Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: Links Page

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Now that the website is under the control of the new committee, could we please have Navicache added to the links page.

    Also, the description on the Geocaching.com link describes the site as the "official global geocaching" site. Official? Appointed by who?

    I would suggest "most popular global" would be more appropriate wording.

    GAGB is open to and should represent all UK geocachers, not just those who choose to use one particular caching site.
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Amesbury Wiltshire
    Posts
    76

    Default

    We think you should direct that question to GC.com as that is how they describe the website it has nothing to do with the Committee, or GAGB members.

    Colin & Daphne

  3. #3
    NattyBooshka Guest

    Default

    Yes... but most companies would describe themselves as "the best" or "number one" or similar... it doesn't mean that an association like the GAGB needs to be sucked in by their marketing.

    Much that I don't care what it's listed as (it's the only site I use) I agree with Muggle that Navicache (and any others) should be added and the "official" should be removed as it seem's to make GC.com the GAGB's official site.

  4. #4
    Motley Crew Guest

    Default

    How about listing gc.com as 'The Definitive Geocaching Web Site' - that would seem to be a reasonably accurate statement.

    Incidentally the forums on the Navicache site don't seem to offer much for UK cachers - the UK forum there hasn't been used since 28th August 2003 .

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Arborfield
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Originally posted by Muggle@Mar 2 2004, 07:56 AM
    Also, the description on the Geocaching.com link describes the site as the "official global geocaching" site. Official? Appointed by who?
    It comes from the fact that it was set up from the original list of Geocaches.

    Take a look at this page and also this one for two different perspectives.

    Richard

  6. #6
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    I agree with Muggle and NattyBooshka - the association should be actively inclusive of other cache listings. The association can ill afford to be seen to be just a country based subset of GC.com. Most of the trouble that this association encountered in the beginning could have been avoided if the broad approach had been taken and a clear divide between the GAGB adn GC.com had been established.
    Funny thing is, i was thinking about this the other day ... GC.com certainly does like to bandy the wrod "official" about a lot .. that's one thing I really dislike about their cache labels!
    ... but then again, GC.com is nowadays a hugely commercial site ... I believe that the GAGB's "not commercial" stand is a hugely valiant one (although I'm still not sure as to how viable this is long term) and it is hard to draw the line between keeping something making enough to tick over and simply just cashing in on the outdoors and leaping on the leasure industry bandwagon with the attitude that "there's a profit to be made" :angry:

  7. #7
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    As an add-on to the above post, I'd like the view of the committee on how they square away the non-commercial nature of the GAGB (as outlined in the constitution) with several examples on the GAGB front-page of links/mentions of GC.com, undoubtedly one of the most commercial geocaching related sites on the web?

  8. #8
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Mar 6 2004, 02:08 PM
    As an add-on to the above post, I'd like the view of the committee on how they square away the non-commercial nature of the GAGB (as outlined in the constitution) with several examples on the GAGB front-page of links/mentions of GC.com, undoubtedly one of the most commercial geocaching related sites on the web?
    It is one thing to sell GPSes for profit, and a far different thing to tell people places that sell GPSes at sensible prices.

    Just because we point to a web page for any "commercial" site does NOT make GAGB commercial itself.

    (Yes, if we were being PAID to have those links, then things might be different)

    Paul

  9. #9
    BugznElm'r Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz+Mar 6 2004, 10:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul.blitz &#064; Mar 6 2004, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BugznElm&#39;r@Mar 6 2004, 02:08 PM
    As an add-on to the above post, I&#39;d like the view of the committee on how they square away the non-commercial nature of the GAGB (as outlined in the constitution) with several examples on the GAGB front-page of links/mentions of GC.com, undoubtedly one of the most commercial geocaching related sites on the web?
    It is one thing to sell GPSes for profit, and a far different thing to tell people places that sell GPSes at sensible prices.

    Just because we point to a web page for any "commercial" site does NOT make GAGB commercial itself.

