Jump to content

Disappointed in Groundspeak


Recommended Posts

People are telling you that it bothers them, and you are, essentially, telling them, "no, it doesn't".

Actually, that's kinda not what he's doing. He's taking the tack that if you friend someone on FB, you get their crap and whatever they send out. If you don't want it, use the mechanisms to block it.

 

I don't think I've ever seen him say "this doesn't bother you," but if you could quote a spot where he said so I'll gladly retract my point.

 

 

 

Do I need to define the word "essentially" for you?

Link to comment

If you want to get technical (instead of using a user-editable document), doesn't the CAN-SPAM act say that to be considered spam the messages "must be sent to a unique electronic mail address?" I don't think posting to a Facebook account falls under that.

Your definition of spam is obviously not the same as how many others define it, but that does not make them wrong. Spam did indeed start out as commercial emails, but many other things are considered spam by most today. People are telling you that it bothers them, and you are, essentially, telling them, "no, it doesn't".

 

I'm not sure that spam started out as commercial email, or more accurately, unsolicited commercial email (or UCE). I think I first heard the term from participating in Usenet groups. As it turns out, Usenet Groups actually attempted to quantify spam and a formula known as the Breidbart Spam Index was created. It measured things like the number of nearly identical messages, how many copies of the message were sent, and a variety of other indicators. It put those numbers into a formula to create a "spam index" which could be used by usenet administrators to auto-cancel articles. As it also turns out, the creator of the Breidbart Index (Seth Breidbart) was one of the regular participants in a usenet group I was active in, and I've met him on several occasions (including in my home). What I liked, about the BI was that it took a much more pro-active approach to blocking spam by "canceling" articles at the server so that they didn't propogate. Unfortunately, what we usually see today is a reactive approach. Instead of blocking spam at it's source it's allowed to propagate and hidden or deleted once it's sent. That sort of reactive approach is what's responsible for billions of dollars in lost productivity dealing with Virus, Malware, etc. Instead of going after those that create these intrusive pieces of code with a vengence, we just pay big bucks to install anti-virus, anti-malware software to deal with it *after* it's reached our systems.

Link to comment

If you want to get technical (instead of using a user-editable document), doesn't the CAN-SPAM act say that to be considered spam the messages "must be sent to a unique electronic mail address?" I don't think posting to a Facebook account falls under that.

Your definition of spam is obviously not the same as how many others define it, but that does not make them wrong. Spam did indeed start out as commercial emails, but many other things are considered spam by most today. People are telling you that it bothers them, and you are, essentially, telling them, "no, it doesn't".

 

No, IndyJones1023 is telling them "if it bothers you, there is a mechanism within facebook to remove it from your newsfeed, IF it is posted through an app." Posting a status update through an app gives the receiver *more* control over what they see, and what they don't. If they hide the app, they no longer see any of the posts, therefore no more "spam". (Have I mentioned how easy it is to hide an app on facebook? Because if I haven't, it only takes 2 clicks. Easy peasy. B) )

Link to comment
Spam is when a topic on the Groundspeak forum is sidetrackes into a meaningless debate about what some irrelevant term means.

Actually, it's quite relevant because one of the problems with Indy's idea (according to the dissenters) is that it would generate "spam."

No the definition of spam is irrelevant to the issue being discussed. Both sides agree that Facebook has the potential to generate a lot of clutter (or unwanted content) when a friend choses to share everything they are doing. The issue is whether Facebook provides sufficient controls to keep the clutter from overwhelming you and what effect the clutter from geocaching might have (both on the Facebook user and on geocaching in general). But the topic has degenerated into the definition of spam and now even into whether discussing the definition of spam is even on topic, so I am outta here.

Link to comment
Yup. I can tell that you think that.

And I can tell that you've made an assertion but can't prove it.

This is fun!

One of these days, you may come to realize that I post opinions here, but that I am not one that comes here to endlessly debate most issues. I don't enjoy debate. We have some master debators here... if you like debate, they will gladly take you up on it.
Link to comment
One of these days, you may come to realize that I post opinions here, but that I am not one that comes here to endlessly debate most issues. I don't enjoy debate. We have some master debators here... if you like debate, they will gladly take you up on it.

You made an assertion about someone.

I asked you to back it up.

You said it was "essentially" the same thing.

I said it wasn't, and then asked you to back it up.

You shift to debating.

 

Still doesn't back up what you said, though, so I'll just assume you were mistaken.

 

 

Link to comment
One of these days, you may come to realize that I post opinions here, but that I am not one that comes here to endlessly debate most issues. I don't enjoy debate. We have some master debators here... if you like debate, they will gladly take you up on it.

