Jump to content

cache for members only or not?


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Hi Folks,

 

I've recently set some of my caches on "for subscribers only". I thought it might have some advantages:

 

1. the cache is better protected, because it is not visible for people who just want to destroy caches (I guess they won't pay for that)

2. only experienced cachers (who know the rules of stealth) go hunting this cache which also prolongens its life

3. above all: if only qualitatively "bad" or let's say "easy" caches are available for non-subscribers then they would hopefully think about the game.

 

On the other hand: In my opinion the game should be as cheap as possible, so that many people are being drawn out in nature and enjoy some educational and interesting stuff. members-only caches would hinder that.

 

Things that cost are considered as something someone else has worked for and are respected as more worthful. Good quality should be protected and not wasted.

 

Or what do you think?

 

Greetings,

Spiff_in_Space

Link to comment

Hi Folks,

 

I've recently set some of my caches on "for subscribers only". I thought it might have some advantages:

 

1. the cache is better protected, because it is not visible for people who just want to destroy caches (I guess they won't pay for that)

2. only experienced cachers (who know the rules of stealth) go hunting this cache which also prolongens its life

3. above all: if only qualitatively "bad" or let's say "easy" caches are available for non-subscribers then they would hopefully think about the game.

 

On the other hand: In my opinion the game should be as cheap as possible, so that many people are being drawn out in nature and enjoy some educational and interesting stuff. members-only caches would hinder that.

 

Things that cost are considered as something someone else has worked for and are respected as more worthful. Good quality should be protected and not wasted.

 

Or what do you think?

 

Greetings,

Spiff_in_Space

 

I have a premium membership so it won't matter to me if I were caching in your area but I won't put mine as subscriber only because I enjoyed this game as a non sub member and enjoyed it.

I leave mine general because I want them to be found often. I also encourage geocaching for those who are young and/or can't afford to lay out the annual membership money. I love the fact that geocaching is a low cost source of entertainment. I am somewhat put off that there is a fee to be paid for additional perks but see the need for it. Someone has to pay the light bill. The fact that GS makes a LOT of money now isn't even relevant.

 

My opinion is that there shouldn't even be a subscriber only option. But it's just MY opinion.

Link to comment

One thing to consider is that it is possible to narrow down the location with 3 queries. If you have a particularly vengeful vandal in your area, the PMO option is not going to save your cache.

 

I like my geocaches to be found as well. And I'm particularly happy that one of mine is found by several brand new geocachers (their first find). However, if you want to cater to premium members only, I see nothing wrong with that, especially if the alternative is you not hiding any.

Link to comment

You will find that a PMO cache isn't going to be treated any better than one that isn't. You will also find that most cache vandalism is from muggles and they don't know if it is a PMO cache or not when they find it and steal it.

 

If you really want to keep the quality up the only way to do it is to hide caches that are remote and take some time to find. Those cachers that like to take long hikes are usually more likely to take care of the cache and trade evenly.

 

At least that has been my experience.

Link to comment

Hi Folks,

 

I've recently set some of my caches on "for subscribers only". I thought it might have some advantages:

 

1. the cache is better protected, because it is not visible for people who just want to destroy caches (I guess they won't pay for that)

2. only experienced cachers (who know the rules of stealth) go hunting this cache which also prolongens its life

3. above all: if only qualitatively "bad" or let's say "easy" caches are available for non-subscribers then they would hopefully think about the game.

 

On the other hand: In my opinion the game should be as cheap as possible, so that many people are being drawn out in nature and enjoy some educational and interesting stuff. members-only caches would hinder that.

 

Things that cost are considered as something someone else has worked for and are respected as more worthful. Good quality should be protected and not wasted.

 

Or what do you think?

 

Greetings,

Spiff_in_Space

According to the numerous threads on the subject, there are many experienced cachers who have no interest in stealth.

Link to comment

Hi Folks,

 

I've recently set some of my caches on "for subscribers only". I thought it might have some advantages:

 

1. the cache is better protected, because it is not visible for people who just want to destroy caches (I guess they won't pay for that)

2. only experienced cachers (who know the rules of stealth) go hunting this cache which also prolongens its life

3. above all: if only qualitatively "bad" or let's say "easy" caches are available for non-subscribers then they would hopefully think about the game.

 

On the other hand: In my opinion the game should be as cheap as possible, so that many people are being drawn out in nature and enjoy some educational and interesting stuff. members-only caches would hinder that.

 

Things that cost are considered as something someone else has worked for and are respected as more worthful. Good quality should be protected and not wasted.

 

Or what do you think?

 

Greetings,

Spiff_in_Space

According to the numerous threads on the subject, there are many experienced cachers who have no interest in stealth.

 

If this is a "muggle protection" option........... don't bet on it.

If it is a SWAG degradation problem......... THAT is going to happen, regardless.

As far as stealth goes................ I agree with sbell111.

 

The only "advantage" will be fewer cachers making the find, or doing the hunt for it.

Link to comment

I'm about to place my first cache after two years of enjoying geocaching. I became a PM after a few months of playing.

 

I was considering restricting the new cache, then out of curiosity, I did a quick PQ to see which caches in my area are restricted. Turns out, and I was surprised to see, that very few caches placed by my fellow local geocachers are restricted. So therefor I will not restrict mine either. The replies above seem to make a lot of sense as well.

Link to comment

Hi Folks,

 

I've recently set some of my caches on "for subscribers only". I thought it might have some advantages:

 

1. the cache is better protected, because it is not visible for people who just want to destroy caches (I guess they won't pay for that)

2. only experienced cachers (who know the rules of stealth) go hunting this cache which also prolongens its life

3. above all: if only qualitatively "bad" or let's say "easy" caches are available for non-subscribers then they would hopefully think about the game.

 

On the other hand: In my opinion the game should be as cheap as possible, so that many people are being drawn out in nature and enjoy some educational and interesting stuff. members-only caches would hinder that.

 

Things that cost are considered as something someone else has worked for and are respected as more worthful. Good quality should be protected and not wasted.

 

Or what do you think?

 

Greetings,

Spiff_in_Space

According to the numerous threads on the subject, there are many experienced cachers who have no interest in stealth.

 

I don't need no stinkin' "stealth" in the woods. B)

Link to comment

I don't need no stinkin' "stealth" in the woods. B)

 

Amen to that, nor on mountain tops.

 

I think that it is good to have a portion of the caches in an area to be PM caches, maybe 10%. This will encourage people to buy the membership, but not reduce the caching pleasure of non PM or new cachers. That said, I am not a PM, nor do I plan of becomeing one any time soon. But maybe when the only unfound caches within 10km of me are PM, I will change my mind.

Link to comment

1. the cache is better protected, because it is not visible for people who just want to destroy caches (I guess they won't pay for that)

There are those that will pay for the privilege of mugging you cache.

 

2. only experienced cachers (who know the rules of stealth) go hunting this cache which also prolongens its life

see spell111s post.

3. above all: if only qualitatively "bad" or let's say "easy" caches are available for non-subscribers then they would hopefully think about the game.

Hope is all you can get because it simply wont cause them, as a whole, too do so.

Link to comment

Hi Folks,

 

I've recently set some of my caches on "for subscribers only". I thought it might have some advantages:

 

1. the cache is better protected, because it is not visible for people who just want to destroy caches (I guess they won't pay for that)

2. only experienced cachers (who know the rules of stealth) go hunting this cache which also prolongens its life

3. above all: if only qualitatively "bad" or let's say "easy" caches are available for non-subscribers then they would hopefully think about the game.

 

On the other hand: In my opinion the game should be as cheap as possible, so that many people are being drawn out in nature and enjoy some educational and interesting stuff. members-only caches would hinder that.

 

Things that cost are considered as something someone else has worked for and are respected as more worthful. Good quality should be protected and not wasted.

 

Or what do you think?

 

Greetings,

Spiff_in_Space

 

Just me, but I set mine to PMO at first. Mainly to see who actually looks at the cache in the begining as well as give those with the Premium subscription and the FTF bug a better chance at being the FTF. Then after a short time I generally open it up to basic membership.

 

I don't see the PMO tag as being a deterent to swag degration, it is going to happen no matter what. Other then placement of the cache, but even this doesn't stop the degregation always.

 

Muggles are muggles, the PMO tag won't stop the cache from being muggled.

