Business names in listings

[+stagunner]

Wading into the fray with a comment that will likely spur some other comment , but anyway

Groundspeak has allowed the listing of commercial places in its Waymarking.com site and this is not any different than naming a coffee shop on a Geocache page,,

 

WE can all follow the guidelines but there should not be any double standards,,

Edited July 29, 2011 by stagunner

[+Paul n Susan]

Groundspeak has allowed the listing of commercial places in its Waymarking.com site and this is not any different than naming a coffee shop on a Geocache page

 

This is the major reason I cannot take Waymarking.com seriously. Why would I want to log visits to McDonalds? And to think that Waymarking is a replacement to Virtual Caches? I've never seen a virtual cache that celebrated a Dairy Queen.

 

I might feel the same way about geocaching.com if there was a cache at almost every McDonalds ... having said that, we've logged a few Wally Worlds but we were young and inexperienced ... but we are trying to manage an ignore list and if the rules of Waymarking were also the rules of geocaching then maintaining that ignore list would be unmanageable.

 

Waymarking and Geocaching are completely different animals, thank goodness.

[+dfx]

This is the major reason I cannot take Waymarking.com seriously. Why would I want to log visits to McDonalds? And to think that Waymarking is a replacement to Virtual Caches? I've never seen a virtual cache that celebrated a Dairy Queen.

 

But there's a traditional cache celebrating a Tim Hortons. A special one, of course. And quite frankly, I find that write-up, as it is now, all without mentioning the name of the store, much more "promotional" than the spelled-out mention of an FTF prize. Not that I care, just saying.

Edited July 30, 2011 by dfx

[+CacheDrone]

Wading into the fray with a comment that will likely spur some other comment , but anyway

Groundspeak has allowed the listing of commercial places in its Waymarking.com site and this is not any different than naming a coffee shop on a Geocache page,,

 

WE can all follow the guidelines but there should not be any double standards,,

 

Geocaching.com has Listing Requirements and Guidelines which are agreed to when a geocache listing is submitted by the author.

Waymarking.com has no such limitations. The phrase "All local laws apply" is used on that website instead. So yes, you may and often should list business names in listings on Waymarking.com so if doing so appeals to you then you have a place where you can include them.

 

Groundspeak maintains consistent Terms of Use documents for account management and usage. It is the same ToU for Geocaching.com, Waymarking.com and Wherigo.com

 

There is no double standard, because Groundspeak decided to have each website operate independently.

 

CD

[+The Blue Quasar]

Groundspeak has allowed the listing of commercial places in its Waymarking.com site and this is not any different than naming a coffee shop on a Geocache page

 

This is the major reason I cannot take Waymarking.com seriously. Why would I want to log visits to McDonalds? And to think that Waymarking is a replacement to Virtual Caches? I've never seen a virtual cache that celebrated a Dairy Queen.

 

I might feel the same way about geocaching.com if there was a cache at almost every McDonalds ... having said that, we've logged a few Wally Worlds but we were young and inexperienced ... but we are trying to manage an ignore list and if the rules of Waymarking were also the rules of geocaching then maintaining that ignore list would be unmanageable.

 

Waymarking and Geocaching are completely different animals, thank goodness.

 

Dead horse but still...

 

Instead of focusing on the low end of that game, why not look at the good quality listings that are available? That is what you say you are doing in Geocaching.

 

How is that any different than if people only want to think of Geocaching as lifting a lamp skirt at a big box store, cause that is how many people do view geocaching now.

 

As for the point of having to ignore so many listings over on Waymarking, I'll assume you mean the ones like McDonald's... perhaps you don't know that you can actually ignore all of the Business department with one click. Wouldn't that be great in geocaching if you could do that for all the caches you don't like that are placed at big box stores and fast food locations? To try to smear Waymarking because some of the categories, like McDonald's, are of less quality or suggest that is all that is there is simply untrue. Comparatively both games have the same levels of listings and experiences.

 

But I am wasting my breath. Truth is, deny it as much as you want, but if waymarks suddenly counted for points in your Found It list... most people would log them all. I say that because many people already log pretty much anything that is listed as a geocache. Nothing wrong with that.

 

But it is really hypocritical in my opinion to log this because you enjoyed it but not this unless the only difference is that one gives you a smiley and the other gives you a special icon. If the second one counted for a "find point", it would get logged.

 

And don't for one second try to suggest that almost all of the Virtuals out there are high quality listings. Most of them are already cross listed on Waymarking. So if they are so great to visit as Virtuals, then they are equally great to visit as Waymarks. It's the lack of a smiley, you know it and I know it.

 

BQ

[+Flintstone5611]

But it is really hypocritical in my opinion to log this because you enjoyed it but not this unless the only difference is that one gives you a smiley and the other gives you a special icon. If the second one counted for a "find point", it would get logged.

 

So If I log it on WM.com, would you mind if I log it on GC.com?

[+Keith Watson]

But it is really hypocritical in my opinion to log this because you enjoyed it but not this unless the only difference is that one gives you a smiley and the other gives you a special icon. If the second one counted for a "find point", it would get logged.

 

And don't for one second try to suggest that almost all of the Virtuals out there are high quality listings. Most of them are already cross listed on Waymarking. So if they are so great to visit as Virtuals, then they are equally great to visit as Waymarks. It's the lack of a smiley, you know it and I know it.

 

BQ

 

I don't think it is hypocritical at all. Personally I geocache, I don't waymark. I notice the example you provided, the virtual was archived in favor of the location being listed as a way mark. I think if you really wanted to share the location with everyone then you should have listed it on both instead of suggested people use another listing service. "Details: Archived - Virtuals are found on Waymarking.com" with link provided. Some may consider this solicitation to use another listing service.

 

I would suggest that almost all the virtual's I have visited are high quality listings. They brought me to interesting locations and taught me interesting things I did not know.

 

Forgot to mention, Cheap Trick last week was amazing. Even if they had to use their B gear because the A gear was still on a stage in Ottawa under a tarp.

[+ComedyAddict]

I started reading this discussion thinking it makes sense not to have business names in titles, descriptions etc but I do have the following questions.

 

Where is the line drawn? For example here are some cache names I've either found or have thought of hiding... Is there a problem with these?

 

Old McDonalds Farm...

 

Columbia Falls... (Waterfall in Montana, also contains name of the sportswear company)

 

Anything with New Brunswick in it (We sell Brunswick Pool Tables at work)

 

What abount city names who are also company names? Pontaic, Dodge, etc???

 

I hope caches named like this are not being disabled by a reviewer who following the guideline to the letter and not the intent of the guideline aor cache name...

 

What options as cache owners do we have for appeal if an over zealous reviewer disables a cache because that feel a company name in involved?

Edited July 30, 2011 by ComedyAddict

[+CacheDrone]

Let's keep this on topic. The discussion started out as a reminder that Business Names and Products should not be included in Geocache listings. Based on the posts of several reviewers and Lackeys with respect to the Listing Requirements and Guidelines they are not permitted. It is not a gray area.

 

The example of "Starbucks" already being well known and established, while valid, shows that it is far easier to be consistent and disallow any business name or product from being mentioned because it is too hard to determine which are well known and which are not. That is the same approach we use for charity groups. We'll use that for commercial content.

 

My player account did add to the off-topic content that was presented earlier, so I share some of the blame for that. If you wish to pursue yet another pointless discussion about virutals, waymarks, benchmarks, alternative listing sites, how Groundspeak separates content, why reviewers disable instead of reviewer note, how to report issues with listings and other ancillary items then it would be best to start a new thread specific to your query or comments.

 

CD

 

edit: typo

Edited July 30, 2011 by CacheDrone

[+CacheDrone]

What options as cache owners do we have for appeal if an over zealous reviewer disables a cache because that feel a company name in involved?

 

You can first try to discuss it with the reviewer in question. If that does not yield a result that you were hoping for, you can then email appeals@geocaching.com with the GC CODE of the listing. Sandy, who posted earlier, is in charge of that team.

 

CD

 

edit to add: Not sure why you are concerned about that. You have 9 listings, of which only 1 is active. This issue does not seem to have affected any of your listings. But maybe I'm not seeing what you are referring to.

Edited July 30, 2011 by CacheDrone

[+ComedyAddict]

What options as cache owners do we have for appeal if an over zealous reviewer disables a cache because that feel a company name in involved?

 

You can first try to discuss it with the reviewer in question. If that does not yield a result that you were hoping for, you can then email appeals@geocaching.com with the GC CODE of the listing. Sandy, who posted earlier, is in charge of that team.

 

CD

 

edit to add: Not sure why you are concerned about that. You have 9 listings, of which only 1 is active. This issue does not seem to have affected any of your listings. But maybe I'm not seeing what you are referring to.

 

Not concerned per se, but I thought this was a discussion forum and if you have a question/concern regarding the topic this is the place to ask... while my question doesn't affect me currently, it probably affects a number of other peoples caches.

 

BTW; thanks of behalf of everyone for the claims email... its good to know there is one if needed...

[+Dragoon]

I started reading this discussion thinking it makes sense not to have business names in titles, descriptions etc but I do have the following questions.

 

Where is the line drawn? For example here are some cache names I've either found or have thought of hiding... Is there a problem with these?

 

Old McDonalds Farm...

 

Columbia Falls... (Waterfall in Montana, also contains name of the sportswear company)

 

Anything with New Brunswick in it (We sell Brunswick Pool Tables at work)

 

What abount city names who are also company names? Pontaic, Dodge, etc???

 

I hope caches named like this are not being disabled by a reviewer who following the guideline to the letter and not the intent of the guideline aor cache name...

 

What options as cache owners do we have for appeal if an over zealous reviewer disables a cache because that feel a company name in involved?

 

That was my question, several times. Nobody at GSpeak wants to touch it with a ten foot pole apparently..

 

Scenario:

 

A cacher with a caching that contains a copywritten word, ie Tupperware, finds my cache, is my cache (unless I delete his find) in violation of the copyright/business/company name guideline?

 

I ask, because the guidelines are unclear, and unless explicitly stated in a place other then an email, or a forum, the guidelines are effectively worthless if they're not adhered to 100% of the time.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Dragoon

[+dfx]

Let's keep this on topic. The discussion started out as a reminder that Business Names and Products should not be included in Geocache listings. Based on the posts of several reviewers and Lackeys with respect to the Listing Requirements and Guidelines they are not permitted. It is not a gray area.

 

Of course it's a gray area. Did you know that "AND" was a business name? Or how about "cache"? Based on that, there shouldn't be any listings allowed.

[+Keith Watson]

Let's keep this on topic. The discussion started out as a reminder that Business Names and Products should not be included in Geocache listings. Based on the posts of several reviewers and Lackeys with respect to the Listing Requirements and Guidelines they are not permitted. It is not a gray area.

 

As I see the application of the guidelines it is a 100% grey area open to the interpretations of the reviewers or not all caches / cachers are being treated equally when it comes to application of the guidelines.

 

Proof. During the discussion of this forum topic this cache was published which currently contains "Cache is a camo'd lock-n-lock container." Could be that the cache description did not contain that when it was published. It was pointed out in this forum topic and I see the text still there as of a few minutes ago. I see no indication that the cache has been disabled similar to the action taken against other caches when a list was provided of offending caches.

 

Can a reviewer or lackie please explain why this cache which contains a commercial product name has not been corrected?

 

Is it the position of the lackies and reviewers that the guidelines are going to be enforced to the letter. If so then I hold all of you tho that next time I see a cache or event published and I don't believe that all the guidelines have been adhered to.

 

Everyone needs to remember that it is the job of the reviewers to make sure that cache listing are in compliance. It is our job as users of geocaching.com to make sure we are being treated fairly should Groundspeak fail to live up to their duty to make sure we are all treated with respect and equality.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Keith Watson

[+northernpenguin]

 

PLEASE do not take this to mean that we want to be receiving list upon list of other caches with business names in them. If you are aware of some and feel they are unjust, I would suggest you write privately to the Cache Owner and suggest they voluntarily edit their own cache pages. Reviewer have better things to do, like publish new caches for people to enjoy, than having to police such minor items that the community can resolve internally themselves.

 

 

So, start hounding the CO about his crass Starfrit marketing campaign.

 

Me, I realized very quickly after 6 days of hiking in the wilderness with no cell service, to turn the watch for this topic OFF when I got out. It's a sunny day, maybe go find some plasticized potential food containment boxes......

[+Keith Watson]

 

PLEASE do not take this to mean that we want to be receiving list upon list of other caches with business names in them. If you are aware of some and feel they are unjust, I would suggest you write privately to the Cache Owner and suggest they voluntarily edit their own cache pages. Reviewer have better things to do, like publish new caches for people to enjoy, than having to police such minor items that the community can resolve internally themselves.

 

 

So, start hounding the CO about his crass Starfrit marketing campaign.

 

Me, I realized very quickly after 6 days of hiking in the wilderness with no cell service, to turn the watch for this topic OFF when I got out. It's a sunny day, maybe go find some plasticized potential food containment boxes......

 

Hmmm, 6 days without cell service. Not even a couple of bars two days hike from the car?

 

I am not about to start hounding cache owners or posting nasty notes on their caches making demands about what I think about their cache. Did that once and it ended badly. I would though like to know why when a specific example pointed out by someone else was not dealt with like the others.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Keith Watson

[+t4e]

 

As I see the application of the guidelines it is a 100% grey area open to the interpretations of the reviewers or not all caches / cachers are being treated equally when it comes to application of the guidelines.

 

 

happens with all guidelines...whether the guidelines are 100% grey area or 100% black and white depends on who you are

[+northernpenguin]

 

Hmmm, 6 days without cell service. Not even a couple of bars two days hike from the car?

 

 

Yup there was that spot (found a hill). Couldn't leave the phone on long though - you could /hear/ the battery getting sucked down to zero.

What I did get was about 4 pages of "Groundspeak Forums - ________ replied to Business names in listings". Quite the active thread over the last week.

 

At the end of the hike, spending 72 kilometres on one cache - which even had the name of the park in the title - I decided that I really don't care at the end of the day if I have to say something instead of Tupperware, Tim Horton's or Garmin. If someone (a VR that is) tells me to remove a word from my listing I'm not going to run around with torches and pitchforks ... I'll switch the word and move on with life.

 

At this point it's more about finding reasons to enjoy geocaching as a hobby than finding reasons to complain about it. For me, anyway.

[+Keith Watson]

I decided that I really don't care at the end of the day if I have to say something instead of Tupperware, Tim Horton's or Garmin. If someone (a VR that is) tells me to remove a word from my listing I'm not going to run around with torches and pitchforks ... I'll switch the word and move on with life.

 

At this point it's more about finding reasons to enjoy geocaching as a hobby than finding reasons to complain about it. For me, anyway.

 

Ah, so it wans't 6 days without cell service, what ever.

 

I don't need to find reasons to enjoy geocaching. I just enjoy all that others have taken time to hide when I find them. I have made a few road trips to go after some truly awesome caches and have spent many a good time with friends and family just having fun getting out.

 

Not sure where my torches and pitchforks are. I have been fortunate enough that my dealings with reviewers over my caches have been minimal and quickly resolved. I do remember when the earth cache guidelines changed, I received an email asking me to update my listing which i did. Tat was a lot more pleasant than having my listing disabled until i corrected it. I enjoy placing caches and I enjoy when people find them. 8,474 visits by 2,229 individual cachers on my caches is pretty cool.

