Nemesis

quote:Originally posted by regoarrarr:...the most southern physical cache is at: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=431 which is in New Zealand. ... Thanks for your e-mail update. In surprised that nobody has placed a more southern cache in the more than one and a half years (an eternity in geocaching terms) since I placed it. Antartica and Argentena are two locations that are further south than mine. Cheers, Donovan.

I agree that caches can be placed too close together. We have also discussed cache spacing issues to death in the past... Check out these threads: Minimum Distance Between Geocaches? How Close is too Close? Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by BigNick:....Bernadette...suspects that she will end up loosing the fingernail....do you mind if I change the style of the container? Sorry to hear about that. As long as the container is big enough and waterproof, knock yourself out. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by BigNick:....Bernadette...suspects that she will end up loosing the fingernail....do you mind if I change the style of the container? Sorry to hear about that. As long as the container is big enough and waterproof, knock yourself out. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by BigNick:Oh the weekend did cost lots more than $33... in fact if you add the temuka pottery costs, more than $66 Glad to see you enjoyed my caches (although one of them is the worse for wear after meeting you ). I hope you get a chance to come all of the way down to Dunedin next time. I have plenty more for you guys to find. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by BigNick:Oh the weekend did cost lots more than $33... in fact if you add the temuka pottery costs, more than $66 Glad to see you enjoyed my caches (although one of them is the worse for wear after meeting you ). I hope you get a chance to come all of the way down to Dunedin next time. I have plenty more for you guys to find. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by rediguana: Geocaching.com and Groundspeak are commercial ventures....It should be run as a non-profit venture. But its not. I don't want to invest time and money to line someone else's pocket potentially... Yeah, that was my primary concern when I first read about subscriptions. I hope this is resolved soon. That is, if we are to have subscriptions, they should be limited in cost so that they just cover the annual cost of maintaining geocaching.com. quote:Originally posted by rediguana: Slashdot....also introduced subscriptions recently....it is inappropriate to profit from the members efforts....it has been interesting to see the support of Americans for what Jeremy is doing, always supporting the right to 'make a profit' from geocaching, rather than just trying to draw an acceptable salary and cover costs, and not get rich from it. This must be a huge societal difference between Americans and Kiwis.) I agree, it must be a cultural difference. Making a profit from geocaching.com does not sit well with me either. quote:Originally posted by rediguana: I also disagree with the members only caches....I have read posts from others who have joined who have stated that all new caches they place will be members-only. This disturbs me....I find the excuse of security weak at the least....ALL caches should be afforded this form of protection. Members only caches are not needed in New Zealand. As far as I know we have had little trouble with caches being plundered by other geocachers, I can't say the same for members of the general public or animals, however. quote:Originally posted by rediguana: I have no problems with paying if an open membership and accounting structure was used, but as it is an attempt to profit off many peoples work, I think I am tending towards not paying a subscription. As I mentioned above, I agree. But, I decided to pay the subscription as a one time donation, simply to give Jeremy the money to continue maintaining geocaching.com. That said, we will need to see how it is spent before we consider paying next year. Cheers, Donovan

quote:Originally posted by rediguana: Geocaching.com and Groundspeak are commercial ventures....It should be run as a non-profit venture. But its not. I don't want to invest time and money to line someone else's pocket potentially... Yeah, that was my primary concern when I first read about subscriptions. I hope this is resolved soon. That is, if we are to have subscriptions, they should be limited in cost so that they just cover the annual cost of maintaining geocaching.com. quote:Originally posted by rediguana: Slashdot....also introduced subscriptions recently....it is inappropriate to profit from the members efforts....it has been interesting to see the support of Americans for what Jeremy is doing, always supporting the right to 'make a profit' from geocaching, rather than just trying to draw an acceptable salary and cover costs, and not get rich from it. This must be a huge societal difference between Americans and Kiwis.) I agree, it must be a cultural difference. Making a profit from geocaching.com does not sit well with me either. quote:Originally posted by rediguana: I also disagree with the members only caches....I have read posts from others who have joined who have stated that all new caches they place will be members-only. This disturbs me....I find the excuse of security weak at the least....ALL caches should be afforded this form of protection. Members only caches are not needed in New Zealand. As far as I know we have had little trouble with caches being plundered by other geocachers, I can't say the same for members of the general public or animals, however. quote:Originally posted by rediguana: I have no problems with paying if an open membership and accounting structure was used, but as it is an attempt to profit off many peoples work, I think I am tending towards not paying a subscription. As I mentioned above, I agree. But, I decided to pay the subscription as a one time donation, simply to give Jeremy the money to continue maintaining geocaching.com. That said, we will need to see how it is spent before we consider paying next year. Cheers, Donovan

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:Thank you for the links...all it takes is a little common sense and curtesy... You are welcome! In those original threads, I was also trying to encorage others to place caches out in the countryside. This is happening in New Zealand and it makes the journey to find those caches really interesting. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:Thank you for the links...all it takes is a little common sense and curtesy... You are welcome! In those original threads, I was also trying to encorage others to place caches out in the countryside. This is happening in New Zealand and it makes the journey to find those caches really interesting. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by Web-ling:Placing caches is just about as much fun as finding them... Don't you mean placing is more fun than finding? I suppose that hiding and placing are both fun in different ways. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by Web-ling:Placing caches is just about as much fun as finding them... Don't you mean placing is more fun than finding? I suppose that hiding and placing are both fun in different ways. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis:...we have discussed cache spacing to death in the past... Check out these threads: Minimum Distance Between Geocaches? How Close is too Close? Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis:...we have discussed cache spacing to death in the past... Check out these threads: Minimum Distance Between Geocaches? How Close is too Close? Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:...It might be trickier to implement than I was originally thinking, but I still think the idea merits some thought. Personally, I'd like to see more caches in my area...and in rural/small town areas in general. Big cities seem to have huge concentrations, but us country folk often have to drive a long way to find new caches. Yeah, we have discussed cache spacing to death in the past (search through the old forum). I agree that we should try to place our caches in rural areas too and not simply confine them to big cities. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:...It might be trickier to implement than I was originally thinking, but I still think the idea merits some thought. Personally, I'd like to see more caches in my area...and in rural/small town areas in general. Big cities seem to have huge concentrations, but us country folk often have to drive a long way to find new caches. Yeah, we have discussed cache spacing to death in the past (search through the old forum). I agree that we should try to place our caches in rural areas too and not simply confine them to big cities. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:...I imagine you were just kidding...but actually, I think it's a great idea! Yeah, I was kidding. But, it would be nice... In looking at the results of your poll so far, many seem to be opposed to it. In reality, it might encorage cachers to place more low quality caches, simply to get the free membership. Thanks, for your feedback Zuckerruebensirup. BTW, It's great that we can now change the Chartered Geocacher label to plain old Geocacher. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:...I imagine you were just kidding...but actually, I think it's a great idea! Yeah, I was kidding. But, it would be nice... In looking at the results of your poll so far, many seem to be opposed to it. In reality, it might encorage cachers to place more low quality caches, simply to get the free membership. Thanks, for your feedback Zuckerruebensirup. BTW, It's great that we can now change the Chartered Geocacher label to plain old Geocacher. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:...I think Nemesis was just kidding...it would be great incentive to get people out there adding new caches... Yeah, I was kidding. But, it would be nice... In reality, it might simply encorage users to place more low quality caches, simply to get the free membership. Cheers, Donovan.

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:...I think Nemesis was just kidding...it would be great incentive to get people out there adding new caches... Yeah, I was kidding. But, it would be nice... In reality, it might simply encorage users to place more low quality caches, simply to get the free membership. Cheers, Donovan.

Well, I've thought it over for a day... I've decided that Jeremy really does need the money to continue running the geocaching site. He really has painted himself into a corner in funding his site. He has previously promised that the site will never become user pays and that he will never use third party banner ads or popups. So, I understand that this is the only realistic option left to him. It's a pity more people didn't donate money through Amazon while we had the chance. However, the subscription charge of more than $66 NZ seems a bit on the high side (that's half a weeks income for me!; around $30 NZ would be better). Maybe Jeremy dosen't expect many members to upgrade. Either way, I am treating it as a one off donation for now. I really don't care for Member Only caches and the like. With the money comes added accountability for how it is spent. Most clubs provide their members with an annual finacial statement sowing exactly how it was spent. Jeremy will need to do this too. As with others, I would rather not foster the them and us mentality, so removing the Charter Member label would be a good idea. quote:Originally posted by BigNick:...the road trip South this weekend will use more than $33 to visit some of Donovans caches .. Good point. BTW, enjoy your trip. Oh yeah, with that in mind, I have spent many hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars putting together, hiding, and maintaining my 30 or so caches. Is that not contribution enough to the sport? Maybe I should get a free year of subscription and those with many finds and none hidden can pay instead this time? Oh well, that's enough ranting for now. What does everyone else think? Cheers, Donovan.

Well, I've thought it over for a day... I've decided that Jeremy really does need the money to continue running the geocaching site. He really has painted himself into a corner in funding his site. He has previously promised that the site will never become user pays and that he will never use third party banner ads or popups. So, I understand that this is the only realistic option left to him. It's a pity more people didn't donate money through Amazon while we had the chance. However, the subscription charge of more than $66 NZ seems a bit on the high side (that's half a weeks income for me!; around $30 NZ would be better). Maybe Jeremy dosen't expect many members to upgrade. Either way, I am treating it as a one off donation for now. I really don't care for Member Only caches and the like. With the money comes added accountability for how it is spent. Most clubs provide their members with an annual finacial statement sowing exactly how it was spent. Jeremy will need to do this too. As with others, I would rather not foster the them and us mentality, so removing the Charter Member label would be a good idea. quote:Originally posted by BigNick:...the road trip South this weekend will use more than $33 to visit some of Donovans caches .. Good point. BTW, enjoy your trip. Oh yeah, with that in mind, I have spent many hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars putting together, hiding, and maintaining my 30 or so caches. Is that not contribution enough to the sport? Maybe I should get a free year of subscription and those with many finds and none hidden can pay instead this time? Oh well, that's enough ranting for now. What does everyone else think? Cheers, Donovan.

Cool, I have been looking forward to this for ages. Cheers, Donovan.

Cool, I have been looking forward to this for ages. Cheers, Donovan.