forced to register?

[mdyer]

I have been away from this site for a while. I notice that now a user must be logged in -- ie registered -- in order to view the location of a cache. I also notice that traffic has dropped way off at the cache I maintain. Why does someone have to register to see the location?

 

Does anyone know of another geocaching site that does not force registration like this?

 

Thanks!

[jholly]

I have been away from this site for a while. I notice that now a user must be logged in -- ie registered -- in order to view the location of a cache. I also notice that traffic has dropped way off at the cache I maintain. Why does someone have to register to see the location?

 

Because you have to agree to the terms of use

 

Does anyone know of another geocaching site that does not force registration like this?

no. Some won't let you register unless your recommended by two other users

Thanks!

Edited January 4, 2009 by jholly

[+undertree]

I find it great that you have to register to see the coordinates. It cuts the Muggles down a bit and if people want to play the game why not have them part of the community.

 

That is a upgrade that I like.

[+Cardinal Red]

I have been away from this site for a while. I notice that now a user must be logged in -- ie registered -- in order to view the location of a cache. I also notice that traffic has dropped way off at the cache I maintain. Why does someone have to register to see the location?

 

Does anyone know of another geocaching site that does not force registration like this?

 

Thanks!

 

It seems you have been very fortunate with your cache hides. Others have had caches vandalized, disappear, etc. Requiring users to create an account means that the coordinates can no longer be accessed in total anonymity. While that still does not guard caches against all evil doers, it is a basic level of security.

 

Your cache is 4.5 years old. All the veteran local cachers have already found it. Finds now will be limited to new cachers and visitors to your area. And visitors often only have time for quickie cache and dash hides. All cache finds drop off over time for every cache.

 

There are other cache listing sites. I do not know their participation requirements. But I do know if you are looking for maximum find traffic at your caches, GC.com is where you need to play.

[mdyer]

Yes, I can understand how forcing registration may reduce vandalism, although AFAIK there is no way to see who has looked at a given cache location unless they actually log a visit. Maybe that is what you mean by "basic" -- ie zero added security?

 

I only have one cache and it has been vandalized -- somebody took the ammo can. I suspect this was a local who spotted someone else pulling the cache out though, rather than someone who looked on-line for a cache to mess with. My guess is that most vandalism happens that way.

 

What I don't like is that, as time goes on, the GC.com site is becoming more of a business. Many caches are now "premium only", which is of course even worse than the issue I am complaining about. I know premium members -- like the two of you who responded to this thread -- probably like the exclusivity/security of premium only caches, but to me those are a bad development. The more exclusive/regulated this activity becomes, the less interesting it is and the fewer new members it will attract.

 

Anyway, as you can see I am only an occasional GC guy anyway, so I am not that concerned about it. I do appreciate the responses.

 

It seems you have been very fortunate with your cache hides. Others have had caches vandalized, disappear, etc. Requiring users to create an account means that the coordinates can no longer be accessed in total anonymity. While that still does not guard caches against all evil doers, it is a basic level of security.

[+MnStar]

I prefer to think of it as "an opportunity" to register.

[+Markwell]

I look at it like commercial airline flights.

 

I can pay coach fair and get a little bag of peanuts and a half-can of soda pop while being squished in the middle seat between an ansy 13 year old playing a video game on his DS that requires him to spin like a top (that's my boy) and a businessman who snores while he sleeps. On longer flights I get an army blanket.

 

-OR-

 

I can pay extra and get the wider seats and a hot sandwich and champaign with a warm moist washcloth afterward. They give me noise cancelling headphones and a big fluffy pillow on which to rest my head.

 

Both will get me from point A to point B - and I'm not required to pay for the extras just to fly. If I'm a casual flyer and don't have the disposable income, I'll fly coach. If I have the income and want the perks, I'll pay the extra. However, in both situations, I am required to go through the metal detectors and boarding process.

