Facebook Groups

[+chramm]

I originally sent an email to GC.com about this, but they have advised posting it here. I am not sure why, but I suppose it is so that others can weigh in and they see the general opinion.

 

We are a local geocaching group based in the East Midlands called EMcache. We have had an online forum, but recently moved onto a Facebook Group, which has meant we don't have to pay for hosting and those without technical ability are able to administer it much more easily. We did not thing this was unreasonable because it is free to sign up to Facebook.

 

This only became a problem when we published our Christmas Event and asked people to go to the Facebook group, giving a link, to vote in our annual Geocaching Awards, the EMmys. The reviewer did not allow the listing with the Facebook group link, even though we had basically copied an pasted the cache description from last year, where we had linked to our other web forum. Further questions and discussion showed that the reviewer was following guidelines, and since Facebook is considered to be a commercial enterprise it cannot be advertised in cache descriptions.

 

This seem unreasonable to me. Firstly, you can sigh in to GC.com with a facebook account and publish your finds on Facebook so there is clearly already a relationship between the two. Secondly, it is not the website we wish to advertise, it is our geocaching group, so that other can come and join us, rather than us being an exclusive group to those who already know about it.

 

Someone suggested that it may be because we are a closed group. This is necessary only so that we can monitor the suitability of the posting, which has have had problems with in the past, and prevent abusive or illegal comments being widespread. The admins (not me) are very quick to accept individual's requests to join.

 

What do others think? Should the guidelines be changed to allow geocaching related groups to be linked to in cache descriptions?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Someone suggested that it may be because we are a closed group. This is necessary only so that we can monitor the suitability of the posting, which has have had problems with in the past, and prevent abusive or illegal comments being widespread. The admins (not me) are very quick to accept individual's requests to join.

 

What do others think? Should the guidelines be changed to allow geocaching related groups to be linked to in cache descriptions?

I agree that it's now time for Groundspeak to allow links to Facebook and stop attempting to control everything. The "closed group" excuse is a red herring. I guess that it's based on the principle that you're not allowed to make arbitrary restrictions on who can attend a caching event; not really such a problem now that caching is so widespread. And with Facebook the group isn't really "closed", it's just that you need to apply to join it.

 

It's all looking rather outdated now, and if GC.COM are not careful they'll find that caching events become listed on Facebook exclusively. Personally, I think they should have been listed on Facebook, ever since Facebook became popular.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Happy Humphrey

[+steben6]

Like it, or not, but not everybody uses Facebook or even wants to. I am not weighing in on whether it's appropriate for gs to limit posting stuff about Facebook (although, since their website belongs to them, they have the right to do whatever they want), but I think it's kind of limiting in itself to force your event goers to have to use Facebook. I am a FB user, but I have lots of friends who aren't and never want to be. Just sayin'.

[+Lieblweb]

The fact that you have a link to facebook - not everyone is on facebook nor wants to be on facebook.

The fact that you have a 'closed group' - not everyone wants to join your group or any group.

 

Geocaching is for everyone and you can't expect people to join/register.

 

Take the facebook link out completely and have people vote at the event. OR come up with another hosted web page that EVERYONE can access freely.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Try this on for size....

 

YOU own a commercial enterprise -- and people conspire to use your enterprise to advertize another unrelated commercial enterprise, from which you or your enterprise receives -0- profit margin from. Would you allow that?

 

It comes down to the bottom line... coupled with the fact that you/yours is being used as a vehicle to support another business that is not you/yours.

 

I have to agree with Groundspeak.

[+Jacaru & Wemnog]

Try this on for size....

 

YOU own a commercial enterprise -- and people conspire to use your enterprise to advertize another unrelated commercial enterprise, from which you or your enterprise receives -0- profit margin from. Would you allow that?

 

It comes down to the bottom line... coupled with the fact that you/yours is being used as a vehicle to support another business that is not you/yours.

 

I have to agree with Groundspeak.

 

Yet you can link to Groundspeak and your account (maybe not you personally) through Facebook, isn't that double standards?

Edited November 21, 2012 by Jacaru

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Try this on for size....

 

YOU own a commercial enterprise -- and people conspire to use your enterprise to advertize another unrelated commercial enterprise, from which you or your enterprise receives -0- profit margin from. Would you allow that?

 

It comes down to the bottom line... coupled with the fact that you/yours is being used as a vehicle to support another business that is not you/yours.

 

I have to agree with Groundspeak.

 

Yet you can link to Groundspeak and your account (maybe not you personally) through Facebook, isn't that double standards?

