Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
CacheDrone

Business names in listings

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Good call :) But I actually meant for Mcdonalds Farm that has been closed for 50 years - hence Old Macdonald's Farm. Should have clarified - my bad.... Perhaps a better exampe is the other title I asked Cache Drone about - Columbia Falls. This is a waterfall in Montana as well containing the name of the clothing store.

Share this post


Link to post

Basically the type of container is the only commercial product that can be stated within a cache listing.

 

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!

 

Just so I can be sure as this last post seems to contradict a previous post. Is it OK or NOT OK to use a product name or manufacturer to describe the container?

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Good call :) But I actually meant for Mcdonalds Farm that has been closed for 50 years - hence Old Macdonald's Farm. Should have clarified - my bad.... Perhaps a better exampe is the other title I asked Cache Drone about - Columbia Falls. This is a waterfall in Montana as well containing the name of the clothing store.

 

Pretty sure something like Columbia Falls is acceptable (depending on context) where Columbia Sportswear Falls would not....

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Good call :) But I actually meant for Mcdonalds Farm that has been closed for 50 years - hence Old Macdonald's Farm. Should have clarified - my bad.... Perhaps a better exampe is the other title I asked Cache Drone about - Columbia Falls. This is a waterfall in Montana as well containing the name of the clothing store.

 

Pretty sure something like Columbia Falls is acceptable (depending on context) where Columbia Sportswear Falls would not....

 

While I agree with you, it would be nice to know for sure from Cache Drone or Groundspeak... despite the crystal clear guideline, there is a grey area - its called discretion - there has be for examples like I've mentioned. I guess I just want to know wether reviewers take the context of the name into review or not.... unless I've missed it, I haven't seem them make this clear or not.

Share this post


Link to post

While I agree with you, it would be nice to know for sure from Cache Drone or Groundspeak... despite the crystal clear guideline, there is a grey area - its called discretion - there has be for examples like I've mentioned. I guess I just want to know wether reviewers take the context of the name into review or not.... unless I've missed it, I haven't seem them make this clear or not.

 

You can, just make the cache! If it gets published it is fine, if not they will let you know. :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

While I agree with you, it would be nice to know for sure from Cache Drone or Groundspeak... despite the crystal clear guideline, there is a grey area - its called discretion - there has be for examples like I've mentioned. I guess I just want to know wether reviewers take the context of the name into review or not.... unless I've missed it, I haven't seem them make this clear or not.

 

You can, just make the cache! If it gets published it is fine, if not they will let you know. :anibad:

 

Which kinda defeats the purpose of having guidelines. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sitting waiting to go across the border; time to kill.

 

If I were to look at a cache called Columbia Falls I would probably not deem it to be commercial if it is placed at a waterfall called Columbia Falls. If it is placed under at a restaurant called Columbia Falls, I may look at it differently. If the Columbia Sportswear company have an ornamental waterfall outside one of their stores and the cache is inside it, I'd push it back. If the Columbia Brick Company were in business between 1920 and 1969, and the defunct brick factory was now in ruins and there was a cache nearby commemorating the "fall" of the company, I likely wouldn't have an issue.

 

Why do they put tape/paint over product names on TV cooking shows and things such as Mythbusters? Sure, we know they are using Skippy Peanut Butter... but they have blanked it out. Their channel sells advertising. They have to be mindful of product placement. Mythbusters blank out names of products such as Skippy, Diet Coke, Coors Light, Jeep... (But I did notice they may verbally refer to a Walther PPK, Remington Rifle or an Abrams tank) I'm quite sure there are "brand guidelines" that their producers follow. I'm not sure I'd say I'm going to run out and buy Skippy for my PB&J just because Adam and Jamie used it in the dog related myth. Or heavy armament. But someone might.

The number of eyes on a cache listing may not challenge the viewership of a TV show, but it is a targeted audience. My Player account found a cache with a $5 Tim Horton's card as an FTF prize. I logged the find, and soon after another Player sent me a message with words to the effect of: "Congrats on the FTF prize! That's a great idea! I'll do that for my next cache!"

I've waited at bus stops and noticed the "You just proved that bench advertising works!" signs. I have dismissed them until now. I'm not sure if they work. I haven't purchased any bench advertising; but I have noticed the signs. It's the usage, the inference, the intention, the perception, the context and in some cases the interpretation of them that may/may not trigger my "Reviewer action" alert. I am not sure we can have expect a checklist to tell everyone how to handle the usage of every proper noun; the Listing Guidelines are long enough already.

 

If a cache listing refers to a "Park at Home Depot", does that mean that the cache cannot be found if "Home Depot" moves out and "Lowes" moves in to the same place? I'd rather have coords public trailhead that is accessed from their parking lot. That way, it works for pedestrians and drivers.

 

With "Rules" you could conceivably develop an "algorithm" or "script' that removes the need for a (semi-)human Reviewer. I'm quite sure those bots would be immovable; but they would indeed be consistent.... as long as someone fed them with an up to date word list of every commercial. I would rather have Listing Guidelines instead of "100% Non-Negotiable Rules"; that in itself allows for creative suggestions from Players. I am happy there is a Reviewer to hover in the perceived gap between "Guideline" and "Rule". It keeps me off the streets. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Which kinda defeats the purpose of having guidelines. :rolleyes:

 

No, for those that understand the guidelines, this works well. For those that forget or misunderstand it is a clarification.

Share this post


Link to post

Which kinda defeats the purpose of having guidelines. :rolleyes:

 

No, for those that understand the guidelines, this works well. For those that forget or misunderstand it is a clarification.

 

I don't follow. Guidelines are supposed to give you an idea of what you can and cannot do. If a certain guideline is so unclear that you have to ask somebody first, then that guideline is useless.

Share this post


Link to post

Which kinda defeats the purpose of having guidelines. :rolleyes:

 

No, for those that understand the guidelines, this works well. For those that forget or misunderstand it is a clarification.

 

I don't follow. Guidelines are supposed to give you an idea of what you can and cannot do. If a certain guideline is so unclear that you have to ask somebody first, then that guideline is useless.

 

I never implied that there was something wrong with the guideline. I was talking about the individual.

Share this post


Link to post

Which kinda defeats the purpose of having guidelines. :rolleyes:

 

No, for those that understand the guidelines, this works well. For those that forget or misunderstand it is a clarification.

 

I don't follow. Guidelines are supposed to give you an idea of what you can and cannot do. If a certain guideline is so unclear that you have to ask somebody first, then that guideline is useless.

 

I never implied that there was something wrong with the guideline. I was talking about the individual.

 

But it's not a matter of understanding or not. There's nothing to understand, as the issue isn't addressed by the guidelines. So how can anyone "understand" the guidelines in this regard?

Share this post


Link to post

But it's not a matter of understanding or not. There's nothing to understand, as the issue isn't addressed by the guidelines. So how can anyone "understand" the guidelines in this regard?

 

There are simple laws in society. Don't steal, don't kill. Yet individuals can complicate matters and obscure the issue with their own feelings. Leading some to disregard the laws inorder to achieve their own ends. They are still subject to the lawmakers, even if they feel it is unfair. Although there is less seriousness in this issue it comes down to the same thing.

 

If you can't understand it a VR can clarify it based on an individual basis. That is because there is no way to create an exhaustive list of the examples of how to apply/misapply the guideline. Cache Shadow summed it up well, it is a human process with a subjective viewpoint. It satifies the owners of the site. Really, that is who we are subject to.

Share this post


Link to post

But it's not a matter of understanding or not. There's nothing to understand, as the issue isn't addressed by the guidelines. So how can anyone "understand" the guidelines in this regard?

 

There are simple laws in society. Don't steal, don't kill. Yet individuals can complicate matters and obscure the issue with their own feelings. Leading some to disregard the laws inorder to achieve their own ends. They are still subject to the lawmakers, even if they feel it is unfair. Although there is less seriousness in this issue it comes down to the same thing.

 

If you can't understand it a VR can clarify it based on an individual basis. That is because there is no way to create an exhaustive list of the examples of how to apply/misapply the guideline. Cache Shadow summed it up well, it is a human process with a subjective viewpoint. It satifies the owners of the site. Really, that is who we are subject to.

