List Caches On Both Geocaching & Navicache?

[+ChileHead]

I've only posted my caches on geocaching.com, and never navicache.com. Not that I have anything against navicache.

 

Are there guidelines people follow on dual listings? I notice a bunch of the caches in my area are listed on both sites, and many people also log their cache visits on both sites.

 

What's the point in having the dual listings?

[+Sparky-Watts]

Last I checked, the closest cache to me listed on Navitrashe was over 250 miles.....gc.com gives me over 100 caches in 20 miles.....it's a no-brainer. GC.com serves me well, so I won't patronize the other sites.......

 

 

EDIT: A quick check of the maximum radius showed 628 caches within 150 miles of me on gc.com......

Edited February 24, 2004 by Sparky-Watts

[+sbell111]

There's no rule against it, but I only list my caches on GC.com. I don't go to any other sites to find caches either.

 

It's easier.

[+Mopar]

Yeah, what the wet cat said.

Nothing agaist the other site either, but if caches are listed in both places, why would I bother with the other site? Unless another site can do something better then this one, ot at least DIFFERENT then this one, why go thru 2x the work to list or log a find on the same cache twice?

 

The only plus (?) Navicache has that I can see is that the guidelines for listing caches there are less strict. You have a better chance of getting a lame virtual approved there then here. Not the killer app I need to switch.

Edited February 24, 2004 by Mopar

[+JMBella]

Yeah, what the wet cat said.

Nothing agaist the other site either, but if caches are listed in both places, why would I bother with the other site? Unless another site can do something better then this one, ot at least DIFFERENT then this one, why go thru 2x the work to list or log a find on the same cache twice?

Actually I think Navicache does things very differently. The site is harder to navigate, confusing, they have 60 caches within 100 mile of me and GC.com has 1922, their cache pages look like crap, you can't DL on there site. They do have one thing in common though. On this site we talk about this site. On there site they talk about... this site.

 

So Mopar, I thing you should get your facts straight pal before posting misinformation in this forum, alright bucko!

Edited February 24, 2004 by JMBella

[+Confucius' Cat]

but what's the point of getting a lame virt approved if nobody's going to find it anyhow?

 

Until either 1, everybody gets mad at GC, or 2, the other site comes up with something unique, or 3, a substantial number of people start using the other site exclusively such that 1, they have actual caches to find and 2, those caches cant be found here, they are gooing nowhere.

 

Double listing really wont accomplish anything, but if EVERYONE did it, eventually, there would be a backup database available in case Jeremy decides to take his ball and go home.

[+briansnat]

I've cross listed about a half dozen on the other site. There have only been a handful of logs and every one was someone who had previously found it through this site and was cross posting their finds. Kind of useless if you ask me.

[+radioscout]

Some people in Europe love virtual "geocaches" that does not require you to go out and find them. Virtual "caches" that can be logged after you solve a riddle and mail the answer to the "cache" owner. In most cases the task is to find the right keywords, feed them into google and read the answer. This kind of "cache" is no longer approved at cg.com and so they are listed at nc.com there the guidelines are less strict. I hope that they soon reject this "caches" too and keep this scr*p from the database.

[+SBPhishy]

It really is quite funny how much they talk about this site over there. I was really surprised to read a lot of bashes, and trash talk. Personally, I think it's cool that there is another GC site, but in my opinion, it really isnt worth it. It's not a great site, and the closest cache listed to me is 50 miles away. I do agree that their site is much harder to navigate, and their cache pages look less than great. But, we're all in it for the game anyway, so, it's all good.

[+Gorak]

I have caches crossposted on both sites, I have caches listed only on GC and a cache listed only on Navicache. My intent is to alternate between the two sites for new cache listings and, after a few weeks or months, duplicate the listing on the other site. Despite the fact that Navicache is nowhere as easy to use as GC, I like to see competition so I try to support the competition where I can.

 

_______________

Gorak

Geo 105

[Dinoprophet]

I cross-post, but I'm not very good at keeping my Navicache listings up-to-date, as when I have to disable a cache or something. I actually used to prefer their stripped-down look. Recent improvements here have changed that.

 

Another kind of cache they allow that isn't allowed here are moving caches. Some people were really bugged when those were banned at gc.com. I was kind of annoyed, I felt like it was over-regulating, but I can't honestly say I've missed them.

[+JMBella]

I cross-post, but I'm not very good at keeping my Navicache listings up-to-date, as when I have to disable a cache or something. I actually used to prefer their stripped-down look. Recent improvements here have changed that.

 

Another kind of cache they allow that isn't allowed here are moving caches. Some people were really bugged when those were banned at gc.com. I was kind of annoyed, I felt like it was over-regulating, but I can't honestly say I've missed them.

That's interesting. I came into geocaching after the moving cache was no longer allowed. I would like to see that come back. Maybe I'll post one over there. I'm sure it will get 4 or 5 finds over the next few years.

[uperdooper]

GC.com only for me.

[+Ed Rad]

I have tried Navicache and I don't really care for it much. So I guess GC.com is the place for me. I know some locacl guys tried to spread the word and convert others in Chicago but it really hasn't caught on here.

[+harleycache]

I'll probably stick with GC.com. The nearest cache listing on Navicache is 26.1 miles from my zip code.

 

On GC.com the are 223 that are 26 miles or closer.

 

Don't see the need to go elsewhere.

[+OurWoods]

I crosspost. There are more Navicaches closer to me then Geocaches, mainly because the creator of Navicache lives only a few miles from here. When I first started caching I did a Geocache first that was listed 1-1 and found it with no troubles, I tried then for about four navicaches that were close to my house, and I could never find them (come to find out they were all missing) so I stuck to Geocaches for a while after that. I am now trying to make a point to find the last few navicaches in my area that I havent found yet. I don't really care what site a cache is listed on though, it all gets me outdoors.

[+GeoBlank]

100% GC.com for me. I prefer to stick with what is good and will be around for the long haul

 

I do not want to update logs at both locations either. For caches that are posted at both sites, do the cache owners do that, or does Navicache screen scrape GC.com for caches?

 

I think that as a way to support GC.com and keep the sport consistent we should stick around here. (I don't sound biased do I)

[+bons]

Since most of my caches will be family/children based, I expect to list most of them on gc.com

 

However I have a huge urge to place an adult-only cache. Nothing for children in it and in a location where children should not be. Should I find the perfect spot and the perfect cache, chances are it will be listed on another site (for obvious reasons).