 

I do have observations and questions and I am looking for some answers and clarity to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake, yes even including myself. I would hate to see one of my caches disabled over a minor issue that could be quickly and easily dealt with an email because of a simple oversight, or as happened, with a list created by someone because they are not happy with the opinion of a reviewer.

[+northernpenguin]

I decided that I really don't care at the end of the day if I have to say something instead of Tupperware, Tim Horton's or Garmin. If someone (a VR that is) tells me to remove a word from my listing I'm not going to run around with torches and pitchforks ... I'll switch the word and move on with life.

 

At this point it's more about finding reasons to enjoy geocaching as a hobby than finding reasons to complain about it. For me, anyway.

 

Ah, so it wans't 6 days without cell service, what ever.

 

 

Sorry, I should be more specific.

It was 5 days, 23 hours 45 minutes without cell service. Every step between that hill and the car was "No Service". Fantastic place though, and I'd love to go back again.

 

I am at the point where I don't automatically enjoy every cache that someone has put out. I enjoy the ones I enjoy, and I'm thankful people place them but that does NOT mean I automatically like every cache just because someone put it out.

 

But back to the original point, I can find a cache outside a big box store without having to mention the name of the big box store. I can find a cache outside a coffee shop without mentioning the name of the coffee shop. Or I can find a cache in a wilderness area without mentioning the brand of tent I brought, what type of coffee I brought with me or what brand of bug repellent is recommended. All I need is the latitude and longitude, and if it's not a traditional, then give me the next instructions.

[+dfx]

But back to the original point, I can find a cache outside a big box store without having to mention the name of the big box store. I can find a cache outside a coffee shop without mentioning the name of the coffee shop. Or I can find a cache in a wilderness area without mentioning the brand of tent I brought, what type of coffee I brought with me or what brand of bug repellent is recommended. All I need is the latitude and longitude, and if it's not a traditional, then give me the next instructions.

 

Which brings us back to a point I've made earlier. Yup, no description is needed at all. But nobody tells us that we're not allowed to put anything as description. Something being required to find the cache or not is not an argument.

[+northernpenguin]

But back to the original point, I can find a cache outside a big box store without having to mention the name of the big box store. I can find a cache outside a coffee shop without mentioning the name of the coffee shop. Or I can find a cache in a wilderness area without mentioning the brand of tent I brought, what type of coffee I brought with me or what brand of bug repellent is recommended. All I need is the latitude and longitude, and if it's not a traditional, then give me the next instructions.

 

Which brings us back to a point I've made earlier. Yup, no description is needed at all. But nobody tells us that we're not allowed to put anything as description. Something being required to find the cache or not is not an argument.

 

But it is. Let's say I made a caching series called OpenCaching.com ... I would expect that to get declined with extreme prejudice. Why? Because it cuts into Groundspeak's potential profits.

 

Geocaching.com is not a democracy. It is not an open source venture. It is a private business and the database framework is theirs to maintain and police. We don't get voter shares with our Premium Membership. We get about as much clout as a customer number at a big box store does.

 

It is similar to sites like Flickr which is also based on user content. While Flickr doesn't care about commercial content, there are other ways to get your content or account to mysteriously vanish.

 

At least on Geocaching.com the VRs are available to talk to and maybe work something out like a wording change, vs take a look at the Google+ account deletion SNAFU from last week to see how other user generated databases conduct themselves.

[+dfx]

But it is. Let's say I made a caching series called OpenCaching.com ... I would expect that to get declined with extreme prejudice. Why? Because it cuts into Groundspeak's potential profits.

Which is a good reason. When it gets declined with "it's not necessary to mention oc.com" as stated explanation, then it's not a good reason. It's a reason about as good as "just because" or "because we say so". Which is the whole point.

[+northernpenguin]

But it is. Let's say I made a caching series called OpenCaching.com ... I would expect that to get declined with extreme prejudice. Why? Because it cuts into Groundspeak's potential profits.

Which is a good reason. When it gets declined with "it's not necessary to mention oc.com" as stated explanation, then it's not a good reason. It's a reason about as good as "just because" or "because we say so". Which is the whole point.

 

Right but they can say "because we say so". It is their pond, their lillypad. You can play along or find another pond.

 

Groundspeak can do whatever they want, including Change their mind without any notice on anything. Now as to how /smart/ such a move would be for keeping their customers happy, that is another thing. Right now though the competitive options let them do as they want.

 

Sort of like what Apple can do do digital music at the moment, or Amazon does to ebook vendors.

[+dfx]

But it is. Let's say I made a caching series called OpenCaching.com ... I would expect that to get declined with extreme prejudice. Why? Because it cuts into Groundspeak's potential profits.

Which is a good reason. When it gets declined with "it's not necessary to mention oc.com" as stated explanation, then it's not a good reason. It's a reason about as good as "just because" or "because we say so". Which is the whole point.

 

Right but they can say "because we say so". It is their pond, their lillypad. You can play along or find another pond.

 

Groundspeak can do whatever they want, including Change their mind without any notice on anything. Now as to how /smart/ such a move would be for keeping their customers happy, that is another thing. Right now though the competitive options let them do as they want.

 

Sort of like what Apple can do do digital music at the moment, or Amazon does to ebook vendors.

 

Which again brings us back to another point that was already made. Yeah, there's not much we can do about it, but we can still talk about it, right? And maybe tell people that we're not happy with how it's being handled. Unless you think that "shut up and eat what you're being served" is the right way to go.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Edit: posted under wrong profile

Edited August 2, 2011 by The Blue Quasar

[+CacheDrone]

Because so far no one has been able to demonstrate any reason why they NEED to say this is a listing

 

"There is an FTF prize of a $5 Tim Horton's Gift Card"

when they can just as easily say

"There is an FTF prize of a $5 Gift Card"

 

I can give you several reasons why the first sentence is not as good as the second.

 

• It is free advertising for Tim Horton's
  
• It sends the FTF into a specific business
  
• To use the FTF prize it is very likely that additional funds will be needed
  

 

Another player suggests instead of both of the above

"There is an FTF prize of a $5 bill"

because that allows the FTF the freedom of choice to spend their winnings wherever they want. What a great concept and solution.

 

This is not about having no cache descriptions, this is about not including commercial items in those descriptions. We're not talking about what kind of container is used, we are talking about the inclusion of nearby businesses which is unrelated to finding the actual container or brand name items within in it that do not assist in the location of the actual cache container. Basically the type of container is the only commercial product that can be stated within a cache listing.

 

But fighting / arguing / debating / discussing just to say "FTF prize is a $5 Tim Horton's Card" ... you cannot be serious, I hope.

 

CD

[+t4e]

Groundspeak can do whatever they want, including Change their mind without any notice on anything. Now as to how /smart/ such a move would be for keeping their customers happy, that is another thing. Right now though the competitive options let them do as they want.

 

 

but, its pretty much what they are doing by allowing inconsistent application of the Guidelines...its not OK in Ontario but it is OK in a different region

 

 

 

But fighting / arguing / debating / discussing just to say "FTF prize is a $5 Tim Horton's Card" ... you cannot be serious, I hope.

 

CD

 

not per se, the idea is that such mention does not constitute advertising and the guidelines are being take to an extreme

 

furthermore is the way this whole thing was implemented, disabling a select handful of caches was not exactly the best course of action

 

 

I can give you several reasons why the first sentence is not as good as the second.

 

• It is free advertising for Tim Horton's
  
• It sends the FTF into a specific business
  
• To use the FTF prize it is very likely that additional funds will be needed
  

 

 

1. not advertising when you just simply mention the name of the business....not anymore than simply stating that i do all my shopping at Costco, without further comment

that in itself doesn't mean its good or bad, or i recommend it or not, its a plain statement

if i was to go into a whole argument telling people that Costco has great quality and they should go there, that is advertising

 

2. by that statement it pretty much means i can't include a FTF prize, which the Guidelines do not preclude me from doing, at least not yet

people will have to go into that specific business regardless of the name being mentioned or not, however they have the freedom to choose whether to take the said prize or not

 

3. people's spending habits are nobody's business

in any case, $2 at Tim Hortons is enough for say a coffee, a pastry, a bagel etc...if you chose to buy something additional is entirely your choice, you are in no way obligated to do so

you are not even obligated in any way to take/use the coupon

[+Keith Watson]

I am at the point where I don't automatically enjoy every cache that someone has put out. I enjoy the ones I enjoy, and I'm thankful people place them but that does NOT mean I automatically like every cache just because someone put it out.

 

But back to the original point, I can find a cache outside a big box store without having to mention the name of the big box store. I can find a cache outside a coffee shop without mentioning the name of the coffee shop. Or I can find a cache in a wilderness area without mentioning the brand of tent I brought, what type of coffee I brought with me or what brand of bug repellent is recommended. All I need is the latitude and longitude, and if it's not a traditional, then give me the next instructions.

 

I am not suggesting you enjoy every cache out there or every cache you find. I just found it interesting that you have to find reasons to enjoy geocaching as a hobby. That sounds like you don't enjoy it which is sad if you keep doing it.

 

People do mention these types of things in their logs. Does that make those logs commercial logs? One would have to look at the regularity of those types of logs from a specific user to see if they are indeed using their found logs for the purpose of solicitation to push an agenda, product, or what ever they are trying to push. I a finder posted a log saying I "Found this one after dropping the kids off at Canada's Wonderland" I think most people would not think this is a commercial log entry. On the other hand if they posted in every log for every cache they found in the area "Visit Canada's Wonderland. You will enjoy every minute of it." that would most likely be considered solicitation.

 

The argument "You don't have to so you shouldn't" doesn't fly with me. "It's against the guidelines so you shouldn't" does.

 

This is not about having no cache descriptions, this is about not including commercial items in those descriptions. We're not talking about what kind of container is used, we are talking about the inclusion of nearby businesses which is unrelated to finding the actual container or brand name items within in it that do not assist in the location of the actual cache container. Basically the type of container is the only commercial product that can be stated within a cache listing.

 

I think this is getting close to an answer to one of my question. Commercial product names are allowed to describe the container.

[+northernpenguin]

 

I am not suggesting you enjoy every cache out there or every cache you find. I just found it interesting that you have to find reasons to enjoy geocaching as a hobby. That sounds like you don't enjoy it which is sad if you keep doing it.

 

You're supposed to say "bazinga". Seriously, that's a neat way to twist my words ... but I guess everyone has to have a hobby.

 

 

The argument "You don't have to so you shouldn't" doesn't fly with me. "It's against the guidelines so you shouldn't" does.

