Should we link to non-profit organisations?

[Bill D (wwh)]

We've had a request to include a link to the RSPB on our website. That raises the question as to whether or not we should link to non-profit non-caching related sites. The committee have no objections, but we'd like to hear what our membership think of this.

[Just Roger]

I have voted 'No'. Not because I have anything against the RSPB but because it would be the thin end of the wedge. Even if you limit it to NPO's with countryside links there must be dozens of them and the site would get swamped by them. If they were on a separate page of 'Other Links', to keep them out of the way, most people would never visit them and it would just become more work for our vlounteer webmasters to maintain them.

[keehotee]

Another no from me I'm afraid.
Sites like the RSPB's are easily found without having to link to them from here. If it were a smaller, far less well known site with a more tangible link to caching my answer might have been different.....
Presumably there's nothing to stop anybody from including a link in a forum post though, without it having to be a separate pinned link somewhere?


http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s44/keehotee/rspb.jpg

[Brenin Tegeingl]

I voted yes, but would preferred to have seen a second Yes option

Only if the NPO benefits the Membership in some specific way, ie: is a Landowner who can affect cache placement permissions

In voting yes I was being practical, in that the RSPB has benefited members in the past and most likely do so in the future. Many RSBP Reserves are either Nature Reserves or SSSI/SAC's, these are areas where Permission is Presumed does not apply, instead a Proof of Permission to Publish applies.

Off the top of my head I'm aware of at least one cache placed in a RSPB Reserve with their permission.

In my own experience of owning a cache within a SSSI, the RSPB Reserve even though not part of the section where my cache is placed. Were asked for their input as part of the SSSI Management Committee due to Ground Birds Nesting in the Area. Their input was extremely positive.

It seems good practice to link when requested to NPO's who can have a affect on Members Activities. By restricting it to only these we would not be opening the Flood Gates, but provide a sign of good faith to which members asking them for permission could point to.

Dave/Deci

[Matrix]

I voted yes for the reasons outlined by that Dave/Deci bloke (whoever he is) :rolleyes:.

[lost it]

are they going to give a reciprtcal link?

[clotguy]

No from me, nothing against it in principle but I'm not sure how you would limit it? Who would choose and how? Easier to have a blanket no I think

[Bear and Ragged]

No.
But Mancunian has a valid point, which should be considered!

And (as Lost it says) is there a reciprical* link?



*I know it's spelled wrong! :p

[Dave Gerrie]

I'm going to wait to vote until some of the points have hopefully been answered!

Effectively, what does GAGB get in return? reciprical links back? permission to place on their property (in principal at least), although I appreciate that many of their sites are pay to enter.

By agreeing to this one, would we still be able to say no to others on an arbitrary basis, or would it be opening the door to may others?

I don't think I could fairly vote without knowing this, and I have a feeling others may think the same!

[studlyone]

Effectively, what does GAGB get in return? reciprical links back? permission to place on their property (in principal at least), although I appreciate that many of their sites are pay to enter.I voted Yes because of the argument laid down by Mancunian. I think it might help negotiations with large non-profit organisations if we could link to them on a links page or even the agreements page.

Other than that all the GAGB would get is a growing list of links that could be usefull to geocachers. But that's what the GAGB is here to do - to help geocachers in the UK.:)

[*mouse*]

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but it's a no from me too. I just don't really see the point as there are easier ways for me to find out about other organisations that by using this forum. (If I wanted to know about the RSPB, I would google RSPB - much quicker than going into a forum, finding the right page and then finding the link.)

I take Deci's point about landowners, but GAGB already has a database which can be added to by members. Why complicate things with another list?

The only exception is some little heard off organisation or group that might hard to track down, but personally I think that could be catered for in a normal forum post.....

[L8HNB]

No from us, even though we do support selected charities, for exactly the reason *mouse* made.

This is a fundamentally a geocaching site - we'd like to keep it that way!

L&H.

[uktim]

A big no here. If it's not caching related it belongs elsewhere!

