Jump to content

Premium Member Only caches are elitist!


smomofo
Followers 12

Recommended Posts

Well, I joined as a PM after only finding a handful of caches. Did it because I am hooked and love the sport and know this is something I will do for a long time. Wasn't overly impressed by the benefits -- can't get the caches along a route thing to work right for me --- very few members only caches around... but I joined to be a part of supporting this site and the sport.

While reading this post something occurred to me:

 

This website is a perfect example of the Honor System! It is funded purely by voluntary contributions. Everyone is invited to participate, but no one is required to pay. You only pay if your ethics compel you to pay—hence the 'honor' part.

 

It’s like those newspaper racks where the papers sit right out in the open unguarded, with a little metal box installed for coins. Most who take a paper pay for it, but some don’t – and as long as the seller is happy with the resulting revenue, no problem. The payers subsidize the ‘cheaters,’ but nobody enforces anything, and it works.

 

This website works the very same way. The only way to match the analogy perfectly would be for the newspaper seller to use a standard coin-operated lockbox for Sunday’s paper, say, and to use the honor system rack the other six days while continuing to tolerate the non-payers.

 

Would the Sunday paper lock box, therefore, be "elitist?"

 

If anyone claimed it was elitist to mechanically withhold the Sunday paper from the non-payers I would be tempted to assume those complainers were at least occasionally stealing weekday papers without paying, but that’s just me. Even if the paper seller didn’t care, I’d still be ashamed to even consider charging them with elitism.

Link to comment
Well, I joined as a PM after only finding a handful of caches. Did it because I am hooked and love the sport and know this is something I will do for a long time. Wasn't overly impressed by the benefits -- can't get the caches along a route thing to work right for me --- very few members only caches around... but I joined to be a part of supporting this site and the sport.

While reading this post something occurred to me:

 

This website is a perfect example of the Honor System! It is funded purely by voluntary contributions. Everyone is invited to participate, but no one is required to pay. You only pay if your ethics compel you to pay—hence the 'honor' part.

 

It’s like those newspaper racks where the papers sit right out in the open unguarded, with a little metal box installed for coins. Most who take a paper pay for it, but some don’t – and as long as the seller is happy with the resulting revenue, no problem. The payers subsidize the ‘cheaters,’ but nobody enforces anything, and it works.

 

This website works the very same way. The only way to match the analogy perfectly would be for the newspaper seller to use a standard coin-operated lockbox for Sunday’s paper, say, and to use the honor system rack the other six days while continuing to tolerate the non-payers.

 

Would the Sunday paper lock box, therefore, be "elitist?"

 

If anyone claimed it was elitist to mechanically withhold the Sunday paper from the non-payers I would be tempted to assume those complainers were at least occasionally stealing weekday papers without paying, but that’s just me. Even if the paper seller didn’t care, I’d still be ashamed to even consider charging them with elitism.

You'd have to take away the fee for the daily paper for the analogy to work perfectly. Free daily, funded entirely by the Sunday paper fees.

Link to comment

If anyone claimed it was elitist to mechanically withhold the Sunday paper from the non-payers I would be tempted to assume those complainers were at least occasionally stealing weekday papers without paying, but that’s just me. Even if the paper seller didn’t care, I’d still be ashamed to even consider charging them with elitism.

However in this case the publisher used to put the paper in a rack that said "FREE". When he decided to add the voluntary coin box he promised that the paper would still be free but the people who put the money in the box would get additional privileges such as being able to download articles from the publisher's website and not having to take the advertising inserts. The publisher then decided to publish a special "elitist" edition of the paper that would only be available to the paying customers. So the question is really whether this edition replaces some edition of the paper that was promised to remain free or if this is really a new edition of the paper only for paying customers and therefore not covered by the promise.

Link to comment
You'd have to take away the fee for the daily paper for the analogy to work perfectly. Free daily, funded entirely by the Sunday paper fees.

Geocaching via this website is already "free daily." There is no fee required for the Basic Membership. The Premium Membership and its benefits are entirely voluntary.

 

I don't use PQs. Don't need 'em. But I pay for them anyway. Some of us happily pay the requested support fee without ever "reading the Sunday paper."

 

 

So the question is really whether this edition replaces some edition of the paper that was promised to remain free or if this is really a new edition of the paper only for paying customers and therefore not covered by the promise.

Good point. That’s an excellent question. In other words, would any given PM-only cache even exist at all if it weren’t for the availability of the PM-only option?