 

 

You're getting told that you shouldn't by Groundspeak's appointed spokespersons, who are responsible for applying the Guidelines. That's pretty much the same thing - the Guidelines say no commercial content already so it's not a case of the former. The problem here is that the VRs have been human beings who can think outside black and white, and now we have a forum thread attempting to define what exact shades of black and white we should use. At the end of the day I'm fully expecting the be able to paint my walls with the exact colours, based on CIL or PANTONE selections.

[+The Blorenges]

Been watching this topic from afar for quite a while now - Just thought I'd mention that the UK reviewers have also tightened up on the whole issue of business names in cache listings over recent weeks.

 

 

1. not advertising when you just simply mention the name of the business....not anymore than simply stating that i do all my shopping at Costco, without further comment

that in itself doesn't mean its good or bad, or i recommend it or not, its a plain statement

if i was to go into a whole argument telling people that Costco has great quality and they should go there, that is advertising

 

 

I think it is advertising, albeit subliminal. If a friend mentions they do their shopping at Costco, then later I see a newspaper advert for them, then later someone mentions Costco on facebook, then it appears on a cache listing (horrors!) it's a way of bringing the name to my attention. The more it happens the more likely I am to start thinking, "Hmmm. Costco. I seem to be hearing a lot about them lately... Might try them for my next shop."

 

You're getting told that you shouldn't by Groundspeak's appointed spokespersons, who are responsible for applying the Guidelines. That's pretty much the same thing - the Guidelines say no commercial content already so it's not a case of the former. The problem here is that the VRs have been human beings who can think outside black and white, and now we have a forum thread attempting to define what exact shades of black and white we should use. At the end of the day I'm fully expecting the be able to paint my walls with the exact colours, based on CIL or PANTONE selections.

 

Maybe the VRs have got tired of having to think in shades of grey and of having their decisions challenged by cache owners who think that their cache deserves a paler shade of grey? Maybe Groundspeak have decided to help them out by making their listing requirements a bit more black & white?

 

You can paint your walls in your own building any CIL/PANTONE shade you want. Groundspeak get to choose just how white/grey/black they want their own walls to be.

 

MrsB

[+northernpenguin]

 

You can paint your walls in your own building any CIL/PANTONE shade you want. Groundspeak get to choose just how white/grey/black they want their own walls to be.

 

MrsB

 

Exactly.

[+t4e]

 

I think it is advertising, albeit subliminal. If a friend mentions they do their shopping at Costco, then later I see a newspaper advert for them, then later someone mentions Costco on facebook, then it appears on a cache listing (horrors!) it's a way of bringing the name to my attention. The more it happens the more likely I am to start thinking, "Hmmm. Costco. I seem to be hearing a lot about them lately... Might try them for my next shop."

 

MrsB

 

no, its not

 

Advertising is a form of communication used to persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to take some action with respect to products, ideas, or services.

[+northernpenguin]

 

I think it is advertising, albeit subliminal. If a friend mentions they do their shopping at Costco, then later I see a newspaper advert for them, then later someone mentions Costco on facebook, then it appears on a cache listing (horrors!) it's a way of bringing the name to my attention. The more it happens the more likely I am to start thinking, "Hmmm. Costco. I seem to be hearing a lot about them lately... Might try them for my next shop."

 

MrsB

 

no, its not

 

Advertising is a form of communication used to persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners) to take some action with respect to products, ideas, or services.

 

Well, if you say some thing like:

 

 

1. not advertising when you just simply mention the name of the business....not anymore than simply stating that i do all my shopping at Costco, without further comment

that in itself doesn't mean its good or bad, or i recommend it or not, its a plain statement

if i was to go into a whole argument telling people that Costco has great quality and they should go there, that is advertising

 

That infers that you like Costco, or that you would recommend Costco because you do all your shopping at Costco. That IS a form of advertising.

You are (indirectly) persuading the audience (reader) to take an action (shop at Costco).

 

Even though you do not say it's a good place to shop, the meaning is communicated as generally people do not do all their shopping at places they dislike. While it can technically happen (maybe you inherited a 1 million dollar gift card for the place and are just trying to use it up), I'm going with averages here. Most people would take the meaning to be that you shop there by choice, therefore it's a recommended place to shop.

[+t4e]

 

Well, if you say some thing like:

 

 

1. not advertising when you just simply mention the name of the business....not anymore than simply stating that i do all my shopping at Costco, without further comment

that in itself doesn't mean its good or bad, or i recommend it or not, its a plain statement

if i was to go into a whole argument telling people that Costco has great quality and they should go there, that is advertising

 

That infers that you like Costco, or that you would recommend Costco because you do all your shopping at Costco. That IS a form of advertising.

You are (indirectly) persuading the audience (reader) to take an action (shop at Costco).

 

Even though you do not say it's a good place to shop, the meaning is communicated as generally people do not do all their shopping at places they dislike. While it can technically happen (maybe you inherited a 1 million dollar gift card for the place and are just trying to use it up), I'm going with averages here. Most people would take the meaning to be that you shop there by choice, therefore it's a recommended place to shop.

 

seriously, we are going to venture into the human psyche?

