GC.com Smorgasbord

The following are a few things that have been bouncing around for a while on which I wanted to comment.

Who Is Elitist?
This is just precious. Groundspeak hails itself as the inclusive company (as we shall see below with mtn-man‘s comments). All are welcome and one is not permitted to restrict access to any cache it lists. I found this out when I pitched the idea of a cache to NJ Admin for a cache which could not be logged until Jeremy Irish logged it himself. I did this to show how another cache which logging was restricted until someone specific had found it was silly. That one was approved; my pitch was ditched. I was told that it was exclusionary.

Well, it seems like everyone’s favorite customer service representative, Heidi Roth, has a cache which is very exclusive. One has to be invited in order to log it. Yes, I see it is archived. Do not let that fool you. Folks are still logging it. This is typical of Groundspeak. Unless one is invited to the store front, he cannot log it. Unbelievable!

GC.com Memberships Fund Personal Web Sites?
Have you looked at the WHOIS for www.theirish.com? Interesting, that a company would register what apparently is a personal web site. Whose membership dollars are funding that?

Also, note that when trying to call www.theirish.com, the call is actually being made to robbie.groundspeak.com.

TC.com Bashing
The Georgia Geocaching Association has a current thread about terracaching. Someone asked if anyone was familiar with TC.com and discussion ensued from there. mtn-man chimed in with his opinion. I find it interesting that he attacks terracaching because it is exclusive. Even though it was established that sponsorship was not an issue, mtn-man shunned a terracache because he is not a member of the “exclusive club“.

I climbed right past one this past weekend and had no desire to look for it since I am not in their “exclusive club”

(From what it sounds like, there was good reason to not be impressed with the terracache as it was just a couple hundred feet from an established geocache. I agree that is not what terracaching should be about. mtn-man, however, did not state that was the reason for not finding it.)

When challenged, mtn-man defends member-only caches for numerous reasons including:

I totally understand and support the reasons for Members Only Caches (MOCs).

c. Limiting traffic to a geocache location by reducing the number of potential geocachers that can see the geocache page and hence limiting the impact on the area.

. . .

Individual cachers are the ones who decided upon whether or not their particular cache is a MOC, not the GC.com web site.

It seems to me that terracaching can be defended for the same reason, but that courtesy is not extended to the competitor. Yes, he’ll ramble on about that being a cacher’s decision, not a site decision. Sigh, could it not be that those who are playing at TC.com have already made that decision? Could it be that those of us who play there want to limit the finders to those who appreciate high quality? Who want to avoid the headaches of GC.com? Then, mtn-man spews the same garbage Dave did about the area around Pittsburgh.

People have to find the cache to rate it. So far what I hear about this “elite” site is that it stinks. One guy combined his nearest terracaches for like 50 miles (all four of them) and got a total hiking distance of just under 400 feet combined.

Note that mtn-man is ignorant about how TC.com works; one does not need to find a cache to rate it. Just what credibility does he have on this issue? You can read my thoughts on the matter when Dave first brought this up.

Also blogged on this date . . .

2 thoughts on “GC.com Smorgasbord”

  1. I just read the entire thread Georgia’s forum – it’s very good.

    How easy is it to identify the people who would make good Terracachers????

  2. Well, it looks like kennethpruett would make a good one, eh? 🙂

    Scout and I had some discussions about TC.com some time ago. He said the site was exclusive. I agreed. It is not a site for everyone. If it were, there would be no need for it. It is for the cachers who are seeking more than “average”. I have no problem with “elitist” being tossed about. Those who use those words often have the understanding that mtn-man has shown in this.

    But it all falls apart if high quality is not maintained. The easiest way to prevent the criticism some use is to ensure that areas like Pittsburgh are not identified by one lone cacher who has dropped four or five lame caches. And as much as I welcome Bluebird, if the quality isn’t any better than Riverview, the concept isn’t going to work.

    The defense of the DC virt and the lack of holding cachers accountable are things I don’t see being overcomed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.