Double Standard

2.1k · July 20, 2004

Before you hit that reply button, read this and think about it for a bit.

Whenever a number of voices in our community gather support for an idea, they push it here as a desired change for the site. If that idea is completely feasible but does not comply with the wishes and wants of the administration, TPTB and other TPTB drum-beaters remind everyone that this is a business. Its sole responsibility is to itself and there are other minnows in the pond if we don't like riding the whale. We should do it ourselves or make do here but the leviathan has its own mind and will do as it wishes. Pay the bills and stay out of the way.

Whenever a complaint with the business comes down the pike, invariably it falls on the first level of interactors with the clients of said business: the approvers and moderators (and often one and the same people). Then, the same drum-beaters admonish with reminders that this is a community. These are volunteers that have lives and just want to have fun with the rest of the community. How can you strike out at one of your own? Even the man who has made this all possible is just one man who loves geocaching so much to have provided this great community center for all to use!

There is a significant double standard that I'm unsure I can relate to any other venture I've ever seen much of before. Is it "We, the geocaching people, in order to form a more perfect website..." or "We, the heretoaforementioned account holders "us" do indemnify non compis mentis habeus corpus Groundspeak, Inc, FDIC, LLD..."? Is it only about community when the community agrees with the direction and goals of the business? Is it only about business when the business acts against the wants of the community? Can there really be a middle ground where looking from one side of the issue does not force a double standard on the other? Does the community make the game or does this business define the game this community will play?

1.8k · July 20, 2004

I'm not a TPTB drum-beater. :blink: I'm a geocaching.com forum vulture. Myself and the rest of the forum vultures are 'Geocaching.com's Noble Caretakers'. Yes, we clean-up the dead, dying, disease infested, maggot filled, gas bloated vermin that constantly finds a way to attack the lifeblood of our favorite sport ... the unsung heros ... the volunteer moderators and approvers. We are the Noble Caretakers.

So the next time you are out caching, be sure and look up to the skies, chances are, you'll see one of us keeping a close eye on you.

2.1k · July 20, 2004

...

Completely Off Topic. Please keep this crap out of this thread from here on out. Thanks.

1.8k · July 20, 2004

...

Completely Off Topic. Please keep this crap out of this thread from here on out. Thanks.

Don't see it being off-topic at all. Your lame topic is so incredibly boring and well, lame, I thought the picture of a vulture was most appropriate. Thanks.

22k · July 20, 2004

I think you took the long way around to arrive at the same answer. Groundspeak is a business and Geocaching is a community game. Groundspeak sets its policies and offers products based on its own paradigm. It is not obligated to be directed by the wants and wishes of geocachers outside of its own interests and costs. I’d write more, but I’m going to lunch now.

1.4k · July 20, 2004

But GC.com does listen to ideas. In fact it has implemented a bunch of them. The unfortunate truth is that there are a few forums users that feel they know better than anyone else how GC.com should be run. These few forum users make proposals in their own best interest. Some of them are hungry to have their name attached to something they can point to as "Their contribution to Geocaching" others are looking for the best way to create a competing site that they can feel godlike at. The problem with these few forum users is that they complain the loudest when they’re told the idea is not going to be used.

When you find out that GC.com doesn’t like your idea move on. When you submit an idea and then complain about it not being accepted you lose respect. After a while you are ignored. Some forum users will never understand that.

Geocaching can continue to grow. It can grow here and elsewhere.

July 20, 2004

Does the community make the game or does this business define the game this community will play?

Right now, it seems the business is defining the game this community will play- based on what it is willing to implement as features and the "guidelines" that govern within this site.

Nice post CP........ :blink:

22k · July 20, 2004

...

Completely Off Topic. Please keep this crap out of this thread from here on out. Thanks.

Don't see it being off-topic at all. Your lame topic is so incredibly boring and well, lame, I thought the picture of a vulture was most appropriate. Thanks.

A stirring pot photo might be in order too.

