Groundspeak Ethical?

February 6, 2005

I find this whole Buxley map thing rather amusing. I appears to me GC.com has made the investment in time and equipment to build the database many of us use and Buxley's maps want to benefit from the investment as if it is Public Property. Sure many of us pay to play but that does not give us a vested right in the GC data any more than my buying a Garmin gives me vested rights in Garmin.

I do not know why this whole argument even comes up time and time again by users as it seems to be totally a contractual thing between to seperate and private enterprises.

Therefore, I do not see anything unethical about GC protecting their investment. (just to keep it on topic)

Now I need to go the Garmin site and see why they have not addressed my desires yet.

Edited February 6, 2005 by Cache Viking

1.8k · February 6, 2005

I missed Buxley's for awhile because it was a nice way to see when new caches popped up in my area. Now that it has been gone for awhile, I have adjusted and I use PQs and my own software to handle all my mapping needs. You just need to adjust. When life hands you lemons, you make lemonade. Or something...

Edited February 6, 2005 by The Cheeseheads

2.1k · February 6, 2005

Despite the dozen or so vocal Buxley supports here, the stats seem to back me up. In the 4+ years Buxley's has been online, it's received a little over 4 million hits. Form a post Jeremy made over a year ago, I would wager GC.com gets more hits then that on a slow week. Heck, the users here (arguably the ones who would be using the great Buxley's if it was up to date?) posted over 76,000 logs in the last week, and it's the middle of winter for many of us. I think most of us look at lots more cache pages and maps then just the number of caches we log. That shows the actual percentage of active GC.com users who actually used Buxley's is probably statistically somewhere around ZERO, and totally disproportionate to the amount of bandwidth and resources he mooched.

Right...the number of hits each website receives is proportional to the utility of the website? Hardly.

Even if you don't include the multiple search engine spiders that crawl through both sites (and GC.com has far more pages to crawl), even if you don't include the continual reloads on things like profile pages and cache pages in creation for HTML editing purposes, even if you don't include the fact that every time someone *does* use Buxley's they usually then add a click or two here for that visit to see the cache details, even if you don't include the clicking of print-friendly, decode hint, add more than five logs to print for a single cache visit at GC.com....

You'd *still* have too many variables concerning each person's visit to conclude anything about how useful Ed's site may be as compared to that *same* utility's usefulness here at GC.com.

You may have your personal opinions on the different maps and what purpose they serve for you. You may even have a vague collection of differing opinions from other people here in the forums or at events. But that is the extent of how you can claim Ed's site is useful or not...and in the end, regardless of what *you* think about it's usefulness, someone else finds it useful. Period.

Useful enough to warrant giving Ed bandwidth enough to get the data necessary to update his maps? Evidently GC.com seems to think so since they are back in discussions with him about it. Which whos find which whats useful about either site's maps is moot at this point.

20.7k · February 6, 2005

I strikes me that this entire thread is off-topic and chould be closed.

The stated topic is whether Groundspeak is 'unethical'. 'Unethical' is defined as 'not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior'. How can one company deciding to not freely give away it's product be unethical? It can't.

Therefore, the entire thread is just a b***h session that is not on the stated topic. Threads that stray and stay off-topic should be closed.

3.8k · February 6, 2005

Buxley's site is everywhere this year. I see post after post mentioning it.

(sorry, Lep )

February 7, 2005

Bear with me for a moment while I use an analogy...

I enjoy going to Starbucks. I have actually been with Starbucks from the beginning, and think they have some really good coffee. But here in my Seattle neighborhood there used to be a nice little local chain I'll call X-Coffee. There was a great store across the street, part of the X-Coffee chain, that made a wonderful specialty drink. Yes, I usually went to Starbucks by my work, but at least once a week there was nothing that satisfied like that specialty drink from x-Coffee. Well, a couple months ago, Starbucks opened a store next door to the X-Coffee. X-Coffee just isn't as popular, doesn't have as many users, and isn't the "coffee standard" everyone wants. Well, it wasn't too long until X-Coffee across the street went out of business. They worked really hard, provided the most service at the lowest prices, but couldn't compete when Starbucks opened next door. I still like Starbucks, but I really miss X-coffee. It was nice to know they were there. I do like to root for the little guy. Now I wish I could have given more of my money to X-coffee, but I didn't know Starbucks would become such a monster when it was a little guy.

Now suppose X-coffee had their coffee supply cut off by their supplier, Starbucks. Starbucks knew they were better and were not threatened, but they just cut off the supply to x-coffee to make more money. Does this analogy fit? Well, I get the same feeling.