 

guidelines do not allow advertising, as per the definition i posted above, not how someone's subconscious may choose to interpret anything

 

a statement by itself doesn't infer anything...its just a statement

 

yes, i shop there by choice but most people just ASSUME that because i do so i am recommending it

 

and that is a major problem we have in our society...people assume too much, most times without even bothering to read beyond the first paragraph, if even that...but that is a subject for a different thread

[+dfx]

That infers that you like Costco, or that you would recommend Costco because you do all your shopping at Costco. That IS a form of advertising.

You are (indirectly) persuading the audience (reader) to take an action (shop at Costco).

 

What you're describing isn't advertising, it's what they call "word of mouth". Remember those "where did you hear about us" selection boxes when signing up on some sites? Common options for answers are "advertising" and "word of mouth" (among others). Now mind you, word of mouth can be an important marketing tool, but it's not advertising and there's no commercial intent behind it either. That's probably my biggest beef with the whole thing, it completely ignores the intent behind what the CO has to say in the listing and puts a blanket "advertising/commercial" label on all COs. Sandy seems to be the only one so far that has got this part right.

 

Of course it's quite possible to say Lock & Lock without saying Lock & Lock. I find it quite ridiculous that it's necessary to do so though.

[+northernpenguin]

That infers that you like Costco, or that you would recommend Costco because you do all your shopping at Costco. That IS a form of advertising.

You are (indirectly) persuading the audience (reader) to take an action (shop at Costco).

 

What you're describing isn't advertising, it's what they call "word of mouth". Remember those "where did you hear about us" selection boxes when signing up on some sites? Common options for answers are "advertising" and "word of mouth" (among others). Now mind you, word of mouth can be an important marketing tool, but it's not advertising and there's no commercial intent behind it either. That's probably my biggest beef with the whole thing, it completely ignores the intent behind what the CO has to say in the listing and puts a blanket "advertising/commercial" label on all COs. Sandy seems to be the only one so far that has got this part right.

 

Of course it's quite possible to say Lock & Lock without saying Lock & Lock. I find it quite ridiculous that it's necessary to do so though.

 

Tomato, Tom-ah-to

[+dfx]

But fighting / arguing / debating / discussing disabling caches just to not let them say "FTF prize is a $5 Tim Horton's Card" ... you cannot be serious, I hope.

I agree

[+dfx]

That infers that you like Costco, or that you would recommend Costco because you do all your shopping at Costco. That IS a form of advertising.

You are (indirectly) persuading the audience (reader) to take an action (shop at Costco).

 

What you're describing isn't advertising, it's what they call "word of mouth". Remember those "where did you hear about us" selection boxes when signing up on some sites? Common options for answers are "advertising" and "word of mouth" (among others). Now mind you, word of mouth can be an important marketing tool, but it's not advertising and there's no commercial intent behind it either. That's probably my biggest beef with the whole thing, it completely ignores the intent behind what the CO has to say in the listing and puts a blanket "advertising/commercial" label on all COs. Sandy seems to be the only one so far that has got this part right.

 

Of course it's quite possible to say Lock & Lock without saying Lock & Lock. I find it quite ridiculous that it's necessary to do so though.

 

Tomato, Tom-ah-to

 

 

Terminology controversy

Businessdictionary.com holds that the term "word of mouth advertising", which is a common term used in marketing,^[10] is "incorrect", as it doesn't match their definition of advertising, which is limited to paid and non-personal communication.^[1]

 

 

Right.

[+northernpenguin]

That infers that you like Costco, or that you would recommend Costco because you do all your shopping at Costco. That IS a form of advertising.

You are (indirectly) persuading the audience (reader) to take an action (shop at Costco).

 

What you're describing isn't advertising, it's what they call "word of mouth". Remember those "where did you hear about us" selection boxes when signing up on some sites? Common options for answers are "advertising" and "word of mouth" (among others). Now mind you, word of mouth can be an important marketing tool, but it's not advertising and there's no commercial intent behind it either. That's probably my biggest beef with the whole thing, it completely ignores the intent behind what the CO has to say in the listing and puts a blanket "advertising/commercial" label on all COs. Sandy seems to be the only one so far that has got this part right.

 

Of course it's quite possible to say Lock & Lock without saying Lock & Lock. I find it quite ridiculous that it's necessary to do so though.

 

Tomato, Tom-ah-to

 

 

Terminology controversy

Businessdictionary.com holds that the term "word of mouth advertising", which is a common term used in marketing,^[10] is "incorrect", as it doesn't match their definition of advertising, which is limited to paid and non-personal communication.^[1]

 

 

Right.

 

So, I can mention any company name I want in a cache listing, post their logo and spew pages of positive commentary - and as long as I'm not paid to do it, the VRs *have* to publish it as it's not technically advertising, it's word of mouth.

[+dfx]

So, I can mention any company name I want in a cache listing, post their logo and spew pages of positive commentary - and as long as I'm not paid to do it, the VRs *have* to publish it as it's not technically advertising, it's word of mouth.

 

This would be the case if the rules said "you can't advertise" and nothing else. As you know, they don't, which is another reason why the disallowing of a casual mention of a business can't be explained by "it's advertising".

Edited August 2, 2011 by dfx

[+Flintstone5611]

So, I can mention any company name I want in a cache listing, post their logo and spew pages of positive commentary - and as long as I'm not paid to do it, the VRs *have* to publish it as it's not technically advertising, it's word of mouth.

