Is Wikipedia a "commercial" website?

[+CanadianRockies]

Last month, I submitted a cache that the Volunteer Reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals declined to publish. One of the reasons given is that the cache refers to a podcast whose homepage was considered commercial because it solicits donations. (The cache's GC Code is GC477QB and appeal ID is 347245, for any reviewers who want to check it out.)

 

My understanding is that a web page is deemed commercial if it has advertising on it. I didn't realize that requests for donations also crossed the line, but if that's the line then that's the line.

 

But if that's the line, then I have to wonder why Wikipedia and other podcast websites aren't also considered commercial, since they also solicit donations. But caches containing links to these websites have been published. So, maybe the line needs to be clarified so all reviewers will be on the same page. (And, no, I'm not trying to use the precedent of these other "commercial" caches as grounds for publishing my cache.)

 

Perhaps certain websites are exempt from the "commercial" guidelines? For example, I notice plenty of ads on the GeoChecker and GeoCheck verification web pages.

 

In any case, I realize I probably can avoid the "commercial" issue by moving any reference to the podcast to one of my own web pages. It's my understanding that references to commercial websites are okay as long as they aren't made on the cache listing page.

 

Still, I think some clarification of what constitutes a "commercial" website could be useful for both reviewers and for people who are trying to create caches.

[+wimseyguy]

Really? Three pages, six days, 130 posts, and you still want to talk about your cache that couldn't be published?

 

I don't see any ads nor commercial content at the main wikipedia.com page. I don't consider it commercial at all. Once a year (perhaps more often?) the post a request for donations at the top. But that can be closed with a click on the X.

[+lamoracke]

I do not consider Wikipedia commercial in any way and have seen many puzzles reference it. Probably one of the most referenced sites on Geocaching that I have seen, also see IMDB a lot. I can't even think of a 3rd right now, sad.

[+CanadianRockies]

I don't see any ads nor commercial content at the main wikipedia.com page. I don't consider it commercial at all. Once a year (perhaps more often?) the post a request for donations at the top. But that can be closed with a click on the X.

On most of the Wikipedia content pages that caches link to (e.g. this one), they have a permanent "Donate to Wikipedia" link that solicits donations.

[+cheech gang]

The OP may well have a valid question worthy of discussion. But the way it was couched with his ill-fated podcast puzzle leads me to ask: "What could possibly go wrong with this thread?"

[Clan Riffster]

Here we go again...

IBTL

[+K13]

Here we go again...

IBTL

 

+1

[Mr.Yuck]

The OP may well have a valid question worthy of discussion. But the way it was couched with his ill-fated podcast puzzle leads me to ask: "What could possibly go wrong with this thread?"

 

Exactly! I think it's a very valid question. There is a donate link on that and every other wikipedia page year round. It's not the infamous "pay pal donate" graphic you see everywhere on the internets, but it is indeed a plain text link that solicits donations. And those two Geo checkers certainly contain advertising. But yeah, the thread will probably go wrong.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I thought we already spent 3 pages discussing your rejected cache?

[AZcachemeister]

Apparently I bailed on that other thread before it was revealed that the actual reason the podcast sites were unacceptable was because the solicited donations.

 

If (a big IF) that were the actual reason, then there would seem to be a case of a double-standard...since Groundspeak solicits donations at every turn.

[+CanadianRockies]

I thought we already spent 3 pages discussing your rejected cache?

My intent with this thread isn't to discuss my rejected cache. As I noted, if soliciting donations causes a web page to be commercial, then so be it. I have no beef with that. I mentioned my rejected cache simply because that's how I learned that soliciting donations makes a web page commercial.

 

My intent with this thread is to get some clarification about what constitutes a commercial web page. If soliciting donations makes a web page commercial, then why are so many caches allowed to link to Wikipedia and other pages that solicit donations? If having ads makes a web page commercial, then why are so many caches allowed to link to two major puzzle verification websites that contain ads?

