Geocaching.com

6.7k · February 3, 2008

Now I may be totally off base here, but it's beginning to bug me that the geocaching.com site still gets bogged down, yet Groundspeak is evidently spending money on Wherigo and Waymarking.com.

I have no problem paying for the geocaching.com membership to get access to the listing service; I have said before and still say that I would pay twice that and feel like it's a great deal... but I don't use Waymarking, don't like it, and I sure won't use Wherigo, so is it unreasonable to ask Groundspeak to use the income from geocaching.con ON the geocaching.com listing service that we're paying for?

February 3, 2008

Now I may be totally off base here, but it's beginning to bug me that the geocaching.com site still gets bogged down, yet Groundspeak is evidently spending money on Wherigo and Waymarking.com.

I have no problem paying for the geocaching.com membership to get access to the listing service; I have said before and still say that I would pay twice that and feel like it's a great deal... but I don't use Waymarking, don't like it, and I sure won't use Wherigo, so is it unreasonable to ask Groundspeak to use the income from geocaching.con ON the geocaching.com listing service that we're paying for?

Here's good ol' Sunday morning "AMEN" from me!

I wanted to do a PQ this morning and head out this afternoon for awhile. (Getting sick of all the NFL stuff on TV already today.) Oh well. Maybe I'll head off to the gym instead (ugh!).

February 3, 2008

I wish they would at least post a short note WHY the site is down again if when they plan to go online again. And if GC really need better servers I would pay more for the membership.

2.2k · February 3, 2008

Moving to website forum.

6.7k · February 3, 2008

It's not a website question, it's not a performance question, it is a geocaching topic - I asked if our membership fee should be paying for Wherigo and Waymarking.com

Please move it back to the correct forum.

5.7k · February 3, 2008

Now I may be totally off base here, but it's beginning to bug me that the geocaching.com site still gets bogged down, yet Groundspeak is evidently spending money on Wherigo and Waymarking.com.

I have no problem paying for the geocaching.com membership to get access to the listing service; I have said before and still say that I would pay twice that and feel like it's a great deal... but I don't use Waymarking, don't like it, and I sure won't use Wherigo, so is it unreasonable to ask Groundspeak to use the income from geocaching.con ON the geocaching.com listing service that we're paying for?

WRT the web site getting "bogged down", the answer seems to be that we need to have more patience and gratitude. This coupled with the correct use of GSAK and PQ's will carry you to Utopia.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Team Cotati

21.9k · February 3, 2008

Please move it back to the correct forum.

Thank you, Quiggle, for moving the thread to the correct forum. :blink: Here, the site developers will see it.

Cost of premium membership in 2002: $30 per year.

Cost of premium membership in 2008: $30 per year.

8k · February 3, 2008

Please move it back to the correct forum.

Thank you, Quiggle, for moving the thread to the correct forum. Here, the site developers will see it.

Cost of premium membership in 2002: $30 per year.

Cost of premium membership in 2008: $30 per year.

If this was the usual conversation about whether my $30 per that I paid because I go Geocaching should be used to fund other Groundspeak projects such as Waymarking and Wherigo which forum would it go in? The fact that we are experiencing performance issues today on Geocaching.com is simply the motivation for that question - not the topic of this thread.

I for one am appalled that my $30 is going to fund Project Phoenix for the next generation of Geocaching. The current version should be working first before a dime is spent on the next generation :blink: (just a bit of sarcasm influenced more by the project I work on than by anything Groundspeak is doing. At my work we are under all kinds of pressure to meet our customer's requirements and schedule for phase I while at the same time we are asked to start working on phase II :blink: )

February 3, 2008

Please move it back to the correct forum.

Thank you, Quiggle, for moving the thread to the correct forum. Here, the site developers will see it.

Cost of premium membership in 2002: $30 per year.

Cost of premium membership in 2008: $30 per year.

You can be dismissive like this, but AR has a valid point. I looked at my last PayPal receipt for the service and see that the payee is Groundspeak, not Geocaching.com. Nevertheless, I personally pay for geocaching, not Wherigo or Waymarking, neither of which existed when I signed up for my annual membership. If they charged an extra $n/year for either of those services, I wouldn't pay because I don't play those games. I think it is reasonable to ask where the money collected goes.

I don't have a problem with some of the funds going to these other endeavors. At least in theory, a stronger Groundspeak makes a stronger geocaching.com.

The fact that the site has been slow this weekend doesn't really bother me much either. It's been extremely stable for months now. But lets not trivialize a valid question even though it's asked during a time when the site is having problems.

February 3, 2008

I wish they would at least post a short note WHY the site is down again if when they plan to go online again.

Why can't they give us some information? It might help us to be more patient. :blink: :blink: :cool:

2.7k · February 3, 2008

<snip> I asked if our membership fee should be paying for Wherigo and Waymarking.com <snip>

In my opinion, any resources directed toward Wherigo and Waymarking are a total waste. But I'm not going to stop paying for GC just because Jeremy is promoting interests I don't want yet, or ever. Jeremy can see the traffic on all three sites. The best way to send a message, is to not visit sites you consider to be dead weight.

6.4k · February 3, 2008

Who says ANY of your 8 cents a day is going to other Groundspeak products? Did Groundspeak go public without giving me the chance to get in on the IPO? I must have missed the finacial statements being made public that shows where the money goes or doesn't go.

6.7k · February 3, 2008

Please move it back to the correct forum.

Thank you, Quiggle, for moving the thread to the correct forum. Here, the site developers will see it.

Cost of premium membership in 2002: $30 per year.

Cost of premium membership in 2008: $30 per year.

And that may well be the root of the problem.

This "8 cents a day" keeps getting trotted out as the excuse for all ills, as if I should fall over in gratitude that they evidently underprice their service.

I would assume that as a for-profit business they set their rates high enough to be profitable. Therefore I can assume that at the current membership rate they have enough money to fix whatever problems arise or they will raise their rate until they do.

Yet the problem drags on.

While the problem drags on they launch new initiatives such as Waymarking and Wherigo that consume resources.

I object to any of my geocaching.com membership money being spent on Waymarking.com or Wherigo or anything that does not directly support the geocaching.com geocache listing service. I did not sign up for membership to those services and do not want them.

I think others who read these forums feel this way as well, and I think Groundspeak should hear that message.

6.7k · February 3, 2008

Who says ANY of your 8 cents a day is going to other Groundspeak products? Did Groundspeak go public without giving me the chance to get in on the IPO? I must have missed the finacial statements being made public that shows where the money goes or doesn't go.

Are you saying that our membership fees do not support these unrelated boondoggles?

And are you saying that as a member but not an investor we should have no say in what the company does with our membership fees?

February 3, 2008

Who says ANY of your 8 cents a day is going to other Groundspeak products? Did Groundspeak go public without giving me the chance to get in on the IPO? I must have missed the finacial statements being made public that shows where the money goes or doesn't go.

Nobody with any authority has said that, at least not that I recall but I'm known to be forgetful :blink:

. Some people do seem to be assuming that however. Whether Groundspeak is publicly or privately held it remains a valid question. Sure, they don't have to answer but a question never asked is even less likely to be answered and expressing our opinions of how we would like the money to be used, or how we thought the money would be used is always valid whether it is listened to or not.

February 3, 2008

Some of you should read the 'TERMS OF USE' section on the site.

'FURTHERMORE, Groundspeak GIVES NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF THE SITE AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME; FUNCTIONALITY; TIMELINESS OF SERVICES; ACCURACY OR CURRENCY OF CONTENT; LACK OF VIRUSES; OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY.'

BTW: Groundspeak (owner of Geocaching.com) is a privately held corporation from what I can see. If I chose to utilize their services and even if I pay membership, I don't expect to dictate how they use the associated fees. This isn't a club, it's a service.

Zeb...

1.3k · February 3, 2008

Some of you should read the 'TERMS OF USE' section on the site.

'FURTHERMORE, Groundspeak GIVES NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF THE SITE AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME; FUNCTIONALITY; TIMELINESS OF SERVICES; ACCURACY OR CURRENCY OF CONTENT; LACK OF VIRUSES; OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY.'

BTW: Groundspeak (owner of Geocaching.com) is a privately held corporation from what I can see. If I chose to utilize their services and even if I pay membership, I don't expect to dictate how they use the associated fees. This isn't a club, it's a service.

Zeb...

Nonetheless, it is FRUSTRATING to not be able to log these travel bugs I picked up yesterday, and need to leave them lined up on my desk (which if you've ever seen my desk...they could easily get lost on) rather than putting them back in my bag where I could totally forget to log the retrieval before dropping them off "purple turtle in 3rd cache" only means something if I retrieved it in the first place.

It's frustrating that on the nicest day in a long long time (no jacket!) I can't go find a geocache. We did hide one instead though, but a nice hike in a park I didn't know about near the town where we'll be watching the superbowl would have been nicer.

It's frustrating that I actually have some time today to post the pictures from my last 3 trips, but can't. I really only get a chance to sit in front of the computer at home for more than 5 or 10 minutes (where the pictures are) but ever so often. I probably won't get to posting the pics for another month or so...

It's just frustrating... and as paying customers we do have a right to ask "what is going on?"

1.3k · February 3, 2008

Now I may be totally off base here.

You said it I didn't!!!

Last I checked Alabama was still part of the United States. That means no one is forcing you to be a member. If you don't like it don't pay for it. You didn't complain so much when you got your membership for free.

February 3, 2008

Sites up now and works for me

1.5k · February 3, 2008

I'd look at it more as our $30/year goes to Groundspeak to fund their operations. At the time most of us paid, that was only geocaching.com: salaries for staff, hardware, software, hosting, etc.

Now, Groundspeak has branched out into other areas as a means of growing their games, user base, revenue, and exposure.

I see nothing wrong with a private company taking our fees and deciding how to spend them.

As a customer, I also see nothing wrong with providing our feedback that we don't want them to go in those other directions. It's a valid point to raise even though at the end of the day, TPTB can say "thanks for your opinion, we still see the pros outweighing the cons".

February 3, 2008

Site is back up.

6.7k · February 3, 2008

Now I may be totally off base here.

You said it I didn't!!!

Last I checked Alabama was still part of the United States. That means no one is forcing you to be a member. If you don't like it don't pay for it. You didn't complain so much when you got your membership for free.

Pretty extremist response.

I never got membership for free, I paid the day I discovered geocaching.com!

And in the United States that I live in we are free to express to a geocache listing service that we want our membership fees to be applied to the geocache listing service!

February 3, 2008

The question -

Geocaching.com, What am I paying for?

The answer -

"http://www.geocaching.com/subscribe/"

Looking at the answer in more detail, it's ...

# Pocket Queries

# Caches along a Route

(i.e. pocket queries)

# Google Maps (Groundspeak Enhanced)

" [allows] ... you to add caches to a bookmark list on the fly for later download as a Pocket Query." So, pocket queries then.

# Paperless Caching

Ah. Using pocket queries with electronic devices.

# Instant Log Notifications

Hmmm. It's not pocket queries. Anybody not get their instant notification and miss out on that all-important first-to-find?

# Unlimited (well, 5000) Watchlist items

Again, anyone not getting log entries from all 5000 of their Watched caches and bugs?

# Bookmark and Ignore Lists

Okay, Ignore lists can be a big thing depending. Anyone suddenly seeing caches that they shouldn't?

# Geocaching Maps

"With the ability to pan, zoom, and identify caches on a map you can quickly pinpoint an area of interest and visualize your caching route." Um , actually I tend to do this with (you guessed it) pocket queries.

# Member Only Caches

Nope, not affected by the recent downtime. The caches are still there, and I can still find them. (Unless I can't get a pocket query.) And now that the site's back up I can log any I did find.

# Be the *first* to see new feature enhancements

Eh. I mean, some folks like to be first at everything so I guess this is important to some. At least it's not pocket queries.

So going through the answers it kinda looks to me like the big loss is pocket queries for the time the site was down. The other services are still available; accessing some of them was just delayed for awhile.

If you are a paying member purely for the sake of the benefits then what has been your loss due to the downtime? Let's see, 5 queries a day times 365 days in a year is 1825 queries a year, if you utilize your membership to its fullest. At $30 a year that works out to a little under 1 2/3 cents a query. Call it $ 0.02. So anyone who missed out on a pocket query, send me your mailing address and I'll reimburse your 2 cents worth.

February 3, 2008

... and as paying customers we do have a right to ask "what is going on?"

I won't argue your frustration and you certainly have the right to 'ask'. It's when members feel they're somehow entitled to answers about how their membership fees are spent that it becomes off base.

Listen, out of curiosity I'd like to know the cause of the problem too. But that's Groundspeak's business and they can choose to answer or choose to ignore the question. It's their right as a privately held corporation and I for one understand that. Even more to the point, how they spend the money they earn is entirely their business. If I don't feel that I'm getting my dollars worth, I just won't renew the membership.

Dictating how the fees are to be spent by Groundspeak is way out of bounds IMHO. If they use the money to broaden the customer base or add products they feel could sustain their business, that's great. They want to add new network servers, firewalls & search engines to the back room, fine. If they want to spend the money on a company trip to Fiji for some R&R and a little caching on foreign soil that's fine too. It's their business.

If you decide to start your own business doing the same darn thing as Groundspeak, that's your business and I'm not going to tell you how to spend the money you earn. (I promise) It's a private business and you are simply one of many customers.

This thread started out with some broad strokes from TheAlabamaRambler saying 'Now I may be totally off base here, but it's beginning to bug me that the geocaching.com site still gets bogged down, yet Groundspeak is evidently spending money on Wherigo and Waymarking.com.'

My opinion is that he's right in his first assumption, he IS WAY OFF BASE.

Zeb...

6.4k · February 3, 2008

So going through the answers it kinda looks to me like the big loss is pocket queries for the time the site was down. The other services are still available; accessing some of them was just delayed for awhile.

If you are a paying member purely for the sake of the benefits then what has been your loss due to the downtime? Let's see, 5 queries a day times 365 days in a year is 1825 queries a year, if you utilize your membership to its fullest. At $30 a year that works out to a little under 1 2/3 cents a query. Call it $ 0.02. So anyone who missed out on a pocket query, send me your mailing address and I'll reimburse your 2 cents worth.

Except that PQs ran today. So he even got his 2 cents worth.

5.7k · February 3, 2008

<snip> I asked if our membership fee should be paying for Wherigo and Waymarking.com <snip>

In my opinion, any resources directed toward Wherigo and Waymarking are a total waste. But I'm not going to stop paying for GC just because Jeremy is promoting interests I don't want yet, or ever. Jeremy can see the traffic on all three sites. The best way to send a message, is to not visit sites you consider to be dead weight.

That is A way, not necessarily the best.

5.7k · February 3, 2008

Please move it back to the correct forum.

Thank you, Quiggle, for moving the thread to the correct forum. Here, the site developers will see it.

Cost of premium membership in 2002: $30 per year.

Cost of premium membership in 2008: $30 per year.

And that may well be the root of the problem.

This "8 cents a day" keeps getting trotted out as the excuse for all ills, as if I should fall over in gratitude that they evidently underprice their service.

I would assume that as a for-profit business they set their rates high enough to be profitable. Therefore I can assume that at the current membership rate they have enough money to fix whatever problems arise or they will raise their rate until they do.

Yet the problem drags on.

While the problem drags on they launch new initiatives such as Waymarking and Wherigo that consume resources.

