Google Adds

1.6k · June 21, 2007

I know many don't visit the main forums, but as this will affect everyone. I thought I'd bring it to peoples attention

2.6k · June 21, 2007

For the last 6 1/2 years, Geocaching.com has been relatively ad-free. With the exception of the ever present banner ad on the left-hand navigation bar, and the occasional promotion (like Jeep!) we have concentrated more on the creation of Premium Member content to help cover the ongoing costs of site maintenance , upgrades, and ever growing hardware and network costs.

As we have been moving into an extensive re-architecture of Geocaching.com to keep up with the ongoing traffic increases we have been faced with the reality that we need to raise more money. This will help us to create a permanent solution to the site slowdowns that have plagued us for so many years - aka our V.2 version of the web site.

We've been doing testing with the Guide to Purchasing a GPS unit page and have found that Google's ad serving technology is extremely well done. Of course! They're Google! And we feel that placing two unobtrusive (and surprisingly helpful) ads on the page will actually be something that folks wouldn't mind. The current plan is to only show them to users who aren't logged in or are not Premium Members - though once we add a feature for PMs to turn them off we'll add them for everyone (except, of course, those PMs that don't want them). The thought is that the ads will actually be useful on the page and not something that won't fit there.

In lieu of raising Premium Member fees we felt that the advertising would be a much easier "burden" on the geocaching community - and we hope - a beneficial one. So expect tweaks and changes to the ad campaigns as we test out new ways to display these ads to be the most effective - and least irritating.

Why not charge everyone and be done with?

I hate ads!

June 21, 2007

Why not charge everyone and be done with?

I hate ads!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I agreee with you.

June 21, 2007

Why not charge everyone and be done with?

I hate ads!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I agreee with you.

Well I dont agree.....I certainly dont agree with our freedom of searching for caches being jeopordised by the minority of Premium Members like yourselves. Sure I agree that if we are to use ALL the priviliges afforded to Premium Members that we should pay....but we dont use them so we need not pay. Let me put it another way, would you like it if you had to pay the same road tax as a truck (in excess of £1000 pounds per year) after all, you use the same roads as that truck. I think you would soon find some way of avoiding that tax. So please......dont tar everyone with the same brush.

1.8k · June 21, 2007

I got to agree with Jeremy's way. I didn't start out as a PM until after I was sure this was possibly a hobby that would interest me. If I had to pay from the start, I may have never gotten to read enough logs and cache pages to convince me to give it a try.

WTG Jeremy!

2.6k · June 21, 2007

Well I dont agree.....I certainly dont agree with our freedom of searching for caches being jeopordised by the minority of Premium Members like yourselves. Sure I agree that if we are to use ALL the priviliges afforded to Premium Members that we should pay....but we dont use them so we need not pay. Let me put it another way, would you like it if you had to pay the same road tax as a truck (in excess of £1000 pounds per year) after all, you use the same roads as that truck. I think you would soon find some way of avoiding that tax. So please......dont tar everyone with the same brush.

Well, on the other hand, one could say the Premium Members are subsidising your caching if you reread it!

June 21, 2007

Well I dont agree.....I certainly dont agree with our freedom of searching for caches being jeopordised by the minority of Premium Members like yourselves. Sure I agree that if we are to use ALL the priviliges afforded to Premium Members that we should pay....but we dont use them so we need not pay. Let me put it another way, would you like it if you had to pay the same road tax as a truck (in excess of £1000 pounds per year) after all, you use the same roads as that truck. I think you would soon find some way of avoiding that tax. So please......dont tar everyone with the same brush.

“Don’t tar everyone with the same brush”? What are you on about?

I merely said that I agree with charging people for the service: my view is that I think all cachers should pay for what they do get, not what they can get by being a premium member. It’s only, what, fifteen quid. A year. How much do you spend on petrol/Tupperware/goodies? Don’t answer that, it was a rhetorical question.