 

It appears that some clarification of this issue might be helpful to both Volunteer Reviewers and people who are creating caches.

[Keystone]

Links to reference sources such as Wikipedia are OK, so long as the linked page isn't promotional/commercial. Apples are yummy.

 

Links to certain podcasts (emphasis on the "s" at the end) are not OK, for various reasons including commerciality. Oranges are yummy.

 

It would be good to accept the differences between apples and oranges, and move on.

[+K13]

The examples you cite (Wikipedia, and the two geo-checker sites) are not commercial websites to me. They sell nothing. The profane language podcast you wanted to use for your cache may also fit that description. Maybe the 'commercial' aspect of the profane language podcast isn't the real reason that site isn't allowed....maybe it has more to do with the content of the link.

[+niraD]

How about a cache at a location where I have to pay a fee to enter, interacting with an employee while I do so?

 

It depends entirely on whether the location is a county park or an amusement park, on whether the employee is a park ranger or the amusement park cashier.

[+wmpastor]

Really? Three pages, six days, 130 posts, and you still want to talk about your cache that couldn't be published?

Yes, I did get the sense of deja vu all over again!

 

I guess we could give it the benefit of the doubt & discuss the limits of cache listing references to websites.

[+Don_J]

I thought we already spent 3 pages discussing your rejected cache?

My intent with this thread isn't to discuss my rejected cache. As I noted, if soliciting donations causes a web page to be commercial, then so be it. I have no beef with that. I mentioned my rejected cache simply because that's how I learned that soliciting donations makes a web page commercial.

 

My intent with this thread is to get some clarification about what constitutes a commercial web page. If soliciting donations makes a web page commercial, then why are so many caches allowed to link to Wikipedia and other pages that solicit donations? If having ads makes a web page commercial, then why are so many caches allowed to link to two major puzzle verification websites that contain ads?

 

It appears that some clarification of this issue might be helpful to both Volunteer Reviewers and people who are creating caches.

 

Who do you expect to get this clarification from? What official source do you expect will respond in this forum?

 

Even better question, why don't you simply fix your cache page so it can be published?

[+Oxford Stone]

I've just submitted a cache that (with permission) I've put on a local nature reserve belonging to a Wildlife Trust. It's only my 5th cache and it was the first time it had occurred to me to add a link "see abcde.org for more info" - but then I saw the "no links, commercial / charity" clause as I was building the page so have removed it again (but pasted loads of relevant content into the description). I'm not entirely sure what the issue would have been but am happy to go along with the rules (and proud to have got a previously anti-cache organisaton to change its mind, but that's another story)

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I've just submitted a cache that (with permission) I've put on a local nature reserve belonging to a Wildlife Trust. It's only my 5th cache and it was the first time it had occurred to me to add a link "see abcde.org for more info" - but then I saw the "no links, commercial / charity" clause as I was building the page so have removed it again (but pasted loads of relevant content into the description). I'm not entirely sure what the issue would have been but am happy to go along with the rules (and proud to have got a previously anti-cache organisaton to change its mind, but that's another story)

 

I have two caches on property managed by private, not for profit, organizations. I have included links to their websites in the listing. Both were published. The key is the "not for profit" aspect.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Perhaps certain websites are exempt from the "commercial" guidelines? For example, I notice plenty of ads on the GeoChecker and GeoCheck verification web pages.

 

 

I'm really kind of surprised by a lot of the eye rolling, here we go again, reactions CanadianRockies is getting. I once had a cache initially rejected because I linked to a webpage that "contains advertising" That is an exact quote from the reviewer. Apples.

 

Both of the checkers linked to above are on webpages that contain advertising. More specifically, Google Adsense ads. Apples.

 

Not unlike the case of "The Mad Frenchman" and non-premium members logging premium member only caches, clarification of the policy is needed.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I have two caches on property managed by private, not for profit, organizations. I have included links to their websites in the listing. Both were published. The key is the "not for profit" aspect.

 

Sounds good in theory (and obviously Wikipedia.com is a registered not for profit organization), but I'd be willing to bet a case of apples or oranges that there are people out there who have had their cache rejected because it contained a link to a website with a pay pal donate button, regardless of legal not for profit status.

 

Which, ironically enough, I just looked into a couple weeks ago. It will cost you a minimum of $120 through legalzoom.com (I hope that page doesn't contain advertising ) depending on what State you're trying to file in.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[+CanadianRockies]

Links to reference sources such as Wikipedia are OK, so long as the linked page isn't promotional/commercial. Apples are yummy.

But I was told web pages that solicit donations are promotional/commercial.

 

Links to certain podcasts (emphasis on the "s" at the end) are not OK, for various reasons including commerciality. Oranges are yummy.

Yet there are many caches with links to several different podcast web pages that solicit donations. I hope you can understand my confusion, since I'm not trying to be intentionally ignorant here. Does soliciting donations make a web page promotional/commercial? If the answer is "sometimes yes, sometimes no," then what is it that distinguishes the apples from the oranges? In the dark, the two fruits can look similar.

 

And what makes puzzle verification websites like GeoCheck and GeoChecker apples rather than oranges? They have plenty of ads on their pages, and I suspect they're for-profit websites.

Edited April 17, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

Maybe the 'commercial' aspect of the profane language podcast isn't the real reason that site isn't allowed....maybe it has more to do with the content of the link.

I was informed by both my Volunteer Reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals that the podcast is promotional/commercial. Groundspeak Appeals said the commercial issue alone would prevent publication.

[+K13]

I saw no ads when I looked at GeoChecker or GeoCheck websites.

[+CanadianRockies]

I saw no ads when I looked at GeoChecker or GeoCheck websites.

Right-hand column in both cases. Make sure you have any ad-blocking software disabled.

[+K13]

WHY would I disable ad-blocking? If I disabled it, I may see ads anywhere, even here.

[+CanadianRockies]

I saw no ads when I looked at GeoChecker or GeoCheck websites.

Right-hand column in both cases. Make sure you have any ad-blocking software disabled.

WHY would I disable ad-blocking? If I disabled it, I may see ads anywhere, even here.

I'm not sure if you're expecting a serious reply, but here goes. One reason you might want to temporarily disable any ad-blocking software you might have is to see the ads at the two websites mentioned above.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[Blue Square Thing]

Links to reference sources such as Wikipedia are OK, so long as the linked page isn't promotional/commercial. Apples are yummy.

But I was told web pages that solicit donations are promotional/commercial.

 

I imagine the key is "reference sources". Which, I think it's fair to say, Wikipedia is and, I'm sure, that if people didn't specifically mention it then a shed load of puzzle solvers would end up at anyway.

[+CanadianRockies]

Links to reference sources such as Wikipedia are OK, so long as the linked page isn't promotional/commercial. Apples are yummy.

But I was told web pages that solicit donations are promotional/commercial.

I imagine the key is "reference sources". Which, I think it's fair to say, Wikipedia is and, I'm sure, that if people didn't specifically mention it then a shed load of puzzle solvers would end up at anyway.

I could see your point if Keystone had said such reference sources are okay even if they are promotional/commercial. But he said such reference sources are okay, "so long as the linked page isn't promotional/commercial." My Volunteer Reviewer told me web pages are promotional/commercial if they solicit for donations. Most Wikipedia pages solicit donations.

[+Don_J]

Links to reference sources such as Wikipedia are OK, so long as the linked page isn't promotional/commercial. Apples are yummy.

But I was told web pages that solicit donations are promotional/commercial.

I imagine the key is "reference sources". Which, I think it's fair to say, Wikipedia is and, I'm sure, that if people didn't specifically mention it then a shed load of puzzle solvers would end up at anyway.

I could see your point if Keystone had said such reference sources are okay even if they are promotional/commercial. But he said such reference sources are okay, "so long as the linked page isn't promotional/commercial." My Volunteer Reviewer told me web pages are promotional/commercial if they solicit for donations. Most Wikipedia pages solicit donations.

 

Did your reviewer offer you any further explanation? Is it clear why the podcast site that you want to use is asking for donations? Presumably, Wiki is soliciting donations to keep the site online. Is the podcast site owner doing it to grow his bank account? If that is not clear and visiting his site 26 times makes him 26 times the money, then there is a problem. I'll ask what I asked in the other thread. Why is it so important that people visit the site 26 times?

 

I do agree that if your reviewer only offered you "web pages are promotional/commercial if they solicit for donations.", then that is simply not true. The Salvation Army's web site solicits donations and I wouldn't consider it to be either.

[+CanadianRockies]

Did your reviewer offer you any further explanation? Is it clear why the podcast site that you want to use is asking for donations? Presumably, Wiki is soliciting donations to keep the site online. Is the podcast site owner doing it to grow his bank account? If that is not clear and visiting his site 26 times makes him 26 times the money, then there is a problem. I'll ask what I asked in the other thread. Why is it so important that people visit the site 26 times?

My Volunteer Reviewer said a show that "solicits for donations" runs afoul of Groundspeak's guidelines. I don't know (and I doubt my reviewer does either) whether the donations cover less than or more than the podcast's operating expenses.

 

The donations are completely voluntary, regardless of whether a person visits the site one time, 26 times, or 79 times. I've visited many times and have never made a donation. It's not important for people to visit the site 26 times. The puzzle portion of my cache covers the first year of podcasts, which is 28 episodes. Solvers can listen to them during one (long) visit, a dozen visits, 28 visits, 50 visits, etc. I wanted to create a challenging puzzle, and this one has a 4.5 Difficulty Rating.

 

I do agree that if your reviewer only offered you "web pages are promotional/commercial if they solicit for donations.", then that is simply not true. The Salvation Army's web site solicits donations and I wouldn't consider it to be either.

Many other caches link to web sites that solicit donations. But my reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals both seem to believe that soliciting donations makes these types of caches promotional/commercial. That's why I believe it would be helpful to get some clarification on this issue.

 

Edit to Add: As I noted previously, many caches also link to two major puzzle verification websites, both of which contain ads. So I agree there appears to be something other than donations/ads that's factored into deciding whether or not websites are promotional/commercial. It would be helpful to know what this is.

Edited April 20, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+Don_J]

Did your reviewer offer you any further explanation? Is it clear why the podcast site that you want to use is asking for donations? Presumably, Wiki is soliciting donations to keep the site online. Is the podcast site owner doing it to grow his bank account? If that is not clear and visiting his site 26 times makes him 26 times the money, then there is a problem. I'll ask what I asked in the other thread. Why is it so important that people visit the site 26 times?

My Volunteer Reviewer said a show that "solicits for donations" runs afoul of Groundspeak's guidelines. I don't know (and I doubt my reviewer does either) whether the donations cover less than or more than the podcast's operating expenses.

 

The donations are completely voluntary, regardless of whether a person visits the site one time, 26 times, or 79 times. I've visited many times and have never made a donation. It's not important for people to visit the site 26 times. The puzzle portion of my cache covers the first year of podcasts, which is 28 episodes. Solvers can listen to them during one (long) visit, a dozen visits, 28 visits, 50 visits, etc. I wanted to create a challenging puzzle, and this one has a 4.5 Difficulty Rating.

 

I do agree that if your reviewer only offered you "web pages are promotional/commercial if they solicit for donations.", then that is simply not true. The Salvation Army's web site solicits donations and I wouldn't consider it to be either.

Many other caches link to web sites that solicit donations. But my reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals both seem to believe that soliciting donations makes these types of caches promotional/commercial. That's why I believe it would be helpful to get some clarification on this issue.

 

Edit to Add: As I noted previously, many caches also link to two major puzzle verification websites, both of which contain ads. So I agree there appears to be something other than donations/ads that's factored into deciding whether or not websites are promotional/commercial. It would be helpful to know what this is.

