Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
FickFam

opencaching.com new mascot...

Recommended Posts

Tell me if this cache is again the guideline or if it is not safe. http://www.geocachin...ec-fe2ec5be9419

 

Look at the maps, I have found it I know what it is located on.

Tracks are removed. Easy to see from Google's StreetView, and pretty safe to assume from Bing's Birdseye view.

 

Sorry the tracks was there when it was published, they just removed them this pass fall. Go check the date the cache was published.

 

I see that. Tracks being removed here, replaced with a bison tube. FuzzyB, Aug 25. 2009.

 

So, what is your point? I'd be very willing to bet there had been communication between the reviewer and the cache owner before it was ever published.

Edited by knowschad

Share this post


Link to post

If you paid for the work I would be upset too.

 

Even without paying, my time and the use of the car are valuable to me as well.

 

OC has some significant issues. If they had a thriving geocaching community, those issues could cause real problems for all cachers (as Knowshad & others have pointed out repeatedly).

 

It's become apparent that cachers are not going to use the OC site until those issues get fixed. They're staying away in droves as things stand now. As I pointed out before, only 50 OC caches were logged within 700 miles of my house in the entire month of January and some of those are bogus logs from people testing the system.

 

At least you and others keep checking their site which is great, you keep coming back. You watch them and keep checking for the updates and for it to move forward.

 

Actually, I just keep checking the Banned by Groundspeak thread over there. It's amusing. Haven't bothered to set up an account, never will. No point.

 

That thread is a riot, for sure.

 

I know and you have a lot of funny thing on it too. :laughing:

 

Indeed. It's so easy to rile up some of the crybabies on there.

 

But...but...but, you wasn't wrong about the cache next to the railroad tracks right? Oh snap, I think you was but you had no come back for that one did you?

 

I might have been wrong about the cache, but that is neither here nor there in regards to the crybaby thread...

Share this post


Link to post

The point was like 20 posts ago, you can't aways beileve your maps. Remember the stick that OCs peer review system is flawed because they a voting yes on a cache that is on a train track and that GS reviewers would not publish a cache like that even though it is already published on GS. That is all. Just that OCs review system is flawed remember that someone said that over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post

If you paid for the work I would be upset too.

 

Even without paying, my time and the use of the car are valuable to me as well.

 

OC has some significant issues. If they had a thriving geocaching community, those issues could cause real problems for all cachers (as Knowshad & others have pointed out repeatedly).

 

It's become apparent that cachers are not going to use the OC site until those issues get fixed. They're staying away in droves as things stand now. As I pointed out before, only 50 OC caches were logged within 700 miles of my house in the entire month of January and some of those are bogus logs from people testing the system.

 

At least you and others keep checking their site which is great, you keep coming back. You watch them and keep checking for the updates and for it to move forward.

 

Actually, I just keep checking the Banned by Groundspeak thread over there. It's amusing. Haven't bothered to set up an account, never will. No point.

 

That thread is a riot, for sure.

 

I know and you have a lot of funny thing on it too. :laughing:

 

Indeed. It's so easy to rile up some of the crybabies on there.

 

But...but...but, you wasn't wrong about the cache next to the railroad tracks right? Oh snap, I think you was but you had no come back for that one did you?

 

I might have been wrong about the cache, but that is neither here nor there in regards to the crybaby thread...

 

No mights about it, you was wrong. It is a published cache. Mights don't cut it there.

Share this post


Link to post

Neither system is perfect...however, a peer system that allows the average cacher to vote on a cache is far more dangerous to geocaching than a fixed reviewer who knows the local laws and has often worked with local agencies. Can mistakes happen with either system? Yes. I would still trust the fixed reviewer system since mistakes are less likely to happen.

Share this post


Link to post

This is what is called distraction. Or missing the forest for the trees, debating this single cache endlessly, until the mods shut the thread down for pointlessness.

 

Don't let that happen here.

Share this post


Link to post

The point was like 20 posts ago, you can't aways beileve your maps. Remember the stick that OCs peer review system is flawed because they a voting yes on a cache that is on a train track and that GS reviewers would not publish a cache like that even though it is already published on GS. That is all. Just that OCs review system is flawed remember that someone said that over and over again.

The word is "schtick", not "stick". But as I said, the Groundspeak cache almost certainly had communications between the cache owner and the reviewer. Or the reviewer was familiar with the area. Neither would likely be the case with OC's peer reviewer process.

Share this post


Link to post

I would still trust the fixed reviewer system since mistakes are less likely to happen.

While this statement may be true right now, because the information avaliable to the Grounspeak volunteers may not be available to peer reviewers, I don't believe it will always be the case. Once there is a database of local regulations and other tools to help check for guidelines issues, the peer review process could actually be better beacause several people are looking at the cache page and they can catch each others mistakes. In addition, where there are borderline issues, the voting process may seem less arbitrary to the cache owner than having as single fixed reviewer making decisions.

Share this post


Link to post

I would still trust the fixed reviewer system since mistakes are less likely to happen.

While this statement may be true right now, because the information avaliable to the Grounspeak volunteers may not be available to peer reviewers, I don't believe it will always be the case. Once there is a database of local regulations and other tools to help check for guidelines issues, the peer review process could actually be better beacause several people are looking at the cache page and they can catch each others mistakes. In addition, where there are borderline issues, the voting process may seem less arbitrary to the cache owner than having as single fixed reviewer making decisions.

 

You speak of possibilities and I speak of reality. Anything can happen, but it doesn't mean it will. Again, I stand by my point.

Share this post


Link to post

Neither system is perfect...however, a peer system that allows the average cacher to vote on a cache is far more dangerous to geocaching than a fixed reviewer who knows the local laws and has often worked with local agencies. Can mistakes happen with either system? Yes. I would still trust the fixed reviewer system since mistakes are less likely to happen.

 

Exactly.

 

The review process here is not perfect. It's run by humans that sometimes make mistakes and sometimes there are minor bumps in the road.

 

The review process there is flawed from the word "go". How can you logically, rationally expect somebody an ocean away to provide any meaningful input into a cache that's in a part of the world they have never seen, have no contextual knowledge of, no history with, and most importantly, no vested interest in?

 

Why should Sven in Lapland be approving a cache that hidden in a park that locals in my area have worked years for to develop a relationship with the land managers??

 

Why should any random person be allowed to upload my caches that I have listed on this site as their cache on that site? This is just so fundamentally flawed on the atomic level.

Share this post


Link to post

The review process there is flawed from the word "go". How can you logically, rationally expect somebody an ocean away to provide any meaningful input into a cache that's in a part of the world they have never seen, have no contextual knowledge of, no history with, and most importantly, no vested interest in?

 

Why should Sven in Lapland be approving a cache that hidden in a park that locals in my area have worked years for to develop a relationship with the land managers??

You do realize that in the early days Groundspeak reviewers often covered area far from their home location. I'm pretty sure there are still some countries in Asia that are reviewed by Groundspeak reviewers living in the United States. Granted that in many areas now there is a local reviewer and that reviewer is aware of local regulations because they've been reviewing for a while. But what happens f the reviewer, God forbid, should drop dead of a heart attack tommorrow? Their review area will be taken over by reviewers in other parts of the world until a new "volunteer" is recruited. And the new volunteer will not necessarily know the regulations any better than Sven in Lapland.

 

As opencaching grows and there are more caches being submitted, reviewers will be getting more local caches to look at. Also there is likely going to be some place setup for peer reviewers to share information on local regulations, so if someone stops reviewing in an area, all their knowledge is not lost.

Why should any random person be allowed to upload my caches that I have listed on this site as their cache on that site? This is just so fundamentally flawed on the atomic level.

Per the site admin, a random person can't upload your caches and claim them as theirs. More precisely, if someone uploads caches they don't own these are in violation of their guidelines. The peer reviewers who check and see your name on the GC.com caches should be rejecting these caches and if they get approved, you can email opencaching to have these archived. Of course opencaching allows someone to upload their finds, so if they found one of your caches that appears in their statistics, but your cache is not listed on their site.

 

There sure seems to be a lot of misinformation circulating about opencaching.com.

Share this post


Link to post
There sure seems to be a lot of misinformation circulating about opencaching.com.

 

No, not really.

Share this post


Link to post

Neither system is perfect...however, a peer system that allows the average cacher to vote on a cache is far more dangerous to geocaching than a fixed reviewer who knows the local laws and has often worked with local agencies. Can mistakes happen with either system? Yes. I would still trust the fixed reviewer system since mistakes are less likely to happen.

Then again it could be a good idea to blow this one up. Nothing but frog haters and .com haters here any way. The best/worst/funny/stupid thread on .com is the banned by Groundspeak one. insert Signal bashing the .com frog clone with a baseball bat Emoticon here :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

Neither system is perfect...however, a peer system that allows the average cacher to vote on a cache is far more dangerous to geocaching than a fixed reviewer who knows the local laws and has often worked with local agencies. Can mistakes happen with either system? Yes. I would still trust the fixed reviewer system since mistakes are less likely to happen.

Then again it could be a good idea to blow this one up. Nothing but frog haters and .com haters here any way. The best/worst/funny/stupid thread on .com is the banned by Groundspeak one. insert Signal bashing the .com frog clone with a baseball bat Emoticon here :anibad:

 

Hate's a really strong word, and used way too easily. I don't hate OC.com. Sometimes it amuses me, sometimes it worries me, 50% of the time I'm just "meh". I'm way too meh too often to hate it. :)

Share this post


Link to post

The review process there is flawed from the word "go". How can you logically, rationally expect somebody an ocean away to provide any meaningful input into a cache that's in a part of the world they have never seen, have no contextual knowledge of, no history with, and most importantly, no vested interest in?

 

Why should Sven in Lapland be approving a cache that hidden in a park that locals in my area have worked years for to develop a relationship with the land managers??

You do realize that in the early days Groundspeak reviewers often covered area far from their home location. I'm pretty sure there are still some countries in Asia that are reviewed by Groundspeak reviewers living in the United States. Granted that in many areas now there is a local reviewer and that reviewer is aware of local regulations because they've been reviewing for a while. But what happens f the reviewer, God forbid, should drop dead of a heart attack tommorrow? Their review area will be taken over by reviewers in other parts of the world until a new "volunteer" is recruited. And the new volunteer will not necessarily know the regulations any better than Sven in Lapland.

 

1. This isn't the early days anymore.

2. I trust that the reviewers that are reviewing remotely are familiar enough with the situations of the areas they are covering to do their job. I also trust that Groundspeak has a vested interest in who replaces a reviewer when they are eaten by rabid anteaters and somebody has to step in. I trust that they don't just radomly pick from the pool of bench-warming reviewers and toss them out into the cold, cold world to survie or starve to death.

 

Do you have any evidence that they do? Can you show me an example of where this has happened and a remote reviewer has resulted in an instance where a cache was placed in an area that caused a problem with the locals that could have been avoided somehow? Do you have any examples of a reviewer that cannot speak the local language?

 

Bob in Ohio may or may not know where Brudledorf is on the map, speak the language, or have any knowledge of the rules of the Griddledardle Park system. Yet he gets to play reviewer. Examples have already been posted that show that caches you get to review make no sense and require no knowledge or even the ability to speak the language.

 

As opencaching grows and there are more caches being submitted, reviewers will be getting more local caches to look at. Also there is likely going to be some place setup for peer reviewers to share information on local regulations, so if someone stops reviewing in an area, all their knowledge is not lost.

 

The problem exists now, Garmin knows about it now. They should fix it now or appoint reviewers now. Alternately they should drop the site back into a true "test" phase and pull if from public use.

 

Why should any random person be allowed to upload my caches that I have listed on this site as their cache on that site? This is just so fundamentally flawed on the atomic level.

Per the site admin, a random person can't upload your caches and claim them as theirs. More precisely, if someone uploads caches they don't own these are in violation of their guidelines. The peer reviewers who check and see your name on the GC.com caches should be rejecting these caches and if they get approved, you can email opencaching to have these archived. Of course opencaching allows someone to upload their finds, so if they found one of your caches that appears in their statistics, but your cache is not listed on their site.

 

Yet it has happened. Why should I have to sign up for another website that I don't want to participate in only to make sure that my caches are not being listed by another person. This is simply inexcusable and never, ever should have been allowed to happen in a live environment. Garmin has not caught it, the peer reviewers have not caught it. Their system has failed and could very easily fail again. There is nothing stopping somebody from listing my caches on their site with a name that isn't even mine. I've even registered my caching name on their site!

 

There sure seems to be a lot of misinformation circulating about opencaching.com.

 

Yes, and you're typing it.

Share this post


Link to post

Neither system is perfect...however, a peer system that allows the average cacher to vote on a cache is far more dangerous to geocaching than a fixed reviewer who knows the local laws and has often worked with local agencies. Can mistakes happen with either system? Yes. I would still trust the fixed reviewer system since mistakes are less likely to happen.

Then again it could be a good idea to blow this one up. Nothing but frog haters and .com haters here any way. The best/worst/funny/stupid thread on .com is the banned by Groundspeak one. insert Signal bashing the .com frog clone with a baseball bat Emoticon here :anibad:

 

Hate's a really strong word, and used way too easily. I don't hate OC.com. Sometimes it amuses me, sometimes it worries me, 50% of the time I'm just "meh". I'm way too meh too often to hate it. :)

 

I agree. I don't hate the site at all. I find it amusing that people there spend so much time and energy expressing their displeasure about GC.com while on the other site. Other than that, I really don't care much.

Share this post


Link to post

Neither system is perfect...however, a peer system that allows the average cacher to vote on a cache is far more dangerous to geocaching than a fixed reviewer who knows the local laws and has often worked with local agencies. Can mistakes happen with either system? Yes. I would still trust the fixed reviewer system since mistakes are less likely to happen.

Then again it could be a good idea to blow this one up. Nothing but frog haters and .com haters here any way. The best/worst/funny/stupid thread on .com is the banned by Groundspeak one. insert Signal bashing the .com frog clone with a baseball bat Emoticon here :anibad:

 

Hate's a really strong word, and used way too easily. I don't hate OC.com. Sometimes it amuses me, sometimes it worries me, 50% of the time I'm just "meh". I'm way too meh too often to hate it. :)

 

I don't hate it either. At the moment I'm exasperated because there continue to be so many problems that aren't being resolved.

Share this post


Link to post

You do realize that in the early days Groundspeak reviewers often covered area far from their home location. I'm pretty sure there are still some countries in Asia that are reviewed by Groundspeak reviewers living in the United States. Granted that in many areas now there is a local reviewer and that reviewer is aware of local regulations because they've been reviewing for a while. But what happens f the reviewer, God forbid, should drop dead of a heart attack tommorrow? Their review area will be taken over by reviewers in other parts of the world until a new "volunteer" is recruited. And the new volunteer will not necessarily know the regulations any better than Sven in Lapland.

Ask Mtn_Man. Ask Briansnat. Both have done long distance reviewing for Minnesota. They know our regulations.

Share this post


Link to post

You do realize that in the early days Groundspeak reviewers often covered area far from their home location. I'm pretty sure there are still some countries in Asia that are reviewed by Groundspeak reviewers living in the United States. Granted that in many areas now there is a local reviewer and that reviewer is aware of local regulations because they've been reviewing for a while. But what happens f the reviewer, God forbid, should drop dead of a heart attack tommorrow? Their review area will be taken over by reviewers in other parts of the world until a new "volunteer" is recruited. And the new volunteer will not necessarily know the regulations any better than Sven in Lapland.

Ask Mtn_Man. Ask Briansnat. Both have done long distance reviewing for Minnesota. They know our regulations.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Groundspeak keeps a database of regulations.

 

In fact, I'd be very surprised if they didn't!

Share this post


Link to post

The review process there is flawed from the word "go". How can you logically, rationally expect somebody an ocean away to provide any meaningful input into a cache that's in a part of the world they have never seen, have no contextual knowledge of, no history with, and most importantly, no vested interest in?

 

Why should Sven in Lapland be approving a cache that hidden in a park that locals in my area have worked years for to develop a relationship with the land managers??

You do realize that in the early days Groundspeak reviewers often covered area far from their home location. I'm pretty sure there are still some countries in Asia that are reviewed by Groundspeak reviewers living in the United States. Granted that in many areas now there is a local reviewer and that reviewer is aware of local regulations because they've been reviewing for a while. But what happens f the reviewer, God forbid, should drop dead of a heart attack tommorrow? Their review area will be taken over by reviewers in other parts of the world until a new "volunteer" is recruited. And the new volunteer will not necessarily know the regulations any better than Sven in Lapland.

 

1. This isn't the early days anymore.

2. I trust that the reviewers that are reviewing remotely are familiar enough with the situations of the areas they are covering to do their job. I also trust that Groundspeak has a vested interest in who replaces a reviewer when they are eaten by rabid anteaters and somebody has to step in. I trust that they don't just radomly pick from the pool of bench-warming reviewers and toss them out into the cold, cold world to survie or starve to death.

 

Do you have any evidence that they do? Can you show me an example of where this has happened and a remote reviewer has resulted in an instance where a cache was placed in an area that caused a problem with the locals that could have been avoided somehow? Do you have any examples of a reviewer that cannot speak the local language?

 

Bob in Ohio may or may not know where Brudledorf is on the map, speak the language, or have any knowledge of the rules of the Griddledardle Park system. Yet he gets to play reviewer. Examples have already been posted that show that caches you get to review make no sense and require no knowledge or even the ability to speak the language.

This is the early days for opencaching.com. There are not many caches being submitted so the review process is likely to be a little clunky. Just suppose they had infallible volunteer reviewers like Groundspeak. How many reviewers should the have? Do they need to be as local as Groundspeak's are in order to work effectively? Or is it reasonable to have fewer reviewers with global responsibility as Groundspeak did when they started? Sure there were no parks with geocaching regulations then but if you want to make this an argument that sets an impossible barrier for anyone to start a new listing site. Opencaching is going to have to rely on geocachers who know the local rules to report them.

 

I have personally seen caches approved on Geoacaching.com in areas where the land manager had restrictions and have seen where individual geocachers either post an Needs Archive or have emailed the reviewer to point out the error. I don't see why that method won't work just as well on opencaching. If a bad cache is published, report it and let the system take care of it.

 

I see that so far there are no limits on which caches you can review, though you do see the caches sorted by distance. I know there was some talk of limiting this. My guess is that there are too few caches being submitted and perhaps too few people reviewing to do this. In this case it is like the early days of Geocaching.com where reviewers dealt with much larger areas and with countries where they didn't necessarily speak the language.

 

Perhaps it would be ideal if Opencaching.com started with as many members and caches being hidden as Geocaching.com has now, then they could put in place a reviewing method that addresses your issues. It's unreasonable to think this will be the case for a while. What there does seem to be is a strategy to improve their process over time.

As opencaching grows and there are more caches being submitted, reviewers will be getting more local caches to look at. Also there is likely going to be some place setup for peer reviewers to share information on local regulations, so if someone stops reviewing in an area, all their knowledge is not lost.

 

The problem exists now, Garmin knows about it now. They should fix it now or appoint reviewers now. Alternately they should drop the site back into a true "test" phase and pull if from public use.

Chicken Little's friends couldn't convince her the sky was not falling either. If you continue to assume the some cache is going to slip through their review system and result in the end of geocaching as we know it, then sure they shouldn't publish and caches until they are big enough to have a review system that meets your criteria. Garmin is aware that the system will need to improve and I believe they have a strategy to do so. Sorry if it is too late for you. And really sorry if it gets geocaching banned where you live. I just hope is isn't a cache that slips past the Grounspeak reviewer that causes the end of geocaching. :rolleyes:

 

Why should any random person be allowed to upload my caches that I have listed on this site as their cache on that site? This is just so fundamentally flawed on the atomic level.

Per the site admin, a random person can't upload your caches and claim them as theirs. More precisely, if someone uploads caches they don't own these are in violation of their guidelines. The peer reviewers who check and see your name on the GC.com caches should be rejecting these caches and if they get approved, you can email opencaching to have these archived. Of course opencaching allows someone to upload their finds, so if they found one of your caches that appears in their statistics, but your cache is not listed on their site.

 

Yet it has happened. Why should I have to sign up for another website that I don't want to participate in only to make sure that my caches are not being listed by another person. This is simply inexcusable and never, ever should have been allowed to happen in a live environment. Garmin has not caught it, the peer reviewers have not caught it. Their system has failed and could very easily fail again. There is nothing stopping somebody from listing my caches on their site with a name that isn't even mine. I've even registered my caching name on their site!

People shouldn't steal travel bugs either, but Groundspeak lets it happen. I don't know what you can to keep someone from breaking rules. Sure a better reviewer system can catch this and I believe that peer reviewers should be checking that a cross posted cache is actually owned by the person cross posting. But if someone sneaks on past the peer reviewers you need to report it - or ignore it since nobody is using that site anyhow.

