Jump to content

Hypothetically


ju66l3r

Recommended Posts

Let's say that I create a site identical to this one in every function and I add a few things of my own choosing (open SDK to the database and a few new tools either not provided here or provided for premium only).

 

If you have hidden caches and listed them here, would you also go list them at my site even if you are not interested in using my site's services?

 

Why/Why not?

 

If I contacted you directly about copying your information with no effort required on your behalf, would you give the same blanket license to your copyrighted information as you do GC.com?

 

Why/Why not?

 

Please be brutally honest (not that most of you have a problem with that) because I would really like to get the general feeling of those in the forums on this topic. It may be clear from my other posts what my conception of this answer will be but unlike some, I am willing to change my mind if presented with evidence to the contrary. But that is why I request brutal honesty. Do not post in contrary to my previously stated opinions if you would not truly act accordingly.

Link to comment

I doubt that I would, mostly laziness. :huh:

 

I would make it my primary if this site were to be sold to a commercial entity. ;)

 

EDIT: To part two of your question, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. You would have to assure me that I would receive an email when the cache was logged.

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

I probably would not list my caches with your new site. Why not? Some of it is a lazy thing and it may never even occur to me to re-list. Some of it is also a loyalty thing. I feel like a Groundspeak geocacher so I would probably stick with that.

 

If you e-mailed me and asked if you could list my cache and do the work for me I would probably let you. (So much for my loyalty.) The fact is I don't have strong feelings either way so it might depend on how busy I am when I get the e-mail. And it might depend on how hungry, sleepy, or irratable I was at that very moment. I've always wondered how much the small day to day decsions we make are based partially on what we had for breakfast or lunch that day.

Link to comment

I list my caches here because this is where people come to find cache listings. A new site with the same/better features would probably not cause me to list my caches there as well. What would get me to do so would be if many people in my area started using such an alternative site and stopped using this site. Then I'd list them there to increase the exposure.

 

Otherwise it's just more maintenance for me. Even if the other site snagged the data with no work from me initially, I'd still have to monitor two websites for visitor experiences, not-found logs, and such. And when I post a note to my cache page for whatever reason, or make a change to the cache description, or disable or archive a cache, I'd have to do it twice. For me to want to invest that extra work, there has to be a payback, and if everyone who wants to will find my caches here, there's no payback to list them somewhere else.

 

SylvrStorm

Link to comment

Would I log them on your site. Probably not. This site gives me what I need. Now, if I had a cache that didn't quite fit here? Maybe.

 

The determining factor for me would be the additional types of caches you might allow, and just what YOUR guidelines would be. If I felt that your guidelines might hurt the sport in some way I would avoid it.

 

As far as my cache data? Though I might give YOU permission to use it I would not extend that to others who might use your open SDK. Therefore, you'd have a problem. There is no way to know how that data could be used.

 

However, the point of placing caches is to have them found. If everyone jumped ship and went to your site, it seems that that would then be the place to list your caches.

 

Still, my overriding concern would be for the sport.

Link to comment

I would absolutely list any caches I may own on all available listing sites and I would be willing to grant those sites the same rights to that data that GC enjoys. Why? Because I believe that competition in business is good and that geocaching, as a whole, would benefit greatly from any increased competition. As a matter of fact, my next two caches, which are ready to place, will be listed exclusively on NC for the first few weeks/months in an effort to get more people locally to visit NC when looking for caches.

 

_____________

Gorak

Geo 33E 35 105

Link to comment

Once again, I'm in full agreement with Geospotter. Not only would I NOT give permission for another site to use my listings, anyone who checks the HTML of my caches will find there is language embedded in them specifically forbidding it.

It's partly an issue of maintaining multiple listings, partly a control issue, and mainly because even if I don't always agree with all the rules, I think TPTB have the best interests of our game in mind when they set the guidelines they do (they have to, if the game fails, the website fails), and I will support that, even when I disagree.

Now, GC.com isnt the 1st geocache listing website, and since it doent own the cache listings, its not even close to being a monopoly. If someone could possibly come up with a better site then this one, I'm sure it would be successful. Of course, I suspect it would prob take well over $100k in capitol to bring a true contender online and make it self-sustaining, forget profitable.

Doesn't like such a hot investment to me. Since this site hasnt even turned enough of a profit yet to afford it's owner a new car ( as I understand it, he's still driving the same old used Saturn he had before geocaching.com went online), who in his right mind would want to take that finacial risk AND put up with all the crap that goes with the job?

Link to comment
As far as my cache data? Though I might give YOU permission to use it I would not extend that to others who might use your open SDK. Therefore, you'd have a problem. There is no way to know how that data could be used.

Just to be clear (especially for those unfamiliar with Software Development Kits), the SDK would allow people various ways of generating tools to access the data stored in my system. It would not in any way change the data itself. For example, Google provides an SDK/API that lets you query their database of webpages. Geocaching.com is currently spidered by Google and your cache data is available through Google and its SDK already. The SDK simply lets people organize or present the data differently (for example a page that would let you get the listings for 10 random unfound caches in your area, creating a game similar to geodashing but using geocaching coordinates instead of random places).

 

An SDK is only a way of presenting people with a method for developing third-party tools that can integrate into the current framework, not for changing or altering or bypassing your rights on the information you provide.

Link to comment

#1 - Not unless your site got as big or bigger. Why would I list there if I don't use the service?

#2 - Probably not. Again if I don't use the service why would I contribute?

 

Here is another hypothetical question. Lets say you had a store and I came in and started surveying your customers to find out what it would take to get them to come to my store. How would you feel? Being a really nice person you would probably give me paper and pencils for my customers to reply with, and even provide postage.

 

Just a hypothetical question mind you.

Link to comment
If you have hidden caches and listed them here, would you also go list them at my site even if you are not interested in using my site's services?

 

Why/Why not?

 

Probably not unless I really liked your site or something happed to GC.com. This is because I find maintaining caches across several sites to be a pain. I prefer to use one site.

 

If I contacted you directly about copying your information with no effort required on your behalf, would you give the same blanket license to your copyrighted information as you do GC.com?

 

Why/Why not?

 

Possibly. It would depend on your site and how it is being used.

Link to comment

Yes, I would definitely list them on another site. I have most of my caches cross-posted on NC.com now anyhow. Anyone can feel free to post my caches anywhere and add logs to them. Just don't change the original cache description. The idea is to get the info out there, so that anyone who wants to go caching will see it. I don't like to have a single site claim sole ownership on my data or prevent other sites from using MY info. I say get it out there, any way you can.

Link to comment

A few questions.

If the data was available for everyone else to use and list:

  • How would I receive feedback on the cache from these other sites?
  • How could I be sure these other sites updated the cache information when it's moved, archived, or disabled?
  • Would other listing services be contacting me to insure their cache requirements were met by this cache?
  • Would this be considered "solicited" communication? Am I asking third parties to contact me about my cache meeting their requirements by listing a cache on your site?
  • Would this information be sold by third parties without my knowledge or approval?

Link to comment

For me to list my caches on your site, it would have to be much better than this one. I certainly wouldn't pay for a membership at two different sites. So my question is, what can you offer me that this site doesn't have that would tempt me to jump ship? And sorry, easy locationless/virtual guidelines won't do it, nor will an off topic forum thread. ;)

Link to comment

For clarification, I'm very aware of SDKs. While they wouldn't change the information, they would make that info available to virtually anyone interested in that data. For whatever purpose. Good and bad.

 

What happens when a park official wants to have a cache moved/removed. He calls Jeremy. Sorry, it's not listed here. Try cachelistings.com. Nope not ours. Try morecaches.com. Yeah they listed it, but it's not really their cache they got it from John Doe's website, and he got it from Bill Smith's website, who got it from....

Link to comment
A few questions.

If the data was available for everyone else to use and list:


  •  
  • How would I receive feedback on the cache from these other sites?
     
  • How could I be sure these other sites updated the cache information when it's moved, archived, or disabled?
     
  • Would other listing services be contacting me to insure their cache requirements were met by this cache?
     
  • Would this be considered "solicited" communication? Am I asking third parties to contact me about my cache meeting their requirements by listing a cache on your site?
     
  • Would this information be sold by third parties without my knowledge or approval?
     

I am not currently considering the logistics of feedback, archival, etc. with my questions. Assume for this situation that you will have the same functionality as GC.com. If they are currently able to notify a cache owner of cache issues, then my site would also have that same functionality. Only your caches that met the site's criteria would be listed there...but again, assuming that this site is equal to GC.com in functionality then cache requirements would be equal. The only solicitation might be my query to you by e-mail for free license of your copyrighted information. Third parties by means of a Terms of Use for the SDK would not be allowed to profit from their access to your information. This is an applicable question from Google's FAQ on their API:

 

13. Can I develop commercial applications using Google Web APIs?

 

You can develop any application you want, but you must abide by the Google Web APIs terms of service. One condition is you cannot create a commercial service using Google Web APIs without first obtaining written consent from Google. Another is that you can only create one account for your personal use.

 

Of course, my intent would be for the benefit of the hobby, so more than likely even written consent would not be given for a commercial service.

 

With these answers in hand, bons, what are your answers to mine?

 

PS - I posted this before seeing geospotter's post. I hope the comments here help to curtail any idea that other commercial entities would be allowed to use any SDK for their own listings. Again, it would be more of a tool for data access, not relisting (i.e. produce links or summarized information similar to Watcher). Also, consider the SDK to be even more hypothetical and not as important to the questions at hand. If "it would depend on what extra features" is your reason for saying no, then consider that the extra features would be highly innocuous. The point in any extra features would not be useful if it meant that the most cache information were not available to the site.

Edited by ju66l3r
Link to comment

I would happily use your site. I sell software on multiple sites and yes it is a pain, but it depends how much you enjoy the sport. Any time someone says there is a line they wont cross, they already did it when they though no one was looking. I placed my cache because I want people to find it. What better way to improve the find than cross listing.

 

Good luck in getting it started. I hope you can get it up and running. Competition is good.

Link to comment

No, I would not/do not cross post any of my cache information. Why? Becuase I really see no need to. This site has everything I need and more...if I ever decided to use features I don't use now. I suppose if another site had ALL the caches listed here, plus additional ones, I may reconsider. But, I cannot possibly see how any other site can be a whole heck of a lot better. So, If im not going to use your site...why would I put my data there?

 

I don't place caches just to be found, and I don't find caches just to up my numbers. For me, its all about having an exciting experience in searching for a cache and visiting a nice location when the cache is found. I hide and seek caches with those thoughts in mind. GC.com works fine for all of that.

 

I spend a minimal about of time at this site except when I am preparing for cache hunts or logging finds. However, I do tend to browse this site a bit more from November thru February when daylight and weather limit caching.

 

Thanks for listening,

 

Salvelinus

Edited by Salvelinus
Link to comment

I'd like to see you try to get the E-mail addresses of every cache owner listed on this site. ;) Getting confirms/denials from each of them would be a major pain.

Especially since the list is not sold/given out so you would have to contact each owner independantly.

No, I wouldn't cross-list, I don't have enough time in my day to watch the forums here and on another site and still work.

And, I know that if I had to go to 3 different sites every time I changed my cache, I would just get annoyed and only update one cache and ignore the cache listings on sites I don't care for.

Interesting idea though.

-Jennifer

Link to comment

Updating cache listings seems to be a major sticking point for people to cross-list at another site.

 

Let me ask you to reconsider your responses if a method were available to edit your cache at only one site and have it automatically updated at the other site. Does this change any minds? In other words, was that your only problem is cache listing maintainance? No need to re-respond if you already listed something else in your original post outside of this concept for why you would not cross-list.

 

PS - I am not discussing the logistics of how updating one site would update the other, only that if it were included in the hypothetical situation, then it would change your mind as to your willingness to list at another site.

Link to comment

I am firmly a part of Geocaching.com. If my caches get listed elsewhere it wont be because I lited them there. I am not against the other cache sites. I am just very happy being part of this one. I think this site is the best.

 

If for some reason this site goes south then I will find another.

 

I have recently joined another forum that is more localized to the New Jersey area and I think that site is great. But I will only list my caches at GC.

Link to comment

I'll cross post my caches because I think having choices is a good thing and competition generally makes for better customer-oriented services. Perhaps a little business competition will make the people here stand up and see that there are many who have different opinions of where this game should be heading and would like to contribute to that effort.

 

As Gorak has indicated in his post above, I will also be listing my new caches on the NC site prior to listing them here.

 

*****

Geo 33E 128 105

Link to comment

While I agree with the competition points raised above, I don't see how the proposed solution actually increases competition in a manner favorable to the cache placer.

 

Competition usually involves differences in services. In the case of geocaching the differences would likely to be:

1) What caches are actually listed.

2) How soon the caches are listed.

3) How reliable the data is.

4) What is listed about the cache.

 

Since #2-4 become static with a service like you're offering, I don't see any competition there. The big difference is #1. And #1 strikes me as needing a number of specific pieces of data about the cache, many of which would not be in the original format. If I wanted to compete with geocaching.com I would set up a historical geosites or a photo geosites type site, in short a site with a distinct focus. And that data would likely not be available on the file you offer.

 

The only actual difference I see is that the new site could list caches that geocaching.com refuses to list or that have been archived or made unavailable by the admin at gc.com and that the new site would not have the availabilty of the current gc.com admin to work with the cache placer on creating and maintaining the listing.

 

What features (other than just having a different staff) does the new site offer that create competition for the betterment of geocaching? I have a fear that it would simply create a lot of geocaching.com clones, none of which can make enough money to afford the server and bandwidth costs.

Link to comment
For clarification, I'm very aware of SDKs. While they wouldn't change the information, they would make that info available to virtually anyone interested in that data. For whatever purpose. Good and bad.

 

What happens when a park official wants to have a cache moved/removed. He calls Jeremy. Sorry, it's not listed here. Try cachelistings.com. Nope not ours. Try morecaches.com. Yeah they listed it, but it's not really their cache they got it from John Doe's website, and he got it from Bill Smith's website, who got it from....

geospotter's post most closely reflects my own concerns about cross-listing. I have four caches hidden with permission from a land manager (the Pennsylvania DCNR) who required me to specify the listing service(s) and URL's for the cache pages. Also for those caches, I signed an agreement stating that when the permit period expires in three years, I will remove the cache information from being publicly available to searchers. Two different other land managers (a volunteer trail group and a local park) expressed concerns about where the information would be published, and after I described the process here at Geocaching.com, they became comfortable with having caches hidden along their trail and in their park.

 

I worry that cross-posting on other sites would remove my cache information further from the degree of control I already have over it (which admittedly is not complete control). Before cross-listing, I'd have to modify those four permits. I'd also have to look closely at the data sharing policies of any other listing site. Frankly, none of this is worth the bother to me... even if someone else inputted the data about my caches for me.

 

Because of my concern about someone publishing my caches elsewhere without my consent, like Mopar I also have copyright and license language embedded within the html for my cache pages. In fact, my language looks, ummm, identical to Mopar's. Used with his consent, of course.

Link to comment
#1 - Not unless your site got as big or bigger. Why would I list there if I don't use the service?

#2 - Probably not. Again if I don't use the service why would I contribute?

 

Here is another hypothetical question. Lets say you had a store and I came in and started surveying your customers to find out what it would take to get them to come to my store. How would you feel? Being a really nice person you would probably give me paper and pencils for my customers to reply with, and even provide postage.

 

Just a hypothetical question mind you.

Did I miss it? Did anyone reply to this one? Really, is it ethical, polite, or show any common sense to use sombody's place of busniess to do market research for your own competing busniess?

Am I alone on this? Could we have a show of hands? Does anybody else think this whole thread is rude and unethical? Hypotheticaly speaking of course. ;)

Link to comment
As a matter of fact, my next two caches, which are ready to place, will be listed exclusively on NC for the first few weeks/months in an effort to get more people locally to visit NC when looking for caches.

So you wouldn't be upset if, while you had your cache listed on NC, that I placed a cache thirty feet from yours and used the same name but listed it on this site?

Link to comment
Updating cache listings seems to be a major sticking point for people to cross-list at another site.

 

Let me ask you to reconsider your responses if a method were available to edit your cache at only one site and have it automatically updated at the other site. Does this change any minds? In other words, was that your only problem is cache listing maintainance? No need to re-respond if you already listed something else in your original post outside of this concept for why you would not cross-list.

 

PS - I am not discussing the logistics of how updating one site would update the other, only that if it were included in the hypothetical situation, then it would change your mind as to your willingness to list at another site.

This would actually bother me more than your original hypothetical. If you figure out a way to change data on your site because data is changed at GC.com then I feel like you are taking advantage of GC.com. I'll admit that I cannot articulate exactly how since I suppose anyone with web access can theoretically look at every cache page everyday and use this information in various ways. You wouldn't even have to log in. But your proposal "feels" unfair to me. Now if you had a third say Geoupdate.com that both the hypothitical site and GC.com chose to be a part of then I'm fine with it. But choice on the part of the participateing sites is very important to me.

Link to comment

Wouldn't post them there or anywhere else for that matter and wouldn't give you permission either to take the info.

 

Reason is that its enough work to keep up with the happenings of my caches (found and hidden) in one spot let alone others. I see no reason to add to my work load as it wouldn't benefit me any.

 

On that note I don't see how it would benefit my fellow geocachers either as it would create more effort on their part too.

Link to comment
Competition usually involves differences in services. In the case of geocaching the differences would likely to be:

1) What caches are actually listed.

2) How soon the caches are listed.

3) How reliable the data is.

4) What is listed about the cache.

Your points are not complete.

 

The major contribution of multiple services is the variety of available tools to examine the data.

 

For example, a different service may allow for statistics gathering, allowing you to keep track of FTF logs and leaderboards. Some people may choose to use the alternative service because of that.

 

Another potential difference in two services would be the methods in which you can search for data. Here you can search by waypoint proximity and so on, but you can't do route proximity (i.e. I'll be driving down I-95 from Here'sville to There City...what caches are within 0.5 miles from the highway along my route).

 

These are only a small number of ideas that I have had before (as well as others) and are not implemented here but could be implemented by a competitor. Getting more people able to serve up the same data means getting each person's individual ideas or improvements on someone else's ideas. The evolution is not the same when there is a sole proprietor of the data/service/tool who only changes what they feel is necessary (either for their own amusement or efficiency management or to keep their customer base).

 

Everything about the listing service is what competition can affect, not the actual data alone as your points point towards.

 

But back to the specific topic on this idea, please.

Link to comment
Did I miss it? Did anyone reply to this one? Really, is it ethical, polite, or show any common sense to use sombody's place of busniess to do market research for your own competing busniess?

Am I alone on this? Could we have a show of hands? Does anybody else think this whole thread is rude and unethical? Hypotheticaly speaking of course. ;)

Your post was not on topic and so it has not been responded to. If you start another topic on this matter, I will be sure to give you my full opinion on it.

Link to comment
Updating cache listings seems to be a major sticking point for people to cross-list at another site.

 

Let me ask you to reconsider your responses if a method were available to edit your cache at only one site and have it automatically updated at the other site.  Does this change any minds?  In other words, was that your only problem is cache listing maintainance?  No need to re-respond if you already listed something else in your original post outside of this concept for why you would not cross-list.

 

PS - I am not discussing the logistics of how updating one site would update the other, only that if it were included in the hypothetical situation, then it would change your mind as to your willingness to list at another site.

This would actually bother me more than your original hypothetical. If you figure out a way to change data on your site because data is changed at GC.com then I feel like you are taking advantage of GC.com. I'll admit that I cannot articulate exactly how since I suppose anyone with web access can theoretically look at every cache page everyday and use this information in various ways. You wouldn't even have to log in. But your proposal "feels" unfair to me. Now if you had a third say Geoupdate.com that both the hypothitical site and GC.com chose to be a part of then I'm fine with it. But choice on the part of the participateing sites is very important to me.

I specifically worded my post to *not* say that my site would update from GC.com. In fact, based on the terms of use for GC.com, that would be unallowed (as my access to the cache page was not for personal use).

 

I only suggest that updating one site would update the other. A third party solution (like the one you mentioned) or the ability for GC.com to update from my hypothetical site would also be valid answers to the technical aspects of what I suggested to my scenario. Of course, that is also why I posted that I did not want to get into the technical details, since this is only a hypothetical and I wanted to know if updating cache status/text is the *only* reason not to cross-post.

 

I get the feeling that for many people it is.

Link to comment
As a matter of fact, my next two caches, which are ready to place, will be listed exclusively on NC for the first few weeks/months in an effort to get more people locally to visit NC when looking for caches.