You have your opinion and want something for nothing; I have mine and am prepared to pay for it and comparing vehicular taxes is fatuous. The premium membership fee doesn’t just go into the pocket query fund, it pays for new kit too. New kit like you’re getting the benefit of after the recent tweaks. Good isn’t it? Another rhetorical question.

June 21, 2007

I got to agree with Jeremy's way. I didn't start out as a PM until after I was sure this was possibly a hobby that would interest me. If I had to pay from the start, I may have never gotten to read enough logs and cache pages to convince me to give it a try.

WTG Jeremy!

To ensure you really do want to play the game there could be a free trial period. Easy peasy.

3k · June 21, 2007

Well, on the other hand, one could say the Premium Members are subsidising your caching if you reread it!

Got to agree - it's our subs that pay for the servers that everybody uses to search for caches, whether they're a PM or not. If people don't like that, there are other cache listing sites out there (apparently).......

June 21, 2007

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The concept of keeping it free is well outdated. A small fee to everyone, with say the first 10 logs free to allow people to decide whether they like the pastime first, is the only fair way - ads or no ads.

6.1k · June 21, 2007

Well I'm happy to have free membership as long as the PM charge is relatively low, so I'm happy to see ads being used to finance rather than charging us more; in any event as a firefox user there will almost certainly be a way to hide the ads if they're that intrusive.

If I'd had to pay up front I don't think I would have got started.

1.1k · June 21, 2007

We only started caching as it was free.

If we had to pay from the start I doubt we would be here now, as time has progressed Premium Membership was the natural next step, and I am glad I am helping keep it going.

Caching was a natural follow on from walking, and seemed to be a cheap hobby not so sure now what with a PDA, GPS and various subscriptions, just used to use my work issued tomtom and print outs! Oh yes plus the constant look out for bargain swaps and click box special offers!

I like it as it is

1.1k · June 21, 2007

Were premium members polled on this? If so I didn't see it.

Jon

June 21, 2007

maybe we should wait until we see how intrusive hte ads are before we make blanket comments - I don't mind the odd sidebar with relevant ads like we have now, but I do object to those whole splash page ads over the top of the text you're trying to read and loads up EVERY time you visit that page.

1.1k · June 21, 2007

Got to agree - it's our subs that pay for the servers that everybody uses to search for caches,

And so were premium members consulted before this, rather profound, change of policy? I can't understand how such a decision could have be made without the fee paying membership given the chance of their input. I for one feel steam-rollered into accepting these 'ads' without due consultation to the very people who keep Groundspeak alive.

Jon

June 21, 2007

:P

June 21, 2007

(Putting on protective outerware to shield from rotton tomatoes and other foodstuff being fired in this general direction )

I dunno, I kinda like the ads Groundspeak has run so far. I realize that Google ads probably won't be as focused, but I have found them to be generally unobtrusive and occasionally helpful. And if ads allow a larger community to enjoy a basic level of service for free, well then good for them. I get my $30 worth per year--how Groundspeak spends it is their business, as long as I get the service I'm promised.

24.7k · June 21, 2007

The solution looks like a good compromise between keeping it free for basic membership, and charging everone and/or hiking premium membership fee's.

If the geocoin glut is not quenching the cash flow needs then this site is at a major cross roads and this is perhaps the least obtrusive step they can take to solve the money problem.

June 21, 2007

I wonder why it is that people think either the PM fees must rise or it’s the advertising route. Why not charge everyone a little bit? As suggested above, it could be arranged so you could only log a set number of caches before membership fees kicked in. This would keep people with multiple identities happy too. And as far as potential cachers not starting out as there may be a fee levied after a while goes? I couldn’t personally care less, it’s their loss. Although it needn’t happen that way.

June 21, 2007

maybe we should wait until we see how intrusive hte ads are before we make blanket comments - I don't mind the odd sidebar with relevant ads like we have now, but I do object to those whole splash page ads over the top of the text you're trying to read and loads up EVERY time you visit that page.

I personally don't see the problem. Jeremy stated that there will be an option to turn off the ads for Premium Members so, if you don't like ads, pay your membership and turn them off.

