Jump to content

Non-Member only caches


ricknsheri
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Can a cache be put out that only a non-member can get the first to find on?

The most common definition is FTF is the first person to locate the cache and sign the log. Non-premium members rarely get FTF because one benefit of membership is instant notifications, which the true FTF hounds have sent to their web-enabled and GPS-equipped smart phones so they can be on site within a few minutes of publication, usually without bothering to read the description.

 

As Keystone mentioned, non-Challenge Additional Logging Requirements (ALR - your limitation that FTF be a non-member qualifies for this) are not allowed any longer. Any person who signs the log can legitimately post a "Found it" log online.

 

While your effort to "give" a FTF to some random non-member is admirable, the fact is that a premium member will likely find the cache first without realizing that there is has an ALR. This person is the true FTF, and there's no way you can turn back time.

 

However, if your goal is to give a reward to the first non-member to find the cache (such as a FTF prize), you could leave a note in the container clearly labeled to be picked up by the first non-member finder. Arrange a meet with this finder (lunch? coffee?) to present the prize.

Link to comment

Thanks for the info. I guess stating my reasons would have ruffled less feathers.

Most caches are logged by just a few members. I know how ecstatic I was when I finally got a FTF.

I like the meet and get a prize or lunch idea for the first non-member or perhaps the first person in general(member or non-member) who have never logged a FTF. It spreads the excitement around a little bit.

Link to comment

I'll respond to this assuming this is not a sock puppet account, and you're really new here. There had been flame wars here on this topic in the past, triggered by a geocacher who is vehemently against premium-member-only caches. There had also been spirited debates about the "ethics" of FTF.

 

Since you probably know who are the non premium members in your area, one thing you can do is to place the cache, e-mail them individually about the cache, before it is published. But be prepared to defend yourself from the wrath of premium members in your area who are FTF hounds. Personally I feel that as cache owner you are free to do whatever you want, but I don't have to live with the consequences, and some people seem to think that you owe them something.

Link to comment

No. See the new guideline on logging requirements.

 

You are certainly welcome to *request* that people honor your wishes, however. You cannot delete a log over the issue, however.

 

Interesting. I had not thought of that outcome using the new ALR guidelines.

 

Is the opposite true now? If a Non-PM logs a PMOC using the Groundspeak approved "back door" can the cache owner delete their log for it? If you think of it a PMOC is an ALR cache provided your not a member.

Link to comment

Interesting. I had not thought of that outcome using the new ALR guidelines.

 

Is the opposite true now? If a Non-PM logs a PMOC using the Groundspeak approved "back door" can the cache owner delete their log for it? If you think of it a PMOC is an ALR cache provided your not a member.

 

These were a popular ALR within twenty miles of my home coordinates, they are no longer allowed as ALRs:

 

Additional Logging Requirement:

You MUST be a subscriber to log or find this cache: Required

 

Subscriber-Only Caches

Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request

of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for

dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches

"subscriber only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out.

 

** This cache IS at the listed coordinates.

(Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each

cache is managed by their cache owner.)

 

An audit log is a list of users who have viewed your premium member-only

cache on the web site. Click on the user's name to visit their profile.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If your account user name does not appear on the Audit Log, your *find*

will be removed. As a failsafe, I will check your profile page prior to

removal.

 

If you are a subscriber, and logging this cache the correct way, you WILL

be on the cache audit list. If you are NOT a subscriber, and logging this

cache an alternative way, you will NOT be on the cache audit list.

Link to comment

Do bear in mind that you might find your "FTF" will be less thrilled when they realise that they've just won a race that many of the contestants were banned from running in. Sort of takes the shine off the achievement...

 

If someone is really wanting to share in the thrills of being the FTF a new cache, the cost of a membership isn't that high, is it?

Link to comment

Interesting. I had not thought of that outcome using the new ALR guidelines.

 

Is the opposite true now? If a Non-PM logs a PMOC using the Groundspeak approved "back door" can the cache owner delete their log for it? If you think of it a PMOC is an ALR cache provided your not a member.

se were a popular ALR within twenty miles of my home coordinates, they are no longer allowed as ALRs:

 

Additional Logging Requirement:

You MUST be a subscriber to log or find this cache: Required

 

Subscriber-Only Caches

Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request

of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for

dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches

"subscriber only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out.