I think you are looking at it from the viewpoint of a user... look at it from the viewpoint of owning/operating a business.

 

If I owned a rugby or football franchise, why would I advertize (or be a vehicle for such) a basketball or hockey franchise for free? I wouldn't, if I had no stake in that basketball or hockey franchise. It's business.

[+The A-Team]

This seem unreasonable to me. Firstly, you can sigh in to GC.com with a facebook account and publish your finds on Facebook so there is clearly already a relationship between the two.

If it was a different commercial entity than Facebook, I'd agree with the reviewer. However, as you pointed out, Groundspeak is already advertising Facebook through the "Log in with Facebook" links. I'd say that if you took this to appeals (appeals@geocaching.com) and pointed this out, you might have a good chance of winning.

[+Lil Devil]

Facebook shows ads. Facebook makes money off of those ads. Why should Groundspeak use their resources to advertise Facebook so Facebook can make more money off those ads?

 

Maybe if Facebook would buy some ad space on geocaching.com, then things might change.

 

I agree with the current guidelines. Keep the advertizing off the cache pages.

[Keystone]

This seem unreasonable to me. Firstly, you can sigh in to GC.com with a facebook account and publish your finds on Facebook so there is clearly already a relationship between the two.

If it was a different commercial entity than Facebook, I'd agree with the reviewer. However, as you pointed out, Groundspeak is already advertising Facebook through the "Log in with Facebook" links. I'd say that if you took this to appeals (appeals@geocaching.com) and pointed this out, you might have a good chance of winning.

You'd be wrong. I've had this confirmed specifically by the Appeals office just yesterday in connection with a related issue about a cache submission. No FB links on cache listings.

[+The A-Team]

This seem unreasonable to me. Firstly, you can sigh in to GC.com with a facebook account and publish your finds on Facebook so there is clearly already a relationship between the two.

If it was a different commercial entity than Facebook, I'd agree with the reviewer. However, as you pointed out, Groundspeak is already advertising Facebook through the "Log in with Facebook" links. I'd say that if you took this to appeals (appeals@geocaching.com) and pointed this out, you might have a good chance of winning.

You'd be wrong. I've had this confirmed specifically by the Appeals office just yesterday in connection with a related issue about a cache submission. No FB links on cache listings.

That sure seems like a double-standard to me. Groundspeak can mention Facebook all they want, but we the users aren't allowed to because it might advertise Facebook? I really don't care what the outcome is, because I have no need to be linking to Facebook in my listings anyway, but it just seems odd to me.

 

Can I assume that Twitter falls under the same restriction, even though it, like Facebook, is advertised on each and every log summary?

[+Happy Humphrey]

At the foot of this page, Groundspeak say;

 

"Share this topic: " with links to Facebook, Twitter etc.

Just above this input box for posting a reply is a Twitter button.

Kind of suggests that Groundspeak approve of the likes of Facebook and wants us to use it (advertising and all). So arguments that we shouldn't expect them to allow advertising of a competitor don't hold water.

 

Let's face it, cache events don't particularly suit being cache pages. You're only grudgingly allowed to mention where the event is taking place, and you're restricted about what you can say about it. The page has to be submitted and then wait for approval before it goes live.

 

You need to actively seek out local events; I have been left unaware of a local event because the reporting mechanism is archaic. Cache descriptions are not designed for events, and they aren't caches so shouldn't appear as such.

 

It would be handy if we could advertise the event to a minimum standard as an Event Cache but then link to a Facebook page with full details, including chat about the arrangements and discussions about such things as food and drink prices, children, dogs, parking, weather, public transport and all the other questions that arise. We normally bypass the cache listing for these purposes and discuss things in a local forum (such as the now-defunct EMCache), which is why a link was allowed.

 

If I arrange an event, I could just list it on Facebook without needing to go through the cache listing rigmarole. OK, some people would miss it altogether, but if the FB group is big enough there could be sufficient interest to make it worthwhile. Is this the future?

[Keystone]

I haven't had a Twitter issue on a cache listing, but if someone said "in order to attend the event, you must write a tweet with hashtag #GeoEvent," I'd certainly say no to that. (Edit to add, I have faced the issue with Meetup.com and with one other social networking site and the answer was consistent: no linking because registration is required.)

 

I don't see a double-standard between how a business handles its own money and website vs. what it allows customers to do for free. It's analogous to not allowing charitable solicitations on cache listings, but being totally cool with collecting the money to sell travel bugs and geocoin tracking numbers for agenda-related trackable items. Including a Facebook login functionality helps customers use this website, but does nothing to drive traffic to Facebook.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Keystone

[+niraD]

Yet you can link to Groundspeak and your account (maybe not you personally) through Facebook, isn't that double standards?