You made an assertion about someone.

I asked you to back it up.

You said it was "essentially" the same thing.

I said it wasn't, and then asked you to back it up.

You shift to debating.

 

Still doesn't back up what you said, though, so I'll just assume you were mistaken.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Link to comment
One of these days, you may come to realize that I post opinions here, but that I am not one that comes here to endlessly debate most issues. I don't enjoy debate. We have some master debators here... if you like debate, they will gladly take you up on it.

You made an assertion about someone.

I asked you to back it up.

You said it was "essentially" the same thing.

I said it wasn't, and then asked you to back it up.

You shift to debating.

 

Still doesn't back up what you said, though, so I'll just assume you were mistaken.

 

Assume away. I wasn't necessarily trying to convince you of anything.
Link to comment

The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.

How do you explain those bajillions of people who play farmville or mafia wars or the tons of other similar games. Those people obviously welcome those related messages. Just because others do not does not make the messages spam.

Link to comment

Two things.

 

1. There are about 25 million iPads sold in the world. Now this may seem like a lot, but if you think about it there needs to be a demand in order to make an actual app for the iPad. Nowadays almost everyone has a smartphone so that is why they have apps for both the iPhone and the Android phones. The demand is there for the phones, but not tablets. . . . yet. With the iPad it is different because not everyone HAS one.

 

2. If you are hungering for Facebook integration why not just tell all your friends about it on there? Just post on your Wall, "I like Geocaching". Those that are intrigued will probably ask you about it and those that don't, oh well. Or, even better yet, why don't you take some of your friends on a geocaching trip? They will know how much you enjoy it and might even want to go on more expeditions with you.

 

That's my two cents.

Link to comment
Assume away. I wasn't necessarily trying to convince you of anything.

Nah, you were just making random statements about people's state of mind with no evidence to back it up, which is so much better.

 

Good news, though. There's no debate on that, so you're safe.

Are you always this charming?
Link to comment

The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.

How do you explain those bajillions of people who play farmville or mafia wars or the tons of other similar games. Those people obviously welcome those related messages. Just because others do not does not make the messages spam.

Um, yes it does. Unwanted (read: unsolicited) messages like that are spam, even when sent to you by someone you would otherwise like to hear from.

Link to comment

The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.

How do you explain those bajillions of people who play farmville or mafia wars or the tons of other similar games. Those people obviously welcome those related messages. Just because others do not does not make the messages spam.

 

I disagree. Those that enjoy those those games might not define the messages as spam but that doesn't give them the right to define what spam means for those that don't want to play those silly games.

 

Here's how I see it. The OP is basically asking Groundspeak to allocate resources to implement a feature which some (many) here have characterized as a means to produce spam. Proponents of the features don't consider feel they get some benefit from the feature and basically claim "if you don't like it, you can block it". I guess since those that want the feature only see the benefit to themselves and don't consider the fact that they're adding a burden (even if it's only 2 clicks....) to those that don't want to use the feature.

Link to comment
Proponents of the features don't consider feel they get some benefit from the feature and basically claim "if you don't like it, you can block it". I guess since those that want the feature only see the benefit to themselves and don't consider the fact that they're adding a burden (even if it's only 2 clicks....) to those that don't want to use the feature.

Not exactly. Proponents say it's a feature you don't have to use on GC.com if you don't want to (which you don't) or the app (which you wouldn't), and on FB then you could block it if someone you know is using it to "spam" you. There is no "burden" to the average GC user, just like there's no "burden" (not even a single click) to there being Twitter integration that I don't use.

 

Just wanted to make sure we had our stories straight.

 

 

Link to comment

The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.

How do you explain those bajillions of people who play farmville or mafia wars or the tons of other similar games. Those people obviously welcome those related messages. Just because others do not does not make the messages spam.

 

I disagree. Those that enjoy those those games might not define the messages as spam but that doesn't give them the right to define what spam means for those that don't want to play those silly games.

 

Here's how I see it. The OP is basically asking Groundspeak to allocate resources to implement a feature which some (many) here have characterized as a means to produce spam. Proponents of the features don't consider feel they get some benefit from the feature and basically claim "if you don't like it, you can block it". I guess since those that want the feature only see the benefit to themselves and don't consider the fact that they're adding a burden (even if it's only 2 clicks....) to those that don't want to use the feature.

 

...and the people against it are basically saying "I don't want it, therefore you shouldn't have access to it either, even if you think it will benefit you." As to the allocation of resources, that's for gc.com to decide if it is worth implementing or not. At the moment, it doesn't seem like there is enough support to do so. That may change in the future. Seems to me that it's worthwhile to discuss what possible implementation will help the most and burden the least, just in case somebody with the power to implement change actually reads this. (We can dream, right? :) )

 

And I agree with Toz, the definition of spam is irrelevant to this thread.

Link to comment
...there needs to be a demand in order to make an actual app for the iPad.

Just to clarify; there is, already, a geocaching app for the iPad. It works great. The OP is just pouting because Groundspeak won't invest the resources to create another app, to replace the one that works perfectly. He would also like to see a Facebook integration with either the current app, (that works perfectly on the iPad), or his hypothetical replacement app.

 

Introduce my own personal bias here:

If Groundspeak happens to find a buttload of cash laying around, I hope they invest it in other, more necessary upgrades to the site, rather than building a replacement for an app that works perfectly.

 

If they opt to do an upgrade to the app that has some sort of Facebook integration, it wouldn't bother me. There are many aspects of the current app which I never utilize. Adding one more would not ruin my day. As for the spam such an app would generate? Yes, it would be annoying, but I can take simple steps to make it less so.

Link to comment
Just to clarify; there is, already, a geocaching app for the iPad. It works great. The OP is just pouting because Groundspeak won't invest the resources to create another app, to replace the one that works perfectly. He would also like to see a Facebook integration with either the current app, (that works perfectly on the iPad), or his hypothetical replacement app.

 

That's not what I would call clarifying the situation. You're biasing your description to make me look bad. There is currently an iPhone app that runs on an iPad. Not perfectly. It's not native. It's not designed for an iPad. The fonts are blurry due to double sizing. It has no landscape mode. And obviously it can't take advantage of the greater real estate on the iPad. I'm not pouting about it. I was stating an opinion about not renewing my membership here until Groundspeak catches up with the times. I doubt I'm the only person in the world who wants to use an iPad to geocache. So please stop trying to denigrate me and alter the perceptions of the people playing along at home.

Link to comment

Speaking of being the only person in the world who wants to geocache on an iPad - don't you think it would open up geocaching to classrooms to be able to have a teacher use an iPad to show a class what's on the app screen? That would be cool.

Now you're opening a whole new can of worms. Do we really want school kids learning how to find our caches? Also, I would assume they arleady can project their monitors or have large screen monitors for their computers, so if they do want to teach geocaching (cringe!) they can do it with their computer. No iPad needed.

Link to comment

Speaking of being the only person in the world who wants to geocache on an iPad - don't you think it would open up geocaching to classrooms to be able to have a teacher use an iPad to show a class what's on the app screen? That would be cool.

Now you're opening a whole new can of worms. Do we really want school kids learning how to find our caches? Also, I would assume they arleady can project their monitors or have large screen monitors for their computers, so if they do want to teach geocaching (cringe!) they can do it with their computer. No iPad needed.

Whoa. Text doesn't convey sarcasm very well. Are you really suggesting to not open up geocaching to kids? I have fond memories of bike rides with my sons to go find caches. What's the harm in introducing people to the hobby?

 

And yes, some aspects of cacheing could be "taught" on a large screen in a classroom, but I was obviously talking about out in the field. But you had to know that, right? I mean, common sense and all.

Link to comment

Speaking of being the only person in the world who wants to geocache on an iPad - don't you think it would open up geocaching to classrooms to be able to have a teacher use an iPad to show a class what's on the app screen? That would be cool.

Now you're opening a whole new can of worms. Do we really want school kids learning how to find our caches? Also, I would assume they arleady can project their monitors or have large screen monitors for their computers, so if they do want to teach geocaching (cringe!) they can do it with their computer. No iPad needed.

Whoa. Text doesn't convey sarcasm very well. Are you really suggesting to not open up geocaching to kids? I have fond memories of bike rides with my sons to go find caches. What's the harm in introducing people to the hobby?

 

And yes, some aspects of cacheing could be "taught" on a large screen in a classroom, but I was obviously talking about out in the field. But you had to know that, right? I mean, common sense and all.

 

Those that want to learn about it will learn about it. To take a classroom of kids and teach them all about geocaching is asking for major muggle, TB, and geocoin problems. It is a completely different thing when a parent takes their kids caching with them.

Link to comment
You're biasing your description to make me look bad.

I don't think you need my help for that. You are doing a great job all on your own. Not sure where you're getting your "blurry fonts" theory, as mine is crystal clear. As for the inability to swap from landscape mode to portrait mode, has that ever been an issue for folks caching on an iPhone? Perusing the forums for that device doesn't reveal any blatantly obvious complaints, but I suppose some folks could be grumbling... somewhere... maybe. Perhaps they'll fix that "deficiency" in an update to the app? As for the extra real estate, I'm not sure what more you want the app to do. This is, after all, a pretty simple game, at its core. Bring up a cache page, read it, decide if you want to hunt it and hit "Go". Sure, they could busy up the screen with irrelevant stuff, just to pacify those few folks who want more bells and whistles, but would that really help the average user?

 

There are other things Groundspeak could invest in.

 

Wasting money on a perfect app would be bad financial management.

Link to comment

What is so funny about this is that Groundspeak developers aren't going to change their plans one bit based on what goes on in this thread. *Maybe* a thread in the Feedback site might stir them up if it got enough votes, but they sure as heck aren't basing any decisions on what we write here.

Link to comment
Proponents of the features don't consider feel they get some benefit from the feature and basically claim "if you don't like it, you can block it". I guess since those that want the feature only see the benefit to themselves and don't consider the fact that they're adding a burden (even if it's only 2 clicks....) to those that don't want to use the feature.

Not exactly. Proponents say it's a feature you don't have to use on GC.com if you don't want to (which you don't) or the app (which you wouldn't), and on FB then you could block it if someone you know is using it to "spam" you. There is no "burden" to the average GC user, just like there's no "burden" (not even a single click) to there being Twitter integration that I don't use.

 

Just wanted to make sure we had our stories straight.

 

I think you're missing the point. Note the bolded portion above. Forgetting about the feature that the OP is suggesting for a moment. Suppose "Post a picture of your cat" app is created that integrates with facebook, and a dozen of my friends on facebook think it's the coolest thing ever, and then I get a bunch of messages with pictures of cats in my feed. In order to avoid getting more pictures of cats I have to go to a page and specifically block that app from sending me content. Maybe it only takes a click or to but it's an action that I have to take to block content. And it's not just me. Based on the responses in this thread, the integration of FB with the geocaching app doesn't seem to be something that a vast majority of those participating in the thread want to see. Multiply the action necessary to block that app by the number of FB using geocachers that don't want to see every log from their geocaching friends and the burden starts to become significant. If GS doesn't create the feature the burden of using the functionality shifts to those that want to be able to share the find logs with facebook friends through some other means.

Link to comment

Speaking of being the only person in the world who wants to geocache on an iPad - don't you think it would open up geocaching to classrooms to be able to have a teacher use an iPad to show a class what's on the app screen? That would be cool.

Now you're opening a whole new can of worms. Do we really want school kids learning how to find our caches? Also, I would assume they arleady can project their monitors or have large screen monitors for their computers, so if they do want to teach geocaching (cringe!) they can do it with their computer. No iPad needed.

 

For the record, I agree with you--I'm not really keen on teachers teaching geocaching in school. But wasn't that one of the arguments against having a facebook like button on cache pages? That having the button causes schools to block access to teachers trying to use the website in the classroom? :unsure:

Link to comment

Speaking of being the only person in the world who wants to geocache on an iPad - don't you think it would open up geocaching to classrooms to be able to have a teacher use an iPad to show a class what's on the app screen? That would be cool.

Now you're opening a whole new can of worms. Do we really want school kids learning how to find our caches? Also, I would assume they arleady can project their monitors or have large screen monitors for their computers, so if they do want to teach geocaching (cringe!) they can do it with their computer. No iPad needed.

 

For the record, I agree with you--I'm not really keen on teachers teaching geocaching in school. But wasn't that one of the arguments against having a facebook like button on cache pages? That having the button causes schools to block access to teachers trying to use the website in the classroom? :unsure:

 

Yes, that was one of the arguments about linking to Facebook using that method.

Link to comment

Speaking of being the only person in the world who wants to geocache on an iPad - don't you think it would open up geocaching to classrooms to be able to have a teacher use an iPad to show a class what's on the app screen? That would be cool.

Yes because schools and teachers can afford iPads. :rolleyes:

 

If I was to teach kids about Geocaching I could give them the basics with no tech needed. If I had a projector then I would show them the site and how to use the site. Then we would learn how to use a GPS and then go out and find caches. In fact I will be doing that very thing next Thursday. But if anyone wants to buy me an iPad I will gladly accept.

