Freeing Up Cache Information

[+TEAM 360]

Winds of change. The "other site", much to my surprise, has enabled a feature to allow a cacher to make their cache information available to other sites. While updating some of my caches over there today, I noticed they put in this option:

 

Open Cache?

 

Would you like to give other caching sites permission to use or list your cache information?

__ no __yes, non-commercial use only __yes, unrestricted

 

Of course, I clicked the "yes, unrestricted" box. I thought it was pretty cool of them to allow cachers the option of spreading the word about their own caches that way!

Well, I just think it's a great idea to allow freedom of cache information. Come on GC, how about following suit and leaving this option up to the cache owners?

Edited March 8, 2004 by TEAM 360

[+Mopar]

Anyone got a horse?

[+planetrobert]

I would share the info myself but I think that keeping it mostly in one place keeps the sport more unified.

[+katguy]

Horse, dead, 1 each

[+TEAM 360]

Anyone got a horse?

Thank you for your contribution.

[+CrimsonWrath]

Winds of change. The "other site", much to my surprise, has enabled a feature to allow a cacher to make their cache information available to other sites. While updating some of my caches over there today, I noticed they put in this option:

 

Open Cache?

 

Would you like to give other caching sites permission to use or list your cache information?

__ no    __yes, non-commercial use only    __yes, unrestricted 

 

Of course, I clicked the "yes, unrestricted" box. I thought it was pretty cool of them to allow cachers the option of spreading the word about their own caches that way!

Well, I just think it's a great idea to allow freedom of cache information. Come on GC, how about following suit and leaving this option up to the cache owners?

How is the information "shared?" I don't understand how they are permitting/denying a reference to the cache information or if they are actually sharing the data regarding the cache.

 

Is this supposed to be an open-source tool?

[CoyoteRed]

I know some people want this to be a dead horse...

 

But, hey, if TPTB want this site to run on the model of a closed commercial site, it's their sandbox.

 

Just remember, they don't own the playground.

[+Doc-Dean]

Someone brings up new information of how something has changed in the geocaching world and he is immediately dressed down for it... that just ain't right!

 

Play nicely!

[+flask]

i don't see that it actually IS a real feature unless checking the box causes the information to be posted to multiple sites.

 

i notice that many caches ARE listed on multiple sites, and a checkbox option has nothing to do with that.

 

it seems like a kind of disguised opinion poll to me.

[CoyoteRed]

i don't see that it actually IS a real feature unless checking the box causes the information to be posted to multiple sites.

Don't know if this is the case, but I'm assuming the idea is to allow other sites to use the cache descriptions from nv.com. It's more allowing a PULL of the information rather than a PUSH.

 

This would be beneficial to those multi-posters so they only have to edit cache descriptions at one place and those edits get disseminated to the other sites.

 

One of the main reasons the people I've spoken with who would cross post but don't is the extra work of maintaining the mulitple sites. With one site grabbing info off another, owners only have to maintain one listing.

[+CrimsonWrath]

i don't see that it actually IS a real feature unless checking the box  causes the information to be posted to multiple sites.

Don't know if this is the case, but I'm assuming the idea is to allow other sites to use the cache descriptions from nv.com. It's more allowing a PULL of the information rather than a PUSH.

 

This would be beneficial to those multi-posters so they only have to edit cache descriptions at one place and those edits get disseminated to the other sites.

 

One of the main reasons the people I've spoken with who would cross post but don't is the extra work of maintaining the mulitple sites. With one site grabbing info off another, owners only have to maintain one listing.

That is the part that doesn't really make sense to me. You can go to Site A and fill out the form and they will host your data and then you can go to Site B and view it? Why would Site A want to pay for the DB, bandwidth, etc, if you are not even going to use their site?

 

Curious idea, but I'm unsure who would give away their property for free.

 

What's to stop someone from mining the information off the page right now?

[CoyoteRed]

That is the part that doesn't really make sense to me.  You can go to Site A and fill out the form and they will host your data and then you can go to Site B and view it?  Why would Site A want to pay for the DB, bandwidth, etc, if you are not even going to use their site?

 

Curious idea, but I'm unsure who would give away their property for free.

 

What's to stop someone from mining the information off the page right now?

Well, you see that's the thing. If you allow people to off load their caches onto another site, then they'll be using that site, thus freeing up resources on yours.

 

While I'm not sure how the behind-the-scenes stuff is going to work, I envision this; you place your information some place and allow it's use on another site. The other site only has to download that information once each time it changes. However, now the viewing of the information is spread over several sites. You have fewer viewers and thus less bandwidth.

 

The reason a viewer might use one particular "viewing site" over another could be pure preference. Maybe, it's a regional site or a site for left-handed cachers. Who knows. Either way, the more you spread the costs around the easier it is to afford it AND the less reliance on one person or small group of people.

 

Spread it around enough to be using only the spare bandwidth/space that is already paid for other reasons and the costs drop is practically zero.

 

Downside to this is there is no central control, but is that really a downside?

 

[EDIT: forgot your last query]Nothing, but goodwill.

Edited March 8, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+CrimsonWrath]

That is the part that doesn't really make sense to me.  You can go to Site A and fill out the form and they will host your data and then you can go to Site B and view it?  Why would Site A want to pay for the DB, bandwidth, etc, if you are not even going to use their site?

 

Curious idea, but I'm unsure who would give away their property for free.

 

What's to stop someone from mining the information off the page right now?

Well, you see that's the thing. If you allow people to off load their caches onto another site, then they'll be using that site, thus freeing up resources on yours.

 

While I'm not sure how the behind-the-scenes stuff is going to work, I envision this; you place your information some place and allow it's use on another site. The other site only has to download that information once each time it changes. However, now the viewing of the information is spread over several sites. You have fewer viewers and thus less bandwidth.

 

The reason a viewer might use one particular "viewing site" over another could be pure preference. Maybe, it's a regional site or a site for left-handed cachers. Who knows. Either way, the more you spread the costs around the easier it is to afford it AND the less reliance on one person or small group of people.

 

Spread it around enough to be using only the spare bandwidth/space that is already paid for other reasons and the costs drop is practically zero.

 

Downside to this is there is no central control, but is that really a downside?

 

[EDIT: forgot your last query]Nothing, but goodwill.

Ah, so they would snyc up the data behind the scenes? I was thinking that one DB hosts the info and the other sites would request the data dynamically instead of pulling the data and storing it.

 

Guess that makes more sense to me.

 

It is still a curious idea to me. (Now I'll drop the property caveat from my previous statement )

[+Prime Suspect]

Downside to this is there is no central control, but is that really a downside?

It would stiffle innovation, because everyone's interface would have to conform to some standard (and who sets that standard?). Say, in order to implement The Next Cool Thing, the database has to be reconfigured, with new fields added, some old ones removed, and some existing ones reimplemented to work a new way. They don't want to wait around until everyone else converts, because, after all, they're doing this so their site will be better than the others. Besides, it will take years for everyone to decide on a standard for The Next Cool Thing. So they implement the changes, and all the outside programs accessing the data now fail. And the other sites are not going to want to change their software, because their are still all these other databases that still use the old format.

 

Want a real-world example? Just look at the history of the browser wars.

[CoyoteRed]

Eh! Maybe Robert will upgrade GeoBabble to accommodate.

[+Doc-Dean]

[snip]...And the other sites are not going to want to change their software, because their are still all these other databases that still use the old format.

 

Want a real-world example? Just look at the history of the browser wars.

Very good point!

 

I have nothing else constructive to add.

[+TEAM 360]

Yes, but there are not a whole lot of cache-listing sites out there now. At least the option is there. Get ready for the future.

[MOCKBA]

It would stiffle innovation, because everyone's interface would have to conform to some standard (and who sets that standard?). Say, in order to implement The Next Cool Thing, the database has to be reconfigured, ...

Have you got it backwards? It might have prevented some "reverse innovations" we've experienced at gc.com lately, such as restrictions on image types, html tags, or javascript.

I think all TEAM360 is thinking is getting sites like Buxley's out of legal hot water for maintaining a catalog of gc.com listings. We've had the stats site lost last year too. An alternative listing service wouldn't have to copy all the bells and whistles of gc.com, but it might offer different organization and site layout, different search options, different take on games, competitions, and stats, different bandwidth limitations, while at all times staying only the secondary listing. The primary one is where you chose to list it in the first place.

It's all interesting idealism of course.

[+eigengott]

Winds of change. The "other site", much to my surprise, has enabled a feature to allow a cacher to make their cache information available to other sites.

Hmm, until now i thought the information on the other site was open anyway (they even have a XML feed for their caches to be used by other sites). And as default the "no distribution allowed" option is selected...

 

So this might be as well quite the opposite: closing down, not opening up the database.

 

For that reason the most interesting question is: what flag do have all the caches and log entries entered *before* this option was introduced?

[+TEAM 360]

==from gc.com forums==

jeremy

Moderator

Posts: 1094

From: Bellevue, WA, USA

Registered: Oct 2000

posted 01 June 2001 09:39 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------

I think Scout came up with a great idea about ownership of caches in the forums. I will be working on the edit page so you can essentially make a cache "open season" for folks to take those coordinates and do what they want to with them on other sites. It'll just be a checkbox.

 

Whatever happened to this idea?

[ju66l3r]

It would stiffle innovation, because everyone's interface would have to conform to some standard (and who sets that standard?). Say, in order to implement The Next Cool Thing, the database has to be reconfigured, with new fields added, some old ones removed, and some existing ones reimplemented to work a new way. They don't want to wait around until everyone else converts, because, after all, they're doing this so their site will be better than the others. Besides, it will take years for everyone to decide on a standard for The Next Cool Thing. So they implement the changes, and all the outside programs accessing the data now fail. And the other sites are not going to want to change their software, because their are still all these other databases that still use the old format.

 

Want a real-world example? Just look at the history of the browser wars.

Let's look at that...in fact, let's look at Netscape...oops, I mean Firebird....oops, I mean Mozilla....oops, I mean....oh wait, you mean an open source browser engine has stifled the creation of all those browsers??

 

Most pages work on most browsers. HTML is HTML is HTML because a basic set of markup will work on even the simplest text-only browser. Complications that generate browser-specific pages are outside of the standard. It would be simple enough for a compendium to define what the most basic requirements are for sharing geocaching information. Anything outside those definitions will not mean that a cache will not work for another website's interface, but may give some sort of extra functionality for the originating website. As long as Website A has the benefit of getting Website B's data, then it won't obscure Website B's ability to read Website A's data either. They both benefit from the increase in data and compete on the ability to package it better for the clients they want to attract.

 

Of course, this is the sticking point for this to work here. There's no real benefit for GC.com to add 5-7% to its database of caches versus the contribution of 8000% to another website's information. The monopoly rolls on...

[+sbell111]

...Whatever happened to this idea?

He probably thought it over more and realized that there is no benefit. Granted, I'm not a techie, but I do know a few things about business. I can't think of a single good reason for Jeremy to do this. I also can't think of a benefit that I (as a paying member of GC.com) would receive.

[+woodsters]

...Whatever happened to this idea?

He probably thought it over more and realized that there is no benefit. Granted, I'm not a techie, but I do know a few things about business. I can't think of a single good reason for Jeremy to do this. I also can't think of a benefit that I (as a paying member of GC.com) would receive.

You, my sir, have hit the nail on the head. It's not caching, it's ca$hing! This would all still be a hobby site if Jeremy would of done that. Plus you lose the control. I can see it from both views.

 

On Jeremy's side- He can control what is acceptable and what is not. At least on his site. He can easily control things that are not good for the caching community due to feedback he receives from outsiders, like park rangers and managers. If it was just free information going out and coming in with no control, then you would have people posting things under his website name that are not kosher with the outside world. Then add the cost of the bandwidth and other things as mentioned before.

 

On the other side- I actually see no benefit really of sharing information. If a couple sites want to and are willing to take on whatever responsibilities behind it then fine. There is no stopping from anyone building a site to challenge gc.com . You just are going to have to list your own caches.

 

Now with that said. I'm a fence post sitter on this one. I would more or less like to see where people can have their own site with their own creativity and a central place where people can list themselves there.Of course the problem I can see quickly is caches on maps and things like pq's we have now. I'm sure someone could figure out a way to work it all out. Mainly don't put a website behind a cache, but a person instead.

[+TEAM 360]

...Whatever happened to this idea?

He probably thought it over more and realized that there is no benefit. Granted, I'm not a techie, but I do know a few things about business. I can't think of a single good reason for Jeremy to do this. I also can't think of a benefit that I (as a paying member of GC.com) would receive.

If someone says they are going to do something, I would think they ought to do it. At least give the cache owner the checkbox option, even if it's a "Premium member-only" feature.

I CAN think of how it would benefit GC.com AND the cache owner: I would send in the money to get that option, and I would be willing to bet that others would as well.

