Why have the Premium Membership?

[4x4van]

Just wondering?

 

Are the people who complain about paying $3/month for a premium membership the same ones who leave those golf balls and other junk in caches?

See, that's exactly the "elitist" attitude that comes across from MOCs. That since I don't pony up the cash, I must be the type of cacher who abuses the caches that are out there and don't contribute anything worthwhile to the sport. It's pretty presumptious of you to make that accusation, don't you think? Especially since you know absolutely nothing about me, other than I am not a PM. Yup, I guess the sport would be better off without caches like this one. Since it was placed by me (a regular member), it must be junk. Heck, based on the logs, nobody seems to like it anyway, right?

 

Just wondering? Are you the type that sabotages regular caches to make MOCs more appealing, thereby increasing the number of PMs? See, that's a completely unfair assumption for me to make, isn't it? So why do you make the assumption that I leave junk in caches?

 

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of caches in existence were placed by regular members, and/or PMs before they were PMs. Does that make us all (you included, before you became a PM) pond scum? Somehow I don't think that $3 per month is the defining difference between good people/cachers and bad. I kinda think, and hope, that there's a bit more to it than that.

[+BlueDeuce]

Just wondering?

 

Are the people who complain about paying $3/month for a premium membership the same ones who leave those golf balls and other junk in caches?

 

nope.

[+welch]

Even if Groundspeak removed the MOC feature, people can still choose to require additional logging requirements to restrict access, so "elitism" will live on.

If people want to put additional logging requirements on their caches by restricting who can log their cache, I'm fine with that, but they should do it themselves. Using someone else's list instead of coming up with your own seems lazy, and pretty silly.

It'd be like Sam's club only selling to those people that are members of say whatever program United Airlines has for frequent flyers... It'd be a good way to cut down the number of people going to Sam's club, but does't really tell 'Sam' a whole lot about those people.

[+ibycus]

Just wondering?

 

Are the people who complain about paying $3/month for a premium membership the same ones who leave those golf balls and other junk in caches?

 

Nope, that's me. I like to visit driving ranges around here and then travel down to Novi Michigan every few weeks and fill the caches with golf balls and steal all the geocoins.

 

Seriously though, (and I know I'm getting off topic here, so if you want to continue this discussion, I'll do it in PMs), I think a lot of the balls end up in caches because they are found by people who don't golf, on their way to caches. I for one can't tell the difference between a 'good' ball and a 'bad' ball, don't really care either.

 

On top of that, I know some people who are happy to find a golf ball in any cache they visit (its the only thing my little brother ever trades for). If there is room in the cache, and you aren't trading down, then why should anyone care.

[Clan Riffster]

Even if Groundspeak removed the MOC feature, people can still choose to require additional logging requirements to restrict access, so "elitism" will live on.

I can't really equate elitism with ALR's. I've always defined elitism as exclusionary, whereas an ALR is a matter of choice. If I hide a cache, and added a requirement that you must rub blue mud in your navel whilst whistling "Greensleeves", you have a choice. Log it and do the ALR, log it without doing the ALR and risk deletion, or don't log it at all. Nothing exclusionary there.

[+Mudfrog]

Okay, so what's wrong with 'elitism' as it's being (incorrectly) called here?

 

I am member of several private clubs. If you are not a member you can't come in. You want in, pay your dues!

 

I am a member of several airline and travel clubs. I get points and rewards for flying on the same plane you do. You don't, unless you join the club. Membership has its privileges!

 

As a Teke, a Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity member since my days in college over thirty years ago, I share unique rights, privileges, bonds and capabilities with fraternal brothers that others do not. Want to know how we recognize one another? Join the fraternity and find out! Outsiders do not get to know.

 

I am a Freemason. As a member of that world-wide fraternity I prefer to do business with and share certain rights and privileges with brother Freemasons. If you are not a Freemason those privileges are not extended to you.

 

To make it a bit more to the point, I am a member of Sam's Club, a private wholesaler. If you do not belong you cannot shop there. Want to shop at Sam's? Buy a membership. Anyone can.

 

So, is it 'elitist' to want to share certain caches, for whatever reasons, with only other Premium Members?

 

No. Of course not... no more than it is eltist to extend privilege to brother members of a fraternity, or to sell products at discount only to members of a buying club.

 

Enough whining about PMOCs - you want to hunt them, buy a Premium Membership! Pretty simple concept, really.

 

Ed

 

Agreed. There's definitely nothing elitist here. If you want the PMOCs then pay the whopping $3!

[+Confucius' Cat]

If you go all the way down to right around the zip of their zip (say 5.6 mile radius) MOCs are 20% of all the caches.

So 80% of the caches are available for the OP to find while deciding whether to pay or not. I feel bad for him.

 

AlabamaRambler,

 

The only flaw in your logic is that you don't have to pay anything to access geocaching.com, whereas all your examples are of traditional private clubs.

 

I've ponied up the cash for a GPSr, does that make me any less of a cacher than someone who has paid gc.com, or more than those that don't have a GPS, but use online maps????

 

We are all cachers, and in the end if people chose to make certain caches available to people who have given up money to those that look after and nurture this sport, then good to them. But also understand the feeling from those that feel paying for a GPSr is way more than enough of an investment to cache, and to have caches "denied" from you because you don't want to pay money to a particular company.

And the only flaw in YOUR logic, CanClan, is that GC.com IS a "traditional private club". Guests are allowed to browse, but to participate you have to become a member. Otherwise you do not have access to the listed coordinates or to the cache page maps.

 

This "private club" has two LEVELS of membership- one which is free, the other for people who CHOOSE to pay. I don't think having different levels of membership privileges is in any way unusual in a private club, and I don't see how it could reasonably be considered "wrong" to offer extra services to different levels of membership.

 

You might compare it to being a member of a typical "fraternal organization" thusly: Many such clubs operate bars in their lodges. The bars are open ONLY to members. Your membership card entitles you to enter the premises and sit at the bar. - - If you want to DRINK, that'll cost you extra.

 

Extra services for extra money. I know it is a tough concept especially when the lower limit is "free", but there is certainly nothing wrong with it.

 

Does this not shed some light on a broader ill of our society? When people get "something for nothing" they inevitibly want "more something for nothing". How do we get the idea that the giver of a gift somehow owes the recipient more gifts?

[+Mudfrog]

Even if Groundspeak removed the MOC feature, people can still choose to require additional logging requirements to restrict access, so "elitism" will live on.

I can't really equate elitism with ALR's. I've always defined elitism as exclusionary, whereas an ALR is a matter of choice. If I hide a cache, and added a requirement that you must rub blue mud in your navel whilst whistling "Greensleeves", you have a choice. Log it and do the ALR, log it without doing the ALR and risk deletion, or don't log it at all. Nothing exclusionary there.

 

There's no elitism going on anywhere but if i was told that i had to pick one that i thought was more elite, i would have to pick ALR caches.

 

There may be a logging requirement that i just might not be able to accomplish (physically, emotionally, against my religion, etc,,,). As far as PMOCs go, anyone can scrounge up $3 for premium membership to get them, that is, if they wanted to!

[+Kit Fox]

 

You might compare it to being a member of a typical "fraternal organization" thusly: Many such clubs operate bars in their lodges. The bars are open ONLY to members. Your membership card entitles you to enter the premises and sit at the bar. - - If you want to DRINK, that'll cost you extra.

 

Extra services for extra money. I know it is a tough concept especially when the lower limit is "free", but there is certainly nothing wrong with it.

 

Does this not shed some light on a broader ill of our society? When people get "something for nothing" they inevitibly want "more something for nothing". How do we get the idea that the giver of a gift somehow owes the recipient more gifts?

 

Welcome to the "entitlement generation." They teach this garbage to children in schools, and when these kids grow-up, they expect everything handed to them. If someone was to quit caching, because the couldn't find one of my PMOC caches, I wouldn't lose any sleep.

[+Berta Nick Zoey]

I always find it interesting when people complain about the price of certain things. When I first signed up for a Premium Membership, I didnt know about Pcoket Quires or Member Only caches. I did it because I knew that the money would help to keep the site going. 30 bucks for a year, ( I think thats what I paid). Heck, whats that work out to, about a weeks worth of cigarettes? A 2-3 cases of beer? A cheap resturaunt? Maybe a tank of gas? Yet, for 30 bucks you get an entire year of services provided by GC.com. Not too shabby. Sure, the PQ's are great and the members only cahces give us alot more to pick from so its all worh it to me

[+Airmapper]

Here we go again. The "it's just $3" routine.

