Jump to content

Today's Cacher


El Diablo

Recommended Posts

So what determines that "for Geocachers everywhere" means on every web site. Can't it just mean in every location instead of for Geocachers in Alabama?

There are geocachers in several "places", not just physically, but on the Web too. Here's a partial list:

 

Geocaching.com

Navicache.com

Terracaching.com

alt.rec.geocaching

Movingcache.com

Handicaching.com

Opencaching.com

 

so, "for geocachers everywhere" leaves out everyone that isn't on Geocaching.com.

Link to comment

I read Today's Cacher for general news about cool caches and fun articles etc. I don't read it for the latest gossip or forum angst. I can find that on my own. So if there is a bias, I guess I really don't care. Most publications have certain "biases" and will refuse certain types of articles. Most have certain sponsors and advertisers and like to keep a good relationship with those for obvious reasons. That is life. Anyway, if Today's Cacher suddenly became full of articles that read like advertisements about various sites, I would likely lose interest relatively fast. I would rather read about caches in general, regardless of what site they are listed on. I don't care to read about competition angst.

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
I read Today's Cacher for general news about cool caches and fun articles etc. I don't read it for the latest gossip or forum angst. I can find that on my own. So if there is a bias, I guess I really don't care. Most publications have certain "biases" and will refuse certain types of articles. Most have certain sponsors and advertisers and like to keep a good relationship with those for obvious reasons. That is life. Anyway, if Today's Cacher suddenly became full of articles that read like advertisements about various sites, I would likely lose interest relatively fast. I would rather read about caches in general, regardless of what site they are listed on. I don't care to read about competition angst.

I second that Carleen..... well said.

Link to comment

TeamGPSaxophone,

 

I know about those sites. As far as I can tell people from those other sites can read the Today's Cacher site. They aren't banned or blocked from what I can tell. The articles I have read can be enjoyed by anyone and some articles don't apply directly to geocaching.com. I seem to recall an article about moving caches by Gorak in the last issue. Wasn't Gorak one of the folks who left geocaching.com in the last year? ( I may be wrong, so many forum suicides so little grey cells left)

 

Also a story about a cache hunt is fun to read wether the cache is listed on geocaching.com or Navicache. In fact with so many caches crossposted who's to say that the person didn't notice the cache first on the Navicache site?

 

Health and fitness articles are good for anybody, cacher or not, any outdoors person can benefit from the guidence provided there.

 

The magazine started out pretty well focused on geocaching.com but in recent months has branched out to include other sites in pretty good ratios.

 

My thought about the "for cachers everwhere" was to point out the silliness of the whole "Today's Cacher is biased" debaucle. Read the magazine for the enjoyment of caching and let it evolve to be inclusive of cachers world wide.

 

Navicache, Terracache, Movingcache, and Opencaching users can learn from the "bias" of Todays cacher just as I learn more about my wife by reading Womans Day while I'm sitting on the pot.

 

In the words of my wise Uncle C.T. "nuff said"

Link to comment

A lot of this issue is the "perception" that every article is about Geocaching.com. Since nearly every cache in the world is listed on this site, even if the article doesn't mention it, "everyone knows" it must be referring to Geocaching.com.

 

Part of the Terracacher's complaints are that a recent article didn't mention any site. This isn't an issue here, because "everyone knows" about Geocaching.com. The smaller sites, such as Terracaching.com, could really use the free advertising they would get by being mentioned in Today's Cacher and they felt slighted by not being mentioned. The article was "anti-advertising" the smaller sites by leaving them out, if you get my meaning.

 

Where does that leave us? Well, Geocaching.com started small, and as word spread it grew. Where did those first cachers hear about this site? Word of mouth. There was no magazine "for cachers everywhere" at the time. I think this site has done a great job at building a user base. Sure, there will always be people unhappy with some aspect of it, but that goes with any business.

 

Some people go to other sites because they aren't Geocaching.com. Others go there because it offers them an additional way to enjoy geocaching. IMHO, Today's Cacher should cater to the latter group.

 

edit: spelling and grammar

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment

What I'm about to say may get me fired from Today's Cacher. So be it; I don't feel I can sit idly by and let blanket statements with which I don't agree be made.

 

I, too, am pro-GC.com. However, more importantly, I am pro-caching. Personally, I don't see a problem with printing articles that feature other sites which focus on caching, as long as those sites feature their own, original content. As a writer and editor for Today's Cacher, I feel I have a responsibility to all cachers in informing them of available caching resources, regardless whether or not GC.com agrees with the content. This does NOT mean that I am in favor of site bashing in any manner; it merely means that I feel Today's Cacher should focus on caching, period. Our motto is "The Magazine for Geocachers Everywhere". If one percent of cachers doesn't utilize the features of GC.com, yet Today's Cacher refuses to print news and/or articles about alternative sources, then the motto tends to be just an empty slogan.

 

If Today's Cacher runs articles focusing on sites other than GC.com, will we lose 99% of our readers? Probably not. If we run an article bashing GC.com, that's another story altogether, but that's not going to happen. Every writer for Today's Cacher is responsible enough to write articles that will inform without slighting another company or web site.

 

When I first started as a volunteer for Today's Cacher, I was excited about the prospect of writing about caching. However, having to neglect inclusion of other sites has placed a damper on my enthusiasm. Today's Cacher started out as a magazine written for cachers, by cachers, about caching in general. I feel that bias will result in the demise of the magazine. I appreciate GC.com and will continue to use their services if this post doesn't result in banning me from doing so. However, I feel that including other caching sites and services in Today's Cacher will ultimately result in further growth of GC.com as opposed to being a detriment.

 

There, I've had my say. You can agree or disagree with me, but I felt compelled to state my opinions, no matter the results.

Link to comment
If Today's Cacher runs articles focusing on sites other than GC.com, will we lose 99% of our readers? Probably not. If we run an article bashing GC.com, that's another story altogether, but that's not going to happen. Every writer for Today's Cacher is responsible enough to write articles that will inform without slighting another company or web site.

If the entire magazine focuses on the 1%, then yes, it will lose readership. However, the bias is preventing that 1% from even being mentioned, which is the opposite end of that spectrum.

 

(This is, of course, that "perceived" bias, not actual fact. i'm still waiting for El Diablo to show up and answer that question)

Link to comment
If Today's Cacher runs articles focusing on sites other than GC.com, will we lose 99% of our readers?  Probably not.  If we run an article bashing GC.com, that's another story altogether, but that's not going to happen.  Every writer for Today's Cacher is responsible enough to write articles that will inform without slighting another company or web site.

If the entire magazine focuses on the 1%, then yes, it will lose readership. However, the bias is preventing that 1% from even being mentioned, which is the opposite end of that spectrum.

 

(This is, of course, that "perceived" bias, not actual fact. i'm still waiting for El Diablo to show up and answer that question)

I don't want to focus on the small sites; I just want the option to run articles about them now and then, and eradicate the bias that is more than merely perceived.

Link to comment
What I'm about to say may get me fired from Today's Cacher. So be it; I don't feel I can sit idly by and let blanket statements with which I don't agree be made.

 

I, too, am pro-GC.com. However, more importantly, I am pro-caching. Personally, I don't see a problem with printing articles that feature other sites which focus on caching, as long as those sites feature their own, original content. As a writer and editor for Today's Cacher, I feel I have a responsibility to all cachers in informing them of available caching resources, regardless whether or not GC.com agrees with the content. This does NOT mean that I am in favor of site bashing in any manner; it merely means that I feel Today's Cacher should focus on caching, period. Our motto is "The Magazine for Geocachers Everywhere". If one percent of cachers doesn't utilize the features of GC.com, yet Today's Cacher refuses to print news and/or articles about alternative sources, then the motto tends to be just an empty slogan.