I'm a premium member and I don't mind other cachers being able to use the website for free. I get the extra's like PQ's and some members are actually making their caches members only for the first week or so. If you pay your membership, you also get the option of trying to get FTF on new caches. If you don't......... you don't.

9.2k · June 21, 2007

If the adverts bring in money to buy new/better kit sooner, will that not encourage more people to become PM's?

PM's will have the ability to turn the ads off, if they want to -a good reason to become a PM!

Why do PM's need to be consulted over this, and the fact PM's can turn the ads on or off when logged in?

I use gmail/googlemail with the same sort of advertising, can I recall any of the adverts?!

G

1.1k · June 21, 2007

PM's will have the ability to turn the ads off, if they want to

... and I wonder how long that will last?

Jon

9.2k · June 21, 2007

PM's will have the ability to turn the ads off, if they want to
... and I wonder how long that will last?
Jon

As long as the bulk of those using the site remain non-PM's!

G

1.3k · June 21, 2007

Most Firefox users will probably have Adblock installed anyway

June 21, 2007

Does anyone know what percentage of geocachers are Premium Members?

If it's only 20%* for example, then the introduction of a lower membership fee but for all users would be very realistic and would generate the additional funds required to keep our hobby alive.

20% of cachers paying $30, or 100% of cachers paying $10.

Who would grumble at $10* per year (approx £5)?

*Complete guesswork!

June 21, 2007

Who would grumble at $10* per year (approx £5)?

I think we know the answer to that one

June 21, 2007

For the last 6 1/2 years, Geocaching.com has been relatively ad-free. With the exception of the ever present banner ad on the left-hand navigation bar, and the occasional promotion (like Jeep!) we have concentrated more on the creation of Premium Member content to help cover the ongoing costs of site maintenance , upgrades, and ever growing hardware and network costs.

As we have been moving into an extensive re-architecture of Geocaching.com to keep up with the ongoing traffic increases we have been faced with the reality that we need to raise more money. This will help us to create a permanent solution to the site slowdowns that have plagued us for so many years - aka our V.2 version of the web site.

We've been doing testing with the Guide to Purchasing a GPS unit page and have found that Google's ad serving technology is extremely well done. Of course! They're Google! And we feel that placing two unobtrusive (and surprisingly helpful) ads on the page will actually be something that folks wouldn't mind. The current plan is to only show them to users who aren't logged in or are not Premium Members - though once we add a feature for PMs to turn them off we'll add them for everyone (except, of course, those PMs that don't want them). The thought is that the ads will actually be useful on the page and not something that won't fit there.

In lieu of raising Premium Member fees we felt that the advertising would be a much easier "burden" on the geocaching community - and we hope - a beneficial one. So expect tweaks and changes to the ad campaigns as we test out new ways to display these ads to be the most effective - and least irritating.

Why not charge everyone and be done with?

I hate ads!

Must buy tampons and campari, must buy tampons and campari,l must buy tampons and campari, Why don't we have adverts for defective parachute's?

June 21, 2007

Sounds a very sensible way of raising some well needed cash and it only affects those who are receiving the service for free. Fair play to Jeremy.

2.2k · June 22, 2007

at the end of the day why not put loads of advertising on the pages and have it so that premium members can switch them off.... that'll increase the numbers of people willing to pay a little for the service

people by habit don't want to dip into their pockets unless they are forced to. so why should the some subsidise the rest?

whatever happens you can't please everyone, seems like a reasonable way to generate some income.

June 22, 2007

at the end of the day why not put loads of advertising on the pages and have it so that premium members can switch them off.... that'll increase the numbers of people willing to pay a little for the service

I was thinking along similar lines although Premium Members can already turn the adverts off. We get Pocket Querie's which we load into GSAK which can then be viewed without all the adverts.

June 22, 2007

Well so long as having (and therefore paying for) Premium Membership remains optional, I can't see there is a whole lot to complain about. Either you pay, and make use of the features such as PQ's (personal opinion is these are very useful especially now I have gone paperless) or you don't become a PM and continue caching as you have chosen.

If Jeremy had decided that the fee was going to increase instead of a few ads, then I am sure there would be a lot more hoo-har about it. And if there's going to be an "off" button for the ads...use it!

1.7k · June 22, 2007

Most Firefox users will probably have Adblock installed anyway

I must admit I didn't have Adblock installed but I do now. It's really tidied up a number of pages I regularly use. Thanks for the tip.

June 22, 2007

For any Safari users out there, Pithelmet does an excellent job of removing all banner ads from webpages too

Most Firefox users will probably have Adblock installed anyway

June 22, 2007

Well I dont agree.....I certainly dont agree with our freedom of searching for caches being jeopordised by the minority of Premium Members like yourselves. Sure I agree that if we are to use ALL the priviliges afforded to Premium Members that we should pay....but we dont use them so we need not pay. Let me put it another way, would you like it if you had to pay the same road tax as a truck (in excess of £1000 pounds per year) after all, you use the same roads as that truck. I think you would soon find some way of avoiding that tax. So please......dont tar everyone with the same brush.

Well, on the other hand, one could say the Premium Members are subsidising your caching if you reread it!

Ok, Educate me.....As one who does no more than 1 cache per month, then I am at a disadvantage when it comes to the intricacies (sp) of Geocaching.. If the Premium Membership is removed, what do you have left ? In my opinion, what you have left is what the majority of us Geocachers have, (which in your opinion, are the bare bones,) in my opinion a great deal of information available without being a Premium Member. So where does the bit about you are subsidising me come into it.? If anything I would say that without the vast majority of non members then you would not have that many Geocachers to meet or organise events etc etc.

I am quite willing to be educated in all this so any constructive criticism is welcomed. But I still stick by what I say unless proven to be wrong.

June 22, 2007

So where does the bit about you are subsidising me come into it.?

Hi Red - without sufficient funds we would not have a server on which to have this discussion, or a server on which to store all the lovely cache pages.

:grin:

2.9k · June 22, 2007

Oh cmon Groundspeak is a For Profit organisation and is therefore trying to make a profit or maybe just make even more profit.

Its "competitiors" offer a free service if it became pay to play more people would use those sites or it would return to its underground roots of the caches being listed in news groups or on private databases. (like letterboxing)

Its not hard to work out how to do this with the large number of free file hosting services out there.

I think GC could do things like make photos visible and uploadable by pm's only, limited profile space for non pm's, no icons on your profile for trackables, no stats for non pm's etc etc

Edited June 22, 2007 by markandlynn

June 22, 2007

I strongly believe that basic membership must always remain free. I know it's only £15 to join but it's more about the principle than the cost.

I'm a PM and I certainly don't feel I am subsidising anyone. We all contribute to the game, some us financially and some of us by hiding caches, CITO etc. Ordinary members contribute massively in other ways so it seems a little bit petty to criticise someone for not paying. What if all the basic members suddenly archived all their hides? We'd soon all have a moan about that!

If more money is needed to keep the site at a high standard then what is the harm in a couple of adverts? The plans appear very well thought out - I don't know of any other sites on the internet where I have the option to turn them off!

1.3k · June 22, 2007

I'm a PM but the basic membership to get the co-ords must remain free. Otherwise a free breakaway alternative would spring up. Groundspeak IS geocaching at the moment but if (big if) it gets cocky, it would be liable to much more competition than is currently out there. Same goes if more rules get brought into the game.

3.8k · June 22, 2007

In lieu of raising Premium Member fees we felt that the advertising would be a much easier "burden" on the geocaching community - and we hope - a beneficial one. So expect tweaks and changes to the ad campaigns as we test out new ways to display these ads to be the most effective - and least irritating.

This says to me that Jeremy has already considered raising the Premium Membership. It may mean that in the future when advertising isn't covering the costs any more that they may still use this option. Well I hope that they will consider charging a smaller fee for basic membership first. Why should the Premium Member be penalised for helping to support the site?

I'm all for advertising if it's going to keep the costs down as long as it is unobtrusive, which as a Premium member it is at the moment.