 

The point is Premium Membership is for those who want the convenience of the added features. You start making the caches themselves "Pay to Play" and it just causes angst. Just do a search for all the threads where this has been hashed over.

 

I'm not against the idea of restricting certain caches from people who might not have enough interest in the activity. I do think some modifications to the feature might reduce arguments against it, and still allow cachers who decide they don't need to be a PM enjoy the hides.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Did you know you can get a pretty good meal by walking around the mall food court and taking the samples they pass out?

 

"Pay to eat"? What's that all about anyhow?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

From Wikipedia.com:

Elitism is the belief or attitude that the people who are considered to be the elite — a selected group of persons with outstanding personal abilities, wealth, specialised training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are the people whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously, or that these are persons whose views should be regarded as carrying the most weight, or, more simply, these people are best fit to govern or whose views and/or actions are mostly likely to be constructive. Alternatively, the term elitism could be used to describe a situation in which power is in fact concentrated in the hands of an elite, whether rightly or not.

 

Elitism is often used pejoratively to describe a general mindset of arrogance or disregard for the general non-elite public

If you are going to rail against PMOCs, at least find a reason that works - the word 'elitism' simply does not apply!

 

Think I will go download some music from LimeWire now. Surely elitists like Willie Nelson don't care if I pay them for their work! After all, information should be free, right?

 

And just when are the pornographers ever going to get the message? There is all kinds of free porn all over the internet but they still make me pay to see the good stuff!

Edited December 18, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+LoneHowler]

I go geocaching only a couple times a year, yet I believe the membership is well worth the price. I've even set it up to deduct annually. personally both of my caches are standard caches because I prefer to share them with as many people as possible

[+Kit Fox]

Here we go again. The "it's just $3" routine.

 

The point is Premium Membership is for those who want the convenience of the added features.

 

That is your opinion, only, otherwise the PMOC feature wouldn't exist.

 

You start making the caches themselves "Pay to Play" and it just causes angst. Just do a search for all the threads where this has been hashed over.

 

So your worried about other cacher's feelings? This further strengthens my school argument.

 

I'm not against the idea of restricting certain caches from people who might not have enough interest in the activity. I do think some modifications to the feature might reduce arguments against it, and still allow cachers who decide they don't need to be a PM enjoy the hides.

 

Let me guess, you want to take the PMOC feature away , so everyone feels all "warm and toasty" inside?

This is akin to "cache welfare", or Socialism.

If you really want to make everyone happy, why don't you ban 5 star difficulty puzzle caches, because less intelligent cachers can't solve them, therefore, they can't find them.

 

Let's ban all 5 star terrain caches, because obese cachers, and people like me, that have to choose feeding my family over buying rappeling gear, can't find them.

Do you see where your argument is leading you?

Edited December 18, 2006 by Kit Fox

[+Airmapper]

Here we go again. The "it's just $3" routine.

 

The point is Premium Membership is for those who want the convenience of the added features.

 

That is your opinion, only, otherwise the PMOC feature wouldn't exist.

 

If it's my opinion only, why are there a load of threads on this you yourself link to every chance you get.

 

You start making the caches themselves "Pay to Play" and it just causes angst. Just do a search for all the threads where this has been hashed over.

 

So your worried about other cacher's feelings? This further strengthens my school argument.

 

Nope, I'm worried about the game. How long till management at Groundspeak want to take this whole PM thing to the next level? I don't want to have to pay $20 a month 5 years from now just to go caching.

 

I'm not against the idea of restricting certain caches from people who might not have enough interest in the activity. I do think some modifications to the feature might reduce arguments against it, and still allow cachers who decide they don't need to be a PM enjoy the hides.

 

Let me guess, you want to take the PMOC feature away , so everyone feels all "warm and toasty" inside?

This is akin to "cache welfare", or Socialism.

If you really want to make everyone happy, why don't you ban 5 star difficulty puzzle caches, because less intelligent cachers can't solve them, therefore, they can't find them.

 

Let's ban all 5 star terrain caches, because obese cachers, and people like me, that have to choose feeding my family over buying rappeling gear, can't find them.

Do you see where your argument is leading you?

 

What part of modification suggests removal? I won't claim to have a good idea as to what should be done, cause I don't. But consider a modification that depended on different criteria to determine if you could see the cache page. Such as time as a member, or find count. There would still be arguments against it, but they would be more directed at the cache owner, and be viewed more like ALR's. It would also discourage the idea of paying to view caches, since that would not be part of it. I do say only PM's should be able to set a cache with additional criteria to meet, and that these criteria have reasonable cap limits. Really all it needs to weed out are newbies who may not know what their doing yet, and bogus accounts from getting the cache info to steal it.

[k_statealan]

This is why we have premium member caches:

 

[Pemaquid2]

Wow, I guess I did not hit on a new topic. I am new to caching but brand new to the forum. Reading the string of responses has been fascinating.

 

First let me say, thanks to everyone who responded. I really do enjoy this sport and there was some great thoughts posted to learn from.

 

Additionally, I apologize if I offended anyone. I clearly pushed a few folks' buttons. It was not my intent. I was trying for an interesting disucssion and to learn more about the sport. I also think there are definitely different ideas of the word "elitist." I am not part of the "entitlement generation" nor do I think the $30 is particularly expensive, but may be for some. However, one thought I had that I did not origanally mention was that the PM is not cost prohibative now but what keeps it from becomign so in the future especially in an area with a large number of PMOCs? But after reading the responses and the main reasons for the PM, I don't see this as an issue.

 

I was pleased to see responses that agreed with my concern or at least understood my point.

 

I also learned some good reasons for the PM. I work in higher education and understand the costs associated with quality website creation/maintenance. Similarly, I love to play disc golf and was equally concerned the first time I went to a course that was not free or at least asked for a $ donation...until I saw how superior the course was to some of the run down free courses. So, I also think offering additional features for a fee is certainly reasonable. I too am a member of clubs/organizations.

 

My concern, as was echoed in numerous responses, was the limiting of caches to PMs. I am very glad to hear that my area is anomally and not the norm.

 

There are many things in this world that can be "elitist" (including higher education) and I think that I tend to be sensitive to them. I also enjoy a good philisophical debate...so thanks to all for humoring me.

 

Once my wife and I prove to each other that this is not yet another passing phase for us, we will probably become a PM("pay the frog"). In the meantime, we will continue to enjoy all the other caches in the greater area and when we travel, and try to remain optomistic that those that do almost exclusively PMOCs are doing it for good reasons and will eventually open them to all. We also will hopefully hide our own caches soon and will make sure to make them open to all

 

Good Luck and Good Caching!

-Pemaquid2

[+pigpen4x4]

Even if Groundspeak removed the MOC feature, people can still choose to require additional logging requirements to restrict access, so "elitism" will live on.

I can't really equate elitism with ALR's. I've always defined elitism as exclusionary, whereas an ALR is a matter of choice. If I hide a cache, and added a requirement that you must rub blue mud in your navel whilst whistling "Greensleeves", you have a choice. Log it and do the ALR, log it without doing the ALR and risk deletion, or don't log it at all. Nothing exclusionary there.

 

There's no elitism going on anywhere but if i was told that i had to pick one that i thought was more elite, i would have to pick ALR caches.

 

There may be a logging requirement that i just might not be able to accomplish (physically, emotionally, against my religion, etc,,,). As far as PMOCs go, anyone can scrounge up $3 for premium membership to get them, that is, if they wanted to!

Thanks Kit,

I'm sittin here reading all the responses, some I agree with some I do not, wondering Why does this person think it should be "open to all"?

It was beaten to death the benifits of the PM. And the feelings of the non PM's.

At last, Kit Fox made the big statement.

I use MOC to protect them. May or may not be completly effective, but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Additionally, I apologize if I offended anyone. I clearly pushed a few folks' buttons. It was not my intent. I was trying for an interesting disucssion and to learn more about the sport.

 

Apology accepted. Just kidding, not needed. This was one of the more civil threads around here.

 

 

My concern, as was echoed in numerous responses, was the limiting of caches to PMs. I am very glad to hear that my area is anomally and not the norm.

 

I think I mentioned that about your (our) area. Once or 10 times. It was actually very interesting running Pocket Queries to see the numbers of MOC's in various States, and calculating the percentage. Then again, I've always been a stats geek, since I was old enough to count.

 

Once my wife and I prove to each other that this is not yet another passing phase for us, we will probably become a PM("pay the frog"). In the meantime, we will continue to enjoy all the other caches in the greater area and when we travel, and try to remain optomistic that those that do almost exclusively PMOCs are doing it for good reasons and will eventually open them to all. We also will hopefully hide our own caches soon and will make sure to make them open to all

 

 

Welcome to the sport, and bring on the hides (when you're ready).

