Pulling caches from GC.com backfired?

leek · Post by **leek** » 19 April 05 1:28 am

The Garner Family wrote:
The simple fact that geocaching.com feels the need to have a rule that restricts you from having a cache within 160m of another says it all for me...
Why do you think they put a rule like this in place? You think they did it just to spite people or be difficult. I think you'll find that the rules they've come up with have been done to ensure that the quality of the sport remains. Without that rule, one day, you'll have 20 plastic boxes thrown behind trees in a park by the one hider... the majority of finders will rate it as 'fantastic' because they get 20 finds at once... gc.com.au will be a terrible place for caching if it allows that sort of thing.

Without rules there is anarchy... the utopian society of people living in harmony and making there own rules has never existed and never will. A sport needs rules and at the end of the day most sports flourish only when a governing body takes the time to set those rules.

Congrats Garners.. You picked on one very very small point of my message and managed to misinterpret it... I hope you are proud...

The reason that I find it sad that geocaching.com has the distance rule is that it automatically implies that geocachers would have the disrespect to place a cache within 160m of another cacher's creation in the first place.

Geocaching.com.au will never need such a rule because such a rule should be unnecessary if a community is self governing...

(OK... the first person to mention my one and only cache that broke the 160m rule gets a smack!!! - while it broke the letter of the law - I don't think it broke the spirit!)

EcoTeam · Post by **EcoTeam** » 19 April 05 2:05 am

leek wrote: Geocaching.com.au will never need such a rule because such a rule should be unnecessary if a community is self governing...

There is no such thing as a self governing community. Communities are always dominated by the vocal few, and they are the ones that end up making the rules and driving the direction of the community.
CGA will end up with rules just like GC.com, it's only a matter of time, it's only personal opinion as to which rules are good and which ones are bad. It only takes one or two instances to stir the pot and force change.

I think GC.com have made a few bad calls, but overall I think they have done a reasonable job out of a tough situation. GCA will end up the same, it will never please everyone either, it's just not possible. If you take the growth of GC.com as an example, it will take a few years before the rules get tighter and tighter, but it will happen here, make no mistake. They might be Australian flavoured rules, but they are still rules, and rules are always a compromise.

We have already had at least one major player spit the dummy and refuse to be involved with GCA in any way shape or form, forum included, so it's not just a one way movement here.

The only way to avoid listing rules is to have a decentralised listing system (P2P based) were everyone hosts their own caches. Then you don't need any rules, everyone takes responsibility for their own cache listing.

EcoDave

Team Red Devil · Post by **Team Red Devil** » 19 April 05 2:30 am

Okay- my opinion:

One:

Or if they do they're a tiny minority of anal geeks

I'm one of those anal geeks. I will use google, then maybe yahoo if I don't find what I want on one or the other.

Two: For me the thing is- with no cache restrictions- then someone who is new, or for some reason has a grudge, or is just a total wanker *Scuse my french* can go in and F$$k up someones well thought out, well planned cache by sticking a cache nearby (in fact they could put it in the same place!!!!) Personally, I think this would ruin the sport for any newbie out hunting, imagine finding two different caches in the same spot!! I would be a tad disillusioned by that as a newbie....which would create less people interested in the sport- which isn't a good thing.

Marie

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 19 April 05 8:16 am

I have been called many things during my life, but up until now, selfish has never been one of them. If I had been selfish about the whole issue I could have removed all of my caches. I didn't, and my caches are still being found.........

If you don't want to do any GCA listed caches then don't, I will respect your decision.

So please respect mine to list MY caches where I want.

[/quote]

The Garner Family · Post by **The Garner Family** » 19 April 05 8:44 am

I have been called many things during my life, but up until now, selfish has never been one of them.

Obviously people who have placed quality caches are giving back to the community. I'm sure no-one is deliberately trying to be selfish by archiving caches on the main site, but as I said in the previous post, by doing so, all that has been achieved is to make a political statement at the expense of maximum cache enjoyment by other cachers. Intentionally or not, I still see this is as an uncharacteristically selfish act by those who did so.

