Jump to content

funkymunkyzone

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    1603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by funkymunkyzone

  1. It's ok, I totally didn't think about it! There's still something slightly dodgy but not from a geocaching perspective. Mystery solved
  2. Just curious... a profile that has scored the latest peak souvenir, and has the points to match, but doesnt have enough cache finds since September 6 to actually get those points, or the souvenir. If someone logs a cache find and then deletes it, do they keep the points? Not a witch hunt, so definitely not naming anyone.
  3. Thanks. I dont feel like I missed out now.
  4. Anyone know what the surprise was? I tried to log a cache as I found one, but in the app I can't set the log date and I forgot to log until just after midnight... so no surprise, and a log on the wrong date.
  5. So is GC8FROG going to be unlocked again at some point, or do I need to tell the people coming to our mega later this year that they won't be getting this one after all?
  6. That's just being ridiculous, but thanks anyway. Or maybe you're right. Geocaching is not at all a sport where you go out and find geocaches, it's a sport of looking at websites and writing stuff down...
  7. I agree with you. And if that's what the topic was about then that would be awesome.
  8. Yep, and why are they successful? Because they entice the players in, and dont make them go off to websites and write stuff down... that's a chore and not fun.
  9. Archaic - deliberately hobbled technology Totally agree. Missing the point of my opening post. Might be true, but it's still lost revenue for the game, and a very good friend of mine who will not join the game so if I want to spend more time with them, I will get dragged away from the game too. She also has lots of friends and family she goes on these walks with... could have been another dozen players for all I know. Agreed. but I think for the most part you'll find that other activities (games etc) that are wildly successful use an approach that better entices players in.
  10. That's the archaic "pre-app world" business model I am talking about. People are used to downloading apps to their phones now and they do not expect to have to go to a website, write down coordinates, get another device entirely, etc etc. That's old tech and not a nice user experience. Except it isn't a good ad for encouraging people to pay for Premium membership - at least not a lasting membership that adds long-term to Groundspeak's revenue. My friend for example, and your experience: We are living in an age now where people try for free then buy, when it comes to activities like this. yes apps are expensive to maintain, but let's be clear, an app was written and then extra effort went in to actually hobble the app for those basic users. That's extra $ spent on building and maintaining the app. And of course the point of it is that the new player gets enticed into paying for premium membership, meaning the whole site benefits from the extra revenue. So I strongly disagree that the model is super fair - it's super counter-productive is what it is.
  11. As someone who works in the digital technology field, with goals of using technology to create seamless journeys/experiences for users/customers, I really think that what you have pointed out - which is entirely true - is an archaic approach to business: deliberately hobbling the technology, and user experience, to force people to pay for a service. What we're saying is, we've got this app that could provide an experience that would entice a new user in, but we will deliberately make it awful and clunky unless they pay - but of course they won't pay because it's awful and clunky and they don't even know this is how they have to do it, they can't even see this part of the game... Groundspeak should learn from all of the other app developers out there with their angry avians, or their crushing sweet stories... entice the user in with these wonderful experiences and then let them look through a glass window at the wonderful things they could have if they pay.. Instead of slamming a door in their face and simply saying you can't enter if you don't pay - why do I want to pay to enter? I can't see a reason because they won't show me.