[ju66l3r]

...Whatever happened to this idea?

He probably thought it over more and realized that there is no benefit. Granted, I'm not a techie, but I do know a few things about business. I can't think of a single good reason for Jeremy to do this. I also can't think of a benefit that I (as a paying member of GC.com) would receive.

The benefit is minimal at best, simply because of the juggernaut that is GC.com.

 

You would receive, as a benefit from an opening of the cache listings, the ability to use GC.com to find even *more* caches than you can currently here. These are listings at other websites that would be added to GC.com's searches as a result of GC.com accessing open sourced cache information. You would also receive the ability to use another website's interface that you prefer to access all of the open sourced cache information available. It is about exercising choice and tapping into everything available. Since GC.com is probably 85+% of every cache available (but only 40-50% of the user interface it could be), you and the rest of the pluggers will continue to justify Jeremy's reasoning for not opening the cache information.

[+sbell111]

If someone says they are going to do something, I would think they ought to do it. At least give the cache owner the checkbox option, even if it's a "Premium member-only" feature.

I CAN think of how it would benefit GC.com AND the cache owner: I would send in the money to get that option, and I would be willing to bet that others would as well. 

While I agree that people should do what they say they would, gc.com has changed greatly since 1jun02. (For one thing, I a few days later. ) At that time, this was a very young site with a kinda seat-of-the-pants feel. Jeremy was doing everything pretty much by himself in his spare time.

 

I can totally imagine saying that this is a good idea and will be implemented and then realizing that it is not in his (or the site's) best interest after some reflection.

 

I still don't understand how the suggested change would benefit me. I certainly wouldn't want to pay more for this 'benefit'. Look at it this way...

 

Let's say this was implemented and a high percentage of gc.com-listed caches were available to be on other sites. Imagine one of those sites implementing an interface that is even better than gc.com (I don't know what this would be, but it doesn't matter). How would this help gc.com? In my opinion, it would hurt because many cachers might not even ever become aware of gc.com. After all, how many are not aware of NC.com? Those cachers who are aware of gc.com, but like 'site b' better are not going to pay for a membership. They would happily become paying members of 'Site B' and list new caches on that site.

 

Therefore, this small decision would lead to a reduction in paid memberships. It is certainly in the realm of possibility that this reduction of funds could lead to the bankruptcy of Groundspeak and the closing of gc.com. 'Site B' would become the dominant website.

 

How would this all benefit Jeremy?

Edited March 16, 2004 by sbell111

[+Team GPSaxophone]

There is no benefit to Geocaching.com to share this information with other geocaching sites. Geocaching.com is a listing service. In order to control the integrity of that list, they need to have complete control over what is listed here. If a cache doesn't meet the guidelines of this site, it may still be listed on another site, but not here.

If I want to support another site, I can cross-post my caches there.

[ju66l3r]

There is no benefit to Geocaching.com to share this information with other geocaching sites. Geocaching.com is a listing service. In order to control the integrity of that list, they need to have complete control over what is listed here. If a cache doesn't meet the guidelines of this site, it may still be listed on another site, but not here.

If I want to support another site, I can cross-post my caches there.

I think I'll stop posting in this thread because no one has read and responded to what I've said, they just continue talking anyways around the answer to their questions.

 

There would be a benefit to GC.com and that would be the garnering of caches that are *not* listed here currently to increase the number of caches which is the point of why people come here (to find more caches). This is a small benefit in the current system, because GC.com is such an overwhelming majority of all of the caches currently available....but it is still the benefit to the different sites of a system where sites share their cache information.

 

The integrity of their listing is the same whether they share or not. It would still be their responsibility to determine what imported cache listings from the open network they chose to list. Simply because they have extra caches available does not mean they will list them all. The point of a compendium to establish the method in which information would be shared would be to establish the flags each site felt necessary to help sort out which caches on the open network they will want to display. Example: Cache ABCDEF is porn-themed. A flag is established called "Adult" and Cache ABCDEF is marked as "Yes". GC.com does not take this cache from the open network to include in its searches.

 

The benefit to the user is choice in service. I may really enjoy another site's decisions to allow statistical competition and moving caches, but that service is not large enough to garner the majority of the community's attention. I am relegated to following the majority or limiting my statistical competition to only those caches that are listed on the alternative service. The benefit to the user is to find (or even establish) the exact service that best suites my desires. I'm willing to bet that people have many different things about GC.com they would want to change. The benefit to the user is that GC.com would *have* to change to match the desires of the largest proportion of the group. Open software companies make their money by meeting demands and providing high quality service NOT by hiding behind copyright exclusions and data hoarding.