 

I’ve never placed a cache that remained PM-only permanently, so I can’t speak from personal experience. If my caches were being chronically stolen by cache pirates I suppose I would have the choice of either archiving them (effective, but not fun), replacing them and hoping for the best (neither effective nor practical), or replacing them and restricting their access only to fellow premium members (and still hoping for the best, but with much more reason for optimism). Based on that, I would say that most PM-only caches would not exist at all otherwise; that they are analogous to "new editions of the paper for paying customers only;" that they therefore are not covered by the promise, and therefore do not represent elitism.

 

I didn't say the analogy was 100% perfect. Do either of you guys disagree, however, with my point that the financial support of this website is based entirely on the voluntary "honor" system?

Link to comment

I didn't say the analogy was 100% perfect.

 

The only way to match the analogy perfectly would be for the newspaper seller to use a standard coin-operated lockbox for Sunday’s paper, say, and to use the honor system rack the other six days while continuing to tolerate the non-payers.

Did you mean it matches perfectly but less than 100%? :P

Do either of you guys disagree, however, with my point that the financial support of this website is based entirely on the voluntary "honor" system?

I do. To me, "honor system" implies that you are expected to pay. The product has a cost to whoever uses it. There's just not someone there to accept your money. This site, however, explicitly says that a basic membership is Free. Thus, there is no expectation of payment.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

I have a premium membership and I have yet to hunt any premium caches. I have found that they are along the same lines of quality caches as non-PM caches anyway, so why go out of my way to hunt one?

 

I have no desire to hide one, unless there were local issues of thievery (which there have been in the past).

Link to comment

If anyone claimed it was elitist to mechanically withhold the Sunday paper from the non-payers I would be tempted to assume those complainers were at least occasionally stealing weekday papers without paying, but that's just me. Even if the paper seller didn't care, I'd still be ashamed to even consider charging them with elitism.

However in this case the publisher used to put the paper in a rack that said "FREE". When he decided to add the voluntary coin box he promised that the paper would still be free but the people who put the money in the box would get additional privileges such as being able to download articles from the publisher's website and not having to take the advertising inserts. The publisher then decided to publish a special "elitist" edition of the paper that would only be available to the paying customers. So the question is really whether this edition replaces some edition of the paper that was promised to remain free or if this is really a new edition of the paper only for paying customers and therefore not covered by the promise.

I think you need to put it in perspective to answer that question. We have 99 free newspaper bins next to one newspaper bin that isn't free. Instead of being happy with the 99 that are free, people are unhappy with the one that isn't free. :P

Link to comment
Do either of you guys disagree, however, with my point that the financial support of this website is based entirely on the voluntary "honor" system?

I do. To me, "honor system" implies that you are expected to pay. The product has a cost to whoever uses it. There's just not someone there to accept your money. This site, however, explicitly says that a basic membership is Free. Thus, there is no expectation of payment.

Yeah, I guess I see your point. :P

Link to comment
I think you need to put it in perspective to answer that question. We have 99 free newspaper bins next to one newspaper bin that isn't free. Instead of being happy with the 99 that are free, people are unhappy with the one that isn't free. :P

And that's the MAIN point. :)

Link to comment

I think you need to put it in perspective to answer that question. We have 99 free newspaper bins next to one newspaper bin that isn't free. Instead of being happy with the 99 that are free, people are unhappy with the one that isn't free. :P

This is true in most areas. But in some areas - particularly where there has been a cache maggot problem - it may be 60/40 or even 50/50. I could see someone who lives in one of these areas wonder if in fact some of those member caches couldn't have been regular caches. Some people insist on making all of their hides PMOC. I suspect this is because they like looking at the audit page to see who is looking at their cache rather than to protect their caches from maggots or even just to thank other for supporting the site. I suggest that Geocaching.com get rid of the audit page and see how many caches stop being listed as PMOC. (Or if the audit trail does really help stop cache maggotry, allow premium member to identify one cache with an audit page. No one but the owner would know if a PMOC cache had a audit page or not.)

 

PS. I'm glad we don't have 99 free newspaper bins next to one newspaper bin that isn't free. Someone would hide a nano in one of them. :)

Link to comment
PS. I'm glad we don't have 99 free newspaper bins next to one newspaper bin that isn't free. Someone would hide a nano in one of them. :)
Nah! You hide a nano on EACH one, but only one has the log in it... :laughing:
...and then someone else would come along and "replace" all the "missing" logs... :P
Then make it a multi and put the coords to the final inside each nano. Then put the final nano inside the newspaper stand that isn't free. :laughing: Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Perhaps to get a real reading on this issue we should have all who believe in no PMOC's disable all their caches for a month and stop placing new ones. If there is now discernable difference then that should answer your question. If you find all of sudden there is a lack of caches around, then nobody will come to the site. If you have nobody coming to the side then good luck with keeping it going for $30 a year.

