Terracaching Sponsorship

[Bear and Ragged]

Thanks for explaining.

I'm not sure why I'm so averse to it myself, but I am - very. (It's not the word "sponsor" though). I probably wouldn't mind if I could try the services quietly by myself, and then obtain a sponsor when/if I had found a site where I would be happy to place a cache. Just a matter of personal taste, really.

I set up an account to take a look at the site...

Four offers to sponsor me with-in 24 hours -more like 12 hours!
(Thanks to those that offered!)

Nearest cache is 46 miles away, and seems to be a moving cache.

[Team Sieni]

I set up an account to take a look at the site...

Four offers to sponsor me with-in 24 hours -more like 12 hours!
(Thanks to those that offered!)

It's not lack of available sponsors that bugs me ... it's the need for them at all. I dunno, it just puts me off for some reason. I think I like to wander around the bookshop quietly on my own without having to speak to an assistant first (he says, mixing up the book metaphor completely). It's just the way I reacted to it.

Anyway :cheers: I'm not looking for an argument, so happy caching everyone, wherever you do it.

[amberel]

Ive looked on the terra wiki and cant for the life of me find this ban on cross listing. All ive found is that they discourage it not ban it.

I looked into this today, because it is a significant issue for me. If the site allowed it and it was just a vocal group of members who are against it then I would bring the matter up for discussion again, because I am prepared to cross list my best caches but I won't take them off GS in order to do so.

However, the mission Statement on the home page says "To provide the community with a unique list of caches, not listed elsewhere, that meet the community's high standards of quality." and I don't think you can get much clearer than that.

Shame, but I'm not trying to stir up the pot and I won't be raising the matter on the TC site.

Rgds, Andy

[Dave Gerrie]

same here - i might consider it (although like TS above, I'd like to try it quietly first without the need for a sponsor) but I'm certainly not taking my caches off GS first! Something to think about though.

[nobbynobbs]

As a side point. I did try earlier this year to contact the organisers to open discussions on various matters between them and the GAGB. I never received any reply at all.
So if anyone ever does contact with one of the senior members please point them in the direction of the committee.

thanks

[sTeamTraen]

The first question is why do we want an alternative listing site. My interest is simply because GS management appears to be very remote and unresponsive. They have an excellent web site and a fantastic database, but I'm not keen on the company that runs it all.

I'm not sure that you have to like a company to use its products. I suppose it helps, but there's a danger of cutting off your nose to spite your face or whatever the expression is. I know quite a few people who switched from Windows because of some ideological problem with Microsoft (of whose products and policies I am no fan), only to find that their main choices were a free product that ran less than half of the applications they wanted to use (this was a few years ago - please don't write in), or a fruit-based company whose "proprietariness" makes Bill Gates look like Richard Stallman (geek moment there).

Most of the alternative geocache listing sites started up after someone stormed out of geocaching.com after a disagreement with Groundspeak over "ideology". Although, arguably the most successful alternative site is OpenCaching, which AFAIK has never got into a battle of that kind, at least in public.

I don't think Groundspeak does too bad a job of being accessible. Their phone number is not kept secret and is answered by a real (and very nice) person, there's a single contact e-mail address which generally gets back to you within 48 hours, and they welcome people to visit their non-secret head office location any Friday afternoon. That's not too bad for an Internet company with around 20 staff and close to a million customers.

[amberel]

I'm not sure that you have to like a company to use its products. I suppose it helps, but there's a danger of cutting off your nose to spite your face or whatever the expression is.

I've no intention whatsover of cutting off my nose to spite my face, which should have been obvious from the last paragraph in the message you quoted from. No, you don't have to like a company to use its products, but there is a reason for not liking them which affects the use of their products.

Your parallel with MS is a good one, and I feel it illustrates my position very well. There are even more reasons for me not liking MS than there are for not liking GS, but if GS continues to have ineffective competitors I can see the situation getting worse than it is now. In both cases the reasons to continue using their products currently outweigh the reasons to switch, by a considerable margin, but I would like the option to do so and therefore try to keep aware of the alternatives.

Rgds, Andy

[Bear and Ragged]

I looked into this today, because it is a significant issue for me. If the site allowed it and it was just a vocal group of members who are against it then I would bring the matter up for discussion again, because I am prepared to cross list my best caches but I won't take them off GS in order to do so.

However, the mission Statement on the home page says "To provide the community with a unique list of caches, not listed elsewhere, that meet the community's high standards of quality." and I don't think you can get much clearer than that.

Shame, but I'm not trying to stir up the pot and I won't be raising the matter on the TC site.

Rgds, Andy

... How about two caches at the same spot.
One marked GC the other marked TC.
Sign one or both...

Just a thought. hmy:

[Icenians]

... How about two caches at the same spot.
One marked GC the other marked TC.
Sign one or both...

Just a thought. hmy:

There is nothing to stop that happening, or indeed to stop cross posting, as long as you can convince your sponsors to approve the cache.

You can expect the cache to be rated down by other cachers if they notice.

[amberel]

... How about two caches at the same spot.
One marked GC the other marked TC.
Sign one or both...

Just a thought. hmy:

Silly as it may sound, it's worth considering, but probably not too practical for me. I live in a built up area (inside the M25, near Heathrow), and don't generally have the luxury of large hiding places out in the middle of the woods where there might be room for two - very often it's difficult to find a good place to put even one. Many of my better ones (which are the ones I would cross list if it was allowed) are custom built camouflaged containers where two just wouldn't work .

I can think of two or three locations where I might be able to squeeze two in. I wonder what the finders would make of it. Do you think it might just confuse them?

The other downside is that it could be considered against the spirit of the TC rule, and also it could be seen as trying to make the TC restriction look a bit petty and absurd. While I don't agree with the rule I'm not looking to stir things up or antagonise TC'ers.

Rgds, Andy

[sandvika]

It always seems that I manage to arrive at the end of a lively discussion on this forum and this is no exception. Icenians has been doing a great job and said pretty much what I'd have said anyway.

However, I should add that the majority of early TCs in UK were created by TCers on holiday in UK, hence virtual to avoid maintenance issues. The early TCers in UK (myself included) are mostly sponsored by foreigners because there was not enough TCing activity in UK to get local sponsorship in a timely fashion.

There is now enough local TCing activity to get local sponsors and most new UK TCers are offered and accept sponsorship from other UK TCers. The majority of new TCs placed in UK are now placed by locals and are physical caches.

In my experience of seeking caches on three cache listing sites, Navicache and Terracaching are not populated by trivial micros in unattractive settings and this alone ensures that the average standard of caches on these sites exceeds Geocaching.

I really enjoy the clever scoring system on TC - it adds a tactical dimension to the game and is very deliberately designed to reward challenging hides and finds. Power trails of micros would not succeed as they would have low scores and be voted down. On GC only the raw number of caches counts as score, so they become a "must do" if you are being competitive in the game, even if you don't like them.

I realise at present that over 99% of cachers are not intrigued enough to venture beyond GC.com, however I view that as their loss. I also realise that a significant majority of cachers who do register on the alternative sites view the comparatively empty maps with dismay and don't come back, whereas the minority see it as a blank canvass on which to be creative. If I can convince just a few people that the glass is actually half full rather than half empty then it can make a significant difference.

Lastly, I also think that the absence of effective competition on listing sites is the fundamental problem that allows GSP to be complacent and exhibit authoritarian tendencies. Competition on the other hand fosters innovation and attentiveness. Venting in forums might be cathartic for a brief period however self-evidently does not address the fundamental issues. So I would suggest that voting with your feet and seeking caches listed elsewhere is more effective. It's probably more cathartic too.

Roderick.

[amberel]

In my experience of seeking caches on three cache listing sites, Navicache and Terracaching are not populated by trivial micros in unattractive settings and this alone ensures that the average standard of caches on these sites exceeds Geocaching.

That rather depends on what you enjoy. I agree about micros in unattractive settings, but I like the majority of virtuals on TC even less, and the locationless even less than that. At present the ratio of caches on TC that are unattractive to me is considerably higher than those on GC.

OK, I can ignore the virtuals on TC, but if you are going to make that argument, I can (and do) just as easily ignore all the micros on the Bracknell ring road.

However, I hear what you say about the ratio moving in the right direction, and that's good news.

I really enjoy the clever scoring system on TC - it adds a tactical dimension to the game and is very deliberately designed to reward challenging hides and finds. Power trails of micros would not succeed as they would have low scores and be voted down. On GC only the raw number of caches counts as score, so they become a "must do" if you are being competitive in the game, even if you don't like them.

In caching terms, I'm not competitive. I guess it's to some extent because I'm not really interested in the scoring system that I find it complicated, confusing and difficult to understand. I've also seen discussion on the TC forums about people fiddling the system to increase their scores. I find that baffling too.

But I don't mean to be completely negative, I do want TC to succeed, just not at the expense of GC.

Rgds, Andy

[Alan White]

Lastly, I also think that the absence of effective competition on listing sites is the fundamental problem that allows GSP to be complacent and exhibit authoritarian tendencies. Competition on the other hand fosters innovation and attentiveness.

I agree. However, I don't believe that TC is positioning itself to be a competitor to Groundspeak. If it were it would be listening to and acting upon discussions such as these. See nobbynobbs post above. Is that the sort of attentiveness you mean?

As for innovation, virtuals, locationless and moving caches have come and gone on Groundspeak. Having a listing site which continues to list them isn't innovative.

[Icenians]

As for innovation, virtuals, locationless and moving caches have come and gone on Groundspeak. Having a listing site which continues to list them isn't innovative.

I see you once again pick a small part of the site and use it as an example of why it's not something Alan.

You of course miss the bits that are innovative such as the scoring system, the ability for cachers to rate caches, the ability for cachers to be innovative in placing caches.

On the subject of virtuals we have caches all over London being archived due to security concerns but this cannot be replaced with the obvious solution at GC so presumably eventually GC will have no caches for the London cachers.

At least with TC the virtuals and locationless caches are available for those that wish to play those games. For those that don't like locationless you wouldn't even be aware they exist. On GC those that do like these options are simply told NO.

I hardly see it as an advantage to not be able to list these things.

Simply picking a negative aspect all the time and endlessly quoting the lower quality caches as prove that all is bad at TC and all is good at GC is a little suspect. I can dig out many many examples of grotty caches at GC and simply ignore the good ones.

As I said before, no listing site can claim to provide quality for all and, as I also explained earlier, that isn't what quality means at TC. It simply means the local caching community gets to decide what quality is collectivly. Show me where you have that innovation at GC?

Kev

[amberel]

As for innovation, virtuals, locationless and moving caches have come and gone on Groundspeak. Having a listing site which continues to list them isn't innovative.

I'm not sure TC have ever claimed that virtuals, locationless and moving caches are innovative, but if you do want innovation, there is no doubt that TC does have considerably more scope for it than does GC.

Rgds, Andy

[sTeamTraen]

... the ability for cachers to be innovative in placing caches.

I'm not familiar with the TC listing guidelines. What do they allow you to do that's "innovative" in (non-virtual) cache placement, that the GC.com guidelines don't?

[amberel]

I'm not familiar with the TC listing guidelines. What do they allow you to do that's "innovative" in (non-virtual) cache placement, that the GC.com guidelines don't?

You can pretty much do anything, provided your two sponsors agree. After that, the idea is that the community judge it by rating the cache.

This is how I see it, though it must be said I am not an expert on the subject. There seem to be two issues here.

The first is whether your cache is illegal, likely to bring caching into disrepute, etc., and the intention is that the sponsors deal with that.

The second is whether the innovation has any merit, or broad appeal. I guess the sponsors may deal with that too, but I think that is mostly down to the community.

I have no experience of how well this works. I have logged only one cache, a locationless, and I had difficulty judging how to rate it. In the end I just chickened out and gave it a neutral 5/10. I imagine people who have been doing it for longer are more confident about how they rate things.

Rgds, Andy

[Icenians]

You can pretty much do anything, provided your two sponsors agree. After that, the idea is that the community judge it by rating the cache.

This is how I see it, though it must be said I am not an expert on the subject. There seem to be two issues here.

The first is whether your cache is illegal, likely to bring caching into disrepute, etc., and the intention is that the sponsors deal with that.

It's true that this would ba risk but you must remeber that you are at the mercy of the wrath of the caching community so if you have placed a cache that is deemed illegal etc then the community can rate it very low, and should do so, to get it out of the system. Sponsors and Cachers would normally respond to this as this has an effect on your scores etc. This is the whole essence of driving quality at TC. According to the areas in the US where they have sufficient numbers it does work once it all gets going.

The second is whether the innovation has any merit, or broad appeal. I guess the sponsors may deal with that too, but I think that is mostly down to the community.

This really falls into the hands of the caching community. If they, as a whole don't like it they vote via the rating system. This again sends a signal to the cache owner that maybe they got it wrong.

I have no experience of how well this works. I have logged only one cache, a locationless, and I had difficulty judging how to rate it. In the end I just chickened out and gave it a neutral 5/10. I imagine people who have been doing it for longer are more confident about how they rate things.

A couple of important points to note on rating caches

1. You don't have to be a finder to rate a cache. This means you can show your disaproval without having to go and actually find the cache. Finders rates do carry more weight though.

2. Your rating is anonymous so there is no need to be shy and worry about upsetting the owner. If you think it naff then you rate it as naff.

I've noticed that the ratings system is starting to work on some of the poorer UK caches as some are taking a very definate downward turn.

Kev

[amberel]

It's true that this would be a risk but you must remember that you are at the mercy of the wrath of the caching community so if you have placed a cache that is deemed illegal etc then the community can rate it very low, and should do so, to get it out of the system.

When I said it was an "issue" that was a bad choice of word, I didn't mean to imply it was a problem; maybe "aspect" would have been better. I was trying to split innovation into "legality" and "desirability" and explain how each was dealt with.

... Your rating is anonymous so there is no need to be shy and worry about upsetting the owner. If you think it naff then you rate it as naff.

I hadn't realised it was anonymous. Could be good or bad, but I think on the whole it is the better way. It could be abused, but without anonymity it would be awkward with aquaintances. It's easier to criticise the caches of total strangers or very good friends, not so easy to criticise those of somone you know slightly.

If you visited a cache and rated it low, would the cache setter see the change immediately and guess why?

Rgds, Andy

[Icenians]

If you visited a cache and rated it low, would the cache setter see the change immediately and guess why?

Rgds, Andy

I wasn't disagreeing with you just using your post to expand a little.

I've wondered about the anonyminity of the first rating being made by the first to find as well. I'm not sure what effect 1 rating has on the number total from a finder. I guess the thing to try, and I will try this next time I ftf, is to rate it low and see what happens. You can change your rating later.

I tend to rate any cache within my 100 miles before finding it based on the description. I then revise that rating on a find. I guess that approach means that unfounds have an anonymous rating to start with.

Kev

[sandvika]

I agree. However, I don't believe that TC is positioning itself to be a competitor to Groundspeak. If it were it would be listening to and acting upon discussions such as these. See nobbynobbs post above. Is that the sort of attentiveness you mean?

As for innovation, virtuals, locationless and moving caches have come and gone on Groundspeak. Having a listing site which continues to list them isn't innovative.

The innovation of TC lies primarily in the scoring. TC started after GSP retrospectively banned the scoring system from being overlaid on GC (though in typical inconsistent fashion they did not ban G:UK's rating system). They could just have easily embraced it, but then that's GSP attentiveness for you! Their way or the highway.

However, if proportional voting systems are not your bag, then perhaps proportional scoring of caches is not either.

[Alan White]

If you visited a cache and rated it low, would the cache setter see the change immediately and guess why?

That used to happen on G:UK's rating system. For infrequently visited/rated caches it was easy to see who had given what rating though not of course why, since the value of a cache is in the mind of the finder.

[Alan White]

However, if proportional voting systems are not your bag, then perhaps proportional scoring of caches is not either.

I don't see the connection, but anyway...

I'm all in favour of finders being able to rate caches. The G:UK rating system was a useful tool for being able to see which caches had been enjoyed by other people. I didn't always agree with the ratings but they did serve as a guide. But, value being in the mind of the finder, I would never use it as a means of de-listing a cache.

[Alan White]

I see you once again pick a small part of the site and use it as an example of why it's not something Alan.

You of course miss the bits that are innovative such as the scoring system, the ability for cachers to rate caches, the ability for cachers to be innovative in placing caches.

As you correctly say, I used those as an example.

The rating system is innovative, certainly, though not unique until the demise of G:UK. From the descriptions I've seen the TC rating system is complicated and can result in a cache being de-listed. I therefore don't regard it as a good feature.

Innovative in placing? Possibly, but there are many innovative caches on Groundspeak. I think that "innovative" is being used as a synonym for "unlistable on Groundspeak". Perhaps there are good reasons why it couldn't be listed there; perhaps there aren't.

[Icenians]

The rating system is innovative, certainly, though not unique until the demise of G:UK. From the descriptions I've seen the TC rating system is complicated and can result in a cache being de-listed. I therefore don't regard it as a good feature.

The WHOLE point of the rating system at TC is to alow the cache to be pushed out of the system over time if the OVERWEALMING majority of cachers don't like it. That is what allows the quality system to work. Without that you simply have a million naff caches. This also allows poor caches to make way for other, better ones.

It doesn't surprise me you find this a bad thing Alan, you obviously have decided that TC is bad and therefore all aspects of it are bad.

Innovative in placing? Possibly, but there are many innovative caches on Groundspeak. I think that "innovative" is being used as a synonym for "unlistable on Groundspeak". Perhaps there are good reasons why it couldn't be listed there; perhaps there aren't.

That may be your take on it. I don't doubt there are many excellent caches at GC, at little harder to find amoungst the rubbish these days, but they are there. As there are no written guidelines at TC it does mean that the cache placer has more freedom to be creative. Now I'm sure that you're intepretation on that will be that we all run around placing caches irresponsibly and illegally, also not the case. I have found the largest number of TC's in the UK to date, about one quarter of those currently active, and have yet to find any that have given me any cause for concern.

The active TC'ers in the UK all seem to be responsible cachers who also take an active part in GC caching as well. It is a myth, certainly in the UK, that we are all disgruntled GC cachers who are running around caching with no regard to the law.

I think if you actually took the step you wish not to take due to some strange ideas about knowing your cache reviewers personally, I assume you knew your GC reviewers personally and will cease playing the game when you have reviewers foisted upon you that you do not know, you will find that most are simply cachers who would like an alternative game scored differently, that is very much in the control of the local caching community.

Personally I'm a supporter of the underdog and enjoy the challenge of finding the high scoring caches, and placing caches that will hopefully become high scoring.

Your objections to TC seem to be that

1. You get to choose who your reviewers are
2. You are able to place more cache types than GC
3. You cannot simply cut and paste your present GC caches to the site
4. You have a scoring system that is different to that used at GC.
5. You are allowed to rate a cache at TC if you don't like it.

I don't understand why you continue to comment on the existence of TC when you clearly do not like it, although your knowledge of it is third hand, and take every opportunity to make a negative out of the very functions that provide TC with a unique selling point.

Kev

[Alan White]

The WHOLE point of the rating system at TC is to alow the cache to be pushed out of the system over time if the OVERWEALMING majority of cachers don't like it.

And I don't agree with that as a point of principle. Just because some cachers don't like a cache doesn't mean that everyone won't. A rating system should be seen as another input into the decision whether one does or doesn't do the cache. Denying everyone the opportunity to make the choice for themselves isn't helpful.

That is what allows the quality system to work.

The evidence I've seen and heard about doesn't bear that out. Quality is in my eyes, not someone else's. Today I did an excellent series of 22 caches on a lovely 5-mile circular walk. You may not enjoy that sort of caching: I do. From previous discussions I understand that a series like that would never be published on TC or, if it were, it would be rated off. I find that strange: such series are almost always popular so I'm not sure who these cachers are who would rate it off.

This also allows poor caches to make way for other, better ones.

I don't see the logic in that. If I go to the trouble and expense of placing a cache and it gets automatically archived because some people rate it poorly (or, conceivably, rate me poorly ) then I'm not likely to place another.

I don't doubt there are many excellent caches at GC, at little harder to find amoungst the rubbish these days, but they are there.

That would depend on what you regard as an excellent cache. But I'm sure that among the 33,000+ Groundspeak-listed caches in Great Britain that you'll be able to find some you like. In fact, I'm sure that you'll be able to find many, many more excellent caches on Groundspeak than the total number on TC.

As there are no written guidelines at TC

A fundamental flaw, I think. It may work with a few tens of caches; it can never be practical with 33,000.

I think if you actually took the step you wish not to take due to some strange ideas about knowing your cache reviewers personally...

Sorry, I don't understand that. I was referring to sponsors, not reviewers. By definition, you cannot meaningfully sponsor someone you don't know.

I don't understand why you continue to comment on the existence of TC when you clearly do not like it

I continue to comment because I care about caching in general. Firstly, a landowner who finds a cache of which he doesn't approve won't care which site it's listed on: he will just acquire a negative aspect of caching. So what one site does has an effect on all listing sites. Secondly, as has already been said many times, it would be good to have meaningful competition between listing sites. I remain hopeful that TC, as an established site, would want to be involved in that but given their lack of response to GAGB it doesn't look like they do. I think that's a shame.

unique selling point

But TC doesn't sell itself. In fact, it goes out of its way to not sell itself by preventing people from joining without sponsorship, and hiding details of the caches - indeed of the whole system except for a broken map - until you're a member. It's no accident that there are 33,000 caches on Groundspeak and - what was it you said? - 40 caches on TC.


I think we - at least for the benefit of other forum users - just have to accept that we have diametrically opposed views. Yes, there are "bad" caches on Groundspeak, but the "good" caches on Groundspeak outnumber those on Terracaching by several orders of magnitude. Anyone who wants a quality - by their definition - caching experience has to look no further than Groundspeak.

[sTeamTraen]

It's true that this would ba risk but you must remeber that you are at the mercy of the wrath of the caching community so if you have placed a cache that is deemed illegal etc then the community can rate it very low, and should do so, to get it out of the system.

I can see the advantages of this for caches which make people go "yuk" or which might be deemed environmentally unfriendly, etc. (Dry stone walls, for example.)

But what happens when there's an issue like the recent one in Greenwich Park, or the Central London terrorism issue (which featured direct contact between the Met Police and Groundspeak, I believe), or the current flap over the Appalachian Trail on the US East coast (multiple conflicting messages from different land management authorities)? In other words, who's in a position to say "stop" when some of the more serious aspects of real life interfere with caching in real time?

[amberel]

Sorry, I don't understand that. I was referring to sponsors, not reviewers.

It has been explained before that your sponsors ARE your reviewers. Apart from having an effect on your score, which you can ignore if you're not interested in scoring, that's pretty much ALL they are. I think you're getting a bit hung up over semantics on this one.

Rgds, Andy

[Icenians]

And I don't agree with that as a point of principle. Just because some cachers don't like a cache doesn't mean that everyone won't. A rating system should be seen as another input into the decision whether one does or doesn't do the cache. Denying everyone the opportunity to make the choice for themselves isn't helpful.

It takes an awful lot of negative voting and a lot of time for a cache to be auto archived. It doesn't happen because a 'few' cachers don't like the cache. In general a cacher will archive there own cache rather than let it get too low. Of course with varied cachers comes varied ideas of quality and so varied rates. I take it you would rather that a rating system reflected only your idea of quality then.

The evidence I've seen and heard about doesn't bear that out. Quality is in my eyes, not someone else's. Today I did an excellent series of 22 caches on a lovely 5-mile circular walk. You may not enjoy that sort of caching: I do. From previous discussions I understand that a series like that would never be published on TC or, if it were, it would be rated off. I find that strange: such series are almost always popular so I'm not sure who these cachers are who would rate it off.

Again incorrect information. Personally I would allow a cache of ths type, just as someone such as yourself could. I would only refuse cache if it fell foul for some reason. Whether it is quality would be for the caching community, including the cache owner, to decide. It seems to me that you would rather not be made aware that your cache was of poor quality if the majority of cachers decided that but would be perfectly happy to find that the ratings for your caches were high.

I don't see the logic in that. If I go to the trouble and expense of placing a cache and it gets automatically archived because some people rate it poorly (or, conceivably, rate me poorly ) then I'm not likely to place another.

Possibly not. But rather than a poor quality cache, and that is remember decided by the cachers, blocking a location forever, the area gets freed up for either the cacher or another cacher to use.

That would depend on what you regard as an excellent cache. But I'm sure that among the 33,000+ Groundspeak-listed caches in Great Britain that you'll be able to find some you like. In fact, I'm sure that you'll be able to find many, many more excellent caches on Groundspeak than the total number on TC.

and some would argue that there are way too many caches listed ow. Maybe it's time some of those were archived out the way. just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean they are better. There was a time not so long ago when there were only 136 GC caches in the UK! The numbers are steadily climbing not falling as are the numbers of active cachers.

Sorry, I don't understand that. I was referring to sponsors, not reviewers. By definition, you cannot meaningfully sponsor someone you don't know.

You seem to have a real problem with the word sponsor. Whatever word was used originally at the start of terracaching, it does not change the fact that the sponsors are simply your reviewers and nothing more. You can deferentiate all you like between the words but it's the role they fulfil that is important.

I continue to comment because I care about caching in general. Firstly, a landowner who finds a cache of which he doesn't approve won't care which site it's listed on: he will just acquire a negative aspect of caching. So what one site does has an effect on all listing sites. Secondly, as has already been said many times, it would be good to have meaningful competition between listing sites. I remain hopeful that TC, as an established site, would want to be involved in that but given their lack of response to GAGB it doesn't look like they do. I think that's a shame.

Most of us care about caching. GC is a site of many guidelines, one of these being get permission. However, the reviewers reported only last week that the number of complaints from landowners is on the increase. Guidelines are only of use if they are followed!

The GAGB is, in my opinion, missing the point at TC by trying to contact the site owners to build a dialog towards guidelines etc. The site is simply a listing site, not a company with a plan like GC, and the GAGB should be aiming to promote it's guidelines to the members by encouraging people to take up GAGB membership. It is pointless an outside organisation representing a very small number of cachers from a tiny Island trying to influence a listing site. The reviewers are the cachers therefore the GAGB needs to open a dialog with the cachers in the UK.

But TC doesn't sell itself. In fact, it goes out of its way to not sell itself by preventing people from joining without sponsorship, and hiding details of the caches - indeed of the whole system except for a broken map - until you're a member. It's no accident that there are 33,000 caches on Groundspeak and - what was it you said? - 40 caches on TC.