I kind of liked the little guy, and wish he was still here.

February 7, 2005

I strikes me that this entire thread is off-topic and chould be closed.

The stated topic is whether Groundspeak is 'unethical'. 'Unethical' is defined as 'not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior'. How can one company deciding to not freely give away it's product be unethical? It can't.

Therefore, the entire thread is just a b***h session that is not on the stated topic. Threads that stray and stay off-topic should be closed.

The most infuriating thing I read here is the profound tendency to want to limit free speech for any excuse. Topic should be closed, right!

2k · February 7, 2005

>analogy snipped<

Why was X-Coffee buying it's coffee from Starbucks? Did Starbucks owe X-Coffee a subsidy? If X-Coffee was so good then why couldn't it survive?

February 7, 2005

yawn

February 7, 2005

Ok Jeremy I have to know where in Colorado you were born, since I have been here all my life.

February 7, 2005

I see at least one person is missing my point entirely. Oh well, think a little more dude.

What is often said is that the paying membership is for some "extra" features. Well, some time ago, functions like panning the map and zooming were free to everyone. So in a sense, some features have been taken away from those who don't pay.

If someone isn't a paying member (I am!) then they can't use the maps efficiently. Now with Groundspeak cutting off Buxley, they have no good mapping resource without paying. It just seems a little underhanded to me. That is why I question the ethics.

I think you should at least be gracious enough, Jeremy, to reopen talks with Buxley. I don't know the guy and have always used this site primarly. But don't just leave the phone on hold, so to speak. Finish the conversation. I hope the folks at Groundspeak will continue to provide him with map data, it just enhances the sport and makes it more fun. You won't lose any members over doing so, but you will over monopolistic practices.

6.4k · February 7, 2005

Now suppose X-coffee had their coffee supply cut off by their supplier, Starbucks. Starbucks knew they were better and were not threatened, but they just cut off the supply to x-coffee to make more money. Does this analogy fit? Well, I get the same feeling.

I kind of liked the little guy, and wish he was still here.

Except that's not really the case, now is it?

To make it accurate, "X-Coffee" was sneaking in the back door of Starbucks and stealing Starbucks brand coffee to sell to you. Starbucks got tired of paying for coffee that wasn't even going to their customers, so they changed the lock on the back door. Now X-Coffee and their 3 customers are complaining they don't have coffee. Blah.

5.6k · February 7, 2005

Well, some time ago, functions like panning the map and zooming were free to everyone. So in a sense, some features have been taken away from those who don't pay.

This is like saying a grocery store with a club card (giving members an extra discount) & found a glitch that gave everybody the discount; then corrected that glitch is 'taking away' a feature everybody had. Since everybody had it once, even by mistake, then everybody should always have it - that doesn't make sense to me.

February 7, 2005

I think you should at least be gracious enough, Jeremy, to reopen talks with Buxley.

I think this was covered here already if you will read carefully.

We are ACTIVELY working with Ed on a resolution. The content of our ongoing discussions is private and will not be addressed in the forums.

Now suppose X-coffee had their coffee supply cut off by their supplier, Starbucks. Starbucks knew they were better and were not threatened, but they just cut off the supply to x-coffee to make more money. Does this analogy fit? Well, I get the same feeling.

I kind of liked the little guy, and wish he was still here.

If Starbucks=GC.com

and X-coffee=Buxley's

Then Buxley was getting his beans from GC.com.

Now as I see it, he was either coming in the backdoor and stealing them or, brazenly coming in the front door and helping himself to them. Either way he was getting his beans for free from GC.com who paid for them.

For whatever reason he was not admitted to the part of the store where the beans were kept anymore. Just as any business has a right to refuse service to anyone.

Now, there is a private discussion going on about him being able to get his beans there once more. For free, for a price, we don't know. We will have to wait and see.

By the way his bean supply was never totally cut off. He had "other" places to get beans from for his maps, its just that the weren't enough beans from the "other" places to make his site usefull.

edit: I seem to have made a mistake in "how" I entered the quotes that I cannot fix. Please excuse me for this.

Edited February 7, 2005 by ironman114

1k · February 7, 2005

Bear with me for a moment while I use an analogy...

G'day

For what it is worth I understand where you are coming from and agree with your thinking ....

Hang in there.

Regards

Andrew

1k · February 7, 2005

I think Either way he was getting his beans for free from GC.com who paid for them.

G'day

Not so sure about the GC paid for them part. The beans I assume are the caches (thus cache pages). The copyright, as I understand it from the T&C, reside with the cache owner and the cache owner provides the beans to gc.com in exchange for the listing.