    (Yes, if we were being PAID to have those links, then things might be different)

    Paul [/b][/quote]
    If thr GC.com links were simply in the links page, I&#39;d buy that (pun intended ) but the prominent front page links to GC.com do certainly "appear" commercial and imply a level of association/affiliation with that site over all the other cache listing site ...

    To the end user, what difference does it make if an ad or link has been paid for or not?

    I don&#39;t want to labour the point here but wouldn&#39;t it be better if the GAGB appeared to be "impartial" when it comes to cache listing sites?

    Just an opinion ...

  10. #10
    paul.blitz Guest

    Default

    Don&#39;t worry, we&#39;ll get that links page updated shortly to include links to Navicache.


    Paul

  11. #11
    Motley Crew Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz+Mar 6 2004, 10:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul.blitz @ Mar 6 2004, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BugznElm&#39;r@Mar 6 2004, 02:08 PM
    As an add-on to the above post, I&#39;d like the view of the committee on how they square away the non-commercial nature of the GAGB (as outlined in the constitution) with several examples on the GAGB front-page of links/mentions of GC.com, undoubtedly one of the most commercial geocaching related sites on the web?
    It is one thing to sell GPSes for profit, and a far different thing to tell people places that sell GPSes at sensible prices.

    Just because we point to a web page for any "commercial" site does NOT make GAGB commercial itself.

    (Yes, if we were being PAID to have those links, then things might be different)

    Paul [/b][/quote]
    I think what Paul says makes sense.

    The geocaching.com site is in effect the &#39;de-facto&#39; standard geocaching site and I see no reason why it should not be listed as &#39;&#39;The Definitive Geocaching Web Site&#39; on GAGB. Whether it is commercial or not doesn&#39;t matter a fig.

    There are no doubt many other sites that list geocaches but to list them all, as they are to all intents and purposes, superfluous, it&#39;s not worth the effort. Should people want to find out more about the hobby they are free to use a search engine.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Without putting Navicache down, a quick search on there shows only 13 caches placed in the UK in 2003, and that there is a total listing of less than 125 caches in total for the UK since the first one was listed. And that includes archived caches. GC.COM appears to be justified in their claim, but as others have pointed out Navicache should have link, but so should any stats sites as well, to keep everything balanced. Even though I am biased to only using GC.COM and G:UK, I pop over and have a look at Navicache and Buxleys everyso often.
    Dave
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  13. #13
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Mancunian@Mar 7 2004, 07:39 AM
    Without putting Navicache down, a quick search on there shows only 13 caches placed in the UK in 2003, and that there is a total listing of less than 125 caches in total for the UK since the first one was listed. And that includes archived caches. GC.COM appears to be justified in their claim, but as others have pointed out Navicache should have link, but so should any stats sites as well, to keep everything balanced. Even though I am biased to only using GC.COM and G:UK, I pop over and have a look at Navicache and Buxleys everyso often.
    Dave
    Dare I suggest that the lack of caches at navicache is in no small part due to the reluctance of other sites to link to the site. GC.com censor the name and GAGB has always refused to link to it. Perhaps if more people knew of it&#39;s existence then more caches would be listed and the site could become a little more active.

  14. #14
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by paul.blitz@Mar 7 2004, 12:19 AM
    Don&#39;t worry, we&#39;ll get that links page updated shortly to include links to Navicache.
    Excellent news Paul.

    Thanks

  15. #15
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Motley Crew@Mar 7 2004, 12:21 AM
    There are no doubt many other sites that list geocaches but to list them all, as they are to all intents and purposes, superfluous, it&#39;s not worth the effort. Should people want to find out more about the hobby they are free to use a search engine.
    My caches are all listed on Navicache. Does that make them superflous and not worth the effort? They are the same caches as were listed on GC.com yet you say they have suddenly become worthless simply because they are listed elsewhere. Should we apply this system of worth to other areas of our lives. I live in a small village perhaps that makes me worth less than a friend who lives in the city?

    If more people were aware of Navicache more might list their caches there as well as gc.com for those of us that don&#39;t like using gc.com.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •