Geocaching new Weekly Newsletter

[+barefootjeff]

Yes, I would like to read a sound reasoning from Groundspeak why it is necessary to transmit my email address to a third party.

While the e-mail address is concerning, I don't think me clicking on the link is transmitting it to the mystery site. My guess is that the mystery site gets the e-mail address to begin with, and when we click on the link, the address is used to track which of us uses which links.

No, if you look at all the links, they include your email address as the "e=" parameter that's sent to lnk.ie. Here's what the Privacy Policy link looks like (I've xxx'd out my address):

 

https : // lnk.ie/1QPE8/e=xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx/https://www.geocaching.com/about/privacypolicy.aspx

 

If they were just trying to identify the user to Groundspeak for the query that's passed down the chain, surely it would've been better to use something cryptic like an internal member ID number, maybe even obfuscated. Sending a plain text email address to a third party website isn't such a good idea in this day and age.

 

Edit: I've added some extra spaces to try to stop the forum from making my example an actual link.

Edited March 25, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+dprovan]

If they were just trying to identify the user to Groundspeak for the query that's passed down the chain, surely it would've been better to use something cryptic like an internal member ID number, maybe even obfuscated. Sending a plain text email address to a third party website isn't such a good idea in this day and age.

Meh. Not clear. The e-mail address is a handy ID, too, and it reflects exactly where the newsletter was sent. Using some other ID would add a mapping that isn't useful. After all, what do they care about using my e-mail address as an ID?

 

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. GS is involving me with an unknown 3rd party for their own benefit. I don't want any part of it.

[+thomfre]

Can you please bring back the old newsletter, Groundspeak?

This new one is not as informative as the old one, it just has a lot more wasted space :/

[+dullarrow]

You are going backwards....the old newsletter was just fine the way it was.

[Pup Patrol]

Well, that's interesting.

 

The email sent to my Premium Member account has a link to "recent caches near you".

 

The email sent to my Basic Member account has a link to "caches near you".

 

Seems like GS wants to give PM's the better chance at FTF's.

 

 

B.

[+Team DEMP]

The email sent to my Premium Member account has a link to "recent caches near you".

 

The email sent to my Basic Member account has a link to "caches near you".

 

Was there a difference in the caches displayed when clicking through or is it just the text in the email that is different?

[Pup Patrol]

The email sent to my Premium Member account has a link to "recent caches near you".

 

The email sent to my Basic Member account has a link to "caches near you".

 

Was there a difference in the caches displayed when clicking through or is it just the text in the email that is different?

 

Yes, there is a difference in the caches listed.

 

I clicked the links to check it out, thinking it might only be a difference in text.

 

B.

[+DragonsWest]

Can you please bring back the old newsletter, Groundspeak?

This new one is not as informative as the old one, it just has a lot more wasted space :/

 

Apparently, as with a number of other changes of late, it worked too well and was removed for something which violates the "K.I.S.S. rule"

 

Seems it's time to stop rolling out changes and go back and right (or revert) some decisions.

 

But what do I know...

[+Twentse Mug]

Isn't the newsletter weekly anymore?

[Pup Patrol]

Isn't the newsletter weekly anymore?

 

Yes, it's still weekly.

 

Check your profile that you've still got it ticked.

 

Check your spam folder.

 

And if necessary, contact Groundspeak and let them know you're not receiving it.

 

 

B.

[+McLookers]

I recently received my first newsletter in the new format. I must say that I'd rather have a summary of what's going on locally (e.g., lists of upcoming events and of recently published caches) rather than links to what's going on locally.

 

If I wanted links, then I could create them myself. The advantage of the newsletter was that several types of information related to geocaching were brought together in one email message.

 

I agree 100% with your comments. I hope GS will reconsider the format and just 'pretty up' the old format if necessary. The old format gave me a snapshot of what was new and relevant that I could quickly scroll through. I hardly bother with the new format and as a result, I am missing events, newer listings etc.

[+McLookers]

I recently received my first newsletter in the new format. I must say that I'd rather have a summary of what's going on locally (e.g., lists of upcoming events and of recently published caches) rather than links to what's going on locally.