[+Kit Fox]

What part of modification suggests removal? I won't claim to have a good idea as to what should be done, cause I don't. But consider a modification that depended on different criteria to determine if you could see the cache page. Such as time as a member, or find count. There would still be arguments against it, but they would be more directed at the cache owner, and be viewed more like ALR's. It would also discourage the idea of paying to view caches, since that would not be part of it. I do say only PM's should be able to set a cache with additional criteria to meet, and that these criteria have reasonable cap limits. Really all it needs to weed out are newbies who may not know what their doing yet, and bogus accounts from getting the cache info to steal it.

 

In other words, cachers should not pay to geocache. What is wrong with rewarding other monetary supporters of this website, with caches? Is this too exclusionary for you? If tomorrow, every hidden cache changed to PMOC, I could understand your argument about this website becoming a "pay to play" website.

The majority of caches are still "open to everyone" paying or not.

 

I'm adamantly against silly logging requirements like "you must leave a TB to take one," You must write a Haiku to in order to log a find. The only ALR, that I like is a "Code Word" in addition to a logbook. This prevents "armchair loggers" from falsely logging hard caches.

 

On a side note, only 22 of my 88 caches are PMOC.

 

Here is my most "exclusionary cache" Eisen-Faust

[+Airmapper]

Let me see if I understand this.

 

I'm sittin here reading all the responses, some I agree with some I do not, wondering Why does this person think it should be "open to all"?

 

Geocaching shouldn't be open to all because of ???? If Groundspeak employed people to place caches for members to hunt, I'd say heck yeah you would have to pay. But why is it that all these people freely place caches for everyone to hunt, and you should pay a company for their work?

 

Groundspeak is a company that lists, organizes, and provides the data for everyones collective efforts. You pay Groundspeak to receive this data in more convenient forms, like PQ's, and for sorting and notification features. It's only fair, and well worth it.

 

Why should this cover caches? I don't get anything from Groundspeak for placing a cache only people who pay them can hunt. In fact, I have to pay myself to do that. Where is the sense in that, someone please logically explain this to me in words besides "because they can."

 

PMOC was designed to limit possible malicious users from viewing cache info based on the assumption they wouldn't bother if they had to pay. At that time, cache coords were available to casual browsers of the site without free accounts. That has passed and the feature is now almost useless in accomplishing it's original purpose, so why is it still in it's old form. I'm not suggesting it be done away with all together, but there are some changes that can be made to make it a more useful feature. As it stands, I won't even use it because of the way it works, and I get no benefit from audit logs or restricting users from my hides.

[+TeamBarstool]

Im going to place my 1st cache in a couple of weeks. It's going to start out as a PMOC. My reason? The FTF prize is going to be a PalmIIIxe. I would prefer it goes to someone that can put it to use and go paperless.After a couple of weeks it will be switched to a nonPMOC.

 

Jeff Barstool

[Clan Riffster]

But why is it that all these people freely place caches for everyone to hunt, and you should pay a company for their work?

You don't have to. It's a matter of choice.

 

Groundspeak is a company that lists, organizes, and provides the data for everyones collective efforts.

Not quite. Groundspeak provides data for those who are logged in. AKA: Members.

 

You pay Groundspeak to receive this data in more convenient forms

I pay Groundspeak because I believe in supporting those who run this site. I didn't even know about the benefits when I sent my first $30.

 

I like the earlier TV analogy. You pay $5000 for a giant screen plasma TV, why should you pay to watch it? The truth is, you don't have to in most places. Plug it in, attach the rabbit ears and watch what's available. Free of charge. In my particular geographic location that gives me ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, FOX and a smattering of others. It does not give me Discovery, History, Science or National Geographic channels. If I want those, I gotta pay for them. If I want to watch them in High Def, I gotta pay more.

[+tozainamboku]

Here is my most "exclusionary cache" Eisen-Faust

It's good that you didn't make that a MOC. A few of the cachers that might try to find this cache are not premium members. I know this because they find most of my caches. So you would have eliminated about half the people who might look for this one.

 

The only reason I can imagine for the high percentage of MOC in the OP's area is that there may be a cache maggot in the area who was stealing caches. The locals may have started hiding MOCs to hide the coordinates from the maggot. I wonder if this has been effective or if the change that requires you to log into Geocaching.com to see coordinates has resulted in lessing the need of using MOCs for this reason. In any case, the maggot may get bored and stop stealing caches (or grow up and start stealing other things - in which case he may get to meet Kit Fox in a different environment) and perhaps the percentage of MOC in the OPs area will return to a more normal number.

[+Mudfrog]

Geocaching shouldn't be open to all because of ???? If Groundspeak employed people to place caches for members to hunt, I'd say heck yeah you would have to pay. But why is it that all these people freely place caches for everyone to hunt, and you should pay a company for their work?

 

It's true that most caches are placed by individuals for anyone to find. These are free and clear since GC.com doesn't require you to pay, even though they provide the service of listing them. Now, we all know that becoming a paying member gives you certain benefits. It seems obvious to me that PMOCs are just one of those benefits. Real easy, pay the $3 if you wanna enjoy that benefit!

[Mr.Yuck]

Here is my most "exclusionary cache" Eisen-Faust

It's good that you didn't make that a MOC. A few of the cachers that might try to find this cache are not premium members. I know this because they find most of my caches. So you would have eliminated about half the people who might look for this one.

 

The only reason I can imagine for the high percentage of MOC in the OP's area is that there may be a cache maggot in the area who was stealing caches. The locals may have started hiding MOCs to hide the coordinates from the maggot. I wonder if this has been effective or if the change that requires you to log into Geocaching.com to see coordinates has resulted in lessing the need of using MOCs for this reason. In any case, the maggot may get bored and stop stealing caches (or grow up and start stealing other things - in which case he may get to meet Kit Fox in a different environment) and perhaps the percentage of MOC in the OPs area will return to a more normal number.

 

I'm from the OP's area, and there is no cache maggot. There are a large number of MOC's, just because there are a large number of MOC's. But in his 2nd post, he pretty much says he'll just look for the non-MOC's, and pay for Premium membership if and when he becomes hooked and geocaching like the rest of us. At least I think that's what he said.

[+gof1]

The only reason I can imagine for the high percentage of MOC in the OP's area is that there may be a cache maggot in the area who was stealing caches. The locals may have started hiding MOCs to hide the coordinates from the maggot. I wonder if this has been effective or if the change that requires you to log into Geocaching.com to see coordinates has resulted in lessing the need of using MOCs for this reason. In any case, the maggot may get bored and stop stealing caches (or grow up and start stealing other things - in which case he may get to meet Kit Fox in a different environment) and perhaps the percentage of MOC in the OPs area will return to a more normal number.

 

Actually we don't have that particular curse roaming the area.

One cacher has just put in a series of 12 micro caches plus a final trading cache that are all PMOC.

I'm sure that these 13 caches have raise the percentage in that five mile radius that is the OP's back yard.

I would have to do the math to see how it affected the numbers.

[+gof1]

Urk beet me to it again.

I think he said "IF" TWU. You said "WHEN".

[+Confucius' Cat]

However, one thought I had that I did not origanally mention was that the PM is not cost prohibative now but what keeps it from becomign so in the future especially in an area with a large number of PMOCs? But after reading the responses and the main reasons for the PM, I don't see this as an issue.

 

Once my wife and I prove to each other that this is not yet another passing phase for us, we will probably become a PM("pay the frog").

paragraph 1:

 

This is not meant to be personal. Several people have posted similar concerns. It is basically the "slippery slope" theory, which is in its own right a good theory. I wholeheartedly subscribe to that theory when it comes to moral issues and the proponents of that theory have been shown to be right time and again.

 

But as to such an insignificant issue as paying for services rendered for a hobby, i see it as hogwash. Could not the same concern be raised about bowling alley charges or golf fees? "Why that darn bowling alley charges $2 a game! Those elitist scumburgers! Don't they know poor people can't afford beer if they have to pay that much per game? Why, if I pay that extortionist rate before long they'll want $5 then $10, then before you know it you'll have to hock your mercedes to bowl!"

 

In any case, to make a present tense argument on the basis of supposed future events is bogus. Present arguments need to be based on present conditions- the way things ARE, not "what if". I am fond of the old saying "if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle".

 

IF and when GC decides to eliminate "free" and IF and when GC decides to up the ante, the market will dictate whether or not GC prospers or closes down.

 

P2:

I wish I had a nickel for every kilobuck I've sunk into equipment for and expenses of "passing phases" in my life- I'd be caching in Tahiti instead of wasting my precious time typing in these forums!

