c:geo

[+hydrodis]

Is c:geo still unapproved by Geocaching.com? If so do they remove members that use it? On c.geo's facebook page there seems to be some talk of taking

GS to court for removing something about a meeting in Germany that was removed.

Iam sure I can not be the only recently joined member that is confussed by whats right and whats not.

[+mpilchfamily]

Don't worry about it. Use it if you want. In the past the app did violate the TOS. Which only meant there was a good chance that one of the frequent site updates could block the app. Last i heard the new people who have taken over C:geo are going to integrate it with the API so there are/will be no issues.

[+Touchstone]

On c.geo's facebook page there seems to be some talk of taking GS to court for removing something about a meeting in Germany that was removed.

 

Link for reference:

 

Abuse of Dominant Position

 

I'm not sure I'm seeing the connection, but an interesting approach. Seems a bit heavy handed to threaten legal action over an Event Listing, and it sounds so much easier merely to comply with the Commercial portion of the Guidelines.

 

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 has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

 

What I can gather from the Facebook page discussion, that the Event organizers have gone to Appeals, which certainly sounds consistent with what the Guidelines suggest. Hopefully they'll get things worked out to everyone's satisfaction and benefit.

 

Best of luck to them.

[+niraD]

Last i heard the new people who have taken over C:geo are going to integrate it with the API so there are/will be no issues.

Really? The last I checked the opensource c:geo developer site, they had closed the ticket for migrating to the API, and there seemed to be consensus that they would continue scraping the geocaching.com site (in violation of the TOU).

[+baloo&bd]

Really? The last I checked the opensource c:geo developer site, they had closed the ticket for migrating to the API, and there seemed to be consensus that they would continue scraping the geocaching.com site (in violation of the TOU).

 

Unless the opensource changed something drastically from before the got it (plain vanilla c:geo), there was never a ToU violation.

[jholly]

Really? The last I checked the opensource c:geo developer site, they had closed the ticket for migrating to the API, and there seemed to be consensus that they would continue scraping the geocaching.com site (in violation of the TOU).

 

Unless the opensource changed something drastically from before the got it (plain vanilla c:geo), there was never a ToU violation.

Yes, we have heard this tired argument many times. GS says it violates the ToU, that should be enough, but the plain simple fact is that it tries to hide as a browser and does not properly identify the app and it scrapes pages. It violates the ToU.

[+GeoBain]

Really? The last I checked the opensource c:geo developer site, they had closed the ticket for migrating to the API, and there seemed to be consensus that they would continue scraping the geocaching.com site (in violation of the TOU).

 

Unless the opensource changed something drastically from before the got it (plain vanilla c:geo), there was never a ToU violation.

Yes, we have heard this tired argument many times. GS says it violates the ToU, that should be enough, but the plain simple fact is that it tries to hide as a browser and does not properly identify the app and it scrapes pages. It violates the ToU.

 

If it scrapes the site, then yes, it violates the TOU. I'm not inclined to believe it just because they say it, though. Groundspeak also says that posting spoiler videos on Youtube violates the TOU when in fact, the TOU does not actually cover any other servers but those controlled by Groundspeak.

[+Team Taran]

Since the developers actually talk about continuing to scrape the site instead of using the API I think the question as to whether they scrape the site is answered, The reason they refuse to use the API is that they want to be able to offer premimum level access to non premium members so that they can profit from the sites resources without helping to support it,

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Really? The last I checked the opensource c:geo developer site, they had closed the ticket for migrating to the API, and there seemed to be consensus that they would continue scraping the geocaching.com site (in violation of the TOU).

 

Unless the opensource changed something drastically from before the got it (plain vanilla c:geo), there was never a ToU violation.

Yes, we have heard this tired argument many times. GS says it violates the ToU, that should be enough, but the plain simple fact is that it tries to hide as a browser and does not properly identify the app and it scrapes pages. It violates the ToU.

 

If it scrapes the site, then yes, it violates the TOU. I'm not inclined to believe it just because they say it, though. Groundspeak also says that posting spoiler videos on Youtube violates the TOU when in fact, the TOU does not actually cover any other servers but those controlled by Groundspeak.