No. A double standard would be if Groundspeak allowed links to Twitter or LinkedIn, but not to Facebook. Facebook allowing links to Groundspeak, but Groundspeak not allowing links to Facebook, is just an example of different companies with different policies.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Facebook allowing links to Groundspeak, but Groundspeak not allowing links to Facebook, is just an example of different companies with different policies.

What do you make of the links to Facebook here? Are they not encouraging Groundspeak users to use Facebook as well?

[+chramm]

EMcache is a local group, and we'd like to invite others to join us. That is all.

We have decided not to keep paying for a domain name and hosting, and then having to maintain the site oursleves when there is a free service doing just that with Facebook Groups.

Our Christmas Event does not in any way require people to vote on the awards, but it is good if they do. The awards promote good geocaching: Best Cache, Best Log, Best Cache Description etc. We want to recognise those cachers in our area who make the game more enjoyable, and say thank you to them.

 

If I were running a football team and the local hockey team were training some of our players I would have no problem in advertising them. We do have it as a Facebook Event too, but only those who are already part of the group will hear about it, and that is then even more exclusive. We are a friendly bunch and we'd like to invite others to join us. We do not want to insist that people have to use Facebook, they don't have to, they can just come to the events. But if we only listed the events on our group site then these other people would never hear about it, so how is that better?

[AZcachemeister]

It's about drawing the 'line in the sand'.

Once Facebook links are allowed on event cache pages, pretty soon we WOULD have puzzle caches based on someone's Facebook profile (or whatever they have over there), and people WOULD HAVE TO have Facebook accounts to solve the puzzle.

 

Groundspeak has apparently learned something about what people will try to get away with, and are putting their finger in the dike right from the beginning.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Once Facebook links are allowed on event cache pages, pretty soon we WOULD have puzzle caches based on someone's Facebook profile (or whatever they have over there), and people WOULD HAVE TO have Facebook accounts to solve the puzzle.

Why? A reviewer would simply ask for the link to be removed before publication, and would ask for proof that you don't need a Facebook account to solve the puzzle. As it works right now.

 

An event "cache" is a different beast, as it's not a cache. As long as sufficient information is available on the event "cache" page (i.e. date / time / coordinates and brief details), anyone can go. If more detailed information is wanted or if you want to enter a discussion about the event then it's not exactly a big hardship to register on Facebook.

As I mentioned above, use of Facebook is encouraged here; so why not also encourage it where it's most useful for us?

[+chramm]

We are certainly not advocating Facebook being essential to find the cache or attend the event. We would just like to invite people to join our local geocaching group. I have had a much better time geocaching since I was introduced to EMcache, and met many new people as a result. We were allowed to put a link to our group when we had our own domain, and people had to register with that before they could take part so it was no different.

 

This is not stopping us from having the group, or from doing the voting. That is all still happening on the Facebook Group. It just means people are excluded because we cannot tell them where they can join in. Sure some people don't want to sign up to Facebook, I can understand that, but they do not lose anything by us having a link to our group. They wouldn't want to join in anyway. It is those who already have Facebook (the majority) who do not know about what is available to them that misses out.

[+Smurf]

Someone suggested that it may be because we are a closed group. This is necessary only so that we can monitor the suitability of the posting, which has have had problems with in the past, and prevent abusive or illegal comments being widespread.

And with Facebook the group isn't really "closed", it's just that you need to apply to join it.

 

The only difference I can see between "open" and "closed" groups, is that in a closed group you have to be a member to see/read the posts in that group.

In an open group anyone can see the content, but only members can post.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

We are certainly not advocating Facebook being essential to find the cache or attend the event. We would just like to invite people to join our local geocaching group. I have had a much better time geocaching since I was introduced to EMcache, and met many new people as a result. We were allowed to put a link to our group when we had our own domain, and people had to register with that before they could take part so it was no different.

 

This is not stopping us from having the group, or from doing the voting. That is all still happening on the Facebook Group. It just means people are excluded because we cannot tell them where they can join in. Sure some people don't want to sign up to Facebook, I can understand that, but they do not lose anything by us having a link to our group. They wouldn't want to join in anyway. It is those who already have Facebook (the majority) who do not know about what is available to them that misses out.

 

In your first post you wrote:

 

This only became a problem when we published our Christmas Event and asked people to go to the Facebook group, giving a link, to vote in our annual Geocaching Awards, the EMmys.

