Member only caches and why I hate them.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Yes, and in that vein, if I remember correctly, I once created a cache where valid find claims could be made only by chain-smoking full-blooded Lithuanians with type A- blood who were full and active members in the third synod, fourteenth convocation, ninth conference, 1984 revision of a particular religion. The cache never had any finders. sigh.

Not true - I found that cache. I just never bothered to enter an on-line log because I knew you would just delete it. Check the log book in the cache if you don't believe me.

Holy Mackerel! I thought that you were pulling my leg, but I just visited the cache and checked the logbook, and, yep, you did sign it! Wow! There was one other cacher who logged it (again, logbook only) as well, two months after you did.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Yes, and in that vein, if I remember correctly, I once created a cache where valid find claims could be made only by chain-smoking full-blooded Lithuanians with type A- blood who were full and active members in the third synod, fourteenth convocation, ninth conference, 1984 revision of a particular religion. The cache never had any finders. sigh.

Not true - I found that cache. I just never bothered to enter an on-line log because I knew you would just delete it. Check the log book in the cache if you don't believe me.

Holy Mackerel! I thought that you were pulling my leg, but I just visited the cache and checked the logbook, and, yep, you did sign it! Wow! There was one other cacher who logged it (again, logbook only) as well, two months after you did.

It was a really great cache, by the way. But I knew when I was going after it that I wouldn't be able to log my find on-line (I'm a non-smoker, and I missed the fourteenth convocation).

 

But we've gotten off topic, and for that, I apologize. This discussion is about PMOCs. Or maybe Family Memberships. I forget which.

[+Zop]

Thank you!! I'll pass this along to the kids.

 

 

Here ya go

[+Zop]

Actually I use the pocket queries all the time and yes I am aware of the options available but Why would I want to carry two GPS's and two PDA's? I try and find whatever pops up in the area I'm caching. Am I to wipe both my GPS & PDA when ever my kids come with me? I think not.

 

Hi All, I just know the topic has been discussed and the title is sure to get a lot of flack but let's face it. Members only caches cause a lot of sad faces when out caching with my kids or new comers who just want to know what it's all about before diving in the way I did.

 

Several times now, my kids have been along with me for a day outdoors caching. Most of the time they have a great time - until they come home to log their finds only to find out that some may be "Members Only".

 

Don't get me wrong! I'm a member and will continue to be one but my kids are not. Not that $30 is a lot of money - $90 is. And we're a small family!

 

I became a member not to find these off limit caches but to support the hard work behind geocaching.com and all they have done. As a member I do take advantage of pocket queries and download waypoints several times a week. Since most of the time, we are using my PDA and my GPS, there will be "Members Only" caches in my tools.

 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any way to determine which is which when on the road! So, when we get home after a fun day caching, my kids often find that they are excluded from logging their finds. This, in a nutshell, SUCKS.

 

I have only 350 or so finds so far but I have yet to see a "Members Only" cache stand out above the rest. I understand that members (myself included) want to encourage support for those who put this all together and keep it going but there should be some sort of "Family" membership that can allow for situations where spouses and children are covered or at least a way to let them log a find.

 

Just my $.02 worth.

 

With 350 finds, you should already know how to use the tools available to you, (like pocket Queries.)

 

Yep, you're right. The GPX file doesn't have any way of marking which are MOCs. But there is the "back door" method that CYBret linked to, so your kids can log them.

 

Wrong!

 

[+Zop]

I often "Plan ahead" but my kids are at that age where things are getting very spontaneous. They will often be out with friends, at their mom's or wherever. When they are wanting to spend time with Dad, it's LET's go!

 

From my perspective, the issue really isn't with MO's so to speak, it's the inability to filter the MO's in the GPS and/or PDA.

 

Now that we know how to 'backdoor' log, it will be less of an issue for the kids and newbies I drag along with me.

 

 

Zop,

 

Haven't you ever bothered to plan ahead, and review caches before you go caching. Things like checking the status of the cache (disabled, PMOC, not kid friendly, etc.) If you plan on taking non PMOCs with you, try taking the time to plan ahead.

[+The Jester]

The easiest way to mark off MOC in GSAK, is to run a extra PQ of the area that returns only MOCs. Then import that into GSAK with these options checked:

Set user flag

If matched, ONLY update user flag

Clear all user flags first

 

Now the database has all MOC caches flagged. Filter to user flag (F8) and do Database=>Global Replace to place "MOC" in User Data or User Data 2. Then anytime you don't want MOCs in your output, just filter them out.

[+Zop]

The easiest way to mark off MOC in GSAK, is to run a extra PQ of the area that returns only MOCs. Then import that into GSAK with these options checked:

Set user flag

If matched, ONLY update user flag

Clear all user flags first

 

Now the database has all MOC caches flagged. Filter to user flag (F8) and do Database=>Global Replace to place "MOC" in User Data or User Data 2. Then anytime you don't want MOCs in your output, just filter them out.

 

Thanks for the tip but do these flags show up on a PDA or GPS?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

GSAK runs on your computer and is a data management system. After selecting and filtering the data to your satisfaction, you upload only the selected data to your PDA or GPS.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Yes, and in that vein, if I remember correctly, I once created a cache where valid find claims could be made only by chain-smoking full-blooded Lithuanians with type A- blood who were full and active members in the third synod, fourteenth convocation, ninth conference, 1984 revision of a particular religion. The cache never had any finders. sigh.

Not true - I found that cache. I just never bothered to enter an on-line log because I knew you would just delete it. Check the log book in the cache if you don't believe me.

Holy Mackerel! I thought that you were pulling my leg, but I just visited the cache and checked the logbook, and, yep, you did sign it! Wow! There was one other cacher who logged it (again, logbook only) as well, two months after you did.

I think I have made this point before, but this post represents it well.

 

You can put all the restrictions in the world on what you will accept for online logs but as long as the cache remains in a publicly accessible place, it will be found and signed by whomever wishes to do so.

 

The only practical relevance of the online logs is for the owner to "check on the cache" by proxy and for people to keep public record of their find counts- neither of which are really all that important in the over-all scheme of things. (And yes, I agree the online logging DOES add to the sport but it is not NECESSARY by any means)

 

There is a back-door method of logging MOC caches which has been published in the forums. Whereas granting more than one username access to a single premium membership ("family membership") might be a worthwhile option for GC to consider (obviously for an additional fee, say $5 per extra username up to a limit of 5 or so), one can totally play the game without it.

[+Mudfrog]

There is a back-door method of logging MOC caches which has been published in the forums. Whereas granting more than one username access to a single premium membership ("family membership") might be a worthwhile option for GC to consider (obviously for an additional fee, say $5 per extra username up to a limit of 5 or so), one can totally play the game without it.

 

I at first thought that it would be easy to implement a "family" type of plan but then i realized that this plan would probably get abused quite a bit as well. Kinda like the AOL thing where one person buys the plan and then let's friends, neighbors, and whoever make a screen name to use. What could possibly be done is to allow only certain benefits for the $5 members, such as being able to see and log MOCs.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I doubt there are very many that would abuse it and seeing as how basic membership is free anyway GC really doesn't have a lot to lose.

 

Simply limiting the number of "family members" on a single account would be sufficient to keep the losses down.

 

XM radio has a 'family plan" where a regular subscriber can add up to 4 additional radios for each about half price of a regular subscription. I don't think they are hurting from abuse.

 

Actually, I assume it would generate more income... otherwise I'm sure XM would not be doing it.

 

i doubt many "close friends" would use this method to steal a premium membership. These kinds of arrangements tend to tarnish friendships when the "master" forgets to pay the bill or the extras fail to ante up their part.

 

Naw, i don't think the potential for abuse is high, providing there IS a fee for each additional username.

[+The Jester]

Gee, I thought there was a family membership: $30 a year, and $3 per month for each additional member.

 

 

[+PAWSitraction]

If you read the cache page, I think it is evident . . .

 

It is the site of a plane crash. The cache owner doesn't want anyone who is not a Premium Member of the site to have access to the coordinates.

 

I read and still do not understand.

Pillaging wont happen if someone pays $3 a month?

No, but if it's a MOC, the owner gets something they wouldn't if it weren't a MOC: an audit trail. the MOC cache feature comes with a logging trail - you can see who's accessed your cache page. And, if you either know or are pretty sure who the local pillager is, and said LP is not a member, then yeah, it's pretty easy to keep said pillager from getting your cache info if he / she can't access the page.

[+PAWSitraction]

The easiest way to mark off MOC in GSAK, is to run a extra PQ of the area that returns only MOCs. Then import that into GSAK with these options checked:

Set user flag

If matched, ONLY update user flag

Clear all user flags first

 

Now the database has all MOC caches flagged. Filter to user flag (F8) and do Database=>Global Replace to place "MOC" in User Data or User Data 2. Then anytime you don't want MOCs in your output, just filter them out.

 

Thanks for the tip but do these flags show up on a PDA or GPS?

When you set them up in GSAK, you can also tell it to put an "M-" or some such in front of the cache name when it uploads it to your GPSr, as was suggested upthread. THAT will flag it in your GPS. Simple, no?

If you don't wish to change the cache name in your GPS, then tell GSAK to put "MOC" or "Members Only" or something in the comments section of every MOC when you send it to the GPS.

 

Far's the PDA goes, if you're using CacheMate, you can create separate folders for your MOCs. Flagged by way of being in a separate database on the same PDA.

Problems solved.

Edited April 25, 2007 by PAWSitraction

[+Mudfrog]

I doubt there are very many that would abuse it and seeing as how basic membership is free anyway GC really doesn't have a lot to lose.

 

Simply limiting the number of "family members" on a single account would be sufficient to keep the losses down.

 

XM radio has a 'family plan" where a regular subscriber can add up to 4 additional radios for each about half price of a regular subscription. I don't think they are hurting from abuse.

 

Actually, I assume it would generate more income... otherwise I'm sure XM would not be doing it.

 

i doubt many "close friends" would use this method to steal a premium membership. These kinds of arrangements tend to tarnish friendships when the "master" forgets to pay the bill or the extras fail to ante up their part.

 

Naw, i don't think the potential for abuse is high, providing there IS a fee for each additional username.

 

You're probably right! I do figure that some would try to use the "family member rate" just to keep from paying the whole $30 but it wouldn't amount to much, if any, revenue loss for GC.com. Still, it might not be a bad idea for GC.com to make available a lower priced, less benefits member type plan. In this case, a cheapy plan for those who wish to find and log mocs.

[+Night Stalker]

There have been times when my wife caches with me that I wished there was a family membership. On those occasions I use the back door, and have never had a cache owner delete her logs, though I have heard of instances on these forums when others have not been so lucky. I would be willing to pay and extra 5 to add my wife. I would think that somewhere in the signup you would have to list the additional members on line names though to keep things on the up and up.

[+paleolith]

Here is one example of why someone makes a cache Members Only, and keeps it restricted.

I can't read the listing because I'm not a PM. That alone should say there are problems with the system.

 

Why I think PMOCs are bad for GC.com and for geocaching in general:

 

1) Loss of revenue to gc.com. How much, I don't know. I'd be quite happy to put up the money for the other PM features, and in fact I do put up money for access to quite a few web sites. But gc.com is losing my money because of the existence of PMOCs.

 

2) PMOCs smack of elitism. True, it only takes a one-month membership to get the coordinates. It's the smack, not the money.

 

3) Hypocrisy: refer to the PM page, where it says "Some caches are only available to Premium Members" and then just a few lines later "Do I have to pay to go Geocaching now? Never!" (yes, including the exclamation point). These statements conflict. I'd drop this objection if they changed "Never!" to the Gilbert and Sullivan quote "No, never! What, never? Well, hardly ever!".

 

4) In some places, I simply cannot hide a cache without being a PM, because there are enough PMOCs hidden that I have to know their coordinates to place another cache. Yes, it's true that in such places there are probably too many caches already anyway. But I'm familiar with one popular loop trail where one cacher saturated the trail with PMOCs (now however changed to regular). It just left a really bad taste in my mouth that one of the first areas I looked at on gc.com was saturated with PMOCs and I could only find empty areas if I were a PM.

 

5) If excessive traffic is really an issue, a PMOC is a poor tool to address it. There are much more effective ways to restrict access. An idea that pops into my head is to make it an offset cache, with the offset obtained by contacting the owner, who will give the instructions to anyone with 100 or more finds, and only to such people. More experienced cachers probably have better ideas. The point is that anyone can get the coordinates of a PMOC for $3 without demonstrating any skill or level of responsibility.

 

Edward

[+paleolith]

Oh, and of course I forgot one thing. I understand why hiders might want to see who has been visiting the cache page. So make this a PM feature -- one more benny for PMs. But make it a benny for a hider who is a PM, unrelated to the hide being a PMOC.