EcoTeam · Post by **EcoTeam** » 19 April 05 8:57 am

leek wrote: The reason that I find it sad that geocaching.com has the distance rule is that it automatically implies that geocachers would have the disrespect to place a cache within 160m of another cacher's creation in the first place.

It doesn't automatically imply that to me, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps the rule was set up originally as a safety net to ensure that caches don't accidently end up on top of each other?

A listing site would always need a rule like that. Even CGA should have it, so that when you list your cache it automatically searches for nearby caches (even pending ones) to ensure that none are close. It could then pop up with a message alerting the user that there is a nearby cache - "Are you sure you wish to proceed?" etc.

EcoDave

[/b]

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 19 April 05 9:24 am

The Garner Family wrote:
I have been called many things during my life, but up until now, selfish has never been one of them.
Obviously people who have placed quality caches are giving back to the community. I'm sure no-one is deliberately trying to be selfish by archiving caches on the main site, but as I said in the previous post, by doing so, all that has been achieved is to make a political statement at the expense of maximum cache enjoyment by other cachers. Intentionally or not, I still see this is as an uncharacteristically selfish act by those who did so.

So are you calling Ideology, who by the way fund this forum out of their own pocket, selfish? Because they no longer wish to list their caches on the geocaching.com site, but are willing to list the gc.com caches here(all be it in an abbreviated format) to give you free access to the stats and the better maps than what gc.com give us?

So, if you are not going to do the caches, why are we arguing about where the caches are listed? If you don't want to do them, then don't. Time to get over the fact of where the caches are listed, there are more geocache listing sites than just geocaching.com or GCA, I could have listed my caches with Navicache, which gets even less utilisation.

The Garner Family · Post by **The Garner Family** » 19 April 05 10:04 am

So are you calling Ideology, who by the way fund this forum out of their own pocket, selfish?

I'm not calling anyone selfish... I'm calling the action a selfish action. There's no doubt that ideology has done something great for the caching community & there is no doubt that leek has made a major contribution to the geocaching community... but that doesn't exempt them from doing things that may be selfish, albeit with the best intentions.

So, if you are not going to do the caches, why are we arguing about where the caches are listed?

Because we're trying to promote geocaching in Australia and make the sport better. It's not just about what you or I want (ironically that is the definition of selfishness) but what is best for the sport.

belken · Post by **belken** » 19 April 05 10:14 am

The definition of being selfish is more along the line of being chiefly concerned with ones own interest or pleasure. Leeks or SG actions don't really fit into the definition as there actions were taken taking into account others interest. It may be vindivtive or spiteful.

However choosing not do a GCA cache as it doesn't add to a GC cache count does fit the definition. Wanting to find all listings on one site to make it easier for yourself would also fit the definition.

The actions taken by these people accelerated the ability to list caches on an alternative site. The future will come and what happens will happen.

As for those Frenchmen that Marie mentions at this moment I believe they would only come from the GC site. People like myself use both sites and check for caches on both sites and place caches taking this into account. If a GCA cache existed at the location would a GC only lister take that into account.

Post by **CraigRat** » 19 April 05 10:16 am

The Garner Family wrote:Obviously people who have placed quality caches are giving back to the community. I'm sure no-one is deliberately trying to be selfish by archiving caches on the main site, but as I said in the previous post, by doing so, all that has been achieved is to make a political statement at the expense of maximum cache enjoyment by other cachers. Intentionally or not, I still see this is as an uncharacteristically selfish act by those who did so.

I've kept out of this so far, but I'll give my 2 cents worth....

geocaching.com is A source for geocaches, not THE source for geocaches, just as geocaching.com.au and terracache.com....

I can't see your reasoning why these people are being selfish... the caches are still there in most cases and are there for all to enjoy... they now just happen to reside on a different site..

Selfish would be to pull the caches, physically remove them and archive for all eternity.

I'm happy to do caches on ANY site, and I consider my find count to be ANY caches found on ANY site.

Choice is a good thing, no one site should have the monopoly.

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 19 April 05 10:18 am

Well then I believe that choice of where to list a cache is better for the sport/hobby. You make a choice everyday on what to eat, drink, wear, and where to obtain those goods. Why then, do you believe that lack of choice is better, when it comes to where people should list their caches ?

The guidelines of gc.com? sorry I disagree with some of them. So when it came out that GCA was working on some limited guidelines people got up in arms over it, or was that because we were doing it behind closed doors(which was the wrong way of going about it) so the guidelines were abandoned. Yet here we are, some people are now arguing that if GCA is to work we now need guidelines..

Now my wife asked me this question and I'll pass it onto you..

Why are we Australians supporting that US based site when we have an Australian site that caters to us?

EcoTeam · Post by **EcoTeam** » 19 April 05 10:41 am

swampgecko wrote:Now my wife asked me this question and I'll pass it onto you..

Why are we Australians supporting that US based site when we have an Australian site that caters to us?

That one is easy to answer.
The vast majority do not care about the Aust/US rivalry thing, nor do they care who owns or runs the listing site. When they place a cache they do it so their fellow cachers can have the pleasure of finding it.
At present, if they list on gc.com then *every* cacher gets to see it (even GCA players), if they list on GCA then only a limited number of cachers get to see it. For most cachers the choice at present is a no-brainer.

There are many cachers (myself included) who are caught up in the dilemma of wanting to support GCA by listing caches, but we also don't want to disadvantage our fellow cachers or have fewer people find our caches. At present the later arguments wins out for most.

There are only two ways to fix that situation:
1) Have the majority swap to GCA at once (that ain't going to happen any time soon)
2) Have a backfeed from GCA into GC.com (that won't happen in a blind fit)

EcoDave

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 19 April 05 10:51 am

Catch22

This is what i am hearing "I'll support the GCA site, but only if everyone else does, but few people are supporting the GCA site, so I won't........"

around and around we go.......... when will it stop?

The Garner Family · Post by **The Garner Family** » 19 April 05 11:05 am

swampgecko wrote:Why are we Australians supporting that US based site when we have an Australian site that caters to us?

It's not like the 'US' site doesn't give us own our moderators, or our own forums, or treat us like second class citizens. Obviously they don't want to allow different rules for every country so need to come up with something that suits the majority.

To be honest I see gc.com as the 'global' site and gc.com.au as the Australian site. Frankly as part of this game I like the global interaction and that's why I prefer the global site.

As for the Australian site catering for us: It certainly does that in the provision of stats and great searching tools, but I don't see any benefits that listing caches does for it. I can understand others like to list caches that wouldn't fit the gc.com rules, but I would rather play inside the global rules.

If you met someone who geocacahes in fictionland & they said to you that they'd done 10,000 caches... more than anyone else in the world... but these were all from the fictionland geocaching site which has different rules than your site or the gc.com site... how can you even begin to compare the game he's playing to yours... he might be playing a totally different game to you entirely. That is how foreigners will look on the gc.com.au cachers in 2010 when you go to attend the world geocaching convention & quote the number of gc.com.au cache you've found.

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 19 April 05 11:44 am

Maybe I don't want to play the game the way the US site wants it played.. which means I don't really want to play the way you, Garner Family, seem to want everyone else to play the game.

Which means we will have to agree to disagree on the subject.

I shall leave you to play the game the way you want, as long as you leave me alone to play it the way I want to play it, and just maybe we will both be happy, now if that means that you have to ignore any caches that are listed on GCA so be it. You also have the option to use the forums associated with the US site as well, I prefer to use these forums as they deal with the Australian way of playing geocaching no matter where the caches are listed. You may also notice that very few threads/discussions are censored or locked down in here, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing.