Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
FickFam

opencaching.com new mascot...

Recommended Posts

I didn't miss the point, I simply understand that beginning a new site with nothing but unique caches in just not possible. There is no possible way for Garmin to ever catch up to this site's listings by requiring only new caches. I agree that most people will not bother to post finds on both sites, but cross listing provides a base for the site to grow rather than starting from nothing at all.

 

Sure, it's possible to start out with unique hides. Why is it requisite to cross list to achieve the goal of cache population? Again, I refer to Terracaching because they do not want cross listed caches and never have. They managed to succeed in their niche.

 

As far as Garmin no longer advertising for geocaching.com, that's just obvious. Of course they are not going to advertise their competitors site. Regardless of wheteher the two had a disagreement or not, I hardly see the site as being nothing more than a "big middle finger". If Garmin's only intent was to hurt Groundspeak, there are better ways than designing an entire competing site.

 

Well, I am not going to hold your hand and show you every example out there. Do some digging and you'll see what I mean.

 

As far as Opencaching.us having an open API and terracaching having a peer review system, I honestly did not know that. I have never used either site other than a quick search of both for any nearby caches (for which there were none). The fact remains that Groundspeak didn't bother with any of this until opencaching.com did. Maybe they saw them as being a possible contender (unlike navicaching and opencaching.us). It's hard to ignore the fact that opencaching probably drove these developments.

 

I hardly call it being a leader in development when their site lacks the basics that others do have.

 

I should clarify... It is not possible to start a site that WILL ACTUALLY BE USED with nothing but unique hides. Terraching is hardly a model of success. Anybody who wants to stand a chance against the Groundspeak giant simply can not start from scratch and wait several years to become only mildly known.

Your failing to see my point about the "big middle finger" thing. Let's say that Groundspeak and garmin had a dispute (even though i still don't see any evidence - maybe garmin just wanted to start a new venture?) I still don't see opencaching.com as being nothing more that a "big middle finger". Even if the two companies had some huge disagreement, is it so hard to beleive that Garmin just decided to compete, rather than give in? I still don't think designing and building a competing site is in any way nothing more than an attempt to hurt Groundspeak.

As far as your last point, what features are they missing? They have a fully functional site, a reviewer system (again not perfect..), etc, etc. They only thing they are missing is the huge following, which is why they do things like cross-listing and promotions. Again, what basics are they missing?

Edited by cb82

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

Share this post


Link to post
As far as your last point, what features are they missing? They have a fully functional site, a reviewer system (again not perfect..), etc, etc. They only thing they are missing is the huge following, which is why they do things like cross-listing and promotions. Again, what basics are they missing?

 

Fully functional? You can't even use HTML on a cache listing or post pictures...I'd hardly call that fully functional.

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

You're both right. Groundspeak owns the listings but the geocacher owns the geocache and can cross list it freely.

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

You're both right. Groundspeak owns the listings but the geocacher owns the geocache and can cross list it freely.

 

I'm only disputing the "and they voluntarily listed them there" portion of the quoted post. Who owns what is something that I think is really up for debate- somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

You're both right. Groundspeak owns the listings but the geocacher owns the geocache and can cross list it freely.

 

IANAL, but I would argue that Groundspeak owns the listing page which resides on their server. But we do not forfeit copyright when listing here. I remember seeing that somewhere and would be happy to look it up if needed. So I believe the cache owner can list their cache wherever they want using the identical text in all listings.

 

The problem I see is that Groundspeak does own the PQ file that is being used to cross list the caches. There is a statement in the licensing which basically says you are allowed to use the PQ for yourself but are not allowed to share it.

 

If Groundspeak wanted to push the issue, I think they could get a judge to stop OC from importing the MyFinds PQ. But then OC could just start importing a standard GPX file generated by GSAK. (Maybe they do already). So it's all a moot point anyway.

 

If cache owners want to list their caches on multiple sites, so be it. It just seems like a lot of extra work when the vast majority of cachers are members here already.

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

You're both right. Groundspeak owns the listings but the geocacher owns the geocache and can cross list it freely.

 

I'm only disputing the "and they voluntarily listed them there" portion of the quoted post. Who owns what is something that I think is really up for debate- somewhere else.

 

Are you saying people are being forced to list their caches over there? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
This latest promotion is actually kind of sad and pathetic. It shows that Garmin is desperate to gain new membership and listed caches.
Yep. Although the primary effect of this promotion is likely to be more cross-listing (vs more new caches), the promotion makes me more appreciative of Groundspeak's stand against anything that pushes people to hide geocaches before they're ready for the responsibility of cache ownership.

 

Of course, there is no incentive for those of us with 9 or fewer caches to cross-list our caches on Garmin's site, since you have to list 10 caches before you get an entry in the sweepstakes. Thus, they'll mostly get those who own a lot of caches to cross-list their caches. Which is great if you're looking for numbers, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

You're both right. Groundspeak owns the listings but the geocacher owns the geocache and can cross list it freely.

 

I'm only disputing the "and they voluntarily listed them there" portion of the quoted post. Who owns what is something that I think is really up for debate- somewhere else.

 

Are you saying people are being forced to list their caches over there? :huh:

One of Castle Mischief's caches is listed over there. He didn't list it, some other person (or it might be a dog) listed it, and appears as the owner over there.

Share this post


Link to post

I had a look but the nearest cache to me is 24 miles away :(

 

However I did cross post a cache I had listed here and it was reviewed in 2 days - half the time it took here -now that is a unique selling point!

B)

I wonder why this must, dead thread was resurrected by a first time poster? Even managed to fit in a mention of cross-posting and knock GC's review system to boot. :rolleyes:

 

I was one of those who was worried about the crossposting when OC popped up, for all the reasons mentioned dozens of times in this thread. Fortunately, OC never took off and is largely irrelevant to cachers.

 

These are the latest numbers...

 

For the entire month of July and in the entire world...OC added 194 non-imported caches (84 in the US). A spot check of those 194 finds that many of those are just rekeyed versions of GS caches. Meanwhile, Geocaching.com added nearly 34,000 unique caches.

 

In July, only 5% of the OC caches were "Found". This is a drop of 26% from June when 6.8% of OC caches were found. In my state, 63% of Geocaching.com caches were found in the last month.

 

At least 90% of OC's caches are just copies of Geocaching.com listed caches without the current log information. (This is important as I know of several OC listings that don't show that certain caches have been disabled or archived because the CO abandoned the listing.)

 

So...it makes little sense to argue about OC when they really aren't that relevant.

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

You're both right. Groundspeak owns the listings but the geocacher owns the geocache and can cross list it freely.

 

I'd be willing to bet that there were plenty of meetings of Groundspeak's legal team when opencaching announced a .GPX based cross-listing feature. Sure, we own the physical container and all the stuff in it, but that .GPX file essentially is Groundspeak's list. Even if you are exporting it from a program like GSAK, GSAK, in all probability, obtained its listing from Groundspeak. The legal problem for Groundspeak would be their lack of ability to prove that in a legal sense. But we all know where that data really came from (and so does Garmin!)

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

You're both right. Groundspeak owns the listings but the geocacher owns the geocache and can cross list it freely.

 

I'm only disputing the "and they voluntarily listed them there" portion of the quoted post. Who owns what is something that I think is really up for debate- somewhere else.

 

Are you saying people are being forced to list their caches over there? :huh:

One of Castle Mischief's caches is listed over there. He didn't list it, some other person (or it might be a dog) listed it, and appears as the owner over there.

 

That aint right. He should be able to get it removed. Which one is it?

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

You're both right. Groundspeak owns the listings but the geocacher owns the geocache and can cross list it freely.

 

I'm only disputing the "and they voluntarily listed them there" portion of the quoted post. Who owns what is something that I think is really up for debate- somewhere else.

