Talk:Where's George?

Imitators?

Hrm.... I don't like the word "Imitators". I feel it has a negative connotation. Certainly the other websites were inspired by WG, so I suppose I need a synonym for "inspire". UtherSRG 21:45, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How's this now? "Influenced" seems to work well.

--Kyle 04:41, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

--I think 'imitate' is the perfect word. That is, after all, what these sites are doing Superstarwarsfan (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Chain Letter?

How does this compare with chain letters? A-giau 22:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quite different, it seems to me. -DavidWBrooks 01:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Defacing currency

"DoshTracker in England. In the UK its illegal to deface notes, so writing on notes is not an option, hence DoshTracker has not had the same kind of success as Where's George."

Shouldn't this be clarified? I think it's illegal in most places to deface currency, just not widely enforced. — Phil Welch 01:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not illegal to write or otherwise marks US currency. However, to do so with intent to change (ie upgrade) the value of the currency is illegal. - UtherSRG 01:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it's illegal because Where's George had to stop selling their stamp.- Nathan July 11, 2005

You "think", but your logic is flawed. I know that it is not illegal. I've been Georging for about 4 years. WG had to stop selling their stamp but others did not. WG FAQ - UtherSRG 15:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. law on defacing currency is pretty clear, and simply writing on it is not illegal (else those brown pens that stores use to test the new bills would also be illegal). They don't care if you write on the bill, so long as the intent is not to deceive, defraud, or render useless. The law states: Defacement of currency is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. Under this provision, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. Defacement of currency in such a way that it is made unfit for circulation comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Secret Service. --Birdhombre 19:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

WheresGeorge stopped selling stamps mainly because it is taboo (if not illegal) to advertise on currency. If he was selling the stamps for his own site it might be considered advertising. However, if a WheresGeorge user wants to get a stamp for himself and goes to an online stamp seller, that's not illegal. --Cyde 02:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You're exactly right. Hank had to stop selling stamps because it was considered advertising, which is indeed illegal. Other people selling stamps, however, isn't considered advertising, because the other sites are not the site being promoted. I think also the problem was this was seen as Hank encouraging people to stamp or otherwise mark their bills. The WG? site now does not encourage marking bills anywhere, except for very subtle remarks. Search4Lancer 07:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

US Code on Defacing Coin and Currency

USC 18, 331:

Mutilation, diminution, and falsification of coins

Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States- or Whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled, or lightened— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [1]

USC 18, 333:

Mutilation of national bank obligations

Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. [2]

There are both laws, in Title 18, § 331 and § 333. myselfalso 16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Except, 331 is in reference to notes, not coins. I've taken the liberty of making bold the important part of 333, most pointed out by Georgers, and most obviously making what we usually do, not illegal. Search4Lancer 18:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