 

That limited analogy is similar to the situation with logging in and the premium membership. Having a login account is like having to go through the security checks and boarding - and ulitmately reaching your destination. The basic login will get you there. If you want the perks and the premium membership only caches (which aren't that much more to write home about) then users can pay the extra fee. Personally, the extra fee more than covers the cost for Pocket Queries as far as I'm concerned, and I couldn't care two hoots whether a cache is members-only or not.

[+MnStar]

On the commercial comment......a lot of people don't realize what it takes to host an online forum, especially a popular one. Tons of people-hours donated, good software, and when it gets busy....some hefty hardware. I once owned a very popular forum for the Saltwater Aquarium hobby. I finally sold it as it became a huge pain in the neck. People complaining about the speed of the server, the intent of the moderators, the fact that there were ads on the site.....on and on. And we didn't charge any kind of fee, but relied on ad revenue and donations. They rarely covered the true costs of operation.

 

It's sad that as a society we have come to expect product and services for free. The internet is a great medium, but this service is not free to the people providing it. $3 a month for this? I'm all over that.

 

JMO, no offense intended.

[+undertree]

I agree that the folks that host this online game have ambition and drive. I am not against them making money. I don't really notice all the member only caches but they don't truly bother me. On occasion I think wow that was a cool hide too bad others don't get to log it. But that is the name of the game. I hope that it never goes to a subscription only site because the freebie is what helps to get the players. Besides I don't pay the $3.00 for the "premium" caches anyway. I pay for the PQ and the chance to support the site.

[+Renegade Knight]

...What I don't like is that, as time goes on, the GC.com site is becoming more of a business. ...

 

GC.com has been a business since the beginning. It has evolved as a business from a "right place at the right time with the right skills and taking the right steps" start to an interesting business model that relies a lot on volunteers to keep the wheels turning.

 

GC.com was Web 2.0 when web 2.0 wasn't cool.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+iPhone3Gcacher]

I have no problem shelling out $30 a year for such a great hobby. I think of it more as support for the GC community than anything else.

[mdyer]

Maybe that is the part I really object to...the fact that geocaching as an activity is really "owned" by the operators of this site. Given that all of the caches are placed -- and located -- by individuals -- it does not seem like any commercial entity should have this much control. The issue is not the monthly cost, just the ownership of the content.

 

The CDDB site was also "Web 2.0" very early -- way before GC I believe. Many people contributed to building that site/database. When the time was ripe it was changed by the site owner to a for-profit business and was later sold as Gracenote. I would not be at all surprised to see this site go the exact same way. It already has critical mass -- as several of you have noted, there are no other meaningful GC sites. You can talk all you want about "community" and "volunteers", but in the end only the owner of the site gets the $$.

 

 

...What I don't like is that, as time goes on, the GC.com site is becoming more of a business. ...

 

GC.com has been a business since the beginning. It has evolved as a business from a "right place at the right time with the right skills and taking the right steps" start to an interesting business model that relies a lot on volunteers to keep the wheels turning.

 

GC.com was Web 2.0 when web 2.0 wasn't cool.

[+Mredria]

Because making a little bank just takes all the fun out of our game...

Oh wait. No it doesnt.

Someone's gotta pay for this nice system we have, and someone who's working on it's got to be paid.

Since when has being a business been evil? Since when has providing a service for money been bad? I'll never understand it.

[+KG1960]

.............Someone's gotta pay for this nice system we have, and someone who's working on it's got to be paid.

Since when has being a business been evil? Since when has providing a service for money been bad? I'll never understand it.

 

Exactly my thoughts.

[+CacheOCD]

I have no problem shelling out $30 a year for such a great hobby. I think of it more as support for the GC community than anything else.

 

X2! 30 bucks is nothing for the amount of information that this site provides and how feature-rich it is.

[+iPhone3Gcacher]

Think about it a movie is $10 these days, and only gives you 2 hours of enjoyment. I cache at least 6 hours a week, there for i feel i owe much more money.