 

GC.com has done just enough to keep enough people happy to get over the hurdle of marginalizing the competition. For a specific data set like the one here, they've now established their might and have absolutely no impetus to give the end user any more power than they choose. This is why no matter how often anyone asks, they will not open their data. The benefit of including the last 2% of all caches out there that they are willing to list is not enough to risk losing people to websites that better suit the individuals' desires.

 

The benefits for everyone are there, but instead of being the best by default, it would force GC.com to work to be the best.

[CoyoteRed]

There is no benefit to gc.com to allow users the ability to open their data. In fact, it would be counter productive.

 

Why? Because as mentioned above, another site could come along and do things better than gc.com and gc.com would lose out.

 

It's in gc.com's best interest to keep the list closed. In fact, the main factor to keep another site from successfully competing with them is the lock on the database. Pure and simple. Granted, you can crosspost to another site, but maintaining multiple listings is a pain and most people won't do it.

 

OTH, the benefit to the hider would be great. It would allow another site to come along and offer the services people want, to innovate, and the cache owner only has to maintain a single listing.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

There would be a benefit to GC.com and that would be the garnering of caches that are *not* listed here currently to increase the number of caches which is the point of why people come here (to find more caches).

<snipped the blah, blah, blah...>

The reason those cache are not listed here already is that they didn't meet the guidelines of this site. The hider jumped ship instead of working with this site to get their cache approved. The hider has some beef with geocaching.com and is now listing other caches only on the other site without trying here first.

 

There may be a few people that geocache and haven't heard of geocaching.com but that number is so small, there really is no benefit to GC.com to open their database in order to add those caches.

[CoyoteRed]

The benefits for everyone are there, but instead of being the best by default, it would force GC.com to work to be the best.

For reason, I'm not seeing the logic to this.

 

Gc.com should open their data so they have to work harder to stay number one?

 

From the model that I got from your post--though I could be wrong--gc.com opens their data and accepts data that fits their criteria. However, another site that is more liberal and has a better UI takes all of their data and adds more liberal data offers that to the public--maybe even with free PQs. How is this to benefit gc.com? To work harder to keep traffic?

 

I just don't see it.

[+Mopar]

The reason those cache are not listed here already is that they didn't meet the guidelines of this site. The hider jumped ship instead of working with this site to get their cache approved. The hider has some beef with geocaching.com and is now listing other caches only on the other site without trying here first.

 

There may be a few people that geocache and haven't heard of geocaching.com but that number is so small, there really is no benefit to GC.com to open their database in order to add those caches.

That's it, in a bright blue nutshell.

Edited March 16, 2004 by Mopar

[+Mopar]

If someone says they are going to do something, I would think they ought to do it.

Take this in the humor it's intended.

 

Team 360, you of ALL people should understand people can change how they feel about an idea. Heck, if everyone here took your advice and did what they say they are going to do, we wouldn't even have this topic, right?

[+welch]

The reason those cache are not listed here already is that they didn't meet the guidelines of this site. The hider jumped ship instead of working with this site to get their cache approved. The hider has some beef with geocaching.com and is now listing other caches only on the other site without trying here first.

 

There may be a few people that geocache and haven't heard of geocaching.com but that number is so small, there really is no benefit to GC.com to open their database in order to add those caches.

That's it, in a bright blue nutshell.

Thats most probably true is some cases, but How can it you state it as it is the ONLY reason? There is hardly ever just one reason for what people do.

[+Renegade Knight]

Downside to this is there is no central control, but is that really a downside?

It would stiffle innovation, because everyone's interface would have to conform to some standard (and who sets that standard?). Say, in order to implement The Next Cool Thing, the database has to be reconfigured, with new fields added, some old ones removed, and some existing ones reimplemented to work a new way. They don't want to wait around until everyone else converts, because, after all, they're doing this so their site will be better than the others. Besides, it will take years for everyone to decide on a standard for The Next Cool Thing. So they implement the changes, and all the outside programs accessing the data now fail. And the other sites are not going to want to change their software, because their are still all these other databases that still use the old format.

 

Want a real-world example? Just look at the history of the browser wars.

True dat.

 

You end up needing a central organization to coordinate changes such that everyone agrees, or at least most agree then it become the new defacto standard and sites can get with the program or get lost.

 

Without that orgnaization then the most popular site sets all the rules and the other sites can get with the program or get lost. If two sites end up just as popular and decide to go separate ways then you have have another problem in that the standards will diverge and that will do geocaching no good.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The reason those cache are not listed here already is that they didn't meet the guidelines of this site. The hider jumped ship instead of working with this site to get their cache approved. The hider has some beef with geocaching.com and is now listing other caches only on the other site without trying here first.

 

There may be a few people that geocache and haven't heard of geocaching.com but that number is so small, there really is no benefit to GC.com to open their database in order to add those caches.

That's it, in a bright blue nutshell.

Thats most probably true is some cases, but How can it you state it as it is the ONLY reason? There is hardly ever just one reason for what people do.

Okay, the most common reasons for caches to be listed on another site (not necessarily in this order):

• Posting it on 2 sites increases the potential audience (number of seekers)
  
• Geocaching.com wouldn't approve it, so I'll post it (and all future caches) on another site.
  
• I've never heard of Geocaching.com
  

I feel that the number of geocachers (that aren't Geocachers) is so small, "giving away" information to benefit geocaching would cost Geocaching too much. (Make note of capitalization in these remarks)

 

Think of it like Windows and Linux. Windows is the dominant operating system by a huge margin. Everyone knows how to use it. Linux is different, maybe better, maybe worse, maybe just the same. Very few people know what it is or how to use it. Many feel that they get along with their current system now, what is the benefit of changing or trying to use both systems at the same time. If Linux wants to succeed, it has to prove that it is better, not just as good. So far, it hasn't proven that.

 

Navicache (and all other caching sites) lack the community that Geocaching.com has developed over the last 4 years. Navicache is not going to gain market share over Geocaching.com by being "just as good" as Geocaching is now.

[ju66l3r]

The reason those cache are not listed here already is that they didn't meet the guidelines of this site. The hider jumped ship instead of working with this site to get their cache approved. The hider has some beef with geocaching.com and is now listing other caches only on the other site without trying here first.

 

There may be a few people that geocache and haven't heard of geocaching.com but that number is so small, there really is no benefit to GC.com to open their database in order to add those caches.

This is completely untrue. There are many caches that are not listed on GC.com that would be perfectly acceptable under their current guidelines. You presume too much. Even if a hider *did* stop posting caches here because of a specific incident, it by no means means that every future cache they place would not confer with the rules of this site and yet they may never list them here again.

 

Your argument is completely unfounded.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

You end up needing a central organization to coordinate changes such that everyone agrees, or at least most agree then it become the new defacto standard and sites can get with the program or get lost.

 

Without that orgnaization then the most popular site sets all the rules and the other sites can get with the program or get lost. If two sites end up just as popular and decide to go separate ways then you have have another problem in that the standards will diverge and that will do geocaching no good.

Isn't that the goal of opencaching.com? Have a governing body to speak for all of geocaching while allowing each listing site to set their own guidelines?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The reason those cache are not listed here already is that they didn't meet the guidelines of this site. The hider jumped ship instead of working with this site to get their cache approved. The hider has some beef with geocaching.com and is now listing other caches only on the other site without trying here first.

 

There may be a few people that geocache and haven't heard of geocaching.com but that number is so small, there really is no benefit to GC.com to open their database in order to add those caches.

This is completely untrue. There are many caches that are not listed on GC.com that would be perfectly acceptable under their current guidelines. You presume too much. Even if a hider *did* stop posting caches here because of a specific incident, it by no means means that every future cache they place would not confer with the rules of this site and yet they may never list them here again.

 

Your argument is completely unfounded.

Oh, so people can't boycott a site after a bad experience?

 

I had Safelite Auto Glass fix a couple of windows in my truck. They did a decent job and even got most of the broken glass out of the door. Some time later, I called them to repair my windshield. They did a lousy job and the cracks didn't disappear as they promised. Their customer service department wouldn't budge an inch on the price.

Now, I may have glass that needs fixing somewhere down the line. They may be capable of doing the job just fine, but I refuse to use their services ever again. I'll spend my money elsewhere.

[+welch]

Oh, so people can't boycott a site after a bad experience?