 

Yes, it's called desecration. You seem to expect a black and white explanation when in fact, there are many shades of grey involved. You keep falling back on, but this is allowed, why not this? Of course, what is paramount is the fact that no cache sets a precedent for any other cache. You are trying to a compare a site that's sole purpose it to verify coordinates for puzzle caches and a site that is basically a user created encyclopedia, to a for profit site that has ads and, nasty language, which you want to give 28 hits per person that chooses to solve your puzzle.

 

Do you honestly not understand why one site might be allowed and another not? You've been around here long enough to learn and understand the difference between a guideline and a rule, at least from Groundspeak's and their reviewer's perspective. The guidelines allow them to use their desecration as to what to allow and what not to allow. The guideline's are also there to guide us on what is generally accepted and what isn't. Your cache obviously went over that line and it appears that no explanation will satisfy you as to why.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Don_J

[+CanadianRockies]

Yes, it's called desecration discretion. You seem to expect a black and white explanation when in fact, there are many shades of grey involved. You keep falling back on, but this is allowed, why not this? Of course, what is paramount is the fact that no cache sets a precedent for any other cache.

Fixed it for you. If you read my previous comments, then you'll see that I understand there are many shades of grey involved. What I'm trying to understand is what types of factors Groundspeak uses to determine that gray scale. Simply saying some web pages that solicit donations/display ads will be deemed promotional/commercial and some won't be isn't very helpful. Not to cache creators and not to Volunteer Reviewers who attempt to be consistent with Groundspeak's guidelines. (Several reviewers have published caches with links/logos to the podcast in question.)

 

You are trying to a compare a site that's sole purpose it to verify coordinates for puzzle caches and a site that is basically a user created encyclopedia, to a for profit site that has ads and, nasty language, which you want to give 28 hits per person that chooses to solve your puzzle.

You seem to feel one of the factors that makes a web page promotional/commercial is whether that site is intended to make a profit. Thanks for that input. But I'm not at all certain that the coordinate verification websites are not trying to make a profit, nor am I at all certain that the podcast in question is trying to make a profit. That podcast website also doesn't appear to have any per-hit advertising. Perhaps there are other factors involved. If so, then it would be helpful to know what those other factors are.

Edited April 21, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+CdAGeoGeeks]

Geocaching.com is a private website. They don't have to publish ANY cache at all if they don't want to.

 

And no, they don't really owe you an explanation. It's a privately owned site.

[Blue Square Thing]

Links to reference sources such as Wikipedia are OK, so long as the linked page isn't promotional/commercial. Apples are yummy.

But I was told web pages that solicit donations are promotional/commercial.

I imagine the key is "reference sources". Which, I think it's fair to say, Wikipedia is and, I'm sure, that if people didn't specifically mention it then a shed load of puzzle solvers would end up at anyway.

I could see your point if Keystone had said such reference sources are okay even if they are promotional/commercial. But he said such reference sources are okay, "so long as the linked page isn't promotional/commercial." My Volunteer Reviewer told me web pages are promotional/commercial if they solicit for donations. Most Wikipedia pages solicit donations.

 

The *linked page* almost certainly isn't promotional - for example, the page on Justin Beiber isn't written to promote his "music", it's written as a reference source about him and his "music". Wikipedia occasionally has hat notes asking for donations (I almost always log in with an account so it may be that for general users they're always there) but, frankly, I think there's a pretty big difference between that and what you've previously described.

 

And, you know, the reviewer might be wrong but there's a pile of difference between forcing someone to go to a website of your choice which asks for donations or whatever and asking them to go and research something.

[+CanadianRockies]

And no, they don't really owe you an explanation. It's a privately owned site.

I never said they did owe me an explanation. All I'm saying is that it would be helpful to cache creators and Volunteer Reviewers if they did provide an explanation.

[+CanadianRockies]

Wikipedia occasionally has hat notes asking for donations (I almost always log in with an account so it may be that for general users they're always there) but, frankly, I think there's a pretty big difference between that and what you've previously described.

See Post #4.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Links to some web sites are ok, links to other web sites are not ok.

 

It's not complicated.

 

[+CanadianRockies]

Links to some web sites are ok, links to other web sites are not ok.

 

It's not complicated.

I understand that simple point. What I don't understand is: Why? That would be helpful to know when creating cache listings.

[+The A-Team]

Links to some web sites are ok, links to other web sites are not ok.

 

It's not complicated.

I understand that simple point. What I don't understand is: Why? That would be helpful to know when creating cache listings.

If you're looking for a straight answer from Groundspeak, you're out of luck. Past experience has shown that different reviewers interpret the guidelines differently, and that's just the way things work. You've discovered how your reviewer interprets things, so you're just going to have to go with that.

[Keystone]

All reviewers know (from training/reference materials) that links to Wikipedia for reference purposes are OK.

All reviewers know (from training/reference materails) that links to recognized GeoChecker sites are OK.

 

Is anyone in the thread saying that there is a reviewer who disallowed a Wikipedia link or a recognized GeoChecker? That would be a training issue.

[AZcachemeister]

All reviewers know (from training/reference materials) that links to Wikipedia for reference purposes are OK.

All reviewers know (from training/reference materails) that links to recognized GeoChecker sites are OK.

 

Is anyone in the thread saying that there is a reviewer who disallowed a Wikipedia link or a recognized GeoChecker? That would be a training issue.

 

It seems that CanadianRockies is trying to make a straight line out of a very wiggly one, and wants us to help by tugging on the ends.

[+JKMonkey]

I was always under the impression that any websites that solicited donations were commercial along with shopping websites, with GS and their partnered companies being the obvious exceptions.

[Keystone]

I was always under the impression that any websites that solicited donations were commercial along with shopping websites, with GS and their partnered companies being the obvious exceptions.

Yes, that's true - and I wish everyone could understand that as clearly as you do. Several times each month, I need to explain this concept to cache owners.

 

As I wrote earlier, Groundspeak has made additional, practical exceptions to this general principle. Links to Wikipedia for informational/reference purposes are acceptable - notwithstanding any solicitation content that incidentally appears on the page. Ditto for YouTube for video links, notwithstanding YouTube's ad content. Ditto for recognized GeoChecker websites. These exceptions make good sense because they enhance the cache listing.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I was always under the impression that any websites that solicited donations were commercial along with shopping websites, with GS and their partnered companies being the obvious exceptions.

Yes, that's true - and I wish everyone could understand that as clearly as you do. Several times each month, I need to explain this concept to cache owners.

 

As I wrote earlier, Groundspeak has made additional, practical exceptions to this general principle. Links to Wikipedia for informational/reference purposes are acceptable - notwithstanding any solicitation content that incidentally appears on the page. Ditto for YouTube for video links, notwithstanding YouTube's ad content. Ditto for recognized GeoChecker websites. These exceptions make good sense because they enhance the cache listing.

 

If you're having to explain this frequently that tells me that GS isn't communicating their policies well enough. What you've described, and the exceptions that have been made seem quite reasonable but I realize that once you start listing exceptions there will be some that will inquire about adding exceptions to the list. For example, if YouTube is on the okay, why not blip.tv or yahoo video?

 

 

[Clan Riffster]

And no, they don't really owe you an explanation. It's a privately owned site.

I never said they did owe me an explanation. All I'm saying is that it would be helpful to cache creators and Volunteer Reviewers if they did provide an explanation.

Not really. The Reviewers already grasp the rather simple concept which seems to elude you. As do roughly 99.98461% of the cache creating population. Most of us don't need 4000 pages of text detailing why this site is okay, whilst that site is not. We get it. You don't. Bogging down the site with gobs of explanations, simply to appease a tiny, obtuse minority is not helpful.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Clan Riffster