  12. Encountered this today when trying to introduce a friend to geocaching. She has been doing a lot of walks recently, for fitness, summiting various hills and mountains around her region. So I suggested that she find some geocaches along the way, because she has walked past many already and it might help with the motivation. She downloaded the app, and I sent her the GC code of a (free) cache to look up today, just 100m from the summit where she is walking today. It told her she needed to be a premium member in order to find this cache. Now I understand that there are some restrictions on D, and apparently T, ratings of caches that basic members can view on the map. What I did NOT understand is that even given a specific GC code of a free geocache, not premium member only, the basic user cannot actually go find it using the app. This seems counter-productive to enticing actual outdoorsy people to the game. I can only conclude that Groundspeak thinks that to become a geocacher, one MUST first be interested in finding caches in guard rails, lamp post bases, etc... exactly the type of geocache that would turn my friend entirely off geocaching! I have no problem with the map in the app only showing basic easy caches, but surely if someone gives a basic member a GC code they couldn't have otherwise easily found through the app, then it's likely it's an existing geocacher attracting a new player to the game, so let them find it! Let them become hooked and you might get a new premium member out of it! Instead, I think she will probably just give up as it all seems too hard and restrictive (and boring). Edit to add: Note to moderator, this is not an *issue* with the app, so please don't move it to the App forum. It's about attracting new quality players to the game.
  13. Just encountered this - clicked on Disable from the cache page, wrote in the log box and hit send without noticing that the log page had defaulted to Announcement instead of Disable. Tried again and it did the same. Clicking on Disable should bring up a Disable log - shouldn't have to reselect Disable from the log type drop down.
  14. I think you've highlighted perfectly the issues that lead to the grandfathering of virtuals way back, thanks for that, but I'm not sure I agree about the third point with respect to the virtual rewards solving the problems. In my humble experience and opinion, there are a lot of virtual reward caches (and subsequently ALs also) that are rather ho-hum, with no discernible "wow factor", simply because the recipient felt they needed to use the virtual rewards (or AL credits) they were offered, and what's more, had a time limit within to do so. And there are still cachers who missed out, and had great ideas for "wow-factor"-worthy virtuals. Luckily, however, since these virtual rewards were limited to 1 (or 0) per account, at least, as you pointed out, the map is not saturated with non-"wow factor" virtuals. ALs on the other hand... still limited, but.... Edit to add: Please no one take offence - whether a virtual (or AL) is good or boring is entirely subjective.
  15. Please note that advice was not necessarily for the CO to replace their own cache, but perhaps to free up the area for someone else.
  16. Yeah, I agree, it's not a trad because the finder has to visit other locations. It *could* be a mystery, for the reason you mentioned. As per my message above, I have a multi that is like this - final is visible along with all other stages, but needs info from the other stages to unlock the final and access the logbook. It gets almost no visits, which also fits with the definition of multi
  17. I own a multi that has the final located at the published coordinates, along with visible coordinates for all the other stages that finders have to visit in order to gather the info required in order to unlock the multi. I'm satisfied that's a multi, and so is my reviewer.
  18. What was your log? "Took nothing, left snake"?
  19. Not sure why you cut off the actual point of the sentence you quoted...?
  20. I get that, M10B, but I disagree with the two methods presented because I don't believe they correlate very well with "lowest quality". In my personal experience they have no reliable relation to each other.
  21. I thought a little more about this, and in my mind, this is what makes sense to me: A (strictly) bonus cache requires a cacher to find other caches before they can find this one. If this bonus cache was a letterbox hybrid, then it should be able to be found by a letterboxer, who might not actually be a geocacher. A letterboxer should be able to go looking for letterboxes without needing to go geocaching, so if it strictly requires other caches to be found, then the letterboxer can't find it, and so it's not really a letterbox. I don't know if that resonates with anyone else, but I'm satisfied with that, and for me it reinforces my approach with my Ad Lab "bonus" cache that is indeed a LBH, as I explained a few posts above (TLDR: It can be found as a stand alone letterbox without completing the Ad Lab).
  22. Except that just like @Viajero Perdido you didn't read the quote I was responding to. The feature I said "Please, no" to, is NOT AT ALL what you have in Canada or Norway. What I was responding to is this, below (bolding is mine): So yeah, please no, let's not have a like button just for the CO, so that every logger gets to feel like the cache owner does not appreciate their logs because the cache owner did not click like on it.
  23. Only 1 in 10 finds can be awarded a FP... so it stands that 9 out of 10 cache finds are inherently being nudged towards HQ's "archive and make way for a better cache" advice, even if they are actually good caches.
×
×
  • Create New...