 

This would be the case if the rules said "you can't advertise" and nothing else. As you know, they don't, which is another reason why the disallowing of a casual mention of a business can't be explained by "it's advertising".

 

But if you can agree it is subjective and that they have the right to decide, then what is the argument?

 

They own the site, they have said that it is decided on a case by case basis. It may not be up to our preferences but it has been made thoroughly clear.

[+t4e]

 

But if you can agree it is subjective and that they have the right to decide, then what is the argument?

 

They own the site, they have said that it is decided on a case by case basis. It may not be up to our preferences but it has been made thoroughly clear.

 

this is why

 

You are most certainly allowed to disagree with Groundspeak.

 

.

.

.

[+dfx]

But if you can agree it is subjective and that they have the right to decide, then what is the argument?

 

They own the site, they have said that it is decided on a case by case basis. It may not be up to our preferences but it has been made thoroughly clear.

 

It being subjective is exactly the argument. Rules are in place to eliminate the subjectiveness (is that even a word?). Now, the rules say "you can't put names of businesses or commercial products in cache listings". Ok, fine. I don't really understand why (please don't tell me it's because it's advertising), but whatever, if that's the rule, then so be it. The thing is that apparently it only applies to some businesses and product names, not all of them, and only recently (but retroactively), while before it was fine. So why have that rule in the first place? Is it because it's not a rule, but a guideline? If so, do they throw dice to figure out what's allowed and what isn't? Or is it because they don't like Tim Horton's, but do like Jeeps? But why only recently, without the rules/guidelines having changed? Or maybe Avernar is one of the new reviewers and that's why "advertising" for Jeeps is allowed?

[+Flintstone5611]

this is why

 

You are most certainly allowed to disagree with Groundspeak.

 

.

.

.

 

I hope she wasn't kidding, cause that will be immortalized!!

[+Keith Watson]

What some may find frustrating is the liquidity of the guideline interpretation and application. In this thread alone it has been stated the no product names are permitted as per the guidelines. And now product names are permitted for describing the cache container itself and not what is in it.

 

A detailed list of exceptions would be nice.

[+Juicepig]

There is no double standard, because Groundspeak decided to have each website operate independently.

 

So why did Waymarking cause the grandfathering of virtuals, locationless, webcams, and if some people had their way.. Earthmarks?

[+CacheDrone]

You may of course feel free to disagree with the guidelines and the knowledgebook articles that they link to. You may believe whatever you like in fact. But the guidelines are 100% crystal clear... no business names or products. And if you think that the mention of a business name is not advertising, unfortunately I do not agree with you and neither does Groundspeak since the guidelines and knowledgebooks are clear on the point... they are not to be included in a list. Whether your question that or not is really not relevant. The reason might not be well documented but the fact remains, they are not permitted.

 

Done, finito, end, Q.E.D., th-th-th-th-th-th-that' all folks!

 

As for the disabling, here's why and you can waste your time telling me what you think is a better way but I can also guarantee you that I will not heed any such recommendations because it comes down to both what is easiest and most effective.

 

Disabling a cache forces, yes forces, the Cache Owner to take action. It is action that we can easily follow up with because we can filter for caches that we have disabled. It gets the word out, it demands a response, it is clearly transparent to everyone. Sending a private email gives the CO the option to say they never got it, didn't think it was important, thought it was a suggestion, and countless other excuses. Then we need to keep chasing after it, did they update it yet, did they even get the message, every couple of days... we don't have that kind of time, nor do we care to spend it on something that can be addressed in one action. Our, not mine, our policy is to disable listing when a validated issue is reported. That is how we do it, whether you like it or not, because it gets the job done effectively. We disable, you fix and enable. Simple, easy and quick.

 

And if you are expecting a detailed list of the exceptions... don't hold your breath. If such a list existed, it would be part of the guidelines and knowledgebooks. It ain't gonna happen.

 

CD

[+ComedyAddict]

But the guidelines are 100% crystal clear... no business names or products. And if you think that the mention of a business name is not advertising, unfortunately I do not agree with you and neither does Groundspeak

CD

 

100% Crystal clear - I wish they were. When I first posted in this forum I asked if a cache named "Öld Macdonalds Farm" would be OK among others. If you can give a concrete answer if this would be OK or not then the rules are crystal clear. If you can't say for certain, then the crystal clear rule isn't that clear.

 

I don't think anyone here questions we need a rule to prevent free advertising, but to most of us, this crystal clear rule is kind of murky... answer the question above honestly (like you were reviewing a real cache) and end this discussion once and for all... :-)

[+Flintstone5611]

100% Crystal clear - I wish they were. When I first posted in this forum I asked if a cache named "Öld Macdonalds Farm" would be OK among others. If you can give a concrete answer if this would be OK or not then the rules are crystal clear. If you can't say for certain, then the crystal clear rule isn't that clear.

 

I don't think anyone here questions we need a rule to prevent free advertising, but to most of us, this crystal clear rule is kind of murky... answer the question above honestly (like you were reviewing a real cache) and end this discussion once and for all... :-)

 

This has been covered as well.

 

If you are talking about a farm called "Old McDonald's Farm" then you are advertising. If you are using it in regards to a pop culture reference then it may be allowed, but it is reviewed on a case by case basis.