 

I downloaded the code for c:geo just after the original developer announce that he was no longer going to maintain it. I had read that compounding the issue of site scraping was that the code spoofed the headers to make it appear that the request was coming from a browser rather than from an application which could make requests much faster than a manually operated browser. I had also heard that Groundspeak had asked the author to change the app such that it the request could be identified as coming from c:geo, and the author refused to make the change. When I examined the source code I did, in fact, confirm that it was spoofing the header.

[+B+L]

When I examined the source code I did, in fact, confirm that it was spoofing the header.

Optionally spoofing the the header.

 

 

[+GeoBain]

Really? The last I checked the opensource c:geo developer site, they had closed the ticket for migrating to the API, and there seemed to be consensus that they would continue scraping the geocaching.com site (in violation of the TOU).

 

Unless the opensource changed something drastically from before the got it (plain vanilla c:geo), there was never a ToU violation.

Yes, we have heard this tired argument many times. GS says it violates the ToU, that should be enough, but the plain simple fact is that it tries to hide as a browser and does not properly identify the app and it scrapes pages. It violates the ToU.

 

If it scrapes the site, then yes, it violates the TOU. I'm not inclined to believe it just because they say it, though. Groundspeak also says that posting spoiler videos on Youtube violates the TOU when in fact, the TOU does not actually cover any other servers but those controlled by Groundspeak.

 

I downloaded the code for c:geo just after the original developer announce that he was no longer going to maintain it. I had read that compounding the issue of site scraping was that the code spoofed the headers to make it appear that the request was coming from a browser rather than from an application which could make requests much faster than a manually operated browser. I had also heard that Groundspeak had asked the author to change the app such that it the request could be identified as coming from c:geo, and the author refused to make the change. When I examined the source code I did, in fact, confirm that it was spoofing the header.

 

What about the scraping? I suspect c:geo does indeed scrape, but what did you see in the source code? Does it pull the data like a normal browser would or does it pull several pages at a time like a scraper would?

[+GeoBain]

When I examined the source code I did, in fact, confirm that it was spoofing the header.

Optionally spoofing the the header.

 

Yes, I was pretty sure about the header spoofing since there is an option in c:geo to have it show as a normal browser. But I don't think spoofing the agent info is a violation of the TOU.

[+SwineFlew]

This topic never seems to die.

[+B+L]

What about the scraping? I suspect c:geo does indeed scrape, but what did you see in the source code? Does it pull the data like a normal browser would or does it pull several pages at a time like a scraper would?

It's not really scraping. It looks like there is a single worker thread downloading one cache at a time.

[jholly]

What about the scraping? I suspect c:geo does indeed scrape, but what did you see in the source code? Does it pull the data like a normal browser would or does it pull several pages at a time like a scraper would?

It's not really scraping. It looks like there is a single worker thread downloading one cache at a time.

Any application that breaks when there there are changes to the HTML code of a site that do not necessarily affect how the site is displayed in a browser is a scraper. c:geo use to break on every site update. It is scraping, pure and simple.

[+B+L]

What about the scraping? I suspect c:geo does indeed scrape, but what did you see in the source code? Does it pull the data like a normal browser would or does it pull several pages at a time like a scraper would?

It's not really scraping. It looks like there is a single worker thread downloading one cache at a time.

Any application that breaks when there there are changes to the HTML code of a site that do not necessarily affect how the site is displayed in a browser is a scraper. c:geo use to break on every site update. It is scraping, pure and simple.

Semantics aside, it is often argued that the the anti-automation portions of the TOU are intended to prevent abuse and/or extra load on the site. That would normally be spidering or bulk downloading. GS can't control what happens on the client side. It would be more productive (and better for geocachers) if GW would work out a mutually acceptable compromise.

[+pppingme]

Any application that breaks when there there are changes to the HTML code of a site that do not necessarily affect how the site is displayed in a browser is a scraper. c:geo use to break on every site update. It is scraping, pure and simple.

This argument easily applies to every single grease monkey script out there, are they scraping?

 

When you get right down to it, c:geo is nothing more than an activity specific browser with a built in compass.

[+Semper Questio]

Any application that breaks when there there are changes to the HTML code of a site that do not necessarily affect how the site is displayed in a browser is a scraper. c:geo use to break on every site update. It is scraping, pure and simple.

This argument easily applies to every single grease monkey script out there, are they scraping?