No I believe it was me that said I'd found 45 it was you that quoted lower numbers from your limited knowledge of the site. there are currently 136 and that number is growing as we speak.

People do join TC every day, in fact roughly 1 every 4 hours. They don't seem to be ristricted by the action of filling in a form to have a username and then pop back a little later to see if anyone offered sponsorship. Sure, people with a frame of mind such as yours will join, yes I know you won't, take a look around, moan about the lack of a cache in there village and never come back. But equally people in say Devon will join take a look around, notice that there are 50+ caches in their area and start to find some of them. They may feel it's worth adding a couple themselves. It'll spread and then perhaps one day some chap called Alan White might even poke his head over the parapet to see what's happening

I think we - at least for the benefit of other forum users - just have to accept that we have diametrically opposed views. Yes, there are "bad" caches on Groundspeak, but the "good" caches on Groundspeak outnumber those on Terracaching by several orders of magnitude. Anyone who wants a quality - by their definition - caching experience has to look no further than Groundspeak.

Oh I think people in the caching world are big enough to stay out of threads that they find monotonous. I've actually enjoyed this as it's been a lively to and fro between us. I would say though that it does seem to have been of some benefit to TC as the number of people coming along and taking a look has gone up over the last week.

Kev

[Icenians]

I can see the advantages of this for caches which make people go "yuk" or which might be deemed environmentally unfriendly, etc. (Dry stone walls, for example.)

But what happens when there's an issue like the recent one in Greenwich Park, or the Central London terrorism issue (which featured direct contact between the Met Police and Groundspeak, I believe), or the current flap over the Appalachian Trail on the US East coast (multiple conflicting messages from different land management authorities)? In other words, who's in a position to say "stop" when some of the more serious aspects of real life interfere with caching in real time?

As things stand there isn't. However, this is the sort of thing te GAGB could help with. They already provide a central contact point for their members caches. Rather than trying to contact a website owner who does not want to be responsible for every TC on the planet perhaps they should be working on increasing membership of the GAGB over at TC. That leads to the ability to communicate these things.

The Ramblers assocation or BMC have been used a few times as parallels so here's another one. I like to climb but I'm not currently a member of the BMC. If I turn up at a crag and climb I may be unaware of some restriction currently in place. If you substitute cacher for climber you have the same thing. GAGB should be working at the cacher level on a site run by the cachers, and at reviewer level on a site run by reviewers.

For example. Has there been any attempt to post a link to the landowner agreements over on TC? There may have been in the past but if there has it's not done regularly. It wouldn't take much to post a link in the forums once in a while.

Unless of course GAGB landowner agreements are only for GC caches.

Sorry, think I rambled on a bit there. I'm sure you get what I mean though

[Alan White]

I take it you would rather that a rating system reflected only your idea of quality then.

Not at all, and I don't see how you can infer that from what I said. My point here is that TC claims to list "quality" caches and therefore de-lists (whether automatically or by shaming the owner) caches which some cachers don't like. I don't believe that's a good approach simply because everyone's idea of a quality cache is different. When it was functional I was very interested in the rating system on G:UK. I often was amazed at some of the caches which reached the top ten, and at those which didn't. Again, quality is in the eye of the cacher: let him make his own decision by choosing whether or not to visit.

Again incorrect information.

Well, it came from a very active Terracaching member so perhaps TC should ask itself why such misinformation is being put about.

I would only refuse cache if it fell foul for some reason.

Fell foul of what? Since there are no guidelines for listing on TC then surely anything can be listed? Wasn't that the reason for TC in the first place: to overcome what some see as unnecessary restrictions at Groundspeak?

Whether it is quality would be for the caching community, including the cache owner, to decide. It seems to me that you would rather not be made aware that your cache was of poor quality if the majority of cachers decided that but would be perfectly happy to find that the ratings for your caches were high.

Once again I think you're inferring something which I didn't intend. I really don't see how I can say it much more clearly that quality is up to the individual and a rating system is just one useful input into the decision whether or not to visit a cache. Yes, of course I would be - and was - pleased to see a cache of mine in the top ten. But I would not archive a cache just because it was in the bottom ten so long as it continued to receive visits.

and some would argue that there are way too many caches listed ow. Maybe it's time some of those were archived out the way. just because there are a lot of them doesn't mean they are better.

I've seen this school of thought before. Why should a cache be archived because there are "too many". How many is too many? Why shouldn't there be a cache every 161m if that's what the community wants? You make a big thing about TC's community making the decisions; do you not think that Groundspeak's community are also making decisions by choosing to visit the very caches which a TC member once described as an anathema to TC?

You seem to have a real problem with the word sponsor.

I don't have a problem with the word: I have a problem with the need. As has been said by others, the need for sponsors is off-putting and they are not merely reviewers because if they were they wouldn't be required unless placing a cache. I have no doubt that if the need for sponsors were removed then TC's membership would rocket. I don't think that TC wants that because it wants to remain small and, in its own mind, elitist.

GC is a site of many guidelines, one of these being get permission. However, the reviewers reported only last week that the number of complaints from landowners is on the increase.

Actually there's no such guideline. And complaints from landowners are bound to increase as the number of caches does. As I said on another thread, most problems are best solved by education rather than rules.

The GAGB is, in my opinion, missing the point at TC by trying to contact the site owners to build a dialog towards guidelines etc.

Sorry, I don't understand that. The listing sites are the media which publicise the caches: GAGB is a local organisation which wants to promote best practice. It seems self-evident that to succeed in that GAGB must have good working relationships with the listing sites.

there are currently 136 and that number is growing as we speak.

I apologise for failing to keep up, but I don't believe the real number detracts from my point. There have been 238 caches published on Groundspeak in GB in the last seven days alone. You cannot possibly believe that all, or even a great percentage of those, lack "quality". I would make the same suggestion to you as you have made to me: why not go back to Groundspeak and explore some of the listings? Maybe you'll find something you like?

I would say though that it does seem to have been of some benefit to TC as the number of people coming along and taking a look has gone up over the last week.

That is good to hear: I would like TC to succeed. I don't like its model but competition and choice are good.

[sandvika]

I don't see the connection, but anyway...

Proportionality! Your score is an aggregate of proportions of scores allocated to caches you have found. Your score is influenced by others finding the same caches - it goes down!

I'm all in favour of finders being able to rate caches. The G:UK rating system was a useful tool for being able to see which caches had been enjoyed by other people. I didn't always agree with the ratings but they did serve as a guide.

Yes, that's the whole point of the rating system built in to TC: however, unlike G:UK, it even goes further and suggests caches you might like to seek on the basis of the similarity of your ratings to those others have made. (That would work better if there were more caches!)

However, voting down a cache with a "Should Be Archived" rating to the point where it does get archived (and long before that starts to have a negative effect on the owner's score) is perfectly democratic and fair.

On the other hand, putting a SBA log on a cache on GC is not democratic and therefore can lead to arguments.

But, value being in the mind of the finder, I would never use it as a means of de-listing a cache.

I'd suggest then that you reserve your SBA's on GC for cases where the cache is beyond redemption following abandonment, not where you form a personal view that a cache is inappropriate.

[Alan White]

I'd suggest then that you reserve your SBA's on GC for cases where the cache is beyond redemption following abandonment, not where you form a personal view that a cache is inappropriate.

This is rather off topic for a thread about Terracaching but I think you misunderstand the point of an SBA. An SBA is not a means of rating a cache it's a means of bringing to the attention of a reviewer that there may be a serious problem with the cache.

Since you're clearly referring to Heaven and Hell I should say for the benefit of others who can no longer see the logs that I stand by my decision on that. I believe that you encouraging cachers to climb a monument is not appropriate on any listing site and that was the reason for my SBA. I still believe that that cache is likely to bring caching into disrepute but in order to show goodwill I decided not to pursue it when you altered the cache page on Groundspeak.

I would also point out that you said in August that the first stage had apparently gone missing. The cache isn't disabled nor is there any indication that the stage has been checked or replaced. May I suggest that it would be helpful to cachers - on all listing sites as the cache is cross-listed - to have a look?

[sandvika]

Today I did an excellent series of 22 caches on a lovely 5-mile circular walk. You may not enjoy that sort of caching: I do. From previous discussions I understand that a series like that would never be published on TC or, if it were, it would be rated off. I find that strange: such series are almost always popular so I'm not sure who these cachers are who would rate it off.

Alan, I know which 22 caches you refer to which I hope to do on Friday, I had a lovely chat and a beer with their owner just last week I don't think that TC is ready for such series yet as it would distort the caching landscape too much (not unlike the Lovelock case, in its time) however, from what I know of the series already I think it highly unlikely that they would be voted off.

Similarly, you know which series caches I was referring to in terms of pointless micros that could be voted off if on TC. Just in case there is any doubt about it, one of the series is geographically separated from the rest and within 0.1 miles of our home, which I take to be a deliberate response to my complaint about an earlier series from the same person(s).

I don't see the logic in that. If I go to the trouble and expense of placing a cache and it gets automatically archived because some people rate it poorly (or, conceivably, rate me poorly ) then I'm not likely to place another.

Actually, I think that an unfavourable log on a cache is more likely to discourage more sensitive people from placing caches, than an anonymous unfavourable vote. I have been criticised for being too blunt in my logs and have toned them down accordingly.

Referring back to the person(s) who placed the cache close to our home, my criticism clearly stung them, however, their subsequent series was improved almost beyond recognition and has been praised by me and others.

That would depend on what you regard as an excellent cache. But I'm sure that among the 33,000+ Groundspeak-listed caches in Great Britain that you'll be able to find some you like. In fact, I'm sure that you'll be able to find many, many more excellent caches on Groundspeak than the total number on TC.

I'm note sure what point you are making here Alan other than stating that there are more caches on GC than NC and TC. I've already made the point that in my experience of seeking caches listed on all 3 sites the average standard is higher on NC and TC and correspondingly lower on GC.

A fundamental flaw, I think. It may work with a few tens of caches; it can never be practical with 33,000.

I disagree. The system is more adaptable to local custom. For example, GAGB guidelines tailored to UK best practice and applied on TC empowers the cachers. In comparison, the GC reviewers are disempowered, obliged to impose GSP mandates even against their wishes and judgment.

As TC takes off in UK, I would be keen to see discussion of the skill of reviewing effectively, because it would be invaluable for cache setters to have maximum resources available to them to set caches appropriately on their first attempt.

Sorry, I don't understand that. I was referring to sponsors, not reviewers. By definition, you cannot meaningfully sponsor someone you don't know.

You are in effect saying you cannot befriend people you don't know. I am perfectly capable of befriending people and encouraging them. To me, that's what sponsorship on TC is about.

I continue to comment because I care about caching in general. Firstly, a landowner who finds a cache of which he doesn't approve won't care which site it's listed on: he will just acquire a negative aspect of caching. So what one site does has an effect on all listing sites. Secondly, as has already been said many times, it would be good to have meaningful competition between listing sites. I remain hopeful that TC, as an established site, would want to be involved in that but given their lack of response to GAGB it doesn't look like they do. I think that's a shame.

Actually, I'd have to suggest that the microscopic resources that NC and TC have compared to GSP makes it more understandable if they are unable to engage with GAGB. The much greater issue here is the >99% of caches and >99% of cachers are on GSP whilst GSP is evidently doing its own thing rather than engaging with the GAGB to help serve its customers in the UK caching community better. I hope that's something that I will be given the opportunity to help GAGB with.

But TC doesn't sell itself. In fact, it goes out of its way to not sell itself by preventing people from joining without sponsorship, and hiding details of the caches - indeed of the whole system except for a broken map - until you're a member. It's no accident that there are 33,000 caches on Groundspeak and - what was it you said? - 40 caches on TC.

GSP has had over 99% of caches listed in UK since before TC started, that has not changed yet. TC is catching on in UK and has experienced massive growth in physical caches in the last year. I'm not going to go looking for numbers and deriving statistics because it's not the point. TC has merits that have attracted and retain my custom and that of others who have a vision of caching that extends beyond Groundspeak. That's the bottom line.

Alan, you clearly have an issue with seeking sponsors on TC, just as you clearly have an issue with joining GAGB as a member and you seem to have a reticence to meet with cachers in general since you don't attend caching events where exchanging views on caching is a major topic of discussion.

I think in general you and I seem to agree on more points than we disagree on, where we differ is primarily in the approach. I did not have an issue with getting sponsors on TC; I did not have an issue joining GAGB. I'd rather improve caching by engagement which is why I'm standing for election and have set out my reasons clearly.

Roderick

[sandvika]

This is rather off topic for a thread about Terracaching but I think you misunderstand the point of an SBA. An SBA is not a means of rating a cache it's a means of bringing to the attention of a reviewer that there may be a serious problem with the cache.

Since you're clearly referring to Heaven and Hell I should say for the benefit of others who can no longer see the logs that I stand by my decision on that. I believe that you encouraging cachers to climb a monument is not appropriate on any listing site and that was the reason for my SBA. I still believe that that cache is likely to bring caching into disrepute but in order to show goodwill I decided not to pursue it when you altered the cache page on Groundspeak.

I would also point out that you said in August that the first stage had apparently gone missing. The cache isn't disabled nor is there any indication that the stage has been checked or replaced. May I suggest that it would be helpful to cachers - on all listing sites as the cache is cross-listed - to have a look?

Actually, SBA is the term given to the most negative vote you can give to a cache on TC, to hasten its demise. In the case of the SBA on GC of course it notifies the reviewers. On TC you know who the owner and their sponsors/reviewers are and simply approach them.

I was actually not referring to H&H (or H&H6FU) specifically; it was brought to my attention by others at the time that you had previously posted SBAs on other caches that in your sole opinion (as opposed to the will of the GC caching community as a whole) were not appropriate, as opposed to neglected.

It seems to me inconsistent that you should reject the TC principle of a cache being voted down by the community to the point that it gets archived but yet post SBAs on GC or over-rule the reviewers and approach GSP directly if you perceive there to be a problem with a cache.

(However, on the off-topic of H&H, it and other of our caches are overdue for maintenance due to my unavailability in recent months. They will be tended to shortly and our long-planned new caches will also be placed.

H&H is currently not visible where I last saw it. That suggests it could be missing, however it could equally well be slightly out of position, which has happened before, which is why I have not disabled it. Others are equally as capable of rectifying the positioning as I am, in the course of seeking it. If I find it is out of position rather than missing then I may conclude it is muggles that are moving it and leaving it out of sight might be better, albeit slightly increasing the challenge to cachers with one particular retrieval technique in mind that would no longer work.)

[Happy Humphrey]

I agree with Alan on the "definition of quality" issue. I don't like rating systems much, as I have no idea what makes a "quality" cache. I know what type of cache I'm hoping for when I set out for it; that's about as far as I can go.

I haven't come across more than a handful of obviously "poor" caches in nearly 800 finds. I think that's a fair sample that allows me to judge the situation.

Some bookmark lists are useful as pointers to certain types of cache, and TC would perhaps be better employing a similar system rather than attempting to eliminate unpopular caches.

[Team Sieni]

Proportionality! Your score is an aggregate of proportions of scores allocated to caches you have found.

Ahhh. I see.

I'll go away and think about that.

Did the OP get her sponsorship?

Would have done it myself but I am an ex terracacher.

[Alan White]

I haven't come across more than a handful of obviously "poor" caches in nearly 800 finds.

I haven't come across more than a few dozen "poor" caches in over 4000 finds. I think the view that Groundspeak has a preponderance of "poor" caches is put about by those who are disaffected with Groundspeak rather than with the caches which they list.

[Alan White]

I am an ex terracacher.

Are you able to say why you're an ex-Terracacher? It would be interesting to hear a different view.

Hmm, nothing wrong with Terracaching, its just not for me.


I find the site difficult to navigate, the cache pages were/are dull to the extent I didn't even bother to log my finds (even for the dual listed ones).

I already have lots of good quality caches locally to find (I guess I am lucky to be five minutes drive from the moors) on Geocaching.com.

As it happens I have just logged in today for the first time in a lot of months and still find I want to go and make a cup of tea rather than look around, still took me a couple of minutes to find listings. The rating system, well I look and it just makes no sense to me.

Like I say, not for me but appreciate others may enjoy it.

One thing I do like though, you can still list virtuals which I think is the biggest thing missing from GC for me.

To summarise, appearance and ease of navigation.

[Alan White]

I don't think that TC is ready for such series yet

TC is not ready for an excellent and already popular series of good caches on a 5-mile walk in the country (aside from a short stretch alongside a motorway which is merely to close the loop)? Makes one wonder what sort of cache TC would like to have.

Similarly, you know which series caches I was referring to in terms of pointless micros that could be voted off if on TC. Just in case there is any doubt about it, one of the series is geographically separated from the rest and within 0.1 miles of our home, which I take to be a deliberate response to my complaint about an earlier series from the same person(s).

An excellent demonstration of how a rating system can be misused or at best misinterpreted. Each of the 17 caches in that series has had 50+ finds in five months. If that's not a popular series I don't know what would be. That you don't like the series - though oddly you still chose to do it and were even FTF on some - doesn't make it a "poor" series.

Actually, I think that an unfavourable log on a cache is more likely to discourage more sensitive people from placing caches, than an anonymous unfavourable vote.

No doubt true, but that wasn't the point, as I'm sure you know.

I'm note sure what point you are making here Alan other than stating that there are more caches on GC than NC and TC.

The point is that anyone who is seeking "quality" caches is much more likely to find them on Groundspeak than anywhere else. Not all caches listed on Groundspeak are nanos on street signs .

The system is more adaptable to local custom.

Yes, I can see how that could work. But didn't you say that your reviewers were not in the UK?

You are in effect saying you cannot befriend people you don't know.

No, I'm saying that you can't sponsor someone you don't know. A sponsor is someone who vouches for you and says to those already there "this is a good person to know". Such a relationship cannot possibly exist between two people who are known to each other only as handles on a website.

TC has merits that have attracted and retain my custom and that of others who have a vision of caching that extends beyond Groundspeak.

And that is good. TC attracted me also, which is is why threads like this are useful in helping me and hopefully others to decide whether TC is something of interest.

you clearly have an issue with seeking sponsors on TC

I have an issue with the requirement. It dissuades - indeed, prevents - me from exploring further. I really don't understand why a website of which the only function is to publicise caches would prevent potential finders of those caches from looking at the details.

you clearly have an issue with joining GAGB as a member

What would you have me do? Join an organisation which has aims which I don't support? I'm sure you would be among the first to rightly condemn such hypocrisy. Perhaps I should also join the Conservative party, or the Labour party, or all the other political parties with whose policies I don't agree .

you seem to have a reticence to meet with cachers in general since you don't attend caching events

So now you feel qualified not only to identify which caches I should visit (the ones which meet your definition of "quality") but also how I should spend my free time? I don't enjoy visiting pubs and I don't enjoy being in large groups of people. Sorry if that doesn't accord with your view of what makes a good cacher, but there you are.

I think in general you and I seem to agree on more points than we disagree on

I thought that was true but after this recent exchange I'm no longer quite so sure. In any case, just because we might agree on some points doesn't mean that we have to agree on everything.

[Alan White]

Hmm, nothing wrong with Terracaching, its just not for me.
...
Like I say, not for me but appreciate others may enjoy it.

Interesting perspective, thanks. I feel the same and I hope the value of this thread is that it presents both sides of the Groundspeak/Terracaching view.

In the same way as those who would say that the grass is greener in TC-land I'm trying to say that the grass at Groundspeak is not the brown stubble that some would have us believe .

[markandlynn]

Terracaching

Hard to navigate does not host pictures.

For terrain you post the lenght of the walk, height gain and the %slope

For difficulty you rate the difficulty of the hide

For a puzzle you rate the difficulty of the puzzle.

Visitors to your cache can log differences for example if you say a 5 mile walk cause you are exagerating the visitor can say its a 2 mile walk.

You rate your enjoyment of the cache simple like the old GCUK system

If everyone rates it poor the cache may be delisted.

You need someone to vouch for you as a geocacher before you can use the site Alan you have 1000 plus finds and several hidden caches i feel i can vouch for you as a geo cacher.

Number of caches on TC is low in the UK so the whole quality etc does not come into it.

I have over 400 caches on my GSP ignore list because they look rubbish to me i wont even seek them the owners will never know i dont like them cause i will never log them.

If GSP had a reason for planting section or something similar i would like to avoid the Drive by park step to the tree find micro stamp log increase find count by one type of cache.

In other words 1/1 traditional micros i hate them but judging from the no of finds others like them or do they ?

do they simply do them because they are there ? near to home and add one to the far to important caches found column. ??

just because a cache has 50 found it logs does not mean people enjoyed it.

[Icenians]

Did the OP get her sponsorship?

Would have done it myself but I am an ex terracacher.

Can I take it that you are a different Mongoose39UK from the TC one that offered, and became, a sponsor to a new TC member this very day then?

I hope if it is yourself that you will be active enough to review any caches they place?

[Icenians]

In the same way as those who would say that the grass is greener in TC-land I'm trying to say that the grass at Groundspeak is not the brown stubble that some would have us believe .

I'm not sure that we have been saying the grass is greener on either side of the fence. In fact I've acknowledged at least once that there are many excellent caches on GC. I mearly attempt to correct some of the inacurracies in some of the posts about TC.

Certainly in the UK, most TC cachers cache on both sites.

Can I take it that you are a different Mongoose39UK from the TC one that offered, and became, a sponsor to a new TC member this very day then?

I hope if it is yourself that you will be active enough to review any caches they place?

Yup, I am happy to help out, just the site as it is offers nothing for me.

Just because I find it unwieldy and has little in the way of caches to entice me does not mean that I am 1) against the site 2) don't appreciate its use for others.

[Icenians]

Well, it came from a very active Terracaching member so perhaps TC should ask itself why such misinformation is being put about.

I'm not sure how to get a quote that included my part of the conversation you were quoting so I'll recap. The quote above was in response to me saying that a cache of the series you mentioned would not get listed at TC was incorrect.

What I said was I would allow such a cache to be listed. Therefore it is perfectly possible that this series of caches, or rather a similar series as I wouldn't allow a cross posted one, would be listed. I did however question whether it would survive long.

Your very active terracaching member possibly would not allow the cache. Perhaps, as I'm sure you understand by now, the fact that TC has many reviewers, who all have different ideas of what they would allow or not, would lead to different opinions as to whether such a cache would be listed. Of course, if the cache setters other sponsor disagreed then the cache would not be listed.

[Icenians]

TC is not ready for an excellent and already popular series of good caches on a 5-mile walk in the country (aside from a short stretch alongside a motorway which is merely to close the loop)? Makes one wonder what sort of cache TC would like to have.

I believe what Sandvika is saying here, you missed the important part off when you quoted, is that due to the low numbers of caches in that area, a series such as this would skew the points system considerably. as points are calculated partly by the number of visits a cache has AND the number of caches around it that have also been visited, a series such as this would have an unbalanced effect on points.

[Icenians]

Fell foul of what? Since there are no guidelines for listing on TC then surely anything can be listed? Wasn't that the reason for TC in the first place: to overcome what some see as unnecessary restrictions at Groundspeak?

Fell foul of commonsense guidlines, or obvious illegally placings. For example I would not allow a cache to be listed if it was in a dry stone wall.

I've seen this school of thought before. Why should a cache be archived because there are "too many". How many is too many? Why shouldn't there be a cache every 161m if that's what the community wants? You make a big thing about TC's community making the decisions; do you not think that Groundspeak's community are also making decisions by choosing to visit the very caches which a TC member once described as an anathema to TC?

There is no community input to the caching at GC. People place caches as individuals and cache as individuals. They have no say in what is placed or where it is placed as a community. You only have to read the many threads on for/against micros to see this. Number of visits to a cache is no indication as to the quality of a cache. There is no real way of knowing if a cache is good at GC until it has been visited. You can tell if a TYPE of cache is popular. Again as an example, if Micros get lot's of visits then you could claim that the micro TYPE is popular. But 50 visits to one cache may have left 50 diappointed cachers who are too polite to mention it in their log. Or they did so many that day they cannot remember one from the other

I don't have a problem with the word: I have a problem with the need. As has been said by others, the need for sponsors is off-putting and they are not merely reviewers because if they were they wouldn't be required unless placing a cache. I have no doubt that if the need for sponsors were removed then TC's membership would rocket. I don't think that TC wants that because it wants to remain small and, in its own mind, elitist.

There is no concept of TC as a being that has a mind to be elitist with. There is no concept of an individual or small group of individuals controlling it. Unfortunatly or fortunatly, whichever way you look at it, to place a cache you must have two reviewers. The assuption is, and the database is built in that way, that TCers will eventually place caches. If people did not place caches of course we would all be sitting at home argueing over empty listing sites waiting for someone else to make the first move.

If you mean by removing the sponsorhip requirement allowing you to join would be a huge increase in numbers then I'm afraid you are wrong. To date I've come across two people who have decided not to join because of this. Several people join each day so we are growing nicely thanks anyway. I doubt that any change to the underlying structure will happen to take this away so we must either live with this or vote with our feet as you have done. You obviously have principles in this area and I applaud you for sticking to them.

Actually there's no such guideline. And complaints from landowners are bound to increase as the number of caches does. As I said on another thread, most problems are best solved by education rather than rules.
.

Oh come come Alan. I challenge you to try and get a cache listed at GC by blatantly stating you do not hae permission to place the cache!

Sorry, I don't understand that. The listing sites are the media which publicise the caches: GAGB is a local organisation which wants to promote best practice. It seems self-evident that to succeed in that GAGB must have good working relationships with the listing sites.
.

I was trying to suggest that the GAGB trying to contact a team running a site that is deliberatly set up to run by a disconnected community is simply wasting there time. They will not get a response as there is noone there to get a response from. TC is a site set up in such a way as to let a community of cachers list caches. There is no one person in control. Hence my post suggesting that the GAGB committees time may be better spent trying to attract those individual UK cachers into GAGB membership and improve caching that way. The listing site IS the community therefore it needs to engage with that community.

I apologise for failing to keep up, but I don't believe the real number detracts from my point. There have been 238 caches published on Groundspeak in GB in the last seven days alone. You cannot possibly believe that all, or even a great percentage of those, lack "quality". I would make the same suggestion to you as you have made to me: why not go back to Groundspeak and explore some of the listings? Maybe you'll find something you like?

I'm not sure I ever said or meant that the many new caches posted on GC were poor quality. Nor have I said I only cache at TC! I still look after a couple of caches on GC which have been in place for many years. I've even been is gruntled with GC in the past and used NC for a while.

I do however believe that TC will become a viable site, and already is in Devon. It is increasing in UK cachers by the day and UK placed caches by the week.