[+jcblough]

Hey look at it this way, where else can $30 make you an "elitist" that's bargain snobbery right there

 

Seriously, I give this site the $ for supporting the hobby. The searches and facilities this place offer do not come cheap. There is/was alot of development and maintainence into providing this site. I want to do my part to keep it running.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Hey look at it this way, where else can $30 make you an "elitist" that's bargain snobbery right there

[+Airmapper]

...snipped...

 

In other words, cachers should not pay to geocache. What is wrong with rewarding other monetary supporters of this website, with caches? Is this too exclusionary for you? If tomorrow, every hidden cache changed to PMOC, I could understand your argument about this website becoming a "pay to play" website.

The majority of caches are still "open to everyone" paying or not.

 

<snipped content>

 

Here is my most "exclusionary cache" Eisen-Faust

 

Okay man, that cache ROCKS! I did one the other day where I went up a ridge about 200 feet, makes that seem like nothing.

 

Back on topic, the main reason I don't like the PMOC is that in the future it could be used to justify making access to caches a pay based activity, and I think if the community balks at the idea, it won't ever become a feasible marketing target.

[+budd-rdc]

...snipped...

 

In other words, cachers should not pay to geocache. What is wrong with rewarding other monetary supporters of this website, with caches? Is this too exclusionary for you? If tomorrow, every hidden cache changed to PMOC, I could understand your argument about this website becoming a "pay to play" website.

The majority of caches are still "open to everyone" paying or not.

 

<snipped content>

 

Here is my most "exclusionary cache" Eisen-Faust

 

Okay man, that cache ROCKS! I did one the other day where I went up a ridge about 200 feet, makes that seem like nothing.

 

Back on topic, the main reason I don't like the PMOC is that in the future it could be used to justify making access to caches a pay based activity, and I think if the community balks at the idea, it won't ever become a feasible marketing target.

It's a legitimate fear to have, but if you want my opinion, it won't happen under the current "regime." Groundspeak seem to have a good balanced mixture of membership fees, merchandising, advertising, and corporate sponsorships to sustain themselves, and at the same time, keep Geocaching reasonably "free."

 

The gripe about MOC's should really go to the listing owner. After all, he ultimately chooses to do that. As noted earlier, many owners will remove the MOC status after special circumstances, like FTF opportunities, and I can live with that.

[+El Diablo]

Looking back at the OP's original question.."Why not open to all?" Basically it is. Hower this site has huge expenses. It would fold up without financial support. What happens to the sport/game/hobby then? Every viable site out there is trying to collect money. Without money this game dies.

 

Why should a non paying member be able to come in and ride the coat tails of paying members is probably a better question. If we didn't pay you would be stuck using your GPS for finding your local shopping center.

 

El Diablo

[+Confucius' Cat]

If we didn't pay you would be stuck using your GPS for finding your local shopping center.

But BUt But..... where would i get the coordinates?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I pay Groundspeak because I believe in supporting those who run this site. I didn't even know about the benefits when I sent my first $30.

 

I like the earlier TV analogy. You pay $5000 for a giant screen plasma TV, why should you pay to watch it? The truth is, you don't have to in most places. Plug it in, attach the rabbit ears and watch what's available. Free of charge. In my particular geographic location that gives me ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, FOX and a smattering of others. It does not give me Discovery, History, Science or National Geographic channels. If I want those, I gotta pay for them. If I want to watch them in High Def, I gotta pay more.

 

Interesting analogy. Not sure how my experiences apply, though. I live thirty-five miles west of New York City. I used to get great reception, with rabbit ears, on the free stations: CBS, NBS, Fox, ABC, WPIX, Warner Brothers, PBS, WNJN, and, on good weather days, WLIW from Long Island.

Darned if we didn't lose our TV transmitter tower five years ago. The plans to build a new one in Jersey City were nixed. They're waiting to build a new tower. Should only take another five years! In the mean time, the signals from the Empire State Building do not reach this far west. So, I'm forced to pay $11 a month for what used to be free, and should be free. Of course, I can now get QVC and Univision (can I pay extra to remove them from my cable?!?) HUbris seems to be the other alternative reason for not supplying free TV signals.

As I said, I'm not sure how this applies to your analogy. But it sure has me wondering.

 

As to geocaching, I pay to support it. Nor for the extra add-ons.