 

I agree we should seek to get more premium accounts through the PMO tag as mentioned, but also agree that the caches should be for all, so my opening mine up after a short period seems to work for me.

Link to comment
3. above all: if only qualitatively "bad" or let's say "easy" caches are available for non-subscribers then they would hopefully think about the game.

 

Not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Do you think PMO caches are somehow "better" or "harder" than caches available for non-subscribers? B) If so, That has not been my experience.

 

There seems to be plenty of good caches that are not PMO, and I've found some so-so caches that were PMO. :)

Link to comment

I have to disagree with a what a lot of people here are saying.

 

In my area the members only caches do hold up swag much better.

the really nice caches, like the DVD trading caches, and CD trading caches and the like, are member only caches. They manage to keep good items in them.

 

There was a problem on the East Coast a while back, the caches were being intentionally hunted down and taken by a group that was against caching. While they took all the public caches, they did not take the member only caches.

This pushed those in that area into using the member only feature more often.

 

People complained about all the caches turning to member only caches, but they could not figure out another way to keep the caches from being taken. But putting them member only DID work for them.

Link to comment

As someone who really enjoys sending coins out to travel I appreciate it when a cache (that is large enough to hold travelers) is a PMO cache. I have yet to have a coin go stolen from a PMO cache. Obviously this is no guarantee and I'm NOT suggesting that a PMO cache is always safe....far from it. But there are several TB/GC Hotels in my local area that are subscriber only and I would trust these with coin launches FAR more than most other caches in my urban area.

 

And before someone chimes in...yes I know not to release anything with the expectation that it won't eventually be stolen or lost. That is the risk I willingly take to try and bring some "Ooooh, shiny!" exclaims from my fellow geocachers. B)

Link to comment

Just me, but I set mine to PMO at first. Mainly to see who actually looks at the cache in the begining as well as give those with the Premium subscription and the FTF bug a better chance at being the FTF. Then after a short time I generally open it up to basic membership.

I occasionally set mine for PM for the above reasons. It's fun to see who looks at your caches (and at what time! ha ha). Inexplicably, I have people in other countries who watch some of my caches.

I usually revert them to everyone eventually.

 

I will say that I find the PM caches in my area are treated better than non-PM caches.

Link to comment
According to the numerous threads on the subject, there are many experienced cachers who have no interest in stealth.

Yup.

 

From what I've found, the longer someone caches, the less stealth they practice.

 

I've seen newer caches not attempt caches if someone might see them, but a year later, they just walk up and grab it.

Link to comment

True. My urban/suburban caches get muggled on occasion. I doubt that making them subscriber-only would change that.

My hiking and difficulty mystery caches seem to survive much better. Again, no need for making them subscriber-only for extra security.

But, there is one that I wish I had made subscriber-only! Then I could see who is looking at it. And that would be my only reason for doing so.

Link to comment

Hi Folks,

 

I've recently set some of my caches on "for subscribers only". I thought it might have some advantages:

 

1. the cache is better protected, because it is not visible for people who just want to destroy caches (I guess they won't pay for that)

2. only experienced cachers (who know the rules of stealth) go hunting this cache which also prolongens its life

3. above all: if only qualitatively "bad" or let's say "easy" caches are available for non-subscribers then they would hopefully think about the game.

 

On the other hand: In my opinion the game should be as cheap as possible, so that many people are being drawn out in nature and enjoy some educational and interesting stuff. members-only caches would hinder that.

 

Things that cost are considered as something someone else has worked for and are respected as more worthful. Good quality should be protected and not wasted.

 

Or what do you think?

 

Greetings,

Spiff_in_Space

 

Just me, but I set mine to PMO at first. Mainly to see who actually looks at the cache in the begining as well as give those with the Premium subscription and the FTF bug a better chance at being the FTF.

All the hounds in my area are PMs!

Link to comment

I was against PMO caches until I started having some major problems with TB's and coins coming up missing out of one of my TB Hotels. I decided to change it to PMO and change the combination to the lock to see if it helped. In the several months since I changed it, not a single coin or TB has come up missing.

 

For a non TB Hotel though I still don't agree with PMO.

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 0
×
×
  • Create New...