38.2k · July 20, 2004

I think you're confusing the business end of this, i.e., Groundspeak, with the community end, i.e., the users. The admins are in both worlds, because as geocachers they are a part of the community, yet as unpaid volunteers, they represent Groudspeak. They have a foot in both worlds so if they are criticized (esp. when unfairly), their friends in the community are apt to defend them.

You're right when you have a hard time relating this to any other venture. It isn't.

How many businesses have unpaid volunteers doing much of the work? I can't think any off the bat. Geocaching.com is unique because it was started by geocachers to provide the geocaching community with a service. I became a business when the demands of running a growing website required that it did.

Many of the decisions made by Groudspeak regarding rules and standards came about out of necessity. They probably would have made those decisions whether or not it was a business, because they felt they were in the best interest of the sport. In fact many of the decisions were very unpopular with the geocaching community, so obviously were not business driven.

Edited July 20, 2004 by briansnat

July 20, 2004

Don't see it being off-topic at all. Your lame topic is so incredibly boring and well, lame, I thought the picture of a vulture was most appropriate

So forum vultures can get awy with this I guess........ :blink: Moderator.....buehler?

9.4k · July 20, 2004

I'm not a TPTB drum-beater. I'm a geocaching.com forum vulture. Myself and the rest of the forum vultures are 'Geocaching.com's Noble Caretakers'. Yes, we clean-up the dead, dying, disease infested, maggot filled, gas bloated vermin that constantly finds a way to attack the lifeblood of our favorite sport ... the unsung heros ... the volunteer moderators and approvers. We are the Noble Caretakers.

So the next time you are out caching, be sure and look up to the skies, chances are, you'll see one of us keeping a close eye on you.

<image snipped>

I couldn't have said that better myself, Clearpath. And I'm not just saying that because Ju66ler hates me.

It's true that this site is run like a business. What's wrong with that? I can go down to Wal-Mart and tell them how I think it should be run. They have every right to ask me to leave, or they can be polite about it and say, "No thanks."

Maybe my suggestions would turn them from a billion-dollar company to a trillion dollar company. Maybe it would cause them to go bankrupt. Either way, by ignoring unsolicited ideas, they remain just as profitable tomorrow as they are today.

20.7k · July 20, 2004

... The admins are in both worlds, because as geocachers they are a part of the community, yet as unpaid volunteers, they represent Groudspeak. They have a foot in both worlds so if they are criticized (esp. when unfairly), their friends in the community are apt to defend them. ...

Actually, what we see is that they are defended whether they are right or wrong.

It must be remembered that, even though they are not paid, they are representatives of Groundspeak. As such, they should be expected to act professionally and give outstanding service at all times. Theirs is a service business, after all.

1.8k · July 20, 2004

But GC.com does listen to ideas. In fact it has implemented a bunch of them. The unfortunate truth is that there are a few forums users that feel they know better than anyone else how GC.com should be run. These few forum users make proposals in their own best interest. Some of them are hungry to have their name attached to something they can point to as "Their contribution to Geocaching" others are looking for the best way to create a competing site that they can feel godlike at. The problem with these few forum users is that they complain the loudest when they’re told the idea is not going to be used.

When you find out that GC.com doesn’t like your idea move on. When you submit an idea and then complain about it not being accepted you lose respect. After a while you are ignored. Some forum users will never understand that.

Geocaching can continue to grow. It can grow here and elsewhere.

Amen, Harrald. I too see that TPTB have open ears. Why must some of us disguise forum topics as legitmate discussion, when in fact they are a thinly veiled attempt to bash our TPTB?

BTW-I was using 'forum vulture' in a sarcastic tone. Respectful, but still sarcastic.

Juggler - sorry I called your topic lame and boring.

1.5k · July 20, 2004

I'm not totally clear on what you want ju66l3r... Do you want Groundspeak to listen to and implement your ideas because they are good ones... cite an example of this double standard please!

As a general rebuttal (and mostly paraphrasing that which is already said): Yes, GC.Com/Groundspeak is a business. BUT it is a business that IMHO does it's best to keep the interests of it's supporters/customers (that's you and I) in mind, while still making enough money to keep upgrading the servers and buy a couple of liters of hi-test for Jermey's Vespas.

Of course we all have ideas that we think are good ones, and would like to see implemented, but let's be realistic... How many players, times how many ideas... How have you broached your ideas? Have you put them down in a logical, well-thought out proposal, and after floating them here, forwarded them on to TPTB?

I think the balance between profit-making business and customer service here is probably about the best I have seen anywhere. Think of all the things that TPTB could do to increase profits and be more business like. You could have to pay X dollars/month just to be able to download waypoints...

Bottom line: GC.com/Groundspeak is offering (Note: That's offering!) a service. If someone doesn't like, they can always try Navicache. If I don't like K-Mart, I go to Wal-Mart... same thing I thinks...

Edited July 20, 2004 by tirediron

7.2k · July 20, 2004

Don't see it being off-topic at all. Your lame topic is so incredibly boring and well, lame, I thought the picture of a vulture was most appropriate

So forum vultures can get awy with this I guess........ Moderator.....buehler?

I don't see his post as a problem. He stated his opinion on the original post. He only called himself a vulture as opposed to the original poster who called people that don't agree with him "drum beaters". :blink: If there is a problem here it would be with the tone of the original post in my opinion.

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

7.2k · July 20, 2004

Looks like a lot of people missed the point entirely. :blink:

1.5k · July 20, 2004

Looks like a lot of people missed the point entirely.

How so?

7.2k · July 20, 2004

Is it the community driving the site or is the site driving the community?

The point I got was some arguments are answered with "it's done this way because it's a business." Others are answered by "it's a community."

Gimme a break. Right now, gc.com is pretty much the only game in town. Thereby they set the rules of how the game is played, and what is and isn't allowed. You don't like it? Tough! Not very supportive of the community if you ask me.

On the other hand, an approver gets out of line, then it's "oh, the poor little approver has so much to do and so much to put up with. He's just a poor little volunteer just trying to help out the community." (Said in my best whiny voice.) Not very business like if you ask me.

So which is it?

If it was really about community, disputed caches wouldn't be discussed behind closed doors and gc.com's word wouldn't be final. It would be put up for a vote and that would be the final word.

This isn't about a democracy, or even a republic; it's a dictatorship. How many benevolent dictatorships where really for the good of the people?

July 20, 2004

But GC.com does listen to ideas. In fact it has implemented a bunch of them. The unfortunate truth is that there are a few forums users that feel they know better than anyone else how GC.com should be run. These few forum users make proposals in their own best interest. Some of them are hungry to have their name attached to something they can point to as "Their contribution to Geocaching" others are looking for the best way to create a competing site that they can feel godlike at. The problem with these few forum users is that they complain the loudest when they’re told the idea is not going to be used.

When you find out that GC.com doesn’t like your idea move on. When you submit an idea and then complain about it not being accepted you lose respect. After a while you are ignored. Some forum users will never understand that.

Geocaching can continue to grow. It can grow here and elsewhere.

You know what I am hearing from you? Blah blah blah....SURE they listen to the caching community...that's why we can't list Virtuals or Locationless anymore, and more rules are being pushed on us everyday...

So you say that geocaching will grow, then you rip others for starting up different caching sites, saying they are acting "godlike"....well, which is it? You can't have it both ways, so make up your mind: is it a good thing or not?

Yes, geocaching WILL grow, to other sites that one day will be linked together and truly free up caches and return the listing power to the cache owner.

July 20, 2004

Secret Cacher may I remind you:

Sock Puppet accounts will not be allowed. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts will be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak.

1.5k · July 20, 2004

Interesting take CR. I think that there's an important point that's being missed. Yes, GC.com is a business, and yes, it is here because of the community. Is it for the community? Hmmmm... well, everyone has their opinion on that topic.

The point I got was some arguments are answered with "it's done this way because it's a business." Others are answered by "it's a community."

Why can't that be true? From my (admitiedly limited) observation, where possible and practical, things are done for the community at large (and remember, someone has to make a judgement call on what that is) and where necessary, things are done for the good of the business (Wouldn't want Jeremy to run out of gas halfway to work now would we?)

If it was really about community, disputed caches wouldn't be discussed behind closed doors and gc.com's word wouldn't be final.

It would be nice if we could all debate the merits of each disputed 'cache, but let's be realistic. If you don't designate a final authority in a situation like this, you would never resolve anything.

On the other hand, an approver gets out of line, then it's "oh, the poor little approver has so much to do and so much to put up with.

Ummm.. I think that the approver's probably get more than their fair share of bashing, but there is a lot of merit to the "They're unpaid volunteers with a lot to do" statement. I know that I would never have the time to put in that some of them do.

9.4k · July 20, 2004

You know what I am hearing from you? Blah blah blah....SURE they listen to the caching community...that's why we can't list Virtuals or Locationless anymore, and more rules are being pushed on us everyday...

Virtuals: Just as many people hate them as love them. Doesn't sound like win-win for the site either way.

Locationless: Current server can't accomodate the anticipated increase in volume of caches listed if these were to come back.

Really, these types would each need their own server. Servers cost money. If you're holding back on supporting the site until they have those servers it will take much longer. Quit whining about it. If you're already a paying member, encourage others to join. This upgrades on this site are limited to the funds available.

9.1k · July 20, 2004

Yep, there sure is a double standard. And until the site volunteers are allowed to start a new forum topic for every instance where they are flamed, cussed out or otherwise attacked for trying to do their job, that double standard will continue to exist.

7.2k · July 20, 2004

It would be nice if we could all debate the merits of each disputed 'cache, but let's be realistic. If you don't designate a final authority in a situation like this, you would never resolve anything.

Of course there needs to be a final authority. GC.com has to protect itself from legal entanglements. GC.com can also say "the tribe had spoken."

Just resently there was a proposal for "proxy logging." The idea was soundly shot down by the community. So, the community can police itself.

On the other hand, there have been rules that were "handed down" with no input from the community. They saw a problem and issued a policy--even if a lot of us didn't see it as a problem! It seems a lot of these policies were to quell complaints about issues that weren't really issues, or ones that could have been handled in a much better way.

7.2k · July 20, 2004

Yep, there sure is a double standard.

Lep, you know customer service is always a one-way street. :blink:

9.4k · July 20, 2004

On the other hand, there have been rules that were "handed down" with no input from the community. They saw a problem and issued a policy--even if a lot of us didn't see it as a problem! It seems a lot of these policies were to quell complaints about issues that weren't really issues, or ones that could have been handled in a much better way.

You know, about a year ago I was saying this same thing. You know what? TPTB don't share every email they get with all of us. How do you know they didn't get many private complaints by people that didn't want to post it in the forums?

7.2k · July 20, 2004

Virtuals: Just as many people hate them as love them. Doesn't sound like win-win for the site either way.

I seem to recall TPTB pulled defeat from the jaws of victory by restricting virts instead of allowing a physical to go in within the 528' proximity rule.

There are other examples.

Creating the proximity rule inself instead of highly encouraging placers to mark their caches and logbooks, and strongly suggesting folks confirm they have the right cache. (Not saying it wouldn't be considered poor form to place a cache right next to another one, but it shouldn't be a rule.)

(...hell, just had a brain fart, but there are two or three others. Need to get back to work, so that's all for now.)

7.2k · July 20, 2004

On the other hand, there have been rules that were "handed down" with no input from the community. They saw a problem and issued a policy--even if a lot of us didn't see it as a problem! It seems a lot of these policies were to quell complaints about issues that weren't really issues, or ones that could have been handled in a much better way.

You know, about a year ago I was saying this same thing. You know what? TPTB don't share every email they get with all of us. How do you know they didn't get many private complaints by people that didn't want to post it in the forums?

Yeah, I know. Just like the "graphic siggy complains" and the tons of emails they got.

Yet, not the first complaint in the forums that I saw. You know, the place they were complaining about? That's not to mention the fact you can turn off the siggy!

1.5k · July 20, 2004

Just resently there was a proposal for "proxy logging." The idea was soundly shot down by the community. So, the community can police itself.

Can you imagine trying to get a majority of 'cachers to agree on anything? I can't thing of a single, real issue that I have seen posted in the forums that didn't go off on at least three of four serious tangents.

The difference with your example was that the community perceived an attack, and rallied. Not too likely in here unless there is the proposition of a hostile takeover by Navicache, and even then, I'm doubtful... :blink:

6.4k · July 20, 2004

Creating the proximity rule inself instead of highly encouraging placers to mark their caches and logbooks, and strongly suggesting folks confirm they have the right cache. (Not saying it wouldn't be considered poor form to place a cache right next to another one, but it shouldn't be a rule.)

You think thats the only issue? Even as an avid geocacher, if I was a land manager I would start putting my foot down if tupperware started showing up every 30ft. If you don't think that would happen, just look at cacheville or the infamous power trails where every cache is 530' apart.

I'm sure if there was no guideline someone would be hiding them every 52.8ft and eventually the parks would ban caches. I think all the rules in place here are also to protect the game itself.

July 20, 2004

I think all the rules in place here are also to protect the game itself.

Like the infamous "WOW" factor?

:blink:

1.8k · July 20, 2004

Whenever a number of voices in our community gather support for an idea, they push it here as a desired change for the site. If that idea is completely feasible but does not comply with the wishes and wants of the administration, TPTB and other TPTB drum-beaters remind everyone that this is a business. Its sole responsibility is to itself and there are other minnows in the pond if we don't like riding the whale. We should do it ourselves or make do here but the leviathan has its own mind and will do as it wishes. Pay the bills and stay out of the way.

You make it sound like "conspiracy theory." TPTB set up forum controversies to clear the air about.....

ou know what I am hearing from you? Blah blah blah....SURE they listen to the caching community...that's why we can't list Virtuals or Locationless anymore, and more rules are being pushed on us everyday...

So you say that geocaching will grow, then you rip others for starting up different caching sites, saying they are acting "godlike"....well, which is it? You can't have it both ways, so make up your mind: is it a good thing or not?

Four-Square, guys. It's Four-Square rules. I'm licensed to sub in 14 school districts, and I can tell you that Four-Square rules are different on every playground. No standard exists. On one ground, you can carry the ball IF you jump in the air. On another, you can just carry it. On another, you have to call it. I don't think anywhere it is still played like it used to be. The point is, without a standard, baseball isn't baseball. In the NBA they might start carrying the BB....Oh, well...Let's have a game with some standards - you obey the rules so that other have to too.

4k · July 20, 2004

But GC.com does listen to ideas. In fact it has implemented a bunch of them. The unfortunate truth is that there are a few forums users that feel they know better than anyone else how GC.com should be run. These few forum users make proposals in their own best interest. Some of them are hungry to have their name attached to something they can point to as "Their contribution to Geocaching" others are looking for the best way to create a competing site that they can feel godlike at. The problem with these few forum users is that they complain the loudest when they’re told the idea is not going to be used.

When you find out that GC.com doesn’t like your idea move on. When you submit an idea and then complain about it not being accepted you lose respect. After a while you are ignored. Some forum users will never understand that.

Geocaching can continue to grow. It can grow here and elsewhere.

You know what I am hearing from you? Blah blah blah....SURE they listen to the caching community...that's why we can't list Virtuals or Locationless anymore, and more rules are being pushed on us everyday...

So you say that geocaching will grow, then you rip others for starting up different caching sites, saying they are acting "godlike"....well, which is it? You can't have it both ways, so make up your mind: is it a good thing or not?

Yes, geocaching WILL grow, to other sites that one day will be linked together and truly free up caches and return the listing power to the cache owner.

Ya know, I read the rules when I first started, and have read them several times since, and they are the same as they were the day I started. Nothing has been added that I know of since November of 2003. Even as a sock puppet, making generalizations such as that don't help your cause, and making completely false, intentionally misleading generalizations is even worse.

As for Harrald's comments, I couldn't agree more. Harrald and I have had our differences, as most of you know, but he speaks the truth here, and speaks it well. Much as I hate him, I've got to give him a pat on the back for that post. He did, however, leave out one other important faction: those who start a thread asking for something simply for the purpose of stirring the pot. Maybe one of these days, TPTB will implement a rule against bringing spoons into the forums. :blink:

Edited July 20, 2004 by Sparky-Watts

9.4k · July 20, 2004

I think all the rules in place here are also to protect the game itself.

Like the infamous "WOW" factor?

No, the WOW factor is in place to keep the number of virtuals low until such time as the site has the server capacity to handle them. It won't happen overnight, and I've been told not to expect it this year

7.2k · July 20, 2004

On the other hand, an approver gets out of line, then it's "oh, the poor little approver has so much to do and so much to put up with. He's just a poor little volunteer just trying to help out the community." (Said in my best whiny voice.) Not very business like if you ask me.

I'm going to address this from my experiences as a cache reviewer for quite some time for the site.

I have seen reviewers come and go. I have seen them leave by their own ad volition and I have seen them removed as well. The later has not happened that often, but it has happened. There is no big forum topic that has lead to it. The issues are ones that came up without people in the forums pointing fingers and then TPTB responding. Not only do we have to tread lightly in the forums (our every word is picked apart by some people here), but we have to be very careful in our duties so that we perform them in the way TPTB would like us to. I have gone too far once a long time ago and I got an email from Jeremy. It wasn't handled in any public manner. It was handled in private, which I appreciated. I understood what he expected of me and learned from the experience. I'm sure that there have been times when other reviewers have gotten similar emails. I don't need to know about those emails or the issues around them. It is none of my business.

Trust me, TPTB are very much business like. The fact that you don't see public admonishments attest to that fact in my opinion. I appreciate that. If issues arise they are not glossed over by TPTB, and I can speak from experience in that matter.

4k · July 20, 2004

I think all the rules in place here are also to protect the game itself.

Like the infamous "WOW" factor?

No, the WOW factor is in place to keep the number of virtuals low until such time as the site has the server capacity to handle them. It won't happen overnight, and I've been told not to expect it this year

Where'd you get that? My understanding was that the "WOW" factor was to prevent tennis shoes and dead bird carcass virtuals, not just to limit the actual number of virtuals. It was to prevent the lame ones, not just numbers, in other words.

20.7k · July 20, 2004

I've got to agree with the cat. Are you getting news that we're missing?

9.4k · July 20, 2004

I think all the rules in place here are also to protect the game itself.

Like the infamous "WOW" factor?

No, the WOW factor is in place to keep the number of virtuals low until such time as the site has the server capacity to handle them. It won't happen overnight, and I've been told not to expect it this year

Where'd you get that? My understanding was that the "WOW" factor was to prevent tennis shoes and dead bird carcass virtuals, not just to limit the actual number of virtuals. It was to prevent the lame ones, not just numbers, in other words.

It serves both purposes. It keeps "Name to size and brand tennis shoe" virtual away (rightfully so). It also keeps the "every town has an historical marker like this one" away.

Since there is no subjective guideline for traditional caches, you can place "another fake sprinkler" in any town with no limit (except the 0.1 mile guideline)

20.7k · July 20, 2004

It serves both purposes. It keeps "Name to size and brand tennis shoe" virtual away (rightfully so). It also keeps the "every town has an historical marker like this one" away. ...

I kinda see these as the same thing. They both speak to the quality of the cache.

I just have never seen any official word that these types of virts were being denied temporarily until new server capacity was added.

July 20, 2004

I just have never seen any official word that these types of virts were being denied temporarily until new server capacity was added.

I hadnt seen that either- However the point here being- this is Hardware related-

Not Game related.

9.4k · July 20, 2004

It serves both purposes. It keeps "Name to size and brand tennis shoe" virtual away (rightfully so). It also keeps the "every town has an historical marker like this one" away. ...

I kinda see these as the same thing. They both speak to the quality of the cache.

I just have never seen any official word that these types of virts were being denied temporarily until new server capacity was added.

That's because business decisions are often not made public until they go into effect.

Remember when Jeremy said something like "The new map server will be up in May"? It ended up being delayed many months. Now he won't comment on dates just in case that happens again.

9.4k · July 20, 2004

It serves both purposes. It keeps "Name to size and brand tennis shoe" virtual away (rightfully so). It also keeps the "every town has an historical marker like this one" away. ...

I kinda see these as the same thing. They both speak to the quality of the cache.

There is no limit on the quality of a traditional cache though. That's because this business prefers to list traditional caches over virtuals.

Edited July 20, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

20.7k · July 20, 2004

I realize that we are so off topic that I can't even remember what it was but, how has it been communicated that the virtual cache requirements were hardware related?

7.2k · July 20, 2004

I tell you, I agree that this is going way off topic. I wish it could get back to the topic and off of virtual caches specifically.

9.4k · July 20, 2004

I realize that we are so off topic that I can't even remember what it was but, how has it been communicated that the virtual cache requirements were hardware related?

Private conversations with admins. There is a lot that goes on "behind the scenes".

The virtual thing has more than one part to it:

Of course, one part is that virtuals don't bring money in. With a traditional you can buy stuff from the store to place in a cache. You can also buy stickers to mark your containers and logbooks that say "Geocaching.com" on them. From this particular business standpoint, virtuals don't make a lot of sense.

Second, it takes up space on the server to list virtuals. The business would prefer to list things that make money over things that don't. If the traditional-cache server got full, they would add-on or replace it immediately. There's no real hurry to give virtuals more space. Sorry if you don't agree with that, but that's how a business should run.

Now, you can say that some people come here for the virtuals and that some of them are paying members, so virtuals are bringing in some money. The reality is that traditionals (and the cachers that hunt them) are the largest source of funds for the site. I can't blame them for marketing the site towards those people.

** Please note that the above are my opinions and interpretations of this site based on reading many forum posts and engaging in private conversations with some of the admins.

edit: Sorry, Mtn-Man. You posted while I was typing. The above information can be used to show why the business runs the way it does, even though it only specifically addresses virtuals.

Edited July 20, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

20.7k · July 20, 2004

Don't you think its funny when people attempt to explain 'business practices' to others without knowing the background of their audience? I do.

July 20, 2004

The OP asks" Does the community make the game or does this business define the game this community will play?

<snip>Sorry if you don't agree with that, but that's how a business should run.

<snip>The above information can be used to show why the business runs the way it does,

It appears many feel that this business is defining this game we play. (and seem OK with that) Business decisions are Not Game based. Changing the Game to meet business needs doesnt seem likely to work - at least not firever.....

9.4k · July 20, 2004

Don't you think its funny when people attempt to explain 'business practices' to others without knowing the background of their audience? I do.

I wasn't just speaking to you

20.7k · July 20, 2004

I wasn't suggesting that you were.

9.4k · July 20, 2004

It appears many feel that this business is defining this game we play. (and seem OK with that) Business decisions are Not Game based. Changing the Game to meet business needs doesnt seem likely to work - at least not firever.....

That's just it though, this business (Groundspeak), defines how this site is run. Groundspeak is Geocaching the same way that McDonald's is hamburgers. There are other sites out there that cater to particular tastes.

Edited July 20, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

Double Standard

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