Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
bjorges

Feature request: Sharing PQs, and remove the 500 limit.

Recommended Posts

I would like a service that reduces the ammount of PQs run every day.

First of all, I think the limitation on 500 caches per PQ is too little. At the moment I can not see any reason why it should be there.

 

If Groundspeak could make some "standard" PQs, either for country or for state, or even better both of them, and then let premium members "subscribe" to theese, I would guess this is much better than having 1000 users running 5 PQs each every day gathering the same information.

The users would all recieve the same mail, and GC only have to create one GPX-file.

 

I would also like to be able to share my PQs with others, also this to reduse the PQ-load on the servers.

 

Does anyone agree?

Share this post


Link to post

<snarky> Yes! brilliant...Groundspeak, whose current business model is to sell nicely packaged convenient geocache date for ~ .0000333333 cents per cache should repackage it so that one user can get it even cheaper and then share for free to all his friends. Yep, that's a winner </snarky>

Share this post


Link to post

<snarky> Yes! brilliant...Groundspeak, whose current business model is to sell nicely packaged convenient geocache date for ~ .0000333333 cents per cache should repackage it so that one user can get it even cheaper and then share for free to all his friends. Yep, that's a winner </snarky>

 

:) Yep Exactly What He Said......... :D

Share this post


Link to post

<snarky> Yes! brilliant...Groundspeak, whose current business model is to sell nicely packaged convenient geocache date for ~ .0000333333 cents per cache should repackage it so that one user can get it even cheaper and then share for free to all his friends. Yep, that's a winner </snarky>

 

Eeehhh?

 

And what stops you from doing the same today?

Share this post


Link to post

Who says the server is overloaded???? If I create a new PQ it runs instantly.

 

I would like to see a change in the way the G/S runs regular PQ's. If they can run a new PQ instantly, then I shouldn't have to wait for regular ones.

 

Twice in the last week, my PQ's did not run on the day I requested. They showed up the next day and killed my PQ count of 5 for that day. And G/S's response is "Too Bad". How is that for a customer service response?

Share this post


Link to post

Ethics.

Exactly, and that will probably not change if my request is implemented :)

Share this post


Link to post

Who says the server is overloaded???? If I create a new PQ it runs instantly.

 

My point exactly, why do we have this 500-limit if this is not the problem?

Share this post


Link to post

Read the waypoint agreement that you agree to and you might be able to figure out WHY!

Share this post


Link to post

Who says the server is overloaded???? If I create a new PQ it runs instantly.

 

My point exactly, why do we have this 500-limit if this is not the problem?

Why would someone need to download more than 2500 caches a day? I've been known to go on a numbers run here and there but they're nowhere near 2500, more like 2-3% of that.

Share this post


Link to post

To keep their GSAK-database up to date :rolleyes:

 

In Norway we have about 5500 caches active, and to be sure to get all of them into an updated GSAK-database, you need to run 14 PQs at the moment.

If you want to be sure to get all the changes in berween, you also run a dayly "latest publicated", and a dayly "changed caches" PQ.

This gives a total of 5 days to update one database.

When 500-1000 users are running the exact same PQs every day, I think it would be much better if it was possible to run one PQ, and distribute to all premium members who wanted to subscribe to this PQ.

I guess the workload of the server would be lessthan what it is today.

 

An updated database gives the opportunity to prepare for "trips not planned" :santa:

Share this post


Link to post

bjorges, you are proposing that Groundspeak sell more data for the same money AND make fewer sales (PQ sharing).

 

The supposed benefit to them being less server load....but the obvious problem being less income. And you want them to totally give away the store by saying that PQ sharing is okay. It's not okay, it's theft (currently) and it will never make any economic sense to alter that.

 

Additionally, many cachers would not be interested in your "standard PQ" - since by definition, it would be all caches and not all caches which I HAVE NOT FOUND. Even if I could do a PQ of all the caches in my state, I wouldn't - I'd have more work to do filtering that then it's worth. I can design a query of caches of types/terrain/difficulty or along a route or by proximity, that I haven't already found - get it, load it, and leave in about 4 minutes...

