[+tozainamboku]

The real cache owner may have his own reasons for not wanting the cache listed on GC or OC.

I don't think you should be able to list someone else's cache as your own without permission, on that or this or any site. Another reason why a review policy makes sense.

Hi Mopar! Did you ask the owner if he gave someone permission, or if that's the owner using a different name on OC?

 

The "new" CO admits what he did in the listing:

 

"After the original was lost, archived, then found... I pestered (the owner) undelessly to un-archive the Cache. He politely declined, and so I have re-hidden the Cache in memory of his cache. (Original Container and Log book, I cant throw away a five year old log!)."

 

I think he means "re-listed" rather than re-hidden because the original cache was still in place.

I'm having a little problem understanding why using the apparently abandoned container left by a cache owner (or left by someone else as a throw down replacement) is substantially different than placing a new container in the same place where the old cache once was. Certainly the new cache owner should do due diligence and attempt to contact the original owner to see if they can use the container. But if the original owner has walked away and left a container there for a significant time, IMO, it's free for the taking. Gosh, we even have people here who insist we should have cache rescue operations to remove old containers that are abandoned when a cache is archived. I don't see why this couldn't have been listed on Geocaching.com, unless the local reviewer knows something about the wishes of the original owner we don't know. The only thing I recall is a recent thread where a reviewer wouldn't allow someone to create a new listing for a previously archived cache instead of asking for it to be unarchived (or not have archive it in the first place). But that was the same cache owner, and the reviewer felt that relisting the same cache with a new GC number wasn't reason to archive an old cache. In this case the cache has been archived for a long time. The original owner seems to have no interest in maintaining the cache or having it unarchived. We have been told that if a cache owner has abandoned a cache and can't be reach to do a voluntary adoptions, that we should post a NA and then put a new cache at that spot. Seems no different than what was done here (except that the new cache was listed on a different site).

 

If the issue is that opencaching.com listed this with the same GC number as the original cache, then I agree they should not have done so. I have a cache that I did some maintenance on that does not have an active owner. I would love to list this one on opencaching.com, but I don't think I can since the cache is still active on Geocaching.com and I am not the owner.

Edited December 12, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+addisonbr]

The real cache owner may have his own reasons for not wanting the cache listed on GC or OC.

I don't think you should be able to list someone else's cache as your own without permission, on that or this or any site. Another reason why a review policy makes sense.

Hi Mopar! Did you ask the owner if he gave someone permission, or if that's the owner using a different name on OC?

The "new" CO admits what he did in the listing:

 

"After the original was lost, archived, then found... I pestered (the owner) undelessly to un-archive the Cache. He politely declined, and so I have re-hidden the Cache in memory of his cache. (Original Container and Log book, I cant throw away a five year old log!)."

 

I think he means "re-listed" rather than re-hidden because the original cache was still in place.

To be fair to all listing services, this is the text from the cache page for GC16XY3:

 

"A quick Cache in the Center of Milford.

 

After the original was lost, archived, then found... I pestered quiddler undelessly to un-archive the Cache. He politely declined, and so I have re-hidden the Cache in memory of his cache. (Original Container and Log book, I cant throw away a five year old log!) This is a new cache, so feel free to find and log as found again.

 

From the original Description..."

 

People are upset at this "listing thief", but the listing was posted over three years ago on Geocaching.com (October 2007) with precisely the same wording as what's now been ported to another listing service, and although I could be wrong about the timeline (?) as far as I know nobody has complained in years. The Groundspeak reviewer at the time was Pofe, and assuming the text on the cache page wasn't altered after publication (?), there didn't seem to be a problem. There was been ample time for people to complain higher up the chain if the reviewer had erred. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that the listing on GC.com plainly stating the relisting logic has been viewed by a lot more folks in the last three years, than the listing on OC.com has been viewed in the last three days. (The original cache owner popped into the thread in 2009 to deliver a friendly "howdy", but that's still over a year after the cache had been re-listed with apparently no problems.)

[+narcissa]

Instead of denying cachers stat addiction Groundspeak should embrace it. Enhance the user profile. All Groundspeak needs to do is a little audit of how users have customized their own profiles to find what they like. Right now no other site on the planet can give the user a better stat profile than Groundspeak. This is ground that Groundspeak cannot afford to give up.

 

Focusing on stats runs the danger of alienating a segment of the geocaching population who don't see the game as a competition, and don't want to see an objective value attached to find count, or terrain/difficulty.

 

I'm hoping that a reliable listing site will emerge with a focus on quality and thoughtfulness, rather than numbers and competition. That will be the site that earns - or re-earns - my loyalty.

[+BCandMsKitty]

 

If the issue is that opencaching.com listed this with the same GC number as the original cache, then I agree they should not have done so. I have a cache that I did some maintenance on that does not have an active owner. I would love to list this one on opencaching.com, but I don't think I can since the cache is still active on Geocaching.com and I am not the owner.

 

That's the part that gets my back up. It obviously won't be the same GC number, because OC generates their own listings, but it is the same cache in the same location, the issue of whether or not is was abandoned aside.

Seems to me that someone could just take any cache, copy the data, and list it as their own on OC, or am I missing something.

[+addisonbr]

I don't see why this couldn't have been listed on Geocaching.com...

Right. As, in fact, it was, in 2007.

 

If the issue is that opencaching.com listed this with the same GC number as the original cache, then I agree they should not have done so.

FWIW, it was published with the same GC number as the relisted cache that was first published on GC.com, and that is owned by the same CO on both sites.

 

Neither was published with the same waypoint number as the original, original cache that was listed on GC.com in 2002. That is GC754A.

[+BCandMsKitty]

addisonbr

 

My wording in that off the cuff posting of mine was a bit harsh. It sounds like that cache was certainly abandoned. I'm just reacting to the possibility as I see it, of someone unscrupulously , or even maliciously listing caches on OC that they don't own, because of the apparent lack of reviewing there.

Could this happen, or am I reading more into things than is there?

 

edit: spelling

Edited December 12, 2010 by BC & MsKitty

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm hoping that a reliable listing site will emerge with a focus on quality and thoughtfulness, rather than numbers and competition. That will be the site that earns - or re-earns - my loyalty.

 

There's the rub. Groundspeak isn't just trying to earn the loyalty of narcissa. There are many, many different tastes among many, many different cachers.

 

Groundspeak cannot focus on one side of the spectrum without loosing interest in cachers whose tastes are on the other. There's a balancing act being performed and I don't think we've seen the end results yet.

[+narcissa]

I'm hoping that a reliable listing site will emerge with a focus on quality and thoughtfulness, rather than numbers and competition. That will be the site that earns - or re-earns - my loyalty.

 

There's the rub. Groundspeak isn't just trying to earn the loyalty of narcissa. There are many, many different tastes among many, many different cachers.

 

Groundspeak cannot focus on one side of the spectrum without loosing interest in cachers whose tastes are on the other. There's a balancing act being performed and I don't think we've seen the end results yet.

 

And that's where I think there's room for a competitor to make room for itself - if it can set itself up to appeal to cachers who are feeling alienated by this site, there's its user base.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

GC1234

OC1234

 

Not the same number. Can you spot the difference?

[+addisonbr]

GC1234

OC1234

 

Not the same number. Can you spot the difference?

I couldn't get either OC1234 or OX1234 to come up on OC.com. Maybe it has since been deleted?

[+briansnat]

The real cache owner may have his own reasons for not wanting the cache listed on GC or OC.

I don't think you should be able to list someone else's cache as your own without permission, on that or this or any site. Another reason why a review policy makes sense.

Hi Mopar! Did you ask the owner if he gave someone permission, or if that's the owner using a different name on OC?

The "new" CO admits what he did in the listing:

 

"After the original was lost, archived, then found... I pestered (the owner) undelessly to un-archive the Cache. He politely declined, and so I have re-hidden the Cache in memory of his cache. (Original Container and Log book, I cant throw away a five year old log!)."

 

I think he means "re-listed" rather than re-hidden because the original cache was still in place.

To be fair to all listing services, this is the text from the cache page for GC16XY3:

 

"A quick Cache in the Center of Milford.

 

After the original was lost, archived, then found... I pestered quiddler undelessly to un-archive the Cache. He politely declined, and so I have re-hidden the Cache in memory of his cache. (Original Container and Log book, I cant throw away a five year old log!) This is a new cache, so feel free to find and log as found again.

 

From the original Description..."

 

People are upset at this "listing thief", but the listing was posted over three years ago on Geocaching.com (October 2007) with precisely the same wording as what's now been ported to another listing service, and although I could be wrong about the timeline (?) as far as I know nobody has complained in years. The Groundspeak reviewer at the time was Pofe, and assuming the text on the cache page wasn't altered after publication (?), there didn't seem to be a problem. There was been ample time for people to complain higher up the chain if the reviewer had erred. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that the listing on GC.com plainly stating the relisting logic has been viewed by a lot more folks in the last three years, than the listing on OC.com has been viewed in the last three days. (The original cache owner popped into the thread in 2009 to deliver a friendly "howdy", but that's still over a year after the cache had been re-listed with apparently no problems.)

 

I believe the stolen listing is for GC754A.

[+KoosKoos]

I believe the stolen listing is for GC754A.

 

But seems it was "stolen" long ago:

 

GC16XY3

 

This isn't an OC.com issue at this point.

[+addisonbr]

I believe the stolen listing is for GC754A.

Yep, from post 614.

 

Relisted as GC16XY3 on GC.com in 2007 after review by Pofe. Happily exists on the GC.com servers for three years with no accusations by reviewers or cachers of anyone being a "listing thief".

 

Published with identical text on OC.com this week as OX16XY3, and now the cache is stolen.

 

I just don't understand why it wasn't considered stolen between October 2007 and December 2010.

Edited December 12, 2010 by addisonbr

[+dfx]

I just don't understand why it wasn't considered stolen between October 2007 and December 2010.

maybe for the same reasons why we can say here how bad everything over there is, but can't say when we like something over there.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I just don't understand why it wasn't considered stolen between October 2007 and December 2010.

maybe for the same reasons why we can say here how bad everything over there is, but can't say when we like something over there.

Why not? Several here have. Lep asked that we keep discussions of the mechanics - how things work - over there in the OC forums but there has been no limit to discussing OC in general here... which I think is cool and appreciated!

[+dfx]

Lep asked that we keep discussions of the mechanics - how things work - over there in the OC forums but there has been no limit to discussing OC in general here... which I think is cool and appreciated!

negative. my post that contained a link to a page that demonstrated how the API worked was deleted without comment.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Lep asked that we keep discussions of the mechanics - how things work - over there in the OC forums but there has been no limit to discussing OC in general here... which I think is cool and appreciated!

negative. my post that contained a link to a page that demonstrated how the API worked was deleted without comment.

See the connection between the bolded parts?

[+briansnat]

I believe the stolen listing is for GC754A.

 

But seems it was "stolen" long ago:

 

GC16XY3

 

This isn't an OC.com issue at this point.

 

It doesn't belong on either site, so it is still OC's issue

Edited December 13, 2010 by briansnat

[+dfx]

See the connection between the bolded parts?

nope, as there was nothing "mechanical" about it. people are allowed to say that they don't like the bing maps, but when you want to show how you can use the API to use google maps, you can't.

Edited December 13, 2010 by dfx

[Keystone]

See the connection between the bolded parts?

nope, as there was nothing "mechanical" about it. people are allowed to say that they don't like the bing maps, but when you want to show how you can use the API to use google maps, you can't.

Give it up. You are posting on the wrong website about your map solution.

[+Klondike Mike]

Lep asked that we keep discussions of the mechanics - how things work - over there in the OC forums but there has been no limit to discussing OC in general here... which I think is cool and appreciated!

negative. my post that contained a link to a page that demonstrated how the API worked was deleted without comment.

 

Good thing I bookmarked it when I did then

[+addisonbr]

It doesn't belong on either site, so it is still OC's issue

Considering that the owner of GC754A is "enormously pleased" at the relisted cache, I think he would disagree with you.

[Chudley Cannons]

Give it up. You are posting on the wrong website about your map solution.

[+Hynr]

See the connection between the bolded parts?

nope, as there was nothing "mechanical" about it. people are allowed to say that they don't like the bing maps, but when you want to show how you can use the API to use google maps, you can't.

I agree with Keystone. Your log might not have been deleted if you had demonstrated both the geocaching.com API and the Opencaching.com API at the same time. Edited December 13, 2010 by Hynr

[Mr.Yuck]

Instead of denying cachers stat addiction Groundspeak should embrace it. Enhance the user profile. All Groundspeak needs to do is a little audit of how users have customized their own profiles to find what they like. Right now no other site on the planet can give the user a better stat profile than Groundspeak. This is ground that Groundspeak cannot afford to give up.

 

Focusing on stats runs the danger of alienating a segment of the geocaching population who don't see the game as a competition, and don't want to see an objective value attached to find count, or terrain/difficulty.

 

I'm hoping that a reliable listing site will emerge with a focus on quality and thoughtfulness, rather than numbers and competition. That will be the site that earns - or re-earns - my loyalty.

 

Now don't get me wrong. I have these stupid statistics in my own profile. I absolutely love the program "CacheStats", and made a donation to it's creator. I will blame this on being a statistics geek since I was like 8 years old. That's probably just me. True, I could just use CacheStats myself, and not upload that stuff to my profile.