 

I still don't follow. Yeah, don't steal, don't kill. Quite clear, and (since you mention fairness) quite fair to everybody equally. But in this case, it would be "don't steal if ..." and "don't kill except ...", with the details of the conditional being left open and unspecified. Laws in society? I don't remember any laws with such vague and unclear terms. You said that the guidelines work well for those that understand them. Now, which part of them exactly do I need to understand in order to know whether a cache "Columbia Falls" would be allowed or not? Or I should rather ask, how do I need to understand them to know that? As it is now, it's not a matter of rules, laws, right or wrong or whatever else. It's purely a matter of decisions. The reviewer will decide if something is ok or not, and there is no way to know ahead of time what the decision will be. The only thing to "understand" in the guidelines is that there's nothing there that would tell you if it's ok or not. Now you may feel that this is a perfectly acceptable solution, but I don't think it is, especially in the long term. Have you been following any of the "virtuals" thread? Where it was explained what their problems were and why they were discontinued? Pretty much identical situation: The decision to allow or disallow a particular virtual was left up to the reviewer and their subjective view whether it was good or not. You already know how that ended. Same reason why the guidelines are some zillion pages long now. As long as the decision process is subjective and unpredictable, there will always be controversy. "Why me and not them", remember? It's how the whole thread started.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going.

 

The guidelines as written are pretty clear, listing five things which will flag a cache as being commercial in nature:

 

1) It requires the finder to go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

 

2) It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

 

3) It contains links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political agendas or social agendas.

 

4) It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

 

5) The name of a business or commercial product is on the cache page.

 

Now, so I understand, there is a group of cachers who feel this is not clear enough?

 

If I listed a cache and I stated the container is a LnL and a reviewer declines it because it is a commercial product, you know what I would do? I would change the term to something else, resubmit my cache and get it published. I fail to see why this is an issue.

 

If some caches slip through the cracks, or get modified after publication, why do I think this should matter to me and my cache?

 

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches.

 

Just because Cacher A managed to get a cache published mentioning there is a Tim Horton's gift card in it doesn't mean I should be able to.

Share this post


Link to post

Laws in society? I don't remember any laws with such vague and unclear terms.

 

Actually there are plenty. Red light, green light. The fact of the matter is that even when things couldn't be clearer people will still perceive their need as more important, not all the time, but sometimes. When have you heard of someone blowing a red light in front of a police officer without getting checked. There might be instances where exceptions are made, but these are purely at the discretion of the officer. The same is true with GS guidelines, their rules and their discretion of when to allow the rules to be ignored. It is perfectly ok to disagree, in law we use the courts to do so, but the fact remains that the keepers of the law are the ones that decide how these thing pan out.

 

...there is no way to know ahead of time what the decision will be.

 

I believe that you are merely digging in your heals with this. You and your counterpart have time and again shown your ability to percieve things that require reasoning ability. You know the extremes that apply here and as such you know the consequences. If you make a blatantly commercial listing it will get sandbagged. If you create a listing that excludes any reference to a company or procuct then it wouldn't be denied on the basis of that guideline. You do understand what can happen. Unfortunately t4e (and others) got caught rolling through a stop sign, figuratively speaking. The law decided to flex, but with little or no impact on the quality of the cache. It wasn't a fascist attack. The law put on the sirens and when the response was positive there was progress.

 

I understand how you would object to the "handslap" but in the life of that cache (and others) it isn't more than a "needs maintenance" or a "needs archive" log. Take it in stride and add it to the "Lessons Learned" column.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually there are plenty. Red light, green light. The fact of the matter is that even when things couldn't be clearer people will still perceive their need as more important, not all the time, but sometimes. When have you heard of someone blowing a red light in front of a police officer without getting checked. There might be instances where exceptions are made, but these are purely at the discretion of the officer. The same is true with GS guidelines, their rules and their discretion of when to allow the rules to be ignored. It is perfectly ok to disagree, in law we use the courts to do so, but the fact remains that the keepers of the law are the ones that decide how these thing pan out.

Sorry, but no. Going through a red light is a crime, period. There's nothing vague or unclear about that. It doesn't make a difference if nobody sees you, or if somebody sees you and doesn't care, or if a police officer sees you and doesn't care, or if he goes after you and just doesn't catch you, or if you actually get fined for it. You're just not supposed to do that, end of story. It's always been like that and it will always be like that. Getting away with murder doesn't make it ok. The law never changed, and the interpretation of the law never changed.

 

The difference to cache listings is that all cache listings are checked. If the reviewer publishes it, it means "this listing is ok, satisfies all guidelines". Now I'm quite aware that mistakes happen, reviewers are human too. But all those caches that were published with business names in them, they were no mistake. They didn't just "slip through the cracks", they weren't altered after publication and it also wasn't a case of the reviewer simply not caring (I assume, anyway). They were clearly seen as being within the guidelines. But then suddenly this changed. Suddenly they were not ok any more. Not all of them, just some of them. And not because the guidelines changed, but for some other reason.