 

If that's your primary intent, there are quite a few online survey/voting sites available that don't require registration for the voters.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's about drawing the 'line in the sand'.

Once Facebook links are allowed on event cache pages, pretty soon we WOULD have puzzle caches based on someone's Facebook profile (or whatever they have over there), and people WOULD HAVE TO have Facebook accounts to solve the puzzle.

 

Groundspeak has apparently learned something about what people will try to get away with, and are putting their finger in the dike right from the beginning.

 

If Facebook links were allowed on event pages why not allow links to other sites which support groups such as LinkedIn, MySpace, Ning, Google Groups, Yahoo Groups, etc.? Drawing the line at "no sites which require registration" seems, to me, to be the best approach for stemming the tide waters on the other side of the dike.

[+chramm]

That does not seem to be the case, though. We were allowed to link to our local group when it was a domain that we owned, and you still had to register to access it. The only thing that is different is that it is now hosted by Facebook.

I do understand the issues, and I can see why people would be disapprove. We would just like to be inclusive of new people not be exclusive, I am not sure why you are so against that? It is up to Groundspeak what happens on their website. I was just asking...

[+tozainamboku]

The problem is that over the years Groundspeak has added guidelines - usually in response to some specific problems. They try to create guidelines to be applied should a similar issue come up and still keep the guidelines simple so they are easily understood and easy for reviewers to enforce. The problem is that without knowing the original rationale for the guidelines, they end up prohibiting things they were not intended to prohibit originally.

 

There are many local geocaching groups and only a few have the resources to host their own website and with no advertising. A Facebook group is the only reasonable way for most of these groups to have an online presence.

 

I believe the two guidelines that may be causing the problem were never intended to be used to stop links to Facebook groups. Unfortunately it seems that reviewers have their hands tied and that Groundspeak is in no hurry to change the guidelines (or provide the guidance to allow these links).

 

"Cache listings that require a cacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website." Why you may need a Facebook account to join the group or to vote for cache awards, is is clear that this is not a requirement for attending the event. The wording may however appear to be a solicitation to join the group and vote. The reviewer could work with the group to come up with word to clarify that visiting the group's Facebook page and voting are purely optional.

 

The guidelines also says you can't have links to businesses, agencies, commercial advertisers, charities, or political or social agendas. Unfortunately this is very broad and fails to take into consideration the ubiquity of Facebook and other social media. These sites can be viewed as businesses and commercial - even when there is no need to sign up for an account or share personal information, they show advertisements. I believe this guideline was put in place because some people created commercial caches using the online website for a business or a charity they wanted to promote. As written the guideline does not take into account the reason why someone puts a link on their cache page. A link for a Facebook geocaching group is meant to share the online location for the group; not to promote Facebook. It's silly to think that an evil Mark Zuckerberg has a business strategy to drive up Facebook revenues by getting cachers to post links to Facebook (especially when Groundspeak already had links to Facebook all over the Geocaching.com website).

 

I think it's about time for Groundspeak to look at the rationale for the guidelines on links and come up with something that makes sense. I don't need Groundspeak listing guidelines to protect me from sharing personal information on Facebook or some other site I don't trust. I don't need Groundspeak to protect me from seeing advertising if I click on a link that takes me to another site. There is no need for Groundspeak to be my internet nanny.

Edited November 23, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+Happy Humphrey]

I agree with tozainamboku's post. But I think that Groundspeak have created confusion by having event caches subject to guidelines that are designed for geocaches.

Here are the relevant sections;

Geocache listings that require additional website registration, installs or downloads are generally not publishable.

 

Cache listings that require a cacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website. In the interest of file security, caches that require the installing or running of data and/or executables will likely not be published. The use of memory sticks and similar devices is not permitted.

Commercial geocaches are disallowed.

 

Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

1.It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

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

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

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

5.It contains the name of a business or commercial product.

6.On rare occasions, Groundspeak partners with an organization to publish a sponsored cache, or series of sponsored caches. Official Geocaching.com GeoTours are examples of approved sponsored cache series. These partnerships occur solely at Groundspeak's invitation and/or discretion.

Event Caches

...

 

Cache owners can include basic information about the location on the cache page, even if it is a commercial location. Event caches, like other geocaches, cannot be published if they do not meet the commercial cache guideline.

So we've had the crazy situation where the event is to be held at the Red Lion Inn, and yet as this is the name of a business you can't mention that you need to go inside the Red Lion. This rule is really about preventing physical caches that can't be found without first visiting a commercial establishment, with the inference that the cache has been set up to promote the business. The Facebook ruling seems to be based on the same false premise, i.e. you have to register on Facebook to find out where the cache is. None of which, in my opinion, was the intention of the guideline when applied to Events.

I think that the "Event Caches" guideline is sloppily worded, and all this inconvenience could be bypassed by a simple but careful rewording of that section. The "additional website registration" is a red herring as far as this Facebook discussion is concerned, as clearly chramm isn't suggesting that the event will require you to register on Facebook (or even access Facebook) before the event can be "found".

[+palmetto]

I believe the two guidelines that may be causing the problem were never intended to be used to stop links to Facebook groups.

 

Toz, contrary to your belief, I know that I have specific instructions from staff not to allow links on cache pages to closed (must register to see) Facebook pages.

 

The OP can host an event, and they can have a Facebook group page with more info about the event. They can't link to that page, if it requires registration to see, from the event listing.

They could link to from their profile. Or provide a bunch of the same info on the listing.

 

They can't use the event as a register to "join our group" platform.

 

So we've had the crazy situation where the event is to be held at the Red Lion Inn, and yet as this is the name of a business you can't mention that you need to go inside the Red Lion.

 

Happy Humphrey, no such crazy situation exists. You can say, "event is in the Green room at the back of Red Lion dining area", ie, inside. What you can't do is add a paragraph about how great the dining is at Red Lion. Presumably you selected this venue because it was convenient, free (or cheap) and your expectation is that the food won't kill anybody.

Edited November 23, 2012 by palmetto

[+Happy Humphrey]

Happy Humphrey, no such crazy situation exists. You can say, "event is in the Green room at the back of Red Lion dining area", ie, inside. What you can't do is add a paragraph about how great the dining is at Red Lion.

OK, although how is that explained in the guidelines?

Event Caches

...

Event caches, like other geocaches, cannot be published if they do not meet the commercial cache guideline.

...

Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

...

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

[+The A-Team]

Happy Humphrey, no such crazy situation exists. You can say, "event is in the Green room at the back of Red Lion dining area", ie, inside. What you can't do is add a paragraph about how great the dining is at Red Lion.

OK, although how is that explained in the guidelines?

You quoted it in your earlier post:

Event Caches

Cache owners can include basic information about the location on the cache page, even if it is a commercial location.

Event caches are allowed this one exception to the commercial guideline.

[+chramm]

Our reviewer said that it was because Facebook is a commercial site. I will ask if she would allow it if the group was open?

The sad thing is, when the group was open people came and caused so much trouble the police got involved, so I think we would just lump it!

 

It seems to me that GC.com have just told me to post the comments here because they know there will be so many points of view they will find one that agrees with them. I would prefer that they just say 'No, we have decided not to change it.'

[+Happy Humphrey]

Event caches are allowed this one exception to the commercial guideline.

Ah, good! It doesn't say that, but I believe you that it's what is meant. Groundspeak should get you to edit their guidelines. I thought the "Event caches, like other geocaches, cannot be published if they do not meet the commercial cache guideline." trumped the "basic details allowed" concession, but I can see that it's the other way round.

I've haven't arranged an event for many years, thinking that the rules are too restrictive to be bothered with. As Facebook members seem to be increasing by the minute I might arrange one, but bypass the GC.com side altogether.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Happy Humphrey

[+tozainamboku]

I believe the two guidelines that may be causing the problem were never intended to be used to stop links to Facebook groups.

 

Toz, contrary to your belief, I know that I have specific instructions from staff not to allow links on cache pages to closed (must register to see) Facebook pages.

Yes, Keystone already indicated that reviewers have been given instruction not to allow links to Facebook groups that require a registration to see.

 

My argument is that whoever at Groundspeak is giving the guidance has a different interpretation of the guidelines than I do. Since Groundspeak rarely will come online and discuss the rationale for guidelines, I interpret them base on what I would feel is a rationale for having them.

 

Perhaps the issue is that the guideline regarding websites that require registration makes no mention of links. It was originally put in place because some puzzle cache were using such sites as part of the puzzle. I believe the rationale then was that puzzles should be solvable without needing to register or provide personal information to a third party website. The OP has a link to a Facebook group that requires registration, but visiting the site is not a requirement for finding the cache (or attended the event in this case).

 

Certainly Groundspeak could have a guideline against linking to sites the require registration, but they don't. What we see here is classic guidelines creep. Not only does the guideline apply to caches where it didn't originally apply but the original rationale for the guideline is lost. May I suggest the following wording:

 

In the interest of being your internet nanny, caches that link to websites that require you create an account, or provide personal information to, may not be published.

 

If the Groundspeak lackey who gave instructions to the reviewers would like to come on the forums and explain the changes, I would welcome it.

 

It seems to me that GC.com have just told me to post the comments here because they know there will be so many points of view they will find one that agrees with them. I would prefer that they just say 'No, we have decided not to change it.'

Groundspeak seems to be reluctant to explain the reasons for guidelines. They are what they are and you just follow them. They always seem to direct people to the forum to "discuss" the guidelines. They know a certain portion of forum participants will point out that Groundspeak is a private company and can have whatever guidelines they want for cache listings. And they certainly know that there will be people who will point out why your reviewer interpreted the guidelines correctly with regard to your cache.

 

I personally welcome these threads as they give me a chance to rail against what I call guidelines creep. Occasionally a Groundspeak lackey will feel the need to reply and we learn a bit about the rationale for the guidelines.

[+Happy Humphrey]

They know a certain portion of forum participants will point out that Groundspeak is a private company and can have whatever guidelines they want for cache listings.

Indeed, but the weakness is that some guidelines have to be interpreted based on the assumptions of the reviewers (in the absence of fuller explanations for the reasoning behind the guideline). These aren't documented, so a guideline may be enforced in a surpising way.

I think that the guideline in question is yet another of these.

 

I'm not exactly sure why Groundspeak don't publish a "guide to guidelines", so that we can be sure we understand them, interpret them as intended, and sympathise with the reasoning behind them. Are they trying to save a few bytes of data?

 

The Rules Of Golf are full and explicit, but there are lots of books that explain how each rule should be interpreted, along with examples and the reasons for the rule being introduced. Perhaps a Groundspeak employee is looking to write a "Guide to Geocaching Guidelines" and is trying to make the current guidelines as difficult to interpret as possible so that sales of the book are good.

[+chramm]

Well I am finished. I have made my point, I see no reason to keep going round in circles so I will stop following this post and just go caching, and keep enjoying the local group I belong to, without being able to share it with others.

[+Don_J]

Facebook shows ads. Facebook makes money off of those ads. Why should Groundspeak use their resources to advertise Facebook so Facebook can make more money off those ads?

 

Maybe if Facebook would buy some ad space on geocaching.com, then things might change.

 

I agree with the current guidelines. Keep the advertizing off the cache pages.

 

Which is interesting as there is a blue F at the bottom of this page as well as all the others. If the event were published, there would already be a blue F at the bottom. What is the harm to add a link to their group? I happen to agree with the OP's opinion that they are simply advertising their local group. They're local group just happens to be on Facebook. There is a section in these forum to announce our local groups. If that group is on a commercial web site, would it be dis-allowed?

 

Also, if they linked to a static page with no advertising on it, and that page had a link to their Facebook group, would be within the guidelines?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Isn't that what I've already said in this thread?

[+Don_J]

Isn't that what I've already said in this thread?

 

Yes it was. I apologize for posting before reading through the thread as I realized later that all of my points had already been made.

 

I find this whole thing rather surprisings and I think it is a good example of the guideline creep that Toz has mentioned in the past. Groundspeak has always encouraged us to form and participate in local groups, and they have always encouraged new cachers to seek out and join those groups to get a better idea of the overall picture of geocaching. They even give us a spot in this forum to list these groups. In the past, linking to these groups has always been allowed. Imagine my surprise to learn that every single one of my cache listings technically violates the guidelines.

[+palmetto]

Imagine my surprise to learn that every single one of my cache listings technically violates the guidelines.

 

I assume you're referencing links to the San Fernando Valley Geocachers website? I don't have to register to look at that. I can't post, but I can see it fine. This is different from pages where the link takes you to a Log In or register page.

 

It seems to me that GC.com have just told me to post the comments here because they know there will be so many points of view they will find one that agrees with them. I would prefer that they just say 'No, we have decided not to change it.'

 

My expectation is that they were looking for community feedback on the issue. One thread will not likely alter the policy, but it is part of how they make decisions.

Edited November 25, 2012 by palmetto

[+Don_J]

Imagine my surprise to learn that every single one of my cache listings technically violates the guidelines.

 

I assume you're referencing links to the San Fernando Valley Geocachers website? I don't have to register to look at that. I can't post, but I can see it fine. This is different from pages where the link takes you to a Log In or register page.

 

 

Thank you for pointing out this distinction as I think that it is very important. I just logged out of FB and tried to go to a closed group. It would not let me see it until I logged in, or registered. I'm guessing that this is the issue?

 

Still, the registration issue was originally in regards to being necessary to solve a puzzle cache. In other words, an individual could not find the cache unless they registered at a third party web site. Since registering or joining the FB group was completely optional and had nothing to do with logging an Attended on the actual event, I fail to see the relationship with the guideline.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Still, the registration issue was originally in regards to being necessary to solve a puzzle cache. In other words, an individual could not find the cache unless they registered at a third party web site. Since registering or joining the FB group was completely optional and had nothing to do with logging an Attended on the actual event, I fail to see the relationship with the guideline.

Exactly. That point has been knocked down. So the only reason for disallowing the link is that it's regarded commercial, and this rule seems rather weakened by Groundspeak plastering links to the very same site on the very same web page.

[+Don_J]

 

It seems to me that GC.com have just told me to post the comments here because they know there will be so many points of view they will find one that agrees with them. I would prefer that they just say 'No, we have decided not to change it.'

 

My expectation is that they were looking for community feedback on the issue. One thread will not likely alter the policy, but it is part of how they make decisions.

 

Unfortunately, when presented with such opportunities, some want to go into, "Defend Groundspeak at all cost" mode, while others reject the entire subject because it has the word Facebook in it.

 

I think that what is being asked here is much more important. Local geocaching groups help build strong geocaching communities. They help newcomers understand the broader points of the game and make them feel that are part of something special. People stick around when they feel that are part of something. As long as one is not required to join a group in order to find a cache, Groundspeak should be encouraging them at every opportunity. I think that the stance taken on the individual cache in question is counter productive to the entire process of building and maintaining a strong geocaching community in that area. Groundspeak should take a very close look at this. The most effective way to reach new members is to make ourselves obvious on the cache listings, especially event listings. This has been the case with our local group.

[Keystone]

I just logged out of FB and tried to go to a closed group. It would not let me see it until I logged in, or registered. I'm guessing that this is the issue?

That's correct. You can link to a geocaching group's Facebook page if the group is open to all, and you can link to a Facebook "public event" page that anyone can view, even if they don't have a Facebook account. But, you cannot link to a closed Facebook group.

[+Don_J]

Still, the registration issue was originally in regards to being necessary to solve a puzzle cache. In other words, an individual could not find the cache unless they registered at a third party web site. Since registering or joining the FB group was completely optional and had nothing to do with logging an Attended on the actual event, I fail to see the relationship with the guideline.

Exactly. That point has been knocked down. So the only reason for disallowing the link is that it's regarded commercial, and this rule seems rather weakened by Groundspeak plastering links to the very same site on the very same web page.

 

And the fact that there are thousands of Youtube links on cache listings, some that you need to go to to solve puzzles. Youtube has ads on it.

 

The World Wide Web is made up of websites that are interlinked to each other so that one can jump from one site to another. The web is primarily driven by advertising. Trying to isolate your web site from others because they have ads is silly and goes against the very nature of how the web works. I understand limiting links to sites that are competing against you, but Groundspeak is not in competition with Facebook. I have had FB friends ask me what that Geocaching Group thing on my Timeline is. I tell them and they may just become geocachers. How is this a bad thing?

Edited November 25, 2012 by Don_J

[+tozainamboku]

I just logged out of FB and tried to go to a closed group. It would not let me see it until I logged in, or registered. I'm guessing that this is the issue?

That's correct. You can link to a geocaching group's Facebook page if the group is open to all, and you can link to a Facebook "public event" page that anyone can view, even if they don't have a Facebook account. But, you cannot link to a closed Facebook group.

Can you (or a Groundspeak lackey) provide a rationale?

 

The guideline concerning visiting a website that requires registration says "Cache listings that require a cacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website. " (emphasis added).

 

The OP had a link to their local geocaching group that required registration. However visiting the site was not a requirement for finding the cache (or in this case attending the event). My impression was this guideline was added due to some puzzle caches that could not be solved without registering on another site. (I still get emails from Dan Brown because of some Da Vinci Code cache I solved years ago). If that is the case I'm not sure how it applies here.

 

If the assumption is that registration implies commercialism, that needs to be explained further. Anyone can register for a Facebook account for free; though it is true that you need to provide an email and some personal information (and that Facebook may use this information in products it sells to advertisers). However, I can't imagine that Mark Zuckerberg is using geocache listings as viral advertising to get more Facebook accounts. In any case, I see a difference from a link to site selling a particular product and a link to a social networking site that may have some third party ads on the margins of the page. Groundspeak's definition of commercial website may be a little more hard-lined than it needs to be.

Edited November 25, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+The A-Team]

I've had this confirmed specifically by the Appeals office just yesterday in connection with a related issue about a cache submission. No FB links on cache listings.

 

You can link to a geocaching group's Facebook page if the group is open to all, and you can link to a Facebook "public event" page that anyone can view, even if they don't have a Facebook account. But, you cannot link to a closed Facebook group.

 

Is the above apparent contradiction a change of Groundspeak's stance, or simply a clarification? Have we gone in the last few days from "no Facebook links" to "no closed group Facebook links"?

Just wondering

[Keystone]

No, the rules haven't changed in the past few days.

 

The second post is a fairly complete expression of the guidance about Facebook and cache pages. This current guidance from Groundspeak has been in effect in its present form for months, and in its general principles for much longer than that.

 

The first post was a specific response to a specific situation. It was made before the discussion ranged into other "what if's?" and "howabout's?" that warranted a more detailed answer.

 

It's important to keep in mind the concept of "open" vs. "closed" groups, whether on Facebook or elsewhere. Geocaching is open to all and the guidelines discourage anything that appears cliquish or exclusionary.

[+tozainamboku]

It's important to keep in mind the concept of "open" vs. "closed" groups, whether on Facebook or elsewhere. Geocaching is open to all and the guidelines discourage anything that appears cliquish or exclusionary.

That a reasonable rationale but it needs to be clarified and the guidelines need to express this. Right now you can't require someone to visit a site that requires registration in order to find a cache or attend an event. But that says nothing about links. On the other hand you can't link to certain commercial sites. But the reason for this unwritten guideline is that closed groups appear cliquish, so it's not the commercial guideline that applies here.

 

Perhaps a closed site does seem a bit more cliquish than an open site where any one can see the posts but stills need to sign up to make posts. I'm not entirely sure how Facebook groups work, but it does appear that you need to be logged into to Facebook even to see an open group. I guess it the appearance of cliquishness that bothers Groundspeak and not whether there is actually anything exclusionary about the group.

[AZcachemeister]

Is it just me, or do PMO caches 'appear cliquish or exclusionary'?

[7rxc]

 

Perhaps a closed site does seem a bit more cliquish than an open site where any one can see the posts but stills need to sign up to make posts. I'm not entirely sure how Facebook groups work, but it does appear that you need to be logged into to Facebook even to see an open group. I guess it the appearance of cliquishness that bothers Groundspeak and not whether there is actually anything exclusionary about the group.

It is much the same as the Geocaching site... there is a level that anyone can use, even without registering. Another layer that registration (like our basic membership) can access (creating a profile, posting etc). Yet another if you join a group so that you can participate in it (some is public and some not). WE have public browsing (no posts, coordinates etc.), Basic, Premium, the rumoured Platinum, then there are the volunteer levels for reviewers and moderators, and then the Paid Staff and TPTB. Each has privileges suitable to the level of membership.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Happy Humphrey]

It's important to keep in mind the concept of "open" vs. "closed" groups, whether on Facebook or elsewhere. Geocaching is open to all and the guidelines discourage anything that appears cliquish or exclusionary.

I think it would help your case if you quote the relevant guideline here. These things are difficult to spot, even if you find the guideline page. I'm not exactly sure which guideline you're quoting from; and if it's unclear, then it's unfair to expect geocachers to easily set up an event in such a way that they don't find significant changes necessary. Or is it really "guidance" as you say; so the cacher arranges the event linked to a Facebook page after checking the guidelines and missing this restriction, discovers later that this is banned due to obscure rules, and then cancels the event.

 

It seems a weak guideline anyway, if it assumes that a "closed" Facebook group is set up for the purposes of excluding geocachers. The only reason that such groups are "closed" is so that the whole world doesn't attempt to join: or at least, a whole group of people who aren't actually interested in the aims of the group. The Groundspeak forum is the equivalent of a "closed" group. You can't join in unless you register first, and there is the mechanism to exclude people who are judged undesirable (and this mechanism is frequently seen in action).

 

In any case, now that I see most geocachers in the area are in my Facebook group I'm starting to wonder what we exactly gain by also advertising an event on GC.com. The event will go just as swimmingly when arranged through Facebook only, and I can list it in whatever way I see fit: with no additional red tape, headaches from worrying about avoiding a hint of commerciality, the confusion of baffling rules and the delay and uncertaintly of the review procedure. I also don't have to pretend that it's a cache.

[+Lil Devil]

I think it would help your case if you quote the relevant guideline here.

Geocache listings that require additional website registration, installs or downloads are generally not publishable.

Cache listings that require a cacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website. ...