 

If Today's Cacher runs articles focusing on sites other than GC.com, will we lose 99% of our readers? Probably not. If we run an article bashing GC.com, that's another story altogether, but that's not going to happen. Every writer for Today's Cacher is responsible enough to write articles that will inform without slighting another company or web site.

 

When I first started as a volunteer for Today's Cacher, I was excited about the prospect of writing about caching. However, having to neglect inclusion of other sites has placed a damper on my enthusiasm. Today's Cacher started out as a magazine written for cachers, by cachers, about caching in general. I feel that bias will result in the demise of the magazine. I appreciate GC.com and will continue to use their services if this post doesn't result in banning me from doing so. However, I feel that including other caching sites and services in Today's Cacher will ultimately result in further growth of GC.com as opposed to being a detriment.

 

There, I've had my say. You can agree or disagree with me, but I felt compelled to state my opinions, no matter the results.

i'm with you pye. <_<

Link to comment

I haven't seen the article at issue, so I have to take Jerry's word that it sounded like an "advertisement." I never got the sense from reading part (but, I admit not all) of the thread at the terracaching site that he would not be willing to run an article about the site under other circumstances?

 

If I were in Jerry's shoes I would guess that I would be loathe to run something that seemed to have a theme of simply telling people to visit a site. That is perhaps better addressed through the business end of things by buying an ad or working on a reciprocal advertising agreement.

 

BUT, if the article were something informative about a site that goes beyond the appearance of simply advertising, then I think it becomes useful. For example, I personally am rather confused by the whole rating system on the terracaching site. I'm not sure how it will play out over time and what the effect of sponsorships etc. are on it. I find it interesting in theory and think it could serve the needs of some cachers, yet I also find it confusing and have concerns that some of it won't actually work well to meet the site's goals over time. An article explaining better how it works could be useful. That would be true even if written by a person with a bias toward the terracaching site. But what would actually be most useful to me would be an article that objectively looked at it. That would likely mean that it would explain it, but also address various perceived good and bad points about it. Such an article would be best written by someone fairly uninterested/unbiased toward any given site.

Link to comment
If Today's Cacher runs articles focusing on sites other than GC.com, will we lose 99% of our readers?  Probably not.  If we run an article bashing GC.com, that's another story altogether, but that's not going to happen.  Every writer for Today's Cacher is responsible enough to write articles that will inform without slighting another company or web site.

If the entire magazine focuses on the 1%, then yes, it will lose readership. However, the bias is preventing that 1% from even being mentioned, which is the opposite end of that spectrum.

 

(This is, of course, that "perceived" bias, not actual fact. i'm still waiting for El Diablo to show up and answer that question)

I don't want to focus on the small sites; I just want the option to run articles about them now and then, and eradicate the bias that is more than merely perceived.

That's my point. The entire magazine doesn't have to focus on alternative sites, just have one article every couple of months to cover their growth.

Link to comment

OK, maybe it's me, but I don't see where people's problem with the tag line comes from. It's for CACHERS everywhere....not "for Cache listing sites everywhere" or "for every geocaching relased website on the planet".......even if Today's Cacher DID ONLY run gc.com related articles, geocachers everywhere could still learn from and appreciate the magazine.....

Link to comment
OK, maybe it's me, but I don't see where people's problem with the tag line comes from. It's for CACHERS everywhere....not "for Cache listing sites everywhere" or "for every geocaching relased website on the planet".......even if Today's Cacher DID ONLY run gc.com related articles, geocachers everywhere could still learn from and appreciate the magazine.....

My thoughts exactly.

Link to comment

Pye,

 

Isn't the article you did you wrote on Loyalty Versus Diversity about other sites.

 

And wasn't the article by Gorak on Moving caches about another named site?

 

2 out of 23 article were about other sites. Almost 10 percent. What is the percentage of caches listed on other sites. I'll bet it isn't 10 percent.

 

Sounds to me like Jerry is trying to be inclusive. But what do I know?

Link to comment
Pye,

 

Isn't the article you did you wrote on Loyalty Versus Diversity about other sites.

 

And wasn't the article by Gorak on Moving caches about another named site?