 

There are times when I wish that I could save up PQs - say run zero on Monday and 10 on Wednesday. But I suspect that the limits are designed to keep the servers from being buried on Friday and Saturday.

Share this post


Link to post

To keep their GSAK-database up to date :rolleyes:

 

In Norway we have about 5500 caches active, and to be sure to get all of them into an updated GSAK-database, you need to run 14 PQs at the moment.

 

Could actually be done with EXACTLY 19 PQ's and not have a single duplication.

 

But why do you need to have such infrequently visited caches in your database updates more often then they are visited?

Share this post


Link to post

To keep their GSAK-database up to date :rolleyes:

 

In Norway we have about 5500 caches active, and to be sure to get all of them into an updated GSAK-database, you need to run 14 PQs at the moment.

 

Could actually be done with EXACTLY 19 PQ's and not have a single duplication.

 

But why do you need to have such infrequently visited caches in your database updates more often then they are visited?

 

With the new Colorado's and Oregon's, you can have 2000 caches loaded and with the GSAK/Nuvi macro available, you have have thousands more in as POI's. So the 2500 limit is becoming aged and not keeping up with technology. Having said that, I am ok with 5 PQ's of 500 per day. I am not OK with Groundspeaks lackadaisical attitude to their incompetence and failure to acknowledge late delivery of PQ's is their fault.

 

Why do I need so many caches?? I am part of a volunteer Search and Rescue group that covers an area of Ontario that is over 300 km in diameter. And we don't know when or where the next call will be. By maintaining a large volume in my GPS or on my laptop, I can cache in an area, after the search, without any last minute effort prior to departing for the search.

 

I realize that not everyone has this need but it is narrow minded to say no one has the need.

Share this post


Link to post

My laptop and GSAK can handle thousands of caches. My PDA, which I can geocache with, can handle thousands of caches since 2006 (BeelineGPS does a great job).

 

If you can't stand with the "incompetence and failure to acknowledge late delivery of PQ" you can always leave the service and move to a better one. That will show'em!

 

If what you want is not possible, have a look at other possibilities. Use your mobile phone to check if the cache nearby is active.

 

In an ideal world, we'd love to have more from everyone...

Edited by SUp3rFM & Cruella

Share this post


Link to post

bjorges, you are proposing that Groundspeak sell more data for the same money AND make fewer sales (PQ sharing).

No, the sharing would only be between premium members (via "subscribing"), so they are not losing premium member income.

Share this post


Link to post

I am ok with late PQ's. I am not ok with it affecting two days.

 

I just want them to change the trigger mechanism for "Date/Time PQ Ran" to Date/Time PQ Requested". Not a big request. Probably less than 10 lines of code.

 

That way, when PQ's are late, their customers don't pay the price.

Edited by Tequila

Share this post


Link to post

I'd just like the scheduled PQs to run earlier each day. Sometimes, lately, it's been 10:00 or 11:00 pm before they run and a few have spilled over to the next day. And it's not about them being older PQs, as they were all created within 15 minutes of each other (their serial numbers are within 20 of each other).

 

The 500 limit is OK, I guess. 750 would be better, 1000 even nicer. Would mean fewer PQs for my current radius. Remember, I have over 5000 active caches (Terrain < 3.5) within 30 miles of home coordinates. But I know that if they raised the 500 to a 1000, then everyone would soon complain that the 1000 is antiquated and would want 1500. The spiral effect!!!

Edited by Cache O'Plenty

Share this post


Link to post

bjorges, you are proposing that Groundspeak sell more data for the same money AND make fewer sales (PQ sharing).

No, the sharing would only be between premium members (via "subscribing"), so they are not losing premium member income.

 

Lego, If you re-read his original post, his suggestion of sharing was separate from the subscribed queries, so it could result in fewer sales.

 

I would also like to be able to share my PQs with others, also this to reduse the PQ-load on the servers.

 

Does anyone agree?

Share this post


Link to post

I am ok with late PQ's. I am not ok with it affecting two days.

 

I just want them to change the trigger mechanism for "Date/Time PQ Ran" to Date/Time PQ Requested". Not a big request. Probably less than 10 lines of code.

 

That way, when PQ's are late, their customers don't pay the price.

 

Agreed, this is an issue that should be addressed. Hasn't bit me yet...

Share this post


Link to post

I would like a service that reduces the ammount of PQs run every day.

First of all, I think the limitation on 500 caches per PQ is too little. At the moment I can not see any reason why it should be there.

 

If Groundspeak could make some "standard" PQs, either for country or for state, or even better both of them, and then let premium members "subscribe" to theese, I would guess this is much better than having 1000 users running 5 PQs each every day gathering the same information.

The users would all recieve the same mail, and GC only have to create one GPX-file.

 

I would also like to be able to share my PQs with others, also this to reduse the PQ-load on the servers.

 

Does anyone agree?

I guess it all depends on what you perceive as a 'value' for your money. Each business decides what the cost should be for their product, based on supplier cost, necessary equipment, and profit goals. For example, If you felt you should get gasoline for $1.50 a gallon like you did in the past, and weren't going to pay anything more than that, you'll probably be walking.

A lot can happen in a week. Caches can be disabled, archived, published, retracted, enabled, coords change, etc. Groundspeak would much rather have us keep an updated database available for this reason (and a few others). Even these 'standard' pocket queries would need to run every time a request was made, in order to keep the data current.

And while I can see some people's desire to increase the number of caches in a query, you're still going to have a heck of a time finding more than 500 caches, much less 1000, in a few days. And if you're going on a numbers run, or vacation somewhere, you won't want to include, say, puzzles, five star terrain caches, or (perhaps) micros. You want what you'll be able to hunt. If I travel across the state, I won't want to have canoe-required (or climbing, or 4x4, etc.) caches included.

Sharing the pocket queries is probably also not a good idea. I won't want caches from somebody's query that I've found, nor would anyone else. Unless I was sharing my 'my finds' query. Which I still can't see a need for.

Share this post


Link to post

Why do you need 14 PQs to get 5500 caches in Norway? You only need about 12. Run them by date hidden instead of miles, eliminate all the gaps and overlaps, and get it in fewer PQs.

 

I get the entire state of Oklahoma in 9 PQs, and we have about 4300 active and inactive caches. When it passes 4500, I'll need 10 PQs. Two days worth. I update my database once a week, and it's easy this way.

Share this post


Link to post

Why do I need so many caches?? I am part of a volunteer Search and Rescue group that covers an area of Ontario that is over 300 km in diameter.

 

Then get a cell phone that has coverage in ALL the areas that you might be located in.

Of get a satellite phone along the lines of the Iridium's. I think that was supposed to ONLY cost $2,500 a month. Noi wonder that went out of business.

 

But I'd hate to have to be rescued by a rescuer who seems to have the time to find a cache in addition to finding me.

Share this post


Link to post

No, the sharing would only be between premium members (via "subscribing"), so they are not losing premium member income.

 

Lego, If you re-read his original post, his suggestion of sharing was separate from the subscribed queries, so it could result in fewer sales.

 

I would also like to be able to share my PQs with others, also this to reduse the PQ-load on the servers.

 

Does anyone agree?

 

Lego understood what I ment. I have never ment that we should share PQs with other "non premium cachers". I thought this was obvious, sinc a regular member do not have access to the Pocket Querys.

My intention was sharing PQs amongst the paying cachers.

Share this post


Link to post

Its a good thing that Groundspeak has listened to its cutomers and has done something to get you instant data nearly everywhere you go. Look up info on the Trimble Navigator........

 

Too bad somebody doesn't keep all of this Geocaching data in an up-to-date database place that is easily accessible to anybody with any kind of Internet connection................................oh wait - never mind.

Share this post


Link to post

Total cache submissions have increased over time, I'd like to just take a couple steps beyond what I can currently cover with one PQ. That's all.

 

When I submit multiple PQs I feel like I'm shooting smart bombs trying to effectively cover as much area as possible.

Edited by BlueDeuce

Share this post


Link to post

No, the sharing would only be between premium members (via "subscribing"), so they are not losing premium member income.

 

Lego, If you re-read his original post, his suggestion of sharing was separate from the subscribed queries, so it could result in fewer sales.

 

I would also like to be able to share my PQs with others, also this to reduse the PQ-load on the servers.

 

Does anyone agree?

 

Lego understood what I ment. I have never ment that we should share PQs with other "non premium cachers". I thought this was obvious, sinc a regular member do not have access to the Pocket Querys.

My intention was sharing PQs amongst the paying cachers.

 

I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post

With the new Colorado's and Oregon's, you can have 2000 caches loaded and with the GSAK/Nuvi macro available, you have have thousands more in as POI's. So the 2500 limit is becoming aged and not keeping up with technology.

 

Actually my Magellan can have Infinity caches. So I want them ALL. Well as close to infinity as 2Gigs of SD card can have when a cache can be as little as 80 bytes each.

But seriously, that's such a flawed argument I won't even start. :)

Edited by trainlove

Share this post


Link to post

My standard response:

 

If you want more caches, then buy more premium memberships - one for the wife, one for the dog, one for your goldfish, etc. There's nothing that says that you can't have many, many premium memberships. Then you get what you want (more caches updated every single day :)) and Groundspeak doesn't have to change it's current business methodology. They get increased revenue through additional premium memberships and you can still get all of the caches you want.

 

Only problem is when the goldfish won't share his PQ data.

Share this post


Link to post
But I'd hate to have to be rescued by a rescuer who seems to have the time to find a cache in addition to finding me.

 

That's a wee bit of a cheap shot, considering the original post addressed that point specifically:

 

I can cache in an area, after the search*, without any last minute effort prior to departing for the search.

 

Anyway, back to topic...

 

At the risk of sounding like a quote attributed to Bill Gates "2500 caches per day ought to be enough for anyone."

 

And, as for the query sharing idea, you can already send your pocket query settings to another user so I don't see the need to send the actual data around.

 

*Emphasis added my me.

Share this post


Link to post
I would also like to be able to share my PQs with others, also this to reduse the PQ-load on the servers. Does anyone agree?
I'll just answer this part since the other part has been answered many times in many threads already. I can see the value in being able to view your friends' unfound caches on the cache map on the site. This would help with planning a caching outing together. If you could do this then there would be no need to send PQs around.

Share this post


Link to post

And, as for the query sharing idea, you can already send your pocket query settings to another user so I don't see the need to send the actual data around.

Other helpful tips for sharing information without violating the Terms of Use:

 

1. If you and your friend both upload your My Finds query to the It's Not About the Numbers website, you can use the Cacher Comparison Calculator there to find out which finds you have in common. You can then use a GSAK macro to flag these caches and to filter for only those caches which neither of you have found. You can also iterate this filter over and over for other members of your caching group.

 

2. Whoever is in charge of planning a day's caching adventure can create a shared bookmark list with the proposed caching route. Send a link to the other members of your roadtrip group, and they can write back to say which ones they'd like to cross off or add to the list. When the list is ready, each member of the group can run a pocket query for that bookmark list.

Share this post


Link to post

My standard response:

 

If you want more caches, then buy more premium memberships - one for the wife, one for the dog, one for your goldfish, etc. There's nothing that says that you can't have many, many premium memberships. Then you get what you want (more caches updated every single day :() and Groundspeak doesn't have to change it's current business methodology. They get increased revenue through additional premium memberships and you can still get all of the caches you want.

 

Only problem is when the goldfish won't share his PQ data.

 

But I thought members weren't allowed to share their PQ data with other members per the TOS. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

And, as for the query sharing idea, you can already send your pocket query settings to another user so I don't see the need to send the actual data around.

Other helpful tips for sharing information without violating the Terms of Use:

 

1. If you and your friend both upload your My Finds query to the It's Not About the Numbers website, you can use the Cacher Comparison Calculator there to find out which finds you have in common. You can then use a GSAK macro to flag these caches and to filter for only those caches which neither of you have found. You can also iterate this filter over and over for other members of your caching group.

 

2. Whoever is in charge of planning a day's caching adventure can create a shared bookmark list with the proposed caching route. Send a link to the other members of your roadtrip group, and they can write back to say which ones they'd like to cross off or add to the list. When the list is ready, each member of the group can run a pocket query for that bookmark list.

Thanks for the tips.

 

Long-term it would be nice if the site could let you check off the friends from your friends list and then show the common unfounds for that group on a cache map. One very nice thing about doing is this way is that you can quickly pan the common unfound cache map to find areas that you all have in common. There are so many caches these days that downloading PQs and running macros to do this can be a very daunting task.

Share this post


Link to post

A topic close to my own heart,

 

I agree with the comments on sharing and the business model, it could cause damage to income, although, i suspect that sharers would probably expect others to contribute their fair share to the collaboration, maintaining the status quo on memberships..

 

On subscribable files ie all caches in State/Country, there are a lot of GSAK users out there and it is just 3 clicks to filter out all found by user name, and they automatically highlight on GPX load anyway. if I could subscribe to a regular download of a single file for the UK and a Single file for California, I would ditch all of my PQs. Maybe GS could run a trial to see if this would be viable in reducing their bandwidth charges.

 

On the 500 limit, I would welcome an increase to 1000 or more, after all as has already been pointed out, cache placing is increasing at an ever faster rate, this can be demonstrated using the date placed method to build complete query sets, my current set shows a change from over a year for each of the earliest 2 queries in the radius, down to filling a query in 20 days in mid summer (spring and August are the main peaks in placings)

 

I would happily pay extra for such enhancements rather than troll through the hassle of maintaining 2 sets of PQs from an additional premium membership, perhaps a Platinum Membership for $60 would be appropriate, sounds like a win win to me, would need to have both larger/more PQs and Subscription files service at a minimum.

 

On the point of mobile Internet Devices, thats ok if you cache in built up areas, but out in the sticks you can't always get a phone signal, let along data and some countries don't have well developed cell networks. It can also get kinda pricey if you're roaming, out of your home country etc.

 

Why do I want all this data? firstly I enjoy roadtrips and don't always plan my caching, it just happens, ever been somewhere and thought, "I bet theres a cache round here somewhere" then checked when you get home to find that you were probably stood right next to it. Thanks to advances in technology, devices now have near unlimited storage capacity. I can generate a file for my Tom Tom with GSAK which shows all caches on the driving view, and even plays a sound in close proximity, can be searched for the nearest caches etc. As this can be automated with a simple macro, I can have all the data loaded on my caching tech in a very short time, chuck it all in the car and decide where I'm going while on the road.

 

The "Magical Mystery Tour" has alwas been a lot of fun to do no matter how its done and hardly ever results in a bad day, to be able to combine this with caching makes it even more fun. Unfortunately, this is not easy to do when limited by cache density, 2500 caches in my area limits me to a 30 mile radius, in certain area of California, its as low as 15 miles, a week's PQs in North california limits to a 200 Miles radius and my road trips have been known to rack up to 3000 miles without leaving the West Coast.

 

Impulse caching is also a lot of fun when you've got a few minutes to spare here and there on trips for other purposes, yes, I keep a basic caching kit in my car, if only magellan would produce a wifi GPSr that can be updated in the driveway (and TomTom too).

 

The other reason for the regular data is the limited logs on GPX files, a regular PQ and GSAK builds a comprehensive history of each cache, as this database lives on my laptop, I can look back in the history for clues on a tricky cache, 4 DNFs in a row on a 3.5 Plus difficulty cache are meaningless and also no help at all. I've also found "lost" caches and returned them to their correct hiding place by going through the history of the cache.

 

Just a final point to those who may wish to comment on my recent lack of posted caches, I've still been caching, i just haven't been logging for a while.

Share this post


Link to post

My standard response:

 

If you want more caches, then buy more premium memberships - one for the wife, one for the dog, one for your goldfish, etc. There's nothing that says that you can't have many, many premium memberships. Then you get what you want (more caches updated every single day :D) and Groundspeak doesn't have to change it's current business methodology. They get increased revenue through additional premium memberships and you can still get all of the caches you want.

 

Only problem is when the goldfish won't share his PQ data.

 

But I thought members weren't allowed to share their PQ data with other members per the TOS. ;)

Kind of ambiguous as the official term is Personally Identifiable Information...or "You"...

 

So that means to me "the person behind the handle or persona". So if I purchase 4 Premium Memberships all using the same PII/You data (if that's even possible) then I should be able to 'share' any PQ information with myself with no fear of a problem...of course the 'if that's possible' part is key...

Share this post


Link to post

I would also like to be able to share my PQs with others, also this to reduse the PQ-load on the servers.

Does anyone agree?

Bank Robbvery is against the law, but I think it shouldn't be so what does everyone else think!

Share this post


Link to post

Who says the server is overloaded???? If I create a new PQ it runs instantly.

 

I would like to see a change in the way the G/S runs regular PQ's. If they can run a new PQ instantly, then I shouldn't have to wait for regular ones.

 

Twice in the last week, my PQ's did not run on the day I requested. They showed up the next day and killed my PQ count of 5 for that day. And G/S's response is "Too Bad". How is that for a customer service response?

 

Based on my experience with them, normal. (If I get a response at all)

 

It is always interesting to see this topic come up over and over, and there are always the following groups:

 

1) People who want to see the limit upped. (decent number)

2) People who say "You don't need that much info" (which I always find interesting, because if you don't, fine... some people would like it, and they're not you)

3) People who say "There are ways to get that info without upping the PQ limit". (Listing workarounds is fine, but doesn't solve the problem)

4) GS - who rarely comments, but when they do, seem opposed to considering this.

 

For the number of times it comes up by different people, maybe its time GS looked a little less at the business model and what benefits them, and a little more at what would benefit the people who choose to list their caches here. Without the people listing caches here, they wouldn't have a database to be so protective of. With people having the ability to maintain an offline database, they would still need to refresh info, check the website for updates, etc, so GS.com isn't losing anything.

 

Just my $0.02 worth... and I have a lot of pennies :)

 

(And in response to the comment above mine about bank robbery - there is a MASSIVE difference between a law and the TOS of a website - big time. I don't see anyone ever going to jail for sharing a PQ. I don't - since I don't know anyone else who gets them and what use they would be to me anyway, but I still think this is comparing apples and concrete blocks.)

Edited by FireRef

Share this post


Link to post

...

(And in response to the comment above mine about bank robbery - there is a MASSIVE difference between a law and the TOS of a website - big time. I don't see anyone ever going to jail for sharing a PQ. I don't - since I don't know anyone else who gets them and what use they would be to me anyway, but I still think this is comparing apples and concrete blocks.)

Still theft of services. Is it enough to get jail time? No, but it's still theft...

 

 

(edit to fix quotes)

Edited by PJPeters

Share this post


Link to post

I would also like to be able to share my PQs with others, also this to reduse the PQ-load on the servers.

Does anyone agree?

Bank Robbvery is against the law, but I think it shouldn't be so what does everyone else think!

If it reduced the ATM load on the servers wouldn't that be good for the banks. They should be happy to let us rob them.

Share this post


Link to post

 

1) People who want to see the limit upped. (minority, generally those that are new or do not understand the reasons for the limits )

2) People who say "You don't need that much info" (majority)

3) People who say "There are ways to get that info without upping the PQ limit". (Issue solved while staying within the TOS)

4) GS - who have made their position clear along with repeated explanations.

 

(And in response to the comment above mine about bank robbery - there is a MASSIVE difference between a law and the TOS of a website - big time. I don't see anyone ever going to jail for sharing a PQ.)

 

Good point, however Microsoft may disagree. The feds too.. Note to Reader's Digest, you need to start giving away your magazine. ISP, that email and content is placed by the users as well, do the right thing and give it to us free. Be honest Mr. ISP, servers, programming, maintenance and the like cost next to nothing to run, why the issue when I let the neighbors use it?

 

"Character is what we do when no one is watching"

Share this post


Link to post

The comparisons of sharing PQs between licensees with that of bank robbery is nonsense.

 

Many of the reasons for the original limits was data protection. It used to be not all that hard to theoretically download the entire cache database in about a month. There weren't that many caches and there was fear (I think unfounded) that someone might start up their own site with all of this data. Just because Jeremy tried to do it with letterboxes does mean someone is going to do it with geocaches. Not any more, anyway.

 

Today, with the sheer numbers of caches out there it would not be feasible to do such a thing--not on your own.

 

Here's the kicker, the TOU limits only where you get your data, not what data you can have. Two users can download the exact same PQ with the exact same data, yet one couldn't give the other his. They both are entitled to the data--the exact same data--the difference is only the path it took to get there--yet one can't even look at the other's data. Now, how does that make sense?

 

Personally, I think the TOU should be changed to reflect what it was always trying to prevent yet allowing sharing of data by folks who are already allowed to have it. The real danger was having the data publicly accessible and unauthorized persons getting it. The TOU could fairly easily be changed to reflect this. Allow licensees to allow access to their copies by other licensees.

 

I don't see it nothing more than an easy fix and these issues go away.

Share this post


Link to post

If we're to talk of business models here, and as it's already been mentioned, lets look at a standard ISP service plan model.

 

In the UK, broadband internet ISPs price roughly as follows for a 3 tier service-

 

£5 - 2 Mbps service, minimal webspace, Email, but no other bells or whistles, service unable to reach the daily data caps set by the provider, full charge for install and wireless

 

£10 - £12 - 10Mbps Service, Loads of webspace, email, bells & whistles etc, but daily data cap somewhere between 2 and 4 GBytes (usually enforced only for continual heavy downloaders), small charge for install and wireless

 

£20 - £25 - 20 Mbps+ All bells & whistles, No caps, truly unlimited, free wireless router, no install charges etc etc

 

From this pricing model, we see that the primary service at least doubles when the price does, but there are loads of extra add-ons which may be of interest and help seal the deal.

 

Now this seems like its all in the customer's favour, but the ISP is gambling (in the same way that Vegas casinos gamble) that the customer will not make full use of all the features/capabilities of their service level. If they do, no worries, the extra revenue means they can buy their bandwidth & equipment in greater bulk and get better price breaks.

 

This same business model is used by many successful companies the world over, especially in the tech sector.

 

So what I am saying is that sure, I'll pay an extra annual subscription (I've already set up the accounts), but I'd much rather pay twice the subscription and have the ability to run larger or more PQs on a daily basis from the one account to save the hassle(It would also mean I can eliminate my finds/hides from all not just half the queries), If a state/country subscription service came available I'd rather that too.

 

As to those who say you don't need all the data,

1 - "Be prepared" is a good motto, and just as applicable to impulse caching days as planned,

2 - 2500 caches in my area gives me a 37 mile radius (and I'm on the coast), not much distance for a good road trip, from my mother in law's house, 2500 is reached in just 21 Miles radius, and as I have said, my road trips can exceed 3000 miles.

3 - the point of geocaching is FUN and I'd rather be out there having Fun while my automated GSAK macros do all the data maintenance, than sitting in front of the computer planning tomorrows Fun.

4 - I'm not a newbie, I've been a premium member for 3 years and seen the database grow and grow, all we want is for the service options to grow along with it. When I first signed up for PQs, it took just 12 to cover the entire UK, now it takes 69 and it's growing ever quicker.

5 - I'm offering to pay pro rata for the service level, please take my money.(GS that Is, you can't all have it)

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm, I see a possible solution here,

 

Ok, so I buy additional subscriptions to get the extra PQs, fine.

 

How about then a feature request instead.........

 

The ability to link multiple Premium accounts together with the ability to treat finds from one account as finds for all as far as the PQ server is concerned. Maybe treat the extra account as a slave account, enabling 10 queries a day instead of 5 and a library of 80

 

On the library point, it would be nice if I had the ability to submit my PQs remotely, thereby enabling me to have an unlimited library on my machine and have my machine send them in daily as needed. (or is this already in the works, I seem to remember hearing a rumour)

 

Sounds like a possible "Bell & Whistle" that will get additional Premium subscriptions sold.

 

From a data cruncing point of view, it would probably only take a few of extra lines of code in the Member profile system and the PQ handler. (I'm no SQL expert, but I've done similar in Access and GSAK with little extra effort)

Edited by Volvo Man

Share this post


Link to post

I would go for the increasing the number of cache you can get in a PQ. As far as sharing PQ's I have no need for that.

 

The resoning behind the larger cache limit in a PQ, is I work all over eastern Iowa and never quite know where I'm going to be. To cover the amount of area I work in I need to run three PQ's. If the size was increased to say 1000, I think I could cover everything I want with 1 PQ.

 

I like to do a few caches on my way home from work. It gives me some wind down time and get in a little excericise. It would be nice to run just one PQ and not have to worry about running GSAK and combining everything or use seperate folders in my Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post

The ability to link multiple Premium accounts together with the ability to treat finds from one account as finds for all as far as the PQ server is concerned.

 

Use four of the PQs on your main account, and five from another (for a total of 4500 caches!). Load them into a database.

 

Then use the All My Finds query and have it grab your finds - it will grab them all once a week. Load that query AFTER the others, and he caches will be updated with the status as found by you.

 

I know it's a klugy work-around, but it can be done with the tools in place now.

Share this post


Link to post
The ability to link multiple Premium accounts together with the ability to treat finds from one account as finds for all as far as the PQ server is concerned.
Use four of the PQs on your main account, and five from another (for a total of 4500 caches!). Load them into a database.

 

Then use the All My Finds query and have it grab your finds - it will grab them all once a week. Load that query AFTER the others, and he caches will be updated with the status as found by you.

 

I know it's a klugy work-around, but it can be done with the tools in place now.

Very kludgey, indeed!

 

Here's the problem. Like most folks, I'm sure he would rather not get the caches he's already found. Why waste a slot for a cache you've found and you will get in your All My Finds files? Here's the problem, the second account will not know which caches have been found and therefore can't exclude them.

 

The only way for it to work--i.e. not have overlapping downloads--is once you log with one account you switch to the other account and ignore that cache. That's just a flat-out ridiculous solution. Not only that, but any cache you ignore on the first account you'd have to duplicate on the other, otherwise you'd still get it in your offline database.

Share this post


Link to post
The ability to link multiple Premium accounts together with the ability to treat finds from one account as finds for all as far as the PQ server is concerned.
Use four of the PQs on your main account, and five from another (for a total of 4500 caches!). Load them into a database.

 

Then use the All My Finds query and have it grab your finds - it will grab them all once a week. Load that query AFTER the others, and he caches will be updated with the status as found by you.

 

I know it's a klugy work-around, but it can be done with the tools in place now.

Very kludgey, indeed!

 

Here's the problem. Like most folks, I'm sure he would rather not get the caches he's already found. Why waste a slot for a cache you've found and you will get in your All My Finds files? Here's the problem, the second account will not know which caches have been found and therefore can't exclude them.

 

The only way for it to work--i.e. not have overlapping downloads--is once you log with one account you switch to the other account and ignore that cache. That's just a flat-out ridiculous solution. Not only that, but any cache you ignore on the first account you'd have to duplicate on the other, otherwise you'd still get it in your offline database.

 

Quite right CR,

 

If i'm paying a full second membership, I'm going to want the same level of service, that is not to include all my found caches that I've eliminated from my main account PQs. Since I've changed jobs, I can now look forward to getting back to some serious caching, and every 500 finds means one less PQ to have to scrape together. As I use a defined area and tune my PQs by Date Placed, I lose about 120 caches PQ capacity a week as it is.

 

Going back to my business model example, if I'm paying double, I want a little extra service as sweetener, rather than increasing my workload with ignoring all my finds, I have enough trouble finding time to log caches as it is (If only I could log them as I go and sync up when I finish for the day). That's not to mention going back and ignoring all my previous finds.

Share this post


Link to post

One would think that if Groundspeak is ok with a cacher purchasing multiple PM's (and why wouldn't they be), then they would recognize the need for a "platinum" PM and create it. Charge accordingly.

 

There seems to be a constant mentality in the forums of "things are fine the way they are. Just develop some cumbersome kludgy workaround for what you want."

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...