Jump to content

Geocaching Magazine

Today's Cacher

By Today's Cacher
in General geocaching topics

Followers 3

Recommended Posts

El Diablo

+El Diablo

Posted
Posted
I challenge you to go back through all of our issues and find just one example of where we are GC's mouthpiece.

No problem. Scroll up. Here, I'll provide a link.

 

Considering you are the one ultimately responsible, care to explain that?

There really isn't anything to explain. A reader asked us why moving caches weren't allowed, and we provided the answer for him. That dosen't make us a mouthpeice for GC. The reader didn't ask us if they were allowed on other sites, just GC.

 

If a reader sent us a letter wanting to know why Terracaching requires sponsers in order to join, we would do the research and respond to them. Does that mak us a mouthpeice for Terracaching?

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
dantonac

dantonac

Posted
Posted
I challenge you to go back through all of our issues and find just one example of where we are GC's mouthpiece.

 

That isn't necessarily bad and I am not passing judgement on that aspect, it is a to each their own thing.

In one of the Dec articles (don't recall which one) there is a line about 'visited the forums'. Nothing is said about having visited *which* forum, but GC.com forums are assumed.

 

I do like the site, and found the articles interesting, but the thing does read more like an official GC.com mag than an independant entity.

 

If you wish to appeal to GC.com members, then the focus is right on. If you wish to appeal to GPS gaming in general I think you are going to find some offended by the frequent explicit and implicit references to GC.com, particularly those who use their GPS for things GC.com doesn't cover or outright forbids. Even the earthcaching article takes a dismissive tone toward virtual caches that lead one to "pretty places" in favor of those that lead one to educational areas and the article mentions GC.com a couple times as being one of the approvers for this 'new' (it isn't at all new) cache type. The article, by harping on how one person plus the Gc.com staff are responsible for determining if the cache can be approved smacks of the elitism some are offended by with the GC.com worldview some seem to have. Lot's of virtual caches lead people to places where they learn things of historical, ecological or other acadmemic interest so I found the tone of the article to be quite arrogant since it is bascially one guy doing this in conjuction with GC.com and there is nothing original about it.

 

Anyway, getting back on track I do view the mag as being GC.com centric to such a degree that those who want to see GPS activities expand beyond what GC.com approves of or has the software to allow viewing it as a 'mouthpiece'.

Link to comment
sept1c_tank

+sept1c_tank

Posted
Posted
Anyway, getting back on track I do view the mag as being GC.com centric to such a degree that those who want to see GPS activities expand beyond what GC.com approves of or has the software to allow viewing it as a 'mouthpiece'.

 

Please note that nearly all of our articles include bylines, identifying the authors. The great majority of material is submitted by readers, unsolicited. So I suppose you could say that Today's Cacher is reader-centric.

 

It has already been pointed out that article submissions are welcome. Please send us your alternatives so we can remain reader-centric. :P

 

Will you still have the ONLINE version?

 

Our plans include a permanent website reflecting the hard copy. :P :P

Link to comment
El Diablo

+El Diablo

Posted
Posted

I do like the site, and found the articles interesting, but the thing does read more like an official GC.com mag than an independant entity.

 

Once again I will point out that GC is our biggest sponser and we are proud of that fact. However, they do not, nor have they ever tried to censor our magazine. We are an independant enity and will remain so.

 

Our magazine was founded on the idea that we get our material from cachers. Since 95% of all cacher are members of GC it only stands to reason that they will make up the majority of the articles. As Richard and other members of the staff have pointed out...if you want to see articles on a certain subject matter...then submit them.

 

Someone made a statement in another forum about having to come hat in hand to submit an article. The entire staff of the magazine has a full time job in the real world and we don't have the time nor the funds to chase after every article. We depend on you the cachers to submit those articles.

 

The staff of the magazine is made up of very different individuals. We all have our own personal beliefs and they vary greatly. The one belief that we share however it that we will never bash GC or anyother site. We will remain as unbiased as possible. I'm probably the most pro GC person on the staff and I have the power to decide what we publish or don't publish. Yet I do not preview the articles before publication. I want to see the magazine as you the reader does. I have a good staff that does a great job and I trust them completely.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
dantonac

dantonac

Posted
Posted

I do like the site, and found the articles interesting, but the thing does read more like an official GC.com mag than an independant entity.

 

Once again I will point out that GC is our biggest sponser and we are proud of that fact. However, they do not, nor have they ever tried to censor our magazine. We are an independant enity and will remain so.

 

Our magazine was founded on the idea that we get our material from cachers. Since 95% of all cacher are members of GC it only stands to reason that they will make up the majority of the articles.

El Diablo

Please understand that I am not saying you or your mag are a mouthpiece for GC.com. What I am saying is that a casual perusal of your mag read as if it were a mouthpiece for GC.com. It is perception, not reality.

 

The avergage reader of your mag doesn't know or care that the articles are submitted by GC.com members 95% of the time. They are going to read the mag and find it GC.com centric regardless of whether or not that is the intent.

 

Again, I am not saying you are a mouthpiece for GC.com, I am saying that the mentions of GC.com and it's rules/policy make it GC.com centric regardless of intent.

 

And, again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I just don't understand why you seem to object to folks who have read it telling you that it is GC.com centric rather than being more broad based in terms of GPS hobby/games.

 

As for your suggestion that I write an article presenting a different view, I don't care to. No offense, but I don't do free work for entities that are looking to make a profit from my unpaid labor. Others may wish to do so, but I do not.

 

I do wish you the best in your endeavor, I am sure there are many who would love to get such a magazine delivered to their door.

Link to comment
dantonac

dantonac

Posted
Posted
The magazine is staffed by individuals, all with different personalities.  We write about what we know.  I find it insulting to be called a mouthpiece for anyone.

well it's fine that you take offense, but when you are asking people to pay you for something, what you do or don't take offense at doesn't really matter. It isn't you that people care about when spending money, it is themselves. It is you who has to appeal to the potential buyer, not the other way around.

 

You can be offended at zero sales on your first issue, but that won't sell more.

 

I do wish you all the best, sincerily, but the defensiveness at criticism you have recieved here doesn't bode well for the success of your for profit endeavor. You folks don't seem to get the idea of appealing to customers. You can adopt the offended attitude once you have a reliable subscriber base that produces enough ad income to make you happy, but not before then. :P

 

I would also suggest you guys rethink the unpaid article thing. When you run a free (for the viewer) website soliciting free articles is one thing, but the instant you start profitting off the work of others without compensating them I think you will find the number of people willing to write for you drops off quickly. About the only articles people are going to write for free are those articles advertising something of their own.

Link to comment
El Diablo

+El Diablo

Posted
Posted

I would also suggest you guys rethink the unpaid article thing. When you run a free (for the viewer) website soliciting free articles is one thing, but the instant you start profitting off the work of others without compensating them I think you will find the number of people willing to write for you drops off quickly. About the only articles people are going to write for free are those articles advertising something of their own.

Who said they wouldn't be compensated?

 

Also....we may seem defensive, but hey...we have people attacking the magazine. If we respond to those attacks...we are defensive. If we ignore them then we are complacent. Call it what you will.

 

There were questions asked about the magazine and we tried to answer them. We realize that we need to provide a product that appeals to the majority. We also realize that we can't provide a product that appeals to everyone.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
sept1c_tank

+sept1c_tank

Posted
Posted
Devils advocate here (or maybe not): Why would I pay for something I can get FREE (online)???  :P

The magazine will include material not available on the website.

 

Besides, when a photo of your geocaching pet or an article about your family appears in the magazine, it will be easier to impress aunt Alice with a copy of the magazine than link to a website. :P:P

Link to comment
CoyoteRed

CoyoteRed

Posted
Posted
There really isn't anything to explain. A reader asked us why moving caches weren't allowed, and we provided the answer for him.
It's quite obvious you don't get it.

 

We realize that we need to provide a product that appeals to the majority. We also realize that we can't provide a product that appeals to everyone.
So, appeal to folks who use gc.com and forget the rest--that's the majority. Well done. Mission accomplished.

 

Anyway, you asked for our thoughts. I've given mine. The short answer is I won't be giving you any money until I feel you are truly living up to your tagline.

Link to comment
D-cachers

+D-cachers

Posted
Posted

Howdy from OK...

 

Its time I just have to ask a question that I have wondered about for some time:

 

Why do some of you have such a consistently negative stance towards GC.com?

 

From my perspective (that being someone who has been into caching about 7 months, frequently checks out the forums, occassionally drops in a post), it really seems as though there have been some personal events in the past that would have created such an anti-GC.com sentiment.

 

I don't have the lifestyle that allows me to live in the forums on a daily basis and to be in the know on every issue out there, but I do realize that without GC.com and its support of caching over the last few years, geocaching would be but a shadow of itself right now.

 

I know there are policies out there...moving caches, virtuals, etc...that many of us would prefer to be different. What I wonder about, is the seemingly "personal" nature of the negative comments.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

I really am interested...mainly because it seems that the only unenjoyable facet of geocaching I have experienced seems to be found here on the pages of the discussion forums...and I just don't understand... :unsure:

 

D-cachers

Link to comment
El Diablo

+El Diablo

Posted
Posted
Howdy from OK...

 

Its time I just have to ask a question that I have wondered about for some time:

 

Why do some of you have such a consistently negative stance towards GC.com?

 

From my perspective (that being someone who has been into caching about 7 months, frequently checks out the forums, occassionally drops in a post), it really seems as though there have been some personal events in the past that would have created such an anti-GC.com sentiment.

 

I don't have the lifestyle that allows me to live in the forums on a daily basis and to be in the know on every issue out there, but I do realize that without GC.com and its support of caching over the last few years, geocaching would be but a shadow of itself right now.

 

I know there are policies out there...moving caches, virtuals, etc...that many of us would prefer to be different. What I wonder about, is the seemingly "personal" nature of the negative comments.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

I really am interested...mainly because it seems that the only unenjoyable facet of geocaching I have experienced seems to be found here on the pages of the discussion forums...and I just don't understand... :unsure:

 

D-cachers

Hi D,

Welcome to Geocaching. To answer your question. Let me make this very clear. I'm answering on a personal standpoint...not for the magazine.

 

There are sites out there that were created due to the fact that they disagreed with how this one was being run. They will take every opportunity to promote those sites and to show GC in a bad light. Keep enjoying GC...it will always be number one!!

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...