Premium Member Only caches are elitist!

[+Vater_Araignee]

If I don't want people contacting me in reply to me looking at a cache listing, I can .... well, nothing.

 

1.) Don't look at PM listings.

The only way to know if a cache listing is PMO is to look at it. At least in many cases, like a link posted here in the forums.

Out side of a PMOC being within 5 miles of home base or logging, the only way I look at a PMOC online is because of a link in forums.

Once a PMOC gets posted in the forums then the cache receives a rush of views so it doesn't matter.

[+dfx]

Out side of a PMOC being within 5 miles of home base or logging, the only way I look at a PMOC online is because of a link in forums.

Once a PMOC gets posted in the forums then the cache receives a rush of views so it doesn't matter.

 

Totally beside the point. Fact is that there's no way to totally avoid looking at PMO listings, and I don't care for being asked "what are you doing here", no matter if it's online or in real life, and no matter what the intentions behind the question are.

[mresoteric]

I don't care for being asked "what are you doing here", no matter if it's online or in real life, and no matter what the intentions behind the question are.

 

I don't mind it in real life. If I am on your property and I see you walk up I expect to be asked what I am doing there.

 

But webpages are posted specifically for the purpose of being looked at. Therefore, the listing owner shouldn't be going around asking why people are doing what they are expected to be doing.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Out side of a PMOC being within 5 miles of home base or logging, the only way I look at a PMOC online is because of a link in forums.

Once a PMOC gets posted in the forums then the cache receives a rush of views so it doesn't matter.

 

Totally beside the point. Fact is that there's no way to totally avoid looking at PMO listings, and I don't care for being asked "what are you doing here", no matter if it's online or in real life, and no matter what the intentions behind the question are.

First, if you stop clicking cache links when you do not know if it is PMOC or not, you have avoided the CO's audit log.

Second if you, as a PM use the PQ and load it into GSAK, you can read the cache page of line and you have avoided the CO's audit log.

Third, if you use the logging back door then you have avoided the CO's audit log.

As for the mention to real life, once you sign the log book you have opened yourself up to contact because it is the equivalent of saying HI.

 

I also know how to get the coords of a PMOC without a PM account and without triangulation.

So to me the only good thing a PMOC is good for is:

Slowing down determined nonPMs

Blocking the those that don't wish to put fourth the effort to find them

Blocking the lazy maggots

Blocking the cheap maggots

And last but not least, determining how interested a particular PM is in a cache because we all know the looking does not equate anything other than looking. To believe anything else shows pure stupidity and the individual needs to be told that they need to add a zero onto the end of their next payment. I mean hey if your retarded enough to believe that looking = malicious intent then you are retarded enough to believe you are stealing a large portion of your PM privileges.

 

I volunteer to have 10% of all retarded CO's increased membership fees applied to my fees as gift memberships.

[+dfx]

First, if you stop clicking cache links when you do not know if it is PMOC or not, you have avoided the CO's audit log.

Second if you, as a PM use the PQ and load it into GSAK, you can read the cache page of line and you have avoided the CO's audit log.

Third, if you use the logging back door then you have avoided the CO's audit log.

Right, so your solution against unsolicited messages from COs is to either not look at any cache listings at all, or jump through hoops to get the listing without actually loading the page. Seriously?

 

You do realize that the audit log isn't integral part of a PMO listing, right?

 

As for the mention to real life, once you sign the log book you have opened yourself up to contact because it is the equivalent of saying HI.

Nope, because I can 1) not sign the log at all, 2) sign it under a different name, 3) not log online, or 4) any combination thereof.

Edited May 24, 2011 by dfx

[Mr.Yuck]

Just curious, if a regular member lands on a pmo page, does it show up even though all we see is the ad asking us to upgrade?

 

Just tested it: they don't.

 

Cool. One more reason to avoid premium membership.

 

Freeloader.

[+Scubasonic]

Just curious, if a regular member lands on a pmo page, does it show up even though all we see is the ad asking us to upgrade?

 

Just tested it: they don't.

 

Cool. One more reason to avoid premium membership.

 

Freeloader.

 

YEAH what YUCK said X3

Edited May 25, 2011 by Scubasonic

[+Scubasonic]

' timestamp='1306217897' post='4720535']

You do realize that it's the CO that decides wether a cache is a PMOC or not right? And if the CO invests his or her time and money to place a cache they have every right to determine who can find it.

 

Umm....no. PM caches only mean it is more difficult for BMs to see the info on the page. GS included a feature that let's everyone, PM and BM, find and log the cache.

 

Here is a question if a Bm finds a Premium cache and logs it and the cache owner sees that can he delete the BMs post since it is PM cache?

[+dfx]

Here is a question if a Bm finds a Premium cache and logs it and the cache owner sees that can he delete the BMs post since it is PM cache?

 

No. Well, technically he can, but according to guidelines he's not allowed to.

[+sword fern]

Here is a question if a Bm finds a Premium cache and logs it and the cache owner sees that can he delete the BMs post since it is PM cache?

 

No. Well, technically he can, but according to guidelines he's not allowed to.

 

He will have to pay a $2500 fine and go to prison for 24 hours.

[knowschad]

' timestamp='1306217897' post='4720535']

You do realize that it's the CO that decides wether a cache is a PMOC or not right? And if the CO invests his or her time and money to place a cache they have every right to determine who can find it.

 

Umm....no. PM caches only mean it is more difficult for BMs to see the info on the page. GS included a feature that let's everyone, PM and BM, find and log the cache.

 

Here is a question if a Bm finds a Premium cache and logs it and the cache owner sees that can he delete the BMs post since it is PM cache?

 

I'm not sure I would be calling those without a Premium Membership "BM's", though.

[mresoteric]

Just curious, if a regular member lands on a pmo page, does it show up even though all we see is the ad asking us to upgrade?

 

Just tested it: they don't.

 

Cool. One more reason to avoid premium membership.

 

Freeloader.

 

YEAH what YUCK said X3

 

And proud of it.

 

X3!!!

 

(Actually, I've been mulling over becoming platinum. But I got wind of the new Palladium membership so I'm holding out!)

[mresoteric]

on if a Bm finds a Premium cache and logs it and the cache owner sees that can he delete the BMs post since it is PM cache?

 

He's welcome to try, but that's gonna be one smelly deletion!

[+popokiiti]

The choice is up to the CO. If they are a premium member they can choose how they want their cache listed. The ratio of PMO vs all other caches is pretty small....anyone know what it is, by chance?

[Mushtang]

Here is a question if a Bm finds a Premium cache and logs it and the cache owner sees that can he delete the BMs post since it is PM cache?

If a BM logs a PMOC and the CO deletes BM's log because it's a PMO, then FYI, I would think the CO would be SOL and soon find his other caches MIA.

[+Vater_Araignee]

First, if you stop clicking cache links when you do not know if it is PMOC or not, you have avoided the CO's audit log.

Second if you, as a PM use the PQ and load it into GSAK, you can read the cache page of line and you have avoided the CO's audit log.

Third, if you use the logging back door then you have avoided the CO's audit log.

Right, so your solution against unsolicited messages from COs is to either not look at any cache listings at all, or jump through hoops to get the listing without actually loading the page. Seriously?

 

You do realize that the audit log isn't integral part of a PMO listing, right?

 

As for the mention to real life, once you sign the log book you have opened yourself up to contact because it is the equivalent of saying HI.

Nope, because I can 1) not sign the log at all, 2) sign it under a different name, 3) not log online, or 4) any combination thereof.

Downloading a PQ isn't jump through hoops, that is if you take advantage of the PQs at all.

And it is suuuuch a pain to bookmark the backdoor and alter the GC# in the url.

 

Response to 1) Like you can not look at the PMOC at all.

Response to 2) Like you can log it on line under a different name and use a dummy email.

Response to 3) Like you can not log online after not looking at it at all.

Too bad when I didn't want to connect to FB every time I looked at any cache page I had to jump through hoops. And a CO gets way less information than FB.

[+WRASTRO]

The only way to know if a cache listing is PMO is to look at it. At least in many cases, like a link posted here in the forums.

 

This is so wrong I am not even going to bother to post the correct solution.

[mresoteric]

The only way to know if a cache listing is PMO is to look at it. At least in many cases, like a link posted here in the forums.

 

This is so wrong I am not even going to bother to post the correct solution.

 

You're saying that if someone posts a link in the forums that there is a way to discern whether or not it is a premium cache?

 

The only way I've known it is when I get hit with the request to upgrade my account.

[+WRASTRO]

The only way to know if a cache listing is PMO is to look at it. At least in many cases, like a link posted here in the forums.

 

This is so wrong I am not even going to bother to post the correct solution.

 

You're saying that if someone posts a link in the forums that there is a way to discern whether or not it is a premium cache?

 

The only way I've known it is when I get hit with the request to upgrade my account.

Have you ever clicked on the link that is on every cache page that will give you a list of the closest caches? In the info column there is an icon that shows the PMO caches.

[mresoteric]

The only way to know if a cache listing is PMO is to look at it. At least in many cases, like a link posted here in the forums.

 

This is so wrong I am not even going to bother to post the correct solution.

 

You're saying that if someone posts a link in the forums that there is a way to discern whether or not it is a premium cache?

 

The only way I've known it is when I get hit with the request to upgrade my account.

Have you ever clicked on the link that is on every cache page that will give you a list of the closest caches? In the info column there is an icon that shows the PMO caches.

 

Yes, I am aware of the little head icon.

 

But when someone posts a link in the forums, that little icon doesn't show up. Forum links are the ones that get me.

[+WRASTRO]

The only way to know if a cache listing is PMO is to look at it. At least in many cases, like a link posted here in the forums.

 

This is so wrong I am not even going to bother to post the correct solution.

 

You're saying that if someone posts a link in the forums that there is a way to discern whether or not it is a premium cache?

 

The only way I've known it is when I get hit with the request to upgrade my account.

Have you ever clicked on the link that is on every cache page that will give you a list of the closest caches? In the info column there is an icon that shows the PMO caches.

 

Yes, I am aware of the little head icon.

 

But when someone posts a link in the forums, that little icon doesn't show up. Forum links are the ones that get me.

Then don't click on them if you don't want to run the risk of being captured on someone's PMO cache audit log. Seems simple to me.

[mresoteric]

 

Then don't click on them if you don't want to run the risk of being captured on someone's PMO cache audit log. Seems simple to me.

 

Well, in that vain, you could just quit caching altogether. That's guaranteed to keep you out of anyone's audit log as well.

[Mushtang]

Then don't click on them if you don't want to run the risk of being captured on someone's PMO cache audit log. Seems simple to me.

Well, in that vain, you could just quit caching altogether. That's guaranteed to keep you out of anyone's audit log as well.

 

I honestly don't see the problem with being on someone's audit log. Can you help me understand this? Explain what the objection you have with it please?

[ZeMartelo]

How about just get rid of that audit or at least give the option for people to OPT OUT of that?

Simple enough and easy to do right and everybody would be happy.

[ZeMartelo]

Then don't click on them if you don't want to run the risk of being captured on someone's PMO cache audit log. Seems simple to me.

Well, in that vain, you could just quit caching altogether. That's guaranteed to keep you out of anyone's audit log as well.

 

I honestly don't see the problem with being on someone's audit log. Can you help me understand this? Explain what the objection you have with it please?

How about its nobody business what cache I visit and when?

Is that good enough?

[+keehotee]

 

How about its nobody business what cache I visit and when?

Is that good enough?

 

Errr - it might be listed on Groundspeak's site, but the cache owner owns the cache.

So yes - it is somebody's business who looks at the cache details. It's the cache owners business, if they choose to make it a PMO cache and take any notice of the audit log!

[+LewisClan77]

How about its nobody business what cache I visit and when?

Is that good enough?

 

I see on your profile that you have logged over 2000 caches. You made it peoples business. Also, being on the audit log doesn't say when you found a cache, it only says when you looked last.

[Pineapple Dan]

So ordinary users are undesirable now and unworthy of the best cache, all because they refuse to make the owner of Groundspeak.com richer?

 

If these 'high investment' caches are getting muggled when the coordinates are available for ordinary users a minimum number of previously logged caches would seem a more fair system but Groundspeak wouldn't make any money out of that.

 

I don't know how so many people get caught up in the whole 'supporting the site' thing. There are millions of users, ad revenue must be massive for this site (although me and a lot of people are using AdBlock). It's just another company that's out to make money not some struggling community initiative. The whole thing reminds me of Celtic Tiger Ireland, everyone who wasn't paying through the nose for everything was being peer pressured into paying up more.

[+DanOCan]

Interesting read so far.

 

My thoughts on what has been discussed:

 

1) I don't think PMOC are elitist. I have a hard time describing anything that costs $30/year as elitist -- I pay more than that for my Costco membership and have you seen some of the people they let shop there???

 

2) I cannot fathom why anyone would object to appearing in the audit log for a cache listing. Heck, every website tracks you at some level, even if it is just by IP address. I'm surprised anyone that worried about the "invasion" of privacy would post in a forum considering it timestampsyour posts.

 

3) I understand why a CO would email someone who viewed a cache listing, in some rare circumstances. I don't understand why anyone would object to getting an email from a cache owner, unless it was abusive, in which case there are avenues to deal with that sort of thing.

 

This whole thread proves my standard stance of "There is nothing you can do that won't offend somebody somehow."

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'd like to climb a mountain -- can we keep gathering these molehills together for me?

[Mushtang]

Then don't click on them if you don't want to run the risk of being captured on someone's PMO cache audit log. Seems simple to me.

Well, in that vain, you could just quit caching altogether. That's guaranteed to keep you out of anyone's audit log as well.

I honestly don't see the problem with being on someone's audit log. Can you help me understand this? Explain what the objection you have with it please?

How about its nobody business what cache I visit and when?

Is that good enough?

No, it's not good enough. It's a very silly reason. The Audit Log doesn't tell anyone what cache you visit and when, it only lists the number of times you viewed a single cache page, and when the last time was. It doesn't allow anyone to track you, or give any information about you that you're not already giving when you visit ANY page on the internet. You do realize this don't you?

 

And by the way, I know that you were looking at this forum page today at 7:18 am. That's about as intrusive into your life as the Audit Log is but you don't seem to care about that. Also, unlike the Audit Log I can search the forums and find the exact time of every single post you made here. Oh no, I'm tracking you!

[knowschad]

So ordinary users are undesirable now and unworthy of the best cache

You are reading quite a bit into other's motives there, aren't you? There have been a few motives listed here by some who have chosen to make their caches PMO, and I don't recall a single one that said they did it because ordinary users are undesirable and unworthy of their caches.

[+baloo&bd]

So ordinary users are undesirable now and unworthy of the best cache, all because they refuse to make the owner of Groundspeak.com richer?

 

If these 'high investment' caches are getting muggled when the coordinates are available for ordinary users a minimum number of previously logged caches would seem a more fair system but Groundspeak wouldn't make any money out of that.

 

I don't know how so many people get caught up in the whole 'supporting the site' thing. There are millions of users, ad revenue must be massive for this site (although me and a lot of people are using AdBlock). It's just another company that's out to make money not some struggling community initiative. The whole thing reminds me of Celtic Tiger Ireland, everyone who wasn't paying through the nose for everything was being peer pressured into paying up more.

 

Acknowledging the fact that audit logs have taken this completely off topic, some of this just begs response.

 

Realize that the majority of PMO caches are either LPC style/grade hides or hides that are otherwise simply pedestrian. Nothing special so you are not missing much. Simply a type control issue, nothing more, nothing less. Also, even Jeremy has stated that PMO serves little purpose in encouraging membership and was not intended as a tool to increase membership, so this is not a money issue.

 

All the reasons given are valid reasons for taking issues with audit logs. an opting out option, while a solution, is not really worth the effort. A more viable solution is to completely eliminate the audit log as even the ones arguing for it agree it really serves no useful purpose.

 

While I do believe it isolated, we have been a "victim" of the abuse of the audit logs. We looked one too many times at a cache and got a note to either find it or stop looking. Another time, same CO, we got an email when we found a cache near theirs chiding us for not posting a DNF since we found a cache near them and had looked at theirs the same day. The latter ironic since the CO has on several occasions deleted many DNF logs of cachers in the area. Both of these emails are well within guidelines, however some may find bothering.

 

I received other similar emails and, in every case, ignored them. While this is an isolated instance for us, there have been many examples given on the forums showing this to be a problem. I have even read where someone had written scripts when dealing with these types of abuses to simply keep looking at caches to flood the audit log with views. Childish, however given no other solution, I guess they felt forced to find a way to deal with it within the ToU.

 

I do not share in the issues of privacy, since these do not happen in any real time, however it does seem odd that many who argue that this is not a privacy issue also are found in past threads defending the right of those watching a cache to remain private. In this respect, GS seems to contradict themselves. As I said, for us, this is a non-issue other than all this effort and wasted time spent on security theater could be spent elsewhere

Edited May 25, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+Avernar]

If I don't want people contacting me in reply to a forum post, I can just not post.

If I don't want people contacting me in reply to a cache log, I can just not log.

If I don't want people contacting me in reply to me looking at a cache listing, I can .... well, nothing not look at PMO caches on the site but use GSAK or a paperless GPS instead.

Fixed.

[+dfx]

If I don't want people contacting me in reply to a forum post, I can just not post.

If I don't want people contacting me in reply to a cache log, I can just not log.

If I don't want people contacting me in reply to me looking at a cache listing, I can .... well, nothing not look at PMO caches on the site but use GSAK or a paperless GPS instead.

Fixed.

 

Why do people keep suggesting this? It's not a solution. If somebody posts a link to a cache here, I want to be able to click on it and view the page. I don't want to be required to spend several minutes to pull some tricks just to look at a stupid listing.

 

Imagine your internet connection drops every time you load up Google. You call in tech support to ask for a solution. According to the people in this thread, the support guy suggesting "don't use Google then", or "go to your neighbor and use Google there" would be valid solutions. Really?

[+Avernar]

Why do people keep suggesting this? It's not a solution.

No, it is a solution. It might not be a convenient solution but it's a solution.

 

If somebody posts a link to a cache here, I want to be able to click on it and view the page. I don't want to be required to spend several minutes to pull some tricks just to look at a stupid listing.

That's the price you pay for being paranoid.

 

But you don't have to do that for every link. Create another account and stay logged in with that one on the site. If you hit a PMO cache link it won't display and you can check it out the other way.

 

Some people have additional premium accounts for PQ purposes, they can stay logged in with one of those and be anonymous (assuming the other user name isn't a slight variation on their real account name).

 

Imagine your internet connection drops every time you load up Google. You call in tech support to ask for a solution. According to the people in this thread, the support guy suggesting "don't use Google then", or "go to your neighbor and use Google there" would be valid solutions. Really?

Wrong analogy. The correct one would be: you don't want Google to know your IP address so you use a VPN proxy instead.

[+dfx]

Wrong analogy. The correct one would be: you don't want Google to know your IP address so you use a VPN proxy instead.

 

No, this one here is the wrong analogy. IP addresses show up because that's how the internet works. It's a purely technical reason. The audit log on the other hand is purely arbitrary.

 

And it's got nothing to do with paranoia. Again, why do people keep saying this? It's a simple matter of choice.

Edited May 25, 2011 by dfx

[Pup Patrol]

A few past topics on the issue.

 

Premium member cache questions.

 

Deleting Logs of Premium Members -- is this allowed?

 

My best caches (best swag, best locations, best craftmanship) are set as "PMOCs." Conversely, when I hunt caches, I rarely see much difference between the quality of locations or swag, for either type cache. The best stocked caches i've found always require the maximum effort (usually five mile plus hikes).

 

Be forewarned that this topic always turns into a heated debate.

 

Should more caches be made members only?

 

Economics 101

 

Premium Membership Exclusivities

 

Member only caches and why I hate them

 

Caches for premium members only

 

Why have the premium membership?

 

Members only caches

 

Subscription Only Caches--grrrrrrrrrr!

 

Member Only Caches, Should I or shouldn't I?

 

Caches for Premium members only

 

Members only caches

 

"members only" caches rant

 

The First "no Members" Cache

 

Change Moc Suggestion, need only normal account to view

 

Northeast Premium Member Only Caches, What are your thoughts?

 

When To Hide A Premium Member Cache, What is the culture of Member Only cache

 

Members Only Cache Hides, Members Only Cache Hides

 

Members Only, Premium Member Cache

 

And from across the pond

Members Only Caches, Is there a point anymore ?

 

May as well drag a two and a half-year-old reply back into play.

 

All this angst over PMOC's....again and again and again and again....

Edited May 25, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+dfx]

All this angst over PMOC's....again and again and again and again....

 

Yeah I agree. There would be such a simple solution, but so many people here are completely resistent against any prospect of change. Weird.

[Pup Patrol]

All this angst over PMOC's....again and again and again and again....

 

Yeah I agree. There would be such a simple solution, but so many people here are completely resistent against any prospect of change. Weird.

 

Resistant to change: "People"? Or Groundspeak?

 

It seems like Groundspeak could easily remove the apparently offensive Audit Log. (I don't understand why it's "necessary", but I'm not bothered by it. I look at PMOC's all the time, all over the continent. I assume it's just a funny little perk for cache owners who think that making their caches PMO somehow makes them better or more secure against marauding invaders.)

 

(hehehe...seems like the one thing that never gets broken during upgrades is the Audit Log functioning. LOL)

[+Kameharem]

Only $30.00 to be an elitist for a full year! I can't believe how great this is; I can't afford a BMW or a second home in the Caymen Islands, I have to clean my own home and mow my own lawn, and I have even been known to purchase used items from thrift stores and garage sales so I never in all my dreams believed that I could be an elitist. WOW, I have finally made it, maybe next I can become a republican...maybe not.

[+dfx]

Resistant to change: "People"? Or Groundspeak?

 

I'm talking about the users posting here. Personally, I couldn't care less if my name appears in any audit log. I wouldn't even opt out if I could. But that doesn't keep me from having an open mind and understanding and acknowledging the fact that some people don't like their name to pop up in somebody's audit log, for whatever reason. Removing the audit log completely probably would upset some COs, so that's not a good option. But giving users to option to opt out and be "invisible" would probably make everybody happy. But no, instead of being in favor of this option, the people here have the "gotta live with it" attitude, because they see it as something that couldn't possibly ever be changed, or something. I don't get it. Nobody so far could give a good reason of having the audit log in place, the best so far was "it's a fun thing to have". I agree with that, but letting people opt out isn't gonna destroy that, is it?

[Mushtang]

Resistant to change: "People"? Or Groundspeak?

I'm talking about the users posting here. Personally, I couldn't care less if my name appears in any audit log. I wouldn't even opt out if I could. But that doesn't keep me from having an open mind and understanding and acknowledging the fact that some people don't like their name to pop up in somebody's audit log, for whatever reason. Removing the audit log completely probably would upset some COs, so that's not a good option. But giving users to option to opt out and be "invisible" would probably make everybody happy. But no, instead of being in favor of this option, the people here have the "gotta live with it" attitude, because they see it as something that couldn't possibly ever be changed, or something. I don't get it. Nobody so far could give a good reason of having the audit log in place, the best so far was "it's a fun thing to have". I agree with that, but letting people opt out isn't gonna destroy that, is it?

To me this is the same thing as the history of ALR caches. People could just not do them and self opt out. Nobody HAD to find an ALR cache and once they realized it was one they had the option to not find it. But eventually the company decided that the whiners weren't going to stop, and so they changed the rules.

 

Perhaps someday, if enough people whine about their cacher name being on a log with a lot of other cacher's names, just because they looked at a cache page, the company will change the site and remove the Audit Logs. Nevermind the fact that no damage is being done and it didn't even bother most people until they found out about it.

 

Why would they keep something that some people enjoy if some other people don't enjoy it. We can't have that can we????

[+Avernar]

No, this one here is the wrong analogy. IP addresses show up because that's how the internet works. It's a purely technical reason. The audit log on the other hand is purely arbitrary.

And a webserver logs the IPs because some admin didn't turn off that feature. The only difference is it's default on for webservers (IP logging) and default off for caches (username logging).

 

In both cases there's no link between the IP/username and the person behind the keyboard unless they choose to reveal their real identity.

 

And it's got nothing to do with paranoia. Again, why do people keep saying this?

If it walks like a duck....

 

It's a simple matter of choice.

So choose not to visit the page if the audit log bothers you so much. You don't like heights, don't go after climbing caches. Fear of drowning, don't go after scuba caches. Irrational fear of an audit log, don't look at PMO cache pages.

 

I've already given several ways of viewing the page anonymously so you're not being denied anything.

[+Avernar]

But giving users to option to opt out and be "invisible" would probably make everybody happy.

They already have given users an option. It's called a pocket query. There's so many ways to defeat that audit log that it's probably not worth Groundspeak's time to mess with.

[+mountainman38]

I tend to agree. It doesn't bother me as much as the OP, but I created a PMOC and after a few days I felt like I was being a snob about it so I backed it down. It's not the first time I've heard a cacher mention that they believe it is a bit snobby. I don't understand the point in having PMOC's. I just wanted to see the audit log.

 

Doesn't bother me one way or the other. I pay to support this site, so I can see the Premium caches. On the other hand, so far I've only put out puzzle caches, and I want anyone who likes puzzles to be able to see them, so I've made all my caches open to the public.

[mresoteric]

Then don't click on them if you don't want to run the risk of being captured on someone's PMO cache audit log. Seems simple to me.

Well, in that vain, you could just quit caching altogether. That's guaranteed to keep you out of anyone's audit log as well.

 

I honestly don't see the problem with being on someone's audit log. Can you help me understand this? Explain what the objection you have with it please?

 

Honestly, with fresh eyes and re-reading the multiple pmo threads, I have come to the conclusion that it's a non-issue with the exception of the occasional false accusations. I'm actually thinking it might be kind of cool to watch people checking out your hides.

[+Redfist]

I tend to agree. It doesn't bother me as much as the OP, but I created a PMOC and after a few days I felt like I was being a snob about it so I backed it down. It's not the first time I've heard a cacher mention that they believe it is a bit snobby. I don't understand the point in having PMOC's. I just wanted to see the audit log.

 

Doesn't bother me one way or the other. I pay to support this site, so I can see the Premium caches. On the other hand, so far I've only put out puzzle caches, and I want anyone who likes puzzles to be able to see them, so I've made all my caches open to the public.

 

I've made my caches public but now with the various threads complaining about PMO and audit logs, I think I'll make my next cache PMO. I want to see the audit logs!!!

[Pineapple Dan]

Only $30.00 to be an elitist for a full year! I can't believe how great this is; I can't afford a BMW or a second home in the Caymen Islands, I have to clean my own home and mow my own lawn, and I have even been known to purchase used items from thrift stores and garage sales so I never in all my dreams believed that I could be an elitist. WOW, I have finally made it, maybe next I can become a republican...maybe not.

 

Its not so much the amount of money but the fact that I need to have money to spare to throw at some website owner before the cache owner deems I'm hardcore enough to be allowed find their cache

[+Redfist]

Only $30.00 to be an elitist for a full year! I can't believe how great this is; I can't afford a BMW or a second home in the Caymen Islands, I have to clean my own home and mow my own lawn, and I have even been known to purchase used items from thrift stores and garage sales so I never in all my dreams believed that I could be an elitist. WOW, I have finally made it, maybe next I can become a republican...maybe not.

 

Its not so much the amount of money but the fact that I need to have money to spare to throw at some website owner before the cache owner deems I'm hardcore enough to be allowed find their cache

 

Since I haven't made any caches PMO (yet... ), I can only presume. I would presume, however, that they don't care about you being "hardcore". They are simply playing the odds that someone who is willing to pay for a hobby is apt to be more respectful of the hobby (and thus their cache) than those who don't pay. It doesn't mean that's a universal truth, but humans tend to play odds because well... they tend to work most of the time.

 

Afterall, the CO has likely spent some $$ creating/buying the container. Is it really unreasonable to limit it's usage to people who have spent some $$ on their hobby?

Edited May 25, 2011 by Redfist

[+mountainman38]

Call me ignorant, but I do not have a clue how someone can know if/when I visited their cache, unless I logged something.

Am I missing something here???

Not how many times you visited their cache, but how many times you looked at their cache's webpage. If they have their cache set to "premium member only," then they get an audit log that shows who looked at their cache's webpage and when.

 

I have to admit that even though I'm sure no one gives a rip that I've looked at their PM cache page, it still bugs me that the feature exists. I like to go back and look at recent logs, etc., on caches that I enjoyed, or caches that I'm thinking about hunting. Sometimes I'll go back once, twice, ten times--or at least I used to do so until I found out that people know that I've looked at their PM page ten times - it's akin to being embarrassed at getting caught snooping (I know it's not exactly "snooping" since it's a public page, but...)

Yuck! That is creepy!

I am also the type who likes to look at logs many times, but now that I am aware of this feature, I may avoid the PM only caches altogether.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

Who cares?! I'll look at a PMO page 1,0900,0034 times if I feel like it. If the CO has some weird control fixation and has to know why, too bad. None-a they business.

 

Checking out your ex-girlfriend's Facebook page over and over and over... that one would be a little harder to explain.