 

When you get right down to it, c:geo is nothing more than an activity specific browser with a built in compass.

 

<flamesuit>

<soapbox>

 

Negative. Greasemonkey scripts, generally, do not scrape a site for content. It merely modifies how content is displayed after it is obtained via normal means.

 

You can fiddle with semantics all you like, but the truth of the matter is that c:geo is actively scraping the data from the site. Even if it is doing it 1 transaction at a time it is still scraping. Also it is doing it VERY quickly (much more quickly than a human user at a PC via a browser ever could) and negatively impacting server performance for ALL users.

 

Even more to the point, section 5 of the TOU says, in part, "You agree that you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission." and GS has said repeatedly that c:geo does not have said permission and violates the TOU.

 

Their sandbox, their rules. If you don't like that or don't want to abide by the TOU that you agreed to, perhaps you should move to another site or start your own. Sorry, but that's the truth of the matter.

 

</soapbox>

</flamesuit>

[+WarNinjas]

I hate to say it but I have both apps and I like C:GEO better. Not sure if it is because that is what I started with or what but It is more user friendly for me. Every time they do a update I see it affects C:GEO and I just laugh a little inside wondering if they just do it to mess with them. One way to solve the problem would be to make the geocaching.com app a little more like theirs to use. Or maybe just buy them out and use the good features on their app. I payed for the app here and quickly went back to C:GEO. I like to help out the site so there is no problem with paying for it, both sites have features I like that the other one don't but for finding a quick cache I go to C:GEO.

-WarNinjas

[+B+L]

<flamesuit>

<soapbox>

 

Negative. Greasemonkey scripts, generally, do not scrape a site for content. It merely modifies how content is displayed after it is obtained via normal means.

 

You can fiddle with semantics all you like, but the truth of the matter is that c:geo is actively scraping the data from the site. Even if it is doing it 1 transaction at a time it is still scraping. Also it is doing it VERY quickly (much more quickly than a human user at a PC via a browser ever could) and negatively impacting server performance for ALL users.

 

Even more to the point, section 5 of the TOU says, in part, "You agree that you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission." and GS has said repeatedly that c:geo does not have said permission and violates the TOU.

 

Their sandbox, their rules. If you don't like that or don't want to abide by the TOU that you agreed to, perhaps you should move to another site or start your own. Sorry, but that's the truth of the matter.

 

</soapbox>

</flamesuit>

Who is this you? Are the users of c:geo expected to know how the internals of the app work? Do you have some metrics to demonstrate the alleged performance impacts?

 

Has GS ever made an official statement concerning this app? The only thing I have seen is certain moderators killing threads and making vague accusations. Sorry, but the truth of the matter is that we are all entitled to our opinions, but we are not the ones who decide who or what is violating the TOU and who should move to another site or start their own.

 

Disclaimer: I have a copy of this app, but i have never actually used it for anything other than a yardstick to measure the official app with.

[jholly]

<flamesuit>

<soapbox>

 

Negative. Greasemonkey scripts, generally, do not scrape a site for content. It merely modifies how content is displayed after it is obtained via normal means.

 

You can fiddle with semantics all you like, but the truth of the matter is that c:geo is actively scraping the data from the site. Even if it is doing it 1 transaction at a time it is still scraping. Also it is doing it VERY quickly (much more quickly than a human user at a PC via a browser ever could) and negatively impacting server performance for ALL users.

 

Even more to the point, section 5 of the TOU says, in part, "You agree that you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission." and GS has said repeatedly that c:geo does not have said permission and violates the TOU.

 

Their sandbox, their rules. If you don't like that or don't want to abide by the TOU that you agreed to, perhaps you should move to another site or start your own. Sorry, but that's the truth of the matter.

 

</soapbox>

</flamesuit>

Who is this you? Are the users of c:geo expected to know how the internals of the app work? Do you have some metrics to demonstrate the alleged performance impacts?

 

Has GS ever made an official statement concerning this app? The only thing I have seen is certain moderators killing threads and making vague accusations. Sorry, but the truth of the matter is that we are all entitled to our opinions, but we are not the ones who decide who or what is violating the TOU and who should move to another site or start their own.

 

Disclaimer: I have a copy of this app, but i have never actually used it for anything other than a yardstick to measure the official app with.

 

Yes, as a matter of fact Groundspeak has made the statement. From this thread you can see where Elias said

 

mtn-man is correct. Using an application like c:geo which accesses the geocaching.com website in the manner that it does violates our Terms of Use Agreement and Groundspeak does not authorize such activity.

 

It is true that c:geo uses the HTTP protocol on port 80, but that's as close to a web browser as it gets. c:geo queries the site in a manner very differently from a person sitting behind a web browser. It's also telling that the author of c:geo chose to add an option: "identify c:geo as a standard browser" so as to hide its identity from our servers.

 

Groundspeak provides a number of features and services to both basic and premium members for the purpose of Geocaching. Access to the Geocaching.com website via c:geo is not one of them.

 

This thread has degenerated to the point that it is no longer constructive. As a result, we are "archiving" it. According to Get Satisfaction, this won't lock the thread and prevent further posts, but it will remove it from the list of active topics.

 

The bolding is mine. Seems the vice-president of Groundspeak thinks it violates the ToU. This was posted on the old feedback site, is that official enough?

[+hydrodis]

Wow! Never meant to start a war.. All this talk has raised another question in my mind. Just how many people worldwide use this free app. and why. It can't be the cost of the offical one,being only a few pounds £uk.

[+B+L]

The bolding is mine. Seems the vice-president of Groundspeak thinks it violates the ToU. This was posted on the old feedback site, is that official enough?

The tone of these forums sure could stand some improvement. Ah yes, Get Satisfaction, those were the days. Yes, I did see that, but it was posted a year ago last August. I remember thinking, "they just don't get it" when I read that statement.

 

I imagine that if GS felt strongly enough about this violation then they would have attempted to have the app removed from the Android Market. Whether they tried or not, the app is still available and still the most popular geocaching app available for Android phones. I don't see this as a win for GS. In fact, I expect to see this same topic pop up every 6 months for eternity.

[+Lil Devil]

All this talk has raised another question in my mind. Just how many people worldwide use this free app.

Official App from Groundspeak - Installs: 50,000 - 100,000

 

c:geo - opensource - Installs: 100,000 - 500,000

 

Of course that is only number of installs, not active users. But it seems "free" trumps "pay" even when it [marginally] violates the TOU.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Lil Devil

[+Semper Questio]

 

Who is this you? Are the users of c:geo expected to know how the internals of the app work? Do you have some metrics to demonstrate the alleged performance impacts?

 

Has GS ever made an official statement concerning this app? The only thing I have seen is certain moderators killing threads and making vague accusations. Sorry, but the truth of the matter is that we are all entitled to our opinions, but we are not the ones who decide who or what is violating the TOU and who should move to another site or start their own.

 

Disclaimer: I have a copy of this app, but i have never actually used it for anything other than a yardstick to measure the official app with.

 

No, I have no metrics, but I've been in IT for 30 years and it does not take a genius to understand that a person using an automated process to access a service repeatedly with multiple requests (as the live map does) places a much larger processing burden on that service than does a person using that same service in an approved manner via individual calls or the official API.

 

Yes, we are entitled to our opinions, but this is not a matter of opinion. The site owners have the right to decide who is allowed what access to their system and in what ways. As jholly has pointed out, they have made that decision in regards to this app.

 

The decision as to whether to play by the rules that were agreed to at registration, however, is a personal one.

[+Semper Questio]

Wow! Never meant to start a war.. All this talk has raised another question in my mind. Just how many people worldwide use this free app. and why. It can't be the cost of the offical one,being only a few pounds £uk.

 

Don't sweat it. This topic comes up and gets rehashed fairly regularly. I'm sure the cost figures into it pretty strongly, but the c:geo app does have some nice features that make it pretty attractive. Unfortunately one of the most powerful of those features - the live map - is probably also the biggest point of dispute in regards to the TOU.

[+Semper Questio]

I imagine that if GS felt strongly enough about this violation then they would have attempted to have the app removed from the Android Market. Whether they tried or not, the app is still available and still the most popular geocaching app available for Android phones. I don't see this as a win for GS. In fact, I expect to see this same topic pop up every 6 months for eternity.