Link to comment
Where is that dang *YAWN* emoticon?
sennuies.gif

 

And_self_conscious_angst_2_Things_I_Stumbled_Upon_Part_2-s400x409-122180.gif

 

But seriously..while I personally detest Facebook and some of the other "newer" (well, not all that new any more) technologies... companies like Groundspeak have to take them seriously or risk getting left behind. As much as I hate to admit it... the day of the PC is fading and the day of the smartphone, and all that encompasses, is arriving. All the major computer companies are either highly involved in it, or rushing to catch up.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

Speaking of being the only person in the world who wants to geocache on an iPad - don't you think it would open up geocaching to classrooms to be able to have a teacher use an iPad to show a class what's on the app screen? That would be cool.

 

why would you teach anyone, especially kids, geocaching on a device that is not meant for geocaching?

 

would you appreciate your kid coming home demanding a darn iPad because the teacher had one?

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

ROFLMAO......I'm sorry, but you are killing me!

 

Frankly, Facebook integration seems rather immaterial at your level of usage...it isn't exactly a lifechanger.
Geocaching itself is rather immaterial. Doesn't mean we can't suggest improvements.
Okay. How does this improve Geocaching?
All these people saying Facebook integration is harmful are just speculating. It's their opinion. Whereas I think implementing newer features is an improvement.
An improvement to Geocaching how? Explain to me how being able to tell all my FB friends that I found cache X makes caching better for me. Explain how it makes caching better for you. How is this an improvement to Geocaching.

So far you've only been able to express how this is an improvement to your social networking- by shortening the steps required to post on Facebook that you have, indeedy-doodley, found another cache.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Are my posts being deleted, or are people forgetting what they read? As I've said previously, it can be a way to meet up with friends who are also caching, it can be a way to meet new cachers in the area, it can be a way to connect with distant caching friends ("hey, I found that one last summer when I was there!")

 

The possibilities are pretty wide open. The negatives are "I wouldn't use it so no one else should."

First, to the inner quote that I highlighted: So, people who don't think your ideas are speculating, whereas you aren't? Hate to be the one to tell you, but you are definitely speculating, just as much as anyone else. Aside from your speculation that your idea is an improvement is your insulting speculation that anyone who doesn't like this idea is a backwards, out of date, bumpkin.

 

Now, on to your most recent post: People have posted real negatives to your idea, and you boil them down to "I wouldn't use it so no one else should"? Really? And you accuse others of wearing blinders? :huh:

Pot_Meet_Kettle.jpg

Edited by Stealth Bobber
Link to comment
The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.
How do you explain those bajillions of people who play farmville or mafia wars or the tons of other similar games. Those people obviously welcome those related messages. Just because others do not does not make the messages spam.
To the people that do not wish to play those games they are spam. To the people that do not want to know about your record-setting power trial find, those messages would be spam too.
I signed up for Facebook to keep in touch with people, not to read:
1014570520.jpg

Could you help Linda?

Linda needs a letter A gem to reveal the gem mosaic.

app_2_216230855057280_2930.gif 5 hours ago via Charmed Gems

Link to comment
The whole "Hey, no problem! Block it!" mentality overlooks the fact that by virtue of the fact that you're saying people can/will block it, it is unwanted.
How do you explain those bajillions of people who play farmville or mafia wars or the tons of other similar games. Those people obviously welcome those related messages. Just because others do not does not make the messages spam.
Um, yes it does. Unwanted (read: unsolicited) messages like that are spam, even when sent to you by someone you would otherwise like to hear from.
The mere fact that it is unwanted does not make a message spam. Otherwise, half the emails from my family would be spam. You see, contrary to your post, there is a difference between 'unsolicited' and 'unwanted'. With facebook, you are agreeing to messages from your 'friends'. Further, you can block specific types of messages or messages from specific people. Therefore, the remaining messages that you have chosen to allow can not be called 'unsolicited'.
I disagree. Those that enjoy those those games might not define the messages as spam but that doesn't give them the right to define what spam means for those that don't want to play those silly games.
It doen't give you the right to create some arbitrary definition, either. GeoGeeBee posted what most would call a pretty good published definition of spam and facebook messages simply didn't fit.
Link to comment

Speaking of being the only person in the world who wants to geocache on an iPad - don't you think it would open up geocaching to classrooms to be able to have a teacher use an iPad to show a class what's on the app screen? That would be cool.

Now you're opening a whole new can of worms. Do we really want school kids learning how to find our caches? Also, I would assume they arleady can project their monitors or have large screen monitors for their computers, so if they do want to teach geocaching (cringe!) they can do it with their computer. No iPad needed.

He actually didn't bring school kids into the thread. That was done early on by someone arguing against facebook integration.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...