Jump to content

I Wonder What Was So Bad About The Name


unclerojelio

Recommended Posts

Sounds like a real utopia. Have fun with that.

I don't know you, haven't met you, but after reading this last comment I have to ask: was it sincere?

 

Perception- I referred to it before. If you're sincere and are wishing him well, good. However, for some reason that I can't seem to put my finger on, your comment came across as condescending and biting. I hope I'm wrong- please prove me wrong.

 

But for me, allow me to say this: Thank you, and thanks to your staff, for doing what you do for our enjoyment. We may not always agree, but we are all in this together. Please let me know what I can do to help you make caching better for us and the future.

 

Randell

Link to comment
Should we put the admins in the position where they would have to research every charity to make sure its legit, then research it further to make sure it isn't controversial. We have enough issues with their approval of regular caches, which is their supposed area of expertise. Do we really want them to become arbiters of what charities are suitable and worthy?

You're exactly right Brian, we shouldn't put them in that position.

Perhaps what this really comes down to is rules. Throughout history Texans haven't liked them much. I think that many of the cachers here are too free thinking to be told what is an appropriate cache to do and what isn't. Yes, to do, not to place. If I place a cache at an abortion clinic you have every right not to do it. If I put out a roving cache no one will twist your arm to retrieve it. If I post a virtual which is a sighting of a religious figure and you are an atheist, don't do it. If I post locationless caches and you hate them don't waste your time. If I want to place a cache that's 200 feet from another with a 180 foot river between them I should be able to make that reasonable decision. <snip>

While I may be able to make the distinction between a grandmother with a knitting needle and a terrorist with one, it's best for the majority of airline passengers if they're just not allowed. Sure, the grandmother won't be able to get some quality knitting time in during her flight, but the rest of us will all be much safer if no one is allowed to bring them aboard.

 

The rules are there for a reason, like 'em or not.

Link to comment

 

What do you mean by "switched over".

 

sd

He's talking about an alternative site, which some have suggested adopting instead of gc.com. I think a fair number have joined it in recent days, although I wouldn't say that number is enormous. I don't think this is one lone cacher running off screaming "I'll just list all my caches on nc.com - that'll teach you a lesson for not approving my virtual cache!", though. I think some are seriously contemplating abandoning this site. Whether or not this will represent a significant minority in any given region remains to be seen. Whether or not anything will come of this remains to be seen. The advantages that gc.com has, and well knows that it has, are quite formidable. I see little incentive for it to change for the time being.

Link to comment
Sounds like a real utopia. Have fun with that.

I don't know you, haven't met you, but after reading this last comment I have to ask: was it sincere?

 

Perception- I referred to it before. If you're sincere and are wishing him well, good. However, for some reason that I can't seem to put my finger on, your comment came across as condescending and biting. I hope I'm wrong- please prove me wrong.

 

This was certainly the type of response I'd come to expect here. B)

Link to comment

Posting here because - hey, it's a really hot topic!

 

Anyway, I used to think that most geocachers were missing out on a lot of fun because they don't read the forums. Right now, I'm kind of glad they DON'T because there are many more of them who will keep right on having fun while we sit in our chairs and discuss... Wait a minute, what was the topic again?

 

Jeremy, I have had a blast with geocaching and I thank you for the work you and many others put into this site. Everyone, just take a deep breath and repeat after me...

 

It's only a game; it's only a game.

 

Momma Marauder

Link to comment

 

What do you mean by "switched over".

 

sd

He's talking about an alternative site, which some have suggested adopting instead of gc.com. I think a fair number have joined it in recent days, although I wouldn't say that number is enormous. I don't think this is one lone cacher running off screaming "I'll just list all my caches on nc.com - that'll teach you a lesson for not approving my virtual cache!", though. I think some are seriously contemplating abandoning this site. Whether or not this will represent a significant minority in any given region remains to be seen. Whether or not anything will come of this remains to be seen. The advantages that gc.com has, and well knows that it has, are quite formidable. I see little incentive for it to change for the time being.

I'm aware of the new "other" site.

 

I meant - does this mean the people that have switched have archived their GC.com listings and relisted them elsewhere?

 

Joining a website, in my opinion, doesn't constitute switching over. I have an account on Navicache and Opencaching and I haven't "switched" over. I would think that somebody who was totally dissatisfied would no longer list or hunt caches here.

 

sd

Link to comment
I don't know you, haven't met you, but after reading this last comment I have to ask: was it sincere?

It was ironic. I lament in the days when this too was a utopia. Then the people came...