LAW RE MARKING ON US CURRENCY I know I'm going to catch flack on this. I AM quite sympathetic to Georgers who discreetly mark their bills. However, the truth on the legality of marking US currency is generally missed. It is apparently quite true that discreetly marking a US bill for normal WheresGeorge purposes would NOT constitute defacement of US currency. However, it nonetheless remains illegal for different reasons, though the US Attorneys' offices have clearly thus far not chosen to enforce the law, which is why we see WG-marked bills. I'm not sure that marking the bills with a counterfeit-detection pen would be illegal. Here's why. The federal statute in question is 18 USC 475, and it is independent of "defacement," though there could obviously be an overlap. Here is a link to that part of the US Code: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=475 I've had people tell me that this pertains only to advertisement on bills, or that it pertains only to advertisements in the likeness of money, or some such. Yet, the plain language of the statute is clear. "Whoever ... or attaches ... or any notice or advertisement whatever, shall be fined under this title." This seems a bit ungrammatical, but I've pared away parts of the statutory wording to point out the "OR" word. Anyone who attaches a business card or advertising OR "any notice .. whatever" "shall be fined." I suspect that a counterfeit-detection pen's mark wouldn't be a "notice," but a website address likely would be. I don't like that this should be so; I am sympathetic to georgers in general, and I don't think that a discreet WG mark should be illegal, and I applaud the US Attorneys' good sense in turning their attention to other things than georgers (who, I would agree, would clearly not seem to be the intended targets of 18 USC 475, nothwithstanding the language used in the statute)... but I think it should be clear that there is no green light under US federal law to mark one's bills. I also suggest that Wikipedia's article should not suggest otherwise. Marking bills in the normal WG way isn't "defacement." It is nonetheless at least technically illegal. Zajacd01 13:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• To avoid original research it would be best to cite an outside legal opinion and not to form our own. --Dystopos 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• It is entirely true (if that was what was meant) that one can find God-only-knows how many pages online in which someone, someplace, is asserting that marking on US bills is only illegal if it constitutes "advertising," whatever that might mean in the context of 18 USC 475. (Is "www.wheresgeorge.com" advertising? Is "First Baptist Church of Ourtown, MD" advertising? For these purposes is "advertising" only that which is profit-motivated? Authority for this?) While most of these are lay newspaper reporters repeating what they've found on the web and elsewhere, it would also be true that some of these voices are from people in the enforcement community. However, as an attorney myself, I go back and look at the actual language in the statute. Legislators are presumed to mean what they say, unless another meaning is clear and unambiguous. DOJ manuals' interpretations are helpful but not binding, and are subject to change. If anyone is aware of a federal appellate decision interpreting this aspect of 18 USC 475, I'd genuinely be interested in seeing the cite. (...probably too much to hope for to want to see a SCt decision cite... ) Until then, 18 USC 475 makes it technically illegal (even if no one's enforcing it) to "attach" "any notice ... whatever" to US currency. I do not mean to suggest that some kind of a crazy crackdown is in the offing, nor that the DOJ has decided to put a stop to WG. My suggestion is that the Wikipedia article ought not categorically state that it is legal to mark bills. Zajacd01 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that Wikipedia should accurately convey any controversy, and the statutes should be referenced, but since there is clearly disagreement about how the statutes apply specifically to Wheresgeorge, we should rely on independent published arguments and not on our own analysis, no matter how well-founded. I encourage you to read the policy at Wikipedia:No original research in order to understand why this is important to Wikipedia's mission. --Dystopos 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Read it. Got it. I've in any event not sought to make any changes (to the main article) myself... Could the main article suggest, in the last sentence under 'Overview,' "However, the general view is that using Where's George? rubber stamps on currency is are not illegal per se..." instead of "However, Where's George? rubber stamps are not illegal per se..."? I will, in any event, make no change to the main article myself, and will let my posting on this topic go at that... Zajacd01 15:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's certainly a reasonable change, so I made it. Thanks for your contribution. --Dystopos 17:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I was going nuts trying to find again the place on the Internet where I'd seen a government statement about marking on US bills, something which could be cited in a main article for the proposition that marking on bills is not necessarily "legal," even if enforcement was not at this point a priority for the powers that be. Something to get away from "original research." I found it. "The Secret Service would consider it a violation of 475," spokeswoman Lorie Lewis said. "But whether or not the U.S. Attorney's office would prosecute would be up to the U.S. Attorney's office."

This quote may be found online at: http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/092004/09292004/1520547/printer_friendly

Name origin

Perhaps a mention of the name (not necessarily the original idea) probably being influenced by the "Where's Waldo?" books that were so popular earlier in the decade? CFLeon 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds silly. And if anything, it'd be best to ask Hank before saying something like that. Search4Lancer 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

scienceblog.com research article link

This is linked to twice, once at the beginning of this article, and once at the end. This is redundant. -EdGl 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it. I find it comical how people will moan about things in articles when they can easily edit things themselves. OsFan 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean, like you just did? - DavidWBrooks 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even check to see if it had been fixed or not. Has it been almost six months? OsFan 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is also a blog, and unusable as a source unless it can be shown that the writer is a well-known journalist or professional researcher. Infact I can't see the entry being attributed to anyone whihc pretty much disqualifies it since the website asserts "published by a team of science editors, writers and enthusiasts". None of those fall under professional researcher, and since its not named we can't ascertain that it was written by a well known journalist. Any material referenced from it will have to be removed as will the source.--Crossmr 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Gone?

I think the wheresgeorge website has been disabled and is no more.

No, it's still around. 68.54.163.153 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

hey guys, i tried to open the website but I always get this error message: Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server. Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. can anybody help me to get to the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.82.187 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See this message for some information about the problem: http://www.eurobilltrackerforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=545851#545851 Avij (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability

We need some additional links to establish notability. The website being told not to sell stamps by the government and some of its data being used in a study is really stretching the notability guidelines. Actual coverage of these events or other articles from a reliable source in which where's george is the main subject would be useful here. --Crossmr 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Dystopos 17:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of how to edit. I can point out a flaw in an article without being required to fix it. As it stands I don't really think this article meets the requirements, so rather than nominate it for AfD I've made a note so that an interested party can find the appropriate sources if they exist.--Crossmr 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The site has been featured in dozens of national magazines, newspapers, TV and radio news programs, etc. For instance:
Money Magazine: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2000/07/01/282746/index.htm
ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2436133
Wired Magazine: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/start.html?pg=12
Or any of the other news items posted on the website: http://www.wheresgeorge.com/news.php (USA TODAY, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, AP, NPR, CNN, Business Week, just to name a few).
The release of Nature study and article released last January was picked up by hundreds of news outlets (printed and virtual) around the world. You can google "where's george? max planck" just for a sample of the stories still online.
And as far as website popularity, Alexa has Where's George? ranked at about 19,026 of ALL websites. Bookcrossing.com (which was inspired by Where's George?), whose Wikipedia article is not questioned for notability is ranked at 32,745. Where's George? has been around since 1998 and gets more than 1,500 new registered users every day, and is mentioned in some press outlet, somewhere, about once a week (local TV, newspapers, magazines, etc). Henryhank 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since some of this is already in the article, I think your notability concerns are misplaced. If you're looking for non-notable articles, wikipedia has about a bazillion to choose from. - DavidWBrooks 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just responding to the comment "We need some additional links to establish notability" posed by Crossmr directly above. I believe it was a valid response to a direct query. Did I mis-understand the question or was he looking for something else? Henryhank 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, I was unclear - I was responding to Crossmr; that is, I was agreeing with you that his objection was unsupported. - DavidWBrooks 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

None of those appear in the article currently. Hence why I asked for notability to be established. these should be included at the end of the article.--Crossmr 04:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing.. see this Wiki article Currency_bill_tracking -- The creation of Where's George? has inspired no less than twelve other money tracking websites around the world (several of which have their own Wiki entry). There are several not even listed because they are now defunct due to the Euro replacing other currencies. Henryhank 13:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyvek or Guardian?

Do Georgers support moving US $1 bill production to Tyvek, Guardian, or another polymer to print $1 bills? (See the Wikipedia article on Polymer banknotes.) A George'd bill would last a lot longer in circulation! Xenophon777 01:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be silly IMHO, since the question really is do we even NEED a dollar bill and polymer is bound to be more expensive per note to create. I'm in favor of moving to dollar coins and using $2 bills as a minimum, then possibly getting rid of those and do $2 coins. Also getting rid of the penny wouldn't be a bad idea either. (I'm a georger, btw) As for US Currency security anyway, it's laughable. We really should get rid of the antique presses and upgrade like the rest of the world. Plus the penny costs more then a penny to make now anyway, and I think it's likely to be one of the lowest value coins made currently by any economic power. The dollar lasts a whole 21 months on average before it's destroyed (according to the wikipedia article, but my experience with WG? MOST bills are lucky to last even a year.) by the FRB's. The cost savings to the BEP would be hundreds of millions if they stopped making dollar bills and replaced with dollar coins that last upwards of 20 years on average. So yea I personally am in favor of getting rid of pennies and dollar bills and definitely upgrading the $100, $50 and $20 (at least) with more advanced anti-counterfeit protection. Not that my _opinion_ in this matters or contributes.. haha Raeky (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

At the time of my earlier post, the powers that be were griping about how quickly the dollar bill has to be replaced, and about the cost of doing it. Some countries do, indeed, use polymer blend "paper" for high-circulation notes. (See Wikipedia articles on the same.) They do save money, as the bills last a very long time. In any event, I also wrote to, I forget, the treasury, or whoever receives such suggestions, suggesting the use of Tyvek or another blended material. The answer I received in writing flabbergasted me. They do NOT WANT longer-lasting bills, they say, because the quick turnover discourages counterfeiting etc. Huh? Well, those were their words. So I give up. Dollar coins: I love 'em, but I feel rather lonely in that regard. $2's, also, I love, though I encounter a lot of (welcome) resistance from retailers. When retailers refuse my $2's (it does happen, though not often) I note the when, the where, etc., and write a complaint to the highest level of corporate management that I can find. I always get a nice apology and some freebies. I know that a well-worded communiqué also goes to the local retail establishment to educate them. As to pennies (and, as far as I'm concerned, nickels, too), the sooner they're abolished the better, though I'm not holding my breath. "If I were king", we'd get rid of denominations referring to amounts below 10¢. That is, we'd have only dimes and halves. All change would be rounded to the nearest 10¢. However, I did not consider a move to a polymer based material for dollar bills to be silly. Silly me, I'd thought that a longer-lasting dollar bill would be in the national interest. Ah, well. Xenophon777 (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's silly to hold the position that shorter lasting bills discourages counterfeiting. A $100 bill at most even on world class presses and best paper and inks couldn't cost more then say, lets throw out the insane $1 per bill cost. Thats $99 profit. I don't see how the counterfeiter cares how long that bill circulates once he gets his $99 or even if he sells it for say $50 for a $100 bill, thats $49 profit. How would he care if it doesn't last as long? A counterfeiter is only concerned about the inital point of "sale" of the bill, what happens after it isn't of concern. The response you got was probably from some low-grade temp worker who miss-read your letter and sent you the wrong form letter reply.. lol. Raeky (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it certainly does matter how long a bill is in circulation. The concept is, you print a dollar bill that costs 10 cents to manufacture (just throwing a number out there. I don't know how much it costs to actually manufacture a dollar bill). Everytime that dollar changes hands in a transaction, it earns the state a .07 cent profit (or whatever your state sales tax may be). So suppose I was Mr. Government and I manufactured a dollar bill. If that dollar bill lasts 1 year, it might encounter 10,000 transactions, and thus earn the state a $700 "profit". The fewer times I have to re-manufacture that dollar, the less my cost. If I had a dollar bill that cost me ten cents to manufacture, but it would last 10 years, that dollar might encounter 10 million transactions, and thus earn the state a $700,000 dollar profit. You might say the federal gov't doesn't care how much "profit" the state earns, but the fact is the state receives federal funding for various expenses such as building roads, schools, welfare, etc. So more "profitable" states would require less federal funding to meet their needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.223.213 (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a contest?

The article states, "Although there is a scoring system, the website makes it clear it is not intended to be a contest." I would appreciate clarification on this. Can you show me any quote or reference to back up this claim? It seems there is extreme competition amongst Georgers to get a higher george score, and there is even a seperate webstite called bankoffrank.com that has a spy tool that Georgers can use to estimate when they will overtake another user.

Obviously, the primary purpose of Wheresgeorge is to track the natural circulation of currency. However, the answer to the first FAQ as to why the site exists is "For fun and because it had not been done yet." Thus, it has become a contest for MANY users. Georegers, in addition to desiring a higher George score, also have goals of reaching certain Bingos, such as a hit from every state. Yes, there are user guidelines and no prizes. But where does the claim that it is not INTENDED to be a contest come from? Is there a quote from Hank?

From the FAQ, discussing George Score points: "They aren't worth anything, and you won't get any prizes. It is solely for the enjoyment by some users that like to compare themselves with each other." That sounds pretty un-contest-ish to me - it might be competitive among users but there's no contest (that is, official competition overseen by the site). Perhaps that distinction needs to be made clearer. - DavidWBrooks 23:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not Notable? Really?

WheresGeorge would be recognized by a percentage of the population throughout the United States and the world. It has inspired similar sites to track Canadian currency (WheresWilly), the Euro (EuroTracker), and others. It has appeared in articles in Inc, Fortune, and Forbes. I'm a bit bewildered by the notability suggestion... particularly as I'd thought that this question had been laid to rest back in March. (See the "Notability" discussion above.) Xenophon777 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, what's the rule (or convention, or protocol...) for removing the "Notability" tag from the article if it isn't really appropriate? How long does it stay up there, if the matter has been dealt with in a prior month, before it should be taken down? Xenophon777 15:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The notability issue was, as Xenophon777 mentions, discussed and the tag was removed. This new tag should be removed immediately. Spacini 18:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo needed?

Does the article really need to have my photo on the page? I don't see the need or the relevance. Henryhank 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems encyclopedic to have a photo of the website's founder on an article about the website. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the consensus among Wikipedia. None of the following website articles have photos of their founders: Bookcrossing, Geocaching, Google, Amazon, AOL, Ebay, YouTube, Craigslist, Digg, Apple, NetFlix, Go Daddy, Match.com, Napster, and heck, even Wikipedia's own entry doesn't have a photo of Jimmy Wales. I don't see why Where's George? is different or important enough to have my photo. It needs to be removed. Henryhank 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the founders of the above websites have their own biographical articles...however, I requested an outside opinion on the issue here, and will be happy to go along with whatever consensus is at that discussion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you also remove my image from wikimedia and wikipedia as indicated here: [3]. Thanks. Henryhank 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

On Weasel Words

It seems to me not necessarily notable that there are disagreements about whether or not certain entries are removed in the website. The website, after all, is one fellow's site sharing information with others. In general, internet common law seems to recognize that one may police one's site as one sees fit, and if the owner is capricious, the offended party may avoid the site. I recommend that the weaseling about arbitrariness be removed, as it is not in the interests of the reader. --Steve (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right: it was a load of vague, opinionated hooey. I have trimmed that section way down and also put in a couple of "fact" tags. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the user who originally wrote that section with all the Weasel words was recently terminated for "dumping" bills in banks. It was pure vengeance/retaliation they added that section. Thanks for editing it. Henryhank (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a citation we can add to the comments? Any notation or official comment on the Website about accounts being terminated for this? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's all in the User Guidelines: http://www.wheresgeorge.com/rules.php#7 (see #7) Henryhank (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Website discriminates against some browsers

I just added a paragraph noting that the www.wheresgeorge.com web server serves blank documents, instead of the real pages, to some browsers. I have a formal source for this, but it's difficult to cite, so I'm putting it here. Having received blank pages when attempting to view the website in Lynx, I sent a message to the website admins via the site's contact form:

When I attempt to view the www.wheresgeorge.com website using the Lynx browser, I get only a blank page. This happens not only for the front page but also for every other page that I've tried (such as /contact_us.php). I've experimentally determined that this is determined by the User-Agent: header. If I use lwp-request to send an HTTP request with no User-Agent: header, then I get a sensible HTML document as a response (which Lynx can then render suitably from a local file). If I send a similar request using lwp-request, differing only in the addition of the header "User-Agent: libwww-FM/2.14", then I get a response with a blank body. Please fix.

I then got a reply by email:

The website blocks certain user-agents due to abuse in the past from crackers/hackers, spammers, bots, and scripts. Yes, I know it's not a perfect solution, but it stops the script kiddies and spammers.

--Hank

For this dialogue I used a throwaway mailinator.com email address, so for the next couple of hours the reply will be accessible at [4]. mailinator.com expires messages really fast. 195.167.186.2 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to endlessly debate about wether or not Wheres George is legal.

There are many good threads already about this on the Where's George forums and other websites. This is not the place to debate about opinions of the wordings of laws, please take these discussions elsewhere. Superstarwarsfan (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, so long as the article itself does not come out and flat out say there's no whiff of illegality in the marking of bills--even when that marking does not rise to the level of defacement (which is another issue). If the article says nothing at all about the legality of marking bills, I've no problem. However, please note that the prior edit not only claimed that marking bills is okay (pursuant to a compromise of last year), but went on to give a rationale for the assertion. I pointed out that not only does the law state that it's illegal (even if no one's enforcing it), but -- here avoiding original research -- also provided a link to a statement by a Secret Service spokesperson in print to that effect. Okay, I'm getting long-winded. If the article refrains from positively stating that marking bills is legal, then I'll be in agreement with you. Zajacd01 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mismatched Doublequotes

In the following:

The Where's George? site says it "prohibits trading or exchanging bills with friends, family or anyone known to the bill distributor for the purpose of re-entry". This rule is to encourage 'natural circulation' of the currency, and to prevent multiple 'fake hits' from happening on any bill." As a result, all bills containing the word "geocache" or "cache" are tagged as a geocache bill. The site has also dropped a separate listing of "Top 10 Geocache bills" and is cautioning that if geocache sites are used too often, "all Geocache bills will be removed from this site."

There the doublequote in 'happening on any bill."' seems unmatched. I dunno where its partner ought to be inserted though or whether it is extraneous, so cannot fix it myself.

Knotwork (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited the page. Is that what you meant? Superstarwarsfan (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Site Policing"

I would like to request the other editors of this page that we remove the "Site Policing" section of the article.

It was originally written by a disgruntled WG user in retaliation for having their account disabled due to clear rule violations.

This section really doesn't add to the article, and it gives off a negative overall "vibe".

To avoid controversy, I am requesting discussion here, rather than just editing it myself. thanks.

Henryhank (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe

The title deserves to be changed. To what, I'm not sure.

Below is an example:

Regulation

In accordance with site policies, Where's George? is regulated so that certain activities do not adversely affect users and the site in general. One prohibited action is dumping: depositing a large amount of bills at one time into a financial organization. The site deems "dumping" an unnatural form of circulation and reserves the right to remove bills from the the database. Calebrw (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't like the overall tone. Most (if not all) websites have some level of *internal* policy enforcement... I don't see the need to make this public and give people the idea that this is a big problem they might run into. Like I said, the *only* reason this section exists is because of a disgruntled user who didn't like my policies. Henryhank (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Could this be integrated into the George Score section? Calebrw (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Example: Although there is a scoring system, the site makes it clear that this is not intended to be a contest. The site also prohibits marking bills and depositing them into financial institutions en masse.

Change made. No dissent. — Calebrw (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Japan

The comment added about Japan not being able to access Where's George? is totally inaccurate and not factual. Certain ISPs in Japan known to host spammers and web form attackers have been blocked from accessing the site. Not all of Japan is blocked. The original comment was added by a disgruntled user who is/was a user of one of these ISPs. Since I do not publish or disclose which ISPs or subnets are currently blocked (it changes over time, none of this can possibly be factual. I suggest the entire line (and any subsequent comments like it) be removed. Henryhank (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on this evidence, and who else would no best, I believe that the line should be removed. If there is not dissent within 3 days, I will remove this content. Calebrw (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's BS, its BS and it's now gone. No need to get consensus for unsourced crap left behind by someone with an axe to grind.Montco (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal?!

At which point was any reference to the laws pertaining to WG? removed from the article? I think they should be listed, a legal section at least! I'm a georger and the first thing that pops in most people's head is "OMG THAT'S ILLEGAL!!" and the legality of it is a very gray area. The law is: 18 U.S.C. § 333 and it is an INTENT based law, the whole ideal of WG? is so your marked bills recirculate so your intent can't be to have it removed from circulation by the basic definition of wheresgeorge. Anyway not having the legal issues discussed in the article makes the article seem as if that aspect is being covered up, since clearly the majority of people have the impression it's illegal. Raeky (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to a discussion about legality in this article, but will object in a stentorian fashion if it's one-sided and uncited. Please note my [much] earlier post above on the issue. I do agree that the typical Where'sGeorge marking on a bill would not constitute "defacement." There is another federal statute that applies here, however: 18 U.S.C. § 475, and it is independent of "defacement," though there could obviously be an overlap. I've had people tell me that this pertains only to advertisement on bills, or that it pertains only to advertisements in the likeness of money, or some such. Yet, the plain language of the statute is clear. "Whoever ... or attaches ... or any notice or advertisement whatever, shall be fined under this title." I'll tell, as an attorney, that the plain language of the statute would govern. Anyone putting a typical, discreet, WG mark on a bill would run afoul of 18 USC 475. That said, the US Attorneys have thus far had the good sense to not go prosecuting Georgers. I did at one point include a cite in the article from a spokesperson from the Secret Service emphasizing that the Service does consider WG marks to be illegal, while recognizing that the US Attys have thus far chosen to turn a blind eye to it all. In any event, I, for one, would not object to a discussion of the legality, but would object to uncited, blanket statements putting Wikipedia on the line as rendering to the public a blanket legal opinion that marking bills is "legal", particularly in the face of contrary statements from the Secret Service, and the dearth of citable legal authority to support any assertions of legality. (I'll add -- I too am a Georger -- that taking part in WheresGeorge without marking bills is, of course, a different matter altogether, and without any whiff of a taint of illegality...) Xenophon777 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how an independent individual, separate from the owner of the site, not benefiting at all financially from his actions could be charged with advertising. The statute also doesn't apply to TEMPORARY markings that is clearly advertising (previous ad campaigns with removable stickers put on currency was legal). Hank selling stamps was dangerously close to violating the 745 provision, but as individual users of the site I'm pretty sure they're not in violation of it. Also the SS has stated they have no interest in presueing cases against WG? or it's users publically. Raeky (talk)

True, the Service has shown no interest in pursuing Georgers (Hank aside, at least to the extent of their little visit). Note that the language of the indicated statute does not say that it's only against advertisements. It's against “any notice or advertisement whatever”, clearly, using rules of constuction, referring to more than just ads. We probably shouldn't make this into more than it is. The Service isn't going out and rounding people up. It's just that, if it were ever determined that text like “Track this bill at http://www.wheresgeorge.com!” were ever held to be a “notice” within the meaning of 18 USC §475, then marking of bills by Georgers would be illegal. (This is a different statute from the one you are quoting, which deals with defacement, a different issue--and I would agree that normal Wheres George markings would not normally consitute defacement.) Note also that 18 USC 475 does not refer to “temporary” markings, nor make exception for nonprofit markings. Some time ago the “truce” on this topic in the article was to note that a Service spokeswoman had said that marking bills was illegal, while noting a general consensus that it was not--without involving Wikipedia in it any further than that. Note also that 18 USC 475 does not refer to “temporary” markings, nor make exception for nonprofit markings. Zajacd01 (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This dispute is an example of why the section was removed, I suspect. Obviously, we should NOT try to indicate whether or not this is illegal since there is legitimate debate. Instead, we can have a short section saying something like "questions often arise about the legality of the process due to laws against defacing currency", then cite a couple of laws, and make it clear that it's not settled. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is dispute, but it should be mentioned in the article! As for temporary stickers things like this http://commercial-archive.com/node/108032 have been popping up more frequently. They're removable, like Post-It adhesive, and the SS has stated that because it's easily removable it doesn't violate the law. (Can't find an exact link to that at the moment, but have seen it quoted before). Raeky (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be something about the legality of it

This article is basically a wheres george praise page. There are a lot of people who feel that this is illegal. I myself do not but that is besides the point. Other points of view need to be added. Joey Skywalker (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please review the last paragraph of the "Hits" section. The question of the legality of WG is dealt with there with text which has been delicately balanced over time between the views of different editors. Incidentally, there isn't actually a controversy over whether marking the bills constitues defacement, which it clearly isn't, but whether it separately violates a separate prohibition cited in that paragraph. The new "legality" section should accordingly be removed. Xenophon777 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Better? Joey Skywalker (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It does sound a bit better, but you need a citation for Wheres George? has been accused of costing the government money by marking bills and thus shortening their life. I left your edits in their own controversy section and added {{CN}}. As this subject seems to have been discussed several times on this talk page (3, 4, 15, 19), additional editors likely have an opinion as to whether controversy/legality deserves its own section. —Ost (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement Wheres George? has been accused of costing the government money by marking bills and thus shortening their life. has absolutely no basis in fact. I have never received one complaint or comment from anyone concerning the "cost" of users marking their currency. I move to have this false statement removed. Henryhank (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Home page screen cap

Since people don't like it too much when I edit the WG article, I would like to suggest the top image of the home page be updated to the current (new) home page as of October 10, 2010 when WG 2.4 was released. I can supply this image to anyone who wants to make this change. Thanks. Henryhank (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Smithsonian article

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/03/tracing-1-bills-across-the-united-states-is-a-surprisingly-useful-hobby/

Not sure if it's worth inclusion or not, but thought I'd post it here so editors can decide. — raekyt 17:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Where's George?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080605021025/http://www.wheresgeorge.com:80/wrapper.php?page=top10bills_dgc to http://www.wheresgeorge.com/wrapper.php?page=top10bills_dgc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Disputed

The whole thing is a bit overdetailed and primary-linked to my taste, but the real problem is this:

Gary has entered over 2,197,536 bills.[19]

Yes, the reference matches (and shows others around the 800,000 mark), but I see absolutely no legitimate way that a human had millions of entries.

One second per entry is probably a minimum (even if there are bundle-submission forms, you still have to enter a serial number). Two millions of seconds is a little more than 23 days (of 24h each).

Moreover, he would need to have physically handled millions of (I assume) $1 bills which is dubious (CEOs do not get paid in cash). If you try to get as many serials as you can, you can always travel around US towns with 1000 bills of $1 and try to exchange them all at shops etc. but assuming can exchange 3000 bills a day (which sounds very optimistic to me) it means a full year of travelling around and trading bills 7/7 to have made a million exchanges (and it does not even mean you will have seen a million different bills).

Now it is possible that a bored millionnaire took a 2+-year vacation to exchange bills at day and submit them on the website at night but it does not look very credible. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, I see no reason to take the website counter's at face value. (Having "made" via bot millions of bogus submissions looks possible, though.)

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• The source provided is a link to an official report by the parent organization. Regardless of the "legitimacy" of the entries, there is little reason to doubt its factual accuracy. The mathematical calculation you've provided does not seem to disprove the claim in any way. 23 days of 24h each is obviously impossible for a single human, but consider that 46 days of 12h each is in fact possible and since the website had been in operation for around 5900 days (since its founding in December 1998) at the time the database report was generated, Gary would only have had to enter 373 bills per day (i.e. spend 6.5 minutes a day at the 1-second-per-entry rate you suggested or even a leisurely 31 bills an hour for a normal 12-hour day) to achieve his total. Nothing particularly exceptional about that except dedication. -Thibbs (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It does look a little dubious, but we can take the journalists' way out: Instead of stating it as a fact, state the fact that he makes the claim. "Gary claims to have entered XXXXX. .."- DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. If I had to speculate on how Gary achieved this feat if it wasn't really done by one person, my guess would be that "Gary" is just a username shared by several people. But of course that's just my own original theory and it's safest to just parrot back what the sources say like a journalist. -Thibbs (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to care much, I've vague-ified it with "claim" and removed that hatnote. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Where's George?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5zCTM9ZDD?url=http://wiki.getaportal.com/index.php/Main_Page to http://wiki.getaportal.com/index.php/Main_Page
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5zCTPxR1h?url=http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/092004/09292004/1520547/printer_friendly to http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/092004/09292004/1520547/printer_friendly
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wheresgeorge.com/wrapper.php?page=top10bills_dgc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)