Jump to content

Should caches be listed in competing websites?


Recommended Posts

I recently made

this post in the thread geocacing.com too commercial?. it concerned whether not the rules of geocaching were getting in the way of the sport, and whether Groundspeak was becoming more important then geocach, or whether geocaching & Groundspeak were inseperable.

 

At one point I made the comment

 

that interested me was this one, http://www.navicache.com/ because it lists numerous caches found here. I wonder how exactly they're doing that.

 

Within 18 hours I received a rather terse email from someone at navicache. (apparently they monitor the boards here) They felt I had accused them of being commercial (which I didn't) and that I accused them of swiping cache info (which I didn't) I'll admit that it seemed strange to find caches like Regal Eagle and What a Bridge listed here & there as well.

 

After looking into it further it seems as if some geocachers have created the same handle on their site site, then listed caches that they've placed & logged here already, using the exact same name.

 

Which prompts this thread.

 

Should caches be listed in both places, and if so, what would the protocol be for logging finds over there. It seems kinda pointless (to me) to create a cache then list it in both places. What do you all think?

 

For the record I could only find two sites which had databases. The navicache site seems to have nothing but caches already created over here, which begs the question: what's in it for me to create an identity over there? Absolutely nothing, which is why I think each site should have it's own unique caches. Bear in mind I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, not am I am criticizing anyone who has created caches and logged them over on competing sites. I'm just saying, there's no incentive for me because it's not new. What do you all think?

 

Geocaching Worldwide

Navicache

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

 

CLARIFIACTION: For options 3 & 4 in the poll I am asking if you logged a find on XYZ cache and subsequently found out it was listed on both sites. Obviously if you think it's cool to maintain a presence in both places & knew in advance that it was listed in both places, it'd make no sense to visit then not log both. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[This message was edited by Gwho on October 13, 2002 at 02:46 PM.]

Link to comment

as to why anyone would use the other site. I just went and searched for caches by zip code. I live in Portland, OR where there are right now over 700 within 100 miles. The closest one on that site was in a city 1 1/2 hours away.

 

I say let people do whatever they want at that site. They are missing out on quite a lot if they are only using that site, and if they are using both, what's the point of the other site?

 

cool_shades.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Link to comment

Maybe they want to maximize the exposure, maybe root for the underdog, maybe some feel that geocaching.com is not the last word in geocaching, maybe give people a choice. It really could be many reasons. I looked at the site and found that there was no cache in my area so I uploaded one of mine that I thought was one of my better ones. Also I have a cache about 100 mi. away again in an area where not many caches are so I uploaded it too.

 

The cache was initially listed here and now is on both. I fall into the root for the underdog & geocaching.com is not geocaching theories.

 

Do I really expect many/any logs on that site? - not really but if I do I might create a 'other site' only cache

 

As for more work - yes but very little more - just copy and paste.

Link to comment

I think there is no problem listing your cache wherever you want. It's your cache, you are the owner. While this site is where I prefer to go to seek caches, that's not too say there is no need for other sites. The site you mention is invaluble in other ways, there's a wealth of information on GPS units and files for downloading such as firmware, basemaps, etc. There is room and purpose for both to co-exist, and frankly the more choices that are available gives you a larger variety of choices. You wouldn't want to see this place broken up for having a monopoly on geocaching, would you?

Link to comment

You mean there is a site that can compete with this one? icon_wink.gif I can't imagine having enough time to follow two sites.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to hide a cache and log the hide on more than one site let them do it. I spend enough time keeping up with my own sites here at geocaching.com.

 

Now if someone were to use existing cache locations from Geocaching.com to build a site, that would be another thing altogether.

Link to comment

quote:
I'm confused

 

as to why anyone would use the other site. I just went and searched for caches by zip code. I live in Portland, OR where there are right now over 700 within 100 miles. The closest one on that site was in a city 1 1/2 hours away.

 

I say let people do whatever they want at that site. They are missing out on quite a lot if they are only using that site, and if they are using both, what's the point of the other site?


 

quote:
If you want to list on other sites then then go ahead, but it's more work and I don't think you're reaching very many more people.

 

Isn't that the point. To reach as many people as possible.


