The heavy hand of Groundspeak on COs…?

[gotta run]

Hey, it’s always fun to have a discussion about things we can’t change, so why not this one. This is spun from a couple of different topics that have come up here over time.

My perspective as a cacher and cache-owner goes back just over four years. So, I missed locationless caches, although I’ve had the chance to do some virts and webcams that still exist.

I understand the balancing act that needs to be maintained here. On one hand, groundspeak runs a listing service, and it’s their sandbox so as CO you either play by the rules or go find another service. Of course, no other truly viable service exists now, but that’s another topic. And they’re not the government, so they can freely censor or squelch any dissenting opinion that they like, make any rule changes, or basically do what they want.

But on the other hand, groundspeak is dependent on the efforts (and investment) of COs to put caches in the field, so I would think they are concerned with keeping them reasonably happy.

And on the other, other hand, you have the third factor–cache finders. I understand the need to keep the game accessible for people and to encourage new people to come into the game.

When I look at those three constituencies–groundspeak, cache owners, and cache finders, I would put keeping COs happy at the top. Without caches, there is no geocaching, period. And I just don’t see them doing this. Instead I see more restrictions over time on what COs can do. While they’re just fine with peppering every guard rail with a filmstrip canister or putting a power trail of 1,000 caches every .1 mile alongside the highway, I don’t see them encouraging, or in some cases even allowing, creativity, either in the field or on the cache page.

Think of the things that have been eliminated or pulled back over time–locationless caches, vitrtuals, webcams, additional logging requirements, even “challenge” caches have been narrowed and redefined. Eventually every attempt to take the game beyond “tupperware at coordinates posted on the cache page” gets scaled back. Will puzzles themselves be on the chopping block someday, or spun to a different site like Waymarking?

I find this boring as a player, and frustrating as a CO. Is this good for the long term health of the game? Why aren’t the “guidelines” viewed as an enabling framework rather than a limiting box?

Or am I just all wet?… 🙂

On the Left Side of the Road...

[zuma]

@gotta run wrote:

While they’re just fine with peppering every guard rail with a filmstrip canister or putting a power trail of 1,000 caches every .1 mile alongside the highway, I don’t see them encouraging, or in some cases even allowing, creativity, either in the field or on the cache page.

Interesting topic. I have mixed feelings on it, but wanted to add a few data points, that either make your case or maybe refutes it, depending on your perspective.

First, to power trails. Where GS once would not allow reasonable caches to be placed along a nice hiking trail .1 mile apart, now they have gone to the other extreme and are allowing extreme power trails in the desert.

Check out http://www.mygeocachingprofile.com/cacherrankings.aspx?sort=4

According to the link above, 25 geocachers who use My Geocaching Profile (which is about 60% of active cachers) have found more than 1000 caches in a single day. Wow, pretty much all on the same desert stretch of PNGs.

zuma

[zuma]

@gotta run wrote:

When I look at those three constituencies–groundspeak, cache owners, and cache finders, I would put keeping COs happy at the top. Without caches, there is no geocaching, period.

Groundspeak has a remarkable business model. They get their customers to write interesting content, and post it as a cache page, and then they charge other customers to look at the content that the other customers wrote.

Very little of what is on Groundspeak is written by them. It is the cache owners who are researching to cache locations and writing the interesting content.

zuma

[CodeJunkie]

I’ll restate something I stated in one of the other forums.

There are “warnings” and plenty of filtering options. If you don’t like climbing trees / cliffs then don’t do those. If you don’t like puzzles then ignore them. If you only like traditionals then do those and ignore the rest.

I agree with them providing the “framework” and some basic monitoring, but in the end let the CO’s police the content they put out there. This is all so subjective that it doesn’t suprise me the new “providers” have very few policies (i.e. it’s just easier).

[gotta run]

@zuma wrote:

Very little of what is on Groundspeak is written by them. It is the cache owners who are researching to cache locations and writing the interesting content.

This is what got me thinking of this topic. Groundspeak is completely dependent on others to create caches ($$) and cache page content (time) and then give it freely to the community.

Obviously, this model has worked very well thus far, because people like the game and it’s fun to place caches.

But…over time it seems like it’s been more and more “you can’t do this” and “you can’t do that” to COs…dunno, it’s just my impression. Again, it’s their sandbox and they have a service COs want so they have the upper hand, unless there would be some mass archival movement or just a cessation of new placements, which seems highly unlikely.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Trekkin and Birdin]

This is an interesting topic. I see two different perspectives on it (must be the Libra in me, I dunno).

While they surely have made many “guidelines” that seem to have limited some of the more interesting and creative options, they also seem to have allowed many things that just didn’t happen in our early days, which date back to mid-2006.

Challenges can still be tough, but the whole notion of “allowing choice” has made it harder to create one like that. I have seen one in Minnesota by Boreal Walker that still manages to be pretty tough. It’s Black Belt of Geocaching, which is based on the whole badge thing available as a macro for GSAK. In general, though, it’s tougher to make a challenge really challenging. There are some things we’ve observed as the owners of a couple of challenges that have made us go “hmm” and kind of changed our own motivation to place any more.

I understand the thought process behind the elimination of ALRs, but there were some that truly did relate to the cache in question and made for a richer experience. Marc’s 900 series is a great example of that. We really started to look around in cemeteries in order to log those caches. We still have a few to find because we have photos for them. The ALR change could maybe have been on a case by case basis, not an overall “no.” I realize that could make for some different issues, but I trust that the reviewers can see a geocaching ALR that’s worthwhile, versus “my favorite movie is” types.

So we have some kinds of caches that have vanished from the game unless they’re still around from before. But another kind of cache has become omnipresent….the power trail. Not every power trail caching experience is redundant and uninspired. We’ve done some memorable ones on the various bike trails in the state, and biking while caching is a fun way to spend a day. But the change in attitude about these kinds of caches seems to have allowed a proliferation of tons and tons of caches. Some applaud this change of pace. It has certainly put a different slant on the hobby as a whole. When we started, the closest 50 miles gave us just about 26 pages. I looked the other day and it’s now 86. We all enjoy numbers, but it seems like sheer volume is often the driving force for many out there now. I guess it kind of comes down to zuma’s comment about the amazing business plan. If you have lots of numbers, you’ll have lots of players, and an increase in content to maintain and build your customer base.

[Lostby7]

I think they have gotten a bit too comfortable as the worldwide face of Geocaching. They have forgotten the fact that we support them; our caches, our creativity. I have seen too many restrictions and instances of censorship on their part for my taste.

[seldom|seen]

@gotta run wrote:

Or am I just all wet?… 🙂

Far from it and there isn’t a thing I’d add to your initial summary. The game is supposed to be fun. The definition of fun is subjective, but how much fun can repetitive scribblings on repetitive placements really be, even if you are a power cacher? I try to make every cache “fun” and that means making every one a unique and memorable experience for those whose choose to do them. I’ve also made it wuite clear to those who don’t like my style, “ignore them and move along, you won’t get anything out it the experience anyway”.

I’ve been making all these same arguments over the past couple of years and thankfully how found ways around the restrictive guidelines like making non-GPS related puzzles publishable simply by adding a GPS necessary WP to the listing. I choose not to let the limitations limit me, as many know, and while this occasionally leads to frustration and confusion by cachers unfamiliar with my style, others who are familiar are willing and eager to deal with whatever comes at them from an S|S placement for the stories they can tell after.

I will never understand the appeal of doing more than a couple dozen caches in a day and am pretty darn comfortable and happy getting one a day or whatever my rate is these days.

[Smashing Ground]

No more virtual placements and webcams,but we have souvenirs and Garmin chirps. seems like a fair trade 😕
I also respect veteran cache placers who have been through the gauntlet of being able to place a cache of a certain type/style one day and getting denied the next because of a new word interpretation.
I havnt been in the game long but enjoy hiding caches for others.”to bad I cant get a dollar from GS for every cache I put out or a dollar off of the premium fee for every 2 caches I put out in a year.”
Power Trail here I come!!!

[Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu]

Desert Cache Saturation: Just some incite from talking with Jeremy I. GS isn’t really the watchers over all the caches placed. That is up to the state approvers. I guess if there WAS an issue it could be brought up to them. GS created general guidelines that the Approvers SHOULD follow. I am thinking they have an Approver who doesn’t care about saturation. Kinda sad actually. 🙁

[CodeJunkie]

@Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu wrote:

Desert Cache Saturation: Just some incite from talking with Jeremy I. GS isn’t really the watchers over all the caches placed. That is up to the state approvers. I guess if there WAS an issue it could be brought up to them. GS created general guidelines that the Approvers SHOULD follow. I am thinking they have an Approver who doesn’t care about saturation. Kinda sad actually. 🙁

I always assumed the 0.1 mile rule was to deal with “saturation” and I believe that’s a GS requirement and not a local state issue. Good, bad, or otherwise this probably provides the desired separation distance.

[Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu]

@CodeJunkie wrote:

I always assumed the 0.1 mile rule was to deal with “saturation” and I believe that’s a GS requirement and not a local state issue. Good, bad, or otherwise this probably provides the desired separation distance.

The 0.1 rule is SUPPOSE to assist with that…but since Caching is a game, games have rules which most people abide by…. there are some who make up their own. Kinda like playing a card game….some people let you go out without tossing a last card and some require one discard.

So, in caching…..Stuff like a gazzillion on a desert highway occur. Sad but true 🙁 Geez…. and it’s not like the state isn’t BIG enough to put a bunch elsewhere LOL

While in Hawaii….we noted that the approvers do bend the 0.1 mile rule a bit….but then again if they didn’t and you lived there, you’d have an island done in no time!! The caches are not on top of each other in Oahu, but we did come across some that were close.

[Author]

Posts