 

So sincere? No. Biting, maybe a bit. But more because I remember how doey eyed I was in 2000.

Link to comment
While I may be able to make the distinction between a grandmother with a knitting needle and a terrorist with one, it's best for the majority of airline passengers if they're just not allowed. Sure, the grandmother won't be able to get some quality knitting time in during her flight, but the rest of us will all be much safer if no one is allowed to bring them aboard.

 

The rules are there for a reason, like 'em or not.

Hey GPSaxophone, your posts are generally seem very sensible to me, but look, comparing the policy on charities here to national security is just silliness in my opinion.

 

Groundspeak doesn't allow charities because they have really only two viable options:

1. Don't allow them, or only allow the corporate-approved ones. (ie CITO)

2. Allow them all.

 

Allowing them all is a *very* difficult proposition for ANY business. Sometime, somewhere, someone will create a cache supporting a cause that deeply offends someone. The controversy this creates can do nothing but hurt Groundspeak. These issues have a tendency to polarize people's feelings. It is just bad for business. I understand their position on this, and certainly it is their right to run their business anyway they want. And most companies would take a very similar position, regardless of the type of business they are in.

 

Even if gc.com were a non-profit, rather than a business, they'd likely take this position, for precisely the same reasons.

 

This is one of their rules that seems sensible to me, given the realities of the world we live in.

 

I will say this - since their position is that they are a "listing service", they could presumably get away with allowing anything - does the phone book, also a "listing service" decide if the charity is worthwhile? However, they are under no obligation to do this, and I don't blame them for thinking this is more trouble than it's worth.

Link to comment
Hey GPSaxophone, your posts are generally seem very sensible to me, but look, comparing the policy on charities here to national security is just silliness in my opinion.

Just a clarification: He was referencing another geocacher's post who took two extremes (a Bin Laden charity and a food bank) to make a point about the fact that we should know the difference between a good charity and a bad charity.

Link to comment
Actually we were talking here in the office today about a kind of "supreme court" to review particularly hazy cache listings that has its feet in both the black and white. This appeals process will make it easier to work through a listing issue.

Perhaps this is silly, but having a jury of one's peers might not be a bad idea. You would need a sizable jury pool though to avoid having the same jurors pulling duty all of the time.

Link to comment
I'm aware of the new "other" site.

 

I meant - does this mean the people that have switched have archived their GC.com listings and relisted them elsewhere?

 

Joining a website, in my opinion, doesn't constitute switching over. I have an account on Navicache and Opencaching and I haven't "switched" over. I would think that somebody who was totally dissatisfied would no longer list or hunt caches here.

 

sd

It's too soon to tell. They may well let caches here decay by attrition, and add new ones on the other site. I don't think there will be many cross listed caches. Whether people will do this enmasse in some region, or whether it will happen in dribs and drabs until some critical mass is reached, who can say. Some are likely to continue to use both sites for a time to come, assuming the alternate remains viable. Heck, it could well fizzle out, as the tiny rebellion exclaims "That's no moon! It's a space station!" B)

 

It's quite unfortunate that people are even contemplating this.

Link to comment
It's quite unfortunate that people are even contemplating this.

I don't quite understand why. On one hand we're accused of being a monopoly. On the other hand folks are sad they have to go elsewhere. Isn't competition good?

 

BTW, I believe the policy at Terracaching is that you have to exclusively list them there, because they are an exclusive club that is invitation-only. Interesting policy for a utopia.

Link to comment
Hey GPSaxophone, your posts are generally seem very sensible to me, but look, comparing the policy on charities here to national security is just silliness in my opinion.

Just a clarification: He was referencing another geocacher's post who took two extremes (a Bin Laden charity and a food bank) to make a point about the fact that we should know the difference between a good charity and a bad charity.

Oh, right. Well there's no way you could know that in general. And it's not just terrorism - even a seemingly innocent thing that we could all support, like some outdoor group, might take a stand on something like hunting (either pro or agains) that would alienate many. I do understand your reasons for not wanting to get into such a mess.

Link to comment

Perhaps this is silly, but having a jury of one's peers might not be a bad idea. You would need a sizable jury pool though to avoid having the same jurors pulling duty all of the time.

I don't like the idea! If everyone will just play the "GAME" and try TRY to have fun, we'll

all be better off. B)

Edited by Clan X-Man
Link to comment
I'm aware of the new "other" site.

 

I meant - does this mean the people that have switched have archived their GC.com listings and relisted them elsewhere?

 

Joining a website, in my opinion, doesn't constitute switching over.  I have an account on Navicache and Opencaching and I haven't "switched" over.  I would think that somebody who was totally dissatisfied would no longer list or hunt caches here.

 

sd

It's too soon to tell. They may well let caches here decay by attrition, and add new ones on the other site. I don't think there will be many cross listed caches. Whether people will do this enmasse in some region, or whether it will happen in dribs and drabs until some critical mass is reached, who can say. Some are likely to continue to use both sites for a time to come, assuming the alternate remains viable. Heck, it could well fizzle out, as the tiny rebellion exclaims "That's no moon! It's a space station!" ;)

 

It's quite unfortunate that people are even contemplating this.

I remember the "mass exodus" to navicache.com about 2 years ago, and the other one last year sometime, and even more this year. How many caches in my area were listed there 2 years ago? One. how many are there now? Two. That's progress, I guess B)

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment
El Diablo wrote:

The point is that GC has always righted a wrong.

Not in my case. B)

 

Actually we were talking here in the office today about a kind of "supreme court" to review particularly hazy cache listings that has its feet in both the black and white. This appeals process will make it easier to work through a listing issue.

 

Additionally we plan to offer an organizational forums that Groundspeak hosts where org leaders can raise issues to a forum that we do monitor. Well, Hydee will monitor but at least I'll be in the loop.

Pie in the sky ideas? Will these be implemented before, or after, the new cache alert that we've heard about for more than a year? ;)

The local org idea has been around for a long while and has gone absolutely nowhere. Heck, we never could get our logo on the stats button for cripes sake!

Link to comment

i was gonna stay OUT of this...

 

i think we all need to STOP, take a DEEP breath... and find a cache.

 

i plan to play this game at BOTH, ok maybe more than that, sites. i will keep my charter membership active here untill a time at which i no longer feel that it is of use to me... that being when i quit all together most likely. i have done some cross posting on navi*****.com I will post exclusive caches to the other site. It is not because i think it is better, but because i think it could be, potential is there while this site has what i want, i am NOT gonna burn any bridges and leave here.

 

OT: I think that editing a cache name in some situations is appropriate... common sense being the defining factor.

Link to comment
It's quite unfortunate that people are even contemplating this.

I don't quite understand why. On one hand we're accused of being a monopoly. On the other hand folks are sad they have to go elsewhere. Isn't competition good?

 

BTW, I believe the policy at Terracaching is that you have to exclusively list them there, because they are an exclusive club that is invitation-only. Interesting policy for a utopia.

I think it's unfortunate that raw feelings and disagreements over policies that are probably mostly resolvable would make some leave here, when you actually do a good many things extremely well.

 

As for you, perhaps you feel it's just "good riddance to bad rubbish." If so, I think that's unfortunate too.

 

I think you have a while before you have to be worried about real competition. I doubt you are losing sleep over it tonight! You have a pretty good head start, as you well know. I have no doubt that an enormous amount of time, effort, and money went in to making gc.com what it is today.

Link to comment
I think it's unfortunate that raw feelings and disagreements over policies that are probably mostly resolvable would make some leave here, when you actually do a good many things extremely well.

I don't know. It would be nice for someone to show us how to do it right. We apparently have some fundamental issues for some folks so it will be interesting to see how successful another vision can be. Just don't expect free banner ads here in the forums or the web site.

 

As for you, perhaps you feel it's just "good riddance to bad rubbish." If so, I think that's unfortunate too.

 

Not so much. The rubbish usually sticks around to spam the forum. The good folks just do their thing.

 

I think you have a while before you have to be worried about real competition. I doubt you are losing sleep over it tonight! You have a pretty good head start, as you well know. I have no doubt that an enormous amount of time, effort, and money went in to making gc.com what it is today.

 

I don't treat it that way. If I was a money hungry corporate monster why would I care if a cache was .1 mile away from another? I'd say "bring it on, money maker." And probably cackle gleefully. So you might wonder why we do it. Maybe there's a reason.

Link to comment
BTW, I believe the policy at Terracaching is that you have to exclusively list them there, because they are an exclusive club that is invitation-only. Interesting policy for a utopia.

 

First, a couple points of clarification: Terracaching.com PREFERS exclusive listings, but since the caches there are approved by sponsors, and rated by members of the community, the community basically sets its OWN guidelines for what caches stay listed. This is geared towards moving the focus toward QUALITY caches, rather than quanity. Now, I will move on...

 

Regarding the 'exclusive club that is invitation only', you kinda missed the mark. Since this thread began, a slew of cachers have gone over to look, signed up, and those that didn't have sponsors to start with, posted requests for such, and I believe that most of them found them.

 

We plan on playing on both sites, unless of course, we get banned. I don't have any real issues with gc.com, although the way our local approver refers to 'guidelines' as hard coded, unbendable rules, has put an end to my listing certain types of caches here. I have archived one of my three caches with the intention of listing it on TC.com. I had to move the final location of that cache from an arguably great location that fulfilled many purposes to one 100 feet away simply because it was within the .1 'guideline' of the final location of one of the approver's puzzle caches. I understand that there needs to be some rules, but if it is a RULE, don't say it is a guideline. Say it is a RULE!

 

When some members of the local organization had issues with the local approver, it was brought to Hydee's attention, and she investigated it. That process ended badly for everyone involved, since the issues were not well founded, and the area wound up with a division.

 

Overall, I think that gc.com fills a niche, and TC.com fills a niche. The competition, as you said, could be good for everyone. As a consumer, I look forward to seeing changes here in the approval process. I do appreciate the fact that approvers are volunteers. Most of the approvers I have read posts from have been respectable people to deal with. There are some, however, that aren't, and I think that their performance is what taints the game for others. Unfortunately, when that happens, it tends to be for an entire area, or a group within that area.

 

The real positive that should come out of this thread, is that customers are speaking up, and being heard. Jeremy's already indicated that changes are moving forward, even if some of the posts have come off as condescending or hesitant. It sounds like the customers have had some points come across!

Link to comment
Jeremy's already indicated that changes are moving forward, even if some of the posts have come off as condescending or hesitant. It sounds like the customers have had some points come across!

Hmm.. I was hoping for 100% condescending and 85% hesitant, but I'll take what I can get.

Link to comment
tc.com will allow us to place what we want and to hunt what we want. I guess in the end its all about freedom.

Sounds like a real utopia. Have fun with that.

We are! thanks.

 

Many of us would love to use and support many sites, money and otherwise. Things have gotten heated but I hope we can at least address some of these issues and find some common ground from which to work from. I would gladly renew my membership if there was an effort to take some of these complaints seriously and a sincere offer to work to improve the discontent.

 

I might also point out that it is not just Texas or Centex with the problems, I see here and on the protest cache page other areas have similar complaints. Possible solutions for both sides.

 

1) Lets work together and improve geocaching. Jeremy you have the opportunity to use local community of geocachers to recruit new cachers that would become PAYING members to your site.

2) Give Paying members a voice in the guidelines. You have the final say in all matters but letting paying members have a voice would go a long way in getting through this firestorm.

3) Give a little get a little. Since the influx of new and creative people to the hobby It couldn’t hurt to revisit some of the “Guidelines.” For our part we should realize that running a business and website such as yours can be a logistical nightmare and cut GS a little slack. Not overreact to every little thing.

4) Let local caching communities that wish to have a local approver have one.

5) Allow virtual where they make sense and where there is a lot of support for them. A park or preserve where a traditional cache is not allowed seems like a reasonable place for a virtual.

6) Moving caches. Revisit this one with a selected group of people from the different regions.

7) Create a budget for an investigative committee to research/investigate new caching ideas.

8) Allow some community improvement/charity caches. Goes a long way for free press and puts a good spin on a growing game/hobby/sport.

9) Add some of your Ideas or concerns to this list.

 

You have many local communities that would gladly help you grow your site and revenue if you gave them a chance. A little PR in the local communities will help grow your site and cash flow, can’t believe you would have a problem with that.

 

Thanks

Grajek

Link to comment
It's quite unfortunate that people are even contemplating this.

I don't quite understand why. On one hand we're accused of being a monopoly. On the other hand folks are sad they have to go elsewhere. Isn't competition good?

 

BTW, I believe the policy at Terracaching is that you have to exclusively list them there, because they are an exclusive club that is invitation-only. Interesting policy for a utopia.

Never read any Plato have you???? B)

Link to comment
QUOTE (OConnellz @ Dec 15 2004, 08:31 PM)

Jeremy's already indicated that changes are moving forward, even if some of the posts have come off as condescending or hesitant. It sounds like the customers have had some points come across!

 

Hmm.. I was hoping for 100% condescending and 85% hesitant, but I'll take what I can get.

I hope that wasn't the only thing in my post you paid attention to. Although, that is more than the response my last post garnered.

Link to comment
There are really 2 major issues that need addressed in Texas as approvers go and they both relate to the rapid growth of caching in Texas, the size of the area, and the diversity of the population (in every way) and geogrpahy.

 

By our own admission, the Austin area (commonly referred to as Central Texas or CenTex)  is just plain weird.  There is a diverse bunch of people here, many of whom are smart, clever, and creative.  This area also sports a lot of different terrain that many visitors find surprising.  We have flat scrub land as many would expect, but we laso have hills, canyons, and much more.  All this means that somene with some knowledge of the people and the area is needed to be an approver here.  Just going by maps, aeial photos, and "guidelines" isn't enough.  My proposal is that this be addressed in 5 ways....

 

1.  Take another look at the approval process especially focusing on (1) the guidelines - either use the guidelines as just that - guidelines - or make them hard and fast rules and; (2) creating an appeals process for unapproved caches.

2.  Legitimately investigate the complaints about Prime Approver.  I have had no problems with him personally, but there is obviously something going on and it should be checked out.

3.  Give Texas 3 approvers by first dividing the state between east and west at about long. W99.25.000.  The area to the east of that line gets divided north/south at about lat N31.25.000.  Each of these areas gets their own approver.  This would address  the size, diversity, and growth  aspects.

4.  (This may already be in place - I don't know)  Make it a hard policy that all approvers must reside in, and have an extensive caching history in, the area they are approving for.  If they move to a new area, then they can't be approvers any more simply because they do not know that area and it's caching community.

5.  Put in an approver grievance process that includes an ability for area cachers to have input into whether an approver should be retired.  Slamming around accusations in a forum is not really the best way to do this.

 

Howard

And this boys and girls is the proper way to gripe. Neat, concise, without inflammatory remarks. He even offers possible soutions in his gripe.

 

5 points Semper

SQ, good on ya, Bubba. B) That's my kid brother, folks. ;)

 

Now, on to the topic.....

 

Disclaimer--I live up in Washington State, so I obviously don't cache much in Texas.

 

We were in Austin, caching with Semper Questio over Thanksgiving, and he was telling us about some of the issues that were going on with PA. Now, I don't know all the gory deatails, and most likely, never will. So I really can't comment on the issue of the cache in question, nor on PA's application of the guidelines.

 

However, I do have to agree with the posts that ask for more than one approver for Texas. When you're dealing with a State the size of most European countries, one approver just ain't enough.

 

The major question is, IMO, who's gonna step up to the plate and volunteer?

 

As a sidebar, since I'm here, several of the caches we hunted there were among the most clever and well thought out ones that we have seen. And, several of the containers we found will, someday, be replicated up here. I hope the players that hid those caches are still around the next time we go.

Link to comment
Just don't expect free banner ads here in the forums or the web site.

 

B) Fair enough. I wouldn't advertise for the competition, either, were it up to me.

 

If I was a money hungry corporate monster why would I care if a cache was .1 mile away from another? I'd say "bring it on, money maker." And probably cackle gleefully. So you might wonder why we do it. Maybe there's a reason.

 

Understood - that is a fair point. I certainly appreciate that while I've complained about some things that I don't like, y'all do a lot of stewardship over the game that is pretty hard and very thankless. (Dealing with land managers and the like.) I also appreciate the fact that the rules here happened in response to real or perceived problems. I'd certainly never accuse you of being a bunch of crazed corporate greed-heads.

 

I also appreciate that the understandable pride in what you've built here, and I certainly hope that it won't blind you to honest criticism, even if some of it isn't always delivered as diplomatically or respectfully as it should be. (I do sympathize with your situation - more than you can know. I have no doubt it is very hard to take sometimes.)

 

So I do hope that you will honestly consider some of the issues that have been brought up today, despite the fact that they have most likely made for kind of a crappy day for you. (I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally regret that.) I know you can't make everyone happy, but I do really believe some of the issues that have been raised have some merit, and could be addressed.

 

I also appreciate your taking the time to listen. Thanks - I mean that sincerely.

Link to comment
BTW, I believe the policy at Terracaching is that you have to exclusively list them there, because they are an exclusive club that is invitation-only. Interesting policy for a utopia.

 

Someone already talked about the cross posting item so I'll address the "exclusive club" topic:

 

Anyone can join and there is a forum where you can request sponsors to approve your caches. There are a lot of reasons for this model and some of the discussion in this thread has convinced me that I probably is a very good model. You can change your sponsors anytime and your sponsors can withdraw their sponsorship at any time. They a have processes in place that make sure the transitions go smoothly. Granted it takes a day to get your arms around this concept but that's because the it is totally different than what this site is all about (this is very good for you, it's not a copycat).

 

I can understand your confusion, you probably read the home page mission statement. There were a few words on that page that are being changed as we speak. The user community brought them up as confusing and "exclusive club" sounding and they said you are absolutely right it is a poor choice of words and lets get it changed right way.

 

I believe both sites will help build a bigger caching pie rather than steal members from each other. There will be some that will "switch" at first but I believe it will balance in time. With today's discussion we have proved the GC mountain will move when it can and I have a better understanding of what will be possible over here. Trying to make TC=GC or GC=TC would be a mistake. Time will tell how much of he TC mission will hold up during the deployment phase.

Link to comment
It was ironic. I lament in the days when this too was a utopia. Then the people came...

To paraphrase one of the motivational posters hanging in the last call center I worked at,

 

Remember that customers are not an interruption of your business - they are the reason for your business.

Edited by Team_J
Link to comment
It was ironic. I lament in the days when this too was a utopia. Then the people came...

To paraphrase one of the motivational posters hanging in the last call center I worked at,

 

Remember that customers are not an interruption of your business - they are the reason for your business.

Sorry you missed the joke. I thought it was obvious but apparently not. :cool:

Link to comment

As a long quiet observer in this thread and an active member of a geocaching group in our area I have been watching this thread with interest and wondering what may come of it.

 

I do understand that there is some problem with an area approver and it seems that is going to be looked at more in depth. I would suggest to all those that feel they have had valid caches denied by PA send the details to the individual listed previously that is looking into the complaints. Give that person the information needed to make an informed decision. Send them all the cache info and any emails you have had explaining why your cache was not approved.

 

This would seem the proper step for now.

 

I am however very concerned by another asspect that I have seen regarding this thread. It has seemed to bring the worst out in many cachers by way of thier posts. In particular I am disgruntled by the remarks made by Jeremy and some others. I have read posts in which he is very informative and the voice of general reason. I have also seen many posts in this thread in which it seems he wants to toss a little gas into the fire. The biting, distainful, plain rude remarks that I have seen coming from one of the co-founders to his general customer base is horrific. I as well as many others that are watching this thread have been dismayed by these remarks from him and many other people out there. There is nearly no reason to become insulting or rude to make your point or get assistance.

 

I hope that the problems have been aired and this thread can be stopped now. They decisions that concern the core of these arguements are done and hopefuly more constructive threads can be started on some of the specific problems listed here.

 

James and Wendy

Link to comment
You're exactly right Brian, we shouldn't put them in that position.

Perhaps what this really comes down to is rules. Throughout history Texans haven't liked them much. I think that many of the cachers here are too free thinking to be told what is an appropriate cache to do and what isn't. Yes, to do, not to place. If I place a cache at an abortion clinic you have every right not to do it. If I put out a roving cache no one will twist your arm to retrieve it. If I post a virtual which is a sighting of a religious figure and you are an atheist, don't do it. If I post locationless caches and you hate them don't waste your time. If I want to place a cache that's 200 feet from another with a 180 foot river between them I should be able to make that reasonable decision

 

That sounds great. Does that mean I can place caches in national parks and in RR terminals if I go to Terracaching? That would be a boon for this sport. Where do I sign up?

Link to comment

I like geocaching.

 

I like using geocaching.com as a listing service for my caches because it's the most used site.

 

Geocaching and geocaching.com are not one and the same.

 

If you don't like something about how gc.com lists caches, tell them.

 

They can choose to fix the problem, not fix the problem, or not view it as a problem...it's their choice as they are a private company, not a democracy.

 

If the way gc.com lists caches bothers you more than it pleases you (in balance), and you feel that you have voiced your discontent to no avail, there are other sites that list caches.

 

To date, my appreciation of gc.com far outweighs my discontent with gc.com, so I am happy to list my caches here and pay to be a premium member, this may change in the future.

 

I am going geocaching this weekend, looking for gc.com-listed caches, and hope to push my find-count over the 65 mark.

 

If you think this post has been off-topic, I would disagree, but am not interested in fighting about it.

 

Have a good weekend everyone!

 

nfa-jamie

Edited by NFA
Link to comment

That sounds great. Does that mean I can place caches in national parks and in RR terminals if I go to Terracaching? That would be a boon for this sport. Where do I sign up?

That's:

 

H T T P colon slash slash W W W dot T E R R A C A C H I N G dot C O M

 

Here's a quick link -> CLICK ME

 

But don't expect to be able to place illegal caches.

 

In fact, Brian, from what you've said about your caches these are the very types they are looking for, not the Park-n-Grabs. High quality caches, not rogue caches, are what they are looking for.

Link to comment
In fact, Brian, from what you've said about your caches these are the very types they are looking for, not the Park-n-Grabs. High quality caches, not rogue caches, are what they are looking for.

I dunno, the only 2 terracaches within a few hundred miles of Brian are lame virtuals in a park. I love the high quality caches, and I know Brian does as well, but in these parts vacation virtual in a park does not equal high quality.

Link to comment

Good morning,

 

This topic has become rather a nine-headed monster, with many sub-issues all being raised under the general heading of discontent within the great State of Texas. As a forum moderator I would like to see it confined, however, to only a discussion of those issues in Texas which led to the cache page description and logs that are linked to in the original post.

 

Therefore, it is on-topic for people to say "I am moving over to site X" because this is one way to express discontent. And they can talk a bit about why site X appeals to them more than Geocaching.com. But on the other hand, a general discussion of site X is off-topic. By now we all know about site X and some of its features. We do not need to see advertisements for it, nor does this thread benefit from pointing out that there are only two caches available in New Jersey on site X. The thread is about Texas.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
...

I am however very concerned by another asspect that I have seen regarding this thread.  It has seemed to bring the worst out in many cachers by way of thier posts.  In particular I am disgruntled by the remarks made by Jeremy and some others.  I have read posts in which he is very informative and the voice of general reason.  I have also seen many posts in this thread in which it seems he wants to toss a little gas into the fire.  The biting, distainful, plain rude remarks that I have seen coming from one of the co-founders to his general customer base is horrific.  I as well as many others that are watching this thread have been dismayed by these remarks from him and many other people out there.  There is nearly no reason to become insulting or rude to make your point or get assistance...

As I was reading through all the posts since I signed off last night, I was thinking exactly the same thing. It has to be difficult to consistently deal with negativity and keep a big smile on your face (and in your typed words). Still, maybe he needs a press secretary who can. I think his sense of humor is occasionally lost on some of us (at least on me sometimes). When I read posts like some of Jeremy's and others that make me wonder whether they are being condescending or uncaring, I choose to believe it's me that doesn't understand rather than assume the worse. In this case, I personally believe it's just a combination of knee jerk reaction and humor that sometimes escapes me. Again, if he wants to always come off sounding cheery and politically correct, maybe he needs a press secretary. I really don't think that's what he wants though.

 

I am very pleased to see Jeremy taking an active, and for the most part reasoned and informative, role in this discussion. I also am surprised at the general civility of this thread. These are some very controversial items being discussed and I managed to read all 5 pages without getting turned off by outrageous personal attacks that often make me stop reading before getting to the end. Thanks to everyone for that!

 

I hope this discussion leads to some positive changes or understanding.

Link to comment
I'm aware of the new "other" site.

 

I meant - does this mean the people that have switched have archived their GC.com listings and relisted them elsewhere?

 

Joining a website, in my opinion, doesn't constitute switching over. I have an account on Navicache and Opencaching and I haven't "switched" over. I would think that somebody who was totally dissatisfied would no longer list or hunt caches here.

 

sd

Yes, many people have cancelled their gc.com accounts and switched over. Others will continue to use gc.com to hunt caches that are not on tc.com (yet). Although just about every new cache in Central Texas will be on tc.com, when I travel to another state I will have to hunt caches on gc.com (for now). Also for TBs. Some people have transferred their caches over.

Link to comment
BTW, I believe the policy at Terracaching is that you have to exclusively list them there, because they are an exclusive club that is invitation-only. Interesting policy for a utopia.

To clarify Jeremy's statement:

The idea is to not cross post for a good reason. Cross posting is what hurt Navicache so bad. Why go look up caches on Nav when 99% of them are already on gc.com. Also, the caches on tc.com are of a different type, better in my opinion. You are rated on tc.com by the quality of caches you hide and hunt, not the quantity. And it is NOT by invitation only. You sign up and ask for two sponsors. The two people that sponsor you (almost always someone that knows you, is aware of your cache placement type, your knowledge of local rules/laws, lives near you, etc.) are your approvers. There are almost no rules for placement. If you don't like a cache, don't do it. It is governed by the people, for the people. Just because on tc.com I can place an incredible WWII artifact as a VIRTUAL cache, make it so people must move it each time as a ROVING cache, insist that it must stay on the RAILROAD tracks, and you get extra credit if it's placed WITHIN 100 FEET of another cache, does not mean I will. And if I do, you don't have to hunt it down. Wow, to think that some people can think for themselves, what a novel idea. Might even be scary sounding to the sheep that need be told what they can do, where they can do it, how they can do it, etc.

Link to comment
It was ironic. I lament in the days when this too was a utopia. Then the people came...

To paraphrase one of the motivational posters hanging in the last call center I worked at,

 

Remember that customers are not an interruption of your business - they are the reason for your business.

Sorry you missed the joke. I thought it was obvious but apparently not. :cool:

nittanydave wrote:

I was thinking exactly the same thing. It has to be difficult to consistently deal with negativity and keep a big smile on your face (and in your typed words). Still, maybe he needs a press secretary who can. I think his sense of humor is occasionally lost on some of us (at least on me sometimes). When I read posts like some of Jeremy's and others that make me wonder whether they are being condescending or uncaring.

 

I gotta echo Nittany Dave here. I am also the owner of a small business. I also have a sometimes biting sarcastic sense of humor. I frequently need to rein that in and give a more thoughtful answer to questions from customers and employees because as the leader of this organization-I am not 'just one of the guys in the kitchen'.

There are issues being politely and professionally (mostly) being discussed in this thread. Some of these issues are problems requiring a solution, some are not; some of these issues have already been addressed (see SD's request for the KB to be more visible), some of these will require time to sort out.

I am mostly satisfied with the product and service from this listing service, and get a great deal of enjoyment from my time caching spent on the trails, attending events, and participating in these forums. We recently had a change of approvers in this area. It has required a bit of adjustment on everyone's side as relationships are formed. Although I am not aware of any input from the local groups in this selection process, I am OK so far with the decision made.

I truly hope the real issues in TX are addressed and not just swept under the rug. I am sure that not everyone involved will be completely satisfied, but if a fair and just review is made that is good enough for me. As has already been mentioned in posts from ED and SD-communication is what caused these issues to flare up, and communication is what is needed to resolve them.

I am also reminded of one of my first performance reviews by something posted back a page or two: " perception is reality to those making the perception."

Or as I like to say:'If a lot of people are saying the same thing, then just maybe a few of them are telling the truth

Link to comment
BTW, I believe the policy at Terracaching is that you have to exclusively list them there, because they are an exclusive club that is invitation-only. Interesting policy for a utopia.

Terrific race, the Romans. [snif] :cool:

 

Don't know why, but that comment made me think of that scene. Carry on.

Link to comment

I'm not going to try to quote the posts this idea came from, since it was from several. Generally I see some people complaining that the guidelines are treated as firm rules and if that is the case then it should be stated.

 

That would be fine with me, but I can see a danger in that as well. I see the guidelines as generally being pretty firm rules, but yet some have room to bend in certain situations. The .1 mile guideline is a good example of that. Normally it will apply, but in cases such as a cliff in the way, or perhaps just a few feet off, it can be bent. I once had a cache listed that was a few feet under. I wrote a reviewer note explaining how I could not get the cache over .1 mile away and how the nature of the trail prevented confusion. It got listed. I was prepared to move it if needed because I was aware of the guideline and understood it, but I was certainly happy to see that it got listed.

 

I suppose the site could simply state that everything is a firm rule and treat it that way, but then I suspect people would complain about the lack of flexibility. Unfortunately it is impossible to make everyone happy. Anyway, I could happily deal with it either way, whether as firm rules or flexible guidelines. But my angst level tends to be pretty low over such things. :cool:

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
In fact, Brian, from what you've said about your caches these are the very types they are looking for, not the Park-n-Grabs.  High quality caches, not rogue caches, are what they are looking for.

I dunno, the only 2 terracaches within a few hundred miles of Brian are lame virtuals in a park. I love the high quality caches, and I know Brian does as well, but in these parts vacation virtual in a park does not equal high quality.

Hi Mopar. I didn't notice your username registered on the other site. Are you basing your opinion on what someone else told you, or did you register under a different user name. And if so, why would you do something like that?

 

My read of the sentiments on the other site tells me that most anybody is welcome there. If, for example, Jeremy wanted to sign up under his own name and find out first hand what they are up to, he'd have no trouble finding sponsorship, despite the fact that one or two people may have disagreed with him at sometime past. (Seems unlikely he'd do this - just an example, although the offer is genuine.)

 

So if you did sign up under a new name, I'd encourage you to go ahead and sign up under your geocaching.com name. It'd be a lot more honest for everyone involved. You may ultimately decide that the other site is a big waste of your time. That's your right, and at the moment, it really may not have a lot to offer in your area - that's a fact. (I think it's really only going fairly strong in Montana, although I expect other areas will start to perk up a bit soon.)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...