 

Are you saying people are being forced to list their caches over there? :huh:

One of Castle Mischief's caches is listed over there. He didn't list it, some other person (or it might be a dog) listed it, and appears as the owner over there.

 

That aint right. He should be able to get it removed. Which one is it?

 

I'm willing to bet that he is aware of it.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, what basics are they missing?

 

A few bagillion cache listings.

 

My post on the last page talked about all the basics they were (are still) missing. But I thought it was kind of mean-spirited and sarcastic, so I edited it to "never mind". Perhaps some of you saw it. Off the top of my head, the website was launched without the absolute bare-boned basics of the ability to email another player, being notified when there are log entry on your caches, the ability to use HTML on your cache pages, and the ability to post pictures on your cache page. Every other alternative Geocaching website on the planet offers these features, and probably all have since day one.

 

P.S., I know you get emailed for log entries now, and I'm pretty sure you can put links on your cache page. Still no pictures though.

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

You're both right. Groundspeak owns the listings but the geocacher owns the geocache and can cross list it freely.

 

I'm only disputing the "and they voluntarily listed them there" portion of the quoted post. Who owns what is something that I think is really up for debate- somewhere else.

 

Are you saying people are being forced to list their caches over there? :huh:

One of Castle Mischief's caches is listed over there. He didn't list it, some other person (or it might be a dog) listed it, and appears as the owner over there.

 

That aint right. He should be able to get it removed. Which one is it?

 

I'm willing to bet that he is aware of it.

 

There's quite a few cache listings like that there. A lot popped up when Garmin started giving away Chirps for listings. Also saw a lot of caches created by cachers from distant states. To the credit of a couple of regulars on their forums, some people did bring these problems up to Garmin.

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

You're both right. Groundspeak owns the listings but the geocacher owns the geocache and can cross list it freely.

 

I'm only disputing the "and they voluntarily listed them there" portion of the quoted post. Who owns what is something that I think is really up for debate- somewhere else.

 

Are you saying people are being forced to list their caches over there? :huh:

One of Castle Mischief's caches is listed over there. He didn't list it, some other person (or it might be a dog) listed it, and appears as the owner over there.

 

That aint right. He should be able to get it removed. Which one is it?

 

I'm willing to bet that he is aware of it.

 

No doubt. But I'd still like to know which one it is. Curiosity has me down to my last 2 lives now.

Share this post


Link to post

That aint right. He should be able to get it removed. Which one is it?

 

I'm willing to bet that he is aware of it.

 

I was made aware of it, yes.

 

Last I looked, it was the only cache listed on oc.com for like 25 miles in all directions. If somebody wants to go through all that trouble or if they want to log the same time on two different sites, then more power to them. I have no interest in getting it de-listed. (Unless of course I need it to enter some sweepstakes for a chance to win a prize, then I might become really interested. :wacko: )

 

EDIT: Too many nested quotes makes Jack a cross-eyed boy.

Edited by Castle Mischief

Share this post


Link to post

Nevermind, those are all scoutdog caches on both sites.

Edited by Avenois

Share this post


Link to post

No doubt. But I'd still like to know which one it is. Curiosity has me down to my last 2 lives now.

 

The cache is listed on this site, which I love even when I don't understand or agree with, here: Hoggly Woggly

Edited by Castle Mischief

Share this post


Link to post

No doubt. But I'd still like to know which one it is. Curiosity has me down to my last 2 lives now.

 

The cache is listed on this site, which I love even when I don't understand or agree with, here: Hoggly Woggly

 

Thanks. My sleuthing skills are a bit rusty. LOL

Share this post


Link to post

Last week I received email notices that two of my opencaching caches had been found. I met the cacher and I said that I look forward to seeing her logs for these caches on geocaching.com. She looked confused but I dismissed it. I later tried to find her profile. She has not profile on geocaching.com. She is strictly an opencaching customer.