GC.com would have no beans without the cache owners. Of course it is a mutual benefit .... but that does not change actual ownership of the beans.

Just a thought ... flak jacket on :-)

Regards

Andrew

20.7k · February 7, 2005

Not so sure about the GC paid for them part. The beans I assume are the caches (thus cache pages). The copyright, as I understand it from the T&C, reside with the cache owner and the cache owner provides the beans to gc.com in exchange for the listing...

You are kinda right. Certainly it would be perfectly fine for Buxley to get the info from the cache owners, but he wasn't. He was scraping them off of GC.com.

February 7, 2005

I think Either way he was getting his beans for free from GC.com who paid for them.

G'day

Not so sure about the GC paid for them part. The beans I assume are the caches (thus cache pages). The copyright, as I understand it from the T&C, reside with the cache owner and the cache owner provides the beans to gc.com in exchange for the listing.

GC.com would have no beans without the cache owners. Of course it is a mutual benefit .... but that does not change actual ownership of the beans.

Just a thought ... flak jacket on :-)

Regards

Andrew

GC.com "paid" for them in that they are paying for the cost of the servers and bandwidth to store the "data" about the beans.

Now buxley can also ask all the cache owners to give him the information but then he will have to do all the work of collecting and storing the data instead of taking it from someone else.

Anyway it is being worked on.

2.1k · February 7, 2005

Now suppose X-coffee had their coffee supply cut off by their supplier, Starbucks. Starbucks knew they were better and were not threatened, but they just cut off the supply to x-coffee to make more money. Does this analogy fit? Well, I get the same feeling.

I kind of liked the little guy, and wish he was still here.

Except that's not really the case, now is it?

To make it accurate, "X-Coffee" was sneaking in the back door of Starbucks and stealing Starbucks brand coffee to sell to you. Starbucks got tired of paying for coffee that wasn't even going to their customers, so they changed the lock on the back door. Now X-Coffee and their 3 customers are complaining they don't have coffee. Blah.

I'm a big fan of hugely tortured analogies...

X-coffee wasn't actually taking coffee, it was keeping its foot in the back door so that even after Starbucks had closed for the night its 3 customers could come in and leave some money for Starbucks while pouring a blend they liked better. In fact, Starbucks sees that this might be a relevant exercise and is now talking with X-coffee so that he might have a key to the door instead of having to do it the hard way with a crowbar (that was causing problems because of the draft around the lock freezing all the regular customers during the day).

The funny thing about the whole deal is that the beans themselves are donated.

9.1k · February 7, 2005

I have been trying to follow the coffee analogy. So far, all I've been able to figure out is that finding virtual caches is like drinking decaf.

20.7k · February 7, 2005

The most infuriating thing I read here is the profound tendency to want to limit free speech for any excuse. Topic should be closed, right!

Oh come on. I used a smilie and everything.

As I understand this issue, the two companies are in negotiation. Buxley's site will either get the info that some of you want, or they won't. Complaining about this issue when you aren't privy to the specifics of the negotiation is not worth a hill of beans.

February 7, 2005

more on the coffee analagy....

so, If you were to open a coffee house, I should be able to come into your shop and get free coffee for MY customers? just how would that work. As far as ethics, I see nothing unethical about GC.coms current practices in protecting their investment in this game of ours. And there is no doubt in my mind that it's a rather sizable investment.

just my 2 cents worth.

9.4k · February 7, 2005

You guys and your analogies.

Edited February 7, 2005 by Jeremy

February 7, 2005

GC.com "paid" for them in that they are paying for the cost of the servers and bandwidth to store the "data" about the beans.

Now buxley can also ask all the cache owners to give him the information but then he will have to do all the work of collecting and storing the data instead of taking it from someone else.

Anyway it is being worked on.

I don't think of my listing caches on here as "paying" gc.com in any sort of way. If anything, we are all doing them a favor by listing them on here. Without the caches this wouldn't be much of a site. Their servers, bandwidth, salaries, vespas, and whatnot are being paid for by membership fees and merchandising, not caches. I feel that this is an important distinction, because while I am glad that gc.com is doing this service and I enjoy listing caches on here, I feel that I have the "right" to pull my caches at any time and move them to another listing service. If I had "paid" for the service with my cache listings, that wouldn't be an option.

--RuffRidr

9.4k · February 7, 2005

Please provide the following analogies.

Geocaching.com is like:

a SUV
a Super Bowl ad
a Mai Tai (alcoholic)
an alcoholic
a large velvet Elvis portrait

3.8k · February 7, 2005

Please provide the following analogies.

Geocaching.com is like:

a SUV

a Super Bowl ad

a Mai Tai (alcoholic)

an alcoholic

a large velvet Elvis portrait

You forgot motherpie and applehood.

20.7k · February 7, 2005

Geocaching.com is like my Grand Cherokee. Yes, I could drive a hyundai, but my Grand Cherokee is bigger, safer, and has lots more features. I could use other sites, but they have less features and poorer selection.

20.7k · February 7, 2005

The geocaching forums are like a superbowl ad. They used to be funny and irreverent, now they are too afraid to offend anyone so they have weaded out all but the most bland.

20.7k · February 7, 2005

Geocaches are like Mai Tais. They are really great, but if you keep ordering the same thing time and time again, they get boring, so you have to mix it up with more variety. If I always look for the same kind of cache, I get bored. Geocaching and Mai Tais also make me fall down alot.

20.7k · February 7, 2005

Geocaching is like alcoholism.

Signs of Alcoholism:

Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink

Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun

Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking

Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to get "high."

Signs of Geocaching:

Craving—A strong need, or urge, to geocache

Loss of control—Not being able to stop geocaching once geocaching has begun

Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as boredom, weight gain, and anxiety after stopping geocaching

Tolerance—The need to find greater amounts of geocaches to get find counts up.

20.7k · February 7, 2005

Large, velvet Elvis portraits are like geocaching. While some would think that it is high art, others think its just dumb.

February 7, 2005

Geocaching + a large velvet Elvis portrait = just plain old hard to explain to someon that already doesn't 'get it'.

February 7, 2005

Geocaching/Superbowl ads..... Some are winners and some are losers.

February 7, 2005

GC.com "paid" for them in that they are paying for the cost of the servers and bandwidth to store the "data" about the beans.

Now buxley can also ask all the cache owners to give him the information but then he will have to do all the work of collecting and storing the data instead of taking it from someone else.

Anyway it is being worked on.

I don't think of my listing caches on here as "paying" gc.com in any sort of way. If anything, we are all doing them a favor by listing them on here. Without the caches this wouldn't be much of a site. Their servers, bandwidth, salaries, vespas, and whatnot are being paid for by membership fees and merchandising, not caches. I feel that this is an important distinction, because while I am glad that gc.com is doing this service and I enjoy listing caches on here, I feel that I have the "right" to pull my caches at any time and move them to another listing service. If I had "paid" for the service with my cache listings, that wouldn't be an option.

--RuffRidr

I never intended to imply that GC.com paid for the caches. I was saying that he has rights to the data because he owns the servers and pays for the bandwidth, even if the money was given to him by someone else (membership fees and those buying merchandise).

Nobody said you don't have the right to pull your cache either. You have always had the right to move them to another listing service. You can even delete all the data shown on this site about your cache if you want to(well sorta, it will still be archived there, we just won't be able to see any of it, just what you have changed).

On topic:

I don't think Groundspeak was unethical. Its their site and they can allow whatever access they want to it.

I have seen where they have listened to the people who use this site and have implemented features the community wanted. I also see that they are in discussion with Buxley's and so it seems they are listening to what the community has been asking for.

So before we bash them some more , trying asking nicely for whatever feature you want , rally others to ask nicely. When enough people ask nicely things get implemented.

20.7k · February 7, 2005

Dude, this thread is about analogies. Try to stay on subject.

February 7, 2005

I will agree that caching has gotten a little more bland. If you have read some of the very first posts, they said that you might find cig lighters, a beer, or other things in a cache now considered "naughty."

You guys are much too literal with your analogies, but I'm glad someone finally realized that the beans are all contributed freely. I wish we could all contribute these beans to a non-profit .org rather than a for-profit .com. Then the .com's could freely brew them in whatever way they desired, but other sites could brew up different recipes with the same pool of beans. Of course this was tried but failed very early on.

Of course the evil capitalists just want to control the "means of production." j/k (Really, I'm not a communist.)

9.4k · February 8, 2005

I wish we could all contribute these beans to a non-profit .org rather than a for-profit .com.

I hear this a lot, but other than another level of complexity and a pound of bureaucracy and internal politics, it isn't a very different animal.

(edit: spellin)

Edited February 8, 2005 by Jeremy

20.7k · February 8, 2005

Who would pay for the servers at FreeBeans.org?

February 8, 2005

Who would pay for the servers at FreeBeans.org?

And the bandwidth and the people to maintain FreeBeans.org? I've seen a lot of "free sites" go by the wayside because the people that are donating the time, servers, bandwidth etc. lose interest or walk away for other reasons.

For an Internet resource that thousands (tens of thousands???) of people use and depend on to have longevity and reliability it has to be backed by an entity with resources and a budget: i.e. a business (including not-for-profits) or the government.

Do you really want the geocaching database run by a government? I sure don't. That leaves it to be run by some kind of business. Looks like we are back where we started.

2.1k · February 8, 2005

Who would pay for the servers at FreeBeans.org?

Large bandwidth users through a tiered licensing scheme that would let independent interface creators develop a user-desired solution. If enough users liked a particular solution, then the creator would probably eventually charge a fee at a level reasonable enough to fund, at minimum, their usage of the server based on their accesses of the database. This is (in my totally naive estimation) potentially the same scheme that could open the door back up to Ed/Buxley's. From there it could become good working precedence for other sites to license the waypoint or log data for stat keeping, etc.

GC.com has a decent interface to a strong/robust database, but it doesn't *have* to reign/rein control over both as a single unit. It could distinguish the two and make money from others' interfaces to that same database, either directly through the licensing agreement or indirectly through increased gateways to GC.com.

Here's a few links on the approach:

Google and Amazon Start Web Services (11/2002)

Profit Via Web Services

We don't have the same ad/permeability advantages that Google or Amazon have, but easy, fast, and affordable data access can be licensed too.

20.7k · February 8, 2005

It sounds complicated to me. Also, I prefer to keep fairly tight control over my business interests. If I were a partner in Groundspeak, I would prefer that the info is not shared. I don't think that it would be in my long term interest to take your approach.

I better idea, in my opinion, would be to try to address the desires of my user groups within the site, unless these desires could be simply resolved through the use of third party apps.

February 8, 2005

I better idea, in my opinion, would be to try to address the desires of my user groups within the site, unless these desires could be simply resolved through the use of third party apps.

Ahhh, yes that would be a great idea. Has this arguement gone full circle?

--RuffRidr

20.7k · February 8, 2005

I better idea, in my opinion, would be to try to address the desires of my user groups within the site, unless these desires could be simply resolved through the use of third party apps.

Ahhh, yes that would be a great idea. Has this arguement gone full circle?

What do you mean by 'full circle'.

In my opinion, GC.com has done a very good job of operating under this mindset.

February 8, 2005

I better idea, in my opinion, would be to try to address the desires of my user groups within the site, unless these desires could be simply resolved through the use of third party apps.

Ahhh, yes that would be a great idea. Has this arguement gone full circle?

What do you mean by 'full circle'.

In my opinion, GC.com has done a very good job of operating under this mindset.

The reason I joined this arguement, and I'm sure others as well, is because of the Buxley's situation and just the attitude in general towards third party sites that try to augment the features here at GC.com, not compete. You're saying gc.com should resolve the issues of the users or let 3rd parties resolve them. Isn't that what we've been clamoring for?

--RuffRidr

20.7k · February 8, 2005

Actually, I think they should tell Buxley's to get bent. There is nothing that you can get from Buxley's that you can't get from GC.com and very inexpensive third party applications.

7.2k · February 8, 2005

There is nothing that you can get from Buxley's that you can't get from GC.com and very inexpensive third party applications.

How about every cache that had been published?

I never used Buxley's as a planning device. But it sure was interesting to see what caches had been out there. Yes, including the archived ones.

Here on gc.com you can't easily find the archived caches in your area. However, they are still interesting reading. Also, you can glean information from an archived cache such the viability of placing another nearby. As it is, you don't know unless you ask your friendly local reviewer.

February 8, 2005

Do you really want the geocaching database run by a government?

Why not?

I'd propose the Government of the Kingdom of Tonga.

BS/2

2.1k · February 8, 2005

Actually, I think they should tell Buxley's to get bent. There is nothing that you can get from Buxley's that you can't get from GC.com and very inexpensive third party applications.

Fortunately, Groundspeak does not subscribe wholeheartedly to this philosophy either.

20.7k · February 8, 2005

How about every cache that had been published?...

This brings up two issues.

First, I find it distracting that Buxley's includes caches that I've found and/or have been archived in the cache listings.

Second, if I want info on archived caches in my immediate area, I just look at a map that I create in MapPoint of all my finds. If I never went after it, I suppose I could pull up JoGPS' finds and hides. It will certainly be there.

20.7k · February 8, 2005

Fortunately, Groundspeak does not subscribe wholeheartedly to this philosophy either.

The man asked for my opinion. That is what he received.

Groundspeak Ethical?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment