Why?

[+Johnmelad]

Why do people put out Member only caches?

 

I guess there is a reason, but can't think of any. It must seriously limit the number of logs a cache gets.

[+rutson]

1) There's a preception they're less likely to be muggled

2) You can watch who's looking at the cache, great for harder puzzles so you can see who's suffering!

[+Renegade Knight]

1) They are in fact actually less likely to be stolen by cache maggots.

2) The audit log (same as #2 above)

3) Some folks like to give members who support the site first shot at the cache while it's still fresh. Then they open it up.

4) To oppress the working class.

[+keehotee]

Why do people put out Member only caches?

 

I guess there is a reason, but can't think of any. It must seriously limit the number of logs a cache gets.

 

Some people put out caches for the joy of putting out caches, and not to see how many logs they attract.

 

And yes - sometime's it's fun to see who's chasing a cache you've put days, or even weeks, into creating.....

Edited September 5, 2008 by keehotee

[+Sensei TSKC]

Why do people put out Member only caches?

Because they can!

[+Bear and Ragged]

Why not?

[+Primitive Person]

Only one of my seven cache placements is member-only, mainly because it has specific logging requirements, and may - if it goes according to plan - end up with fairly valuable contents. I wanted to make it Muggle-proof and also reduce the likelihood of people not carrying out the instructions correctly. Traffic to it has been very light as a result, but I'm happy for it to be member-only to ensure it stays reasonably safe.

 

I'm happy to keep my others available to all.

 

Lee

[+Primitive Person]

Only one of my seven cache placements is member-only, mainly because it has specific logging requirements, and may - if it goes according to plan - end up with fairly valuable contents. I wanted to make it Muggle-proof and also reduce the likelihood of people not carrying out the instructions correctly. Traffic to it has been very light as a result, but I'm happy for it to be member-only to ensure it stays reasonably safe.

 

I'm happy to keep my others available to all.

 

Lee

[+Jacobite]

I made one of my caches MO in the past, then after a month took the MO status off. Since then, when listing a cache on GC.com, I've never made it a MO cache, because I want it to be found and allow all members the right to find it.

 

I was looking at a couple of recently published caches in my area this week (actually I wasn't looking at them, cause I couldn't), wondering why the setter had given his caches MO status?

I can understand some of the reasons given in the previous posts, as to why some setters give their caches MO status, and that's understandable.

 

However, using this as just one example of how unfair MO caches can be: There is a well known Lady cacher in Scotland who has a basic account, and who has hidden well over 200 caches, obviously none of which have been MO caches. Now, she has spoiled us with all these lovely caches...........but she is unable to even view MO caches, and can't log them, even after all the time and effort she has given putting out all these caches for the benefit of the whole community.................just doesn't seem fair.

 

So who's the real winner in all of this? You guessed it..........GSP! Give them 30 bucks and you can look all you want. Like it or not, you got to admire them for a good business move. It's the old carrot and stick trick.

[+Eclectic Penguin]

I've only published one members only cache - and that was by mistake. Within 3 days, before I'd realised my mistake, 2 people contacted me asking if they could do it anyway as they wanted to or were going to visit the area.

 

The funny thing is, it was a multi, and all the coordinates for the multi were in the text. The only thing you wouldn't be able to do is actually log it as a find! I'm glad they got in touch though as I certainly didn't want it to be members only!

 

Some people publish caches initially as MO caches so that the first few finders are members and so they can track the watchers. Then, after a few have found it, they make them generally available. This sort of makes some sense as I guess paid up members are less likely to be put off Geocaching or get really annoyed should the cacher have made a mistake in the published coordinates.

[+jerryo]

<snip> I guess paid up members are less likely to be put off Geocaching or get really annoyed should the cacher have made a mistake in the published coordinates.

Not get annoyed? Are you kidding? Have you seen some of the nasty responses from paid up members on this forum to trivial questions and topics? I'd hate to think of the reaction of some of these precious folk if their equally precious time was wasted going to the wrong coords.

 

( , BTW, just to stave off the bad juju)

[+Simply Paul]

The funny thing is, it was a multi, and all the coordinates for the multi were in the text. The only thing you wouldn't be able to do is actually log it as a find! I'm glad they got in touch though as I certainly didn't want it to be members only!

Members viewing a PM-only cache just get a 'Oh no you don't' message, not the cache text, so that wouldn't have mattered. And non PM cachers can log PM caches, if linked to the logging page by some kind person.

 

Now that I can log them, I'm still fundamentally against the idea of PM caches. They're elitist, they exclude cachers less able or willing to buy their way into caching's inner circle and don't actually have longer lifespans than general caches (as far as I can tell. Someone could run a proper report and prove me right/wrong if they know how to?). It's quite possible to find a PM-only trad's location by playing with the co-ords of an unpublished cache of your own, and without a GPS, muggles intent on mischief are usually scuppered by multis and puzzles without needing to make them 'exclusive'. If it's the contents you're hoping to protect, you're suggesting people willing to pay to cache are essentially more honest than those who aren't. I don't see the logic in that myself. Putting a clear instruction card in the cache would work better, especially if dealing with the 'inexperienced newbie'

 

From my perspective, it's only the audit log I'd be interested in, and that curiosity would soon be satisfied after the first few finds. So I see a PM cache which is later opened up to the Hoi Polli as the most justifiable use of the PMO feature, but it's still not something I'd feel comfortable with doing myself. If everyone set only PM caches and left them that way, new cachers would all but vanish and that would be a bad thing for a sport. I know that's not the situation (now/yet?) but I'll be doing my bit by not putting PMO caches out.