 

But, who posts statistics to their profile? Ultimately, it's just a teeny, weeny percentage of the Geocaching populace at large, all of whom are premium members. I really don't think theres a very large "Give me statistics" movement out there.

[knowschad]

See the connection between the bolded parts?

nope, as there was nothing "mechanical" about it. people are allowed to say that they don't like the bing maps, but when you want to show how you can use the API to use google maps, you can't.

I agree with Keystone. Your log might not have been deleted if you had demonstrated both the geocaching.com API and the Opencaching.com API at the same time.

The what?

[+narcissa]

Instead of denying cachers stat addiction Groundspeak should embrace it. Enhance the user profile. All Groundspeak needs to do is a little audit of how users have customized their own profiles to find what they like. Right now no other site on the planet can give the user a better stat profile than Groundspeak. This is ground that Groundspeak cannot afford to give up.

 

Focusing on stats runs the danger of alienating a segment of the geocaching population who don't see the game as a competition, and don't want to see an objective value attached to find count, or terrain/difficulty.

 

I'm hoping that a reliable listing site will emerge with a focus on quality and thoughtfulness, rather than numbers and competition. That will be the site that earns - or re-earns - my loyalty.

 

Now don't get me wrong. I have these stupid statistics in my own profile. I absolutely love the program "CacheStats", and made a donation to it's creator. I will blame this on being a statistics geek since I was like 8 years old. That's probably just me. True, I could just use CacheStats myself, and not upload that stuff to my profile.

 

But, who posts statistics to their profile? Ultimately, it's just a teeny, weeny percentage of the Geocaching populace at large, all of whom are premium members. I really don't think theres a very large "Give me statistics" movement out there.

 

I also like the statistics insofar as they pertain to my own caching activities, and I find it interesting to look at other people's statistics when they share them.

 

I'm not interested in seeing any system that assumes competitiveness, nor a system that imposes a universal value on finds, FTF, terrain, difficulty, etc. And I really don't want to see cache placements being influenced by these sorts of assumptions any more than they are now.

[GOF and Bacall]

It doesn't belong on either site, so it is still OC's issue

Considering that the owner of GC754A is "enormously pleased" at the relisted cache, I think he would disagree with you.

 

It was never stolen in the first place. The first cache was archived. This opened the area for whoever wanted to place a cache. The user who placed the second cache did quote the first cache page. But the proper credit was given. If a quote is stealing then I just stole your post stealing Briansnat's post.

[+dfx]

I agree with Keystone. Your log might not have been deleted if you had demonstrated both the geocaching.com API and the Opencaching.com API at the same time.

good one!

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm hoping that a reliable listing site will emerge with a focus on quality and thoughtfulness, rather than numbers and competition. That will be the site that earns - or re-earns - my loyalty.

 

There's the rub. Groundspeak isn't just trying to earn the loyalty of narcissa. There are many, many different tastes among many, many different cachers.

 

Groundspeak cannot focus on one side of the spectrum without loosing interest in cachers whose tastes are on the other. There's a balancing act being performed and I don't think we've seen the end results yet.

 

And that's where I think there's room for a competitor to make room for itself - if it can set itself up to appeal to cachers who are feeling alienated by this site, there's its user base.

 

So it will be a community of malcontents with the ability to list caches right next to or on top of gc.com caches and (unless you're being a diligent cache owner) actually cross-post a cache that they don't own.

 

Groovy. This is going to be great. Looking forward to the headaches and general miasma of negativity that this will cause. Thanks, Garmin!

[ZeMartelo]

It seems that one of the main complaints about the new site is the reviewing part or lack off. It seems that the cachers will be the reviewers.

 

As anyone noticed the awesomeness rating? I think its there for a reason, if enough people vote negatively on the cache it will be avoided and thats fine by me.

I have gone after caches that have been approved and once on site I just shake my head on why it was approved by anyone but it has so that is nothing that isnt happening here already.

[+Castle Mischief]

I have gone after caches that have been approved and once on site I just shake my head on why it was approved by anyone but it has so that is nothing that isnt happening here already.

 

Reviewers are not inspectors. They are pretty good, however, at spotting a cache placed in the middle of the White House, a railroad track, the ocean, on top of another cache, etc...

[+narcissa]

So it will be a community of malcontents with the ability to list caches right next to or on top of gc.com caches and (unless you're being a diligent cache owner) actually cross-post a cache that they don't own.

 

Groovy. This is going to be great. Looking forward to the headaches and general miasma of negativity that this will cause. Thanks, Garmin!

 

This is a possible, but not certain, outcome. Another possible outcome is that they will develop into very different sites, each with their own benefits and flaws.

