Terracaching.com

[RuffRidr]

There has been a lot of discussion recently about Terracaching.com. So I decided to log on and check it out. Evidently it is a site that is competing with Geocaching.com. The whole idea behind Terracaching.com is that it has a system in place for people to rate caches. The ones that rate well score the hider more points. The idea for this system is quality over quantity. I think this is a very interesting concept. I have even toyed with the idea of placing one on there myself.

Anybody else seen this page yet? Any thoughts?

--RuffRidr

[thenaturenurd]

I just registered for an account thats all I have done so far...sounds like a neat concept.

Craig

[Geezer_Veazey]

I created a userid just to read what I could about the site. At one point I had the impression that in their eyes quality means difficulty.

You have to get two sponsors to have full access and I didn't do that. The voting process was not clear from what was available to me. There might not be enough users visiting any local caches to to afford it sufficient support.

It seems to me that their user base in Arkansas is so sparse that it would be counter-productive list caches here.

Geezer

[RuffRidr]

Geezer,
I was logging on to sponsor Ladyengineer and I saw your name on there as well, so I offered you a sponsorship. You'll just have to get one more now. They aren't too hard to come by, I was offered a couple within the first 2 hours and I didn't even solicit anyone.

You're right, Arkansas is really sparse. There weren't any listed within 100 miles from my location. However, Texas is currently the hotbed for Terracaching activity. I don't think it would be much of a stretch for some of that activity to spread our way. That's why I was thinking of placing at least one Terracache around here to get things started.

I'm also really new over there, so I don't know all of the ins and outs of their scoring systems, so I can't really say whether they are going for difficulty only, or if they are looking for other factors as well.

--RuffRidr

[thenaturenurd]

I listed a cache on there today. Look for it...it is locationless and called "picture your state parks"

Craig

[Gaddiel]

Well, I finally got around to checking out terracaching.com. I'm just being honest with my appraisal, which is only my opinion. I must say that I came away from there with the feeling that this is just SkyDiver's version of a "spite site", resulting from his strained relationship with GC.com.

There were some other statements that caught my eye, too. One of the points of the mission statement says that their goal is to create and support a "semi-open community". I read this to mean that not everyone is welcome. In fact, the founder even states this to some degree when he says that the sponsorships serve a purpose of "keeping people out".

Another goal is to "mitigate the proliferation of caches the community feels are unnecessary or of low quality." They also state that "the system will automatically remove caches that don't stack up." In my experience, what is considered "low quality" to one person might be "high quality" to another. Some don't like long hikes in the woods, others don't like micros. Opinions are like noses -- everybody's got one. Where is the need for a cache police to do any "mitigating" or "removing" of caches based on these opinions?

Don't get me wrong. I advocate the proliferation of high quality caches, too. It's just that "lame" is a somewhat relative term.

All that said, I realize that this site implements a few features for which some at GC.com have been begging. I hope the site does well, and that many geocachers (excuse me, TERRAcachers) are born from its endeavors. My primary hope is that the two sites don't become rivals. Unfortunately, from what I've read, that may have already happened.

[Geezer_Veazey]

Opinions are like noses -- everybody's got one.
Very Good!!! I'm adding that to my collection of cliches.

Actually, you sniffed out pretty much the same opinion that I had. It made sense to me to not divide my meager energies so I decided not to pursue terracaching and didn't really express my opinions.

Within hours after logging on to check it out, I had two offers of sponsorship emailed to me from people completely unknown to me. That seemed to indicate that they had established a policy and then were not abiding by it - another reason to be leary. I also had three offers from three AGA members. With all these offers, I wondered if there were some pyramid scheme or hierarchy scheme among members. I never went back to check it out, though.

A couple days after requesting that my UserId be deleted, I went back and it had not been. I logged on and went to my profile and blanked out all fields including the required fields. I particularly did not want my email address left in the system. I was surprised when it allowed me to exit leaving the fields blank. I guess I still have a UserId in the system but it's in some kind of limbo.

Thanks, Gaddiel, for posting your opinion. I'm glad I'm not the only one that had those impressions.

Guy

[RuffRidr]

All that said, I realize that this site implements a few features for which some at GC.com have been begging. I hope the site does well, and that many geocachers (excuse me, TERRAcachers) are born from its endeavors. My primary hope is that the two sites don't become rivals. Unfortunately, from what I've read, that may have already happened.

I actually hope that they do become rivals. I'm quite happy with most of the things that go on at gc.com. But one thing that really seems to bother me is there attitude at listening to and/or implementing the requests of its users. Take the whole attributes situation, for instance. A year and a half ago, a lot of users started clamoring about how useful certain atributes would be, and how they'd like to see something like this on the website. "We'll look into it", or "This is way down on our list of priorities" is their standard answer. The 9key comes along and pretty much does it himself. Everybody is happy, and "The Selector" has been in use on a lot of cache pages. Well, a year passes and finally gc.com gets around to making their own, and initially doesn't even give credit where credit is due. They act like they are geniuses who just recently pulled off this masterful piece of coding.

Now, you are seeing something similar. A LOT of users on gc.com are starting to get fed up with "lame" caches. Now, everyone knows that "lame" is a subjective term, and people cannot agree on what constitutes a lame cache. Terracaching is setting out to try and figure out a way to let users rate caches via a complicated algorithm. There is some merit here, however I think their system has flaws as well. GC.com, on the other hand, has had several methods proposed, including a brilliant one by Markwell (I believe) that rewards Favorite caches but punishes none. Again, they are "looking into it". I'm sure a year and a half from now, we may finally see something.

Now, if Terracaching.com were to really take off and provide gc.com with some serious competition, I'm sure we'd start to see Jeremy and team pull their heads out of their a**es and start listening to their users like any good business should.

My $.02, your mileage may vary, not valid in all states.
--RuffRidr

[RuffRidr]

By the way, I'm also not fond of the hierarchial system (or Pyramid scheme as Geezer calls it) that Terracaching has. It appears to me that the people over you are the "approvers" of the people underneath them. They also get some points or their rating goes up everytime someone underneath them places a cache. Hence, you see people on there badgering the people underneath them to go and place caches. This seems like a very bad idea to me.

I was one of the one who gave Geezer an invite. I really don't care about the numbers over there, I just gave him the invite so he'd have a chance to look around. One of the things they have setup there is that you cannot get into the forums and such until you are a member. Again, a very bad idea in my opinion.

--RuffRidr

[Gaddiel]

All that said, I realize that this site implements a few features for which some at GC.com have been begging. I hope the site does well, and that many geocachers (excuse me, TERRAcachers) are born from its endeavors. My primary hope is that the two sites don't become rivals. Unfortunately, from what I've read, that may have already happened.

I actually hope that they do become rivals. I'm quite happy with most of the things that go on at gc.com. But one thing that really seems to bother me is there attitude at listening to and/or implementing the requests of its users.

Yep, this has been a problem for a while. It seems that the listening is not the problem, it's the implemetation part where they stumble. Great ideas are snuffed out because GC.com is so S-L-O-W to implement them. When they finally do get put in place, there is no credit given where it should be. All of this together leads to a disgruntled bunch of members.

Competition is always a good thing in a free market. Maybe, just maybe, this competitor will help GC.com realize their own problem areas.

[arkansas_stickerdude]

Gaddiel I have to disagree on the attributes at the bottom it does say "Thanks to 9Key, GeoRocks, and scooterj for their early implementations of this feature." So it does give credit where credit is due.

[thenaturenurd]

I was also one that offered Geezer a sponsorship. I recognized his name from here. As everyone has said (and I know Im still new at all this so maybe I shouldnt comment) both sites have their pluses and minuses. To each his own I guess.

Craig

[RuffRidr]

Gaddiel I have to disagree on the attributes at the bottom it does say "Thanks to 9Key, GeoRocks, and scooterj for their early implementations of this feature." So it does give credit where credit is due.

ASD,
It does now. There was a lot of complaining before that happened. I think 9key even quit being a reviewer over the whole deal. I'll see if I can dig up URL's to the pertinent discussions on Geocaching.com and the Texas Geocacher's site.

--RuffRidr

[arkansas_stickerdude]

I did not know about all that I just noticed the stuff at the bottom.