 

Edward

[+egami]

Ed -

 

Just a couple comments on your points...

 

Point 1 - The revenue gained far exceeds any revenue lost. In fact, not collecting revenue isn't truly "lost" revenue in an economic sense.

 

Point 2 - Matter of opinion. I disagree, but I see your point and I am sure others share the opinion...how many is hard to tell.

 

Point 3 - It isn't hypocrisy. At best you might make a case that it's somewhat misleading, but the statement is factually correct. You never have to pay GC.com to geocache.

 

Point 4 - Premium Member or not that is still going to be an issue.

 

Point 5 - I didn't realize that was their point in membership...so I can't argue that, but I'd like to see where that is published as their reasoning if you can link it.

 

At the end of the day...even a yearly membership isn't hardly a hill of beans. I could easily redeem enough money from can returns doing CITO per year to cover it and still eat a steak dinner.

[+Miragee]

Here is one example of why someone makes a cache Members Only, and keeps it restricted.

I can't read the listing because I'm not a PM. That alone should say there are problems with the system.

 

Why I think PMOCs are bad for GC.com and for geocaching in general:

 

1) Loss of revenue to gc.com. How much, I don't know. I'd be quite happy to put up the money for the other PM features, and in fact I do put up money for access to quite a few web sites. But gc.com is losing my money because of the existence of PMOCs.

 

2) PMOCs smack of elitism. True, it only takes a one-month membership to get the coordinates. It's the smack, not the money.

 

3) Hypocrisy: refer to the PM page, where it says "Some caches are only available to Premium Members" and then just a few lines later "Do I have to pay to go Geocaching now? Never!" (yes, including the exclamation point). These statements conflict. I'd drop this objection if they changed "Never!" to the Gilbert and Sullivan quote "No, never! What, never? Well, hardly ever!".

 

4) In some places, I simply cannot hide a cache without being a PM, because there are enough PMOCs hidden that I have to know their coordinates to place another cache. Yes, it's true that in such places there are probably too many caches already anyway. But I'm familiar with one popular loop trail where one cacher saturated the trail with PMOCs (now however changed to regular). It just left a really bad taste in my mouth that one of the first areas I looked at on gc.com was saturated with PMOCs and I could only find empty areas if I were a PM.

 

5) If excessive traffic is really an issue, a PMOC is a poor tool to address it. There are much more effective ways to restrict access. An idea that pops into my head is to make it an offset cache, with the offset obtained by contacting the owner, who will give the instructions to anyone with 100 or more finds, and only to such people. More experienced cachers probably have better ideas. The point is that anyone can get the coordinates of a PMOC for $3 without demonstrating any skill or level of responsibility.

 

Edward

Boy, I don't know where you get your ideas about the Premium Member Only caches . . .

 

1) You are the only one who is losing out by not becoming a Premium Member.

 

2) Elitism . . . There are very valid reasons for making a cache PMO and none of them are because someone thinks they are better than someone else.

 

3) Around here there are several thousand caches, only a small percentage of which are PMO. You do not have to "pay" to cache here.

 

4) Since many PMO caches do get changed to Regular after a while, all you had to do was wait a while and you get to find those caches.

 

5) I don't want to get emails from someone where I have to check their Profile before deciding if I should send them the coordinates or not. That would take way too much time with my slow dialup connection. Also, if someone is traveling, they want to find the caches along their route. They often filter out "offset" caches, however what you are suggesting is an "Unknown" cache designation since they have to send an email before they can get coordinates. I filter out all the "Unknown" caches 'cause I can't usually figure out the Puzzles.

 

I cannot fathom why paying a paltry $3.00 per month for all the features available to Premium Members is such a problem for you. Around here, and in any "cache-rich" area, I don't know how anyone can cache without the benefit of Pocket Queries. I know people on limited incomes who still manage to come up with three dollars a month for GC.com . . .

[4wheelin_fool]

If you read the cache page, I think it is evident . . .

 

It is the site of a plane crash. The cache owner doesn't want anyone who is not a Premium Member of the site to have access to the coordinates.

 

I read and still do not understand.

Pillaging wont happen if someone pays $3 a month?

 

The members only status makes the cache page completely inaccessible to non-geocachers.

 

The non-member geocache pages can be viewed by anyone. Some cache pages may get hundreds of "hits" by people who so a search on a subject and come up inadvertently to the cache page. The cache pages do not provide location info, but they make it very easy to find out (or to see it on a topographical map) by simply providing an-email address.

 

Partly as an experiment, I hid a cache with the word "spiderman" in the title. It has gotten over a thousand hits (recorded by the hit counter I placed on the page) since it was hidden over a year ago. Ninety percent (or more)of the hits are most likely people who have never heard of geocaching. A members-only cache does a very good job of keeping the page away from non-cachers.

[+egami]

knight2k may be referring to accidental findings of physical caches by Muggles...which, obviously, is unpredictable and unpreventable.

 

However, as has been pointed out, the PMOC's do have a degree of protection. The first caches I found when I got into geocaching were found without a GPS and just doing a zip code search. I am sure people with more harmful intent have done the same.

[+ncfinn]

Unless you live in a cache-deprived area, why is it so important to find every single cache? It even is possible to find a cach and not log it. Or so I've heard, I have not tried that myself. What is important to your (the thread initiator) kids: 1) spending quality time with their dad 2) finding trinkets in the woods 3) logging lots of caches? As long as majority of caches are available to all, I have no problem with some restricted ones. It is kind of like flying: I get to buy a seat on the plane, but those who pay a little extra get an even nicer seat in the front of the plane.

[+tozainamboku]

Why I think PMOCs are bad for GC.com and for geocaching in general:

 

1) Loss of revenue to gc.com. How much, I don't know. I'd be quite happy to put up the money for the other PM features, and in fact I do put up money for access to quite a few web sites. But gc.com is losing my money because of the existence of PMOCs.

The existence of PMOCs probably generates more premium memberships than it deters. I doubt many people withold their membership to protest PMOCs, while for some the ability to search for PMOCs is another reason for spending the money. See item 4 for the reason I became a premium member.

 

2) PMOCs smack of elitism. True, it only takes a one-month membership to get the coordinates. It's the smack, not the money.

PMOCs were suggested by geocachers when Jeremy was first suggesting a premium membership. At the time they were not many features that a PM could offer and some geocacher suggested the ability to place some cache to reward those who supported the site. PMOCs are best seen as a way for PM to thank others who support the Geocaching.com site. Of course, if you're not a PM you would see this as elitist. I'm not a scuba diver, so I see scuba caches a elitist

 

3) Hypocrisy: refer to the PM page, where it says "Some caches are only available to Premium Members" and then just a few lines later "Do I have to pay to go Geocaching now? Never!" (yes, including the exclamation point). These statements conflict. I'd drop this objection if they changed "Never!" to the Gilbert and Sullivan quote "No, never! What, never? Well, hardly ever!".

It spite of what you say in item 4 below, I don't think there are many areas where PMOCs rise to such a high percentage of the cache that there are no caches left for non-PMs to find. If there are areas like this, TPTB should tackle this on an area by area basis to ensure that they keep their promise that geocaching remain free. Perhaps they should change the "Never" since they did not intend that every cache be free. Some non-premium caches are hidden in parks with entrance fees. Some state parks charge for a permit to hide a cache. Seeking a PMOC is not any different than any other cache where you have to pay a fee. Geocaching.com is only hypocritical if PMOCs are truely preventing any non-PMOCs from being placed

 

4) In some places, I simply cannot hide a cache without being a PM, because there are enough PMOCs hidden that I have to know their coordinates to place another cache. Yes, it's true that in such places there are probably too many caches already anyway. But I'm familiar with one popular loop trail where one cacher saturated the trail with PMOCs (now however changed to regular). It just left a really bad taste in my mouth that one of the first areas I looked at on gc.com was saturated with PMOCs and I could only find empty areas if I were a PM.

I can't argue with this one. It's the reason I becames a PM. I wanted to hide a cache on trail I was familiar with. I could tell there was a PMOC on the trail but not the exact location. I didn't want to hike out there to place a cache and then have to go move it when it was rejected for being too close to the existing cache. So I paid for a PM and knew where the cache was. I suspect that I could've written the reviewer and with the approximate location where I wanted to place the cache to see if it was far enough from the PMOC. There have been several request for methods to automate a system to tell caches if a PMOC or the final of an unknown was within the saturation distance of where you want to place a cache but these have been rejected beacuse they would invite abuse by those who just want to get the coordinates for the unknown cache.

 

5) If excessive traffic is really an issue, a PMOC is a poor tool to address it. There are much more effective ways to restrict access. An idea that pops into my head is to make it an offset cache, with the offset obtained by contacting the owner, who will give the instructions to anyone with 100 or more finds, and only to such people. More experienced cachers probably have better ideas. The point is that anyone can get the coordinates of a PMOC for $3 without demonstrating any skill or level of responsibility.

Amazingly, PMOCs do get less traffic. A lot of people find they can enjoy this game without paying $3 and they will never hunt a PMOC. And while it is not 100% effective, the $3/month probably weeds out the kind of people who will go intentionally steal from the cache or even take the cache itself. Some people have reported that making their cache a PMOC has detered these "cache maggots".

 

Oh, and of course I forgot one thing. I understand why hiders might want to see who has been visiting the cache page. So make this a PM feature -- one more benny for PMs. But make it a benny for a hider who is a PM, unrelated to the hide being a PMOC.

 

Edward

There are undoubtly many people who make their caches PMOCs just so they get the audit page of who has looked at the cache page. Given the requirement now to be logged in in order to see the coordinates, it makes some sense to provide this a a premium mebership benifit for all caches. That may redude the number of PMOCs in some areas.

Edited May 10, 2007 by tozainamboku

[4wheelin_fool]

Here is one example of why someone makes a cache Members Only, and keeps it restricted.

2) PMOCs smack of elitism. True, it only takes a one-month membership to get the coordinates. It's the smack, not the money.

 

 

Believe me, three dollars does not make someone elite. Maybe in a third world country, but there are hardly any caches over there. You do not need a credit card either, as many(or most) ATM/debit cards have a Visa logo and can be used as a credit card anyway. If they only accepted credit cards, or did not break the fees into monthly increments, I still would not agree with you, but I could at least understand your side of the arguement.

 

The "three dollars of angst" arguement could be better used against the price of gasoline.

 

 

3) Hypocrisy: refer to the PM page, where it says "Some caches are only available to Premium Members" and then just a few lines later "Do I have to pay to go Geocaching now? Never!" (yes, including the exclamation point). These statements conflict. I'd drop this objection if they changed "Never!" to the Gilbert and Sullivan quote "No, never! What, never? Well, hardly ever!".

 

Let me know when there are only members-only caches to find and you have nothing else to do. Or better yet, send me a copy of a notice to "upgrade now or lose your membership". It is completely an option.

[Clan Riffster]

Why I think PMOCs are bad for GC.com and for geocaching in general:

 

1) Loss of revenue to gc.com.

So they lose your $3. I'm sure they'll survive. If, however, Groundspeak chose to make free, all the premium member benefits, there would no longer be any marketable incentive for folks to pay, and their losses would be substantial.

 

2) PMOCs smack of elitism.

I would argue the problem is with how you are perceiving PMOC's. You choose to be offended. I have yet to meet a premium member who feels they are superior to any other players.

 

3) Hypocrisy: refer to the PM page, where it says "Some caches are only available to Premium Members" and then just a few lines later "Do I have to pay to go Geocaching now? Never!" (yes, including the exclamation point). These statements conflict.

No, they don't. You do not have to pay to go geocaching. If you wish to add some great benefits to your caching fun, and in doing so, increase the number of caches you can find, you can pay to do so. If you don't want these benefits, you are not required to do so. You can still go caching without a PM, as oodles of cachers have demonstrated. There is nothing conflicting with the two statements.

 

4) In some places, I simply cannot hide a cache without being a PM, because there are enough PMOCs hidden that I have to know their coordinates to place another cache.

Sorry. You are the one choosing your own misery. Incidentally, you can still hide caches in PMOC saturated areas, but it involves a little more work. Find a spot, (Google Earth works great for this), and E-mail your local reviewer to see if the coords are within 528' of any existing caches.

 

5) If excessive traffic is really an issue, a PMOC is a poor tool to address it.

Actually, it's a great tool to address it. If you reduce the number of people who are capable of viewing the coords, you subsequently reduce the number of people who can download said coords. I used to have a cache series that required a physical reset every 5 to 10 cachers, and the series covered many miles. Leaving home, going to the final, gathering stuff, then visiting the other 4 stages, took several hours of my time and lots of money for gas. I made the series PMOC's to reduce the number of times I would need to do this, and it worked like a charm.

 

-Sean-

Edited May 10, 2007 by Clan Riffster

[4wheelin_fool]

The biggest problem is that non-members can actually see that there are members-only caches in the area, and when they click on it they get:

 

An Error Has Occurred

 

You need to log in and be a premium member in order to view subscriber-only caches. Login if you are a premium member, or visit the premium member page to find out how to upgrade your account to a premium member.

 

The problem is that they know there are members-only caches out there. Nobody complains about the platinum caches because when you click the link:

 

www.platinumgeocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ca4da81a-f83f-4334-b297-2fd7b91a25b8

 

it comes up

 

We can't find "www.platinumgeocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=74b92b2a-68f8-42fb-a168-0b51103f0d12"

 

You can try again by typing the URL in the address bar above.

Or, search the Web:

 

Go to MSN Search to see complete results for "www.platinumgeocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=74b92b2a-68f8-42fb-a168-0b51103f0d12".

 

Check availability or register the domain name 'www.platinumgeocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=74b92b2a-68f8-42fb-a168-0b51103f0d12'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

More information about this error.

About Results

 

• Not satisfied with your results? Help us improve.

 

Powered by MSN Search

 

..or something similar.

 

Nobody complains about the platinum membership.(which actuallyis elite) Perhaps the members-only caches could be completely invisible (like the platinum caches) unless you were a member.

Edited May 10, 2007 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

The biggest problem is that non-members can actually see that there are members-only caches in the area, and when they click on it they get:

 

An Error Has Occurred

 

You need to log in and be a premium member in order to view subscriber-only caches. Login if you are a premium member, or visit the premium member page to find out how to upgrade your account to a premium member.

 

The problem is that they know there are members-only caches out there. Nobody complains about the platinum caches because when you click the link:

 

www.platinumgeocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ca4da81a-f83f-4334-b297-2fd7b91a25b8

 

it comes up

 

We can't find "www.platinumgeocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=74b92b2a-68f8-42fb-a168-0b51103f0d12"

 

You can try again by typing the URL in the address bar above.

Or, search the Web:

 

Go to MSN Search to see complete results for "www.platinumgeocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=74b92b2a-68f8-42fb-a168-0b51103f0d12".

 

Check availability or register the domain name 'www.platinumgeocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=74b92b2a-68f8-42fb-a168-0b51103f0d12'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

More information about this error.

About Results

 

• Not satisfied with your results? Help us improve.

 

Powered by MSN Search

 

..or something similar.

 

Nobody complains about the platinum membership.(which actuallyis elite) Perhaps the members-only caches could be completely invisible (like the platinum caches) unless you were a member.

Of course, the Platinum member services actually employ a separate server and domain, while the Premium member services share hosting space on the primary gc servers, and that accounts for much of the difference in "visibility". The relatively high Platinum membership fee is able to support the luxury of a separate server and domain, while Premium fees could never support such a tiered structure.

[+paleolith]

Thanks to tozainamboku for at least understanding my points. And yes, it's that emphatic "never!" that bothers me. Especially as an HMS Pinfaore fan.

 

A couple of people still seem to think I'm in the "make it all free crowd". I think I made it pretty clear that I'm not. There are web sites for which I pay more to get less benefit -- gc is cheap. (Of course, mycomicspage.com is cheaper and far higher benefit ... ) Others thought my claim of elitism had something to do with money. Elitism has never, anywhere, any time, been about money except secondarily. Yes, it's easy to buy your way in on gc.com -- but sometimes the first impression presented to new users is "you aren't part of the in crowd". See below for more details on my experience.

 

4wheelin_fool's suggestion that PMOCs should simply be invisible is one I find good. The part I dislike is when it's flashed in my face and then I'm told "you can't see it until you pony up". Of course, then the problem about hiding new caches gets worse unless you set up a totally two-tier system, which probably everyone agrees would be a bad idea. But see the following paragraph.

 

egami: I think you missed my point on #4 -- it's not the issue of saturation but of knowing where other caches are. Actually it's a problem anywhere there is a PMOC and I might want to hide another cache nearby, even at low density. But OTOH I withdraw that objection. There have to be real costs associated with the whole process of allowing caches to be reported on gc.com, so I wouldn't mind a rule that required PM status, perhaps for a year minimum, to report a hide (as long as you could then drop the PM status and still maintain the cache). I'd prefer (personally, emotionally) to see PM status as a barrier to hiding/reporting than to finding PMOCs. Nonetheless, thanks to the people who provided tips on getting around the issue.

 

also egami, as for reducing traffic, I read that from members on the forums, not from gc.com. It's been used here as a defense for PMOCs. I did not intend to imply that it is in any way an official gc.com position.

 

There clearly are plenty of non-PMOCs. Yet one of the first places I looked on gc.com had, I think, ten caches on a popular two-mile loop trail -- six of them PMOCs. On the average there are plenty of non-PMOCs, but that doesn't mean that someone looking in a specific location won't ever see a preponderance of PMOCs. And I do think that first impressions to newcomers are very important. (As I said in my earlier post, those PMOCs are now standard. But there wasn't anything in the descriptions indicating a temporary PMOC status. I'd also drop most of my objections if PMOCs always became standard after a period of time, say a year.)

 

ncfinn: your comment wasn't directed at me, but I agree. I'll never have a high find count, because I really don't care about caches that don't take me somewhere I find interesting. Which of course is often different from what other people find interesting. Vive la difference. If everybody were exactly like me, we'd all go to the same place at the same time, and since we hate crowds we'd be miserable.

 

Edward

[+Exocet]

Everyone that complains about PM caches: you are complaining about $30? Your GPSr cost was $100-300, gas is anywhere from $2.75 to $5.50 a gallon, internet access, computer, costs of transport (car most likely) and so on...

 

Yet somehow you can't plop down 30 bucks? I've seen the "how much money do you have in your caching bag" thread where some people hit $2000 or more.

 

I don't know how, but some people even manage to argue about the moral of the thing or something. What?

 

Ultimately, everyone here makes enough money to support their geocaching habit which, I assure you, far exceeds $30/year. If you want to save some money then that's fine. Just admit that you're being cheap and be happy with it.

 

Oh and to the one person who got their GPSr at a garage sale, computer from Goodwill, borrows wireless internet access from their neighbor, walks or takes the bus to every geocache and lives in a flat with five other people: ok, you're not being cheap.

 

PS: It's just the opinion of someone in Poland. Petrol costs $5.75/gallon, we pay $70/mo for internet access and a new Garmin GPSMAP 60CSx costs MORE than the average receptionist/construction worker/teacher/cop makes in a MONTH.

[+kayamycat]

I am a budget cacher. My fiance and I are both fulltime students. I can totally see the original poster's point. I think a family membership should be something that could happen.

 

For the recent poster saying that if you don't want to pay for this and that then you are cheap....well maybe so. But this isn't paintball! One of the things that attracted me to this hobby was the cheapness of it. Yeah the GPS was a 100 bucks...and surethe membership is a measly 3 bucks a month. I used to spend 150 for one day of paintball and I would usually play 8 times a month! So cheapness is good for everyone!

 

My problem with these membership caches isn't about logging them. I have been to a few here in my area and I was saddly unimpressed! One of them wasn't even hidden well enough to escape vandalism. The others were not very imaginative. What the hell is extra about them anyway? There was nothing unusual about them! Why even be seperate if your not going to work hard on them? Members only caches seem egotistical and retarded. And until I find a good one I will firmly stand on the viewpoint that they are a geocaching waste of breathe.

[+cache_test_dummies]

My problem with these membership caches isn't about logging them. I have been to a few here in my area and I was saddly unimpressed! One of them wasn't even hidden well enough to escape vandalism. The others were not very imaginative. What the hell is extra about them anyway? There was nothing unusual about them!

I've never had the impression that PMOCs were supposed to be any more impressive than non-PMOCs. And I don't recall ever hearing anyone claiming that their use of PMOC distinction was to place the cache in some sort of special class of impressive or unusual caches. If you were operating under that assumption, I can understand your disappointment.

[+egami]

Thanks to tozainamboku for at least understanding my points. And yes, it's that emphatic "never!" that bothers me. Especially as an HMS Pinfaore fan.

 

Ok, but technically it's factually correct...you "never" have to pay to go geocaching. But I can see where it might bother some people or be perceived as somewhat misleading.

 

egami: I think you missed my point on #4 -- it's not the issue of saturation but of knowing where other caches are. Actually it's a problem anywhere there is a PMOC and I might want to hide another cache nearby, even at low density.

 

To clarify my previous point regarding #4....the point is simply that if a cache is in the .10 mile vicinity of where you'd like to place one that it doesn't matter if it's a PMOC or not. There is one there so your desire to place one may be dismissed based on the fact that it's within that radius, not based on the fact that it's a PMOC.

 

Yes, it's inconvenient that you can't tell that, but it can be determined in the reviewer process.

 

But OTOH I withdraw that objection. There have to be real costs associated with the whole process of allowing caches to be reported on gc.com, so I wouldn't mind a rule that required PM status, perhaps for a year minimum, to report a hide (as long as you could then drop the PM status and still maintain the cache). I'd prefer (personally, emotionally) to see PM status as a barrier to hiding/reporting than to finding PMOCs. Nonetheless, thanks to the people who provided tips on getting around the issue.

 

Yeah, I agree that it doesn't seem like the most sensible implementation, but it is what it is I guess.

 

also egami, as for reducing traffic, I read that from members on the forums, not from gc.com. It's been used here as a defense for PMOCs. I did not intend to imply that it is in any way an official gc.com position.

 

Gotcha, I had just never heard that before...

Edited May 11, 2007 by egami

[+egami]

I am a budget cacher. My fiance and I are both fulltime students. I can totally see the original poster's point. I think a family membership should be something that could happen.

 

For the recent poster saying that if you don't want to pay for this and that then you are cheap....well maybe so. But this isn't paintball! One of the things that attracted me to this hobby was the cheapness of it. Yeah the GPS was a 100 bucks...and surethe membership is a measly 3 bucks a month. I used to spend 150 for one day of paintball and I would usually play 8 times a month! So cheapness is good for everyone!

 

You'd spend $150 for a single day of paintball, but you are complaining that PM is $3/month...that is funny stuff. We're talking sacrificing a meal at McD's a few times a year versus the price of a GPS unit for one day of virtual combat.

 

Members only caches seem egotistical and retarded. And until I find a good one I will firmly stand on the viewpoint that they are a geocaching waste of breathe.

 

How do you really feel?

[+cache_test_dummies]

I am a budget cacher. My fiance and I are both fulltime students. I can totally see the original poster's point. I think a family membership should be something that could happen.

 

For the recent poster saying that if you don't want to pay for this and that then you are cheap....well maybe so. But this isn't paintball! One of the things that attracted me to this hobby was the cheapness of it. Yeah the GPS was a 100 bucks...and surethe membership is a measly 3 bucks a month. I used to spend 150 for one day of paintball and I would usually play 8 times a month! So cheapness is good for everyone!

 

You'd spend $150 for a single day of paintball, but you are complaining that PM is $3/month...that is funny stuff. We're talking sacrificing a meal at McD's a few times a year versus the price of a GPS unit for one day of virtual combat.

I don't see where kayamycat was complaining about the $3/month. In fact, kayamycat has a PM account.

[+egami]

I don't see where kayamycat was complaining about the $3/month. In fact, kayamycat has a PM account.

 

She wasn't directly...and I noted that she apparently had an account. However, when you make comments about "being a budget cacher" and talk about being students in college then that smacks of complaining about cost.

 

Obviously the bigger issue is her perception of the arrogance associated with it...or rather the "retarded" and "egotistical" nature of it.

[+Renegade Knight]

There is a back-door method of logging MOC caches which has been published in the forums. Whereas granting more than one username access to a single premium membership ("family membership") might be a worthwhile option for GC to consider (obviously for an additional fee, say $5 per extra username up to a limit of 5 or so), one can totally play the game without it.

 

I at first thought that it would be easy to implement a "family" type of plan but then i realized that this plan would probably get abused quite a bit as well. Kinda like the AOL thing where one person buys the plan and then let's friends, neighbors, and whoever make a screen name to use. What could possibly be done is to allow only certain benefits for the $5 members, such as being able to see and log MOCs.

 

You nailed it. A family plan would be a huge benefit. It also has problems to make it work as intended. If in spite of this issues it raised this sites revenue...the problem would proably be acceptable. You just can't run the experiment and then shut it down if the opposite is true. Too much wailing and gnashing of teeth would happen.

[+DanOCan]

1) Loss of revenue to gc.com. How much, I don't know. I'd be quite happy to put up the money for the other PM features, and in fact I do put up money for access to quite a few web sites. But gc.com is losing my money because of the existence of PMOCs.

I don't follow this logic. You would pay the money if they REDUCED the benefits of joining?

2) PMOCs smack of elitism. True, it only takes a one-month membership to get the coordinates. It's the smack, not the money.

I'll respect your viewpoint on this even if I don't feel the same way. When I first stumbled across MOCs it never occurred to me to be elitist, I just looked at it as people wanting to give those who pay some additional benefits. Maybe if the cost were higher it would be elitist but at $30/year it certain is accessible to all who choose.

3) Hypocrisy: refer to the PM page, where it says "Some caches are only available to Premium Members" and then just a few lines later "Do I have to pay to go Geocaching now? Never!" (yes, including the exclamation point). These statements conflict. I'd drop this objection if they changed "Never!" to the Gilbert and Sullivan quote "No, never! What, never? Well, hardly ever!".

As others have mentioned, you can cache for free. They don't make any promises that you will be able to hunt for every cache out there.

4) In some places, I simply cannot hide a cache without being a PM, because there are enough PMOCs hidden that I have to know their coordinates to place another cache.

I don't see this as a MOC-specific issue. In places where caching is popular there will undoubtedly be parts of a multi you don't know about or the final coordinates to a puzzle you haven't solved, or such. Even if you could see the location of the MOCs there is no guarantee you wouldn't have the same problem,

5) If excessive traffic is really an issue, a PMOC is a poor tool to address it. There are much more effective ways to restrict access. An idea that pops into my head is to make it an offset cache, with the offset obtained by contacting the owner, who will give the instructions to anyone with 100 or more finds, and only to such people. More experienced cachers probably have better ideas. The point is that anyone can get the coordinates of a PMOC for $3 without demonstrating any skill or level of responsibility.

Traffic reduction is exactly why I made some of my caches into MOCs. It is not because I think they are better than other caches it is simply so that in the more sensitive areas I wanted to limit traffic. I agree 100% that $3/month doesn't guarantee responsibility, but it does guarantee fewer people.

 

Also, as a side note, didn't gc.com stop approving caches that required you to contact the owner to obtain the information needed to find a cache?

 

I'll go on record as saying this: Any non-paying member who finds one of my MOCs is free to use the backdoor to log the find online. Their log will not be deleted.

 

Cheers!

[+Mudfrog]

1) Loss of revenue to gc.com. How much, I don't know. I'd be quite happy to put up the money for the other PM features, and in fact I do put up money for access to quite a few web sites. But gc.com is losing my money because of the existence of PMOCs.

I don't follow this logic. You would pay the money if they REDUCED the benefits of joining?

2) PMOCs smack of elitism. True, it only takes a one-month membership to get the coordinates. It's the smack, not the money.

I'll respect your viewpoint on this even if I don't feel the same way. When I first stumbled across MOCs it never occurred to me to be elitist, I just looked at it as people wanting to give those who pay some additional benefits. Maybe if the cost were higher it would be elitist but at $30/year it certain is accessible to all who choose.

 

I was trying to figure out paleolith's logic too but just couldn't come up with it.

 

The elitism arguement is rediculous! PMOCs are just like pocket queries and instant notifications,,, they are an extra benefit for those who choose to become a premium member. By the way, it's geocachers themselves who decide when and where they want to place these. GC.com doesn't require or push them at all!

 

For the most part, i would bet that most of these caches can be logged by everyone who finds them. A non premium family member or non premium friend who caches with a premium member can all use the backdoor methods to log these!

Edited May 11, 2007 by Mudfrog

[+Renegade Knight]

...My problem with these membership caches isn't about logging them. I have been to a few here in my area and I was saddly unimpressed! One of them wasn't even hidden well enough to escape vandalism. The others were not very imaginative. What the hell is extra about them anyway? There was nothing unusual about them! Why even be seperate if your not going to work hard on them? Members only caches seem egotistical and retarded. And until I find a good one I will firmly stand on the viewpoint that they are a geocaching waste of breathe.

 

Since they are not any better than regular caches that you have found, are regular caches also a waste of breathe?

 

From a finders standpoint, what's different about most PMO caches is that they are PMO. From the hiders standpoint, that's another thing.

[+Renegade Knight]

... it's not the issue of saturation but of knowing where other caches are. Actually it's a problem anywhere there is a PMOC and I might want to hide another cache nearby, even at low density....

 

Plug in your coods and look up all nearby caches on this site. It will tell you the distance to all caches. That includes PMO caches. Not quite as handy as having all caches in your GPS when you are at your hiding spot but functional for the few PMO caches that are out there.

[+The Jester]

...

Also, as a side note, didn't gc.com stop approving caches that required you to contact the owner to obtain the information needed to find a cache?

...

You need to get approval before hiding one of these. You need to show a good reason why this method is the only way to do it (Delorme Challenges or County Challenges). The reviewers will discuss it and get back an answer to you. I just went thru this process for the Washington History Challenge, so it can happen (and no it's not a MOC, it will be limited enough just on it's own).

[nobby.nobbs]

we all have choices to make in llife and not everything is a RIGHT.

 

please don't interpret that as an attack on anyone who doesn't pay, they are excercising their power of choice to not pay to get the extra benefits.

[+paleolith]

I don't follow this logic. You would pay the money if they REDUCED the benefits of joining?

To me, PMOC caches are a negative, not a benefit. Therefore I'm more willing to pay if they are eliminated -- or at least if the idea of semi-private caches is separated from the issue of web site benefits.

 

I suppose (and this is separate from what's gone before) that I also see semi-private caches as having nothing to do with web site benefits. The other PM benefits, as I remember at the moment, all have to do with use of the web site. Makes total sense. But PMOC caches is just something stuck on for no reason other than to help persuade people to pay -- people have come up with other defenses, but payment solicitation seems to be the main reason.

 

So perhaps there's a better way to make some caches semi-private rather than tying it to PM.

 

Edward

[+paleolith]

Oh, and to follow up myself once more ... why not make the required spacing larger for PMOC caches? Say for example that PMOC caches have to be half a mile apart. This would still allow them to be roughly 4% of caches in dense areas, but would prevent the phenomenon I described earlier, where a short trail was dominated by PMOCs. With such a rule, I'd have seen at most two PMOCs and probably only one in that area, and wouldn't have gotten such a strong negative initial impression.

 

Edward

[+Skip_]

Wow. This thing's still going? The OP got a workaround for their problem on the second post and now there are 95 of 'em.

 

Well, since the damage is done and I'm up way too early for some reason, let me chime in and give my opinion, which is just that.

 

Family memberships sound like a great idea, but I have no idea how TPTB could implement them in such a manner that people wouldn't take advantage of them. There's no real way I can see for them to verify that everyone lives at the same address, or someone is a minor's parent, etc. so what's to stop a group of people living in different households from buying a family membership? That said, the second poster's workaround is a great way for a family on a budget to log PMOC's. As long as the premium member was there when it was found, I can't see a reason why someone would delete the logs in that case.

 

Now just for a little perspective, here's the cost of a premium membership compared to the per person cost of other things.

 

2-3 trips to the movies: Assuming $7-10/ticket and getting popcorn, snacks, etc. Since I'd rather go geocaching than watch most movies that come out, this is a no brainer.

 

1-1.5 prime rib dinners with beer: Yeah, I love prime rib, but I can give up a chance of it for a year's worth of PQ's.

 

1 trip or perhaps a fraction of one to Six Flags: It really depends on how you do it. I have a season pass and season parking pass, so the cost of admission and parking are spread out over my not inconsiderable trips. I do pay for a Flash Pass each time I go, except every fifth time when I'm comped by my frequent user card, which comes to roughly $30. I love going, and am addicted to Superman: Ride of Steel, but would give up one trip a year for a premium membership if push came to shove.

 

2-3 CD's: There's not a lot of them I really want to go out and buy anyway, but if you're a family and the kids want a premium membership too for some reason (Perhaps they're older and are allowed to go caching on their own or something,) they can give up getting a few CD's. Of course if they're old enough to go caching on their own, they're probably old enough to have a driver's license and a job.

 

1.5-3 DVD's: It depends on if you get them full price or from the bargain rack at Wal Mart. Maybe in the latter case you could squeeze even more out of your $30 if you don't mind getting movies like Frogs. I still think you get more bang for your buck if you can go paperless for a full year.

 

I guess the point is, for the amount of money it costs the entertainment value is quite high. A year's worth of geocaching compares quite favorably to the costs of more transient pleasures.

[+egami]

we all have choices to make in llife and not everything is a RIGHT.

 

please don't interpret that as an attack on anyone who doesn't pay, they are excercising their power of choice to not pay to get the extra benefits.

 

You're right...PMOC's are a privilege not a right.

 

I don't mind anyone excercising their power of choice not to pay...I did so myself for a while. However, I'll probably start exercising my right to defend PMOC's when I hear people tossing around slandering labels like "retarded" and "egotistical".

[+tozainamboku]

I don't follow this logic. You would pay the money if they REDUCED the benefits of joining?

To me, PMOC caches are a negative, not a benefit. Therefore I'm more willing to pay if they are eliminated -- or at least if the idea of semi-private caches is separated from the issue of web site benefits.

 

I suppose (and this is separate from what's gone before) that I also see semi-private caches as having nothing to do with web site benefits. The other PM benefits, as I remember at the moment, all have to do with use of the web site. Makes total sense. But PMOC caches is just something stuck on for no reason other than to help persuade people to pay -- people have come up with other defenses, but payment solicitation seems to be the main reason.

 

So perhaps there's a better way to make some caches semi-private rather than tying it to PM.

 

Edward

Ed is right. PMOCs were stuck on in the early days when there were few benefits for a premium membership. Jeremy asked for suggestions and one thing suggested by several in the community was to have PMOC caches as a thank you for people who were willing to support the website. If you are are not willing to support the website because you don't see the cost justifying all of the other benefits of premium membership, then don't expect members to place a thank you cache in your honor. Most premium members as well as all non-premium members still place caches that anyone can find. Some place PMOCs to thank premium members and after some period open these caches up to everyone. Others place PMOCs and keep them as PMOCs because they want to thank the people who support the website with a cache that only premium members will ever be able to find. No one is forcing anyone to pay to find geocaches. Some caches are limited to premium members because those that hid them choose to reward others who pay for premium memberships.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I don't follow this logic. You would pay the money if they REDUCED the benefits of joining?

To me, PMOC caches are a negative, not a benefit. Therefore I'm more willing to pay if they are eliminated -- or at least if the idea of semi-private caches is separated from the issue of web site benefits.

 

I suppose (and this is separate from what's gone before) that I also see semi-private caches as having nothing to do with web site benefits. The other PM benefits, as I remember at the moment, all have to do with use of the web site. Makes total sense. But PMOC caches is just something stuck on for no reason other than to help persuade people to pay -- people have come up with other defenses, but payment solicitation seems to be the main reason.

 

So perhaps there's a better way to make some caches semi-private rather than tying it to PM.

 

Edward

Ed is right. PMOCs were stuck on in the early days when there were few benefits for a premium membership. Jeremy asked for suggestions and one thing suggested by several in the community was to have PMOC caches as a thank you for people who were willing to support the website. If you are are not willing to support the website because you don't see the cost justifying all of the other benefits of premium membership, then don't expect members to place a thank you cache in your honor. Most premium members as well as all non-premium members still place caches that anyone can find. Some place PMOCs to thank premium members and after some period open these caches up to everyone. Others place PMOCs and keep them as PMOCs because they want to thank the people who support the website with a cache that only premium members will ever be able to find. No one is forcing anyone to pay to find geocaches. Some caches are limited to premium members because those that hid them choose to reward others who pay for premium memberships.

Agreed, and I might add -- as the owner of many extreme 5/5 PMO caches -- that the other reasons why I do so are because PMO status also offers:

• far higher level of shielding against casual site visitors being able to see the cache listing page or being able to find the coordinates
  
• total shielding against the cache lisitng page or its contents showing up on any search engine and thus being accessible to or viewable by a casual web surfer
  
• the delightful feature known as an "audit log", wherein I can view a list of those geocachers who have visited the cache listing page directly, when they last visited, when they first visited, and how many in visits in total have been made by that geocacher. Amazingly, for some of my more extreme Psycho Urban caches, a significant number of folks from around the world have visited any one of those listing pages more than 50 to 70 times. Now, that is a measure of enjoyment!
  

It must also be noted that the above features combine to drastically decrease the chances of a cache being muggled, vandalized or pirated, and, sadly, they also contribute to keeping the swag quality considerably higher than in many non-PM caches. Of course, it is also true that most 5/5 extreme caches really do not have much of a problem with decreasing swag quality in the first place, even if they are not PMOCs!

[E-squad]

What is even more frustrating is I have no coordinates for where the cache is, and am running into a problem placing a FREE cache and I am too close to a cache I can't see (Because it is a PAY Cache)! I feel that if I can't see it or know where it is when placing a cache I should be able to place mine no problem.

 

I thought Geocaching was supposed to be public domain, but obviously it is not!