Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
box2321

REQ: opt-out option for geocaching.com

Recommended Posts

I would like to delete my contributions to geocaching.com. I have deleted my logged visits. What remains are two caches I hid. I archived the caches (so no one else tries to find them - they are gone) but there is no way to delete the listings. I have requested my information be removed and recieved no reply. I tried just now to simply blank out the information in my caches and learned that now that they are archived they cannot be edited, even by me, without authorization from geocaching.com. Since they aren't responding to my e-mail, I am stuck.

 

I request the means to delete my contributions to geocaching.com. This could be a choice available to users via the Web or it could be an honored request by users via e-mail. It has the benefit to all users of removing data that the author no longer supports, thus freeing up server space and effort for active caches. It also has the benefit of showing users that the owners of geocaching.com can respect a person who wants to not be involved as much as they respect a person who does want to be involved. It also has the benefit of preventing a false impression of how many caches there really are and how many people are involved.

 

I would like to leave geocaching.com on a positive note. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
box2321 wrote:

It also has the benefit of showing users that the owners of geocaching.com can respect a person who wants to not be involved as much as they respect a person who does want to be involved.


Good point, but you'll learn soon enough that respect is not a two way street.

 

Don't be surprised if this exerpt from the Terms of Use agreement is thrown at you:

 

By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.

 

Personally, I believe that if you posted your information prior to the new Terms of Use agreement it should be exempt, but that brings up another issue, as no one at geocaching.com will tell us when the new agreement came into effect.

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is that by deleting the contributions YOU made to the site, you would also be deleting the contributions others made to the site as well.

 

Have you deleted the logs of the people that found your caches? If so, what was their reaction to this?

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Markwell wrote:

The problem is that by deleting the contributions YOU made to the site, you would also be deleting the contributions others made to the site as well.


Not necessarily. The description of the cache could be deleted but the logs could remain intact.

 

box2321 mentions nothing about deleting cache logs.

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by box2321:

I would like to leave geocaching.com on a positive note. Thank you!


 

I could understand being upset with Groundspeak, and I could even understand wanting to leave. I cannot, however, understand wanting to erase any evidence that you were ever here?

 

Personally, I'd be rather upset if I found a cache, made an exchange, and logged my visit only to find that it was simply deleted. I have a Bailey's can with everything I ever got from the caches I've found. I have a log sheet with the title of the cache, the date and time, and what I exchanged for each of those items. With the title of the cache, I always figured I could just "look it up".

 

I'm sorry your beef with gc.com is big enough to cause you to want to leave like that.

 

-=Jerry A. Goodson=- W5BFF aka hydrashok407

 

"Real peace is not just the absence of conflict, it's the presence of justice" - http://www.hydrashok.com

Share this post


Link to post

I'm for archiving but not deleting. Every now and then I like to look back at archived caches I found to see what happened. It would be a bad precident to delete the descrition so that logs that said "Great cache, man you sure know how to place them" are in response to a cache page that now says. "I'm deleting all my caches, taking my ball and going home."

 

The bottom line is that we are creating a legacy as we place and find caches. It's enough that the cache can be archived to remove it from the current list of avaialble caches. We need the history that each cache page contains.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Renegade Knight wrote:

We need the history that each cache page contains.


Is that a rule? I'd say it's up to the person who posted the log to decide whether or not they want to leave the log on the page. After all, they do own the copyright to the material.

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Renegade Knight wrote:

We need the history that each cache page contains.


Is that a rule? I'd say it's up to the person who posted the log to decide whether or not they want to leave the log on the page. After all, they do own the copyright to the material.

 

*****


 

If it's not a rule it should be. This is a good example of why geocaching.com owns the right to use what's submitted on the sight. To maintain the integrity of the history of caches. Another angle is archiving a cache becase it was discoved to have a problem of some type. That problem needs to be on file.

 

What is being proposed is every bit as bad as 'recycling' a cache page by deleting all the logs and writing a new description then re-listing the 'new' cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe I see the problem. I found a cache he hid at:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=958c8613-e35f-4951-a2bf-87547370dfb4

 

It appears to be a solicitation for phone cards. The cache dictates that you can only trade phone cards with a $10 or greater value on the card. I would certainly question his motives for dictating what cachers can leave and take, especially when the cache must have a cash value. I can understand a themed cache, but even then, there's no real dictation on what HAS to be left or taken.

 

Maybe he was wanting cachers to fund his phone calls to friend/relative?

 

I would probably find this cache for the log because it's there, but it sure makes me wonder how it got approved in the first place? I certainly would be signing the log T/L nothing.

 

-=Jerry A. Goodson=- W5BFF aka hydrashok407

 

"Real peace is not just the absence of conflict, it's the presence of justice" - http://www.hydrashok.com

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

Is that a rule? I'd say it's up to the person who posted the log to decide whether or not they want to leave the log on the page.


 

Exactly--up to the person who posted the log! I don't think that it should be up to anyone wanting to leave the site to arbitrarily delete logs because they get the idea to leave--no matter how justified.

 

quote:
After all, they do own the copyright to the material.

 

*****


 

You obviously haven't read the fine print regarding who owns submissions!

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

sigavatar.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Dave_W6DPS wrote:

I don't think that it should be up to anyone wanting to leave the site to arbitrarily delete logs because they get the idea to leave--no matter how justified.


box2321 didn't say that he/she wanted to delete any logs. Read the first post again -- it says "I tried just now to simply blank out the information in my caches...". Nothing there about deleting anyone's find logs.

 

quote:
Dave_W6DPS wrote:

You obviously haven't read the fine print regarding who owns submissions!


Actually, I have Dave, and the copyright belongs to the creator -- the rights to use it, however, are another story (see the 2nd post to this thread).

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

re: "We need history that each cache page contains."

 

quote:
Renegade Knight wrote:

If it's not a rule it should be.


You might think so, but I disagree.

 

BTW: Would that go for editing logs as well -- seems that editing cache logs is not maintaining the integrity of the cache either, but I see it happening all the time.

 

Either way (edited or deleted), geocaching.com still has the original material -- it's not really deleted -- it's just not being displayed.

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Dave_W6DPS:

 

quote:
After all, they do own the copyright to the material.

 

*****


 

You obviously haven't read the fine print regarding who owns submissions!

 

Dave_W6DPS


 

That's funny. Here's why: You obviously haven't read this 5 page thread on Terms of Use. I'd say, based on that - he's read the TOU (TOS) a few times.

 

Back to the topic:

 

I would be pi$$ed if my logs (finds, dnf's, or notes) were deleted. But then again I can imagine situations (and I'll admit the likely hood of them happening is very small, but real) where I would infact want all records to be erased. I hope that isn't to contradictory icon_frown.gif

 

I personally don't have a set in stone opinion on this - I can see reasons for and against both sides.

 

southdeltan

 

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

Share this post


Link to post

This is an interesting subject.

 

Suppose a person now becomes familiar with the TOU. He does not accept the document as written. He expresses his issues with the document and the community at large tells him in no uncertain terms, "Take your ball and leave."

 

So, this person is willing to do just that. He, however, wants to remove all his work from this site. Since he does not agree to the TOU, he wants to make sure that nothing is left to be used as described in the document he does not agree to.

 

He doesn't want to delete logs and foul up another cacher's finds, yet, he doesn't want a legacy with his name on it for he does not agree to the TOU.

 

What does he do?

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I tried this before...

 

It was with the IRS and no matter how hard I tried to have them erase all records of me from their database, I was unsuccessful.

 

For the record, I am against deleting it all. You can not just try and make it as if you never exisisted just because you no longer want to play. Sure you can pick up your ball and go home, but that doesn't remove the brusies you gave people after whacking them with the ball (assuming we are discussing dodge-ball, of course).

 

What is not mentioned in his original posts is whether he picked up his caches and removed them physically from their locations and not just left them there as Geo-litter.

 

Sorry to see you go, but don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Free your mind and the rest will follow action-smiley-076.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

What does he do?


Just go away?

 

Once a cache is submitted, it becomes the property of Groundspeak. Not the cache, itself, but the listing.

 

Another twist to this is, who do the logs belong to? If I submit a log, the cache hider has the ability to delete it (which I somewhat disagree with). However, I authored that log, so shouldn't it be mine? The logs and cache LISTINGS are the property of Groundspeak.

 

It's one thing to say "I'll never go back to geocaching.com", but it's another thing to say "I've never been there".

 

-=Jerry A. Goodson=- W5BFF aka hydrashok407

 

"Real peace is not just the absence of conflict, it's the presence of justice" - http://www.hydrashok.com

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by hydrashok407:

I believe I see the problem. I found a cache he hid at:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=958c8613-e35f-4951-a2bf-87547370dfb4


Not surprisingly, all but one did NOT leave a phone card but logged a TNLN. The one that did leave a phone card was told to remove it because it was not an "American" phone card...

 

Give me a break!

 

---------------------------------------------------

Free your mind and the rest will follow action-smiley-076.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Deleted

 

[This message was edited by NO OverbearingTO$ on September 08, 2003 at 03:59 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by TeamWSMF:

If I am not able to control what I post and GC.COM is the owner of my good works then what kind of community does this make GC.COM?

I can tell you this, no further caches or logs or descriptions or the like will be put up by teamwsmf under these Terms Of $ervice.


 

Has anything GC.com done impaired your ability to go Geocaching?? to impair your ability to log your finds or control your caches?

 

I don't see what the big friggin deal is. I am not interested in setting, changing or dealing with policies over who owns what or who controls what... I am here to geocache or discuss the hobby with other like-minded people.

 

If you take the time to read the TOS, TOU, IOU, FBI, BMA or anything in legalese, then you would not have a bank account, not have any credit cards nor a cell phone.

 

Am I getting my point across or am I just a raving lunatic.... I can't tell at this point! icon_mad.gif

 

---------------------------------------------------

Free your mind and the rest will follow action-smiley-076.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Doc-Dean wrote:

Has anything GC.com done impaired your ability to go Geocaching?? to impair your ability to log your finds or control your caches?


Is this a loaded question? There's lots of cachers, current and past, who I'm certain would have a great deal to say about this.

 

The issue here, however, is not the reasons *why* someone wants to remove their information -- it's that they want to and they can't.

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

If the person does not agree with GC.com's TOU, he can take his ball and go.

 

The question now is how does he take his ball? This is not the government we are talking about. This is a business. This business has set restrictions that some may not agree to.

 

How can those who do not agree to them leave and not have traces to their work?

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Share this post


Link to post

My question is, if you have a pen-pal on-line and send him e-mail messages regularly and then get bent out of shape about something, can you make him return and/or delete all those messages you freely sent him/her?

 

John

 

*******************************************************

Human beings can always be counted on to assert with vigor their God-given right to be stupid.--Dean Koontz

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps ownership of the caches could be transferred to an account named "Geocache Graveyard" or something like that?

 

That way, the cache page would no longer be associated with the departed user's account, but the cache description would be preserved for the benefit of those who logged the cache. Some of us like to go back and review our finds. I have felt the impact of a "suicide geocacher" who changed the descriptions on two of my cache finds. He deleted all the text and moved the coordinates to the Arctic Ocean or something. I like the change so that archived caches can't be edited this way. The listing should stay because finders have a stake in that page, too.

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Next time, instead of getting married, I think I'll just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders):

My question is, if you have a pen-pal on-line and send him e-mail messages regularly and then get bent out of shape about something, can you make him return and/or delete all those messages you freely sent him/her?


 

No, you cannot.

 

That is not the issue. That friend has not imposed a TOU agreement upon you. If he did, he has no standing since it is not a business relationship.

 

This is a really interesting subject for me. So frequently in these fora when a counter-GC.com opinion is taken, the poster is riddled with all sorts of take your ball and leave comments. Now, when someone poses just how does one take his ball, no one can offer a solution.

 

This shouldn't be a difficult problem. How can one take his work with him since he doesn't agree with the TOU? From what I am reading, the only way to do so is to delete logs. Surely there is a better approach.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Share this post


Link to post

I dunno, the cache description is esentially a published text, much like a short story. If you published a book, and then had a diagreement with the publisher, would it be reasonable to expect them to track down every copy sold and destroy it?

There is no possible way to remove every trace of a cache, even if GC.com wanted to. It's in search engine caches. It's in Pocket Queries. It's stored in PDAs. It's printed out in people's notebooks, in their backpacks, and the back seat of their car.

The other issue is, when you hid a cache, you made a contribution to the rest of the geocaching community. You GAVE them the cache for them to find and log. DO you think if one day you decided you no longer liked the Red Cross, they would give you back all of your blood you've donated? Do you think if you switched political parties, your former party would refund any contributions you've made in the past?

No. You dont want to be a part of geocaching, thats fine, don't let the door hit you in the @ss. But you can't expect to get the record of what you gave us in the past deleted.

 

"This is gc.com, love it or leave it "

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

If you published a book, and then had a diagreement with the publisher, would it be reasonable to expect them to track down every copy sold and destroy it?


No. It would be reasonable for the publisher to cease distributing my work when my contract ends. Archiving caches does not stop the distribution.

 

quote:
The other issue is, when you hid a cache, you made a contribution to the rest of the geocaching community.

The cache could still very much be available to the entire geocaching community. It just won't be listed through one particular web site. If I list it on my own site and keep the cache active, how has the geocaching community suffered? Unless, of course, geocaching is GC.com. I don't think you want to go down that road. icon_wink.gif

 

quote:
You dont want to be a part of geocaching, thats fine, don't let the door hit you in the @ss. But you can't expect to get the record of what you gave us in the past deleted.

In my scenario, no one was leaving geocaching. I postulated that one might leave the site.

 

What the trend seems to be now, if I have this correctly spotted, is not take your ball and leave, but rather, leave. That sentiment is going to give reason for some to delete logs.

 

Rather than this be a typical thread where tempers rise, how about this imaginative and bright community come up to a reasonable solution to this issue?

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Mopar wrote:

If you published a book, and then had a diagreement with the publisher, would it be reasonable to expect them to track down every copy sold and destroy it?


It's not the same thing. The web is essentially a growing model where information comes and goes. It's the nature of it.

 

Getting your blood back? Getting back political contributions? C'mon Mopar, those are pretty weak arguments. You can do better.

 

Search engine caches don't last forever. And yes, geocaching.com *could* remove every trace of you being on this site if they really wanted to.

 

It is possible to delete the cache descriptions and keep the logs in place so that no one loses any cache count information. I do realize however, that it might not make it very good for going back and reading about old caching trips if the description was gone. Bottom line though, is why can't someone remove archived cache descriptions? After all, if I know this now, I could delete my cache descriptions before requesting the cache to be archived, what would happen, would geocaching.com resurrect my cache descriptions?

 

Regardless of the answer to the above questions, I don't think it would be a good thing for a disgruntled person to delete anyone's cache logs. It's just not necessary.

 

There must be a solution that can make everyone happy but the main focus must be on the person who owns the information, i.e., the cache description owner and/or the cacher who wrote the logs.

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

...You might think so, but I disagree.

 

BTW: Would that go for editing logs as well -- seems that editing cache logs is not maintaining the integrity of the cache either, but I see it happening all the time....


 

Yeah I know you disagree! Believe it or not I was wondering about the editing of logs myself. To edit them to correct spelling, or tell a better story etc. makes sence. To edit them to say, "I'm taking my logs and going home" is a bit much.

 

I'm not sure where the balance would be. (I had to edit this response to get the quote to work right...)

Share this post


Link to post

RK, we have a cacher in our neighbourhood who quite often deletes people's logs for the pettiest of reasons. I know that it very much infuriates a large number of people -- but that's a discussion better suited for it's own thread.

 

I can see instances where someone could get upset enough, or want to make a point, and delete their logs. Heck, at one time, there was a lot of talk locally about the importance of find counts, I nearly went back and changed all of my found logs to notes just to make a statement that find counts aren't important to me -- even that would have changed the cache history. I've also seen instances where someone deleted their logs only from a fellows caches after having a disagreement with that person (ironically, they were from the caches of that same person who is known for deleting logs).

 

The point however, is that if someone *wants* to remove their information, who are you or I to deny them?

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

Good Grief! It's a GAME! icon_rolleyes.gif

 

If you don't like it, don't play.

 

However, you don't have the right to change the rules. icon_rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Too bad he's calling it quits. I would have nominated one of his caches as Worst Theme Cache Ever. A cache where the rules (four paragraphs of them) are so restrictive and badly thought out, that not a single one of the eleven cache finders traded anything. And placing it on private property (with posted No Trespassing signs) is icing on the cake.

 

Perhaps that's a good reason to keep his caches around. Like the Web Pages That Suck website, which teaches how to design good web pages by critiquing very bad ones, this too could prove to be instructional to those on the verge of making some bad cache design choices.

 

3608_2800.gif

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

Share this post


Link to post

The argument I am hearing is that GC.COM has the right to everything you write here you have no rights to what you create here.

 

If folks want to subject themselves to that level of servitude then cool, have at it. Have fun being exploited. Meanwhile there are several GEOCACHING sites ont he web where folks are still into playing the game of Geocaching and not playing GC.COM's game.

 

bahhh bahhh little sheeple.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but has anyone tried editing the cache description BEFORE archiving the cache? Maybe the problem here is that the OP just did it in the wrong order, and we're all merrily chasing a tempest around a teapot.

 

pirate.cgi.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by NO OverbearingTO$:

If folks want to subject themselves to that level of servitude then cool, have at it. Have fun being exploited. Meanwhile there are several GEOCACHING sites ont he web where folks are still into playing the game of Geocaching and not playing GC.COM's game.


I don't see how not changing history is servitude? I don't see how not deleting something this user created is exploitation?

 

GC.com didn't force this guy to post what he posted. GC.com is serving me (the cache community collectively) by keeping the cache listing in tact. I'm sorry the guy regrets posting here in the first place, but it's something he gave to the community, not gc.com.

 

I'm willing to play the gc game under the guidelines that gc.com has established based on the needs of the gc community. I'm glad that this guy isn't the one making the rules. If he were, geocaching would cost me more than I'm willing to spend on this game.

 

-=Jerry A. Goodson=- W5BFF aka hydrashok407

 

"Real peace is not just the absence of conflict, it's the presence of justice" - http://www.hydrashok.com

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy wrote:

Okay, maybe I'm missing something here, but has anyone tried editing the cache description BEFORE archiving the cache? Maybe the problem here is that the OP just did it in the wrong order, and we're all merrily chasing a tempest around a teapot.


As I mentioned above this would be possible. The problem is that the cache *was* archived and now it can't be changed.

 

Prime Suspect, I can see your point but whether box2321's caches are of a high standard of quality or not, doesn't matter. The issue here is that he's unable to edit his cache description page now.

 

Now the real question is this: box2321 says that he tried contacting an admin but is not getting a reply.

 

Perhaps an admin could let us know why this is?

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

Suppose a person now becomes familiar with the TOU. He does not accept the document as written.

 

He doesn't want to delete logs and foul up another cacher's finds, yet, he doesn't want a legacy with his name on it for he does not agree to the TOU.

 

What does he do?


 

This sounds like a good lesson to read the TOUs before posting anything. If I sign a contract without reading and understanding it, I have no legal recourse to nulify that contract if I later decide, after reading it, that I don't agree with the terms of said contract.

 

We don't stop playing because we grow old...we grow old because we stop playing!

Share this post


Link to post

4x4van, but what happens when the TOU changes and is not what you agreed to when you first signed up to use the site? As is the case of late.

 

In the case of what Frolickin states, your views would be correct. But, what the topic is about here, is that the user cannot go back and alter his cache description after the cache has been archived (which has nothing to do with the TOU).

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

In the case of what Frolickin states, your views would be correct.


 

Errr . . . I don't think so. Perhaps I was not clear.

 

My hypothetical is very much to the point. If one has posted caches, logs, photos, etc. for some time. Then the TOU changes, what recourse has he?

 

Some of his caches have been archived, which is what this thread began about. Others may not have been. Yet, there should still be a way for that cacher to get off GC.com, all his work (logs, photos, posts, etc.) removed, and not upset those who logged his caches (whether now archived or not).

 

The way it stands presently is that for a person to remove himself, he needs to delete logs of others. That doesn't even truly remove him as his name remains intact on the cache, although nothing is left.

 

Whether one thinks it is childish to leave or not, plenty do. Rather than the status quo which affects others logs, I believe there is a solution to be found.

 

Lep proposed something that could work. It needs to be flushed out. Another possibility is to set up a dummy account for which caches could be transferred to. That keeps the logs in place, removes the leaving cacher's name, and keeps it all open for viewing for archival purposes (obviously, the caches would be archived as far as GC.com is concerned).

 

Perhaps there is an even better solution. I am not up for debating the merits of whether one should leave or not. Reality states that people do leave. There should be a mechanism for which make it better than it is now.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Share this post


Link to post

Fro, thanks for acknowledging my idea of a neutral account to which caches can be transferred when a geocacher "retires." While I have no problem with the Terms of Use here on the site, I am respectful of the opinions of those who do, and who are willing to discuss the issue constructively, such as yourself. I offer my suggestion in the spirit of compromise. Let's test it: if the original poster to this thread is still reading, would he be satisfied if the caches remained and the logs remained, but his name was no longer associated with the caches?

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Next time, instead of getting married, I think I'll just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by The Leprechauns:

Fro, thanks for acknowledging my idea of a neutral account to which caches can be transferred when a geocacher "retires."


Anytime! You know, I misunderstood your proposal when I first read it. I was thinking a place, much like the TB Graveyard, that these caches would be placed in. That doesn't make nearly the sense that the dummy caching account does.

 

If the original poster does not respond, perhaps someone else will step up to the plate. It seems like it accomplishes everything that needs to be done. It doesn't require too much on the part of Groundspeak either. What would be good, eventually, is to have that automated so an approver does not have to re-assign each cache to the dummy account. I guess there are merits for doing it manually, but if someone with 100+ hides were to want to leave, just think as to how slow the cache approvals will be that week! icon_smile.gif

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Share this post


Link to post

The TOS found on GC.com is very similar to ones you find all over the internet.

 

Read the fine print and you will see that any web page created on Geocities becomes the property of Geocities. They are not the only one to have this in their TOS.

 

Same with letters to the editor for your local paper. What you write becomes theirs. You can request that they remove your letter from their archives but all you will get is a letter from the legal dept telling you to get lost.

 

I have had caches turned down. I don't hold any grudges about it. I move on and find a better place for the cache. Why some guys get so worked up about it is beyond me.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never been lost. Been awful confused for a few days, but never lost!

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

Share this post


Link to post

Now you also have 40 (oops, make that 41) replies to a posting you made on the forum. How are you going to delete your posting and the responses ???

 

How about this for an idea -- get a life.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Bilder wrote:

Why some guys get so worked up about it is beyond me.


Why some guys think that just because something is done in other places makes it OK, is beyond me.

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
hikemeister wrote:

How about this for an idea -- get a life.


Wow. How's that for an attitude. If it bothers you, don't read through it.

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

There are many places on the net that do NOT demand you give away the right to your works. Those that do are usualy frequented those too dim to read the TOU or who are of the servants mindset.

 

GC.com has CHANGED its Terms OF Use over the years. For those who have not been around long enough to remeber things were not always as they are.

 

Now That GC.COM has decided to become the sole rights holder to anything I write am I stuck having to accept it with no recourse? What If i do not want my works controld by gc.com? Wheres the exit clause?

 

From what I am hearing the koolaid drinkers say I should just shut up and do what I am told and be happy.

 

That sounds like a Bend Over deal. If thats what your into, good for you. It is, though, something many folks here did not sign up for and will not hang around for.

 

There are already places on the net to do GEOCACHING without having to deal with the cult of GC.COM These places are not charging a dime and are offering up thier data for all to use. Most are localized so check you area for them.

 

All of them I have come across also do not DEMAND that you hand over total rights to your own good works to some central company. Hey, imagine that, I can be in control of my own works.

 

So GC.COM becomes the AOL of Geocaching, cool. There is always a need for a place where people can be spoon feed information and told to follow the rules of the powers that be.

 

For those who do not need a mommy or daddy figure to lord over them or to "protect" them, there is the rest of the net.

 

I hope to see some of you there, for the others, drink deep the koolaid of gc.com and smile while you are getting that warm bit of luving as you bend to the house rules. wheeeeee

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
NO OverbearingTO$ wrote:

From what I am hearing the koolaid drinkers say I should just shut up and do what I am told and be happy.


Exactly. Good point. It's amazing how many people have the attitude that if it's written somewhere else, it must be OK. They are the ones that don't think for themselves.

 

hikemeister -- if that's your idea of good advice, you're way off base man. I am not amused.

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by NO OverbearingTO$:

... for the others, drink deep the koolaid of gc.com and smile while you are getting that warm bit of luving as you bend to the house rules. wheeeeee


Thanks very much for your comments. I had been looking for a new signature tagline for quite awhile!

 

--------------------

frog.gif Signal says, "Drink the Kool-Aid!" frog.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Exactly. Good point. It's amazing how many people have the attitude that if it's written somewhere else, it must be OK. They are the ones that don't think for themselves.

 

I do think for myself. I also actually read the TOS for every web site I frequent. Therefore I am informed that my writings will be kept as part of the record even after I have parted ways.

 

You seem to be confusing free thinking with the inability to read. The guys cache was placed in June of this year. The TOS is now what is was in June. He is complianing about his lack of reading the fine print. I have no sympathy in that case. Had it been an older cache then he may have a gripe.

 

I submit caches here with the full knowlege that they will remian in one form or another till GC.com decicdes to get rid of it. I can handle that. If you cannot, then you dont have to submit caches here.

 

Easy enough to understand.

 

I am done now. I think I will go have some kool-aid. icon_biggrin.gif

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never been lost. Been awful confused for a few days, but never lost!

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Bilder wrote:

The TOS is now what is was in June.


Really? How do you know that? I have no way of knowing that. And no one from this site has acknowledged anything so far about when the new TOU were introduced.

 

*****

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...