as77

I didn't say or imply that any approver has objectionable motivations and I don't think any of them has. The issue is much more complex than that and it is related to the relationship between GC.com and the geocaching community and the way they work together in general, which I have certain views on. But I feel that unfortunately the atmosphere in this thread doesn't allow the considerate and civil discussion of these ideas and issues, even though the question of MOCs, which is the topic of this thread, is closely related to this more general subject. As far as the OP is concerned, if the sole purpose of this thread was to answer that question, this has been completed (the answer is that some people frown upon MOCs, others don't) so the thread might as well be closed.

Hopefully. Especially if they don't get any financial compensation from any commercial listing service in any form. Volunteering for the cachers, representing the cacher community, is obviously a good thing and very respectable. This applies to approvers who do so. Volunteering to be a moderator on these forums... that's a different issue.

Because they will represent the interests of those who hand-pick them. I was hoping that they volunteer to serve the community of geocachers...

By whom?

I would bet a significant amount of money that it's a mistake.

What if they just send a package, you open it and you find the old Legend? Then you have the hassle of returning it. The lowest price I found for the Legend C on Froogle is $271. This would be $100 cheaper and Target is usually not the cheapest store, so I'd say it's an obvious mistake. And I would want the Vista C anyway...

I actually never understood that. People volunteering to a for-profit company, serving company interests. Strange. In a normal world these people would be democratically elected by cachers, and they would represent the cachers' interests as opposed to some commercial listing service's interests.

It's an obvious mistake. They will either cancel the orders or send out the old Legend and you have the hassle of returning it.

Be careful, the photo shows the black-and-white Legend, not the Legend C! With this price, in all likelihood the photo is right and the name is wrong! And $170 is not a very great price for the old Legend either.

Well, he has 18 finds in total, since March 2002, so I don't think he's a "numbers guy"

And likewise, paying members pay the bills (a tremendous contribution) so that GC.com can be free to non-paying members. Paying members deserve the same appreciation as non-paying members. Don't forget the ads on gc.com that non-paying members see as well. The advertisers base their decision to use gc.com as an advertising medium based on the number of visitors to the site and the more visitors the more the advertisers pay. The majority of visitors are non-paying members. MOCs don't reflect the desirable equal appreciation you mentioned.

There's nothing unusual about that, every company needs an initial investment. The phone company had to build the infrastructure before they saw any payment from me. The way I see it is this. The fact that the "basic service" of gc.com is free is not an act of charity by Groundspeak but it is part of their business model. If even the basic service was fee-based, the number of members would be by orders of magnitude smaller, i.e. the number of caches (and logs) would be orders of magnitude smaller, and the game would be much-much less interesting, less popular and less enjoyable, i.e. the business plan simply wouldn't work, the hobby would die off and the company would go down in a short time. Therefore, GC.com badly needs the masses of non-paying members because they are the ones who place the bulk of caches and enter most logs and make the game possible even for the paying members. And of course, they are the ones who will become premium members later when they switch to paperless caching, etc. So, it's not Jeremy's good heart why the basic service is free and it's not a sacrifice by him; it's part of a well thought-out, long-term, strategic business plan with a good understanding of how a massive consumer base can be built. The shareware analogy is good: the fact that there is a functional trial version helps to make the software well-known and popular and helps to build a sizable consumer base so that more people pay for the full version. Therefore, non-paying members do contribute tremendously to the business success of GC.com. And they deserve the same appreciation as paying members.

That sounds interesting. Could you mention a few nonprofit-like elements? Do you think that there can be a "transitional state" between non-profit and for-profit?

Certainly possible, but this guy has had his account since March 2002. He waited more than two years to log one of his finds? Seems unusual, but I accept that this is the most likely explanation. The notification almost made me think that the cache has been found after all, so I could go for it again. It's a good thing I noticed the date. Still my DNF is the last log.

I don't think that's what you meant when you said you want to favor like-minded people. I think you meant that you would even give your money to Groundspeak if you didn't need any of its services, just because you like them. If you just want to favor people who use pocket queries, I don't see the point. Why are people who don't need pocket queries not worthy of having the opportunity to find some of your caches?

