Facebook Groups

[AZcachemeister]

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Cache listings that require a cacher to visit another website will not be published if the finder must create an account with, or provide personal information to, the other website.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

 

Keyword: REQUIRE

 

Which apparently the OP's event did not.

 

Personally, I would like to see each and every reference to Facebook completely stricken from every corner of this website.

 

But let's get real...TPTB think it's OK to plaster Facebook references all over, but when one event CO wants to link to their silly little group they get squashed?

 

Either Facebook is OK, or it isn't.

[+The A-Team]

Either Facebook is OK, or it isn't.

As we've discovered in this discussion, Facebook is OK under certain circumstances that aren't outlined in the guidelines. I really wish things like this were documented so everyone would know about it (other than here in the forums). Maybe an additional section in the guidelines that includes addendums and exceptions?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

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?

 

I'm more of the opinion that those links do more to advertise Groundspeak/Geocaching.com to Facebook users than the other way around. Someone posts their finds on their Facebook profile and a friend of theirs who doesn't know anything about geocaching might be intrigued enough to check the site out. The number of geocachers who discovered Facebook through this site is probably miniscule.

[+tozainamboku]

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?

 

I'm more of the opinion that those links do more to advertise Groundspeak/Geocaching.com to Facebook users than the other way around. Someone posts their finds on their Facebook profile and a friend of theirs who doesn't know anything about geocaching might be intrigued enough to check the site out. The number of geocachers who discovered Facebook through this site is probably miniscule.

That would be a good rationale for allowing links to open groups but not closed groups. With an open group on Facebook non-geocachers have a chance to discover geocaching and perhaps get interested. A closed group is likely to be known only to people who are already geocachers.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak isn't really interested in cliquishness or exclusion after all and it's really just a business decision to allow groups that promote geocaching on Facebook but not groups that non-geocacher are not going to see. I doubt that Groundspeak will admit to this. However, they should still update the guidelines for linking to make it clear that only open groups are allowed to be linked to.

Edited November 30, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+chramm]

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.

 

This makes sense, but nowhere in this specific situation does attending the event require you to register anywhere.

In fact, if exclusivity is the issue, then making us hold our award voting without linking from the event page is excluding people from joiing in that extra fun part of the event.

 

UPDATE-- Groundspeak have now asked us to remove 'Will Attend' logs that mention the Facebook Group.

[+Spire67]

I wont be deleting or amending my log with a link to the facebook group. I think it is ridiculous that they will not allow links to facebook groups from event pages. No doubt they will eventually get the CO to delete the log or a reviewer will. Perhpas I should start posting facebook links on all my logs.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Spire67

[+Happy Humphrey]

As Groundspeak has a policy of keeping guidelines deliberately vague and open to interpretation, I think that it's not unreasonable to ask the question below. We have no guidance as to exactly what is allowed and what is proscribed.

 

Clearly, links on any cache page to Facebook groups is disallowed. Talk about "closed" groups is a red herring: groups are only "closed" so that entry is limited to people with an interest in Geocaching, but as much as can be controlled they are open to all geocachers. So I'll leave out the term "closed" so as not to muddy the waters.

 

Now, we learn that links in cache logs to Facebook pages are also disallowed. Perhaps this is in the guidelines and I haven't seen it; but I don't think so.

 

After that preamble, the question. Let's say someone arranges an event on Facebook in the usual fashion and also sets up a matching Event Cache that has minimal detail (so as not to risk any breaking of rules). I call it a stub event. There's no mention of the venue, just date, time and location. Perhaps a single sentence saying what the event commemorates (if anything) or other reason for the event.

The description encourages potential attendees to e-mail the organiser for more details. Will Groundspeak scrutinise these e-mails? If not, it would be easy to say "Hi, thanks for enquiring. Here are some more details. (blah blah). If you want to find out even more, join in the discussion or peruse the Event page on Facebook. You will have to join the Facebook group at (url), but we will accept your registration as soon as possible.".

 

This all has the same effect as posting the link in the Event cache description, but is a little more long-winded. It does seem to circumvent various rules, however.

 

A more general point is that Facebook groups are gathering strength as a means to discuss geocaching. When a critical mass is reached and there are more than enough people subscribed to the group, one starts to wonder what exactly is gained by having the Event Cache published at all? Yes, there are some benefits, but if they seem outweighed by excessive and heavy-handed regulations it might be simpler to just forget the whole Event Cache malarky and enjoy the freedom from bureaucracy afforded when arranging a Facebook event.