Link to comment

Perhaps to get a real reading on this issue we should have all who believe in no PMOC's disable all their caches for a month and stop placing new ones. If there is now discernable difference then that should answer your question. If you find all of sudden there is a lack of caches around, then nobody will come to the site. If you have nobody coming to the side then good luck with keeping it going for $30 a year.

 

:D

 

Given that history shows there were no caches in the beginning, people graciously payed for memberships anyway, and now there are caches everywhere... :D Not to mention that most non-pm members could care less that PMOCs exist I don't think it's as big an issue as some might think. I do think that these raging debates are fantastically good overall for the life of the geo-community. Challenging existing ideas and evolving new ideas is how we grow. I don't agree with all the changes, but then an apple tree probably doesn't appreciate every cut in a pruning either - lol. :D

Link to comment

My wife and I are both geocachers who cache under separate caching names. She is the Premium Member and allowed to log Members Only caches, and until very recently there was a way for a Non-Premium Member to also log a find of a Members Only Cache. It seems that this ability to still log this find has been taken away from those of us who are married to a Premium Member. It seems a bit foolish for spouse cachers to not be both allowed this logging opportunity on just one Premium Membership.

 

We were told that Goundspeak was aware of the loop-hole that allowed Non Premium Members to log finds on Members Only caches and that that loop-hole was NOT going to be closed. It appears that Groundspeak has changed there mind. Why??? From this point forward neither my wife nor I will be seeking Members Only caches.

Link to comment

My wife and I are both geocachers who cache under separate caching names. She is the Premium Member and allowed to log Members Only caches, and until very recently there was a way for a Non-Premium Member to also log a find of a Members Only Cache. It seems that this ability to still log this find has been taken away from those of us who are married to a Premium Member. It seems a bit foolish for spouse cachers to not be both allowed this logging opportunity on just one Premium Membership.

 

We were told that Goundspeak was aware of the loop-hole that allowed Non Premium Members to log finds on Members Only caches and that that loop-hole was NOT going to be closed. It appears that Groundspeak has changed there mind. Why??? From this point forward neither my wife nor I will be seeking Members Only caches.

To me it's like sharing software... if husband and wife have one computer you both can use the software that's on it, but if you have two computers (there are five in my house!) each one has to have it's own software licenses.

 

If you have one membership subscription and share it, cool. Two memberships (seperate accounts), two subscriptions. Same thing.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

My wife and I are both geocachers who cache under separate caching names. She is the Premium Member and allowed to log Members Only caches, and until very recently there was a way for a Non-Premium Member to also log a find of a Members Only Cache. It seems that this ability to still log this find has been taken away from those of us who are married to a Premium Member. It seems a bit foolish for spouse cachers to not be both allowed this logging opportunity on just one Premium Membership.

 

We were told that Goundspeak was aware of the loop-hole that allowed Non Premium Members to log finds on Members Only caches and that that loop-hole was NOT going to be closed. It appears that Groundspeak has changed there mind. Why??? From this point forward neither my wife nor I will be seeking Members Only caches.

 

I was unaware that the work around had been discontinued. When did this happen and is there any official reason cited by the powers that be?

Link to comment

It is elitist.

I agree.

That's my $0.02

The rules should be altered to let non-premium users cache at all of the geocaches.

 

Yea sure okay! Yea Lets do that.. NOT!!

Darn Glad they closed the bug... What would be the point of becoming a Premium mem.. if everyone had access to all the features.

Just my $0.01

Link to comment

We were told that Goundspeak was aware of the loop-hole that allowed Non Premium Members to log finds on Members Only caches and that that loop-hole was NOT going to be closed. It appears that Groundspeak has changed there mind. Why??? From this point forward neither my wife nor I will be seeking Members Only caches.

 

Feature is still availalbe, at least as of yesterday.

Link to comment

We were told that Goundspeak was aware of the loop-hole that allowed Non Premium Members to log finds on Members Only caches and that that loop-hole was NOT going to be closed. It appears that Groundspeak has changed there mind. Why??? From this point forward neither my wife nor I will be seeking Members Only caches.

 

Feature is still availalbe, at least as of yesterday.

Several people, including myself, have tried it with non-PM accounts over the last few days and found it broken. I just tried it again, still broken. Where have you seen it working? (not doubting you, just trying to figure this out).

Link to comment

Ok, if you want to find the members only cache, shell out the $3 for one month and go find them. It's not Geocaching.com that's saying you cannot locate the cache. It's the cache owner who only wants certain people to find the cache. I.e. lagitimate cachers and not geopirates.

 

I'd thought about doing this to some of my caches because I got tired of replentishing cach supplies with good items when people were leaving trash in return and I got tired of getting my caches stolen by pirates. So there is a reason behind this madness.

 

Personally, there are so many caches out there, who cares about members only caches. Plus if you want get the coords from a premium member and then log your find using the back door.

 

Don't sweat it. It's only a game with 67,000+ caches out there.

 

BTW - If there were no premium members, there would be no Geocaching website, and no geocaching thread. I did the Premium things for a year, and if you are a cacher, I think you should as well. Your money goes to support Geocaching and It's nothing more than buying a membership to the NRA or a yearly subscription to the newspaper. Plus by buying membership in Geocaching.com, you are saying,"I support Geocaching."

Edited by The_Brownies
Link to comment

I work hard for my PMO cache, it took about 1 week of 4 hours a day just to get it.

I want the best of the best to find it, not some punky that wan't to ruin it.

I don't want a newbie to find it and misplace rehiding it.

Besides it takes a lot of work to find my and no one that isn't involved enought to fork over the money, doesn't need to see the cache.

Simple.

Link to comment

Premium member caches are a terrible idea, after having been away for a while I find this site is getting far too commerical.

 

Theres a relatively new cache in my area, for premium members only. Wtf? you are hiding some object out in the wild but only want it to be found by people who open up their credit card details to some site which isn't even theirs. Definitely elitist

Link to comment

Yeah, just like those elitists that get to dine on steak and have fine wine served to them. They only give it to those idiots who actually pay for it. Imagine that! Ticks me off almost as much as those other elitists who I saw at the baseball game after they bought a ticket. I know they were just in there laughing at me when I was turned away for demanding entry at the gate and was turned away because I figured I deserved it even though I refused to be an elitist ticket-buyer. ph34r.gif

Edited by geocating
Link to comment
Premium member caches are a terrible idea, after having been away for a while I find this site is getting far too commerical.

 

Theres a relatively new cache in my area, for premium members only. Wtf? you are hiding some object out in the wild but only want it to be found by people who open up their credit card details to some site which isn't even theirs. Definitely elitist

Ho-hum. :rolleyes:

 

You couldn't find a newer version of this thread to bump? I mean, it comes up all the time.

 

Frankly, if a cache owner wants only people who have supported this website financially to find their cache, that's their prerogative.

Link to comment

Premium member caches are a terrible idea, after having been away for a while I find this site is getting far too commerical.

 

Theres a relatively new cache in my area, for premium members only. Wtf? you are hiding some object out in the wild but only want it to be found by people who open up their credit card details to some site which isn't even theirs. Definitely elitist

Oh yes because 529 Private Member caches in all of Ireland is such a horrid thing.

Here are the numbers.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

There may be anecdotal examples of free users who are more hardcore than premium ones, and anecdotal examples of premium users who are brand new, but I think it's safe to assume that the people who pay a yearly fee are more likely to have read and understand the guidlines. I also think it's fair to assume they are at least slightly more likely to treat travel bugs and other peoples caches with respect.

 

I completely understand why PMO caches exist, and if I did something that would be really hard to replace or if it was in an area that required a bit of cautionI might consider placing one. Especially now that people use smart phones to find them.

 

Let's say you had a cache on the side of a cliff that could get the finder killed, I can understand why you'd want to discourage someone who lacks a firm grasp of the T/D ratings or what the ettiquite for caching is from finding it. Not saying you SHOULD, but I understand why you might.

 

That said, there are a few parks in San Antonio that are entirely populated with PMOCs by the same user and it sort of bugs me. Not the end of the world. Nothing to get upset about, because I'm sure they have rtheir reasons, but it seems selfish in more than one way.

 

At the end of the day, I think complaining about the way a CO chooses to present their cache is a little short sighted. They didn't have to list it at all. They could have just told friends about it. Theycould have taken it to another site.

For whatever reason, they chose to slightly limit the flow of users to their cache or take advantage of the special features granted to a PMO cache (you can track who is looking at it I'm told) and that is that.

It's their $20 box. Just be glad they placed it at all.

Edited by d+n.s
Link to comment

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.

:mmraspberry::)

Link to comment

There is nothing elitist about most PMOC caches, at least in my experience. Most people that I know that have put caches out for members only have had past issues with muggled caches that seem to be caused by geocachers, and not casual muggles. In reality, it doesn't really give you much protection, and even the audit log is pretty useless, but I do think that is the most common reason for them.

Link to comment

Yeah, just like those elitists that get to dine on steak and have fine wine served to them. They only give it to those idiots who actually pay for it. Imagine that! Ticks me off almost as much as those other elitists who I saw at the baseball game after they bought a ticket. I know they were just in there laughing at me when I was turned away for demanding entry at the gate and was turned away because I figured I deserved it even though I refused to be an elitist ticket-buyer.

 

Been a while since seeing a post this far off the subject.

Link to comment

As a PM I want to be excluded from the PMO audits!

Can I do that?

 

Forget all about this elitist discussion and money issues, I think people are missing the most important part.

 

I was not aware that PMO had an audit that showed who visited their page... The cache owner can see when and how many times I visited their cache, isnt there a breach of privacy somewhere?

Me personally I dont want anybody to see what caches I am visiting EVER!

So until this is changed I will not be visiting anymore PMO caches and will pull them as PQ and use GSAK to look at them.

Link to comment

As a PM I want to be excluded from the PMO audits!

Can I do that?

 

Forget all about this elitist discussion and money issues, I think people are missing the most important part.

 

I was not aware that PMO had an audit that showed who visited their page... The cache owner can see when and how many times I visited their cache, isnt there a breach of privacy somewhere?

Me personally I dont want anybody to see what caches I am visiting EVER!

So until this is changed I will not be visiting anymore PMO caches and will pull them as PQ and use GSAK to look at them.

 

Why would that bother you?

Link to comment

Why would that bother you?

It doesnt matter if it bothers me or not, its invasion of privacy.

 

Btw could someone please point me to the place where its indicated that PM owners will be able to see when someone visits their page?

 

Let me rephrase that, then... why would it be an invasion of privacy?

Link to comment

Why would that bother you?

It doesnt matter if it bothers me or not, its invasion of privacy.

 

Btw could someone please point me to the place where its indicated that PM owners will be able to see when someone visits their page?

 

Let me rephrase that, then... why would it be an invasion of privacy?

You cant see it? Think about it for awhile, it will come to you.

 

Im just waiting for someone to show me where I gave the consent for anyone to be able to see when I visited their cache page?

Edited by ZeMartelo
Link to comment

Why would that bother you?

It doesnt matter if it bothers me or not, its invasion of privacy.

 

Btw could someone please point me to the place where its indicated that PM owners will be able to see when someone visits their page?

 

Let me rephrase that, then... why would it be an invasion of privacy?

You cant see it? Think about it for awhile, it will come to you.

 

Im just waiting for someone to show me where I gave the consent for anyone to be able to see when I visited their cache page?

 

You ask a good question about where you are notified of the audit list. I learned of it only from the forums, I believe. I'm not sure where else it may be documented.

 

As for privacy, though... today you attended an event in New Brunswick: http://coord.info/GC2QCHV as well as finding five caches nearby. You have no reasonable expectations of privacy here. Its the Internet.

Link to comment

 

Am I alone here?

 

Yep don't know about others but I think everyone should pay to be a member.....your alone in my book.

 

Just had a cache of mine published a few minutes ago and guess what "IT WAS A PREMIUM MEMBERS ONLY CACHE" all my caches will be.

 

Scubasonic

Link to comment

IMHO, they should make a rule that for every 10 caches one places at least 9 have to be PMOC caches of various levels, 1 silver, 3 gold and 5 platinum. There should also be 3 premier membership levels, $30 gets you silver, $900 gets you gold and $27,000 gets you platinum. If you can't ante up, don't play.

Link to comment
' timestamp='1306215237' post='4720518']

IMHO, they should make a rule that for every 10 caches one places at least 9 have to be PMOC caches of various levels, 1 silver, 3 gold and 5 platinum. There should also be 3 premier membership levels, $30 gets you silver, $900 gets you gold and $27,000 gets you platinum. If you can't ante up, don't play.

I had to go looking for a really big LOL icon. Would have used it if I found it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 12
×
×
  • Create New...