 

I think the "but they don't have reviewers" point has been made, loud and clear. I'm interested to see how they respond to this particular criticism.

[+Castle Mischief]

So it will be a community of malcontents with the ability to list caches right next to or on top of gc.com caches and (unless you're being a diligent cache owner) actually cross-post a cache that they don't own.

 

Groovy. This is going to be great. Looking forward to the headaches and general miasma of negativity that this will cause. Thanks, Garmin!

 

This is a possible, but not certain, outcome. Another possible outcome is that they will develop into very different sites, each with their own benefits and flaws.

 

I think the "but they don't have reviewers" point has been made, loud and clear. I'm interested to see how they respond to this particular criticism.

 

True enough. Another possible, but far from certain, outcome is that changes in the future to gc.com will occur that may be to your liking. Or not.

[+narcissa]

 

True enough. Another possible, but far from certain, outcome is that changes in the future to gc.com will occur that may be to your liking. Or not.

 

This is also possible. The sorts of changes I would like to see would likely alienate the power caching crowd, so maybe the other site could accommodate them.

 

I just see some pretty major divergence happening, and I think there's room for a competitor to capitalize on that in some way without it necessarily meaning the end of geocaching as we know it.

[+Frank Broughton]

This thread is about a myriad of OC subtopics. But IT IS what I was talking about. People read too much into what others write...

 

No if and buts about it - here times 1000~!

[+Lil Devil]

I just see some pretty major divergence happening, ...

Absolutely! Perusing the forums over there I can find no less than 4 of the troublemakers that have been banned from this site. They're making themselves at home over there. I wonder how long it will take, and how much manpower they will suck up, before they get banned over there too.

 

And looking at the cache listings, I've seen or heard of several that would not and have not been published over here.

 

Looks like Garmin is the new home for the malcontents

[+BCandMsKitty]

I wonder if you can hide virtuals over there?

[+tozainamboku]

It seems that one of the main complaints about the new site is the reviewing part or lack off. It seems that the cachers will be the reviewers.

 

As anyone noticed the awesomeness rating? I think its there for a reason, if enough people vote negatively on the cache it will be avoided and thats fine by me.

I have gone after caches that have been approved and once on site I just shake my head on why it was approved by anyone but it has so that is nothing that isnt happening here already.

That's because caches are not approved. They are reviewed for compliance with the guidelines. If the cache complies with the guidelines it gets published whether or not the reviewer approves of it or whether or not ZeMartelo will think it is awesome.

 

I suspect that it will be similar on opencaching.com. If a cache doesn't meet the guidelines, someone will report it and a Garmin lackey will investigate the cache and remove the listing if necessary. I suspect that they will likely remove or disable the listing automatically and it will be up to the cache owner to provide proof that the cache is compliant with the guidelines to have it enabled or relisted. If a cache complies with the guidelines then finders will be able to rate its awesomeness. A lame cache (one that rates Okay) will not be archived unless the cache owner decides that since no one likes the cache it isn't worth keeping it.

[+niraD]

And looking at the cache listings, I've seen or heard of several that would not and have not been published over here.

That isn't much of a change, really. I know people who use the other alternative sites only to list caches that the reviewers here won't publish.

[Skippermark]

I believe the stolen listing is for GC754A.

Yep, from post 614.

 

Relisted as GC16XY3 on GC.com in 2007 after review by Pofe. Happily exists on the GC.com servers for three years with no accusations by reviewers or cachers of anyone being a "listing thief".

 

Published with identical text on OC.com this week as OX16XY3, and now the cache is stolen.

 

I just don't understand why it wasn't considered stolen between October 2007 and December 2010.

I wouldn't say the cache listing was ever stolen. In his archival note, the owner of the original cache encouraged someone to place a cache at the same location, "I hope that someone else will place a cache at this site in order to help draw visitors to this unique bit of Milford's history." A new hide was placed by someone, the cache was later adopted out to the current owner, who listed it on OC.com.

 

This is clearly different than someone taking a cache off of GC that they never were associated with and listing it on OC.com. That would not be cool.

[CacheNCarryMA]

There's no Cheers or cheese counting on the OpenCaching.com website. It's doomed to fail!

[+addisonbr]

I wouldn't say the cache listing was ever stolen. In his archival note, the owner of the original cache encouraged someone to place a cache at the same location, "I hope that someone else will place a cache at this site in order to help draw visitors to this unique bit of Milford's history." A new hide was placed by someone, the cache was later adopted out to the current owner, who listed it on OC.com.

 

This is clearly different than someone taking a cache off of GC that they never were associated with and listing it on OC.com.

I totally agree.