 

Now if you want to criticize that it is easy to upload a GPX file to create caches go ahead an do that. I suspect that people who want to cross post their own caches are happy to have this capability.

 

There sure seems to be a lot of misinformation circulating about opencaching.com.

 

Yes, and you're typing it.

I stand by what I say though I will admit I'm no expert. Garmin isn't all that much more open than Groundspeak about what their plans are; so I have to infer things base on what I can observe. Also, one of the complaints about opencaching.com that I agree with is that their forums have sort of been taken over by a bunch of malcontents. So I haven't spent as much time there lately as I did a few weeks ago, and may not be up to date on the latest changes.

Share this post


Link to post
I stand by what I say though I will admit I'm no expert. Garmin isn't all that much more open than Groundspeak about what their plans are; so I have to infer things base on what I can observe. Also, one of the complaints about opencaching.com that I agree with is that their forums have sort of been taken over by a bunch of malcontents. So I haven't spent as much time there lately as I did a few weeks ago, and may not be up to date on the latest changes.

 

I can agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post

I stand by what I say though I will admit I'm no expert. Garmin isn't all that much more open than Groundspeak about what their plans are; so I have to infer things base on what I can observe. Also, one of the complaints about opencaching.com that I agree with is that their forums have sort of been taken over by a bunch of malcontents. So I haven't spent as much time there lately as I did a few weeks ago, and may not be up to date on the latest changes.

 

Malcontents on both sides have been joining in, admittedly. It's like watching a trainwreck. I admit I've been tempted to join in myself, but I don't. If I'm not going to use the site, I don't feel I have the right to post in their forums... but yeah, can't help but read it. Like I said... trainwreck.

Share this post


Link to post

Toz sez:

I have personally seen caches approved on Geoacaching.com in areas where the land manager had restrictions and have seen where individual geocachers either post an Needs Archive or have emailed the reviewer to point out the error. I don't see why that method won't work just as well on opencaching. If a bad cache is published, report it and let the system take care of it.
(and a whole lot more)

 

First, nobody that I've seen has even suggested that Groundspeak's reviewers are "infallable" (I didn't quote that part, but you said it). But they try, and they try damned hard. They fail sometimes, and that is where the 2nd level comes in... the actual geocachers. Opencaching does not have that first level. Every bad placement has to be caught by the 2nd level filter. That is a big difference.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know what website you've been look at.

it's opencaching .com

It's in the thread title.

Please try to keep up.

Thanx! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

There have been some posts reported as being over the line for interpersonal comments unrelated to the topic of this forum. That's a pretty good sign that some of the users are due for a breather, so I am going to close this topic for a while. When it reopens, please remember to talk about the topic and leave out the criticisms of others. And disagree without being disagreeable.

Share this post


Link to post

Happy Thursday!

 

This forum thread is again open for business. Please remember to keep persons out of the discussions. It is fine to talk about objects, comment on them, note your agreement or disagreement with a post or an opinion, and when disagreeing, to disagree without being disagreeable.

 

Also, please do not go back and quote any posts that contain comments about people.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

Knowshad,

 

In regards to your comment about no logs appearing on your test cache in OC...

 

I was finally able to get the OC macro working in GSAK and I pulled the nearest 100 caches to the Twin Cities which includes a number of caches from neighboring states.

 

In December, 19 caches reported a log entry of any sort.

In January, only 5 caches reported a log entry of any sort.

 

Since I had the data, within 200 miles of the Twin Cities...

 

In December, 46 caches were placed in OC.

In January, 2 caches were placed in OC.

 

Don't be surprised if you don't see a log entry for a while.

Share this post


Link to post

Knowshad,

 

In regards to your comment about no logs appearing on your test cache in OC...

 

I was finally able to get the OC macro working in GSAK and I pulled the nearest 100 caches to the Twin Cities which includes a number of caches from neighboring states.

 

In December, 19 caches reported a log entry of any sort.

In January, only 5 caches reported a log entry of any sort.

 

Since I had the data, within 200 miles of the Twin Cities...

 

In December, 46 caches were placed in OC.

In January, 2 caches were placed in OC.

 

Don't be surprised if you don't see a log entry for a while.

Can I exhale now?

Share this post


Link to post

Can I exhale now?