 

** This cache IS at the listed coordinates.

(Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each

cache is managed by their cache owner.)

 

An audit log is a list of users who have viewed your premium member-only

cache on the web site. Click on the user's name to visit their profile.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If your account user name does not appear on the Audit Log, your *find*

will be removed. As a failsafe, I will check your profile page prior to

removal.

 

If you are a subscriber, and logging this cache the correct way, you WILL

be on the cache audit list. If you are NOT a subscriber, and logging this

cache an alternative way, you will NOT be on the cache audit list.

 

First of all, it was a dumb-arsed ALR, because there are multiple ways for myself, a premium member, to obtain the coordinates without ever viewing the cache page and showing up in his audit log.

 

I'd say yeah, this ALR is history. I'd ask a reviewer though, or wait until one responds in here.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

Can a cache be put out that only a non-member can get the first to find on?

 

Absolulty if you can find a way to make the cache such that only non members can get the coords to find it. Once anyone finds it though they can log it per the new rules subject to clarification of if an owner can delete the logs of those who don't do the work and short circuit the cache.

 

It's actually a complicated question these days since Additional Logging Requirments mean "work to log after the find" but also came wiht the "if they sign the log the find is legit" clarification that seems to invalidate other caches. For example Challenge Caches, but since Challenge Caches were clearly identified as an exception to the new ARL and Log rule. well heck there you go. Yes you can, but maybe you can't, but if you could it would have to be one way and not the other and even if you figure that out, well maybe not after all.

Link to comment

No. See the new guideline on logging requirements.

 

You are certainly welcome to *request* that people honor your wishes, however. You cannot delete a log over the issue, however.

 

Interesting. I had not thought of that outcome using the new ALR guidelines.

 

Is the opposite true now? If a Non-PM logs a PMOC using the Groundspeak approved "back door" can the cache owner delete their log for it? If you think of it a PMOC is an ALR cache provided your not a member.

Relevant text above rendered in bold. Briefly, your statement is grossly incorrect, and the actual reality is far different has been discussed numerous times on the forum.

Link to comment

No. See the new guideline on logging requirements.

 

You are certainly welcome to *request* that people honor your wishes, however. You cannot delete a log over the issue, however.

 

Interesting. I had not thought of that outcome using the new ALR guidelines.

 

Is the opposite true now? If a Non-PM logs a PMOC using the Groundspeak approved "back door" can the cache owner delete their log for it? If you think of it a PMOC is an ALR cache provided your not a member.

 

PMOC Is Additonal Work to Find. AWF. Once you find it you can log it. The question about owners being able to delete the logs of those who didn't comply with AWF requirment does need clarification. It would seem that did get tossed out the window.

Link to comment

Interesting question. I would agree with a previous comment that if someone wants a ftf that bad, they should get a membership.

 

That said, if you look in out of the way places, there are often ftf available. I found one in a small town while on a road tirp (my 8year old daughtr beat me to it though); it had been posted for about 24h. Also, I own a cache that has been in place for over a month with no finds (it is a 10min drive off the hyway, and a 20-30 min hike).

Link to comment

Do bear in mind that you might find your "FTF" will be less thrilled when they realise that they've just won a race that many of the contestants were banned from running in. Sort of takes the shine off the achievement...

 

If someone is really wanting to share in the thrills of being the FTF a new cache, the cost of a membership isn't that high, is it?

 

That's the way i see it as well. There may be times when doing something like this might be good for a child or mentally challenged person, but i don't see how or why a regular thinking adult could ever get any gratification knowing that they got the ftf because others were excluded from even having a chance at it.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

"but i don't see how or why a regular thinking adult could ever get any gratification knowing that they got the ftf because others were excluded from even having a chance at it."

 

Off topic, but this brings up a simmilar issue about people who get the FTF before it is posted on GeoCaching.com, presumably by getting the co-ordinates directly from the owner early.

Edited by Andronicus
Link to comment

"but i don't see how or why a regular thinking adult could ever get any gratification knowing that they got the ftf because others were excluded from even having a chance at it."...

 

Once upon a time a long time ago (like 2 in net years) there was a reserved FTF for a local cachers. We members of the forum mob pitched our forks and hefted our torches to the sky in a collective effort to get midievel on this poor slob of a cacher who dared reserve a FTF. Then the rest of the story came out and we had to put down our pitchforks and extinguish our torches and mill about saying, "oh, yeah, that makes sence, I guess it's ok". Then we went to digging our toes in the forum dirt until a great freshly dead horse came along.

Link to comment

"but i don't see how or why a regular thinking adult could ever get any gratification knowing that they got the ftf because others were excluded from even having a chance at it."

 

Off topic, but this brings up a simmilar issue about people who get the FTF before it is posted on GeoCaching.com, presumably by getting the co-ordinates directly from the owner early.

 

Or perhaps off a different listing site. Or they may have just stumbled on the cache, I've done it twice.

Link to comment

And when all is said and done, the FTF's smiley is just one smiley. The STF's smiley is still just one smiley. The 40TF's smiley is still just one smiley.

 

We live in a populated area, with many cachers, some of whom seem to not sleep or work or have obligations other than caching. We sleep, we work, and we are wimps about going out at night or in the rain, yet we manage to be FTF at least once a month or so. Sometimes easy little park & grabs sit unfound for two days here, and other times caches (even puzzles) are found within an hour of publication. In other words, the caching atmosphere of your area will change eventually...one or two or three teams might be FTF all the time this spring, but things could be very different six months from now, and probably were very different a year ago. Be patient, and things will change.

Link to comment

No. See the new guideline on logging requirements.

 

You are certainly welcome to *request* that people honor your wishes, however. You cannot delete a log over the issue, however.

 

Interesting. I had not thought of that outcome using the new ALR guidelines.

 

Is the opposite true now? If a Non-PM logs a PMOC using the Groundspeak approved "back door" can the cache owner delete their log for it? If you think of it a PMOC is an ALR cache provided your not a member.

Relevant text above rendered in bold. Briefly, your statement is grossly incorrect, and the actual reality is far different has been discussed numerous times on the forum.

 

Relevant text ignored really, and your condescending attitude does nothing to convince me you have any valid point there. What I'm more interested in however, is why you skipped over the real relevant part of my post, the question. Is a PMOC owner allowed to delete the find log of a non member, seeing as how the opposite is no longer allowed, and considered an ALR situation.

 

I'd prefer if someone who had an authoritative answer give a short and simple reply to my question, but if someone else wants to logically discuss it, I'll gladly start a thread devoted to the topic.

Link to comment

No. See the new guideline on logging requirements.

 

You are certainly welcome to *request* that people honor your wishes, however. You cannot delete a log over the issue, however.

 

Interesting. I had not thought of that outcome using the new ALR guidelines.

 

Is the opposite true now? If a Non-PM logs a PMOC using the Groundspeak approved "back door" can the cache owner delete their log for it? If you think of it a PMOC is an ALR cache provided your not a member.

Relevant text above rendered in bold. Briefly, your statement is grossly incorrect, and the actual reality is far different has been discussed numerous times on the forum.

 

Relevant text ignored really, and your condescending attitude does nothing to convince me you have any valid point there. What I'm more interested in however, is why you skipped over the real relevant part of my post, the question. Is a PMOC owner allowed to delete the find log of a non member, seeing as how the opposite is no longer allowed, and considered an ALR situation.

 

I'd prefer if someone who had an authoritative answer give a short and simple reply to my question, but if someone else wants to logically discuss it, I'll gladly start a thread devoted to the topic.

 

Hmm. Now I won't enter the debate that PMOC's are ALR's just because they are PMOC's. Although I find this a very interesting topic. :D

 

HOWEVER what about post # 8? Here we have an example of an ALR that threatens to delete the logs of non-members, even if they use the well-known "back door" to log a PMOC. Now that one, I'd have to think is no longer allowed. But I'll wait for a reviewer or Groundspeak representative to weigh in.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

Since you probably know who are the non premium members in your area, one thing you can do is to place the cache, e-mail them individually about the cache, before it is published. But be prepared to defend yourself from the wrath of premium members in your area who are FTF hounds. Personally I feel that as cache owner you are free to do whatever you want, but I don't have to live with the consequences, and some people seem to think that you owe them something.

You mean like the privilege of notification that they are paying for?

Link to comment
and some people seem to think that you owe them something.

You mean like the privilege of notification that they are paying for?

No, as in the game can only be played the way they want it.

 

They will still get the notification when the cache is published. That is what they paid for, isn't it? Or is there a special FTF of the Month club (like Geocoin of the Month club) I missed out on?

 

FWIW I don't think it is a good idea to do what the OP wants. But I also feel that the OP should be able to do it if he / she wants to, and gave an alternative for it that is not an ALR.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment
and some people seem to think that you owe them something.

You mean like the privilege of notification that they are paying for?

No, as in the game can only be played the way they want it.

 

They will still get the notification when the cache is published. That is what they paid for, isn't it? Or is there a special FTF of the Month club (like Geocoin of the Month club) I missed out on?

 

FWIW I don't think it is a good idea to do what the OP wants. But I also feel that the OP should be able to do it if he / she wants to, and gave an alternative for it that is not an ALR.

If the OP wants to limit who finds the cache, all they have to do is publish it on a different caching site. Then again, it may go months without being found. :D

Link to comment

Do bear in mind that you might find your "FTF" will be less thrilled when they realise that they've just won a race that many of the contestants were banned from running in. Sort of takes the shine off the achievement...

That's the way i see it as well. There may be times when doing something like this might be good for a child or mentally challenged person, but i don't see how or why a regular thinking adult could ever get any gratification knowing that they got the ftf because others were excluded from even having a chance at it.

Nah, lots of people just want to "win" and they'll justify it however they want. People will celebrate after "beating" a video game by playing on the Easy setting or using cheat codes. Parents and coaches in highly competitive youth sports leagues have been known to try and get rival teams disqualified so their team has a better shot at winning a plastic trophy. There are known loopholes that enable knowledgeable cachers to locate cache coordinates pre-publication. Even somewhat "regular thinking" cachers will take the FTF in spite of any advantages they had.

Link to comment

Do bear in mind that you might find your "FTF" will be less thrilled when they realise that they've just won a race that many of the contestants were banned from running in. Sort of takes the shine off the achievement...

That's the way i see it as well. There may be times when doing something like this might be good for a child or mentally challenged person, but i don't see how or why a regular thinking adult could ever get any gratification knowing that they got the ftf because others were excluded from even having a chance at it.

Nah, lots of people just want to "win" and they'll justify it however they want. People will celebrate after "beating" a video game by playing on the Easy setting or using cheat codes. Parents and coaches in highly competitive youth sports leagues have been known to try and get rival teams disqualified so their team has a better shot at winning a plastic trophy. There are known loopholes that enable knowledgeable cachers to locate cache coordinates pre-publication. Even somewhat "regular thinking" cachers will take the FTF in spite of any advantages they had.

 

You know, i really never thought about the video game scenario. I guess i'm not "regular" thinking after all since i feel better when i win spider solitaire on the computer, set on the medium difficulty. :laughing:

 

On the known loopholes, the way i see it, everyone has a chance at using them to their advantage. I myself haven't been able to figure out what these loopholes are but i'm eager to learn, if someone wants to pm me with the details... :laughing:

Link to comment

Interesting. I had not thought of that outcome using the new ALR guidelines.

 

Is the opposite true now? If a Non-PM logs a PMOC using the Groundspeak approved "back door" can the cache owner delete their log for it? If you think of it a PMOC is an ALR cache provided your not a member.

 

These were a popular ALR within twenty miles of my home coordinates, they are no longer allowed as ALRs:

 

Additional Logging Requirement:

You MUST be a subscriber to log or find this cache: Required

 

Subscriber-Only Caches

Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request

of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for

dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches

"subscriber only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out.

 

** This cache IS at the listed coordinates.

(Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each

cache is managed by their cache owner.)

 

An audit log is a list of users who have viewed your premium member-only

cache on the web site. Click on the user's name to visit their profile.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If your account user name does not appear on the Audit Log, your *find*

will be removed. As a failsafe, I will check your profile page prior to

removal.

 

If you are a subscriber, and logging this cache the correct way, you WILL

be on the cache audit list. If you are NOT a subscriber, and logging this

cache an alternative way, you will NOT be on the cache audit list.

So can a non PM log a PMO cache or not ? If they can, what's the point of PMO caches ? Don't get it. If we list all of our caches as PMO but GC.com/GS gives non PM's a back door way to log our caches it makes no sense. We've taken a ton of s*%$ because of all of our PMO caches. We thought we were supporting GC.com/GS. If GC.com/GS is giving non PM a backdoor to log or PMO caches PLEASE let us know. It makes no sense that we're getting beat up for having all PMO caches when the very entity we're supporting isn't backing us up.

Link to comment

So can a non PM log a PMO cache or not ? If they can, what's the point of PMO caches ? Don't get it. If we list all of our caches as PMO but GC.com/GS gives non PM's a back door way to log our caches it makes no sense. We've taken a ton of s*%$ because of all of our PMO caches. We thought we were supporting GC.com/GS. If GC.com/GS is giving non PM a backdoor to log or PMO caches PLEASE let us know. It makes no sense that we're getting beat up for having all PMO caches when the very entity we're supporting isn't backing us up.

Groundspeak has said that it has no intentions of closing the "back door" method, which allows regular members to log a premium member only cache without ever accessing the cache listing page. If you enjoy deleting logs from children, spouses and friends of premium members, you will need to find a new outlet to keep you happy.

Link to comment

So can a non PM log a PMO cache or not ? If they can, what's the point of PMO caches ? Don't get it. If we list all of our caches as PMO but GC.com/GS gives non PM's a back door way to log our caches it makes no sense. We've taken a ton of s*%$ because of all of our PMO caches. We thought we were supporting GC.com/GS. If GC.com/GS is giving non PM a backdoor to log or PMO caches PLEASE let us know. It makes no sense that we're getting beat up for having all PMO caches when the very entity we're supporting isn't backing us up.

Groundspeak has said that it has no intentions of closing the "back door" method, which allows regular members to log a premium member only cache without ever accessing the cache listing page. If you enjoy deleting logs from children, spouses and friends of premium members, you will need to find a new outlet to keep you happy.

 

We asked a simple question and will no longer reply to rude comments but for your information we opened up 14 of our caches to a non premium member last month so a premium member's son could log the caches so before you post a rude comment why don't you find out the facts about the person you're directing the rudeness to.

Link to comment

Rudeness begets rudeness sometimes. I won't, however, sink to using potty words.

 

Thanks for the offer, but if it's all the same to you, I'm not interested in learning more facts about you than those I already know. I just answered the question. The backdoor for logging PMO caches is not going away.

Link to comment

So what's the point of setting up a member only cache in the first place?

I'm confused. :anicute:

 

As the guidelines are written, and apparently confirmed by the many responses like those above, PMO's are intended to keep the casual user who is not a PM from VIEWING the cache details.

 

Some believe this protects the cache from being muggled. Some believe it has no real impact on that. In either case, it is not designed to keep non-PM's from logging the cache which is why the backdoor exists.

 

When caching as a group or with friends, it is not always clear it is a PM until you go to log it. As it is, it appears to be a minority, however vocal, of the PMOC owners who have an issue with a non-PM logging the cache.

 

Caches are meant to be found. If someone wants to give back to caching, hide quality caches. If you want to support gc.com, become a premium member. Neither is required, both are desired.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

So what's the point of setting up a member only cache in the first place?

I'm confused. :anicute:

 

As the guidelines are written, and apparently confirmed by the many responses like those above, PMO's are intended to keep the casual user who is not a PM from VIEWING the cache details.

 

Some believe this protects the cache from being muggled. Some believe it has no real impact on that. In either case, it is not designed to keep non-PM's from logging the cache which is why the backdoor exists.

 

When caching as a group or with friends, it is not always clear it is a PM until you go to log it. As it is, it appears to be a minority, however vocal, of the PMOC owners who have an issue with a non-PM logging the cache.

 

Caches are meant to be found. If someone wants to give back to caching, hide quality caches. If you want to support gc.com, become a premium member. Neither is required, both are desired.

 

So they want them to be able to log the cache... but not see it? Seems strange to me. If everyone can log it AND there's an approved back door... why not just let everyone see it? I don't get it. But there's probably some aspect of it that I'm just missing.

In any case - thanks for the info!

Link to comment

So they want them to be able to log the cache... but not see it? Seems strange to me. If everyone can log it AND there's an approved back door... why not just let everyone see it? I don't get it. But there's probably some aspect of it that I'm just missing.

In any case - thanks for the info!

 

You need to keep two things in mind. The head TPTB has stated that caching will always be free, hence the approved backdoor. The PMOC is a premium member benefit, hence only premium members can see the listing. Being a premium member is not free.

 

Jim

Link to comment

 

Caches are meant to be found. If someone wants to give back to caching, hide quality caches. If you want to support gc.com, become a premium member. Neither is required, both are desired.

 

Great quote! How many times by how many different people have I heard say they are "supporting the website" by making their caches MOC's? I'd say a thousand times by a thousand people. Hogwash, I agree with the quote above. :anicute:

Link to comment

So they want them to be able to log the cache... but not see it? Seems strange to me. If everyone can log it AND there's an approved back door... why not just let everyone see it? I don't get it. But there's probably some aspect of it that I'm just missing.

In any case - thanks for the info!

 

The PMOC's appear to exist for two reason's;

 

- The first is the perception that someone who becomes a PM is less likely to damage a cache than a regular member.

 

- Along with the PMOC comes an audit log. Not really anything useful fun for some to view who is looking at the cache.

 

In either case, GS acknowledge that PM's occasionally bring friends or family caching with them and still need a way to allow their guest to log the cache.

 

Whether we agree with it or not, GS never stated that PMOC's were only to be logged by PM's and have made that clear on several occasions.

Link to comment
So what's the point of setting up a member only cache in the first place?

I'm confused. :o

According to the Premium Member Benefits page, the point in acquiring a premium membership is to:
  • Organize your favorite caches (or not so favorite caches) using the bookmark feature
  • Create custom searches with Pocket Queries (and be able to easily download the data).
  • 'Instant' notification
  • Caches Along a Route
  • Support the team.
  • Premium member status on all Groundspeak websites

You will note that the ability to log caches that non-PMO members cannot is not on the list, nor is the ability to exclude any group of geocachers from logging your cache page.

Link to comment
You will note that the ability to log caches that non-PMO members cannot is not on the list, nor is the ability to exclude any group of geocachers from logging your cache page.

That list is hardly covers all the benefits, so just because it is not listed doesn't mean it is not a feature. For example, ability to download GPX file from cache page, unlimited watchlists, ability to ignore a cache are all premium features. There's also conflicting information on whether "Send to GPS" is a premium feature.

Link to comment
You will note that the ability to log caches that non-PMO members cannot is not on the list, nor is the ability to exclude any group of geocachers from logging your cache page.
That list is hardly covers all the benefits, so just because it is not listed doesn't mean it is not a feature. For example, ability to download GPX file from cache page, unlimited watchlists, ability to ignore a cache are all premium features. There's also conflicting information on whether "Send to GPS" is a premium feature.
I could debate your post, but why bother. Keystone was somewhat clear in post 29 that cache owners should not delete these logs made by non-PMs. Therefore, my inferences in the above quoted post appear to be correct.
Link to comment

The simple solution would have a log book for members and one for non members, 2 separate FTF prizes, one for members and one for non's

 

Have them put in their online logs witch book they signed

 

Done

The real simple solution is for cache owners to come to the realization that they don't have the authority to restrict who is able to log the cache. Since that realization is required for your suggestion to work and would resolve the issue even without implementing your plan.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

The simple solution would have a log book for members and one for non members, 2 separate FTF prizes, one for members and one for non's

 

Have them put in their online logs witch book they signed

 

To what end? Currently both non and PM have the ability to use a single log book and if a non-pm finds the cache before anyone else (possible but not likely) they are the FTF.

Link to comment
You will note that the ability to log caches that non-PMO members cannot is not on the list, nor is the ability to exclude any group of geocachers from logging your cache page.
That list is hardly covers all the benefits, so just because it is not listed doesn't mean it is not a feature. For example, ability to download GPX file from cache page, unlimited watchlists, ability to ignore a cache are all premium features. There's also conflicting information on whether "Send to GPS" is a premium feature.
I could debate your post, but why bother. Keystone was somewhat clear in post 29 that cache owners should not delete these logs made by non-PMs. Therefore, my inferences in the above quoted post appear to be correct.

 

I actually agree with what both of you said. Can I do that? :unsure:

Link to comment
You will note that the ability to log caches that non-PMO members cannot is not on the list, nor is the ability to exclude any group of geocachers from logging your cache page.
That list is hardly covers all the benefits, so just because it is not listed doesn't mean it is not a feature. For example, ability to download GPX file from cache page, unlimited watchlists, ability to ignore a cache are all premium features. There's also conflicting information on whether "Send to GPS" is a premium feature.
I could debate your post, but why bother. Keystone was somewhat clear in post 29 that cache owners should not delete these logs made by non-PMs. Therefore, my inferences in the above quoted post appear to be correct.

I'm not disagreeing with the part about logging not being a benefit, merely how you seem to suggest the proof. I guess I should have quoted more of your original message, which seems to suggest "if it is not in this list it is not a benefit".

 

Edit : Reread my own post, and had myself scratching my head over what I'm trying to say.

 

Logging PMO caches is not a benefit - agree.

It is not a benefit because it is not in the list of member benefits on the web page - disagree.

 

And while I'm at it, I'd like to rant about how getting information from the gc.com website is almost as painful as pulling teeth. Information is scattered, incomplete, unorganized.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment
You will note that the ability to log caches that non-PMO members cannot is not on the list, nor is the ability to exclude any group of geocachers from logging your cache page.
That list is hardly covers all the benefits, so just because it is not listed doesn't mean it is not a feature. For example, ability to download GPX file from cache page, unlimited watchlists, ability to ignore a cache are all premium features. There's also conflicting information on whether "Send to GPS" is a premium feature.
I could debate your post, but why bother. Keystone was somewhat clear in post 29 that cache owners should not delete these logs made by non-PMs. Therefore, my inferences in the above quoted post appear to be correct.
I actually agree with what both of you said. Can I do that? :unsure:
No. You have to choose to either agree with me or to agree with me.
Link to comment
You will note that the ability to log caches that non-PMO members cannot is not on the list, nor is the ability to exclude any group of geocachers from logging your cache page.
That list is hardly covers all the benefits, so just because it is not listed doesn't mean it is not a feature. For example, ability to download GPX file from cache page, unlimited watchlists, ability to ignore a cache are all premium features. There's also conflicting information on whether "Send to GPS" is a premium feature.
I could debate your post, but why bother. Keystone was somewhat clear in post 29 that cache owners should not delete these logs made by non-PMs. Therefore, my inferences in the above quoted post appear to be correct.

I'm not disagreeing with the part about logging being a benefit, merely how you seem to suggest the proof. I guess I should have quoted more of your original message, which seems to suggest "if it is not in this list it is not a benefit".

I agree with you. It's just that the there isn't really such a thing as an implied benefit, which is what the log deleters would be arguing for.

 

There are benefits that are listed and then there are other perks that aren't listed. If one of the things that wasn't listed didn't work as someone wished that it would, it's not a call for groupangst.

Link to comment
There are benefits that are listed and then there are other perks that aren't listed. If one of the things that wasn't listed didn't work as someone wished that it would, it's not a call for groupangst.

 

That got me a little flustered, so I started looking for a gc.com page that lists PM benefits so that it is more "official". Found a more comprehensive list, over here : http://www.geocaching.com/my/subscription.aspx

 

I wouldn't have expected to find this under My Profile -> My Membership Details (and I checked with a non premium account - same text). There also seems to be some disturbing parts regarding that page.

 

1. Geocaching maps. Listed under "premium features". AFAIK only the ability to filter cache types is a premium feature.

 

2. Subscriber-only caches. Exact text says "Some caches are only available to premium members."

 

While I'm still not disputing whether non PM can log PMO caches, I do wish Groundspeak can clean up some of the info out there.

Link to comment
There are benefits that are listed and then there are other perks that aren't listed. If one of the things that wasn't listed didn't work as someone wished that it would, it's not a call for groupangst.

 

That got me a little flustered, so I started looking for a gc.com page that lists PM benefits so that it is more "official". Found a more comprehensive list, over here : http://www.geocaching.com/my/subscription.aspx

 

I wouldn't have expected to find this under My Profile -> My Membership Details (and I checked with a non premium account - same text). There also seems to be some disturbing parts regarding that page.

 

1. Geocaching maps. Listed under "premium features". AFAIK only the ability to filter cache types is a premium feature.

 

2. Subscriber-only caches. Exact text says "Some caches are only available to premium members."

 

While I'm still not disputing whether non PM can log PMO caches, I do wish Groundspeak can clean up some of the info out there.

I think that the first example is just old information. The second is an example of inexact wording, in my opinion. It should say something like "Some cache pages are only available to premium members.
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...