 

I had Safelite Auto Glass fix a couple of windows in my truck. They did a decent job and even got most of the broken glass out of the door. Some time later, I called them to repair my windshield. They did a lousy job and the cracks didn't disappear as they promised. Their customer service department wouldn't budge an inch on the price.

Now, I may have glass that needs fixing somewhere down the line. They may be capable of doing the job just fine, but I refuse to use their services ever again. I'll spend my money elsewhere.

Where you spend your 'cache' isn't quite the same as where you can.

Your choice is to not use the safelite place, not that your payment wouldn't be accepted, right?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Oh, so people can't boycott a site after a bad experience?

 

I had Safelite Auto Glass fix a couple of windows in my truck. They did a decent job and even got most of the broken glass out of the door. Some time later, I called them to repair my windshield. They did a lousy job and the cracks didn't disappear as they promised. Their customer service department wouldn't budge an inch on the price.

Now, I may have glass that needs fixing somewhere down the line. They may be capable of doing the job just fine, but I refuse to use their services ever again. I'll spend my money elsewhere.

Where you spend your 'cache' isn't quite the same as where you can.

Your choice is to not use the safelite place, not that your payment wouldn't be accepted, right?

The point to that story is that when someone has a bad experience somewhere, they may never go back to that place again. I've heard from several cachers who will not list their caches on Geocaching.com ever again because their cache was not approved.

[s4xton]

I have a strong feeling as to where this is going - and I think this is a very positive change, and would be a very smart move by Groundspeak if they did this...

 

I rarely post here, but I wanted to speak out on this topic.

 

-Aaron

Edited March 16, 2004 by s4xton

[ju66l3r]

The point to that story is that when someone has a bad experience somewhere, they may never go back to that place again. I've heard from several cachers who will not list their caches on Geocaching.com ever again because their cache was not approved.

 

So?

 

The point was whether GC.com would benefit from adding other sites' caches. My claim is that is one of the benefits of an open data system. You stated that it is not a benefit since they would not include any other sites' caches because the reason the other site has those caches is from people upset about the rules here and listing their caches there.

 

welch and I are trying to point out to you that just because someone will never list their caches here again does NOT require that any of their future caches would not be admissible here as well (with the exception of the one that led them to leave in the first place). Since there *are* caches on other websites that *do* fit GC.com's ruleset, there is a benefit (albeit smaller than the cost) to GC.com using an open data system.

 

 

Beyond this, one other benefit GC.com would have is the development of different tools they may find useful to add to the site. If the data is open, then another site may design a new function that everyone clamors for. GC.com may implement it better than that implementation and thereby draw even more people back to GC.com than left to use the other initial implementation by the lesser website.

 

There are a few business models that open source companies, such as Red Hat, use to turn a profit, even though someone else can use their data/source to do the exact same thing. You can learn more about the benefits that would be available to GC.com here: http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_business.php

Edited March 16, 2004 by ju66l3r

[+Team GPSaxophone]

welch and I are trying to point out to you that just because someone will never list their caches here again does NOT require that any of their future caches would not be admissible here as well (with the exception of the one that led them to leave in the first place). Since there *are* caches on other websites that *do* fit GC.com's ruleset, there is a benefit (albeit smaller than the cost) to GC.com using an open data system.

If those people don't want to list their caches here, but click the "open cache" box, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of not listing here in the first place?

[s4xton]

For the sake of this conversation, there's two paths that Geocaching.com can go down:

 

a- Closed, like it is now. If the system gets overloaded and/or people don't agree with the policies and start going with something else (like opencaching.com when it legs and starts moving)... and people start jumping ship... they're at a loss, and they have to try to compete with competitive cache information sources. In the end, Cachers do not benefit as they're stuck with making decisions as to where their cache information is posted... and have to go to multiple places to find cache information. Right now, Geocaching.com enjoys a virtual monopoly on this information, but as more and more people get fed up with server problems and the usability of the site, things will change - wether you can perceive this or not.

 

b- Open (kind of). They open up the data for other people to use, YET... geocaching.com REMAINS the central repository for this information. It's almost impossible to compete with that and geocaching.com will be able to retain essentially a monopoly on geocaching information... and will please most other people by being able to generate maps, statistics, and other ways of manipulating cache information for their needs (i.e. compatibility with devices such as the Danger Hiptop and other mobile devices). Please note - that geocaching.com is *not* going fully "open" here. They're just allowing SOME things to be potentially shared in SOME ways... at least that's how it looks now.

 

IMHO, this is a positive thing for cachers, and this is an intelligent and potentially profitable move for Groundspeak as well, especially if they can distributed the bandwidth and server load to other parties... and by allowing commercial sites to have cache information, they could easily be charging people like Magellan and Garmin for instance to eventually mirror some cache information if they were interested.

 

In the end, geocaching.com will still be the central location and have central control with this model - and it's an intelligent way to help secure their virtual monopoly.

 

The only thing the geocaching.com would have to worry about is people that want to place caches that are not in accordance with geocaching.com policies. This is a much better war to fight then having to fight against entirely independent compeating cache sites.

 

-Aaron

Edited March 16, 2004 by s4xton

[+Harrald]

This seems to me that there is (out of the thousands of GC.com users ) a very small group that will phrase this point in a new way every few months. In the 2ish years I’ve been reading this forum it has come up a few times.

 

Unfortunately these people are well known to have a history of sour grapes type postings. Some are better than others at keeping the fact hidden that they have a personal agenda. But for the most part long time readers are well aware of whom the players are.

 

Asking GC.com to make the database open has nothing to do with sharing the information. After reading various postings on various forums, it’s apparent that this minority wants to force their version of Geocaching on the majority of cachers.

[s4xton]

Harrald-

 

Thanks for reminding me why I rarely post here.

 

And for your information, I can't speak for the other people that know what they're talking about as well, but I'm here for geocachers. I speak for geocachers and the future of geocaching.

 

I have no problems with people that are geocaching.com and Groundspeak, Inc. loyalists. That's generally a Good Thing™.

 

...but please avoid shrugging off very valid opinions and suggestions as "sour grapes type postings." If I assume that part of your post was directed at me, I ask you to please read my posts again. I was here and joined the thread to offer my insight and suggestions to help geocaching.com and Groundspeak, Inc.

 

Also, if you'd like, please refer to my entire post history in these forums. You'll notice there isn't much there. When I do post, though, it's generally about making this site more usable for geocachers. The majority of them, if I remember correctly, is with a code change that caused geocaching.com to be less compliant with html standards and to not work with some mobile devices. Jeremy then did directly fix some of these problems, and it has benefited many cachers who log caches directly from the cache site.

 

I think there are very valid points on both sides of the argument on this thread.

 

Either way, I'm interested in further discussion on the topic of opening cache information up to thrid parties, and I'm especially interested what Groundspeak's take on this is as of now.

 

-Aaron

[+Harrald]

s4xton,

 

I apologize if you felt the statements I’ve made were insinuating you as one of this minority. It’s obvious by your posts that you have no desire to do anything more than what you have stated. That is to help geocaching move smoothly into the future.

 

As a long time reader, the players become very obvious and I forgot that some people don’t’ read as much or as fast I might.

[ju66l3r]

Asking GC.com to make the database open has nothing to do with sharing the information. After reading various postings on various forums, it’s apparent that this minority wants to force their version of Geocaching on the majority of cachers.

It has everything to do with sharing. Right now an even *smaller* group of people (Groundspeak) than the one you quote are forcing their version of geocaching on the majority of cachers.

 

Once data were to be shared between sites, then there would be nobody forced to anyone's specific standards for listing. You would be more easily be able to craft your own subset of caches you wanted to view and be able to develop the tools and extras that you wanted to use (or find someone else who was doing these things for you with *all* of the caches out there, not just the few that would be listed to a different site than this one).

 

If GC.com wanted to continue operating exactly as it has been (except to share its data and receive shared data), then it would be perfectly able and willing to do so and not only would almost all of these "sour grapes" posters go away but you would not even notice the change except to have a few extra caches suddenly appear in your searches from time to time.

 

This isn't about pushing personal agendas onto you or any of the other majority of cachers. In fact, it's just the opposite.

[+Harrald]

<<SNIP>>

Once data were to be shared between sites, then there would be nobody forced to anyone's specific standards for listing. <<SNIP>>site.

The standards set by GC.com (standards that the forum posting community helped set) to list on this site have been accepted by land managers from around the world.

 

It’s these high standards that allow me to place caches with just a phone call. In other areas there are more stringent procedures in place

 

Are you saying that these other sites are going to abide by the same high standards?

If not, how is that going to affect geocaching in a good way?

Are land managers going to be as accommodating after these high standards are gone?

 

I personally don’t believe this can help the majority of Geocachers.