 

2 out of 23 article were about other sites. Almost 10 percent. What is the percentage of caches listed on other sites. I'll bet it isn't 10 percent.

 

Sounds to me like Jerry is trying to be inclusive. But what do I know?

That's what I was thinking.

Link to comment
Pye,

 

Isn't the article you did you wrote on Loyalty Versus Diversity about other sites.

 

And wasn't the article by Gorak on Moving caches about another named site?

 

2 out of 23 article were about other sites. Almost 10 percent. What is the percentage of caches listed on other sites. I'll bet it isn't 10 percent.

 

Sounds to me like Jerry is trying to be inclusive. But what do I know?

There you go, well over his quota of 1%. <_<

 

The problem with Loyalty vs. Diversity is that it didn't mention any sites by name. This was right after Terracaching.com went live, so it was kinda viewed as a slap in the face.

Link to comment

/rant on/ This whole thread may be the biggest waste of electrons I've ever witnessed, if not the most boring!

 

It's simple: If you like Today's Cacher, enjoy it. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to read it. If you disagree with it's editorial stances, find another source of geocaching articles or start one yourself.

 

It's a lot easier casting stones at others than producing something on your own, but a dadgum sight less productive! /rant off/

Link to comment
Pye,

 

Isn't the article you did you wrote on Loyalty Versus Diversity about other sites.

 

And wasn't the article by Gorak on Moving caches about another named site?

 

2 out of 23 article were about other sites. Almost 10 percent. What is the percentage of caches listed on other sites. I'll bet it isn't 10 percent.

 

Sounds to me like Jerry is trying to be inclusive. But what do I know?

There you go, well over his quota of 1%. <_<

 

The problem with Loyalty vs. Diversity is that it didn't mention any sites by name. This was right after Terracaching.com went live, so it was kinda viewed as a slap in the face.

A slap in the face to whom? "Loyalty Versus Diversity" didn't mention specific sites for reasons associated with this thread. There's considerably more to say regarding this subject, but I've said all I plan to say for now.

Link to comment
Pye,

 

Isn't the article you did you wrote on Loyalty Versus Diversity about other sites.

 

And wasn't the article by Gorak on Moving caches about another named site?

 

2 out of 23 article were about other sites. Almost 10 percent. What is the percentage of caches listed on other sites. I'll bet it isn't 10 percent.

 

Sounds to me like Jerry is trying to be inclusive. But what do I know?

There you go, well over his quota of 1%. <_<

 

The problem with Loyalty vs. Diversity is that it didn't mention any sites by name. This was right after Terracaching.com went live, so it was kinda viewed as a slap in the face.

A slap in the face to whom? "Loyalty Versus Diversity" didn't mention specific sites for reasons associated with this thread. There's considerably more to say regarding this subject, but I've said all I plan to say for now.

A slap in the face to Terracaching.com. Here's brand new site, trying to attract members, and the leading (only) publication out there for geocachers refused to even mention the site by name.

Link to comment
/rant on/ This whole thread may be the biggest waste of electrons I've ever witnessed, if not the most boring!

 

It's simple: If you like Today's Cacher, enjoy it. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to read it. If you disagree with it's editorial stances, find another source of geocaching articles or start one yourself.

 

It's a lot easier casting stones at others than producing something on your own, but a dadgum sight less productive! /rant off/

Please keep in mind that this thread about Today's Cacher, like pretty much all threads started about Today's Cacher was started by the owner of Today's Cacher.

 

It isn't like people are going to great lengths to discuss the thing, it is the owner of the mag that keeps starting controversial threads about his magazine. If the owner wasn't starting controversial threads about his mag, I doubt there would ever be a thread about it here.

 

Personally I think it is just a round about way to increase awareness of his for profit venture, but what do I know?

Link to comment

Personally I think it is just a round about way to increase awareness of his for profit venture, but what do I know?

Great marketing...huh? <_<

 

I started this thread to be proactive to what I knew was coming.

 

There have been a lot of questions about our tag-line..."A magazine for Geocachers everywhere" Let me clairify my meaning of that. It means around the globe, not around the different sites.

 

As far as the Terracaching article being pulled...I have several reasons both business and personal that I won't run it. and this isn't the place to explain.

 

I am biased towards GC. The magazine tries very hard not to be biased about anything. My staff will tell you that I have published a lot of articles that I disagreed with. We are a diverse group of people that form a team with a common goal.

 

By now everyone has had a chance to say what they thought about the magazine and my personal stance. So I'm closing the thread. You are more than welcome to email me with any other thoughts.

 

Thanks!

El Diablo

Link to comment

 

...I don't care who or what you put in your magazine.  Your journalistic credibility and objectivity is non-existent and therefore your magazine will be what it is:  a flop rag...

 

I find these kind of statements to be incredibly insulting to your fellow cachers who put their time, energy and creativity into producing a free product for people to enjoy.

 

We are a success by any measure, and we have plenty of journalistic credibility.

 

I am appalled that you would dismiss so many peoples' work just to take a cheap shot at Jerry.

 

EDIT: I am particularly disappointed because you usually have very intelligent and thought provoking posts.

Edited by GeoWorms
Link to comment

 

...I don't care who or what you put in your magazine.  Your journalistic credibility and objectivity is non-existent and therefore your magazine will be what it is:  a flop rag...

 

I find these kind of statements to be incredibly insulting to your fellow cachers who put their time, energy and creativity into producing a free product for people to enjoy.

 

We are a success by any measure, and we have plenty of journalistic credibility.

 

I am appalled that you would dismiss so many peoples' work just to take a cheap shot at Jerry.

 

EDIT: I am particularly disappointed because you usually have very intelligent and thought provoking posts.

I'm sorry but if I were you, I'd first be insulted that your work is going into a product that doesn't live up to its own motto. That would bother me far greater than a single reader's comments.

 

Simply because something is free (and last I heard, the print version will not be) does not mean it's automatically useful or provident unfortunately.

 

I don't dismiss the following aspects of the work: The web design and The original intent. The problem is that a pretty wrapper and good intentions don't make a good publication...they improve the results of good content. I don't believe the content of Today's Cacher lives up to what it hopes to accomplish or what it is capable of accomplishing. This is partly due to the limitations of the people adding the incoming content and partly due to the filter of the publisher having their way with the final outgoing content.

 

These comments are generalizations and as with all generalizations they won't fit 100% of the time. I *have seen* good articles and discussion points in Today's Cacher. Unfortunately, the generalizations fit too frequently for me to like the magazine and I actually see it getting worse (e.g. there is talk of actual *legal* reasons that Today's Cacher can not run articles sourced from a non-GC.com website) and not better.

 

In the future, if I comment on this topic any further I'll be sure to spend the effort to take full-on shots instead of the cheap one you felt I took earlier.

Link to comment

You know, I love the forums. The debate and daily debacles always provides interesting entertainment.

 

However I don't believe that people's careers should be made or destroyed in the forums. Therefore, I am saying this publicly instead of privately via email:

Jerry, Tee - Please let cooler heads prevail. Give it some time before quitting, firing or whatever.

 

I have thought about the topic discussed on this thread at great length.

 

Does anyone question why Time magazine runs some article but not others?? I have no delusions that TC is on the caliber of Time and it will never be. Today's Cacher is a privately owned and run entity. Its owned by ElDiabalo and he is the chief publisher. He is the boss. The magazine follows his vision. He, along with input from his asst. editors and staff discuss everthing and decide on what to do and what not to do. Jerry does a great job at letting everyone have their say in our meetings. In the end the decision is his and he does not owe anyone an explaination of why.

 

Right now the magazine is moving in one direction and we have alot of exciting things planned for this year. This issue has proved to be a bigger distraction than its worth. There is no agenda to disenfrancise anyone.

 

The fact that this issue is even open to debate in public shows that Jerry is open to listening to everyone's opinions and not just his staffs. You can be sure that many other publishers would never allow their decisions to be debated or questioned.

 

Today's cacher puts out a high quality product every month and we will continue to do so. Some people feel they have been slighted and will stop reading it for this reason. That's unfortunate because we are not seeking to alienate anyone. We are simply trying to put out an entertaining magazine for people to read and enjoy. I invite everyone to put the silly politics aside. Enjoy the magazine for what its!! Not for what you think it should be.

Link to comment
Because of a conflict of interest, I'll be relinquishing my position with Today's Cacher.  I've enjoyed the contact and communication with readers, and wish the staff of Today's Cacher all the best in the future.

Pye,

 

I admire you greatly! That was not a decision that you came to lightly, and one that must have caused a lot of high emotions.

 

You are the perfect example of the 'fair play' & 'journalistic qualities' what everyone else should strive to achieve. I know the magazine will be much less without you.

 

But, I also understand your decision, even though you could not explain the reason totally without causing anymore hard feelings.

 

Again, I admire your convictions & integrity!

 

Shirley~

 

P.S. This should say it all about the whole issue. There is no more to be said on this whole subject in my personal opinion. :o

Edited by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)
Link to comment
The fact that this issue is even open to debate in public shows that Jerry is open to listening to everyone's opinions and not just his staffs. You can be sure that many other publishers would never allow their decisions to be debated or questioned.

 

Nobody would be debating this issue if the owner of TC wasn't starting these threads.

 

I repeat, the owner of TC is the one who keeps starting these threads.

 

I say again, for emphasis, the owner of TC is the one who starts these threads.

 

For you folks at the magazine to get all indignant about some having criticisms of your mag is absurd when the OWNER of the mag keeps starting threads with titles like "Today's Cacher, biased?"

 

For crying out loud, go publish the magazine, put whatever you want into it, stop posting about it here when the posts are nothing but flamebait.

Link to comment

I wonder if Midol coulld sponsor this thread ? I'm amazed at how angry so many people get over what is, at its roots, supposed to be enjoyable !

 

My take on ANY magazine is that its up to TPTB to pick and choose its content. I fail to see a reason for fighting against the direction it takes. If El Diablo places a thread here for getting the feel of the potential readers mindset, that stikes me as market research.

 

When it comes down to it, read it or don't. That simple motto peals away so much controversy when applied to micros, virtuals, night, cemetary, etc. etc. etc. caches. If you don't like it, AVOID IT !

 

I can see trying to affect change on things that really matter ( and I'm not trying to bash Geocaching the hobby or the site, Todays Cacher, Terra-cacher, or anyones feelings), but how important really is this stuff ? I cache to improve my enjoyment of my day to day life, not try to mold the world to my preference.

 

I took the time to read the article on Terra-caching Mr. O Connelz, and though the whole article was well written, and the concept is very interesting, it DOES come across as advertising. I'm not sure, it could just be the continual references to sponsors and a pyramid structure that do it, but it just feels GIMICKY. I can understand why it met some opposition.

 

I would like to see an article submitted on the whole thing that centers more on the philosophy of Terracaching - quality cache experience. Leave the explanation of its workings for when someone is interested and checks out the website. The article could ( IMHO ) best be served by capturing the attentions of those fed up with power trails, lamp post micros, and garbage dump tupperware.

 

I am thriilled by your ideas, just not your presentation. I wonder if it is the same for others ?

Edited by Captain Chaoss
Link to comment
FWIW, I have posted the story about TerraCaching that was rejected here.

 

Honestly, I read it an didn't really have a problem with it.

 

But what happens when 2000 people read it, try to sign up only to realize that the sponsorships are hard to get, and they get corn-fused by the scoring and rating system?

 

To be fair, i'll try and join Terracaching.com and see what happens.

 

I'll let you know.

 

 

 

btw, Just run the article

Link to comment
The fact that this issue is even open to debate in public shows that Jerry is open to listening to everyone's opinions and not just his staffs. You can be sure that many other publishers would never allow their decisions to be debated or questioned.

 

Nobody would be debating this issue if the owner of TC wasn't starting these threads.

 

I repeat, the owner of TC is the one who keeps starting these threads.

 

I say again, for emphasis, the owner of TC is the one who starts these threads.

 

For you folks at the magazine to get all indignant about some having criticisms of your mag is absurd when the OWNER of the mag keeps starting threads with titles like "Today's Cacher, biased?"

 

For crying out loud, go publish the magazine, put whatever you want into it, stop posting about it here when the posts are nothing but flamebait.

I completly agree!! And to add to it...it has also been suggested that these threads are to simply advertise the magazine.

Link to comment
FWIW, I have posted the story about TerraCaching that was rejected here.

Thanks for sharing the article. Now that I have read it....I am amazed that it is not in the magazine that touts itself to be for cachers everywhere. But they really mean "for cachers everywhere IF you subscribe to gc.com rules only"

 

Which I find perplexing because it would seem to be in their best interest to keep the scope of the magazine as broad as possible.

Link to comment
FWIW, I have posted the story about TerraCaching that was rejected here.

Thanks for sharing the article. Now that I have read it....I am amazed that it is not in the magazine that touts itself to be for cachers everywhere. But they really mean "for cachers everywhere IF you subscribe to gc.com rules only"

 

Which I find perplexing because it would seem to be in their best interest to keep the scope of the magazine as broad as possible.

I read it too, and found it to be an uninformative commercial. Can't blame them for not putting it into TC....unless, of course, terracaching wants to pay for advertising space......

Link to comment
I took the time to read the article on Terra-caching Mr. O Connelz, and though the whole article was well written, and the concept is very interesting, it DOES come across as advertising. I'm not sure, it could just be the continual references to sponsors and a pyramid structure that do it, but it just feels GIMICKY. I can understand why it met some opposition.

 

I also took the time to read...and I felt it was an article simply explaining to the reader the gist of terracaching (which the title implies). I personally do not see this as a "rival" to gc.com...just a variant of the activity of caching. Something that SHOULD be in a magazine with the title and tag line that it uses.

Link to comment
FWIW, I have posted the story about TerraCaching that was rejected here.

Thanks for sharing the article. Now that I have read it....I am amazed that it is not in the magazine that touts itself to be for cachers everywhere. But they really mean "for cachers everywhere IF you subscribe to gc.com rules only"

 

Which I find perplexing because it would seem to be in their best interest to keep the scope of the magazine as broad as possible.

I agree. It was a dumb thing not to publish it.

And I don't think the article sounds like an advertisement, although it could have been written better. What appears to be an advertising tone comes, in my opinion, from the author's enthusiasm, which is fine: it's OK to show that people are passionate about caching.

 

Also, even if the "market share" of gc.com in relation to other listing sites is 99,9%, I think most people would agree that diversity and competition are good, therefore I would expect an unbiased magazine to devote a disproportionately large space to presenting the new players in the field. After all, these are important new developments in the sport, especially if a new website is based on a whole new philosophy and way of thinking about geocaching.

Link to comment
I read it too, and found it to be an uninformative commercial.  Can't blame them for not putting it into TC....unless, of course, terracaching wants to pay for advertising space......

Isn't that why most businesses even have "articles" in magazines and newspapers....to "advertise" their existence? Do we really think most businesses have articles written for trade magazines, newspapers, etc simply for providing unbiased information about the subject matter.

Edited by GeoMike11
Link to comment

The article doesn't seem THAT bad to me, but it does seem a little pushy. I also noted that the version posted was the one edited by Septic_Tank, and supposedly already had a half dozen other "advertisements" removed.

 

I will also say i agree that by design EVERY media has some sort of bias. Like it or not, the fact is GC.com is where 99.9% of the caches/cachers are, and most of them are quite happy to just use this site. If Today's Cacher wants to appeal to the broadest customer base (and that's obviously what they want to do to be successful) then most of their articles will be GC-centric. The fact that 10% of what they've published so far is about alternate sites seems to me to be going above and beyond what they need to do.

 

 

OK, this part is going off topic here but... I'm already posting so......

Sponsership hard to get? PLEASE, sign up and see, then make the comments. :P . The only ones that have trouble getting sponsers, are the ones that don't provide the areas they cache in or any info about themselves.

 

If virtually everyone gets sponsored anyway, doesn't that pretty much defeat the whole idea of Terracaching? When I first signed up there I was under the impression that it was somewhat exclusive, in a good way. If every person who applies gets sponsored, doesn't TC become just another listing service, instead of the place to find "high quality, enjoyable caches, and to mitigate the proliferation of caches the community feels are unnecessary or of low quality." ? (From TC.com's mission statement)

I'm all for quality over quantity, which is why I signed up there. So far there, within 100 miles of me, I have 2 virtuals (which I do admit sound better then your avg virt, but both are in places you could have hidden a real cache) and a cache in a park that has banned caches and threatened to arrest anyone found caching there. I have an idea for one of my own once the 2ft of snow melts, so I haven't given up on TC yet, but if it's just gonna become another place to list caches that GC.com wont (in my area, at least), I will have to rethink it.

Link to comment
If Today's Cacher wants to appeal to the broadest customer base (and that's obviously what they want to do to be successful) then most of their articles will be GC-centric.

So in your opinion, gc.com-centric articles are for gc.com cachers and tc.com-centric articles are for tc.com cachers, etc.?

Link to comment

1 - Today's Cacher is an information and internament forum - yes?

can it be an end all and for everyone magazine - I don't think so.

 

2 - It has some advertising - what magazine does not?

 

3 - Do you pick up Redbook to find out about computers?

Do you pick up Popular Science to read about Tigers in Africa?

Do you pick up Today's Cacher to read about a new car?

No - they have their own particular forums - that's why they are there.

 

4 - When you pick up a magazine do you read every article in it?

...well some people do - most only read the articles they like.

 

5 - If you don't like an article don't read it

 

6 - If you don't like the magazine don't read it.

 

7 - Something I do find oddly interesting, I could not find a mission statement or

purpose of the magazine posted on the web site.

 

8 - Do you read it? Seems most of the posters have more than a fleeting or

passing acquaintance with it. So why the complaints?

 

9 - Is it informative? I think so. Is it entertaining? I think so.

 

10 - It seems to be doubley intertaining for the posts in this forum.

 

11 - Of course he has his own idea of who/what he promotes - it would be nice

if that could be stated (see #7).

 

12 - Something we don't know - what agreement he made with his sponsors as

to who or what he can accept as other advertisements.

 

13 - {and a good number to stop on} why all the fuss? And I have to agree with

some other posters - why is the owner of this magazine posting his own

controversies and complaints against his magazine?

 

cc

Link to comment
If Today's Cacher wants to appeal to the broadest customer base (and that's obviously what they want to do to be successful) then most of their articles will be GC-centric.

Why must they be gc.com-centric? Why can't they simply make generic references to things like rules? For instance, it was noted in an earlied post that TC article stated that something was "against the rules" and those were specifically the rules of gc.com. Why not just say that it is against the rules on "some sites"? Or even mention that is against gc.com rules...but there are different guidelines other sites (like 123.com, xyz.com, etc)

Link to comment

okay, I signed up.

 

Sponsorship took less than an hour to get, but what will happen if they ever hit it big? talk about a swamp.

 

 

I now have two caches within 100 miles of my house. the closest is about 80 miles.

 

Guess what, I'm staying with geocaching.com

 

However I did find it real interesting reading the forum over there. You get to see the other side of the coin. While we may never know the whole ins and outs of the story we can be a little more informed.

 

 

How about this: El D can get one of his writers to join TC.com, do some research, and write an unbiased article about what it is all about over there. Keep the "ads" out of it while still making for good reading. Then you can put it in today's cacher and keep it out of both forums.

 

edit: I don't spell so good

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