So you wouldn't be upset if, while you had your cache listed on NC, that I placed a cache thirty feet from yours and used the same name but listed it on this site?

Not at all! The more the merrier. In fact, I challenge you to do that just to make your point. I think doing so would say more about you as a person and a geocacher than any point you would make by the action. ;)

 

________________

Gorak

25 105 97LU

Link to comment
As a matter of fact, my next two caches, which are ready to place, will be listed exclusively on NC for the first few weeks/months in an effort to get more people locally to visit NC when looking for caches.

So you wouldn't be upset if, while you had your cache listed on NC, that I placed a cache thirty feet from yours and used the same name but listed it on this site?

Not at all! The more the merrier. In fact, I challenge you to do that just to make your point. I think doing so would say more about you as a person and a geocacher than any point you would make by the action. ;)

 

________________

Gorak

25 105 97LU

Not saying I would do that, just pointing out potential problems with competing cache services. :huh:

Link to comment

Here's an idea. Make the site open source. All you have to do is find a location to host it and let developers start working on the code. Forget about the arguments of why people wont use it. Open source tends to make leaps and bounds and in a very short time will far surpass geocaching.com's functions. Build a better mouse trap and people will use it. Then others will be forced to follow.

Edited by Keith Watson
Link to comment
NavDog wrote:

Not saying I would do that, just pointing out potential problems with competing cache services.

Where's the problem? There's nothing to stop someone from putting a bookcrossing or letterboxing (or any other coordinates based game) waypoint nearby. Why should it be a problem if another listing site has a waypoint destination near on that is on this site?

 

Perhaps we need to form a committee to police conflicting waypoints. Since you are obviously concerned about this can I offer your name up to head that committee?

 

*****

Geo 113 121

Link to comment
Here's an idea. Make the site open source. All you have to do is find a location to host it and let developers start working on the code. Forget about the arguments of why people wont use it. Open source tends to make leaps and bounds and in a very short time will far surpass geocaching.com's functions. Build a better mouse trap and people will use it. Then others will be forced to follow.

Well said.

 

*****

Geo 64BD

Link to comment
Why should it be a problem if another listing site has a waypoint destination near on that is on this site?

The point (which is not on-topic any longer) is that Gorak also claimed to list on another site and THEN post those same caches to this site. One vs. the other being nearby is not a problem. Navdog's suggestion would effectively block Gorak's listing to this site because his caches would not satisfy the 0.1 mi rule and he would lose a large market share of the visitors to his caches.

Link to comment
Perhaps we need to form a committee to police conflicting waypoints. Since you are obviously concerned about this can I offer your name up to head that committee?

 

That's not necessary, there is already a .10 mi. rule in place on this site and the approvers take care of that. ;)

 

Also this site works with land managers on geocaching placement policies. There is no guarantee other sites would. Look how many letterboxes are places in National Parks and other restricted areas that pertain to geocaches.

Link to comment

Ya got me there ju66l3r. If indeed it was to be listed on another site, and then on GC it would not be approved as you mention. As far as a large market share, perhaps now, but it will yet to be seen.

 

I still think that NavDog should head a committee to police all those other waypoints though. ;)

 

*****

Geo 120 123

Link to comment
Perhaps we need to form a committee to police conflicting waypoints. Since you are obviously concerned about this can I offer your name up to head that committee?

 

That's not necessary, there is already a .10 mi. rule in place on this site and the approvers take care of that. ;)

 

Also this site works with land managers on geocaching placement policies. There is no guarantee other sites would. Look how many letterboxes are places in National Parks and other restricted areas that pertain to geocaches.

Was that an airplane that just went by?

 

*****

Geo 51 52

Link to comment
Also this site works with land managers on geocaching placement policies. There is no guarantee other sites would. Look how many letterboxes are places in National Parks and other restricted areas that pertain to geocaches.

Holding to my premise of being equivalent to GC.com with some additions, the hypothetical site would also work hand-in-hand with land managers. You can never be sure of what anyone else is going to do outside of your control, but since this is my hypothetical situation and I have already defined that as part of my premise, this is not at issue for whether someone would consider using my site or allowing use of their info at my site.

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...