opencaching.com new mascot...

[knowschad]

They changed it a while ago. It is an odd concept. With every positive vote your voting power seems to increase. With every negative vote your voting power appears to decrease. Not exactly a formula for honest review.

 

That's not how it works. The weight of the vote seems to be based on number of finds and/or hides. The number of votes given in the past doesn't apply.

 

Try it, you will be surprised.

 

Sorry brainsnat, you are dead wrong. I gave out more negative votes than dfx and I will tell you this, there is no decrease.

 

Perhaps they changed it again. Perhaps certain people are "super reviewers" and immune. I know what I saw. I'm not making it up.

I do seem to remember a post saying that they would be tweaking it for a while. It seems very probable that it has been changed since you saw that behavior.

 

Perhaps they need a rating system for their rating systems.

[+joranda]

They changed it a while ago. It is an odd concept. With every positive vote your voting power seems to increase. With every negative vote your voting power appears to decrease. Not exactly a formula for honest review.

 

That's not how it works. The weight of the vote seems to be based on number of finds and/or hides. The number of votes given in the past doesn't apply.

 

Try it, you will be surprised.

 

Sorry brainsnat, you are dead wrong. I gave out more negative votes than dfx and I will tell you this, there is no decrease.

 

Perhaps they changed it again. Perhaps certain people are "super reviewers" and immune. I know what I saw. I'm not making it up.

I do seem to remember a post saying that they would be tweaking it for a while. It seems very probable that it has been changed since you saw that behavior.

 

Perhaps they need a rating system for their rating systems.

 

Maybe they can add favorite points to the rating system. Just a idea.

[+Manville Possum]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

[+ArtieD]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

 

Cross-listing caches can create issues for cache finders because if a cache owner decides to disable or archive a cache but fails to do so on the other site, people can be going on a wild goose chase looking for a missing cache. Also, if caches are cross-listed, that means two sets of stats...I don't know about other folks, but I want one set of stats to manage and that's it.

[+Ecylram]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

 

Big issue for me is Travelbugs. If a travelbug gets into a crossposted cache, a member of another website will take the travelbug as SWAG and it won't get moved to another cache.

[jholly]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

I generate a PQ and go find caches. I log these on GC.com. Why would I bother with OC.com? Cross list all you want, but I have no incentive to "find" the cross listed caches.

[7rxc]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

 

Big issue for me is Travelbugs. If a travelbug gets into a crossposted cache, a member of another website will take the travelbug as SWAG and it won't get moved to another cache.

I guess you just hate it when one of our members does the same thing when visiting our listings, right?

 

One think I wonder about... is cross listing limited to COs who choose to cross list or is it happening wholesale... by others.

We have to register to see coordinates, it would not make sense to move the whole thing to an open framework that would allow anyone to view them... aside from voluntary cross listings by owners, which is different. I have to read back to get a better picture of this... I assume they are taking 'members' over there as well so it might not be so bad.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Ecylram]

They don't support travelbugs on their website so 'we' can't lose theirs (as OC travelbugs don't exist).

[+Manville Possum]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

 

Big issue for me is Travelbugs. If a travelbug gets into a crossposted cache, a member of another website will take the travelbug as SWAG and it won't get moved to another cache.

No, this is simply not true. I own over 100 trackables and they plainly stat "track at geocache.com" on them. Now how could a user possibly confuse this? Trackables end up as SWAG sooner or later anyway if released into the wild. Most users blame newbies, but I have trackables on my watchlist that have been in PM's inventory for years while they still geocache.

[+Manville Possum]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

I generate a PQ and go find caches. I log these on GC.com. Why would I bother with OC.com? Cross list all you want, but I have no incentive to "find" the cross listed caches.

I agree with you. But this works both ways also.

[+Sioneva]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

 

Big issue for me is Travelbugs. If a travelbug gets into a crossposted cache, a member of another website will take the travelbug as SWAG and it won't get moved to another cache.

 

Ah, good point. I think I will put a request on my TBs not to be dropped into caches listed on OC. Probably won't do much good, but you never know.

[+tozainamboku]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

 

Cross-listing caches can create issues for cache finders because if a cache owner decides to disable or archive a cache but fails to do so on the other site, people can be going on a wild goose chase looking for a missing cache. Also, if caches are cross-listed, that means two sets of stats...I don't know about other folks, but I want one set of stats to manage and that's it.

First issue, if an owner forgets that he cross listed his cache so he doesn't disable both listings thats a problem with owner maintenance not with cross listing. It has the same result as when a owner goes AWOL and doesn't disable or archive his missing caches on just one site.

 

As far as statistics, you could use an offline database like GSAK, but it also appears that Opengeocaching.com allows you to upload your finds from Geocaching.com and includes these in your stats whether or not the cache is cross listed. I have my doubts if uploading your My Finds query to another site is complying with the terms of the Waypoint License Agreement, but that's beside the point. If you want to maintain one combined set of statistics there are ways to do it.

[+Ecylram]

No, this is simply not true. I own over 100 trackables and they plainly stat "track at geocache.com" on them. Now how could a user possibly confuse this?

 

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I see no future for OC, right now it's surviving on what it can take from GC but that won't keep it afloat, and the posts I see on the OC Forums would scare any sane cacher away. I give it a year to live unless it morphs into a GC clone.

[+briansnat]

No, this is simply not true. I own over 100 trackables and they plainly stat "track at geocache.com" on them. Now how could a user possibly confuse this?

 

 

Then what would be the point of the TB hotel I saw in the OX queue this week?

[+Manville Possum]

No, this is simply not true. I own over 100 trackables and they plainly stat "track at geocache.com" on them. Now how could a user possibly confuse this?

 

 

Then what would be the point of the TB hotel I saw in the OX queue this week?

Personally I would have voted against it as I would a Earthcache or virtual cache or other items that are not supported on the site. But fact is fact, trackable items have the words "Trackable at geocaching.com" printed on them. What about pathtags? They have log at pathtags.com on them, should we not drop them in geocaches as SWAG but only trade amoungst other pathtag owners?

 

BTW: Send me the OX number if the cache was published and I will report it to the administrators. Until trackables are supported on the site TB Hotels should not be listed on the site.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+Sioneva]

No, this is simply not true. I own over 100 trackables and they plainly stat "track at geocache.com" on them. Now how could a user possibly confuse this?

 

 

Then what would be the point of the TB hotel I saw in the OX queue this week?

Personally I would have voted against it as I would a Earthcache or virtual cache or other items that are not supported on the site. But fact is fact, trackable items have the words "Trackable at geocaching.com" printed on them. What about pathtags? They have log at pathtags.com on them, should we not drop them in geocaches as SWAG but only trade amoungst other pathtag owners?

 

BTW: Send me the OX number if the cache was published and I will report it to the administrators. Until trackables are supported on the site TB Hotels should not be listed on the site.

 

So what are you trying to argue? That people should go to Opencaching.com because pathtags are logged at a different site? That geocoins should be treated as swag? That people shouldn't be confused? That losing geocoins/travel bugs is a known risk (granted) so owners shouldn't care if the risk is increased 100x times by getting dropped in an OC cache? Trying to pin down exactly what point you are trying to debate isn't easy.

 

Pathtags are designed to be dropped in caches and are traded/given out gratis freely, very few people ever track them. Unlike travel bugs and geocoins, which are NOT swag and are designed to be tracked, if placed in caches to move around - that is the whole point. If someone is a new geocacher and joins OC.com, they're not going to know about geocoins/TBs. I've put a disclaimer on my travellers, like I said above... I don't want them to disappear into the potential black hole of an OC cache, cross-listed or not.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Sioneva

[jholly]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

I generate a PQ and go find caches. I log these on GC.com. Why would I bother with OC.com? Cross list all you want, but I have no incentive to "find" the cross listed caches.

I agree with you. But this works both ways also.

But for it to work both ways you have to assume I would seek caches to find on OC.com. That is a serious leap of faith.

[+Manville Possum]

So what are you trying to argue? That people should go to Opencaching.com because pathtags are logged at a different site? That geocoins should be treated as swag? That people shouldn't be confused? That losing geocoins/travel bugs is a known risk (granted) so owners shouldn't care if the risk is increased 100x times by getting dropped in an OC cache? Trying to pin down exactly what point you are trying to debate isn't easy.

 

Pathtags are designed to be dropped in caches and are traded/given out gratis freely, very few people ever track them. Unlike travel bugs and geocoins, which are NOT swag and are designed to be tracked, if placed in caches to move around - that is the whole point. If someone is a new geocacher and joins OC.com, they're not going to know about geocoins/TBs. I've put a disclaimer on my travellers, like I said above... I don't want them to disappear into the potential black hole of an OC cache, cross-listed or not.

 

I'm not trying to argue anything at all, or am I suggesting that you use the Opencaching.com site. My point is simple that if a user finds a trackable, it has instructions as to what site to log it on. Why would a new user on OC.com be any less intellegent than a new user on GC.com? If a new user starts geocaching, I think that they would be 100x more likely to join a well known and proven site like GC.com and not a little known new site like OC.com. You dropped your trackable into a potential black hole when it left your posession.

[+WhoDis]

I'm not trying to argue anything at all, or am I suggesting that you use the Opencaching.com site. My point is simple that if a user finds a trackable, it has instructions as to what site to log it on. Why would a new user on OC.com be any less intellegent than a new user on GC.com? If a new user starts geocaching, I think that they would be 100x more likely to join a well known and proven site like GC.com and not a little known new site like OC.com. You dropped your trackable into a potential black hole when it left your posession.

Because GC.com talks about trackables and explains them, OC.com doesn't?

[+joranda]

I'm not trying to argue anything at all, or am I suggesting that you use the Opencaching.com site. My point is simple that if a user finds a trackable, it has instructions as to what site to log it on. Why would a new user on OC.com be any less intellegent than a new user on GC.com? If a new user starts geocaching, I think that they would be 100x more likely to join a well known and proven site like GC.com and not a little known new site like OC.com. You dropped your trackable into a potential black hole when it left your posession.

Because GC.com talks about trackables and explains them, OC.com doesn't?

 

I would bet that 99% of the cachers on OC also caches at GS so I think they would know how to handle a TB. When you throw a TB or GC out in the wild you stand the chance that it will become MIA. Look at my TBs owned and see how many have come up MIA. It happens. That is why GS sells them by the hundreds.

[+joranda]

No, this is simply not true. I own over 100 trackables and they plainly stat "track at geocache.com" on them. Now how could a user possibly confuse this?

 

 

Then what would be the point of the TB hotel I saw in the OX queue this week?

 

I will try and find it. If I do find it I will add a GC to the number and I bet it is a cache already list on GS as a TB hotel. I will let me know what I find out.

[+addisonbr]

So what are you trying to argue? That people should go to Opencaching.com because pathtags are logged at a different site? That geocoins should be treated as swag? That people shouldn't be confused? That losing geocoins/travel bugs is a known risk (granted) so owners shouldn't care if the risk is increased 100x times by getting dropped in an OC cache?

The best solution is to attach clear instructions to any traveling item, pointing folks to the proper website for tracking. I think it's a big risk to release a geocoin or TB without a laminated explanation sheet ("This is not a trade item", etc.) under any circumstances.

 

Coins and bugs go missing all the time even without significant presence from other listing sites. It's not obvious to me that with clear attached instructions that new users of either website are any more or less likely to be able to understand them. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I'm personally giving users of other sites benefit of the doubt out of the gate.

[+Sioneva]

I probably did overreact about putting a notice on the TBs, but I'll just let it stand as is. Like joranda said, 99% of the people on Opencaching.com are also on GC, and so are 99% of the caches. (which really makes me wonder what the point is, but anyway, that's a different argument ).

 

Should the remaining 1% who are exclusive to OC.com be expected to open a GC account just to log someone else's Travellers, if/when they learn what a traveller is? I wouldn't, if the situation was reversed. Best case for that 1% is to ignore them, worst case, they disappear. Which, as I already admitted is an occupational hazard, but I don't see why trying to cut down on that risk, even a little bit, is such a bad thing?

[+addisonbr]

Which, as I already admitted is an occupational hazard, but I don't see why trying to cut down on that risk, even a little bit, is such a bad thing?

I suppose it would depend on how we were trying to cut down on that risk. By adding clear notes and etc. to Travel Bugs explaining their purpose and requesting that they only be placed in certain types of caches, sure. I think that's perfectly sensible.

[+joranda]

I probably did overreact about putting a notice on the TBs, but I'll just let it stand as is. Like joranda said, 99% of the people on Opencaching.com are also on GC, and so are 99% of the caches. (which really makes me wonder what the point is, but anyway, that's a different argument ).

 

Should the remaining 1% who are exclusive to OC.com be expected to open a GC account just to log someone else's Travellers, if/when they learn what a traveller is? I wouldn't, if the situation was reversed. Best case for that 1% is to ignore them, worst case, they disappear. Which, as I already admitted is an occupational hazard, but I don't see why trying to cut down on that risk, even a little bit, is such a bad thing?

 

I would bet it is more like 70% of the caches on OC are cross listed with GS. I think it is great that GS allows the cross listing to happen. They must have the same feelings on caching as OC.

[Mr.Yuck]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

 

No comment on the Travel bug thing, which I think is a very minor issue that's being blown out of proportion. But why is Cross-listing a bad thing? Two words: Navicache. OK, maybe that's one word. Navicache, established in 2002, is pretty much nothing but a cross-listed wasteland, in pretty much every place in the world where caches are listed on it. I don't have any statistics, and I think they'd be impossible to get, but I'll bet 90%-95% of Navicache's 15,000 or so active listings are cross-listed on Geocaching.com. Forget about disabled caches, the Navicache listings are littered with caches that have been long since archived on Geocaching.com, for years in many cases I have seen. There is no "plan" for doing anything about this, and even if a local "reports" these caches to Navicache HQ, HQ will then in turn email the owners to make sure the caches are still not there, before archiving them.

 

Terracaching.com forbids cross-listing (although I know of dozens within a couple hundred miles of me that are cross-listed), and Opencaching.us strongly discourages cross-listing. And even if an opencaching.us listing is cross-listed, there is a plan in place (the site is still only 5 months old). I guess I think of Opencaching.com as Navicache on steroids, as far as the cross-listing.

[+joranda]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

 

No comment on the Travel bug thing, which I think is a very minor issue that's being blown out of proportion. But why is Cross-listing a bad thing? Two words: Navicache. OK, maybe that's one word. Navicache, established in 2002, is pretty much nothing but a cross-listed wasteland, in pretty much every place in the world where caches are listed on it. I don't have any statistics, and I think they'd be impossible to get, but I'll bet 90%-95% of Navicache's 15,000 or so active listings are cross-listed on Geocaching.com. Forget about disabled caches, the Navicache listings are littered with caches that have been long since archived on Geocaching.com, for years in many cases I have seen. There is no "plan" for doing anything about this, and even if a local "reports" these caches to Navicache HQ, HQ will then in turn email the owners to make sure the caches are still not there, before archiving them.

 

Terracaching.com forbids cross-listing (although I know of dozens within a couple hundred miles of me that are cross-listed), and Opencaching.us strongly discourages cross-listing. And even if an opencaching.us listing is cross-listed, there is a plan in place (the site is still only 5 months old). I guess I think of Opencaching.com as Navicache on steroids, as far as the cross-listing.

 

And with more money under their belt too. Can't forget that.

[+joranda]

No, this is simply not true. I own over 100 trackables and they plainly stat "track at geocache.com" on them. Now how could a user possibly confuse this?

 

 

Then what would be the point of the TB hotel I saw in the OX queue this week?

 

I will try and find it. If I do find it I will add a GC to the number and I bet it is a cache already list on GS as a TB hotel. I will let me know what I find out.

 

Drum roll please.

 

OX1MVVA = GC1MVVA

OX14B0Z = GC14B0Z

OX1W05E = GC1W05E

OX2A3Y5 = GC2A3Y5

OX2AT7M = GC2AT7M

OX1R0M2 = GC1R0M2

OX28HMT = GC28HMT

OX19CEX = GC19CEX

OXZ6CD = GCZ6CD

OX16FXG = GC16FXG

OX16MGD = GC16MGD

OXYXH9 = GCYXH9

 

There are 12 TB hotels listed on OC and they are all cross listed from GS. So the chance of your TB becoming MIA is about the same as it being muggled. There are no OX only caches that are stated as a TB hotel so I think someone is doing something right over there.

[Mr.Yuck]

Why is cross-listing geocaches a bad thing? I don't see any issue as to what site you use for geocaching. I do like some sites better than others. But from a basic member stand point all sites are quite similar are'nt they?

 

No comment on the Travel bug thing, which I think is a very minor issue that's being blown out of proportion. But why is Cross-listing a bad thing? Two words: Navicache. OK, maybe that's one word. Navicache, established in 2002, is pretty much nothing but a cross-listed wasteland, in pretty much every place in the world where caches are listed on it. I don't have any statistics, and I think they'd be impossible to get, but I'll bet 90%-95% of Navicache's 15,000 or so active listings are cross-listed on Geocaching.com. Forget about disabled caches, the Navicache listings are littered with caches that have been long since archived on Geocaching.com, for years in many cases I have seen. There is no "plan" for doing anything about this, and even if a local "reports" these caches to Navicache HQ, HQ will then in turn email the owners to make sure the caches are still not there, before archiving them.

 

Terracaching.com forbids cross-listing (although I know of dozens within a couple hundred miles of me that are cross-listed), and Opencaching.us strongly discourages cross-listing. And even if an opencaching.us listing is cross-listed, there is a plan in place (the site is still only 5 months old). I guess I think of Opencaching.com as Navicache on steroids, as far as the cross-listing.

 

And with more money under their belt too. Can't forget that.

 

Well, you certainly got me there. Garmin is the first corporate entity to try to compete with Geocaching.com, as opposed to people doing it on their own as a "labor of love", i.e. Navicache, GPSGames.org, Terracaching.com, and the mostly European Opencaching family of websites, whose latest member is opencaching.us. When Terracaching.com almost threw in the towel and shut down at the end of 2010, it was announced that it costs $1,200 per year to run the Terracaching.com website. I think we're probably talking about a couple of more big time playa's here with Garmin vs. Groundspeak.

[+joranda]

That is all it takes to run a caching site, $120o a year. It really makes one ponder the idea.

[+Ecylram]

So, let me get this straight...

 

Joe N00b buys a Garmin GPS for hiking. Garmin tells him that he can visit their OC website and play a game called "Geocaching". He carefully reads through the site and finds:

 

If you want to take something from the cache, be sure to have something to leave behind for the next person to find.

 

So, Joe, drives to the site and finds a container with all kinds of cool SWAG. He takes a dogtagged sports car he thinks his kid will like and leaves a shiny dime (there's no mention on OC about trading even or trading up).

 

From here the argument is...

 

1. He pays close enough attention to read the information on the back of the dog tag.

2. He follows the instructions on the back of the tag and goes to "Groundspeak.com" and learns more.

3. Figures out to enter the Travel bug number on the page.

4. Gets taken to the trackable page where he clicks on "Found this item? Log in."

5. Gets taken to the "Log In to Geocaching.com" webpage and find the link to "Create a Membership".

6. He clicks on the link and gets the "Geocaching.com MEMBERSHIP" page.

7. He clicks on the "Free Membership" button in the middle of the page.

8. He is taken to the Membership Registration page where he is to fill out a registration form. So he...

9. Creates a username.

10. Enters his password.

11. Enters his password again.

12. Enters his email address.

13. Reenters his email address.

14. Puts in his first name.

15. Puts in his last name.

16. Ignores the 'Referred by:' line.

17. Doesn't select the "Groundspeak Weekly Newsletter".

18. Clicks "I Have Read and Agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Statement"

19. Then Clicks "Create My Account".

20. Now, he navigates back to the trackable page.

21. Joe then figures out he needs to click on "Add a Log Entry".

22. Manages to select the correct log type: "Retrieved from..."

23. Selects date.

24. Correctly enters the tracking code.

25. Adds a comment.

26. Clicks "Submit Log Entry".

27. Up to now nothing has really told him he needs to drop it in another GC cache but he, somehow, figures this out and goes about this.

28. So, Joe clicks around the website until he finds a page which shows GC geocaches in his area.

29. Happens to select a geocache that is large enough to hold a travelbug.

30. Drives to the geocache.

31. Drops off the travelbug.

32. Goes back home and logs back into Geocaching.com

33. Manages to select the correct log type.

34. Selects date.

35. Correctly enters the tracking code.

36. Adds a comment.

37. Clicks "Submit Log Entry".

38. Goes and grabs a beer because he just spent hours dealing with a toy he bought for a dime and his kid is crying.

 

Or...

 

1. Joe finds a geocoin.

2. Keeps it.

 

And you really don't think GC trackables will get lost in the OC system because of a cross-posted cache? Really??

Edited January 27, 2011 by Ecylram

[+addisonbr]

That is all it takes to run a caching site, $120o a year. It really makes one ponder the idea.

Maybe one that gets as little traffic as Terracaching.com. Running a site that gets the activity that (say) geocaching.com gets would be orders of magnitude more.

[+Ecylram]

That is all it takes to run a caching site, $120o a year. It really makes one ponder the idea.

Maybe one that gets as little traffic as Terracaching.com. Running a site that gets the activity that (say) geocaching.com gets would be orders of magnitude more.

 

Yearly equipment costs for a redundent system, colocation fees, consulting fees, operating software, database software, bandwidth costs, web designers, database engineers, network engineers, etc. for a site of this size would total several hundred thousand dollars a year. Then factor in the support staff (40+ total Groundspeak employees) and the costs of running an office.

 

It ain't cheap to run a site like this.

[+addisonbr]

Joe N00b buys a Garmin GPS for hiking. Garmin tells him that he can visit their OC website and play a game called "Geocaching". He carefully reads through the site and finds:

 

"If you want to take something from the cache, be sure to have something to leave behind for the next person to find."

...

 

1. He pays close enough attention to read the information on the back of the dog tag.

...

38. Goes and grabs a beer because he just spent hours dealing with a toy he bought for a dime and his kid is crying.

 

Or...

 

1. Joe finds a geocoin.

2. Keeps it.

 

And you really don't think GC trackables will get lost in the OC system because of a cross-posted cache? Really??

I don't see a marked difference between a new GC.com user and a new OC.com user. (The instructions for finding a cache on GC.com, here, don't mention anything about TBs either - they just say "If you trade for items, remember to trade for something that is of equal or greater value.").

 

In both cases I think the smart play is to attach a laminated instruction card to any bugs or coins clearly explaining that it's not a trade item, and outlining the types of caches you'd like for it to visit. I don't think that will *prevent* screwups from new users on either site, but haven't seen anything that suggests that new users of OC.com are either less able to follow instructions or less honest than new users of GC.com.

[+Ecylram]

I don't see a marked difference between a new GC.com user and a new OC.com user. (The instructions for finding a cache on GC.com, here, don't mention anything about TBs either - they just say "If you trade for items, remember to trade for something that is of equal or greater value.").

 

In both cases I think the smart play is to attach a laminated instruction card to any bugs or coins clearly explaining that it's not a trade item, and outlining the types of caches you'd like for it to visit. I don't think that will *prevent* screwups from new users on either site, but haven't seen anything that suggests that new users of OC.com are either less able to follow instructions or less honest than new users of GC.com.

With all due respect, there is a huge difference. Those who use the Geocaching.com website have already setup their accounts. They found the cache through the Geocaching website and they have been exposed to the concept of trackables. They will also default to dropping their trackable into another Geocaching.com listed cache. That takes away 90+% of the variables in properly logging the trackable. Much of the learning curve has been handled before the trackable was retrieved.

 

A N00b OC cacher is using a different system with a different account and no exposure to trackables and has to follow a significant amount of steps correctly to take care of that trackable. It would be foolish to think there won't be trackables lost to this system.

 

As a side note on the tag idea, you can't retroactively add tags to the 100,000's of travelbugs and geocoins that are already in circulation.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Ecylram

[+addisonbr]

With all due respect, there is a huge difference. Those who use the Geocaching.com website have already setup their accounts. They found the cache through the Geocaching website and they have been exposed to the concept of trackables. They will also default to dropping their trackable into another Geocaching.com listed cache. That takes away 90+% of the variables in properly logging the geocache. Much of the learning curve has been handled before the trackable was retrieved.

 

A N00b OC cacher is using a different system with a different account and no exposure to trackables and has to follow a significant amount of steps correctly to take care of that trackable. It would be foolish to think there won't be trackables lost to this system.

 

As a side note on the tag idea, you can't retroactively add tags to the 100,000's of travelbugs and geocoins that are already in circulation.

I hear what you're saying. And I don't deny that there may be some trackables lost to new OC.com users. But I think it has a lot more to do with "new users" than with all of the extra steps that an OC.com user would have to take to properly log a trackable at GC.com. When trackables go missing I think it's overwhelmingly because (1) honest cachers thought they were trade items, (2) dishonest cachers stole them, and (3) the cache got muggled or destroyed. I don't think it's often because someone with good intentions got confused/overwhelmed by a different web site.

 

I think a good explanation card takes care of (1) for most, and there's little that can be done about (2) or (3). (I'm less convinced than others might be that simply being a member of GC.com means that people understand how trackables work - I get it theoretically, but in a practical sense I still see new GC.com users mishandle trackables all the time.)

 

I'm not saying that people who simply send TBs out into the world without an explanation card are doing anything *wrong*, but it's a risk I wouldn't take.

 

So anyway, I do think it will be a factor, but my gut says it's a very small one compared with the other reasons trackables go missing.

[+Ecylram]

Speaking of Geocoins...

 

Garmin ran a promotion to get people to place caches on the OC website. To get the free gift you had to place a cache and post it to their website then send in a picture of yourself with the cache.

 

So guess what the free gift was...

 

A Geocoin that is only usable on the Geocaching.com website. That's like entering a contest at GM and the winner gets a Toyota.

[+Sioneva]

Speaking of Geocoins...

 

Garmin ran a promotion to get people to place caches on the OC website. To get the free gift you had to place a cache and post it to their website then send in a picture of yourself with the cache.

 

So guess what the free gift was...

 

A Geocoin that is only usable on the Geocaching.com website. That's like entering a contest at GM and the winner gets a Toyota.

 

Could it be we're all wrong? That OC.com is nothing more or less than a devious, backhanded scheme to steer more people to geocaching.com? Imagine the disappointment, if so! It's a conspiracy! A conspiracy, I tell you!

[+addisonbr]

I'm guessing it'll be a while before we see any more Garmin products offered as prizes in geocaching.com contests... ah the good ol' days.

[+geodarts]

Could it be we're all wrong? That OC.com is nothing more or less than a devious, backhanded scheme to steer more people to geocaching.com? Imagine the disappointment, if so! It's a conspiracy! A conspiracy, I tell you!

 

In a brief visit to see what the other site was about, I saw a post on the forum for the .com version of opencaching that suggested having events at the same time and location as events listed through this web site so that they could proselyte others into becoming opencachers. Conspiracy upon conspiracy?

 

Still, perhaps the conspiracy extends beyond Jeremy or Garmin. If you opencache, you might be drawn into geocaching and you might find a letterbox hybrid and be drawn into that. I suspect that the real power driving a conspiracy is a letterboxer who lives in an underground command center deep into the Dartmoor woods, leading us all to some predetermined end that results in somebody taking over the world. The possibilities are endless once you combine Groundspeak's fleet of black helicopters and platinum caching squadrons with Garmin's ability to program their units to set off a number of Manchurian Candidate missions.

 

But (perhaps closer to the topic) is my real question: has the .com version of opencaching resulted in more Garmin handheld sales or the expanded use of chirps? At a time when Garmin's earnings did not live up to expectations, after their own entry into the smartphone world proved to be a debacle and formally abandoned, when their apps were late in hitting the iphone market, when automotive sales are in decline -- this may be the bottom line for the future of that site. And if you can use the handy opencaching iphone app instead of buying a real gpsr . . . .

Edited January 27, 2011 by mulvaney

[+joranda]

I don't see a marked difference between a new GC.com user and a new OC.com user. (The instructions for finding a cache on GC.com, here, don't mention anything about TBs either - they just say "If you trade for items, remember to trade for something that is of equal or greater value.").

 

In both cases I think the smart play is to attach a laminated instruction card to any bugs or coins clearly explaining that it's not a trade item, and outlining the types of caches you'd like for it to visit. I don't think that will *prevent* screwups from new users on either site, but haven't seen anything that suggests that new users of OC.com are either less able to follow instructions or less honest than new users of GC.com.

With all due respect, there is a huge difference. Those who use the Geocaching.com website have already setup their accounts. They found the cache through the Geocaching website and they have been exposed to the concept of trackables. They will also default to dropping their trackable into another Geocaching.com listed cache. That takes away 90+% of the variables in properly logging the trackable. Much of the learning curve has been handled before the trackable was retrieved.

 

A N00b OC cacher is using a different system with a different account and no exposure to trackables and has to follow a significant amount of steps correctly to take care of that trackable. It would be foolish to think there won't be trackables lost to this system.

 

As a side note on the tag idea, you can't retroactively add tags to the 100,000's of travelbugs and geocoins that are already in circulation.

 

Tell that to two newbie GS cachers that picked up my TBs and kept them after they found it in a cache. I have learned long ago, once in the wild they are up to fate to make it.

 

I really don't think a TB or Geocoin sitting in either cache has any more to worry about than what will happen to them either ways.

[+joranda]

Could it be we're all wrong? That OC.com is nothing more or less than a devious, backhanded scheme to steer more people to geocaching.com? Imagine the disappointment, if so! It's a conspiracy! A conspiracy, I tell you!

 

In a brief visit to see what the other site was about, I saw a post on the forum for the .com version of opencaching that suggested having events at the same time and location as events listed through this web site so that they could proselyte others into becoming opencachers. Conspiracy upon conspiracy?

 

Still, perhaps the conspiracy extends beyond Jeremy or Garmin. If you opencache, you might be drawn into geocaching and you might find a letterbox hybrid and be drawn into that. Perhaps the real power driving a conspiracy is a letterboxer who lives in an underground command center deep into the Dartmoor woods, leading us all to some predetermined end that results in somebody taking over the world.

 

But (perhaps closer to the topic) is my real question: has the .com version of opencaching resulted in more Garmin sales or the expanded use of chirps? At a time when Garmin's earnings did not live up to expectations, after their own entry into the smartphone world proved to be a debacle and formally abandoned, when their apps were late in hitting the iphone market, when automotive sales are in decline -- this may be the bottom line for the future of that site.

 

I think that is called spreading the word. You know, word of mouth. OC doesn't have event caches.

 

So you did find the thread that Garmin is going under and selling to China?

[+joranda]

Speaking of Geocoins...

 

Garmin ran a promotion to get people to place caches on the OC website. To get the free gift you had to place a cache and post it to their website then send in a picture of yourself with the cache.

 

So guess what the free gift was...

 

A Geocoin that is only usable on the Geocaching.com website. That's like entering a contest at GM and the winner gets a Toyota.

 

I think it is nice that they are cleaning out their draws and giving things away. I don't think Garmin has a problem with GS.

[+joranda]

So, let me get this straight...

 

Joe N00b buys a Garmin GPS for hiking. Garmin tells him that he can visit their OC website and play a game called "Geocaching". He carefully reads through the site and finds:

 

If you want to take something from the cache, be sure to have something to leave behind for the next person to find.

 

So, Joe, drives to the site and finds a container with all kinds of cool SWAG. He takes a dogtagged sports car he thinks his kid will like and leaves a shiny dime (there's no mention on OC about trading even or trading up).

 

From here the argument is...

 

1. He pays close enough attention to read the information on the back of the dog tag.

2. He follows the instructions on the back of the tag and goes to "Groundspeak.com" and learns more.

3. Figures out to enter the Travel bug number on the page.

4. Gets taken to the trackable page where he clicks on "Found this item? Log in."

5. Gets taken to the "Log In to Geocaching.com" webpage and find the link to "Create a Membership".

6. He clicks on the link and gets the "Geocaching.com MEMBERSHIP" page.

7. He clicks on the "Free Membership" button in the middle of the page.

8. He is taken to the Membership Registration page where he is to fill out a registration form. So he...

9. Creates a username.

10. Enters his password.

11. Enters his password again.

12. Enters his email address.

13. Reenters his email address.

14. Puts in his first name.

15. Puts in his last name.

16. Ignores the 'Referred by:' line.

17. Doesn't select the "Groundspeak Weekly Newsletter".

18. Clicks "I Have Read and Agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Statement"

19. Then Clicks "Create My Account".

20. Now, he navigates back to the trackable page.

21. Joe then figures out he needs to click on "Add a Log Entry".

22. Manages to select the correct log type: "Retrieved from..."

23. Selects date.

24. Correctly enters the tracking code.

25. Adds a comment.

26. Clicks "Submit Log Entry".

27. Up to now nothing has really told him he needs to drop it in another GC cache but he, somehow, figures this out and goes about this.

28. So, Joe clicks around the website until he finds a page which shows GC geocaches in his area.

29. Happens to select a geocache that is large enough to hold a travelbug.

30. Drives to the geocache.

31. Drops off the travelbug.

32. Goes back home and logs back into Geocaching.com

33. Manages to select the correct log type.

34. Selects date.

35. Correctly enters the tracking code.

36. Adds a comment.

37. Clicks "Submit Log Entry".

38. Goes and grabs a beer because he just spent hours dealing with a toy he bought for a dime and his kid is crying.

 

Or...

 

1. Joe finds a geocoin.

2. Keeps it.

 

And you really don't think GC trackables will get lost in the OC system because of a cross-posted cache? Really??

 

Sounds like that guy, "Joe" was not impressed by what he seen at the .com of that address on the TB to take the time to make a profile. He must not of really been into caching anyways if he did not take a minute to make a account. Poor guy, he don't know what he is missing.

[+joranda]

That is all it takes to run a caching site, $120o a year. It really makes one ponder the idea.

Maybe one that gets as little traffic as Terracaching.com. Running a site that gets the activity that (say) geocaching.com gets would be orders of magnitude more.

 

Yearly equipment costs for a redundent system, colocation fees, consulting fees, operating software, database software, bandwidth costs, web designers, database engineers, network engineers, etc. for a site of this size would total several hundred thousand dollars a year. Then factor in the support staff (40+ total Groundspeak employees) and the costs of running an office.

 

It ain't cheap to run a site like this.

 

 

So does it cost at least 20,000,000.00 to run this site a year?

[Mr.Yuck]

That is all it takes to run a caching site, $120o a year. It really makes one ponder the idea.

Maybe one that gets as little traffic as Terracaching.com. Running a site that gets the activity that (say) geocaching.com gets would be orders of magnitude more.

 

I should say, the WEB HOSTING BILL For Terracaching.com was (is) $1,200 per year. Of course you have to buy your own servers, volunteer your own time, boss around the other volunteers etc....

 

Hey my favorite internet radio station claims it only costs $2,000 per year to run it, and yes, they do actually pay royalty fees. These people make is sound so easy, don't they?

[+geodarts]

I think that is called spreading the word. You know, word of mouth. OC doesn't have event caches.

 

So you did find the thread that Garmin is going under and selling to China?

 

Just like they do not have earthcaches or virtuals ... perhaps "yet" should be the operative word since the site is relatively new. But the point of the post I saw was to suggest that they start to have them. And while I did not see the thread about Garmin selling to China, it does raise the interesting - but off topic - speculation about whether they would move from the Cayman Islands.

 

The Cayman connection does remind me of an early John Grisham novel. But it probably has little to do with opencaching.

Edited January 27, 2011 by mulvaney

[+joranda]

I think that is called spreading the word. You know, word of mouth. OC doesn't have event caches.

 

So you did find the thread that Garmin is going under and selling to China?

 

Just like they do not have earthcaches or virtuals ... perhaps "yet" should be the operative word since the site is relatively new. But the point of the post I saw was to suggest that they start to have them. And while I did not see the thread about Garmin selling to China, whether they would move from the Cayman Islands is another subject onto itself.

 

I know that I wouldn't.

[+Manville Possum]

I'm not trying to argue anything at all, or am I suggesting that you use the Opencaching.com site. My point is simple that if a user finds a trackable, it has instructions as to what site to log it on. Why would a new user on OC.com be any less intellegent than a new user on GC.com? If a new user starts geocaching, I think that they would be 100x more likely to join a well known and proven site like GC.com and not a little known new site like OC.com. You dropped your trackable into a potential black hole when it left your posession.

Because GC.com talks about trackables and explains them, OC.com doesn't?

You have a good point. But do you really belive that GC noobies read the knowledge books before going phone caching? Phone apps are the reason that Garmin has got into the geocache game trying to sell more GPS units. This is also the reason for Chirps. Garmin is not trying to compete with GC.com and become THE ONLY geocache listing service. Also as stated before, trackables have instructions as to what site to log them on. I will post a thread in the OC forums on how to log a trackable if you think that will help.