 

Keeping the analogy with your police officer, you'd have to imagine the officer stopping every car just before the traffic light, examining the traffic light (red? green?) and then telling the person if it's ok to proceed or not. Previously, the officer told the drivers that they were good to go even though the light was red. Now suddenly he doesn't any more. He still lets some of them pass on red, but a much smaller number. And he actually goes after some (but not all) of those drivers that he previously told that they could continue despite the red light and fines them. Not quite the perfect analogy because the drivers obviously should know that they're not supposed to go through a red light, but most COs don't know that. For your regular CO, if the reviewer publishes it, it tells him that the listing was within guidelines.

Edited by dfx

Share this post


Link to post

The same is true with GS guidelines, their rules and their discretion of when to allow the rules to be ignored.

 

perfectly fine with me but....in such case reviewers should not deviate from the rules and the appeals should be the only ones allowed to make an exception

 

as for me getting "caught rolling through a stop sign", the punishment came 2+ years after the fact...why now? why was it published in the first place? is this an admission that those "crystal clear" rules where ignored?

 

its quite hard not to take it personal

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

They were clearly seen as being within the guidelines. But then suddenly this changed. Suddenly they were not ok any more.

 

I am sure you aren't suggesting that they should be left alone because they were ok then

 

Keeping the analogy with your police officer, you'd have to imagine the officer stopping every car just before the traffic light, examining the traffic light (red? green?) and then telling the person if it's ok to proceed or not.

 

This is what I am talking about, it is up to the lawkeepers to decide, as they see fit. If an officer tells you to come through the light you do it, even though:

Going through a red light is a crime, period. There's nothing vague or unclear about that. It doesn't make a difference if nobody sees you, or if somebody sees you and doesn't care, or if a police officer sees you and doesn't care, or if he goes after you and just doesn't catch you, or if you actually get fined for it. You're just not supposed to do that, end of story.

 

It is clear that you understand who is allowed to decide when rules apply.

 

Previously, the officer told the drivers that they were good to go even though the light was red. Now suddenly he doesn't any more.

 

Just because you cannot perceive why doesn't make you right. The law will win since he isn't doing it for personal reasons (unless you can prove otherwise). In all likelihood it was for your benefit not some mad agenda.

 

For your regular CO, if the reviewer publishes it, it tells him that the listing was within guidelines.

 

When he says that something is wrong and disables it, how does that compare to a fine or punishment? If it was archived I could agree, but nothing like that happened. The cache was never at risk if the guidelines were applied.

Share this post


Link to post

Better example is the Yellow Light. You are supposed to stop if it is safe to do so. The officer and the motorist can debate whether or not the point of no return had actually been passed. That is a grey area in law.

Share this post


Link to post

perfectly fine with me but....in such case reviewers should not deviate from the rules and the appeals should be the only ones allowed to make an exception

 

That would take forever. Everyone would argue any point and would bog down the system if the reviewers didn't have a measure of authority.

 

the punishment came 2+ years after the fact...why now? why was it published in the first place? is this an admission that those "crystal clear" rules where ignored?

 

It wasn't punishment it was correction. As stated in this thread, things change and we must change with them.

 

its quite hard not to take it personal

 

The only way it is personal is that it is your personal cache. Unless you can prove otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post

They were clearly seen as being within the guidelines. But then suddenly this changed. Suddenly they were not ok any more.

 

I am sure you aren't suggesting that they should be left alone because they were ok then

 

 

that is exactly what I am suggesting...the guideline WAS in place 2+ years ago when my caches were published

 

perfectly fine with me but....in such case reviewers should not deviate from the rules and the appeals should be the only ones allowed to make an exception

 

That would take forever. Everyone would argue any point and would bog down the system if the reviewers didn't have a measure of authority.

 

the punishment came 2+ years after the fact...why now? why was it published in the first place? is this an admission that those "crystal clear" rules where ignored?

 

It wasn't punishment it was correction. As stated in this thread, things change and we must change with them.

 

its quite hard not to take it personal

 

The only way it is personal is that it is your personal cache. Unless you can prove otherwise.

 

who cares how long it will take?...at least it will not leave room to argue that everyone is treated fair

as i said above...nothing changed the guideline was in place when my caches were published, over 2 years ago

 

yes they are my personal caches

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

that is exactly what I am suggesting...the guideline WAS in place 2+ years ago when my caches were published

 

So you think it is impossible to believe that maybe VRs got a reminder to address these issues more strictly? Or that it wasn't upto TPTB's standards (currently) and needed to be readdressed? All that was asked was that you address that issue only, it wasn't a total redo.