I object to any of my geocaching.com membership money being spent on Waymarking.com or Wherigo or anything that does not directly support the geocaching.com geocache listing service. I did not sign up for membership to those services and do not want them.

I think others who read these forums feel this way as well, and I think Groundspeak should hear that message.

Well said.

February 3, 2008

So going through the answers it kinda looks to me like the big loss is pocket queries for the time the site was down. The other services are still available; accessing some of them was just delayed for awhile.

If you are a paying member purely for the sake of the benefits then what has been your loss due to the downtime? Let's see, 5 queries a day times 365 days in a year is 1825 queries a year, if you utilize your membership to its fullest. At $30 a year that works out to a little under 1 2/3 cents a query. Call it $ 0.02. So anyone who missed out on a pocket query, send me your mailing address and I'll reimburse your 2 cents worth.

Except that PQs ran today. So he even got his 2 cents worth.

I have yet to get my scheaduled pq's for today.

February 3, 2008

Now I may be totally off base here,

This is the first thing that we agree on!

but it's beginning to bug me that the geocaching.com site still gets bogged down, yet Groundspeak is evidently spending money on Wherigo and Waymarking.com.

You're making several assumptions here:

How do you know that the servers were 'bogged down'?

How do you know that additional funds would have prevented the outage?

How do you know that Groundspeak is spending membership dollars on other programs?

is it unreasonable to ask Groundspeak to use the income from geocaching.con ON the geocaching.com listing service that we're paying for?

YES! It's extremely unreasonable! You're just taking potshots without any knowledge of the facts!

-- There are many reasons that service failures occur on the net. Your technical evaluation being a 'bogged down' server is just one of the possibilities. A virus, DOS attack, hardware failure or any number of problems could have been to blame. How is it that you know exactly what the problem is even before the problem is cured?

-- Additional funds may or may not prevent a similar outage. Again, that's your assumption without any solid knowledge of the facts. Tsk, tsk, tsk....

-- Groundspeak has many income streams, but with your extensive knowledge of the technical problems you move right on to financial mishandling? Please! Groundspeak can make money from licensing of products, services and logos. They have advertising on each on the of pages, these are income producers as well. Membership dollars are just one of those income streams.

Stop making so many assumptions, it just makes you seem foolish.

Zeb...

6.7k · February 3, 2008

Yumitori's post above covers many of the things that I willingly pay for with my membership. There are more. I enjoy them all and reiterate that I would pay more for them.

My point in the OP, and one most folks are ignoring or trying to reinterpret, is that those are the things I am paying for, not Waymarking or Wherigo or any other sideline that does not support the geocaching.com geocache listing service.

I have never said that geocaching.com was anything other than a fantastic listing service for which I am forever grateful, and a review of my many posts would show that I am one of their staunchest supporters.

Michael has corrected one error; I said that I never had free membership. He corrected me with a reminder that my membership was free during the time that I was a Reviewer. That is true. I wasn't thinking of that with my response, I try not to ever refer to my ex-Reviewer status as it is always painful to me and inflamatory to the forum (thus my sig line as folks kept telling me to quit acting like one!).

I was responding to a taunt about free service that I interpreted to mean that I used a free membership for a while before becoming a member. To the best of my memory I signed up for membership the first time I ever logged on to Geocaching.com.

2.2k · February 3, 2008

I couldn't even wade through the whole thread...

I feel like I get my money's worth. They can spend the money however they want to.

6.7k · February 3, 2008

-- Groundspeak has many income streams, but with your extensive knowledge of the technical problems you move right on to financial mishandling?

I won't even address the rest of your post, but I have never accused Groundspeak of any such thing and there is no way you can even twist anything I have said to interpret that. If you want to debate the OP great, but don't just make up things that you imagine or want people who haven't read the whole thread to believe that I said.

6.7k · February 3, 2008

I couldn't even wade through the whole thread...

I feel like I get my money's worth. They can spend the money however they want to.

If you can't be bothered to read the thread why should we value your opinion of what you think it might say?

I feel like I get more than my money's worth.

I also feel like Waymarking and Wherigo should be seperately funded, not through my geocache listing service membership fees.

February 3, 2008

I also feel like Waymarking and Wherigo should be seperately funded, not through my geocache listing service membership fees.

More assumptions? Fine if you feel that way, express it to Groundspeak. I feel they have the right to spend THEIR MONEY any way they see fit.

Zeb...

Edited February 3, 2008 by zebra61

6.7k · February 3, 2008

I also feel like Waymarking and Wherigo should be seperately funded, not through my geocache listing service membership fees.

More assumptions?

I really can't respond any further to your trolls for fear that I will get myself banned, but you need to read up on the difference between an assumption and an opinion.

February 4, 2008

I also feel like Waymarking and Wherigo should be seperately funded, not through my geocache listing service membership fees.

More assumptions?

I really can't respond any further to your trolls for fear that I will get myself banned, but you need to read up on the difference between an assumption and an opinion.

It's nothing personal AR. It's just that you keep throwing out broad strokes with your brush. You never seem to have any facts. I'm interested in your opinion, but not your assumptions. Is that enough of a distinction for you?

You seem to be under the impression that your membership dollars are used for purposes other than GC.com, where do you get your information? Seriously, I'm interested.

Zeb...

6.7k · February 4, 2008

It's nothing personal AR. It's just that you keep throwing out broad strokes with your brush. You never seem to have any facts. I'm interested in your opinion, but not your assumptions. Is that enough of a distinction for you?

You seem to be under the impression that your membership dollars are used for purposes other than GC.com, where do you get your information? Seriously, I'm interested.

Zeb...

I have no information and the assumption was clearly stated in the OP, which began with the line

"Now I may be totally off base here, but it's beginning to bug me that the geocaching.com site still gets bogged down, yet Groundspeak is evidently spending money on Wherigo and Waymarking.com."

The word "evidently" makes my assumption perfectly clear, and unless some reliable source can state that assumption to be unfounded I believe it to be valid - some of our geocaching.com geocache listing service membership fee is going to projects that are not directly related to the listing service, i.e. Waymarking and Wherigo.

The geocaching.com geocache listing site continues to evolve and improve and I want my membership dollars to go into that process, not into the development of what I feel to be unrelated projects.

My post covers no more territory than that.

6.4k · February 4, 2008

It's nothing personal AR. It's just that you keep throwing out broad strokes with your brush. You never seem to have any facts. I'm interested in your opinion, but not your assumptions. Is that enough of a distinction for you?

You seem to be under the impression that your membership dollars are used for purposes other than GC.com, where do you get your information? Seriously, I'm interested.

Zeb...

I have no information and the assumption was clearly stated in the OP, which began with the line

"Now I may be totally off base here, but it's beginning to bug me that the geocaching.com site still gets bogged down, yet Groundspeak is evidently spending money on Wherigo and Waymarking.com."

The word "evidently" makes my assumption perfectly clear, and unless some reliable source can state that assumption to be unfounded I believe it to be valid - some of our geocaching.com geocache listing service membership fee is going to projects that are not directly related to the listing service, i.e. Waymarking and Wherigo.

The geocaching.com geocache listing site continues to evolve and improve and I want my membership dollars to go into that process, not into the development of what I feel to be unrelated projects.

My post covers no more territory than that.

You also assume (you know the old saying about that word) that resources spent on Waymarking and Wherigo do not help geocaching. It's long been said that GC.com V2.0 will integrate fully with Waymarking. That tells me that software developed for Waymarking is also intended for geocaching, and vice versa.

And if you are to assume (there's that word again) that income from the geocaching side helps fund Waymarking and Wherigo, then isn't it safe to assume income from those ventures helps fund the site that costs the most to run, gc.com? I mean, ya gotta wonder what sort of deal was made with Garmin to have the Wherigo stuff built into their new high end GPSrs. And what about Jeep and TBs? Surely the money derived from TB and geocoin sales and promotions like Jeep should only fund the TB aspect of the site, not geocaching as a whole.

You pay your money to Groundspeak, and they use the money as needed to keep the company viable. Really, it really doesn't matter if the "Trackables" division has plenty of extra money if the "geocaching dept" goes belly up.

Really, this is like complaining because General Motors uses money from SUV sales to fund hybrid car development.

That's the way companies work. They use profits from one product to fund development of other products. Business 101, remember?

2.2k · February 4, 2008

The geocaching.com geocache listing site continues to evolve and improve and I want my membership dollars to go into that process, not into the development of what I feel to be unrelated projects.

My post covers no more territory than that.

You're right, although you went on to say so much more, including arguing against yourself as to whether your statements are "opinions" or "assumptions." My simple point was that I disagree. They can spend the money on Froot Loops if they want to.

14.3k · February 4, 2008

It's nothing personal AR. It's just that you keep throwing out broad strokes with your brush. You never seem to have any facts. I'm interested in your opinion, but not your assumptions. Is that enough of a distinction for you?

You seem to be under the impression that your membership dollars are used for purposes other than GC.com, where do you get your information? Seriously, I'm interested.

Zeb...

I have no information and the assumption was clearly stated in the OP, which began with the line

"Now I may be totally off base here, but it's beginning to bug me that the geocaching.com site still gets bogged down, yet Groundspeak is evidently spending money on Wherigo and Waymarking.com."

The word "evidently" makes my assumption perfectly clear, and unless some reliable source can state that assumption to be unfounded I believe it to be valid - some of our geocaching.com geocache listing service membership fee is going to projects that are not directly related to the listing service, i.e. Waymarking and Wherigo.

The geocaching.com geocache listing site continues to evolve and improve and I want my membership dollars to go into that process, not into the development of what I feel to be unrelated projects.

My post covers no more territory than that.

You also assume (you know the old saying about that word) that resources spent on Waymarking and Wherigo do not help geocaching. It's long been said that GC.com V2.0 will integrate fully with Waymarking. That tells me that software developed for Waymarking is also intended for geocaching, and vice versa.

And if you are to assume (there's that word again) that income from the geocaching side helps fund Waymarking and Wherigo, then isn't it safe to assume income from those ventures helps fund the site that costs the most to run, gc.com? I mean, ya gotta wonder what sort of deal was made with Garmin to have the Wherigo stuff built into their new high end GPSrs. And what about Jeep and TBs? Surely the money derived from TB and geocoin sales and promotions like Jeep should only fund the TB aspect of the site, not geocaching as a whole.

You pay your money to Groundspeak, and they use the money as needed to keep the company viable. Really, it really doesn't matter if the "Trackables" division has plenty of extra money if the "geocaching dept" goes belly up.

Really, this is like complaining because General Motors uses money from SUV sales to fund hybrid car development.

That's the way companies work. They use profits from one product to fund development of other products. Business 101, remember?

I agree. Besides that Groundspeak is still delivering what it has always been delivering for 30 bucks a year. If Jeremy wants to reinvest some of the profits into other ventures then that is up to him. It's a wise thing to do in my view.

Edit:

Edited February 4, 2008 by TrailGators

February 4, 2008

Really, this is like complaining because General Motors uses money from SUV sales to fund hybrid car development. That's the way companies work. They use profits from one product to fund development of other products. Business 101, remember?

Very well put...

24.7k · February 4, 2008

...is it unreasonable to ask Groundspeak to use the income from geocaching.con ON the geocaching.com listing service that we're paying for?

Not at all.

20.7k · February 4, 2008

This is one of my favorite thread topics. I'm amused every time it rolls around.

I get to choose my respose from three winners. Often, I go with the straight response of reminding the OP that they have a Groundspeak membership, not just a GC.com membership. I also get t o deadpan a comment about how improvements to on site bleed over to the others.

Sometimes, however, I get to make a snarky comment about how I don't want any of my money to pay for pizza parties for office staff and that it should be routed to Jeremy's new lotus, instead.

14.3k · February 4, 2008

Sometimes, however, I get to make a snarky comment about how I don't want any of my money to pay for pizza parties for office staff and that it should be routed to Jeremy's new lotus, instead.

He could crank up the fees so he could get that Lamborghini that he's been eyeballing....

February 4, 2008

Sometimes, however, I get to make a snarky comment about how I don't want any of my money to pay for pizza parties for office staff and that it should be routed to Jeremy's new lotus, instead.

Lotus? While in submarine mode, does it have missles that can shoot down a helicopter? Will it explode if someone tries to break out a window?

Craig

C&S 143

In case someone doesn't get it, it is a James Bond movie reference.

20.7k · February 4, 2008

It's nothing personal AR. It's just that you keep throwing out broad strokes with your brush. You never seem to have any facts. I'm interested in your opinion, but not your assumptions. Is that enough of a distinction for you?

You seem to be under the impression that your membership dollars are used for purposes other than GC.com, where do you get your information? Seriously, I'm interested.

Zeb...

I have no information and the assumption was clearly stated in the OP, which began with the line

"Now I may be totally off base here, but it's beginning to bug me that the geocaching.com site still gets bogged down, yet Groundspeak is evidently spending money on Wherigo and Waymarking.com."

The word "evidently" makes my assumption perfectly clear, and unless some reliable source can state that assumption to be unfounded I believe it to be valid - some of our geocaching.com geocache listing service membership fee is going to projects that are not directly related to the listing service, i.e. Waymarking and Wherigo.

The geocaching.com geocache listing site continues to evolve and improve and I want my membership dollars to go into that process, not into the development of what I feel to be unrelated projects.

My post covers no more territory than that.

My snarky reply may have been too obscure, but I wonder if you believe that each of our subscription payments are individually assigned to pay for specific costs by TPTB. I rather believe that they all go into a big bucket (perhaps even a bank account) and that TPTB pulls out cash (perhaps by writing checks) to pay all the costs of business.

If any of us are unhappy with how the company is serving our needs, we have the option to discontinue our membership and wander off to one of the other listing sites.

5.3k · February 4, 2008

I agree. Besides that Groundspeak is still delivering what it has always been delivering for 30 bucks a month. If Jeremy wants to reinvest some of the profits into other ventures then that is up to him. It's a wise thing to do in my view.

Dude...you need to find the 90% off coupon.

14.3k · February 4, 2008

I agree. Besides that Groundspeak is still delivering what it has always been delivering for 30 bucks a month. If Jeremy wants to reinvest some of the profits into other ventures then that is up to him. It's a wise thing to do in my view.

Dude...you need to find the 90% off coupon.

Oops. I meant 30 bucks a year!

February 4, 2008

Please move it back to the correct forum.

Thank you, Quiggle, for moving the thread to the correct forum. Here, the site developers will see it.

Cost of premium membership in 2002: $30 per year.

Cost of premium membership in 2008: $30 per year.

Could you also include an approximate count of the number of paying premium members in 2002 versus 2008?

If the higher volume of users is causing the problems with response time, maybe the increased revenue resulting from more users could pay for better servers.

14.3k · February 4, 2008

Please move it back to the correct forum.

Thank you, Quiggle, for moving the thread to the correct forum. Here, the site developers will see it.

Cost of premium membership in 2002: $30 per year.

Cost of premium membership in 2008: $30 per year.

Could you also include an approximate count of the number of paying premium members in 2002 versus 2008?

If the higher volume of users is causing the problems with response time, maybe the increased revenue resulting from more users could pay for better servers.

That's confidential but I thought that they did just update the servers. They are also coming out with V2 of the website later this year, which will make the database run more efficiently as well. Edited February 4, 2008 by TrailGators

Geocaching.com

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