 

I just talked about this recently, but it was in another thread. Garmin only talks about Opencaching.com in the literature packaged with their newest units. Aditionally, I have seen Garmin take out full page ads in Outside Magazine (700,000 monthly subscribers), and have heard, but not seen, that they have advertised in other outdoorsey magazines. I think it's quite possible someone can become an Opencacher without hearing about Geocaching.com.

 

Gotta hand it to them, I'll bet that never happened before 2011. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I had a look but the nearest cache to me is 24 miles away :(

 

However I did cross post a cache I had listed here and it was reviewed in 2 days - half the time it took here -now that is a unique selling point!

B)

 

So that cache had already passed through the Groundspeak review system?

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I had a look but the nearest cache to me is 24 miles away :(

 

However I did cross post a cache I had listed here and it was reviewed in 2 days - half the time it took here -now that is a unique selling point!

B)

 

So that cache had already passed through the Groundspeak review system?

 

:rolleyes:

Cache page shows it was placed on the 7/23 and published on 7/24.

 

10 finds on Geocaching.com and ZERO finds on OC.com. TheDonovans show they've never found an OC cache and 13 Geocaching.com caches.

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, their not using another site's listings. Groundspeak does not own them, the geocachers do - and they voluntarily listed them there.

 

How much are you willing to bet on that?

You're both right. Groundspeak owns the listings but the geocacher owns the geocache and can cross list it freely.

 

I think the whole cross listing thing is wrong. I haven't checked the OC site in a while. Just checked to see a whole bunch of new listings in my area. The description on one says, "Congrats to Don_J for

FTF!!!" HUH!, I haven't found any OC caches, or did I? I'm so confused. Of course, no one has logged the OC listing.

Share this post


Link to post
I think the whole cross listing thing is wrong. I haven't checked the OC site in a while. Just checked to see a whole bunch of new listings in my area. The description on one says, "Congrats to Don_J for

FTF!!!" HUH!, I haven't found any OC caches, or did I? I'm so confused. Of course, no one has logged the OC listing.

 

A cache is a cache, no matter where it's listed. If it's listed on ten different sites, it's still only one cache. So yeah, you can find a cache that's listed on oc.com by going after a cache that's listed on gc.com (or vice versa), because they're one and the same!

If you've ever found a letterbox hybrid on gc.com, chances are that at the same time you've also found a letterbox that's listed on a letterboxing site.

Edited by dfx

Share this post


Link to post
As far as your last point, what features are they missing? They have a fully functional site, a reviewer system (again not perfect..), etc, etc. They only thing they are missing is the huge following, which is why they do things like cross-listing and promotions. Again, what basics are they missing?

 

Fully functional? You can't even use HTML on a cache listing or post pictures...I'd hardly call that fully functional.

 

Hey things are really moving along. It took what, 7 months for notification of finds to be emailed to the cache owner. That should have been one of the features from day one.

 

This just in. Garmin has announced that new features and fixes are proceeding so quickly that they are moving the end of the beta phase forward 9 years to January 15th, 2027.

 

I just talked about this recently, but it was in another thread. Garmin only talks about Opencaching.com in the literature packaged with their newest units. Aditionally, I have seen Garmin take out full page ads in Outside Magazine (700,000 monthly subscribers), and have heard, but not seen, that they have advertised in other outdoorsey magazines. I think it's quite possible someone can become an Opencacher without hearing about Geocaching.com.

 

Gotta hand it to them, I'll bet that never happened before 2011. :lol:

 

As of a month ago they were still shipping units with a free membership to GC.com inside. Even one of their ads displayed a GC.com cache on the GPS unit's display :lol: .

 

I'm sure there are some people who only know about OC thanks to their ad campaign. But what will happen after they find a few cross listed caches that say "Geocaching.com" on the outside or inside and decided to take a look at this site. Think that when they see over a million caches here and a far more functional site they'll go back to OC?

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it could be useful, if enough GC.com caches are cross-listed on there to make it a fairly decent mirror site. If geocaching.com goes down for maintenance or whatnot, you could always pull caches from OC.com, go out and cache. If they're cross-lists, just log 'em on gc.com when it comes back up. If they're not, just forget about them.

 

Yeah, could come in handy in a pinch. But I've found all the crosslisted caches in my area already, anyway.

 

They need some serious purple crayons over there though.

crayon_purple_1.png

Edited by Sioneva

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure there are some people who only know about OC thanks to their ad campaign. But what will happen after they find a few cross listed caches that say "Geocaching.com" on the outside or inside and decided to take a look at this site. Think that when they see over a million caches here and a far more functional site they'll go back to OC?

 

I am not sure that it matters that much to garmin. The bottom line is whether the site is helping them to sell more handhelds and chirps. Not whether people eventually find their way to this site and use their garmin products here.

 

I suppose the good thing about it all is that I could do the three cross listed caches listed on the garmin site for my area (which I have long since done) and clean out the cache listings, and be the first to log them on that site, and be the number one open cacher in the county. The possibilities are enormous.

Share this post


Link to post

I was checking out the site, got a profile over there and I am not all that impressed buy what they have to offer after being here at Geocaching.com first. It dont matter to me, based off features, GC is way better by leaps and bounds, but the one thing that I have seen in the opencaching forums that they have going for them is a better code or something like that for virtual caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I just found out about Opencaching while checking out Garmin's website. It's not looking too bad at this point, but as everyone has mentioned their numbers are tiny compared to GS, so I expect to maintain my premium membership here for a while. However, the fact that they allow virtuals is a big plus in their favor, since GS has introduced Challenges and said that as far as virtuals go at gc.com, it ain't happening, no how, no way. That upset quite a few members, and I do think GS fumbled the ball this time. To continue with a football metaphor, GS is still way ahead in the score, but if they drop the ball enough times and the competition picks it up, that gap could close pretty fast.

Share this post


Link to post

I just found out about Opencaching while checking out Garmin's website. It's not looking too bad at this point, but as everyone has mentioned their numbers are tiny compared to GS, so I expect to maintain my premium membership here for a while. However, the fact that they allow virtuals is a big plus in their favor, since GS has introduced Challenges and said that as far as virtuals go at gc.com, it ain't happening, no how, no way. That upset quite a few members, and I do think GS fumbled the ball this time. To continue with a football metaphor, GS is still way ahead in the score, but if they drop the ball enough times and the competition picks it up, that gap could close pretty fast.

 

The thread that won't die. :lol: Yeah, yeah, they allow virtuals, but they have an "only where a physical cache can't be placed" clause, and good luck getting one published with the "peer reviewers" over there. :o There are at least 3 other North American-based alternative websites that allow full-blown old style virtuals, and have for years. Geez, I assume by not naming them, that doesn't mean I'm promoting them. Don't want to go to banned camp again. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I just found out about Opencaching while checking out Garmin's website. It's not looking too bad at this point, but as everyone has mentioned their numbers are tiny compared to GS, so I expect to maintain my premium membership here for a while. However, the fact that they allow virtuals is a big plus in their favor, since GS has introduced Challenges and said that as far as virtuals go at gc.com, it ain't happening, no how, no way. That upset quite a few members, and I do think GS fumbled the ball this time. To continue with a football metaphor, GS is still way ahead in the score, but if they drop the ball enough times and the competition picks it up, that gap could close pretty fast.

 

The thread that won't die. :lol: Yeah, yeah, they allow virtuals, but they have an "only where a physical cache can't be placed" clause, and good luck getting one published with the "peer reviewers" over there. :o There are at least 3 other North American-based alternative websites that allow full-blown old style virtuals, and have for years. Geez, I assume by not naming them, that doesn't mean I'm promoting them. Don't want to go to banned camp again. :)

I don't have trouble listing virtuals on that site. All of mine have been approved anyway. It is the only other site with listings in my area other than Waymarking, and I have listed some of my waymarks on the site as virtuals.

Share this post


Link to post

Closing bumped thread.

 

Please don't start new threads promoting alternative listing sites. Thank you.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...