 

If I wanted links, then I could create them myself. The advantage of the newsletter was that several types of information related to geocaching were brought together in one email message.

That was another point I forgot to mention in my previous post.

 

If I wanted to do a search for events near me, I'd just go to the website and do that search. Like niraD said, the advantage of the previous version of the newsletter was having that list provided to you without any further action required. I expect attendance may drop a bit for some upcoming events due to the loss of this notification method.

 

I agree 100%. The new format does not give a quick snapshot at all.

[+McLookers]

Received my first "new format" newsletter early this morning, around 1am PST. My immediate thought was "Where's the content?"

 

There were two 'stories' in the newsletter.

-- Donerstag 'story': I'd have to click-through to find out how to get the Donerstag souvenir. It's also confusing because the 'story' in the email says "earn a few souvenirs along the way" (multiple souvenirs?), but there's only 1 souvenir. Or maybe you meant the country souvenirs that someone MIGHT get if they go to an event in a country they haven't cached in before?

-- CITO 'story': I'd have to click-through to (1) find out there IS a souvenir and (2) how to get it.

 

One of the things I appreciated in the "old format" newsletter was that the souvenir requirements were stated in the email and did not require clickthroughs. I could keep those emails in my Inbox and go back to them at any time to get a quick reminder of the souvenir requirements - no need to clickthrough and open Blog webpages, no need to have data connection.

 

I agree 100%.

[+McLookers]

The old newsletter had a list of recently published caches near me. Last week, that was a list of 20 caches to look through. That was quick to look through and useful.

 

The new newsletter has a link to a search of ALL caches near me. This week, that's 3,366 caches. It doesn't even filter out the ones I've already found. That's neither quick, nor useful. So I've turned off the newsletter. It's of no use to me anymore.

 

I agree 100%.

[Pup Patrol]

Well, that's interesting.

 

The email sent to my Premium Member account has a link to "recent caches near you".

 

The email sent to my Basic Member account has a link to "caches near you".

 

Seems like GS wants to give PM's the better chance at FTF's.

 

 

B.

 

Same thing again in this week's newsletter...

 

PM account receives link to "recent caches near you"

 

BM account receives link to "caches near you"

 

Why can't Basic Members be advised about newly published caches?

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

The old newsletter had a list of recently published caches near me. Last week, that was a list of 20 caches to look through. That was quick to look through and useful.

 

The new newsletter has a link to a search of ALL caches near me. This week, that's 3,366 caches. It doesn't even filter out the ones I've already found. That's neither quick, nor useful. So I've turned off the newsletter. It's of no use to me anymore.

 

As a Basic Member, you're getting a different email than the one sent to Premium Members.

 

See my posts above...PM's get a link to newly published caches, Basic Members get a link to nearby caches.

 

Pretty astounding to me. I didn't think Groundspeak would so blatantly discriminate against Basic Members when it comes to newly published caches.

 

B.

[+dprovan]

I was hoping for a reconsideration, but it looks like GS is determined to keep using this newsletter format that's useless to me, so I finally unchecked the box.

 

Although I hesitated: under the check box is says, "Send me a weekly digest of the latest hides and events in my area." I really would like them to send me a digest of the latest hides and events in my area, but all I get these days is this weekly advertising flyer.

[+thebruce0]

Technical side notes:

* "Near you" looks to have been based on your device location, now switched to Home location. As 'device' location, desktop browsers not having access to GPS data would instead reverse geolocate your IP address - Groundspeak didn't have control over that, but it shows they geared the newsletter towards reading on mobile devices rather than desktop email software/web browsers. So conceptually, they have to shift from "near your current location" to "near your home location" for it to be consistent for everyone.

 

* the link shortener certainly has no need to track the recipient's email address. If it was the mailing service used to send the newsletter, they already have your email. If it's a separate service to provide trackable short-links, then the email address is not needed. So yeah, lnk.ie links with email address in every link is just Bad Form (and worthy of the browser alert that it's not a trustworthy site). This is actually the first I've seen "lnk.ie" shortlinks... new startup? There are plenty of other trustworthy link shorteners and/or maillist providers that Groundspeak can/should make use of.

[+The A-Team]

* the link shortener certainly has no need to track the recipient's email address. If it was the mailing service used to send the newsletter, they already have your email. If it's a separate service to provide trackable short-links, then the email address is not needed. So yeah, lnk.ie links with email address in every link is just Bad Form (and worthy of the browser alert that it's not a trustworthy site). This is actually the first I've seen "lnk.ie" shortlinks... new startup? There are plenty of other trustworthy link shorteners and/or maillist providers that Groundspeak can/should make use of.

I did some searching trying to find more about the mysterious "lnk.ie", but there seems to be very little info available. Browsing to the domain name just gives you a 404-style page. It seems very sketchy to me. Luckily the links don't give me any benefit, so I can just avoid following any links from the newsletter. I'm going to keep signed up so I can see what announcements/articles are mentioned, but I'll be going elsewhere for further detail about any of those (ie. straight to the blog, forums, etc.) rather than clicking the link.

[+thebruce0]

* the link shortener certainly has no need to track the recipient's email address. If it was the mailing service used to send the newsletter, they already have your email. If it's a separate service to provide trackable short-links, then the email address is not needed. So yeah, lnk.ie links with email address in every link is just Bad Form (and worthy of the browser alert that it's not a trustworthy site). This is actually the first I've seen "lnk.ie" shortlinks... new startup? There are plenty of other trustworthy link shorteners and/or maillist providers that Groundspeak can/should make use of.

I did some searching trying to find more about the mysterious "lnk.ie", but there seems to be very little info available. Browsing to the domain name just gives you a 404-style page. It seems very sketchy to me. Luckily the links don't give me any benefit, so I can just avoid following any links from the newsletter. I'm going to keep signed up so I can see what announcements/articles are mentioned, but I'll be going elsewhere for further detail about any of those (ie. straight to the blog, forums, etc.) rather than clicking the link.

 

I tend to avoid newlsetter links altogether (any site) if the links are all through some 3rd party provider and not a known domain. We try to teach people about phishing emails, and then we send out newsletters with wacky messed up encoded links so the senders can track click activity... Don't know what the answer is, really. Best implementation would simply to either build or buy a link tracker that can be installed and run from the trusted host domain; and good practice is still to provide text-based links people can copy and open manually if they wish.

 

Heck, even shared links people post with all the querystring-added properties and values for social media share stats I'm the habit of stripping off if I want to re-share an article Unbelievably annoying and desensitizes people to the ever-present dangers of phishing strategies!

[+Team DEMP]

Related to the link in the emails, it should be trivial for them to setup a simple CNAME so the ink.ie links/URLs all look like newsletter.geocaching.com/xxxxxxx . Would less people notice/care?

[+The A-Team]

Related to the link in the emails, it should be trivial for them to setup a simple CNAME so the ink.ie links/URLs all look like newsletter.geocaching.com/xxxxxxx . Would less people notice/care?

I don't have an inherent problem with Groundspeak collecting click-through data, but there are less shady ways of going about it. I'm sure there are trivial ways of having all the traffic go through the Groundspeak servers instead of a third-party. I'm no web developer, but I can think of a few simple ways of doing it off the top of my head. I'm sure the smart and trained Groundspeak developers could bang out something in an afternoon.

[+Team DEMP]

Related to the link in the emails, it should be trivial for them to setup a simple CNAME so the ink.ie links/URLs all look like newsletter.geocaching.com/xxxxxxx . Would less people notice/care?

I don't have an inherent problem with Groundspeak collecting click-through data, but there are less shady ways of going about it. I'm sure there are trivial ways of having all the traffic go through the Groundspeak servers instead of a third-party. I'm no web developer, but I can think of a few simple ways of doing it off the top of my head. I'm sure the smart and trained Groundspeak developers could bang out something in an afternoon.

 

Groundspeak's approach is very typical when using a professional email marketing solution. You wouldn't likely notice if they masked the ink.ie domain name from the start as I mentioned. Check a few marketing emails you receive from respectable companies and I'd suspect the links are something like blah-blah.companydomain.com where blah-blah is pointing to the email marketing providers domain (eg ink.ie).

I wouldn't want GS to spend time doing anything as sophisticated as what ink.ie or a similar provider would offer and would rather those "smart and trained Groundspeak developers" work on core functionality and not supporting a newsletter.

[+Team DEMP]

[ don't have an inherent problem with Groundspeak collecting click-through data, but there are less shady ways of going about it. I'm sure there are trivial ways of having all the traffic go through the Groundspeak servers instead of a third-party.

 

Referencing my earlier post, here are a few legitimate companies and their subdomains in marketing emails I have in the last 2 days:

Doubletree Hilton Hotels - h1.hilton.com - maps to Cheetah Mail

Walgreens - re.walgreens.com - maps to Cheetah Mail

eBags - click.response.ebags.com - maps to Exact Target

BestBuy - click.emailinfo2.bestbuy.com - maps to Exact Target

 

Very standard approach and I would say the right approach so that developers could focus on the core platform and not emails. A discussion on the content is much more appropriate and if they just masked the domain from the start, this likely wouldn't be a topic of discussion. But maybe they just don't know better?

[+thebruce0]

Related to the link in the emails, it should be trivial for them to setup a simple CNAME so the ink.ie links/URLs all look like newsletter.geocaching.com/xxxxxxx . Would less people notice/care?

I don't have an inherent problem with Groundspeak collecting click-through data, but there are less shady ways of going about it. I'm sure there are trivial ways of having all the traffic go through the Groundspeak servers instead of a third-party. I'm no web developer, but I can think of a few simple ways of doing it off the top of my head. I'm sure the smart and trained Groundspeak developers could bang out something in an afternoon.

 

Groundspeak's approach is very typical when using a professional email marketing solution. You wouldn't likely notice if they masked the ink.ie domain name from the start as I mentioned. Check a few marketing emails you receive from respectable companies and I'd suspect the links are something like blah-blah.companydomain.com where blah-blah is pointing to the email marketing providers domain (eg ink.ie).

Masking with a CNAME may not work, depending on the link provider. They may be checking the host. It could be a quick fix, but it's really rough. Better would be to use a service that is just fundamentally less shady (ie, not lnk.ie)

[+Team DEMP]

Groundspeak's approach is very typical when using a professional email marketing solution. You wouldn't likely notice if they masked the ink.ie domain name from the start as I mentioned. Check a few marketing emails you receive from respectable companies and I'd suspect the links are something like blah-blah.companydomain.com where blah-blah is pointing to the email marketing providers domain (eg ink.ie).

Masking with a CNAME may not work, depending on the link provider. They may be checking the host. It could be a quick fix, but it's really rough. Better would be to use a service that is just fundamentally less shady (ie, not lnk.ie)

 

I emailed lnk.ie via their company website's contact form this morning and had a very quick response with a thorough answer. Their support website has the details on how Groundspeak could do this on their own through the control panel they are provided. No lnk.ie items would be displayed.

Let's move on to discussing the content.

[+thebruce0]

Good to know!

[+KeyResults]

Strongly desire the weekly text based email listing newly published caches and events tailored to my home location. How do I get that back? That was the single most useful correspondence I actually read each week. Without it, event attendance is WAY down all of a sudden too. Elimination of this in lieu of the HTML blog teaser is not a good idea.

 

Whatever marketing genius is feeding you strategy and direction is really blowing it. You had it right. You should be asking all premium members about this kind of change before eliminating value services from the benefits list. C'mon Man!

[+lefisher]

Every week when I receive my newsletter I say I will write in and complain but then wait just in case issues with it were being resolved.  It is now a good few months since it was introduced and it is the same uninformative e-mail.  When I click on "Recent geocaches near you" I still get a list which includes caches that I have either found or placed.  Picking out new caches means scrolling down many times.  Is there any chance that Groundspeak will revert to the previous practise of only showing new caches near me?