 

Yeah, I don't know enough about how the app market works to know if they can do anything about that. GS has talked about trying to block access of the app, but they said that since the app can (and, is I understand it, does by default) present itself as a standard browser, then they can't readily identify calls coming from the app to block them without affecting regular users.

[+JL_HSTRE]

This topic never seems to die.

 

It never dies because of the popularity of c:geo. I'm pretty sure it is the most popular Droid geocaching app and probably more popular than all the others (except maybe Groundspeak's) combined.

 

So it exists in this weird state where it's widely used despite violating the TOU, but this violation is not widely known and Groundspeak is either unable or unwilling to make any serious effort to quash the app. So questions are frequently asked about it and every time they are someone feels the need to point out the TOU issue.

 

I refuse to use it because of the TOU issue, but I think most users don't care.

[+pppingme]

This topic never seems to die.

I'm pretty sure it is the most popular Droid geocaching app and probably more popular than all the others (except maybe Groundspeak's) combined.

It IS more popular than groundspeaks app.

 

The question comes up, why would anyone pay for an inferior app, when there is a superior one for free?

 

Yeah, yeah, they claim they've fixed a lot of the problems with it, like the really bad battery drain, even after you exit the app, it not being real intuitive, it being slow and cumbersome, it crashing all the time (needing to be force closed) and many more issues, but they've already blown the reputation of the app, and even today its still not as good.

 

When you consider Groundspeak has "40 employees" and the original c:geo was developed by one person, there's just no reason for the situation they are in, except their own actions.

[+pppingme]

I don't believe that c:geo would have ever made it off the ground if the Groundspeak app was free (which it should be).

 

One of groundspeaks problems is that they seem to think they need to profit off ever aspect of the hobby. If they simply focused on making a quality site, and offering PM's good value, they would make more profit in the long run.

[+dfx]

I don't believe that c:geo would have ever made it off the ground if the Groundspeak app was free (which it should be).

 

AFAIK c:geo has been around longer than the official Android "app", which would give it an advantage no matter what. But they don't want you to get easy and quick access to a large number of cache listings, they want you to pay for that.

[+Sol seaker]

All this talk has raised another question in my mind. Just how many people worldwide use this free app.

Official App from Groundspeak - Installs: 50,000 - 100,000

 

c:geo - opensource - Installs: 100,000 - 500,000

 

Of course that is only number of installs, not active users. But it seems "free" trumps "pay" even when it [marginally] violates the TOU.

 

and I wonder how many of those who have bought the Groundspeak App use the C:geo app instead.

 

The Groundspeak App needs live maps. Period.

 

I suspect a whole lot of people would rather not be violating the TOU if they could get a few upgrades on the Groundspeak app.

 

I really don't see the ten bucks as the issue.

If Groundspeak had the better app, even with the ten bucks, those numbers would be reversed. I guarantee it.

[+Sol seaker]

Okay, here is a place to vote for live maps on the Groundspeak app if this is what you want too.

 

vote to get live maps, HERE

[+B+L]

No, I have no metrics, but I've been in IT for 30 years and it does not take a genius to understand that a person using an automated process to access a service repeatedly with multiple requests (as the live map does) places a much larger processing burden on that service than does a person using that same service in an approved manner via individual calls or the official API.

 

Yes, we are entitled to our opinions, but this is not a matter of opinion. The site owners have the right to decide who is allowed what access to their system and in what ways. As jholly has pointed out, they have made that decision in regards to this app.

I was not questioning your professional qualifications, but absent any metrics, saying that c:geo puts more load on the server than approved methods do is speculation. I also question the claims about the load this app is placing on GS's servers in general. If it was really a problem, GS could say that it was violating the terms of the Google Developer Distribution Agreement and attempt to get it yanked from the market. Or, maybe they've decided the resulting negative PR would be worse than living with the extra load, such as it is.

 

It is really up to GS to decide how they want to handle this, not the TOU scolds that appear every time c:geo is mentioned. It is a very strange situation to have the most popular geocaching app be "unauthorized", yet that is apparently how GS has decided to respond to it so far.

[+JeepFreak81]

Wow! Never meant to start a war.. All this talk has raised another question in my mind. Just how many people worldwide use this free app. and why. It can't be the cost of the offical one,being only a few pounds £uk.

 

Actually, that's exactly why I use the free one. If the official app was more in line with the cost of many other apps, say $2.99 or so I'd probably buy it, but not for $10

[+niraD]

If the official app was more in line with the cost of many other apps, say $2.99 or so I'd probably buy it, but not for $10

FWIW, Neongeo costs less than half what Groundspeak's geocaching app costs, and complies with Groundspeak's TOU. There are a number of former c:geo users in the Neongeo forums, and they've been very happy with the switch.

[+baloo&bd]

If the official app was more in line with the cost of many other apps, say $2.99 or so I'd probably buy it, but not for $10

FWIW, Neongeo costs less than half what Groundspeak's geocaching app costs, and complies with Groundspeak's TOU. There are a number of former c:geo users in the Neongeo forums, and they've been very happy with the switch.

 

However when there is a free alternative that complies with GS ToU, such as c:geo, people will naturally gravitate toward it. With all the evidence to the contrary that has been made available, including the original author of c:geo repeatedly stating it did not violate the ToU, I am not sure why c:geo keeps getting slammed by a few who simply echo what they have heard regarding ToU violations. Even GS has backed off there original stance.

 

Simply constantly saying it violates the ToU will not make it so, just cut into c;geo's profits somehwat. Wait...c:geo is opensource and free, so apparently it won't accomplish anything.

Edited October 31, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+Sky King 36]

With all the evidence to the contrary that has been made available...

If there is so much evidence, surely there are links to this evidence that can be posted?

 

... Even GS has backed off there original stance.

They have? When? Cite references please.

 

It is not appropriate to claim "the facts side with me, while the rest of you have only anecdotes"... and then provide no facts and only anecdotes..

 

If you have independently verifiable evidence that c>geo does not screen scrape, or, that Groudspeak has indeed relented and now allows screen scraping under their TOU, post links so we can see who's claims are being based on facts and who's are based on anecdote.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Sky King 36

[+baloo&bd]

It is not appropriate to claim "the facts side with me, while the rest of you have only anecdotes"... and then provide no facts and only anecdotes..

 

If you have independently verifiable evidence that c>geo does not screen scrape, or, that Groudspeak has indeed relented and now allows screen scraping under their TOU, post links so we can see who's claims are being based on facts and who's are based on anecdote.

 

First, you are quoting something I never said and attributing it to me, somewhat ironic when making a statement regarding facts.

 

The "facts" have been provided among the numerous posts in other threads, some of which I think you were in, so searching them will not be to difficult for you to do. Even searching on the original author, carnero, should bring up his blog and several other posts where he discusses the one item GS had issues with (the icons) that he fixed at their request and that there is no violation.

 

I also never stated that GS now allows "screen scraping", which is not relevant to the topic when discussing c:geo.

[+larryc43230]

Even searching on the original author, carnero, should bring up his blog and several other posts where he discusses the one item GS had issues with (the icons) that he fixed at their request and that there is no violation.

I've tried several times to find this carnero blog with no success. I've found the original c:geo Web site, with links to a twitter feed (which doesn't interest me), and a link to a "Support Forum", which now just leads to a Facebook page. I also wasn't able to find any relevant blog with a Google search.

 

I would be most interested in reading the blog entries that have been mentioned many times, but I just can't find them. Will someone in the know please provide a direct link?

 

--Larry

[+pppingme]

... Even GS has backed off there original stance.

They have? When? Cite references please.

When GS does something, sometimes its by lack of action.

 

GS used to consistently lock and hide any thread that mentioned it, and for the threads they left going, the phrase "c:geo" would be edited out.

 

Even though they haven't stated that they no longer do this, its obvious they don't.

 

Several months ago this thread would have disappeared within 15 minutes of the OP.

[jholly]

If the official app was more in line with the cost of many other apps, say $2.99 or so I'd probably buy it, but not for $10

FWIW, Neongeo costs less than half what Groundspeak's geocaching app costs, and complies with Groundspeak's TOU. There are a number of former c:geo users in the Neongeo forums, and they've been very happy with the switch.

 

However when there is a free alternative that complies with GS ToU, such as c:geo, people will naturally gravitate toward it. With all the evidence to the contrary that has been made available, including the original author of c:geo repeatedly stating it did not violate the ToU, I am not sure why c:geo keeps getting slammed by a few who simply echo what they have heard regarding ToU violations. Even GS has backed off there original stance.

 

Simply constantly saying it violates the ToU will not make it so, just cut into c;geo's profits somehwat. Wait...c:geo is opensource and free, so apparently it won't accomplish anything.

Apparently you have a hard time parsing post #21.

[+Sky King 36]

The "facts" have been provided among the numerous posts in other threads...

I also never stated that GS now allows "screen scraping", which is not relevant to the topic when discussing c:geo.

 

Indeed I have been in some of those forums, and here is what I know to be true. I believe these are facts, and I do not believe them to be in dispute by either party:

Fact 1: c:geo uses HTML screen scraping. I do agree that Carnero, like others, have said that screen scraping shouldn't be a violation of the TOU, that it is merely a "really fast browser." But he has never disputed, nor have its current authors disputed that it screen scrapes. The code is open source, there's no need for conjecture here.

 

Fact 2: Groundspeak has explicitly prohibited screen scraping. They have never "backed off" this stance. The no-screen-scrape TOU was implemented in early 2004 and has remained unchanged, word-for word, ever since. "You agree that you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission."

 

Again, I do not believe these facts are in dispute. I do agree that Groundspeak has softened their once firm stand on deleting all references to c:geo in logs and threads. But that is not at all the same as softening their stance that it violates the TOU, I am quite certain they have not. That is what I meant about posting citations... If there are statements by Groundspeak to the contrary, I welcome them.

 

Honest, I promise, I do *get* that c:geo's authors, and users, very much want the program to be interpreted as a very fast "special use" browser. I really do understand this argument. But that is not at all the same as saying it complies with the TOU.

 

Imagine if I drove a NASCAR car down the freeway at 200 MPH, and I got pulled over. (Don't ask me how, LOL.) "But officer, you can't give me a ticket, this is a 'special use' car." At best I am going to get hauled before a judge and loose big. And imagine me saying "but the car's manufacturer is very insistent, he has even stated in writing that this is not illegal." Now I'm lucky to even make it to the judge, I'm more likely to get tasered and rolled into the ditch.

 

I am not trying to be pugilistic, even though I am sure I sound that way. My point is that if "Simply constantly saying it violates the ToU will not make it so" is dismissed as being non-factual anecdote... Then how can "the original author of c:geo repeatedly stating it did not violate the ToU" be accepted as the only factual evidence that it is compliant? Surely, if compliance has indeed been established, there are some independently verifiable links somewhere, anywhere, that corroborate this claim, and all that is being asked, the ONLY thing that is being asked, is that these links be posted rather than discussed abstractly.

[+B+L]

The "facts" have been provided among the numerous posts in other threads, some of which I think you were in, so searching them will not be to difficult for you to do. Even searching on the original author, carnero, should bring up his blog and several other posts where he discusses the one item GS had issues with (the icons) that he fixed at their request and that there is no violation.

 

I also never stated that GS now allows "screen scraping", which is not relevant to the topic when discussing c:geo.

The blog post from way back in March 11, 2010 describes GS's initial contact in which they asked carnero to stop using their icons. It is true that he "fixed" that problem, but that does not mean that there were not other concerns raised later. There were.

 

GS has clearly decided their thread kill strategy was sub-optimal. That does not mean they now suddenly approve of an app that allows free access to premium features and that is the real issue here, not the alleged load on the servers. Screen scraping is not relevant only if one wants to get all pedantic and say it's not screen scraping, it's web scraping, web data extraction, web harvesting, etc.

[+pppingme]

Fact 2: Groundspeak has explicitly prohibited screen scraping. They have never "backed off" this stance. The no-screen-scrape TOU was implemented in early 2004 and has remained unchanged, word-for word, ever since. "You agree that you will not use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Site for any purpose without our express written permission."

Break this down:

 

Most people won't disagree that robots or spiders violate the TOU.

 

When you read this, you see that the word "scraper" is followed by "or other automated".

 

This clearly means automated scrapers, not a custom browser (as many, including me, have interpreted c:geo to be).

 

To try to define this ANY other way would put most of the greasemonkey scripts, or for that matter, a lot of browser add-ons in the "violates TOU" group as well, those seem to be mostly accepted.