[+delphic]

Is there any way to find out how many premium members paid their $30 for 2008? It would be neat to know how much of the cost of gc.com is covered. I wouln't be surprised if it only paid a fraction of the operating cost.

[+Prime Suspect]

Maybe that is the part I really object to...the fact that geocaching as an activity is really "owned" by the operators of this site. Given that all of the caches are placed -- and located -- by individuals -- it does not seem like any commercial entity should have this much control. The issue is not the monthly cost, just the ownership of the content.

The "content" (cache pages) is not owned by Groundspeak. Ownership is retained by the author. This is expressly spelled out in the TOU. However, Groundspeak is providing a free service to you (publishing your content on the web, and incurring the costs to do so), and in exchange, you give them the right to use the content you provide. But you are still the owner, and can do with it what you want (have it published on another site, for example).

 

And BTW, the real reason you have to log in to see coordinates is to cut down on automated screen-scrapers. People are less likely to do it if there's an account associated with it. It has little to do with catching cache vandals.

[+dakboy]

Is there any way to find out how many premium members paid their $30 for 2008? It would be neat to know how much of the cost of gc.com is covered. I wouln't be surprised if it only paid a fraction of the operating cost.

Look at it this way:

 

If paid memberships covered 100% of the costs, would there be as many ads on the site (or ads at all)?

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Maybe that is the part I really object to...the fact that geocaching as an activity is really "owned" by the operators of this site. Given that all of the caches are placed -- and located -- by individuals -- it does not seem like any commercial entity should have this much control. The issue is not the monthly cost, just the ownership of the content.

I don't think that Groundspeak is FORCING anyone to list their caches on geocaching.com. Anyone is free to PLACE caches anywhere they want without and input or CONTROL from Groundspeak. And they are free to LIST those caches anywhere they want and without any control from Groundspeak.

 

However, if a person CHOOSES to list their caches on geocaching.com, then that person would need to agree to the Terms of Use of the site.

 

The ACTIVITY of geocaching isn't controlled by ANYONE.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+at play by jc/eaglei]

Maybe that is the part I really object to...the fact that geocaching as an activity is really "owned" by the operators of this site. Given that all of the caches are placed -- and located -- by individuals -- it does not seem like any commercial entity should have this much control. The issue is not the monthly cost, just the ownership of the content.

I don't think that Groundspeak is FORCING anyone to list their caches on geocaching.com. Anyone is free to PLACE caches anywhere they want without and input or CONTROL from Groundspeak. And they are free to LIST those caches anywhere they want and without any control from Groundspeak.

 

However, if a person CHOOSES to list their caches on geocaching.com, then that person would need to agree to the Terms of Use of the site.

 

The ACTIVITY of geocaching isn't controlled by ANYONE.

I have only been a Geocacher since june 08 and I was a basic member for about 4 months, then I decided I like doing this, I plan to keep doing this and I want to help support Groundspeak, end of story, no wait begining of story :-) I don't see alot of members only caches in my area and I'm glad...

[Geo_Bird]

I'm new to caching but have been on the Internet since 1993, so I feel qualified to comment.

 

First, you don't have to pay to play. I haven't subscribed to gc.com yet, but I've been able to see all the caches in my area and log my visits.

 

I have been on the Web since its inception and have a lot of experience building and maintaining personal and business sites. It takes time and money. When the site goes down at 11 pm, you can't just go to bed and leave it for tomorrow. You have to get it back online because users expect it to be there. When the site breaks, you wrangle with code, when you might rather be out caching, or sleeping, or getting a root canal. So the owner is certainly justified in trying to make some money from his investment.

 

The Web has changed the way we do business in countless ways, good, bad and indifferent. When the Web began, the town where I then lived had a few new bookstores and several used bookstores. All but one used bookstore are gone, largely due to Amazon. Amazon got in early with a good business plan (and patient investors) and captured the market. In similar fashion, eBay has demolished the ham-radio hamfest "boneyards," where second-hand equipment is traded. On the other hand, when it came time to buy a GPS, a few clicks on amazon.com and one was on its way. Most of the books on my shelves came the same way. I can't complain about sites like gc.com without gainsaying the many other sites that have made life easier and cheaper for me.

 

A proliferation of geocaching sites like gc.com would, IMO, really mess it up for everyone. A fragmented userbase would have caches on top of caches, because users of Site A would not know about caches placed by users of Site B and vice versa. Having all activity concentrated in one site makes the hobby much more convenient and has no doubt greatly increased its popularity.

 

I would protest against forced pay-to-play, where you had to subscribe before you could participate in geocaching. Such a move by gc.com would probably spawn a host of other, free, sites, and result in total chaos. I like things the way they are.

 

If you still dislike status quo, my advice would be to set up a Website and try to enlist local cachers to post to it. See how it goes, and see how much work is involved managing such a site. I think you'll be glad we have gc.com.

 

Jim

[+pppingme]

Is there any way to find out how many premium members paid their $30 for 2008? It would be neat to know how much of the cost of gc.com is covered. I wouln't be surprised if it only paid a fraction of the operating cost.

Wrong...

 

Subscription fee's pay 100% of the site, plus a couple more sites that really aren't getting used.

 

Look at it like this, there are about 80,000 premium users, at $30/year, thats $2.4 million/year. A quick survey of users in my area a while back indicated that a lot of them were paying $3/month and not paying yearly, that could increase revenues to over $2.8 million.

 

I'm not going to dispute that there is some significant hardware involved (at least two web servers, a sql server and a separate forum server for the gc.com site, more for the other sites that come out of the same subscription fee's), but not to the tune of revenues generated by the site, and bandwidth is so cheap anymore its a non-factor.

 

There is no question that certain people are profiting significantly from the site. This is not a "hobby" or for fun site, this is a commercial site with a clear intent to make a significant profit.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Potato Finder

[Motorcycle_Mama]

100%? Really? I don't think so.

 

There are several other revenue streams that I know of and probably others that I'm not aware of.

[+Markwell]

Look at it like this, there are about 80,000 premium users...

I'm curious where that number came from.

[+Mudfrog]

Look at it like this, there are about 80,000 premium users...

I'm curious where that number came from.

 

I have no idea where Potato Finder got that number but i do think he/she is probably right in that the membership costs cover expenses and also provide for a nice little salary for Jeremy and others. As far as the ads on the website go, i don't figure they are needed for keeping GC.com alive. Like most people in the United States, and the rest of the world, making money is nice, the more the merrier, and the ads simply help to bring in even more of it!

 

Note: I have no real facts or numbers, this is only my opinion.

[+iPhone3Gcacher]

OK so what if this is a commercial site meant to make money? Good for the founders that saw a niche and ran with it. Is Bill Gates a jerk for charging for Windows? No. Is Ebay wrong for charging listing fees? No. If you don't want to support the site then don't. You are still free to play.

 

And by the way it isn't GC.com that chooses to make a cache members only. It is the person that lists the cache.

 

I really don't care how much Jeremy and others are making its none of my business. If the site is ever publicly traded, and you buy in, then you can concern yourself.

Edited January 6, 2009 by mikenaddeo

[+Markwell]

I bet that the astronomical calculation of 80,000 x $30 doesn't take into account bandwidth, hardware upgrades, etc. Having a site that made it past the internet collapse a few years back is no small accomplishment.

 

It really is none of our business.

[+Prime Suspect]

Is there any way to find out how many premium members paid their $30 for 2008? It would be neat to know how much of the cost of gc.com is covered. I wouln't be surprised if it only paid a fraction of the operating cost.

Wrong...

 

Subscription fee's pay 100% of the site, plus a couple more sites that really aren't getting used.

 

Look at it like this, there are about 80,000 premium users, at $30/year, thats $2.4 million/year. A quick survey of users in my area a while back indicated that a lot of them were paying $3/month and not paying yearly, that could increase revenues to over $2.8 million.

To answer the first question - No, it's a privately held company, and there is no requirement to release that information, and they have not done so.

 

Which means that apparently potatoes have posteriors, because that's the only place he could have pulled those fictional numbers from.

[+Rockin Roddy]

If it bothers you, don't pay. If it really bothers you, don't play! Simple!

[+briansnat]

What I don't like is that, as time goes on, the GC.com site is becoming more of a business.

 

I like that. They provide a service that people are willing to pay for, but nobody who doesn't want to pay is forced to. Pretty neat.

 

Many caches are now "premium only", which is of course even worse than the issue I am complaining about. I know premium members -- like the two of you who responded to this thread -- probably like the exclusivity/security of premium only caches, but to me those are a bad development.

 

A bad development? You act like they are a new thing. Premium member caches existed before you joined the site in 2004. Besides, premium member only caches are a very small percentage of caches. And it's the cache owners who decide if a cache is premium only, not this website. If the customers didn't designate the caches as premium only, there wouldn't be any. As far as exclusivity, it's a "club" that anybody can join. How is that exclusive?

 

The more exclusive/regulated this activity becomes, the less interesting it is and the fewer new members it will attract.

 

Then why is the site growing faster than ever in terms of new accounts and new caches?

Edited January 7, 2009 by briansnat

[+The Leprechauns]

Wrong...

 

Subscription fee's pay 100% of the site, plus a couple more sites that really aren't getting used.

Oh, that's too much fun to resist straying off the topic...

 

To believe Potato Finder's statement, you must also believe the following:

 

It costs more than $4.00 to stamp a number on an aluminum tag, attach a keychain, and send it in the mail to someone.

 

It costs hundreds of dollars to designate a block of tracking numbers for geocoins.

 

It costs hundreds of dollars to post a custom icon to the website for a geocoin.

 

Those t-shirts in the Groundspeak online store really do cost $19.99 to produce.

 

The four Jeep Travel Bug contests were done for free as a public service because Groundspeak likes Jeeps.

 

Groundspeak doesn't see a dime of the revenue from the GPS Adventures Maze. It all goes to the museum and the maze design company.

 

Garmin and DeLorme and Trimble didn't pay anything to integrate their products into Geocaching.com's features.

[+Kit Fox]

Yes, I can understand how forcing registration may reduce vandalism, although AFAIK there is no way to see who has looked at a given cache location unless they actually log a visit. Maybe that is what you mean by "basic" -- ie zero added security?

 

I only have one cache and it has been vandalized -- somebody took the ammo can. I suspect this was a local who spotted someone else pulling the cache out though, rather than someone who looked on-line for a cache to mess with. My guess is that most vandalism happens that way.

 

What I don't like is that, as time goes on, the GC.com site is becoming more of a business.

 

Since your brief time away from the game, geocaching has grown exponentially. You are member number 204106. As of 5:57 PM 01/06/09, there are 2,064,797 members with accounts on this website. Do you have any idea what it costs to manage a website big enough to handle the volume of geocaches, logs, and the bandwith to maintain such a huge database?

 

Many caches are now "premium only", which is of course even worse than the issue I am complaining about. I know premium members -- like the two of you who responded to this thread -- probably like the exclusivity/security of premium only caches, but to me those are a bad development. The more exclusive/regulated this activity becomes, the less interesting it is and the fewer new members it will attract.

 

Based on the number of active geocachers, and the constant addition of new geocachers, your theory is based on non-factual data that you derived from space.

[+TrailGators]

Many caches are now "premium only", which is of course even worse than the issue I am complaining about. I know premium members -- like the two of you who responded to this thread -- probably like the exclusivity/security of premium only caches, but to me those are a bad development.

Never kick a gift horse in the mouth.

[+flask]

i really hope the nice folks who provide this swell site are getting rich, rich, rich off of it.

 

i'm having a very good time playing here and i appreciate the efforts they've made.

 

it's really sporting of them to provide so much of their services for free to anyone who wants to provide a little basic account information. just try that at other businesses.

 

if you are concerned about this site having too much control, do not support it. unless you are listing your caches on other sites, you are part of the problem.

[+The Caching Coulters]

Do you have any idea what it costs to manage a website big enough to handle the volume of geocaches, logs, and the bandwith to maintain such a huge database?

 

I have no clue. Could you enlighten me?

[+pppingme]

Wrong...

 

Subscription fee's pay 100% of the site, plus a couple more sites that really aren't getting used.

Oh, that's too much fun to resist straying off the topic...

 

To believe Potato Finder's statement, you must also believe the following:

 

It costs more than $4.00 to stamp a number on an aluminum tag, attach a keychain, and send it in the mail to someone.

 

It costs hundreds of dollars to designate a block of tracking numbers for geocoins.

 

It costs hundreds of dollars to post a custom icon to the website for a geocoin.

 

Those t-shirts in the Groundspeak online store really do cost $19.99 to produce.

 

The four Jeep Travel Bug contests were done for free as a public service because Groundspeak likes Jeeps.

 

Groundspeak doesn't see a dime of the revenue from the GPS Adventures Maze. It all goes to the museum and the maze design company.

 

Garmin and DeLorme and Trimble didn't pay anything to integrate their products into Geocaching.com's features.

 

Wow, is it all you can to to twist things out of perspective?

 

GC would STILL make money without these items, these just pad the pocket even more.

[+StarBrand]

I don't think some members have any idea whatsoever how many employees are being paid to keep this ship sailing. What trained experienced programmers cost to hire.

 

No idea what some of the backend software costs. No idea what a quality high speed server with appropriate backup servers and mechnisms cost. How much dedicated bandwidth costs.

 

Not to mention a building, utilities, a marketing campaign or two, travel expenses, etc.

 

If somebody walks away from all the above with enough to be classified as "rich" - good for them! They are living the dying american dream of capitalism.

 

On Topic.

 

Only about 2% of local caches are marked as members only. No big deal.

 

I think Prime got it right - the real reason for registering and logging in is to aid in thwarting screen scrapers.

[+Prime Suspect]

Wow, is it all you can to to twist things out of perspective?

 

GC would STILL make money without these items, these just pad the pocket even more.

Still waiting to hear where you got your previously mention figures from....

[+pppingme]

Wow, is it all you can to to twist things out of perspective?

 

GC would STILL make money without these items, these just pad the pocket even more.

Still waiting to hear where you got your previously mention figures from....

Do you dispute them? The only way you could is if you know another number, so if you dispute it, offer up your number.

 

They are accurate, I got the number accurately, and it hasn't been seriously disputed.

[+MnStar]

Wow, is it all you can to to twist things out of perspective?

 

GC would STILL make money without these items, these just pad the pocket even more.

Still waiting to hear where you got your previously mention figures from....

Do you dispute them? The only way you could is if you know another number, so if you dispute it, offer up your number.

 

They are accurate, I got the number accurately, and it hasn't been seriously disputed.

 

2

 

[+markandsandy]

Wow, is it all you can to to twist things out of perspective?

 

GC would STILL make money without these items, these just pad the pocket even more.

Still waiting to hear where you got your previously mention figures from....

Do you dispute them? The only way you could is if you know another number, so if you dispute it, offer up your number.

 

They are accurate, I got the number accurately, and it hasn't been seriously disputed.

 

It's not necessarily a question of disputing the number, but of accepting a number from a source that has not establlished any credibility on the subject. Why should we believe your number, just based on your saying that it is accurate?

[QuigleyJones]

I also notice that traffic has dropped way off at the cache I maintain.

This is normal, once the hard core cachers and those that live near by find it whats left are those who happen to be in the area. It could also be because fewer caches are found in winter.

Does anyone know of another geocaching site that does not force registration like this?

Navicache.com is the only one that comes to mind, its also the only site where all the caches I've listed have yet to be found. (there's terracaching.com but you have to login). IMO Geocaching.com is the best of them.

What I don't like is that, as time goes on, the GC.com site is becoming more of a business. Many caches are now "premium only", which is of course even worse than the issue I am complaining about. I know premium members -- like the two of you who responded to this thread -- probably like the exclusivity/security of premium only caches, but to me those are a bad development. The more exclusive/regulated this activity becomes, the less interesting it is and the fewer new members it will attract.

Yes its more obvious now then when it was created that it is indeed a business. But that aint a bad thing, just compare it to navicache.

If you note in the left column I'm a "Geocacher" meaning I have the free account (and wow, the only one in this thread) I've found over 800 caches. "premium only" caches don't stop me from finding them. ether by triangulating them myself or by going out with a premiumy. Nor do they offer more security because there's the same chance that someone will stumble onto it (or from those few destructive "cachers"). Im told you can actual see who views your cache page, which is a nice feature.

Maybe that is the part I really object to...the fact that geocaching as an activity is really "owned" by the operators of this site. Given that all of the caches are placed -- and located -- by individuals -- it does not seem like any commercial entity should have this much control. The issue is not the monthly cost, just the ownership of the content.

Do they actual own the content? They own the site but data added is control by the placer with Groundspeak regulating it. And should they abuse control the popularity of alternate sites will go up along with their viability.

You can talk all you want about "community" and "volunteers", but in the end only the owner of the site gets the $$.

But not my money

[+Prime Suspect]

Wow, is it all you can to to twist things out of perspective?

 

GC would STILL make money without these items, these just pad the pocket even more.

Still waiting to hear where you got your previously mention figures from....

Do you dispute them? The only way you could is if you know another number, so if you dispute it, offer up your number.

 

They are accurate, I got the number accurately, and it hasn't been seriously disputed.

I dispute your ability to have accurate numbers, regardless of what the numbers are. You're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof falls on you. PUOSU.

[+pppingme]

I dispute your ability to have accurate numbers, regardless of what the numbers are. You're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof falls on you. PUOSU.

Like it or not, I've got them, and they ARE accurate.

 

I guess your upset because you can't figure it out?

[+TrailGators]

Why am I'm expecting someone to say "Na na na na na!" any moment now?

Edited January 10, 2009 by TrailGators

[+Prime Suspect]

I dispute your ability to have accurate numbers, regardless of what the numbers are. You're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof falls on you. PUOSU.

Like it or not, I've got them, and they ARE accurate.

 

I guess your upset because you can't figure it out?

You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof falls on you. So far, you've failed.

[+pppingme]

I dispute your ability to have accurate numbers, regardless of what the numbers are. You're the one making the claim, so the burden of proof falls on you. PUOSU.

Like it or not, I've got them, and they ARE accurate.

 

I guess your upset because you can't figure it out?

You're the one making the claim. The burden of proof falls on you. So far, you've failed.

Yet you've offered NO proof or claims that contradict my facts.

 

If you think its wrong, PROVE IT.

 

The facts are what they are.

 

I don't even get why you are arguing this, do you think its higher or lower or what? Whats your game?

[+Cherokee Bill]

I find it great that you have to register to see the coordinates. It cuts the Muggles down a bit and if people want to play the game why not have them part of the community.

 

That is a upgrade that I like.

 

I AGREE! Looks like everyone wants a "free-ride"!

Edited January 10, 2009 by Cherokee Bill

[+briansnat]

This thread has strayed too far from the original subject.