My experience appears to be that Jeremy listens to well thought out posts,
such as this one, and not rants. Since visiting the forums again, I've
noticed that he seems to be seeking out input more and more regarding site
changes, and interacts quite regularly with those posting on the forums in
order to maintain a good dialogue.
Brian
Team A.I.
-----Original Message-----
From:
az-geocaching-bounces@listserv.azgeocaching.com
[
mailto:az-geocaching-bounces@listserv.azgeocaching.com] On Behalf Of Steven
Stringham
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 8:22 AM
To:
listserv@azgeocaching.com; Guy Aldrich
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching]
http://www.terracaching.com/
Ok. Like I said, I mostly joined TC out of curiosity. You can't really
see what is there until you are actually sponsored. And I am not excited
by what I see so far.
Yes, GC is a bit of a monopoly. But, it is open to find out what is
going on even before signing up. (You can see what caches are there!).
That also lets land managers search in their areas without
"sponsorship". I do kinda have a bit of a problem with the idea that
caches could be placed on TC and the land manager can't find out about
it. (Can we cache in the McDowell Preserve?).
I do have some problems with the new set of rules. I would like some way
for moving caches to be allowed again. Reverse virtuals were cool
(Yellow Jeep Fever). I love (and my family does) virtuals. The example
given me by Artemis in the heart of DC of virtuals gone bad I think is a
bad one. DC is the one place in the country where virtuals should go
nuts! But, yes, they should be of some quality level.
I do think the rules on density may be a bit too restrictive, but not by
much.
My real question is, how can we work from within GC to change some of
this. If posting on a Forum the answer? Is Jeremy the "benevolent
dictator"? Does he listen to our concerns, or has he made up his mind,
and there is no appeal? I don't know the answer to this question.
I do know we support GC with our subscriptions, and purchases (TB tags,
etc.) and activity. It really is a good site, generally. And the
programming does keep getting better. I do wish the site would open up
to places like AZGC for local support. (Thanks AZGC for all you do!)
I think your beef is with the tougher rules. Am I right? So, is there an
appeals process? A virtual petition drive perhaps? What does Jeremy
listen to?
Steven Stringham
StringCachers
Guy Aldrich wrote:
>I think Geocaching com the monopoly needs some competition!Do you disagree?
>
>
>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:42:19 -0700, Steven Stringham
><sstringh@stringham-family.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Ok. There are TWO (2) caches in AZ. And 58 In Montana (Land of the COLD!
>>Yeah, I know it's nice in the summer.). And I counted some 12 AZ cachers
>>now members. Most (like myself I guess) out of curiosity.
>>
>>Thanks to AZJedi and Cacheless (and an offer from Guy!) for sponsorship.
>>I did not take the immediate offer from the only one with terracaches in
>>AZ (as soon as I signed on!) (not an AZ Cacher).
>>
>>The two AZ caches available will NOT be visited by me any time soon.
>>They are both in Northern AZ, and I don't have plans that way in the
>>coming months. So, if caches on this site are place, I guess they better
>>be hidden by this bunch of 12. Also, both caches are virtuals. One on
>>Navajo land, the other on the edge of the canyon.
>>
>>So, Guy. Why? Is it a desire to be able to place the caches without
>>Artemis involvement? Or without Jeremy's rules? Is this in rebellion to
>>the newer tougher stance coming out of Seattle. So, a rebellion is in
>>order? (as I kinda stated in a previous post, which nobody seems to have
>>addressed - whine, whine - any cheese available?).
>>
>>I did notice in the "rules" or agreement an absolute statement that
>>sites like AZGC.com would not be able to harvest data from the site. I
>>found that an interesting way to start out.
>>
>>Steven Stringham
>>StringCachers
>>
>>
>>Brian Casteel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Not letting Jeff off the hook, I wanted to add in something before
>>>addressing Guy. When it's 125 and burning down there, it'll be a
>>>breezy 85 or so up here. :) It's supposed to be 72 tomorrow. Guy,
>>>did you happen to see where terracaching.com is based?
>>>
>>>Brian
>>>Team A.I.
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "AzRockhound" <azrockhound@cox.net>
>>>To: <listserv@azgeocaching.com>
>>>Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:52 PM
>>>Subject: RE: [Az-Geocaching] http://www.terracaching.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I logged on to TerraCaching to see what they were doing, got two
>>>>sponsors
>>>>without asking immediately.
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: az-geocaching-bounces@listserv.azgeocaching.com
>>>>[mailto:az-geocaching-bounces@listserv.azgeocaching.com]On Behalf Of
>>>>Steven Stringham
>>>>Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 9:18 PM
>>>>To: listserv@azgeocaching.com; Guy Aldrich
>>>>Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] http://www.terracaching.com/
>>>>
>>>>So, a number AZ Cachers starts to move on to Terracaching. It looks like
>>>>about 1300 total members so far... I wonder how many caches?
>>>>
>>>>Anyone willing to sponsor me?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>
>
____________________________________________________________
Az-Geocaching mailing list
listserv@azgeocaching.com
To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching
Arizona's Geocaching Resource
http://www.azgeocaching.com
DISCLAIMER:
This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the e-mail address or by calling the telephone number associated with this transmission. Please delete this e-mail from your computer (or discard this fax). Thank You.
(text/plain)