Jump to content

Commercial Content?


Recommended Posts

I've done quite a few puzzle caches that have been published within the past couple of years that required me to watch a YouTube video created by the CO to figure out the coordinates. Now as we all know, YouTube is a free service, however sometimes before watching a video you're required to sit through an annoying advertisement.

 

Now I'm just wondering, would you consider a cache that requires you to watch a YouTube video a violation of the guidelines?

 

My personal opinion would be yes, that's got to be a guideline violation considering there's occasional advertisements. This would fall under "commercial content". But if that's the case then how could they have been published?

 

Now the reason I pose this question is because I recently created a flash game specifically for a puzzle cache. After working on it for some time, and submitting the cache, it came to my knowledge that when accessing the game, the site I used will sometimes make you watch an advertisement similar to that of a YouTube video. I'm a contributing member to the site, and didn't realize that if I'm signed in, I don't see those advertisements. Others who would visit without signing in would have a short splash screen before the game would start.

 

I completely respect the reviewer's decision to deny my cache, as the advertisement before playing is something I would consider a guidelines violation. There is no doubt in my mind that he did the right thing to not publish my cache as it is. What I don't understand is how so many "YouTube" video puzzles have been published with the same sort of advertisements in the recent past. I'm familiar with the "just because it was published before" concept, but the YouTube puzzles in question were published under the current "commercial content" guidelines. Not to mention that I've seen another published as recent as last month.

Is this something that's being overlooked in the review process, or am I missing something entirely?

 

I'm not here to complain about my cache being denied, I'm totally okay with that and will adjust it to conform with the guidelines. However, I would like to further my understanding of the guidelines. Especially the "commercial content" guideline. I'd like to hear some other opinions and possibly an explanation as to why one would be permissible and the other is not.

Link to comment

The difference is that with your site, only members can skip the ads. Non members must watch them. On YouTube, all users have to view the ads, which happens to be from the same people Groundspeak uses(Adsense I think it is)

 

There is also the fact that YouTube is well known and trusted, being owned by Google. You have not mentioned what website you use, but there are people who won't go to anything they don't know. And not knowing that website, I can only guess what the ads are like. But to the reviewer, it may have seemed you where directing people to the website in order to have them look at the ads. You can always appeal the decision of the reviewer...

 

IMO the YouTube ad's are in the same category as any form of outdoor advertising. By banning those, you might as well only allow caches that are not within viewing distance of an outdoor ad of some form(good luck with that).

Link to comment

And another thing that came to mind- they are guidelines. The reviewers do have some leeway, how much they give is up to them though. For example, if I place a cache in front of an ice cream shop and call it something related to ice cream, that would be allowed. But if I say "Grab some Ice Cream at XYZ while caching." That would violate the guidelines. If my hint is something like "you might want to enjoy some ice cream" that could go either way. It may be seen as commercial, or it may be seen as a subtle hint that it's in front of the ice cream place. Just to give you an example of how it might happen..of course the best person to ask about why someone did something, is the person who did that thing, ie your reviewer.

Link to comment

Now I'm just wondering, would you consider a cache that requires you to watch a YouTube video a violation of the guidelines?

 

My personal opinion would be yes, that's got to be a guideline violation considering there's occasional advertisements. This would fall under "commercial content". But if that's the case then how could they have been published?

Groundspeak exempts certain websites from their commercial content guidelines (e.g., YouTube, some puzzle verification sites, Wikipedia). According to one forum regular, 99.98461% of cache owners understand exactly which are exempt, so there's no need for further explanations. Welcome to the 0.01539% club!

Link to comment

The difference is that with your site, only members can skip the ads. Non members must watch them. On YouTube, all users have to view the ads, which happens to be from the same people Groundspeak uses(Adsense I think it is)

I don't think that's the explanation. There are many websites that force all users to view the ads (including Adsense ads) that Groundspeak considers to be "commercial content."

Link to comment

The difference is that with your site, only members can skip the ads. Non members must watch them. On YouTube, all users have to view the ads, which happens to be from the same people Groundspeak uses(Adsense I think it is)

 

There is also the fact that YouTube is well known and trusted, being owned by Google. You have not mentioned what website you use, but there are people who won't go to anything they don't know. And not knowing that website, I can only guess what the ads are like. But to the reviewer, it may have seemed you where directing people to the website in order to have them look at the ads. You can always appeal the decision of the reviewer...

 

IMO the YouTube ad's are in the same category as any form of outdoor advertising. By banning those, you might as well only allow caches that are not within viewing distance of an outdoor ad of some form(good luck with that).

 

So let's say nobody is a member of either site. That person has to watch an ad regardless. The fact that members can skip ads should be beside the point since we're under the assumption that whoever is viewing the page is neither a member of YouTube or sploder (the flash site I used).

 

On another note, I wasn't aware that Groundspeak was affiliated with YouTube in any way shape or form. I've never seen a commercial on geocaching.com, however the last YouTube video I watched (which was to figure out the coordinates of a cache listed on gc.com) I had to first watch a thirty second ad/commercial for a popular automobile maker before I could access the information I needed to solve the puzzle. How is that not commercial? Having to watch a commercial after clicking a link on a cache page that brings you to what you need to solve the puzzle is much different than walking past a billboard.

 

Also.... I thought I made it pretty clear that I agree with my local reviewer. I agree that you shouldn't have to watch a commercial not affiliated with geocaching before getting the information you need to solve a puzzle. I have no reason to appeal the decision to deny my cache. The commercial content on sploder.com isn't much different from that of YouTube is what I'm getting at. My question was that why is this commercial content Okay to have to watch to get to a puzzle solution, but this other commercial content is not allowed?

 

I'd like to clarify that I'm not referring to a banner ad on geocaching.com or anything like that. I mean the caches I'm referring to require watching YouTube videos to get the coordinates. That means you'll be required to watch an ad at some point.

Link to comment

Geocaching HQ made a special exception to the Commercial guidelines in order to permit the publication of caches that rely on YouTube videos. So, the reviewers who are publishing such caches are doing the right thing. There are other similar, common sense exceptions such as DeLorme Challenge caches (DeLorme being a business name).

 

There is no similar exception for Flash animation sites, so the reviewers who are questioning the ads on those pages are also doing the right thing.

Link to comment

Now I'm just wondering, would you consider a cache that requires you to watch a YouTube video a violation of the guidelines?

 

My personal opinion would be yes, that's got to be a guideline violation considering there's occasional advertisements. This would fall under "commercial content". But if that's the case then how could they have been published?

Groundspeak exempts certain websites from their commercial content guidelines (e.g., YouTube, some puzzle verification sites, Wikipedia). According to one forum regular, 99.98461% of cache owners understand exactly which are exempt, so there's no need for further explanations. Welcome to the 0.01539% club!

 

If that's the case then I feel pretty stupid being a CO with over 100 hides. Is there a list somewhere of approved commercial content that I'm missing?

Link to comment

Geocaching HQ made a special exception to the Commercial guidelines in order to permit the publication of caches that rely on YouTube videos. So, the reviewers who are publishing such caches are doing the right thing. There are other similar, common sense exceptions such as DeLorme Challenge caches (DeLorme being a business name).

 

There is no similar exception for Flash animation sites, so the reviewers who are questioning the ads on those pages are also doing the right thing.

 

Thank you Keystone. I appreciate the detailed explanation. I didn't think my reviewer was wrong at any point,nor do I hold any disdain towards him. I just didn't know if there was something I was missing and now I realize that there was.

 

Thanks again for the clarification.

Link to comment

 

On another note, I wasn't aware that Groundspeak was affiliated with YouTube in any way shape or form. I've never seen a commercial on geocaching.com, however the last YouTube video I watched (which was to figure out the coordinates of a cache listed on gc.com) I had to first watch a thirty second ad/commercial for a popular automobile maker

 

I was sure that Groundspeak used the service I mentioned, (which technically is Google, although Google does own YouTube) for geocaching specific ads, such as those from Landsharkz, and other geocaching related businesses. But now checking on it I don't see anything. I could have sworn I've seen them before....Weird.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...