 

Geocaching.com is based on the west coast and the other site is based on the east coast. Thats why you probably won't find as many caches near your area. Here in New york we have plenty of caches on the other site. It's a matter of the people on this site listing theirs over there that are in your area. That is why you won't find any on the other site where you are.

 

The other site is simply the underdog, because of the word geocaching. This site pops up when you do a search on the internet first. So obviously this site is more popular. If there isn't a profit to be gained, then what's the difference to which site you go to. We can understand a member might think it's a lot of work to list their caches on both sites, but we disagree. A quick copy and paste does the trick.

 

We found the other site first through a george bill and didn't even know about this site until we found about 50 caches over there. Then someone emailed us and told us about this site. We listed some found and all of our hidden caches over here in matter of minutes. Now we log and hide all of our caches on both sites all the time. They do have other services other than caches; news, geocaching updates, and some cool links as well as the forums. There are helpful people every where, why would you wanna miss out?

 

Duane N Candie

Upinyachit

icon_smile.gif

 

Our feet go where the caches are! feet.gif

Link to comment

When I was introduced to this it was to geocaching.com. When I found the caches they were labelled with "geocaching.com" website and had note inside saying it is a geocaching.com site. I feel loyal to this site and do not see the need to double post anything anywhere. Seems like a big waste of valuable time. Suppose something goes wrong with the cache site? Which site will they contact? Just the fact that there is another site that is being used for double postings is enough to make me send in my $30 to Jeremy right now. So if you'll excuse me I have a check to write and an envelope to stamp. (I have no kind of loyalty to PayPal!) And if the other site is eavesdropping in on this site, well take that icon_mad.gif and that icon_razz.gif and that icon_mad.gif We don't need no other stinkin caches sites. jmho

 

Cache you later,

Planet

Link to comment

I have no problem with folks registering one cache on both sites. Different folks use different sites and if it gets more cachers to your cache, go ahead and list it on both.

 

Just from the little bit of surfing I've done, though, this does seem the most comprehensive site currently available.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Planet:

We don't need no other stinkin caches sites.


 

I'd compare it to the Linux vs. Microsoft debate. Microsofties like to say 'You don't need no other OS. Ours is best cuz we say it is.' Bigger is not always better.

 

Before you jump to Jeremy's defense or start attacking me, I am not attacking him. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. If I had a real problem with the way he runs the site I wouldn't be giving him money to support it. I just wonder, if some company, say Microsoft, or anyone for that matter, were to approach him tomorrow and offer him $10million for the site and he took it, I know I'd be very tempted icon_smile.gif, would you be as comfortable having the majority of the sport effectively under the control of that one company? A company answerable to noone in the sport but only to their own bottom line? A company whose main concern was making a buck off of you? Someone who if you were to upset them somehow could effectively bar your access to a very large portion of the sport? Answer honestly.

 

These are just questions that I thought needed asking. They aren't an attack. They aren't a promo for any other site either. I just like to make people think. I love this sport/hobby and would like to see it continue.

 

I'd love to see a co-op among sites to promote the sport as a whole. Maybe a central data warehouse that stores all caches for websites to pull from. Charge the sites a nominal fee to cover operating costs for access to the database. Some non-profit org that makes sure the data stays available even when sites come and go. Heck, it might be cheaper for Groundspeak that way. Let someone else deal with the cache database and let them concentrate on presentation and value-added services like EasyGPS integration and Mobipocket access. I'd hope that they'd help with the creation of such a body for the good of the sport. Linux does very well with such a system. A lot of people are making money off of that 'free' operating system. I was making good money with Linux until I got laid off. icon_frown.gif

 

Buxley's site is a great example. It links to caches from both sites in a unique and great way. He seems to want to make sure people can find all caches in their area in one spot not just the ones he approves of. Because it also links to the 'other' site is probably the reason it's not mentioned on the Links page here even though it's a very useful resource.

 

I think geocaching.com will always be the biggest around. When people hear about geocaching what's the first website they're going to try? What's the first website to show up in search engines? He's got the head start on any competition. But like in any business, competition is good. It forces innovation to stay ahead of competitors which is always good for the endusers.

 

I'll shut up now...

 

The Bohican

 

P.S. I also find it quite humorous that the 'othersite' runs Linux and geocaching.com runs Win2K. icon_wink.gif

 

--

Welcome to nowhere.nu. Now go home!

Link to comment

Well I guess I see there being two sites a bit of a bummer. If people don't list on both then there could be good caches that are being missed by good cachers. If they are listing on both, then the sites are simply duplicating that service. I don't understand a root for the underdog when having all the caches in one searchable database will give the caches the most exposure. If someone started a new site now with caches only in that site I think a very small number of cachers would ever hear about them.

 

cool_shades.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Link to comment

I'm not attacking anyone. I was just trying to be funny. Did ya see the movie? I just really like the fact that this is where it all began and to me the other site is knock off. Although I really can't have an opinion because I haven't even visited any other sites. To me Geocaching.com is like a friend and sure everyone needs more friends, but you can only meet so many people at a time. I work with people, different ones every single day and so I don't need to many more in my private life, but this is a hobby I really enjoy and I'm comfortable right here. I don't need another neighborhood, so to speak. And you coulda fooled me saying Geocaching.com is based on the West Coast because they're doing just fine here on the East Coast as far as I'm concerned. I wasn't picking on, or referring to anyone else's post, just stating an opinion. Sometimes people might feel that way because their post was above but it wasn't aimed at you. Geocaching.com just fits like an old hiking boot.

By the way, I sent in the membership fee. icon_biggrin.gif

And Win2k, Linux, it's all Greek to me.

 

Cache you later,

Planet

Link to comment

Since the other site doesn't list many (or any) caches anywhere near me (I'm in the midwest), I stick to this site. I didn't bother to list my one hide there and haven't looked for any on the other site because they are too far away. But, if people live where listing and logging on both sites works well, I have no problem with it. I do think that this site is much, much better, but I also don't think it should become a competition between competing web sites.

Link to comment

I've listed all my 11 or so hides on both sites. It's important that a second company, although it is small, is around to keep the main company on its toes with good performance, quality and price. Companies tend to get sloppy with their product and charge higher prices if they think there's no one else. As long as geocaching.com does a good job, the others will stay second. But it's important that this site know there's others out there to jump if the situation changes.

 

ALan

Link to comment

Pretty much every cache I've tried to find at the other site, that didn't already exist here, was plundered/stolen/missing etc. I gave up on that site fairly quickly. Basically, when there is more activity, the cache's current status can be determined easier. This is home to me...

 

--Marky

Link to comment

Alan is right on about compitition, in the strickly commercial sense,HOWEVER, if you have caches loged on BOTH sites and someone take my TB and puts it into one of the "other" caches then it gets in there system...how does that help me track a bug?could this be how some bugs go AWOL?

 

in all honesty ,the more caches the better as far as I am concerned, but I definatley see some issues about 2 or more site listing the same cache

ever notice someone signing your log book at the cache but not on the site? icon_rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

What if someone on the other site doesn't know about geocaching or vice versa? My concern would be a lot of Travel Bugs could go missing and it would be hard to keep a proper list of what people took and left in a cache. Also logs could be off if people only list their finds on one site and not another.

 

I personally think a cache should only be listed on site or another. I'm not saying only use one site. You could list one cache here and another there.

Link to comment

The other site? I know of at least 2 other sites.

 

I post my caches and finds to all 3! but most of the caches listed are here.

 

I started listing mine on all 3 since reading the (old now) threads here about (shareing the info & hording the data... who's cache is it any way)

 

I choose where my caches are listed! and log any I find on sites they are listed on.

 

If Enron can fold, why would I leave my caches listed in 1 basket? icon_confused.gif

 

how4.gif No matter where you go... There you are!

NTGA member

Link to comment

I have a cache listed on both sites. (Didn't know there were 3 sites) I personally don't see any problem with it. The more the merrier. I didn't think any one site owned the rights to my cache.

 

It's MY cache and I can list it anywhere I want to, so there! icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif

 

tt120twitchy.gif

TechnoGEEK

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by upinyachit:

Geocaching.com is based on the west coast and the other site is based on the east coast. Thats why you probably won't find as many caches near your area. Here in New york we have plenty of caches on the other site. It's a matter of the people on this site listing theirs over there that are in your area. That is why you won't find any on the other site where you are.


Well, I'm on the east coast, not more then a few hundred miles from where that other site calls home. I said it here and I'll say it again:

quote:

I'm only a few hundred miles away from you. Geocaching.com shows 622 caches within 50 miles of me, 1219 within 100 miles. Now, the "other" site: 11 caches within 50 miles, and just 35 caches within 100 miles! Geocaching.com shows more then 35 caches within walking distance of my house! The "other" site has me driving 200 miles to display the closest 100 caches.


 

Illegitimus non carborundum!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Nurse Dave & LKay:

I just went and searched for caches by zip code. I live in Portland, OR where there are right now over 700 within 100 miles. The closest one on that site was in a city 1 1/2 hours away.


 

And how many of your caches have you listed on the 'other' site? Build it and they will come.

 

The Bohican

 

--

Welcome to nowhere.nu. Now go home!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

2002 at 02:46 PM.]


 

I think it's fine to list your cache wherever you like, but, as your poll question so accuratly puts it, I can't be bothered.

 

This site fills all my geocaching needs and takes all my geocaching time. If I run out of caches here, maybe I'll look elsewhere. I predict that will happen around the same time as our sun becomes a red giant and consumes the earth.

 

ApK

Link to comment

Ya know...why bother, really? No caches listed in my area and the server was kinda slow. I had to switch to an old ZIP code just to get five listed within 100 miles.

 

Why bother fragmenting the community by trying to reinvent the wheel? Oh, so you can sell t-shirts?

 

Geocaching.com will always be the "home" of geocaching, especially for those new to the sport. Heck, just look at the domain name. :-) It's not just a quantity vs. quality issue.

 

Besides, the Navi site is partnered with TeamGPS, a company that says they have a "pricematch guarantee", but refuses to back it up. The association automatically lowers their standing to just above frog scum in my eyes.

Link to comment

quote:

Why bother fragmenting the community by trying to reinvent the wheel? Oh, so you can sell t-shirts?


 

I think it's more a matter of the community wanting more of a say in the way things work than one person. Yeah, Groundspeak might listen to some suggestions but if those suggestions aren't going to mean more money in their pockets, no matter how good it might be for the community as a whole, do you honestly think at this point they'll make them? Go check the latest poll by our Groundspeak. This helps the sport as a whole, how? The other site sells one whole logo item, wow, what money grubbers. Go check the number of logo'ed items you can get here again. Then ask yourself where the money goes. If you want to say that it goes to improve the site you'd only be partially right. Many, many people offered to help with development of this site in it's early stage without thought to money. They wanted to see the sport grow. Their offers were refused. Why? Lack of talent? I doubt it. Look at the stuff by Buxley. It's great stuff. Geocaching.com decided to make their own maps instead of working with him to use his much better maps. I'm sure he would have worked with gc.com to intergrate his maps in the early days. I don't see one place you can buy anything from him. He gets a lot of hits and takes in no money that I can see. How could that be possible? There isn't even a link to this great geocaching resource on gc.com's own 'Links' page. Most of the links on Buxley's site go back to gc.com as it is but I guess Groundspeak couldn't take a chance you might stumble onto an 'other site' cache so they don't link there.

 

I could go on but most people aren't listening as it is.

 

BTW, I don't work for any geocaching website or organization.

 

The Bohican

 

--

Welcome to nowhere.nu. Now go home!

Link to comment

I have one cache placed and I also have it listed on both sites. This site has a large number of people that seem to flow the stream on a daily basis, but believe it or not where I come from the other site has more caches listed than this one does, I admit that many are of the same listing as here but there is a large number that are unique and only listed over there.

 

I think if people took the time to look around a bit more you may just see why other people like to list at both locations. The other site on several dates have given away GPS prizes and have asked for nothing in return.

A local Geocachers picnic In NY they also gave away a couple new GPSR's there as well just as a Thank you for coming.

So they offer ONE shirt, big deal! they dont ask for your money or promise you a custom membership in return for your wallet.

 

I like the new additions they are coming up with like the icons for parking, pets allowed, handicap, park fee's, etc that are listed on each cache page. I also like the fact they have far better sattelite link maps on their cache pages that even place a dot on the cache location. I also find that having the competitive option in which points are awarded based on difficulty levels for finders and hiders is great because they are trying to work this into a game for everyone.

If people spent some time to read the forums over there you would understand better why people like them as much as they do. BTW, the gps retail link on the bottom of their page is just a referrer if you were to click it, and I myself have ordered from there and never had a problem, but opinions are to each's own.

 

Buxley does have some awesome maps and I think if everyone were to try them they would admit the same. The other site has Buxley linked right smack on it's main page links and does not try to hide that fact or control it even when they know that using it from the site could bring people here if the map link pointed here... so why is Buxleys not listed here?

 

The sincere idea over there is to provide people a free option to Geocaching, and like the post said above, if there was only one site do you really think it would stay free?

 

I like both sites and think they both have great things to offer. I don't pretend to be a pro cacher like most of you guys are, but I know a good thing when I see one.

 

The site owner there has been active in helping clean up area parks as well as to help get the foot in the door to state land controllers to openly allow caching such as what we have seen in Letchworth State park in NY which is one of the largest in the NY area also known as the "little grand canyon"

 

I have been around long enough to see both of these sites go back and forth at each other about right and wrongs, but at least I can say Geocaching.com over there and not get the word censored.

 

So I guess the bottom line is that if you want to list your caches on both sites thats great, if not, thats great too! But why do we need to flame on sites or people just because they have a different idea of what is good or not?

 

BTW...there are hundreds of forum members on that site that also use this one, thats how I found out about this thread.

 

You are all a great bunch of people, I just hope this sport can return to being fun and less political.

Link to comment

dgridley, I didn't notice anyone flaming the other sites, just stating the facts. Notice that most (if not all) the people that find the other site useful are in the Rochester, NY area? For those people the site is great. I've been there plenty of times, and it really does have a regional feel to it. Most of the active cachers are in one area. Most of the caches are in one area. Most of the events take place in one area. IMHO it comes off as a great "Upstate NY Geocachers Association", but a rather poor worldwide resource. There are over 21,000 people registered just in the forums here, and I would guess there are hundreds of thousands of cachers who aren't. The percentage of them in upstate NY is miniscule. Before you accuse anyone of "flaming" try looking at the site from everyone else's perspective.

As for censorship of other site names here, as I understand it the reason was imature people spamming the forums with the other sites URL (I actually saw some of this before it was deleted).

Also, if geocaching.com is so well represented at the "other sites" how come:

quote:
Originally posted by upinyachit:

We found the other site first through a george bill and didn't even know about this site until we found about 50 caches over there. Then someone emailed us and told us about this site.


50 caches, and all those great events and forums, and never once heard of geocaching.com while they were there. Not until someone emailed them about it. Probably a cache hider who had a cache cross posted wondering why upinyachit hadnt logged the cache here yet.

 

Illegitimus non carborundum!

Link to comment

I can guarantee that Upinyachit has one of the most intriguing geocaching experiences ever. We just happen to stumble across a cache we weren't even looking for. We came across the part 2 of a two part cache called the "Night Stalker". We've done plenty of posts about this and I don't want to get too far into it, but you can check out our log on the other site for more details. With this being said, a member would have to understand where we are coming from in regards to the other site.

 

In conclusion, Upinyachit just happened to find the other site first. We feel now that both sites are beneficial to all geocachers. Usually people find this site first.

 

It might be a coincidence that we found our home town geocaching site, but we are willing to spread the word for both! All we know is that we are very much entertained and having fun! We will continue to support both sites no matter what!

 

Duane

Upinyachit

icon_smile.gif

 

 

Our feet go where the caches are! feet.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Eric K:

What if someone on the other site doesn't know about geocaching or vice versa? My concern would be a lot of Travel Bugs could go


 

I think travel bugs should have instructions attached, so any finder will know what it is and how to log it. If they don't, it's too bad, some people just can't play nice.

 

ApK

Link to comment

1) If you only consider what's in it for you, you wouldn't bother placing caches, you'd just find others people's and you'd probably come to geocaching.com.

 

2) While reaching the most people is a point, so is encouraging competition between sites (any site that attempts to bring value) so that both will tend to become better. Anyone who argues that there's no reason to go anywhere but here needs to take a basic course in economics to understand the term "monopoly" and "barriers to entrance" ... and perhaps "taking what's fed to you".

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DisQuoi:

Anyone who argues that there's no reason to go anywhere but here needs to take a basic course in economics to understand the term "monopoly" and "barriers to entrance" ... and perhaps "taking what's fed to you".


 

I totally support the capitalist system and the idea of choice, including the choice not to go anywhere else.

 

*WARNING: SEVERE THREAD DRIFT AHEAD*

 

Someone said in another context here that some things should be done just because you can. I think that is only true on a case by case basis at best. Like in the case of voting, or something. Not in choices of where to spend disposable income or lesuire time.

I mean, if Microsoft made it's monopoly by producing products that people were so happy with that they didn't chose to look for alternatives, who would care?

 

It sort of reminds me of a Rush Limbaugh (I think) quote:

"If the Liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment like they did the rest of the Consititution, gun ownership wouldn't just be legal, it would mandatory."

 

ApK

Link to comment

quote:
they dont ask for your money or promise you a custom membership in return for your wallet.


 

Your wallet? $30 is your whole wallet? If $30 is a lot to spend, you might be in the wrong hobby.

 

Let's see, Geocaching.com runs on four servers and uses bandwidth for which I would hate to imagine getting the bill. I know that Bryan only works for Geocaching.com one day a week and somehow I doubt that Jeremy is making his living off of this site.

 

If he is, then GOOD!

 

As for "politics" or this site being too "commercial" because of copyright enforcement, pish posh! If you're entering unchartered territory, there's always a learning curve. Have Jeremy and Bryan run a business like this before? Probably not, so if there are a few glitches along the way, it's just to be expected. I know I'd hate to be forced to sue someone possibly thousands of miles away to ensure that I keep a copyright secure!

 

As for the logo items, if we didn't buy them they wouldn't make them.

 

Everyone deserves to be paid for their time.

Link to comment

It's quite simple. You don't like going to the other site, don't. Wasn't that easy. I've placed 26 caches & have them listed on both sites. You don't like it? I don't care. My goal in placing caches,is to participate in an activity I really enjoy & encourage others to do the same. I don't care where you get the info for my caches, as long as you get it. There is a great caching community there, as there is here. Are you saying that there can be too much info out there for your liking. Doesn't make sense. As far as the Travel Bug issue. I may be going out on a limb here, but I figure anybody that went to a cache & found a bug, got the info from a cache page somewhere. They can therefore read. Going on that assumption, they should be able to read the "Visit www.Groundspeak.com to learn more" that is stamped into the bug. Maybe I'm wrong? There's plenty of great info there as well as here. Why would anyone want to limit that? There's a real big geocaching community worldwide, & as far as I'm concerned, I'll go to any sites available to discuss it & get updated info. It's not about loyalty to one site or another, it's about the activity that any/all sites are centered upon. I've been an active member there,as well as here, since March, 2001. If there was no value there, I think I would have stopped popping in. Again, value to me may not be value to you. That's the great thing about individual choice. But to take offense to another site pertaining to geocaching is idiotic. But like they say, it takes all kinds.

 

"Gimpy"

Link to comment

I can't believe this thread is making people upset. The poll question was rather benign.

 

I took a look at the 'other site' about a year ago. At the time, I wasn't impressed with its ease-of-use. Also, it didn't have any caches near me. So I never went back.

 

This morning, my curiosity got the better of me and I checked it out. Changes have been made that make it somewhat easier to use, but the closest cache to my home is 145 miles away. (It still isn't anywhere near as friendly as ceocaching.com.)

 

I chose the 'can't be bothered' option. Jeremy's site has what I'm looking for. I have no need or desire to utilize the other one.

 

Other people do not feel as I do. Whatever.

Link to comment

Really, it wasn't supposed to be an "us vs them" thread. Both sites obviously have their followers. That's fine, use all or none or one site, whatever floats your boat. Just don't make baseless claims to try and back up your argument either way. The facts are:

NEITHER site promotes "the other site". All the people complaining of censorship here, show me where geocaching.com is linked to over there. Nowhere. Usually this site is called "the other site" over there.

for most people in the world, there are no local caches listed on the other sites.

there are only a few regular posters in the other sites forums, and a search of posts for the last month only turns up a few dozen. If what you want is a small, tight knit group, and only a few posts a day to read, then go there. I'm sure thats a plus in some books. If you like having a more varied community, with sometimes hundreds of posts a day to wade thru, and the problems and joys associated with it, your in the right place here.

one site is alot bigger then the other. with size come problems and costs. It has its pluses too. The smaller site has a very homey, regional feel to it. If you happen to live in that region, great. If not, you might be a bit lonely. The larger site with more people tends to have a more worldwide feel. Personally, I like that. I have friends all around the world because of this.

competition *IS* a good thing, the small sites keep the large one on its toes. That's good, but don't count on the small sites to be able to handle the fallout if this site went belly up. I'm not sure things like forums could handle going from where they are now to the million+ pageviews a month theae forums handle. And the forums are only used by a small percent of geocachers. I would LOVE to know how much bandwidth/storage geocaching.com uses every month. I doubt the other sites could handle it though.

One site, other site, both sites. Just keep caching!

Illegitimus non carborundum!

Link to comment

Mopar,

 

I know my facts and if you wish I would be more than happy to even go as far as to send you a CD copy of several TV and newspaper news reports in which the people at the other site mentioned Geocaching.com

 

One such report was last years National news story with ABC's Peter Jennings.

 

There was a huge discussion in these very forums about the story that Quinn from over there did with Mike Harris. It was aksed why he never mentioned this site and as I recall Jeremy himself had a couple of comments on that very thing. The response was that it took over six hours for them to do the National story and in that time this site was mentioned by Quinn repeatedly. Now when that 6 hours was cut down to 5 minutes of actual news the parts about Geocaching.com were cut out, but that was not any fault of Quinn's.

 

I even have three local news stories from TV that show he mentions this site. Our local Paper even has a statement he made mentioning this site. But where has this site ever returned the favor for that site or any other? I am not saying that it is owed as such, but I am saying that they have promoted this site.

 

The original pages of the Nav site also had a link to here on it's main page until things started getting heated and threats of legal actions were made.

 

None the less, I enjoy the sport and Geocaching will continue to grow for both sites... and you would be amazed how cheap bandwidth can cost.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by dgridley:

 

The original pages of the Nav site also had a link to here on it's main page until things started getting heated and threats of legal actions were made.

 

None the less, I enjoy the sport and Geocaching will continue to grow for both sites... and you would be amazed how cheap bandwidth can cost.


I'm only going by what I saw recently. There is no reference to this site, other then a fe comments about "that other site" in the forums. No biggie to me, Garmin doesn't have links to Thales, either. Just bugged me that the censorship of the other site names is such a big deal. Again, if imature people who are not active on EITHER site didnt take to spamming these forums with "this place sucks, go to N_v_c_che.com" posts, it wouldn't even be an issue I don't think.

As for bandwidth, small amounts are cheap. Huge amount are not so cheap. I have no clue exactly what this site costs, but you can check out what Infopop charges for the opentopic and one community software they host for the forums. Looks like $2000 a month for up to 750,000 pageview for the combo. It's been stated elsewhere that we are over 1,000,000 pageviews a month, so you can figure it's probably more expensive then that. That's $24,000 a year just for the forums, so I don't begrudge Groundspeak for trying to recoup those expenses.

 

Illegitimus non carborundum!

Link to comment

Our business runs a site that offers 20 gigs of data transfer a month at a cost of 48.00 monthly.

 

The server is extremely fast and the pages load quick. This is more than enough room to operate what you mention at that cost, so I would have to say the cost you mention is very extreme at best.

If one site can operate a large traffic for only 48.00 why would another pay Thousands?

 

we'll never know.

 

I think the term "Other site" started as a means to avoid any legal problems (as a joke that just stuck)

 

No hard feelings and I am just expressing my opinions as I am sure you are yours. Cachers first, Friends second, opinions always.

Link to comment

I just listed all three of my caches at another site. The more people that potentially visit my cache the better.

 

Besides, I always believe that competition will make both sites better. The more Jeremy has to keep looking over his shoulder, the better off we all are.

 

--CoronaKid

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CoronaKid:

 

<SNIP>

 

Besides, I always believe that competition will make both sites better. The more Jeremy has to keep looking over his shoulder, the better off we all are.

