Jump to content

Ending my membership


sussamb
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

This takes the biscuit ... http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=323254&pid=5403303&st=100entry5403303

 

Shows the attitude held ... we think 'The information being presented by the retiring reviewer in this thread is, we believe, an inaccurate and incomplete representation of the facts. Feel free to take them as you see fit, but we will not be commenting further'.

 

Really? Where is it inaccurate etc? I know who I believe and it's not Groundspeak. They've lost me as a geocacher, or at least a paying one.

Link to comment

Thanks for starting this new thread, I was about to start one myself. Lackey closes previous thread because they didn't like that fact the Great British Public and a well respected reviewer were standing up to them and they weren't hearing or reading what they wanted to.

 

The only one consolation in their closing of the thread was that Deci finally, if somewhat belatedly and to be honest rather blandly, had a thankyou for all his work.

 

If you didn't see it, here is how the last thread was closed.

 

....................................................................

 

We are closing this thread.

 

Please understand that we have no intention of publicly commenting on the reasons for retirements of community reviewers. We do not comment out of respect for all parties involved.

 

The information being presented by the retiring reviewer in this thread is, we believe, an inaccurate and incomplete representation of the facts. Feel free to take them as you see fit, but we will not be commenting further.

 

We wish Dave well and thank him for 8 years as a volunteer reviewer. His contributions to the game have been appreciated by Groundspeak and by the geocaching community.

 

.....................................................................

 

I too won't be renewing my membership and having talked to others in my area of the UK, a lot of people are feeling the same. OK, it might not make a big difference in the scheme of things, but if those people then start moving to a UK listing site and that site then grows in size, then maybe, just maybe Groundspeak will begin to feel more of an effect.

Link to comment

100 members stopping paying would make nothing for Groundspeak. They are counting in hundreds of thousands.

 

What could make a point, is to publish the caches in some alternative system, even paralell to GC.

 

If in UK there's no competitor, you may be not aware of it, but in Germany and Poland the reviewers are oblidged to censorship the cache descriptions and are blocking caches even if it is mentioned that they are published in some other system, even without mentioning its name. It doesn't make them very liked in 2-system community.

 

On Polish subforum, it's even forbidden to use the name "OpenCaching" (which doesn't mean Garmin, which has "stolen" the name, but original OpenCaching, that was created in Germany and cloned in many countries, using national domains as suffix).

 

It means that Groundspeak is afraid of competition, even if officially they ridicule or ignore them.

Link to comment

What I would like to see is an off site survey that asks one question.

 

Who do you believe is more credible and thus more believable?

 

A. The retired Reviewer

B. Groundspeak

 

On past experience I would suggest the majority of UK participants in such a survey would vote A. Deci is a well known UK cacher and a person of great integrity who I am proud to call a friend. Possibly the majority of US cachers and perhaps cachers in general might vote B.

 

Unfortunately my experience of GSP is that they can and do renage on promises and they seem to have very little understanding of UK laws and customs, and are not willing to learn of these or even accept these exist.

 

They do not seem to want to maintain a positive relationship with UK cachers over many issues.

Link to comment

Since Deci's thread started, I wondered whether to start a new one of my own, but didn't want to deflect attention from his own issues. Given his thread has been locked and this thread has now been started, I feel compelled to reply.

 

Some of those responding on Deci's thread and others who may or may not read this forum but who are known to me have started dropping away like flies. I won't name them as that's up to them to say what they need to say, but the common theme is disillusionment with the way the game is being played nowadays and/or the attitude of those who run it.

 

I know it's impossible to please everyone all of the time, but the four I am thinking of have each made a substantial contribution to caching with excellent caches from all four of them. I find it very sad to think that they are stepping away from the hobby, perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently, but all suspending their premium membership. As has been commented, perhaps 100 people ceasing to be premium members might be a drop in the ocean to Groundspeak and perhaps like others before them, they feel they are big and strong enough to weather a few blips in the system, but personally I think it's dangerous to play the ostrich too thoroughly. The paying members of this hobby are after all what keeps the whole shebang going.

 

So what's to be done? I don't have all the answers. I do feel that the old adage "It's not about the numbers" is no longer true (not that it should matter either way really), but more importantly that quantity is suffocating quality. One of the gripes I've heard is that people are so keen to jack up the numbers that they can barely put more than TFTC in their logs or on the log books and I suppose that buys into the "disposable society" in which we live now. By that I mean that when we attain anything, we always want more, more, more, rather than savouring what we have. I didn't cache in the times when finding one cache in a day was an adventure in itself, but I do have to admit that when I go on a walk for a specific cache and it's all I find all day, it's usually a great pleasure (not that I do it so much). On the other hand, I do enjoy coming home and logging 20 finds in a day (and if you look at my profile, it's rare that there are very many short logs... waffle, waffle!).

 

Perhaps like any hobby, we have our on and off times. I've had spells away from caching when to get going again is a bit of a "shall I, can I be bothered?" debate, and I've always been glad when I do go back. Likewise, every hobby will have people who do and don't get on. I still don't subscribe to Facebook as I personally can't be bothered with all the intensified chit-chat and no doubt arguments which arise on there.

 

So those are my tuppence worth of comments, for what they are worth. I do hope those who are stepping back find that they don't lose themselves to caching for good. On the other hand, as I said above, I also really hope Groundspeak wakes up and smells the coffee on this. It all started so well, but I hope they don't lose sight of what makes caching so great - the people who participate in it.

 

:ph34r:

Link to comment

Bryan not commenting "out of respect for all parties involved" seems like a big cop-out, as is locking the thread. Deci's expanded explanation about the RoW case is excellent and I support him fully in standing up for our rights.

 

Unfortunate that a foreign cacher saw fit to doubt the logic of this, thus demonstrating the problems of local laws and customs being badly interpreted by people without knowledge of the subject.

 

I still think that moaning about cache quality or quantity is very much a red herring and should be avoided in this context. Should another listing site become successful, eventually people would have the same complaints. You can design a listing site better to address these problems but there will always be caches placed which some people don't like. Also, although cancelling your membership might seem the only way of making a protest I still don't think that it will register with Groundspeak. Much better to channel your efforts into a viable UK rival.

Link to comment

Snipped.

Also, although cancelling your membership might seem the only way of making a protest I still don't think that it will register with Groundspeak.

 

Agreed. We are already part of the "over 6 million geocachers worldwide."

 

Look at how quick GS are to remove unused accounts, the sign up and never come back brigade.

All part of the "over 6 million geocachers worldwide" numbers.

 

GS seem only interested in growing the numbers.

 

And, on the subject of numbers.

 

Snipped.

Much better to channel your efforts into a viable UK rival.

 

Caches may be few and far between... But wasn't it like that to start with here?

After finding a cache, how far did those early UK cachers have to travel to get their second, or even third cache find? :o:laughing:

 

Just needs numbers to start placing more caches...

Link to comment

I'm concerened that a threat to rebel against the "big guy" may result in a blocking of our satellites.

Or worse! I'm sure someone over the pond has that technology.

Just look at what's going on in the world today. Anything is possible.

Thanks for the heads-up !

I don't know about you, but CJ's been busy making tin hats too...

Link to comment

I have recurring membership, due 25/9, however it will not be renewed. It is not essential to have, one member could run pq's on behalf of others, download and distribute to other cachers easily enough. I will also be exploring other options of finding and hiding caches.

I wonder whether GAGB, I am not a member, would post an official statement on who they think is in the wrong, here on this forum. If they back the uk reviewer it would be interesting to hear if they will be sending a response to GS on behalf of uk cachers.

Link to comment

Thanks for starting this new thread, I was about to start one myself. Lackey closes previous thread because they didn't like that fact the Great British Public and a well respected reviewer were standing up to them and they weren't hearing or reading what they wanted to.

Even I was thinking of starting a new thread, and maybe I still will. I wanted to discuss the issue of British RoWs independently of the reviewer's resignation, since the thread closing said that was the only reason they weren't going to comment. I know none of you believe that's really the reason for not commenting -- I'm trying to keep an open mind... -- but I was hoping -- dreaming -- of a balanced discussion.

 

Unfortunately, this thread is already as hostile as the original, but is there any chance someone can fairly and honestly present the accurate and complete representation of the facts that the close note says were missing from the other thread? Although the claims were angry, I couldn't see any room for duplicity in the presentation of the case claiming that the RoW should be defended from this neighbor's request.

Link to comment
but is there any chance someone can fairly and honestly present the accurate and complete representation of the facts that the close note says were missing from the other thread?

It's possible, isn't it, that GS found the working relationship with Deci irreparably tainted as a result of the recent argument, so gave him the boot. It's possible, then, that the decision to lock the thread was genuinely out of respect to Deci, rather than be cornered into attacking him in defense of their position.

 

This isn't the place in which to continue the Deci-vs-GS debate. Take it to Facebook or the GAGB forums instead.

Link to comment

This isn't the place in which to continue the Deci-vs-GS debate. Take it to Facebook or the GAGB forums instead.

Well, OK, if you say so. I wasn't seeing my request as continuing some debate but, rather, as asking to hear the other side which has not been presented here where it would make sense to discuss it. And it strikes me that the further I go from GS to find a discussion, the less likely I'll find the GS position presented. Since I'm not familiar with the GAGB forums, could you point me to a specific thread where I can find balanced views?

Link to comment

I have recurring membership, due 25/9, however it will not be renewed. It is not essential to have, one member could run pq's on behalf of others, download and distribute to other cachers easily enough. I will also be exploring other options of finding and hiding caches.

I wonder whether GAGB, I am not a member, would post an official statement on who they think is in the wrong, here on this forum. If they back the uk reviewer it would be interesting to hear if they will be sending a response to GS on behalf of uk cachers.

 

I had a recurring membership which expired a couple of weeks ago.

 

Like others here I've grown disillusioned with the way the game is developing, and Groundspeak's general show of total contempt for their customers does little to encourage me to give it another try. Last year I debated letting it lapse but decided to give it another go. So far this year I've found three caches and frankly don't miss interrupting my walks or rides to find film pots behind signs.

 

It used to be that geocaches were good ways of highlighting interesting areas. Now it seems more and more they're just good ways of highlighting places that don't have a cache within 528 feet. I'm not interested in finding places like that, especially since another trend seems to be the "me too" cache hide where someone has a go, decides they want to hide a cache, and then within a short time presumably loses interest in the game and the caches fall into disrepair before being archived.

 

I noticed several years ago the way one particular local cacher never maintained their caches despite frequent promises on the cache pages that they would, their caches were routinely archived for non-maintenance, yet they were still allowed to keep putting new caches out there.

 

Then there's the way Groundspeak seems to have the resources to release untested code and break things, but the features that might be useful (e.g. the ghost trackables proposal that's been outstanding for at least two years) seem to be permanently assigned to some mythical "to do list". The farce of their communication within the thread about European VAT did little to help, and showed how little they value their own promises.

 

I had thought to try other caching sites but having found that I'm really not missing the game as much as I thought I might I'm wondering whether to just move on to something else. Passing through the forums to see if anything inspires me to give it another try seems to just generate more reasons to walk away from it all. Aside from the social aspect of it I don't see much left.

Link to comment

I have to agree with the previous poster. Aside from the social side, there doesn't seem to be much left for me. I have to hold my hands up and say that although I am not the most prolific cacher, just over 200o finds in the last five years, I have chased drive bys to bulk numbers up. However, in the long run that seems a waste of money to be paying a company that does nothing to support it's overseas (us) customers when problems arise.

 

The social side I can keep up with the groups on that book of faces and I have now signed up for the UK version of caching.

 

They may not be as big as this company, but the idea of having less caches to find, but that are in more meaningful places does attract me more to their ethos of caching, and it harks back to the old days which I have been told about by more seasoned cachers, where there was a thrill in finding one decent cache as opposed to a trail of bland caches on a trail.

 

All I can say is that I will give it a go, smileys aren't everything to me and I dare say that I will still find caches listed on this site, but my new caches will be on the UK site and won't be cross listed. OK, as others have said it won't make a jot of difference to Groundspeak, but it will make me feel like I am doing something in my own small way.

Edited by JACARU
Link to comment

This takes the biscuit ... http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=323254&pid=5403303&st=100entry5403303

 

Shows the attitude held ... we think 'The information being presented by the retiring reviewer in this thread is, we believe, an inaccurate and incomplete representation of the facts. Feel free to take them as you see fit, but we will not be commenting further'.

