Links Page

[Muggle]

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.

[The Wobbly Club]

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

[NattyBooshka]

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.

[Motley Crew]

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 :( .

[Richard and Beth]

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 (http://www.guysnamedkim.com/geocache/geocache_history.html) and also this one (http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/) for two different perspectives.

Richard

[BugznElm'r]

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:

[BugznElm'r]

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?

[paul.blitz]

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

[BugznElm'r]

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 :D ) 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 ...

[paul.blitz]

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


Paul

[Motley Crew]

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.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

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

[Icenians]

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. :D

[Icenians]

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

[Icenians]

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.

[Motley Crew]

Originally posted by Icenians+Mar 7 2004, 09:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Icenians &#064; Mar 7 2004, 09:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-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.[/b][/quote]
Superfluous = Unecessary.

I don&#39;t believe them to be &#39;worthless&#39; - it&#39;s just not necessary to list them all.

Anyone interested in finding &#39;alternative&#39; listing sites can easliy find them (I found Navicache myself, took a look, and felt it was inferior to gc.com). For the beginner gc.com is the obvious place to start at - it is without doubt the de-facto site for the game.

If Navicache wish to increase their profile then that is up to them, I don&#39;t see any reason for GAGB to do it for them.

This is all very reminescent of the VHS/Betamax, PC/Mac syndrome - one thing will end up being more popular and become the norm as gc.com has.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Motley Crew@Mar 8 2004, 12:34 AM
If Navicache wish to increase their profile then that is up to them, I don&#39;t see any reason for GAGB to do it for them.

This is all very reminescent of the VHS/Betamax, PC/Mac syndrome - one thing will end up being more popular and become the norm as gc.com has.
Interesting points ... but the GAGB is representing a hobby to landowners and cachers alike, not drawing up technical standards. If furthering goodwill is to be achieved, then I don&#39;t believe that this will be furthered by making those who do not use GC.com feel that they are somehow caching under the Jolly Roger. I don&#39;t think that this attitude would help with landowners either.

As far as who is promoting who ... well a quick Google (UK) puts the GAGB at 52, so maybe it would benefit from reciprocal links from GC.com ...

I don&#39;t have a problem with GC.com listing on the links page (I cringe over the "official" word but ... ), but the three mentions (four if you count the copyright notice) that it gets (GC and Groundspeak) on the front page is, I think, over the top. List one, list em all, otherwise it will be a sticking point.

However, I do believe that this is merely an oversight and not deliberate and the more members (especially if they use different cache listing sites) the better.

[Icenians]

Originally posted by Motley Crew@Mar 8 2004, 12:34 AM
If Navicache wish to increase their profile then that is up to them, I don&#39;t see any reason for GAGB to do it for them.


Apart from GAGB being about promoting geocaching not just geocaching.com. Your arguement about using a search engine could equally apply to gc.com. Perhaps we should remove the link. There was a time when very few caches were listed there as well but it built up.

[Motley Crew]

Originally posted by Icenians+Mar 8 2004, 08:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Icenians &#064; Mar 8 2004, 08:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Motley Crew@Mar 8 2004, 12:34 AM
If Navicache wish to increase their profile then that is up to them, I don&#39;t see any reason for GAGB to do it for them.


Apart from GAGB being about promoting geocaching not just geocaching.com. Your arguement about using a search engine could equally apply to gc.com. Perhaps we should remove the link. There was a time when very few caches were listed there as well but it built up.[/b][/quote]
From a UK point of view promoting geocaching to new cachers & land owners should be a &#39;positive&#39; exercise.

I don&#39;t believe it is in the GAGBs interest to point new interested parties to a &#39;lame&#39; site.

We all know what it&#39;s like to go to a site that either &#39;doesn&#39;t exist&#39; or has no content of interest, and, NV.COM, for the UK cacher/landowner, is about as lame as you&#39;re ever likely to come across.

I&#39;ve just had a look on the NV.COM UK forum page and note your post asking about &#39;echoes&#39; and if anyone else is there (dated 8th March 2004) has had a mere 19 views and not a single reply.

Contrast this with GC.COM UK Forum, and it is patently clear which is the &#39;most&#39; active site.

Therefore I believe GAGB should point to GC.COM as it is the &#39;de-facto&#39; site - there is no need for a new geocacher/landowner to go anywhere else.

[Icenians]

Originally posted by Motley Crew@Mar 26 2004, 02:03 AM
I&#39;ve just had a look on the NV.COM UK forum page and note your post asking about &#39;echoes&#39; and if anyone else is there (dated 8th March 2004) has had a mere 19 views and not a single reply.

Contrast this with GC.COM UK Forum, and it is patently clear which is the &#39;most&#39; active site.

Therefore I believe GAGB should point to GC.COM as it is the &#39;de-facto&#39; site - there is no need for a new geocacher/landowner to go anywhere else.
What the heck does the number of forum users have to do with anything? A tiny percentage of cachers post in GC.com forums.

You don&#39;t like Navicache, so don&#39;t use it but at least let others have to option of knowing it&#39;s there. It&#39;s only a &#39;lame site&#39;, your description not mine, because it doesn&#39;t offer you what you want.
Promoting geocaching should be promoting geocaching. At the end of the day if a landowner comes across a cache on his land that is a problem and doesn&#39;t have his permission then he won&#39;t care which site it came from. If the GAGB really wants to be a voice for UK cachers then it needs to include awkward sods like me and help improve the standard of caches on landowners property wherever they are listed.

Kev

[Motley Crew]

I&#39;ve not said I don&#39;t like/dislike Navicache - your words not mine.

It seems we&#39;ll have to disagree on this then. I believe that is wrong to point people, be they cachers, land owners or whoever, to a site that has little to offer the UK caching community - it would be a bum steer. Far better we steer them to the site with plenty of UK activity, show them how active the game is and get them interested/hooked.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

The no of forum users does not count, but the no of cache finders/placers does. UK stats from Navicache for UK finders, shows that there are 38 registered uk users. With 2 finders active up to now in 04, and 20 active in 03 (with a large no only finding 1 cache). Placers stats show that 21 users placed caches, with only 1 new cache to date in 04, out off a listed 114 caches. The cacher with the most no of placed caches is "RL" (full name not used for obvious reasons) with all 46 placed in 02, and it appears that he is no longer active. With the above information, is it any wonder that Navicache does not appear to have anything really useful to offer to UK landowners regarding Geocaching.
Dave

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Sheesh ... it&#39;s just a link people :blink: . What harm is there in placing a link to ALL the cache listing sites (after all, there aren&#39;t that many of the) and letting the cacher make their own mind up about which they want to use? Or is there a hidden agenda here to cut the rest out of the loop and purely promote GC.com? If the GAGB truly want to approach landowners and say that they represent geocachers, they need to represent all of them, otherwise this is all going to be a waste of time in the long run. Icenians is right here - landowners aren&#39;t going to care about what site people use ...

Once again, a decision needs to be made and I call on the committee to make it ... is the GAGB inclusive to ALL cachers or just those who use GC.com? When approaching landowners and coming to agreements are you saying to them that you represent geocachers or GC.com users? If I were a landowner being approached I&#39;d want to know.

[Muggle]

I went into Tescoburys yesterday for some Jammie Dodgers but all I could find in the biscuit section was Hob Nobs. The manager said that he thought that Hob Nobs were much better than any other biscuit so he has decided that they will be the only biscuits that they would be stocking in future.

I thanked him for taking that decision on my behalf and for saving me from being exposed to what he considered to be an inferior procuct.

If only more people did this, then I wouldn&#39;t waste so much time by making informed choices of my own.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Muggle@Mar 27 2004, 12:58 PM
I went into Tescoburys yesterday for some Jammie Dodgers but all I could find in the biscuit section was Hob Nobs. The manager said that he thought that Hob Nobs were much better than any other biscuit so he has decided that they will be the only biscuits that they would be stocking in future.

I thanked him for taking that decision on my behalf and for saving me from being exposed to what he considered to be an inferior procuct.

If only more people did this, then I wouldn&#39;t waste so much time by making informed choices of my own.
:lol: :D :lol:

[paul.blitz]

Gentlemen&#33; (and the rest of you too&#33;&#33;&#33;)

We WILL update the links pages.

I&#39;ve hardly been around the last few weeks (was in Glasgow most of this last week: no caching, but did meet & have a drink with a cacher&#33;), and poor Teasel has been looking after a family with chicken pox.


Paul

[The Bennett Family]

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Mar 27 2004, 05:57 PM
We WILL update the links pages.

:D
Glad to see that&#39;s sorted.
It was kinda a potential credibility issue.

[Teasel]

OK, OK&#33;&#33;&#33; :o

GAGB has no business attempting to force people to use any particular listing site. However, most of our membership will, I suspect, use geocaching.com more than other listings sites. Therefore it should not be surprising that GC.com gets more attention than the others. But I don&#39;t believe the absense of Navicache in the list was an attempt to deny its existance&#33; If/when opencaching.com or any of the other attempts at "open source" geocaching get their acts together, I&#39;m sure we&#39;ll add them too.

In response to the comment about the large number of references to GC.com on the home page... I expect the text "officially recognised by Groundspeak and Geocaching.com" is probably a GC.com standard. Certainly it&#39;s the same phrase that GeocacheUK were given. Personally I think that strong links with GC.com strengthen GAGB and am happy to advertise those links on the home page. So, which of the two pairs of references would you have us remove?

Anyway, I&#39;ve updated the links page. Please let me know if there are any major sites still missing and I&#39;ll get them added in.

[Muggle]

Thanks Ian,

The new links page looks really good.

[Icenians]

Thanks Teasel.

Maybe I won&#39;t be so lonely now :D

Kev