Well, again: I am a premium member and I still frown upon MOCs and consider them elitistic unless there is some valid reason behind making a cache subscriber-only, like minimizing traffic in a sensitive area. Honestly, the concept of MOCs reminds me a bit of a pyramid game or multilevel marketing where after you pay, you are supposed to recruit more paying participants. I never liked that concept. I just want to be a plain customer of Groundspeak and I don't want to become part of their marketing scheme. I will gladly tell my friends about how enjoyable geocaching is but I don't want to coerce anyone into becoming a paying member by placing MOCs.

Huh? What do you mean by 'compelled'? I don't feel compelled, there's a service I'm buying. Where did I say I didn't like them? I don't like them and I don't dislike them. Why get emotional? I have a business relationship with a company. Support seems to me an inadequate term to use in connection with a company. When you pay your phone bill, do you feel that you 'support' the phone company because you like them? When you bought your car, did you feel that you 'support' the car manufacturer because they have made such a great car for you? Again, inadequate words to me. It's not an organization, it's a company that sells services and goods. Whether I buy those services and goods only depends on whether I need those services and goods and whether I think the price is right for me. 'Wish to support' doesn't make sense to me in association with a company. I don't 'wish to support' my phone company, I buy phone service from them. I'm not even interested in who the CEO of the phone company is and what his favorite ice cream is And the same applies to a company named Grounded, Inc. Corporation (address: 2111 3rd Ave West Seattle, WA 98119) that, according to the Trademark Office, provides services belonging to International Class Code 041 (entertainment services, namely providing on-line information for a GPS based treasure hunting game) and sells goods belonging to International Class Code 025 (clothing, namely shirts, hats, vests, jackets, shoes and pants).

Well, I am a premium member but I'm afraid I'm not like-minded. I didn't choose to "support" Groundspeak, Inc. I chose to buy certain services from them. I consider it a business relationship. Just like when I pay my phone bill, I don't consider it a "support for the phone company so that they can improve their services"; I consider it a payment for the phone service they provide and that's it. So you see, I'm not like-minded and I can still search for MOCs. Now what?

Like-minded as in: "hey, he also uses pocket queries, he must be a good guy?"

That's exactly the problem I found. Apparently it appears from time to time. I thought it had been fixed but apparently it reappeared.

But what if someone just doesn't need it? People buy premium membership because they get extra features, first of all the ability to do pocket queries. But someone who doesn't find pocket queries indispensable doesn't really need to be a premium member. Then why should he buy a premium membership? Placing a MOC is equivalent to saying: "hey, you are not using pocket queries? then I will not allow you to hunt for my cache unless you pay $3 to the company of my choice, even if you don't need their extra services". What's the point of that?

And so what? We can have a similar discussion again, even if most of the arguments are the same, different people may participate. I don't think it's a realistic expectation that everyone who raises a subject should read all the two dozen previous discussions about it and decide that it's not worth talking about it any more. We might as well close the entire forum with that attitude.

As I said in another thread, I think it's a big mistake to take away the panning and zooming ability from non-premium members. Looking at a pannable, zoomable map with the caches shown on it is something that makes beginners feel amazed about how many caches are out there to hunt and it is something that can get one hooked and help one to make one's first steps in geocaching. And some of the people who get hooked become premium members later. But a static, dead map with a remark that zooming and panning is for paying members only will just make a newbie feel that this is a strongly commercialized site with crippled features that are almost useless for non-subscribers and will just make them go away before they get a chance to get hooked. As for the present non-paying members, I doubt anyone will become a premium member just to be able to pan and zoom the map. It's more likely that they just get upset about losing this ability and it will make them even less inclined to buy a premium membership. But of course this is just theorizing, gc.com's revenue numbers may show otherwise.

I think one way to make the forum friendlier is not to kill every discussion by insisting that the topic has been beaten to death a dozen times earlier so there's no point in talking about it.

Well, I posted a DNF to this cache on August 15 this year and started to watch it then. This is the first log I received, and it's from two years before my DNF. Doesn't help a lot... When you logged your find 11-12 months late, did the log show up at the top of the list on the cache page or was it inserted in the middle according to the date you entered?