[+The A-Team]

Groundspeak have now asked us to remove 'Will Attend' logs that mention the Facebook Group.

Wow, just wow.

If it were my event, I would flatly refuse to remove those logs until the guidelines are updated to reflect actual policy. As they're written right now, there's nothing in the guidelines prohibiting such links in logs. We're also still waiting for the guideline that says open groups are okay and closed ones are not...

[+chramm]

Let's say someone arranges an event on Facebook in the usual fashion and also sets up a matching Event Cache that has minimal detail (so as not to risk any breaking of rules). I call it a stub event. There's no mention of the venue, just date, time and location. Perhaps a single sentence saying what the event commemorates (if anything) or other reason for the event.

The description encourages potential attendees to e-mail the organiser for more details.

 

This is certainly how I will organise events in the future.

[AZcachemeister]

Groundspeak have now asked us to remove 'Will Attend' logs that mention the Facebook Group.

Wow, just wow.

If it were my event, I would flatly refuse to remove those logs until the guidelines are updated to reflect actual policy. As they're written right now, there's nothing in the guidelines prohibiting such links in logs. We're also still waiting for the guideline that says open groups are okay and closed ones are not...

 

Yes, and even more than that, but not 'family friendly'. ******** WOW!

 

Logs with links to a Facebook group are now 'bogus and off-topic'?

 

Sorry Groundspeak, but YOU let the Facebook genie out of the bottle.

I am hardly the defender of everything Facebook, but I cannot tolerate a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude from those who should know better.

[+Don_J]

Groundspeak have now asked us to remove 'Will Attend' logs that mention the Facebook Group.

Wow, just wow.

If it were my event, I would flatly refuse to remove those logs until the guidelines are updated to reflect actual policy. As they're written right now, there's nothing in the guidelines prohibiting such links in logs. We're also still waiting for the guideline that says open groups are okay and closed ones are not...

 

I have only hosted one event but have tossed around the idea of doing another. At this point, that won't be happening. It's obvious to me that Groundspeak has either forgotten, or simply doesn't care what the idea of a strong local Geocaching Community has meant to the growth of their business.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I have only hosted one event but have tossed around the idea of doing another. At this point, that won't be happening. It's obvious to me that Groundspeak has either forgotten, or simply doesn't care what the idea of a strong local Geocaching Community has meant to the growth of their business.

Just do it via Facebook, assuming that there's a local Facebook geocaching group. There are so many advantages compared to the old gc.com "event cache" format that I can't be bothered to list them. OK, some people will remain unaware of the event if they don't use Facebook, but that happens all the time anyway and those that are subscribed to the group will find the events much easier to see. Several time I've failed to notice local Event Caches, and quite often I only spot them by accident.

 

Other non-geocaching FB groups that I subscribe to, have events that are very similar in format to geocaching (i.e. everyone meets up at a venue) and there's no hand-wringing about the fact that you need to subscribe before you are invited.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Happy Humphrey

[+Don_J]

I have only hosted one event but have tossed around the idea of doing another. At this point, that won't be happening. It's obvious to me that Groundspeak has either forgotten, or simply doesn't care what the idea of a strong local Geocaching Community has meant to the growth of their business.

Just do it via Facebook, assuming that there's a local Facebook geocaching group. There are so many advantages compared to the old gc.com "event cache" format that I can't be bothered to list them. OK, some people will remain unaware of the event if they don't use Facebook, but that happens all the time anyway and those that are subscribed to the group will find the events much easier to see. Several time I've failed to notice local Event Caches, and quite often I only spot them by accident.

 

Other non-geocaching FB groups that I subscribe to, have events that are very similar in format to geocaching (i.e. everyone meets up at a venue) and there's no hand-wringing about the fact that you need to subscribe before you are invited.

 

The whole thing is really confusing to me. Closed FB groups simply mean that you have to click the Join button and wait for the group owner to verify it. In addition to our dedicated forum, we also have a closed FB group. If you have a GC account and ask to join, you will be added to the group. There is no way that a geocacher would ever be excluded from the group.

 

I simply don't understand why the two entities can't coexist and augment each other. I can only see benefits to GC.com as in new or upgraded memberships and increased geocaching activity by allowing it. Nowhere in this thread have I seen any example of how it could be harmful to gc.com, or it's members. I'll repeat what I wrote up thread. Groundspeak is not in competition with Facebook. At least I don't think that they are. Never have I wished to have an official explanation as much as with this. "Because we said so" is just not working for me.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Don_J

[Keystone]

The whole thing is really confusing to me. Closed FB groups simply mean that you have to click the Join button and wait for the group owner to verify it. In addition to our dedicated forum, we also have a closed FB group. If you have a GC account and ask to join, you will be added to the group. There is no way that a geocacher would ever be excluded from the group.

But there are real examples of groups that ARE exclusionary. Regions that have two geo-groups that are at odds with each other. Groups that make it a point to ostracize OddballCacher472. Groundspeak wants no part in facilitating this, so they draw a bright line test. They cannot monitor all groups to say which ones are behaving nicely.

 

If you live in a region where this has never been an issue, then you are truly blessed.

[+tozainamboku]

I have only hosted one event but have tossed around the idea of doing another. At this point, that won't be happening. It's obvious to me that Groundspeak has either forgotten, or simply doesn't care what the idea of a strong local Geocaching Community has meant to the growth of their business.

Just do it via Facebook, assuming that there's a local Facebook geocaching group. There are so many advantages compared to the old gc.com "event cache" format that I can't be bothered to list them. OK, some people will remain unaware of the event if they don't use Facebook, but that happens all the time anyway and those that are subscribed to the group will find the events much easier to see. Several time I've failed to notice local Event Caches, and quite often I only spot them by accident.

 

Other non-geocaching FB groups that I subscribe to, have events that are very similar in format to geocaching (i.e. everyone meets up at a venue) and there's no hand-wringing about the fact that you need to subscribe before you are invited.

 

The whole thing is really confusing to me. Closed FB groups simply mean that you have to click the Join button and wait for the group owner to verify it. In addition to our dedicated forum, we also have a closed FB group. If you have a GC account and ask to join, you will be added to the group. There is no way that a geocacher would ever be excluded from the group.

 

I simply don't understand why the two entities can't coexist and augment each other. I can only see benefits to GC.com as in new or upgraded memberships and increased geocaching activity by allowing it. Nowhere in this thread have I seen any example of how it could be harmful to gc.com, or it's members. I'll repeat what I wrote up thread. Groundspeak is not in competition with Facebook. At least I don't think that they are. Never have I wished to have an official explanation as much as with this. "Because we said so" is just not working for me.

I don't think the SFV Geocachers group is a closed group. According to Facebook there three levels of privacy for groups. All groups require you to join make posts. The difference is that anyone on Facebook can see an open group. If the group is closed, a Facebook member can see the group name, its members and people invited to join the group, but only group members can see posts in the group. A secret group doesn't show up in any search. You have to be invited to see anything related to a secret group.

[+Don_J]

The whole thing is really confusing to me. Closed FB groups simply mean that you have to click the Join button and wait for the group owner to verify it. In addition to our dedicated forum, we also have a closed FB group. If you have a GC account and ask to join, you will be added to the group. There is no way that a geocacher would ever be excluded from the group.

But there are real examples of groups that ARE exclusionary. Regions that have two geo-groups that are at odds with each other. Groups that make it a point to ostracize OddballCacher472. Groundspeak wants no part in facilitating this, so they draw a bright line test. They cannot monitor all groups to say which ones are behaving nicely.

 

If you live in a region where this has never been an issue, then you are truly blessed.

 

Okay, it would be impossible for Groundspeak to monitor all groups anyway, closed or not. As long as the event is open to all geocachers, it shouldn't be an issue. I'm sure the McCoys can figure out on their own that they're not welcome at the Hatfield's event. (I hear they're all friendly now).

 

My question probably got lost, so I'll ask it again. Can I put a link on an event cache listing to a private generic web page, that is open to all Internet users, and then put my FB link on that page?

[+Happy Humphrey]

But there are real examples of groups that ARE exclusionary. Regions that have two geo-groups that are at odds with each other. Groups that make it a point to ostracize OddballCacher472. Groundspeak wants no part in facilitating this, so they draw a bright line test. They cannot monitor all groups to say which ones are behaving nicely.

I understand that point, because it's just like gc.com. A Groundspeak reviewer has issues with a particular user, so he/she is banned from the site and isn't even allowed to comment. If they want to go to an event, they can't use the site to say that they'll attend. Similar to being thrown out of a FB group.

Not that it's happened to me, but it is fairly common.

 

I don't know why it would be relevant in this case. There's a link to a FB group in the event listing but you've been banned from the group. That doesn't stop you posting a "will attend", then turning up.

[+K13]

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. ...

 

When a non-facebook user tries to visit the facebook.com site, they are REQUIRED to register to view anything in that website. I'm not a fb user. When I go to facebook.com, I can't see anything of any group, whether it is open or closed, or whatever else it may be. I should not have to join your (or anyone else's) website to view information for a GC.com listed activity.

 

If being told not to post links to websites in violation to the CG.com rules makes you upset, then I guess you will be upset. That's better than being denied use of the GC.com service, isn't it?

[7rxc]

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. ...

 

When a non-facebook user tries to visit the facebook.com site, they are REQUIRED to register to view anything in that website. I'm not a fb user. When I go to facebook.com, I can't see anything of any group, whether it is open or closed, or whatever else it may be. I should not have to join your (or anyone else's) website to view information for a GC.com listed activity.

 

If being told not to post links to websites in violation to the CG.com rules makes you upset, then I guess you will be upset. That's better than being denied use of the GC.com service, isn't it?

NOT! You do have to know how to find the group page however. You can't find that from the sign in page (home) except at the bottom of the page. Pages then use the search or browse. You do make a point that having Knowledge of the facebook site is a big help, and not that easy for non registrants there. You can only see public pages though.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Happy Humphrey]

I should not have to join your (or anyone else's) website to view information for a GC.com listed activity.

That's your opinion, but there's nothing in the guidelines to support it. The guidelines merely suggest that a cache won't be published if you need to register on an external site before you can find the cache.

[+The A-Team]

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. ...

 

When a non-facebook user tries to visit the facebook.com site, they are REQUIRED to register to view anything in that website. I'm not a fb user. When I go to facebook.com, I can't see anything of any group, whether it is open or closed, or whatever else it may be. I should not have to join your (or anyone else's) website to view information for a GC.com listed activity.

This post is confusing. You quoted a guideline, but then started to talk about something unrelated. The guideline says that a cache listing can't require you to register on another website. The event in question never required anyone to register with Facebook to attend or log the event. Visiting the Facebook site was completely optional, not required. Having to register with an additional website to perform an optional action isn't covered by this or any other guideline.

[+K13]

As I understand the issue, to participate in the voting for the awards to be presented at the CG.com-listed event, potential attendees would be REQUIRED to visit the facebook site and register/join that site. This is not within the guidelines as re-quoted from the previous posts. Why not just do the voting at the event as a part of the event?

[+Don_J]

As I understand the issue, to participate in the voting for the awards to be presented at the CG.com-listed event, potential attendees would be REQUIRED to visit the facebook site and register/join that site. This is not within the guidelines as re-quoted from the previous posts. Why not just do the voting at the event as a part of the event?

 

They are required to register for the group if they wish to participate in an optional activity related to the event. The actual event is open to all geocachers that wish to attend. The guideline is not being violated. Even without the FB link, people still need to go there if they wish to vote.

[supper_slash]

I feel GS is conducting it's self great.

I don't feel it is advertising FB on its sight by just placing a LOG IN link on there page.

GS owns it's web page, pays to keep it maintained, and is responsible for the content.

And if they incorporate with FB they would no longer be able to maintain the standers that we have today.

FB has enuf to worry about and i for one don't want FB on GS nor would I see it as a reasonable option.

[+tozainamboku]

[edit out response to previous post as I didn't want come across as the grammar police]

 

Traditionally Groundspeak has allowed cache owners, and particularly event owners, to include a link to the local geocaching group's online presence. While agenda and commercial guidelines still apply, these are generally more relaxed for geocaching groups. We have links to Christian geocaching groups, military geocaching groups, groups that have a donate button, groups that have ads on their site, etc.

 

The guideline being enforced here has to do with websites that require you to register or provide personal information to use. This guideline had a particular rationale when it was first created. That was due to a number of puzzle caches that could only be solved via visiting such a site. This guideline is now being interpreted in a new way, and Groundspeak has not bothered to explain why they are enforcing this. We had a weak explanation from one of the reviewers about closed FB groups appearing cliquish or exclusionary.

 

I think a better approach would be to use the agenda/commercial guidelines. While reviewers may allow some leeway with geocaching groups, they do so because they can click on the link and see what the group is like. If the Christian geocachers link took you to a page saying the gay geocachers are all going to go to Hell, the reviewer might rightly deny the link. If the gay group called for a boycott of caches hidden at Chick-fil-a, that might also be seen as too much of non-geocaching related agenda. Closed groups where the reviewer would have to create an account or provide an email, cannot be checked to see if they promote a non-geocaching agenda or are excessively commercial, so the reviewers are simply told to not allow these links.

Edited December 7, 2012 by tozainamboku