 

--CoronaKid


 

I don't have any problems with the way this site runs. I didn't feel pressured to pay for a premium membership, or buy my travel bugs. I also haven't been asked to sign an exclusive contract with this site.

 

If you want to use one or both or others, or start your own brand new site--fine with me.

 

I browse through 'the other site' from time to time. I just haven't seen enough content to get me to register.

 

Is it wrong if someone does register at both and list their caches on both sites? I don't see why. I just don't see the point for myself of maintaining the caches pages on more than one site. I also am used to the 'look and feel' here, and don't hve enough incentive to really learn my way around a new site.

 

Not a political decision; I just don't like the cost(time, effort)/benefit ratio of using two sites.

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

Link to comment

i'm not against other sites. i'm for freedom of choice, and i'm for having alternatives. i prefer this site because for my area, the cache density is vetter. i like that everything i need is all here, neat and tidy. goodness knows i spend wnough time here without having to log another site, too.

 

but freedom aside, i feel it's unmannerly to post the same cache both places. i get a lot of benefit from this site, and i want to return something.

 

on the third hand, i race mountain bikes at two different areas. in someways the two compete, but they recognize that the more of a customer base they create, the more business both areas see. one area is happy to have me plunk down my $6 for the privelege of riding there under the other area's team uniform. one is my home, and at the other i am a welcome guest. no reason it cain't work that way in this sport.

 

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by dgridley:

Our business runs a site that offers 20 gigs of data transfer a month at a cost of 48.00 monthly.

 

The server is extremely fast and the pages load quick. This is more than enough room to operate what you mention at that cost, so I would have to say the cost you mention is very extreme at best.

If one site can operate a large traffic for only 48.00 why would another pay Thousands?

 

we'll never know.

 

I think the term "Other site" started as a means to avoid any legal problems (as a joke that just stuck)

 

No hard feelings and I am just expressing my opinions as I am sure you are yours. Cachers first, Friends second, opinions always.


Well, since this came back up, I guess I'll hop back in. I'm not sure a 20gig limit would even handle this site for a day, let alone a month!

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

The only reason I see any need for the other site is if this one goes belly up.

 

However I see no reason why a person could not or should not post on several sites if they so desire.

 

I registered on 2 other sites and, as yet, have not found any caches on either of them.

 

They are pretty much a waste of time with very few caches posted and so far the only two I have sought (the only ones posted within 100 miles of me), were not there.

 

The only important reason I can see for their existence is so we can move over if Jeremy gets tired of all the nonsense and ingratitude expressed in the forums and decides to express himself the same way as those few who vehemently disagree with him in the forums- by pulling the plug.

 

Keep up the good work Jeremy, we like the site and we depend on it for our hobby. This site is far and away the best geocaching site in the world. Don't let the whiners get to you.

 

Caint never did nothing.

GDAE, Dave

Link to comment

As far as I'm concerned, this is the only geocaching site. I've never looked at any other sites since this is where everyone goes that I know of for geocaching.

I too would like to thank Jeremy and all the admins for the site. This has been the most fun that I have had in years. Besides, it justifies the cost of the GPS (and all the goodies for it) and the Jeep Wrangler that I bought just before discovering the site.

BTW, with all the geocaching, I've reduced my blood glucose levels and blood pressure readings.

Now if the weather would just warm up a little and quit raining all the time - this is supposed to be a 'high desert'.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

 

After looking into it further it seems as if some geocachers have created the same handle on their site site, then listed caches that they've placed & logged here already, using the exact same name.


 

Sign up over at that other site with the username you are known by here before someone else takes it.

Link to comment

I post to both. It took about 30 seconds to do, and now I own about 30% of the caches in Michigan on that site. I have only seen one in MI on Navicache that isn't listed here.

 

While I largely favor this site, the other does have benefits. For one, they seem to be more open when it comes to what is and isn't allowed, which seems like a huge incentive for some of the folks here. Just as an example, travelling caches, recently forbidden here, have their own type over there. I like their "hide a cache" interface better, too. In fact, I happen to like the more stripped down feel as a whole.

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

"Winter's just the curtain. Spring will take the bow"

-- Richard Shindell, Spring

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...
×
×
  • Create New...