 

who cares how long it will take?...at least it will not leave room to argue that everyone is treated fair as i said above...nothing changed the guideline was in place when my caches were published, over 2 years ago

 

Just getting back to the entire "volunteer" issue. People don't all have unlimited time to spend on geocaching. Especially when they are not getting paid for it! We have a system that allows our caches to be published very quickly, you can't have it both ways. It has nothing to do with it being approved 2 years ago, it is still approved. They just wanted you to change two words.

Share this post


Link to post
I am sure you aren't suggesting that they should be left alone because they were ok then

Why not? It's happened before. Many caches that aren't within guidelines today were allowed to remain unchanged. And in this case the guidelines haven't even changed. While in other cases, where the guidelines did change, all violating caches were forced to be changed. Either way would have been fine, but in this case, some listings were forced to be changed while others were left untouched (and still are).

 

This is what I am talking about, it is up to the lawkeepers to decide, as they see fit. If an officer tells you to come through the light you do it, even though:

...

It is clear that you understand who is allowed to decide when rules apply.

Not at all. A police officer isn't allowed to negate any laws. A police offier doesn't make any laws, he just enforces them. Separation of powers, anyone? If a police officer tells me to ignore a red light and just go through it, I'm still committing a crime, and so is the police officer. (Of course I'm pretty sure that the law actually gives the police officer's instructions priority over what the traffic light shows, to accommodate for broken traffic lights and things like that. But that only works because the law explicitly states it and is probably only allowed under certain circumstances, not because anything that he says automatically overrules the law.)

 

When he says that something is wrong and disables it, how does that compare to a fine or punishment? If it was archived I could agree, but nothing like that happened. The cache was never at risk if the guidelines were applied.

It was your analogy, you answer that yourself. :anibad: Of course if I hadn't complied, then the cache would have gotten archived.

 

Better example is the Yellow Light. You are supposed to stop if it is safe to do so. The officer and the motorist can debate whether or not the point of no return had actually been passed. That is a grey area in law.

That's a very good example. The cop sits with you in your car as you approach a yellow light. He tells you "oh that's fine, plenty of time, just keep going" and so you do. Years later he turns around, tells you "you should've stopped, it was too close" and gives you a fine.

Share this post


Link to post
So you think it is impossible to believe that maybe VRs got a reminder to address these issues more strictly? Or that it wasn't upto TPTB's standards (currently) and needed to be readdressed?

 

We know that this isn't what happened. Read the first post again.

Share this post


Link to post

Of course I'm pretty sure that the law actually gives the police officer's instructions priority over what the traffic light shows, to accommodate for broken traffic lights and things like that. But that only works because the law explicitly states it and is probably only allowed under certain circumstances, not because anything that he says automatically overrules the law.)

 

Glad you are willing to listen to reason. :ph34r:

 

Better example is the Yellow Light. You are supposed to stop if it is safe to do so. The officer and the motorist can debate whether or not the point of no return had actually been passed. That is a grey area in law.

That's a very good example. The cop sits with you in your car as you approach a yellow light. He tells you "oh that's fine, plenty of time, just keep going" and so you do. Years later he turns around, tells you "you should've stopped, it was too close" and gives you a fine.

 

Again, there was no fine imposed. Help your argument by abandoning this train of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Again, there was no fine imposed. Help your argument by abandoning this train of thought.

 

It doesn't matter. Fine, warning, slap on the hand, makes no difference.

Share this post


Link to post

How about copyright law then, or patent law. You can publish a document then find out years later that you didn't research enough and you have to remove a trademark from your document. Another grey area

Share this post


Link to post

How about copyright law then, or patent law. You can publish a document then find out years later that you didn't research enough and you have to remove a trademark from your document. Another grey area

 

Not a gray area at all. Ignorantia juris non excusat. A reviewer publishing a cache that mentions Tim Horton's is not a case of ignorantia. Well, it can be, but it's safe to assume that it's not when it happens on a large scale. But please, let's not go through all possible comparable scenarios :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

that is exactly what I am suggesting...the guideline WAS in place 2+ years ago when my caches were published

 

So you think it is impossible to believe that maybe VRs got a reminder to address these issues more strictly? Or that it wasn't upto TPTB's standards (currently) and needed to be readdressed? All that was asked was that you address that issue only, it wasn't a total redo.

