[Az-Geocaching] Notification of Cache Removal

Thu, 5 Aug 2004 21:51:19 -0700 (MST)

You know, I am just glad to participate in this GAME. It is a whole lot of
FUN.

And, Geocaching.com and COMPANY provide the basics for FREE. And if you
wish you can support them ($3 a month), or not. This is, IMHO, a cheap
subscription rate to support a game that brings me to the outdoors like
nothing before it has. It wasn't until I wanted some of the bigger
searches that I started my subscription. But, I am glad to do it. I like
some of these features.

Do I enjoy the use of other sites like AZGC? Yes. Is it a scrapper? Yes.
Could it also receive such an order? Yes. Would I like GC to come up with
a policy for sites like AZGC? Yes. A simple subscription rate (which I am
sure folks like us would gladly pony up to support) might help with SITES
like AZGC. I would like GC to create a more conducive policy for sites
like AZGC.

But, for a program that you run individually to scrap the GC site? That
can put a huge load on the systems, slowing it down for the rest of us.
Yes, it does cost money run sites like this. Have you ever tried to pay
for your own website (just a simple one) from a regular service? $7-10 a
month for services. (don't start listing cheaper for me please?) Just for
a dinky little web site, without all the sufficistication (sp?) that GC
has. And, without all the bandwidth load of GC.

Bottom line here. Fun GAME. Cheap price for membership (little or
NOTHING). I am glad I can play.

Steven Stringham
StringCachers

> So y'all thought I was gone, didn't you?  :)
>
> The problems that azgeocaching.com has been having with regards to getting
> cache information for the custom file builds and stats maintenance was due
> to things just like this, and may in some way contributed to the ill will
> towards spiders.  The gurus of azgc.com took into account peak traffic
> times, and ran the query in the middle of the night when the largest
> portion
> of the Geocaching world was snoozing away the previous days caching.
> However, if a spider was poorly written (and this was definitely the cause
> o
> f some of the performance issues), they occasionally went into a
> continuous
> loop and not only consumed all the processing power, but sometimes even
> all
> the available bandwidth.
>
> It's no wonder they are protective of that problem, because it results in
> increased costs of doing business, from expanding the server farm to
> increasing bandwidth, all things that cost dead presidents to support.  If
> the service is used as it was meant to, costs would be lower, and
> supporters
> of geocaching.com in a monetary fashion would see more bang for their
> buck.
> Sure, I think there should be a separate portal for different regional
> geocaching groups to use as a data mining portal, but this also leads to
> bandwidth costs and potentially server load issues if coders don't honor
> policies established, or simply don't know how to code at all and lock up
> the servers.
>
> Geocaching.com IS a service that lists our caches for us.  They provide a
> great deal of that service at no charge, except in what they bring revenue
> wise from sales of Geocaching merchandise and those who pay-to-play
> (sorry,
> had to use the phrase).  The database they create for this purpose is
> proprietary, and should be.  The content of the database isn't, but that's
> a
> debate as worth the time as it would be to argue why black holes are....
> Why should they open up and freely accept a service that alone could
> result
> in crippling the system to the point where it functions for nobody at all?
> If those at GeoToad collaborated with gc.com to integrate this or find a
> happy medium (i.e., specific time frames allowed to run), then it might
> work.  But just like spiders created by other sites, they lead to
> problems,
> because inevitably there is someone out there who doesn't know wtf they're
> doing and codes something wrong or simply doesn't take into account just
> how
> much bandwidth is being eaten up by their processes.  Yes, text compresses
> EXTREMELY well, but you have enough people leeching that text and it
> quickly
> adds up.
>
> There are civil ways of having a debate on a controversial issue, and
> there
> is your way.  In the gc.com forums I found the posts not inquistive, but
> rather abrasive.  Did they really need to list a reason for a 'cease and
> desist' order?  Perhaps.  But to anyone following the forums at all, this
> is
> a known issue that has plagued the site in recent months, and even the
> azgc.com guys have mentioned code poisoning to limit/terminate the
> crawling
> of the site for information.  Heavy-handed tactics would have been calling
> in the RIAA to sue some 84 year-old granny for allowing her teenage
> grandson
> to spider the geocaching site for a quick, custom PQ.
>
> Now that I look back, I see they DID issue a reason for the cease and
> desist
> REQUEST, which is as follows:
>
> Upon a review of section #3 (License to Use Site; Restrictions) of the
> Terms
> of Use, please note that your GeoToad application is in direct violation
> of
> our site's usage policy.
>
> As mentioned before on the forums, there are other sites out there, but
> none
> with the quality of site as you have with gc.com.  If it angers you so
> much
> that you are going to pull your caches, go ahead and crusade for the cause
> of a business protecting themselves.  Navicache exists and you could even
> start your own site if it angers you that much.  When your bandwidth costs
> triple because of programmed crawlers, maybe you'll understand.  Remember
> that Geocaching wouldn't have become such a phenomenon if someone didn't
> pick up the torch and carry it this far.  Jeremy originally did this as a
> hobby but it consumed too much time and money, so rather than letting it
> die
> he chose to take a different path that benefits all.  Some of the
> decisions
> don't make everyone happy, but since when does that happen?  Just look at
> Microsoft.  So he lives off the company that is Geocaching.  I'd much
> rather
> have that than to rely on an ineffective system such as the newgroups to
> catalogue and simplify the things we currently take for granted.
>
> Brian
> Team A.I.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Schuman" <Lpublic@cox.net>
> To: <az-geocaching@listserv.azgeocaching.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 7:00 PM
> Subject: [Az-Geocaching] Notification of Cache Removal
>
>
>> I will be removing my caches in the near future. Those of you that wish
>> to
> visit them
>> should do so soon.
>>
>> If you want details you can find them here:
>>
>> http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=76690
>>
>> I find the heavy-handed tactics geocaching.com is using here deplorable.
>>
>> And i'll be removing my caches if they insist on making no attempt to
>> work
> with the
>> developer of Geotoad other than to issue a cease and desist order.
>> (Which
> was their
>> first contact, it also made scant mention of why it was even issued in
>> the
> first place)
>>
>> --
>> Lasivian
>> Website - http://members.cox.net/lasivian/
>> E-mail - http://members.cox.net/lasivian/email.html
>> ICQ# 3619356
>> --
>>

-----------------------------------------
http://stringham-family.org/