 

Really? Where is it inaccurate etc? I know who I believe and it's not Groundspeak. They've lost me as a geocacher, or at least a paying one.

 

Going back to the OP, it does seem strange to say little more than "this is a false conclusion" with nothing to back it up. If Groundspeak have been maligned it makes more sense to explain how and why they have been maligned and why they consider their stance to be reasonable, rather than merely saying "not true" and shutting down the discussion.

 

Maybe it's time to give opencaching a try.

Link to comment

Going back to the OP, it does seem strange to say little more than "this is a false conclusion" with nothing to back it up. If Groundspeak have been maligned it makes more sense to explain how and why they have been maligned and why they consider their stance to be reasonable, rather than merely saying "not true" and shutting down the discussion.

I'm fine that GS shut down any discussion of how it was maligned. I gather there's some serious personal injury going on behind the scenes, but I don't really care about it and, in fact, think more discussion about who did what nasty things to whom would just continue clouding the important issue.

 

That's why with the GS-reviewer discussion closed, I'm hoping to see more about the actual legal issue. In avoiding discussion of the personal issue, GS has also not discussed the public question. If I weren't perfectly impartial, as things stand, since there's been nothing about the legal issue supporting GS's position, I'd think all the facts are on the table and it's been proven that GS is handling the RoW issue in the wrong way, possibly even an illegal way. That's why I'm still hoping to see some balance achieved by the presentation of those parts of the legal issue that the GS lackey implied haven't been presented.

 

Maybe it's time to give opencaching a try.

So far, the only thing I'm seeing here publicly is GS being idiotic. Making an honest mistake, however serious, isn't enough to make me think I should take my business elsewhere. (Admittedly, if I were affected by the problem, I might feel differently.) But, seriously, "give opencaching a try" is equivalent to "give up geocaching" from where I'm sitting.

Link to comment

Going back to the OP, it does seem strange to say little more than "this is a false conclusion" with nothing to back it up. If Groundspeak have been maligned it makes more sense to explain how and why they have been maligned and why they consider their stance to be reasonable, rather than merely saying "not true" and shutting down the discussion.

I'm fine that GS shut down any discussion of how it was maligned. I gather there's some serious personal injury going on behind the scenes, but I don't really care about it and, in fact, think more discussion about who did what nasty things to whom would just continue clouding the important issue.

 

That's why with the GS-reviewer discussion closed, I'm hoping to see more about the actual legal issue. In avoiding discussion of the personal issue, GS has also not discussed the public question. If I weren't perfectly impartial, as things stand, since there's been nothing about the legal issue supporting GS's position, I'd think all the facts are on the table and it's been proven that GS is handling the RoW issue in the wrong way, possibly even an illegal way. That's why I'm still hoping to see some balance achieved by the presentation of those parts of the legal issue that the GS lackey implied haven't been presented.

 

It would be good to see something from Groundspeak but the impression I got from the closing post was that they wouldn't be commenting, so all we're left with is "that's not true, over and out".

 

Maybe it's time to give opencaching a try.

So far, the only thing I'm seeing here publicly is GS being idiotic. Making an honest mistake, however serious, isn't enough to make me think I should take my business elsewhere. (Admittedly, if I were affected by the problem, I might feel differently.) But, seriously, "give opencaching a try" is equivalent to "give up geocaching" from where I'm sitting.

 

I have all but given up geocaching anyway, mostly in frustration at many aspects of it. My frustration ranges from the seemingly relentless push to ever-smaller cachers which I lost interest in hunting, the way they seem to have the resources to periodically break stuff but rarely seem to implement changes that would improve the game, and the general sense that what I'd call old fashioned cachers (people like me, who use a GPS rather than a smartphone) aren't the target market any more. For me this is just another example of Groundspeak being idiotic - frankly I care little one way or the other whether an unidentified cache in an unknown area is published but have lost any inclination to continue to support Groundspeak for other reasons.

 

I've been hoping to find a reason to give it another try, which is why I still visit the forums, but most of what I see merely reminds me of why my find count for 2013 was over 500, my find count for last year was about 150 and my find count for this year to date is 3.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...