 

yeap, it is impossible to believe

 

Hello Ontario,

 

As many of you probably just saw, there was a large disabling of caches in the Golden Horseshoe area due to the presence of business names. This was a result of an email complaint from another player who shall remain nameless, that was declined their listing for promotional/commercial reasons.

Thanks

 

:cool: CD

 

who cares how long it will take?...at least it will not leave room to argue that everyone is treated fair as i said above...nothing changed the guideline was in place when my caches were published, over 2 years ago

 

Just getting back to the entire "volunteer" issue. People don't all have unlimited time to spend on geocaching. Especially when they are not getting paid for it! We have a system that allows our caches to be published very quickly, you can't have it both ways. It has nothing to do with it being approved 2 years ago, it is still approved. They just wanted you to change two words.

 

but my suggestion will not only make it fair for everyone will also save the reviewers a lot of time

 

of course it has everything to do with it being published 2 years ago when the guideline was there already....it is on essence an admission of guilt of ignoring the guidelines

Share this post


Link to post

of course it has everything to do with it being published 2 years ago when the guideline was there already....it is on essence an admission of guilt of ignoring the guidelines

Or a 2 year old error. Why would a reviewer ignore the guidelines?

Share this post


Link to post

of course it has everything to do with it being published 2 years ago when the guideline was there already....it is on essence an admission of guilt of ignoring the guidelines

Or a 2 year old error. Why would a reviewer ignore the guidelines?

 

i don't know...why else would they publish not one, but two caches for me, that were apparently against the guidelines?

 

nobody digs up a 2 year old error, you keep it away, leave it 4 more years and not even revenue canada will care about it :lol:

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

nobody digs up a 2 year old error, you keep it away, leave it 4 more years and not even revenue canada will care about it :lol:

:lol::laughing:B)

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Exactly! Give that man a prize!

 

cupie.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Which kinda defeats the purpose of having guidelines. :rolleyes:

 

No, for those that understand the guidelines, this works well. For those that forget or misunderstand it is a clarification.

 

I don't follow. Guidelines are supposed to give you an idea of what you can and cannot do. If a certain guideline is so unclear that you have to ask somebody first, then that guideline is useless.

 

The trouble, for you, is that the guidelines are clear. The knowledgebooks are equally clear. You must know that a definitive statement previously quoted is clear. You seem to be just drawing this out, or expecting that exceptions to the guidelines are commonplace or should be the norm. That would be contrary to the idea of having guidelines that state the opposite of what it sounds like you want.

Share this post


Link to post

At least as far as I'm concerned, things are going to be OK. I think my questions are answered... As long as reviewers have some common sense discretion (which isn't a bad thing people) and don't ban a cache simply because it has part of a business name in its title. Could you imaging if we couldn't use the word apple in a cache - there are plently on non-Apple computer apple related caches out there that should be allowed, Yum Apple Pie, An apple a day, the big apple...etc.etc... As long as apple isn't used in anyway to promote a business called Apple anything, then its likely going to be passed even with the word apple in it.. This was my concern, and like I said I think this was addressed...

 

At least there is the claims@geocaching.com email if you feel a reviewer is being vindictive or extra picky towards you.... if a cache is blocked but still meets the criteria - email them...

 

Any for those you might be still be arguring/discussing the Timmies FTF issue - wouldn't you rather be outside caching instead of inside arguring/discussing??? Winter will be here before you know it! :(:lol: (Not that winter is necessarily a bad thing though...)

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, kinda late reply here, but after having seen quite a lot of Mythbusters episodes myself lately, I had the urge to reply... (and I also need to live up to the apparent reputation I've earned...)

 

Why do they put tape/paint over product names on TV cooking shows and things such as Mythbusters? Sure, we know they are using Skippy Peanut Butter... but they have blanked it out. Their channel sells advertising. They have to be mindful of product placement. Mythbusters blank out names of products such as Skippy, Diet Coke, Coors Light, Jeep... (But I did notice they may verbally refer to a Walther PPK, Remington Rifle or an Abrams tank) I'm quite sure there are "brand guidelines" that their producers follow. I'm not sure I'd say I'm going to run out and buy Skippy for my PB&J just because Adam and Jamie used it in the dog related myth. Or heavy armament. But someone might.

