Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
verturin

Plantage site Wherigo

Recommended Posts

Depuis plusieurs semaines, voir plusieurs mois, le site Wherigo.com est souvent en erreur pour la création et le téléchargement des cartouches.
C'est souvent galère pour les joueurs qui n'arrivent pas à télécharger la cartouche.
En attendant la résolution complète des problèmes du site Wherigo.com, la possibilité de mettre un lien de secours vers foundantionwherigo, pourrait être une solution.

Malheureusement, nos amis reviewers, on la consigne de refuser les liens vers ce site.

Est-il possible d’autoriser à nouveau de pouvoir indiquer un lien de secours vers foundationwherigo afin de pallier au nombreux plantage du site Wherigo.com ?

 

 

For several weeks, see several months, the website Wherigo.com is often in error for the creation and download of cartridges.
This is often a hassle for players who can not download the cartridge.
While waiting for the complete resolution of Wherigo.com site problems, the possibility of putting a backup link to foundantionwherigo, could be a solution.

Unfortunately, our friends reviewers are told to refuse links to this site.

Is it possible to authorize again to be able to indicate a backup link to foundationwherigo to compensate for the many Wherigo.com site crash?

 

Merci d'avance pour les réponses

Share this post


Link to post
 
My question :
 
Can also add on the page of the cache a link to the same cartridge on Wherigofondation.com to provide a backup link to the player.

Share this post


Link to post

Links to the Wherigo Foundation are still not allowed.  I just double-checked the guidance given by HQ to Reviewers, which was last updated on March 29.  There's been no recent change. 

 

I regret any confusion caused by reviewers (as in the above example) that missed this guidance tucked away in the corner of our procedures database.

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

it's not clear in the guidelines.  it says that one must put a link to Wherigo.com, which makes sense.  But as the site is not stable a lack of maintenance of the site.  nothing prevents the guidelines from putting a backup link to wherigofoundation.  This is a shame because the site is very stable and much more complete.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak has always forbidden the use of alternate listing services.  The most they have been willing to do is look the other way as long as the cartridges were cross-listed on their site and the cache listings didn't mention anything concerning the Wherigo Foundation: player apps, builders, and the listing service itself.  Nothing outside of the iPhone app, of which Groundspeak acquired an interest, can be mentioned on a geocache listing.  This has been true in 2009, close to when the first player app came out, and it's still true now.  This is also one of the reasons that development of Wherigo Foundation initiatives has slowed: if Groundspeak is taking such a passive-aggressive approach, why put in time on a development project?  That's especially true of the Wherigo Foundation listing service: since I could be asked to take it down at any moment, putting in additional time into advanced features might make it even more popular and result in its demise from a takedown request--and that wouldn't help both sides, Groundspeak and the community.  True, I don't believe Groundspeak has a legal standing to demand such a thing, but not acquiescing to the request would forever prohibit the possibility of future cooperation.  I spent years trying to get Groundspeak to acknowledge the Wherigo Foundation.  Though I came close to it with a few drafts of a partnership agreement on the table, it just didn't seem like Groundspeak was genuinely interested in moving forward, much like it has been with Waymarking.  Not once did they initiate any action on their side.  The Wherigo Foundation site was made public to demonstrate it to Groundspeak as has remained public to demonstrate its stability and usefulness to the community.  They know it exists and it's fine to leave public (the footer on the listing service site was created by Groundspeak, by the way).  They also know the guidelines under which the reviewers are operating.  I've always officially and unofficially stated a Wherigo geocache must link to a cartridge hosted on Wherigo.com.  It's an interesting existence, isn't it?

 

In short, the Wherigo Foundation is Fight Club.  You do not talk about Fight Club.

 

I usually try to avoid posting about this topic or answering questions because some people might think I have a conflict of interest on the matter.  In fact, I can separate my roles just fine, and have my statements conflict with each other depending on the role I'm filling at that time.  Yes, I have my own personal feelings on the matter.  I'll sum it up by saying that if you feel it's a shame that you can't mention the Wherigo Foundation site on your cache listing, what must it feel like to people who have invested so much time into creating these things and supporting the community only to have the rule being that people can't mention what they've created?  My endgame was never to run Wherigo: it was to improve what it offers, grow the community, make it more enjoyable for all, and make the creation of content easier.  If running it was the only way to reach those objectives, then fine, though I don't have the time to do it properly.  Anyway, things have worn on over the years and dealing with the same things without the promise of improvement is really wearing me out.  So, those are my feelings.

 

Oh, but you're free to talk about Wherigo Foundation topics in this forum.  Just like the old reviewer rule is that Wherigo Foundation things can't be mentioned in cache listings, the old 2009 rule is that they can be discussed in the forum.  It boils down to that, back then, due to a situation that happened, I was given the unusual responsibility (for a moderator) of approving which third-party Wherigo sites and apps are discussed in Groundspeak's forum, without having to ask again.  My own guideline on that is as long as it's noncommercial and doesn't negatively impact the community, it can be discussed.  Much later, during a discussion with Groundspeak, we both added an amendment: though not forbidden, I should try not starting topics regarding the Wherigo Foundation listing service as this could be seen as a conflict of interest, though I've always been free to answer questions and contribute.  And as I've explained in the past, the moderator role is seen as a public relations extension of Groundspeak, so being in the position I am with also starting the Wherigo Foundation movement, I need to make sure there isn't any confusion as to which role I'm acting under--community member, Wherigo Foundation member, geocacher, or moderator--lest there be confusion on Groundspeak's position.

 

So that's most of the story.  Half of the rest involves details and history and the other half is close enough to a non-disclosure agreement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/20/2019 at 7:00 AM, verturin said:

it's not clear in the guidelines.

The guidelines expressly forbid any mention of competing listing services. That’s pretty clear to me. What’s unclear about that statement?

Share this post


Link to post

It's a shame not to be able to use a product that is much better quality, and much more complete!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...