 

Sure, blue isn't your color anyhow. biggrin.gif

 

Blue is everyone's color! :D:lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Can I exhale now?

 

Sure, blue isn't your color anyhow. biggrin.gif

 

Blue is everyone's color! :D:lol:

 

Depends on the shade. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

What amazes me is the number of people on OC who are clueless as to why posters here aren't jump9ing for joy over the site despite the numerous well thought posts here stating why. I can only conclude they are willfully blind to the flaws in their new toy, but I fear all to soon they will have a rude awakening.

Share this post


Link to post
What amazes me is the number of people on OC who are clueless as to why posters here aren't jumping for joy over the site despite the numerous well thought posts here stating why. I can only conclude they are willfully blind to the flaws in their new toy, but I fear all to soon they will have a rude awakening.

 

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post

Can I exhale now?

 

Sure, blue isn't your color anyhow. biggrin.gif

 

Blue is everyone's color! :D:lol:

 

I exhaled, and it was a blue blow, for sure!

Share this post


Link to post

What amazes me is the number of people on OC who are clueless as to why posters here aren't jump9ing for joy over the site despite the numerous well thought posts here stating why. I can only conclude they are willfully blind to the flaws in their new toy, but I fear all to soon they will have a rude awakening.

 

In the form of what, do you think? Do you think that Garmin will take the wheels and actually put some controls in place or do you think Something Really Bad will happen- in which case that could affect things for those of us not using their site. But hey, crazy me talking of skies falling and all that. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I can only conclude they are willfully blind to the flaws in their new toy, but I fear all to soon they will have a rude awakening.

 

Flaws----Not the least of which is no caches.

 

Rude Awakening----geocaching is not done on forums, and actually does involve going out to find caches and if they don't have any they will soon have no following.

 

My loyalties are over here, where I have met people and biked and hiked with people, it is to those people that I am loyal, not a site. I truly enjoy the people I have met through geocaching.

Edited by Packanack

Share this post


Link to post

In the form of what, do you think? Do you think that Garmin will take the wheels and actually put some controls in place or do you think Something Really Bad will happen- in which case that could affect things for those of us not using their site. But hey, crazy me talking of skies falling and all that. :rolleyes:

 

I expect they'll make some modest improvements in the service over the next few month and at some point they'll have to make some kind of marketing blitz to generate usage. Until then, and probably after, I don't see any "sky is falling scenario" happening. I expected OC to get some modest growth in their numbers from December to January but that didn't happen.

 

As of today, there are 3827 cache listings for all of North America and the Caribbean on OC. Only 238 had any kind of log entered in January (6.2%). Thats down from the 475 that were logged in December (12.4%).

 

In all of January, OC only added 149 new caches for all of North America and the Caribbean.

 

With only a couple hundred log entries a month, it's hard to do much damage to the geocaching community with their current policies as they are just too small right now.

Share this post


Link to post

By the way, I posted this on another thread, but I think it is worth posting here as well. This is a list of the rules that our Minnesota reviewer (and Minnesota hiders, of course) need to keep in mind: http://mngca.org/guidelines

 

Thanks for the link, it is great to see the guidelines. I will pass it along. Thanks for helping out.

Have you posted that link yet? Please, by all means, do, if you haven't already.

Share this post


Link to post

Ooops. Shoulda read the whole thread first.

Done yet? :)

 

In two hours and twenty minutes? Not a snowballs chance in that place the devil lives.

Share this post


Link to post

Why reopen this thread?

Why not?

Geocaching is a game so why get so worked up over an alternative site?

I don't think anyone is getting "so worked up".

I do see some folks pointing out the obvious flaws with OC.

I see other folks discussing those flaws.

Mostly in a civil fashion.

Isn't that what a forum is for?

Some folks need to get a life! :ph34r:

Insults don't add any validity to your comments.

Share this post


Link to post

Why reopen this thread? Geocaching is a game so why get so worked up over an alternative site? Some folks need to get a life! :ph34r:

 

Brad W made it clear in his locking post that it was just a temporary closure. Groundspeak seems happy for the discussions to continue here as long as they don't turn into personal digs at individuals. If they had kept it locked then it's likely some individuals would have been muttering things like, "They closed the topic because it was giving too much attention to a competing site."

 

MrsB

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

×
×
  • Create New...