 

Do you (a generic "you", not directed at anyone) think that they tape over the outside of a Pepsi can because their producer, manager, channel director or whoever, is gonna come to them and complain that they can't show the name or logo of Pepsi on TV because Pepsi didn't pay for advertisement? And that they can do that only if Pepsi had paid, and that they lose potential revenue if they show it anyway?

 

No, that's not the reason at all. They tape over a Pepsi can because if they didn't, Coca Cola would come to them and knock on their door and ask: Why did they get free exposure and we didn't? Such exposure can be quite valuable to those companies, so valuable that competing companies may well sue the TV station, probably over loss of revenue to them.

 

So, unless you (again, a generic "you") think that the mention of an FTF prize, or giving detailed driving directions, in a cache listing, is so valuable to a company as big as Tim Hortons or Starbucks (or rather, their competitors) that they might feel treated unfairly, that they might think they lose revenue over that, and that they might be tempted to sue over that (and they can't even sue GS because it's not their content, they'd have to sue the CO), I still think the whole scenario is very silly.

Share this post


Link to post

And again we go back to the same old argument...

 

For every time that it is suggested by a member that it is okay to mention a business name and/or product in a listing, my role is to tell you that doing so violates the listing requirements and guidelines which are spelled out in black and white. Whether that makes sense or not is irrelevant. Whether people agree with it or not is also irrelevant.

 

There is no example at all where there needs to be a business name and/or product mentioned in a geocaching listing regardless of its intent. I can provide a different version 100% of the time that demonstrates this, and simple desire to have it because of some perceived loophole that some wish to create/exploit is not going to change the fact that the LR&G says this:

 

Commercial caches are disallowed. As a general rule, reviewers will not publish cache pages that seem commercial. A commercial cache has one or more of the following characteristics:

 

It requires the finder to go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

It contains links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political agendas or social agendas.

It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

The name of a business or commercial product is on the cache page.

 

It then goes on to explain in great detail that such exceptions are beyond the scope of the lowly reviewers

 

On very rare occasions, Groundspeak makes an exception for a commercial cache. Arrangements are made before placement. If your cache is commercial in any way, please contact Groundspeak for clarification about how to comply with cache listing guidelines.

 

Reviewers are not Groundspeak. Exceptions are rare, and that is why they are called exceptions. As a reviewer, I do not grant exceptions to the commercial content rule... yes, I said rule.

 

:cool: CD

 

And just as an aside, for all the negative comments people make about the perceived rampant commercial content in Waymarking it sure seems hypocritical to be trying to demand to have commercial content here in geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

ok so fine...no witch hunt for caches that where published before this thread was started and contained "commercial" names etc....

 

why did caches get published, containing a business name in the description, a month after the start date of this thread?

Share this post


Link to post

ok so fine...no witch hunt for caches that where published before this thread was started and contained "commercial" names etc....

 

why did caches get published, containing a business name in the description, a month after the start date of this thread?

 

Click me

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

ok so fine...no witch hunt for caches that where published before this thread was started and contained "commercial" names etc....

 

why did caches get published, containing a business name in the description, a month after the start date of this thread?

 

Click me

 

:cool: CD

 

i think you're totally missing my question, makes no sense pointing me to that post i know very well what it says and it doesn't have the answer

Share this post


Link to post

ok so fine...no witch hunt for caches that where published before this thread was started and contained "commercial" names etc....

 

why did caches get published, containing a business name in the description, a month after the start date of this thread?

 

Click me

 

:cool: CD

 

i think you're totally missing my question, makes no sense pointing me to that post i know very well what it says and it doesn't have the answer

 

That may be true to you but for me it does have the answer. Maybe I am missing your question, or maybe I am saying that things might have been missed or that some listings did email contact@geocaching.com to arrange special permission or the text was edited after publication and should be dealt with.

 

If you feel that strongly about a certain cache or caches then I would suggest that you log an "Needs Archive" entry to alert the reviewers to the issue if you have not been able to persuade the cache owner that such content is not appropriate for a listing.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

 

That may be true to you but for me it does have the answer. Maybe I am missing your question, or maybe I am saying that things might have been missed or that some listings did email contact@geocaching.com to arrange special permission or the text was edited after publication and should be dealt with.

 

If you feel that strongly about a certain cache or caches then I would suggest that you log an "Needs Archive" entry to alert the reviewers to the issue if you have not been able to persuade the cache owner that such content is not appropriate for a listing.

 

:cool: CD

 

i can live with the situation where listing was modified after publication, but i am willing to bet that its not the case, and no, this is not a listing for which someone will go to appeals, but please...after all the bruhaha don't tell me it was missed

 

i know reviewers are humans bound to make mistakes but how do you miss..."Cache is located behind [insert store name]..."

 

nope, i don't feel strongly about any cache, i only feel strongly about my opinion about the whole thing and i am trying very hard to understand the logic behind reviewer's actions

 

i just happened to come across this listing and i wanted to know how it got published after all this decision was common knowledge to all Ontario reviewers, meanwhile my own caches got disabled after having so called commercial name in it for 2 years...just doesn't make sense

Share this post


Link to post

After reading of this incident, my friend who had a cache listing denied due to the proximity rule is wondering if the precedents they cited will result in half those caches being disabled retroactively.

 

Or would they have to contact the conflicting cache owners to ask for them to be disabled? And if the caches weren't disabled, would they have to submit a NA log on the offending caches? And if they did so, would Groundspeak archive them in the interest of maintaining a perception of rule-application consistency?

 

the guidelines are clear. The knowledgebooks are equally clear.

 

This is not true in my friend's case. The issue is not even mentioned in either the guidelines or knowledgebooks. Specifically, their cited precedents were of cache pairs that were in conflict re: proximity, but appeared to be separated by an unpassable water barrier (like that which separates their cache from the conflicting one).

Share this post


Link to post

After reading of this incident, my friend who had a cache listing denied due to the proximity rule is wondering if the precedents they cited will result in half those caches being disabled retroactively.

 

Or would they have to contact the conflicting cache owners to ask for them to be disabled? And if the caches weren't disabled, would they have to submit a NA log on the offending caches? And if they did so, would Groundspeak archive them in the interest of maintaining a perception of rule-application consistency?

 

the guidelines are clear. The knowledgebooks are equally clear.

 

This is not true in my friend's case. The issue is not even mentioned in either the guidelines or knowledgebooks. Specifically, their cited precedents were of cache pairs that were in conflict re: proximity, but appeared to be separated by an unpassable water barrier (like that which separates their cache from the conflicting one).

 

This is off-topic for this thread, so you should start a new one to discuss this new issue (you can link back to this one to provide your case-history if needed).

 

Having said that a couple things come to mind:

 

1) Two caches that are closer than 162M are closer than 162M, no matter what is in between them. To quote a reviewer once I was told that even if the caches were separated by certain death, they must still meet the saturation guidelines and be 162M apart. The 162M applies to horizontal (lat/lon) and not elevation too.

 

2) Previous caches cannot be used as some sort of precedent. Older caches may have been grandfathered while newer caches are checked against the current guidelines. There's also this thing where human beings learn over time.

Share this post


Link to post

The issue relates to this topic from the perspective of retroactive actions on identified alleged violations of the guidelines.

 

Specifically, if any issues are raised where an already published cache is shown to be in conflict with the guidelines, will it be archived?

 

What might be off-topic is pointing out that the guidelines do not absolutely forbid over-dense cache placement or citing precedent (read the guidelines again, carefully).

 

My friend is hesitant to identify a cache (published by the OP) which is clearly in conflict as they don't want that cache to be disabled as a result.

Share this post


Link to post

The issue relates to this topic from the perspective of retroactive actions on identified alleged violations of the guidelines.

 

Specifically, if any issues are raised where an already published cache is shown to be in conflict with the guidelines, will it be archived?

 

What might be off-topic is pointing out that the guidelines do not absolutely forbid over-dense cache placement or citing precedent (read the guidelines again, carefully).

 

My friend is hesitant to identify a cache (published by the OP) which is clearly in conflict as they don't want that cache to be disabled as a result.

 

It has nothing to do with Business Names in a Cache Listing.

Start a new topic. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

:cool: CD

So, it's OK to say, "Container is a Tim Horton's donut box"?

:lol:

 

(rhetorical question to an old posting... no need to reply)

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been answered.

 

Were the cache owners given a chance to change the cache listings to comply with the guidelines before these caches were archived en masse? and if not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been answered.

 

Were the cache owners given a chance to change the cache listings to comply with the guidelines before these caches were archived en masse? and if not, why not?

 

i don't think anyone asked that question, but i can tell you that CO's had their listings disabled and told to remove the offensive business names...so yes, they were given time to fix them

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

×
×
  • Create New...