[+niraD]

This clearly means automated scrapers, not a custom browser (as many, including me, have interpreted c:geo to be).

 

To try to define this ANY other way would put most of the greasemonkey scripts, or for that matter, a lot of browser add-ons in the "violates TOU" group as well, those seem to be mostly accepted.

How many Greasemonkey scripts and browser add-ons extract data from the geocaching.com site? The ones I'm familiar with merely change the presentation of the current page, or provide features independent of the current page.

 

That's the distinction between a custom browser and a scraper. A custom browser displays the current page in a custom way. A scraper extracts data from a page, and then uses that data somehow.

[+Sky King 36]

This clearly means automated scrapers, not a custom browser (as many, including me, have interpreted c:geo to be).

 

But this is the whole point! The act of you interpreting c:geo to be a browser does not make it stop being an automated scraper. It IS an automated scraper.

My saying "I have interpreted the earth to be flat" does not make the world stop being round.

 

To try to define this ANY other way would put most of the greasemonkey scripts, or for that matter, a lot of browser add-ons in the "violates TOU" group as well, those seem to be mostly accepted.

 

 

How is it that c:geo gets compared to greasemonkey? Greasemonkey is a rendering engine that allows you to customize your browser's rendering of the elements of the web page you are currently viewing. Very few web service providers have any problem with that. Now take greasemonkey, and modify it... recode it so that it will actually download not one, but say, 20 or 30 web pages simultaneously... and scrape the data off of those web pages automatically... and consolidates that data into a new data presentation... It wouldn't be greasemonkey any more. It would be an automated scraper. I am not saying it would be "like" or "similar" to an automated scraper, it would be the very essence, the very definition of an automated scraper.

 

The value proposition that c:geo brings to the table is that it IS an automated scraper. That's why it exists. If c:geo could only download one cache, and display that cache on a map, then it would be very much like greasemonkey. And... no one would bother downloading it. If you had to manually go through, cache by cache, and pull up 20-30 web pages, and copy and paste those cache locations and descriptions into the map, you'd never do that. No one would. What gives c:geo its sizzle, what has always made the program appealing, is that it automates the screen scraping process. It automatically pulls up a LOT of web pages simultaneously, gathers the data from all of them and consolidates that data into a new data product that the data provider did not intend for you to have access to: the live map. Take away the live map feature and c:geo fizzles almost overnight.

 

I just don't see how there's any gray area here. Installing an automated screen scraper, and changing the name of the icon on your desktop from "automated screen scraper" to "custom browser" does not make it stop being an automated screen scraper.

 

Groundspeak keeps getting singled out here, but there are literally millions of web-based data providers that expressly forbid the use of automated data-mining as a means of bypassing normally paid access to their data.

[+Sky King 36]

That's the distinction between a custom browser and a scraper. A custom browser displays the current page in a custom way. A scraper extracts data from a page, and then uses that data somehow.

Indeed. And if that extraction process is automated so that it can scrape the data off many screens at once, it is, by definition, an automated scraper.

 

And if you consolidate the scraped data into a new/different data product or new presentation model than the ones the data provider intended, you are going to be in violation of the TOUs of many, many websites. How many web data providers allow the automated mining of their online databases as a means of creating new data products? Not many. Even if that mining is for personal, non-commercial use? Not many. And, as a means of bypassing other paid services? Not many.

[+pppingme]

C:GEO doesn't do anything until the user clicks on it (well, more technically taps the screen), it doesn't do anything on its own, it doesn't do anything without being asked, where's the "AUTOMATED" that everyone keeps quoting?

 

ITS NOT THERE.

 

It doesn't go out every day or hour and fetch new pages, it can't, there's nothing in the code to do that.

 

At no point, and there is nothing in the code, will it ever go to the gc site without the user explicitly tapping the screen.

 

There is simply no "automated" accessing of the gc site, anywhere.

[+fizzymagic]

C:GEO doesn't do anything until the user clicks on it (well, more technically taps the screen), it doesn't do anything on its own, it doesn't do anything without being asked, where's the "AUTOMATED" that everyone keeps quoting?

 

ITS NOT THERE.

 

Oh, come on. You can't possibly be serious.

 

Example of automated scraping: live maps.

 

There ya go. HTH.