[martybartfast]

I voted Yes because of the argument laid down by Mancunian. I think it might help negotiations with large non-profit organisations if we could link to them on a links page or even the agreements page.

Other than that all the GAGB would get is a growing list of links that could be usefull to geocachers. But that's what the GAGB is here to do - to help geocachers in the UK.:)


Well if the links are to be either on a dedicated links page (which I wouldn't personally use), or something along the lines of "The National Trust (link to their website) says we can place caches on their land" then I will vote "Yes". On the other hand if the links are to be littered throughout the site or as banner ads then I'd vote "No".

So I think clarification is required regarding what form the links would take.

[Bill D (wwh)]

Well if the links are to be either on a dedicated links page (which I wouldn't personally use), or something along the lines of "The National Trust (link to their website) says we can place caches on their land" then I will vote "Yes". On the other hand if the links are to be littered throughout the site or as banner ads then I'd vote "No".

So I think clarification is required regarding what form the links would take.
We have a links page here (https://www.gagb.org.uk/useful-links.php). If we go ahead with this link it would be added to that page.

[keehotee]

We have a links page here (https://www.gagb.org.uk/useful-links.php). If we go ahead with this link it would be added to that page.

It looks like you already have it set up - the lower section of that page - including a commercial link.. ;)

[Bill D (wwh)]

It looks like you already have it set up - the lower section of that page - including a commercial link.. ;)
The page hasn't been changed for quite some time, and as far as I remember that particular link has been there as long as the page has.

[uktim]

The page hasn't been changed for quite some time, and as far as I remember that particular link has been there as long as the page has.

the only issue I can see on that page is the link to CAMARM. I'm no fan of bikes but why on earth would you link to NIMBY single issue groups such as this?

[keehotee]

the only issue I can see on that page is the link to CAMARM. I'm no fan of bikes but why on earth would you link to NIMBY single issue groups such as this?
Any NPO group will have a certain amount of NIMBYism attached to them - and they'll almost all be more intent on preventing and discouraging actions encroaching on their own sphere than promoting or encouraging them.
But I was referring to the link to the OS, and their commercialism's almost worthy of a whole 'nother thread.........

[uktim]

Any NPO group will have a certain amount of NIMBYism attached to them - and they'll almost all be more intent on preventing and discouraging actions encroaching on their own sphere than promoting or encouraging them.
But I was referring to the link to the OS, and their commercialism's almost worthy of a whole 'nother thread.........

I guessed you were referring to the OS. I have no issue with that, it's relevant as OS maps are very useful when caching. The inclusion of links to controversial single issue groups is far more unacceptable IMO.

[keehotee]

I guessed you were referring to the OS. I have no issue with that, it's relevant as OS maps are very useful when caching.
... as are GPSr's - but links to Garmin or Magellan would be seen in a different light, even though they have less of a monopoly on their market, and they're essential for caching.

[Happy Humphrey]

I voted 'No' after considering other people's points. Links on that page should be strictly limited to sites which are of direct use to geocachers. It is entitled "Useful Geocaching Links" after all. Other links are likely to confuse and annoy...although if Dave is saying that the RSPB site has a list or map of sites that they manage and that are open to geocaching, then it would certainly be useful to link to that page.

Apart from that, perhaps there could be another page which gives links to the likes of the RSPB, if they've been helpful to GAGB or caching in general. But it's unlikely to bring much benefit to anyone, beyond being a weak negotiating ploy.

I don't like the link to CAMARM either, even though I'm sympathetic to their cause. But I don't mind links to commercial websites.

[uktim]

... as are GPSr's - but links to Garmin or Magellan would be seen in a different light, even though they have less of a monopoly on their market, and they're essential for caching.


Why would they be seen in a different light? Isn't part of the aim of the GAGB to promote caching? The site has pages that explain what geocahing is, surely it's a sensible progression to give links to manufacturers of the GPS receivers that are so essential to partake in our hobby.

ISTM that the GAGB has an illogical and ill-considered approach to the unavoidable commercial aspects of caching.