I got to agree with Jeremy's way. I didn't start out as a PM until after I was sure this was possibly a hobby that would interest me. If I had to pay from the start, I may have never gotten to read enough logs and cache pages to convince me to give it a try.

WTG Jeremy!

To ensure you really do want to play the game there could be a free trial period. Easy peasy.

A free trial period of say 6 months would sound fair to me. Additional members using your ISP address should get free membership to. This would allow for family members to have their own account. But a membership would have to be tied to your main ISP address and not your account name. If you change your internet provider you should have the opportunity to change your ISP information.

3.3k · June 22, 2007

You know how after a while you automatically read past the disclaimers on the cache page? It'll work the same for the adverts. People will soon learn to ignore them, if they can't turn them off themselves.

They're not exactly in yer face are they? Let Groundspeak try to raise some money... good luck to them if it means my subs stay down and the servers stay fit for purpose.

1k · June 22, 2007

Why not charge everyone and be done with?

I hate ads!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I agreee with you.

you don't even like popocorn

June 22, 2007

Why not charge everyone and be done with?

I hate ads!

Must buy tampons and campari, must buy tampons and campari,l must buy tampons and campari, Why don't we have adverts for defective parachute's? :grin:

I knew there would be a string attached, Martin

9.2k · June 22, 2007

snip

I think GC could do things like make photos visible and uploadable by pm's only, limited profile space for non pm's, no icons on your profile for trackables, no stats for non pm's etc etc

If TB's are moved by non PM's I would still like to see photographs of their travels!

edit to add:

Anyone been off to look at the ads that we are talking about?

http://www.geocaching.com/about/buying.aspx

G

Edited June 22, 2007 by KandG

1.3k · June 22, 2007

Google Adds

They do subtractions and a host of other mathematical and conversion functions too...

June 22, 2007

This says to me that Jeremy has already considered raising the Premium Membership. It may mean that in the future when advertising isn't covering the costs any more that they may still use this option.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that Groundspeak clearly state you will always be locked in at the current rate as long as you continue to renew. So fees cannot go up for existing members (in theory).

June 22, 2007

Anyone been off to look at the ads that we are talking about?
http://www.geocaching.com/about/buying.aspx

Heh, the automatic filters with Adblock Plus do zap them. But I will disable Adblock for geocaching.com, and click the adverts to support the funding.

June 22, 2007

... click the adverts to support the funding.

But that (probably) won't help in the long term... the advertiser pays for a load of clicks that don't lead anywhere ... realises its not cost effective so either blocks or pulls the adds ... leads to less targeted ads ... people who would actually use the site less likely to use a random ad ... G'speak doesn't get as much revenue ... increases the number of ads ...

1.7k · June 23, 2007

I don't know about targetted ads. I just checked several of my own caches (well The Hornet's but you know what I mean) while logged out. Seems there's something about them which causes the following ads to appear :angry:

Aluminium Winkelpui Kemko demonteert de oude pui en plaatst een nieuwe in 1 dag! www.kemko.nl
Aluminium Aluminium Zandgieten MPS & Vacuumvormen

I really don't see the connection between some pretty rural caches in deepest Herefordshire and a Dutch company!!!

1.5k · June 23, 2007

Same ones on one of my caches.

It must be some kind of default for testing the process...live beta testing again!

June 23, 2007

I thought one of Groundspeak's mottos was that geocaching is free to everyone. That is one hell of a statement to go back on to FORCE all the basic members to pay a fee.

Just say they forced that, and all the basic members decided NOT to pay and they leave. To withdraw all their caches and not go out and find all the premium member's caches. Wouldn't be quite as good then, would it?

At the end of the day, if you want the Premium features, pay for it. If you want to feel your supporting the sport, pay for it. If you feel your contributions to the sport are going out andf placing caches, and finding other's caches, then that's fine, too.

I do feel sometimes that some Premium Members take a holier than thou stance over Basic Members whcich I for one feel is not very fair.

Edited June 23, 2007 by Geo-Kate

Google Adds

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment