Benchmark cache type

About the Opencaching Site

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Bon Echo » Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:21 am

Mr.Yuck wrote:How do our two other major non admin commenters in this thread feel about the original submitter not really "owning" the submission after it's approved?


I think our opinions are clear. But I'm not drawing a line in the sand and I hope the other "major non admin commenter" is not either. This is a discussion, not a round of bargaining. I hope.

However, I really wish we could get input from a other players. With over 120 views, there are others watching this thread. Speak up - please, your input is requested
Bon Echo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:56 am

Bon Echo wrote:
Mr.Yuck wrote:How do our two other major non admin commenters in this thread feel about the original submitter not really "owning" the submission after it's approved?


I think our opinions are clear. But I'm not drawing a line in the sand and I hope the other "major non admin commenter" is not either. This is a discussion, not a round of bargaining. I hope.

However, I really wish we could get input from a other players. With over 120 views, there are others watching this thread. Speak up - please, your input is requested


That is the biggest issue that I have with listing on OCNA, there are not enough players. OCNA is only a listing service and I already have Waymarking to list my Benchmarks, and I found another really cool one that is not listed yesterday. OCNA needs to offer me something other than turn over my work to them to publish it on their site. I won't do it.

I feel like it is a really bad move not to allow the submitter to call the listing their own and make it part of OCNA's data base. We all know customers leave and take their listings with them, and this looks like a cheap attempt at building numbers.

I'd gladly list a few listings here if they are just like any other listing I have published here but I'm not stocking the OCNA pond. ;)


Would be nice to hear comments from others here, and not the three admins and the two waymarkers that play here. :oops:
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby TermiteHunter » Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:14 pm

I have no objection with the lister retaining ownership. It (OCNA ownership) doesn't give me the impression that it BUILDS NUMBERS but it would allow for the retention of submissions from those that just quit the game or pull out of OCNA . There would still be nothing preventing a leaving member from creating the same or similar listing elsewhere. Since these things are pretty much permanent i would hate to see any pulled just because a member no longer wants to participate when they tire of the game.

Sent from my SM-J320P using Tapatalk
User avatar
TermiteHunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 926
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby TermiteHunter » Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:32 pm

So... what could OCNA offer that is not available elsewhere for BMs? You find it, create the page, we list it, it is found, one more find added to total. What else is there? We can't offer a huge base of members. At best we could only match the general user numbers if they were too abandon the other sites or add us as a site to use. We won't be able to offer a huge database of BMs without the participation of those that already play. Players can't add new creations of their own. They will be listing existing / known BMs and rarely adding a previously unknown one.

What NEW thing would draw a current player to OCNA for this or any other cache type?

Sent from my SM-J320P using Tapatalk
User avatar
TermiteHunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 926
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Mr.Yuck » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:42 pm

Bon Echo wrote:
Mr.Yuck wrote:How do our two other major non admin commenters in this thread feel about the original submitter not really "owning" the submission after it's approved?


I think our opinions are clear. But I'm not drawing a line in the sand and I hope the other "major non admin commenter" is not either. This is a discussion, not a round of bargaining. I hope.

However, I really wish we could get input from a other players. With over 120 views, there are others watching this thread. Speak up - please, your input is requested


We have, I will say, dozens of hardcore loyal users, and perhaps hundreds of casual users who have not forgotten about us. Do these people post in a classic forum, such as we have here? No. Forums like this are like so 2004. :lol:

I would welcome some more input, but I don't think it's going to happen. I do think this is a great discussion though.
ImageImage
User avatar
Mr.Yuck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:09 pm
Location: York County, Va.

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Mr.Yuck » Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:45 pm

Well, I guess that last post didn't bring anyone out of the woodwork. :D
ImageImage
User avatar
Mr.Yuck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:09 pm
Location: York County, Va.

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:49 pm

Mr.Yuck wrote:Well, I guess that last post didn't bring anyone out of the woodwork. :D


I'm waiting to see how many benchmarks will be approved. :D
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Mr.Yuck » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:03 am

Manville Possum Hunters wrote:
Mr.Yuck wrote:Well, I guess that last post didn't bring anyone out of the woodwork. :D


I'm waiting to see how many benchmarks will be approved. :D


They're lining up in droves to post them! They're just not people who post to internet forums. :o

Our free lancer has been delayed, so it's actually good we bought some time here. I hope to go over this thread with a fine toothed comb later today or over the weekend, and post a synopsis of what we're looking at so far.
ImageImage
User avatar
Mr.Yuck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:09 pm
Location: York County, Va.

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:23 am

Mr.Yuck wrote:
Manville Possum Hunters wrote:
Mr.Yuck wrote:Well, I guess that last post didn't bring anyone out of the woodwork. :D


I'm waiting to see how many benchmarks will be approved. :D


They're lining up in droves to post them! They're just not people who post to internet forums. :o

Our free lancer has been delayed, so it's actually good we bought some time here. I hope to go over this thread with a fine toothed comb later today or over the weekend, and post a synopsis of what we're looking at so far.


I'm working on a few drafts. I can't wait to see what others have to offer here. I found another BM to add to the data base last weekend.

So what next, is OCNA going to accept State Historical Markers as a cache type? :D
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Mr.Yuck » Fri Nov 04, 2016 1:13 pm

Manville Possum Hunters wrote:
I'm waiting to see how many benchmarks will be approved. :D


Mr.Yuck wrote:

Our free lancer has been delayed, so it's actually good we bought some time here. I hope to go over this thread with a fine toothed comb later today or over the weekend, and post a synopsis of what we're looking at so far.

Manville Possum Hunters wrote:I'm working on a few drafts. I can't wait to see what others have to offer here. I found another BM to add to the data base last weekend.

So what next, is OCNA going to accept State Historical Markers as a cache type? :D


How'd you know? And then, in true Waymarking fashion, we're going for the fast food restaurant cache type. :shock:
ImageImage
User avatar
Mr.Yuck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:09 pm
Location: York County, Va.

PreviousNext

Return to Opencaching Website

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest