Jump to content

Decline in value of premium membership


Hynr

Recommended Posts

We're actually up for renewal soon. We' are also evaluating where our expenditures. With the brew ha ha over certain things that go on including not being able to mention the dreaded "p" word here, in caches descriptions or logs, we're erring on saving the money. On average when we do go caching we don't do more than 25 in a day as it is so loading them one click at a time won't bother me much.

Link to comment
We're actually up for renewal soon. We' are also evaluating where our expenditures. With the brew ha ha over certain things that go on including not being able to mention the dreaded "p" word here, in caches descriptions or logs, we're erring on saving the money. On average when we do go caching we don't do more than 25 in a day as it is so loading them one click at a time won't bother me much.

 

What dreaded P word??

Link to comment
We're actually up for renewal soon. We' are also evaluating where our expenditures. With the brew ha ha over certain things that go on including not being able to mention the dreaded "p" word here, in caches descriptions or logs, we're erring on saving the money. On average when we do go caching we don't do more than 25 in a day as it is so loading them one click at a time won't bother me much.

What dreaded P word??

Pathtags? If that's it, that's a common misunderstanding. I did a forum search and came up with 12 pages worth. The problem is calling a pathtag a geocoin. It is not, of course - and earlier on, some mod was a little touchy about that, I guess.

 

Now, I can think of a few P words that would be verboten, but they're not something you would use in polite company in the first place. Hmm, I just did a google search, and learned a few more I didn't know already :laughing:

Link to comment
We're actually up for renewal soon. We' are also evaluating where our expenditures. With the brew ha ha over certain things that go on including not being able to mention the dreaded "p" word here, in caches descriptions or logs, we're erring on saving the money. On average when we do go caching we don't do more than 25 in a day as it is so loading them one click at a time won't bother me much.

What dreaded P word??

Pathtags? If that's it, that's a common misunderstanding. I did a forum search and came up with 12 pages worth. The problem is calling a pathtag a geocoin. It is not, of course - and earlier on, some mod was a little touchy about that, I guess.

 

Now, I can think of a few P words that would be verboten, but they're not something you would use in polite company in the first place. Hmm, I just did a google search, and learned a few more I didn't know already :laughing:

 

I used a veiled bad word on here once and got scolded so no more bad words for me :laughing:

I heard somewhere that some volunteer reviewers would not allow that dreaded word to be used in a cache listing, however that is not a problem in the area I cache in mostly.

 

As for using a phone in place of PQ's.....I guess you could but you'd need to make sure there was coverage out in the woods which is often not the case. And if you didn't have a PM you'd still be missing out on the members only caches. I'd limit my PQ's to the ones I am most likely going to go for, how many multi's or puzzles are you going to try while traveling? Then, use the phone for a possible backup. Not like you are actually going to find 2500 caches in a day. I get what you are saying but you aren't being realistic either.

Or.......load ALL the caches in ALL your areas then check on the phone before hunting to see if one that you've decided to hunt is up to date.

 

Anyway, for 8 cents a day I am keeping my PM. I wonder how many cups of coffee, or meals out the OP has had that cost far more then that and didn't meet up to his expectations?

 

And really, it is just a game.

Link to comment

I have only been a PM for a couple weeks.For me the $30 wasnt so much for what I was getting.Though the premium features are a great bonus.To me the money was also going to support a website and community that is at the heart of the game I just learned to play.Its a win-win in my book.

Link to comment

Actually from what I've read recently there has been some strict enforcement by Groundspeak representatives in regards to not allowing the mention of the pathtags being allowed in listing, logs, etc. Frankly, I find it both ridiculous and childish that they would disallow discussion of something that is at this point commonly used and passed around as a collectible and swag. Not only that it does promote the hobby of geocaching in an affordable way. In comparison to your average swag and McToy I'd rather find or trade one of those because the cost is lower. My suggestion has always been in the realm of business if they feel threatened by pathtags make an either more reasonably affordable alternative or work hand in hand with the guys. I can tell something is going on because of the advent of Cachkinz or whatever basically amounts to as a colorful Travelbug tag. While interesting with the amount of theft that goes on at this point they are priced to high. Pathtags, not so much. Their prices, whether trackable or not, are more appealing to me.

 

At the moment it seems that it is in certain areas which goes to the problem of equal and level enforcement which I have found to also be a problem. Which further leads into the unwritten rules or guidelines as they refer to them. While some may feel it worthwhile it has taken a lot of the enjoyment out of the hobby for our family from when we first started. There are also some local issues as well that have taken some of the pleasure out of this thing we once loved as well. For that we cannot justify the cost regardless of how 'small' it may be to some or how much more others may be willing to pay for the service. Since the new purchase we've made for our vehicle GPS we've become more interested in a different aspect of gps hunting that doesn't involve all the political bickering and constant guessing that Groundspeak has seem to have become. While we plan to stay involved in a limited degree it just isn't enjoyable anymore to the point of paying for the service.

Link to comment
Actually from what I've read recently there has been some strict enforcement by Groundspeak representatives in regards to not allowing the mention of the pathtags being allowed in listing, logs, etc. Frankly, I find it both ridiculous and childish that they would disallow discussion of something that is at this point commonly used and passed around as a collectible and swag.

I've not seen any evidence of that here. Pathtags are commonly mentioned in the cache description page and in logs. As long as you're not requiring people to visit th pathtags site or force them to track your pathtags, or advertise the pathtags website, I don't see what right they have to disallow mention of the tags (other than the fact that this is a privately held company and is in sole control of the data).

 

If you just mention pathtags without encouraging people to make their own or give the URL I don't think Groundspeak has a good reason to disallow mention of it. Groundspeak apparently takes its "no spam" policy rather seriously - a local cacher was chastised for advertising his geocaching event in his logs.

 

Edit to add : "Left my pathtag, visit xxxx to make one of your own!" will probably get classed as spam. "Left my new pathtag, hope you like it" should be fine. BTW my avatar is from my pathtag.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to comment

I do find it interesting that some individuals need to precede their own arguments with derogatory comments about other’s point of few as if this would somehow make their own point of view more valid. What seems to have been missed by individuals taking that approach is that the OP does consider the premium membership to be a good deal, is not contemplating giving up on his, also had more premium accounts than he “needs”, has no intention of whining about anything (and did not do that in this thread), has no intention of ranting (and did not do it in this thread), loves geocaching more than sitting at the computer crunching data (while being a data crunching pro), knows exactly how to use the allocation of 40 Pqs and 5 per day to the fullest, is generally really pleased with Groundspeak and their efforts, and wishes for life to go on like this for a long time (perhaps with some improvements). Anyone wishing to argue against the OP’s point of view (that the premium membership is declining in value) should probably focus on that and perhaps avoid discussing using alternate (non-PM) methods to secure geocaching data.

 

I very much enjoyed Markwell’s analysis; in fact, his approach to responding in this thread is a clear example of why he is one of the most respected geocachers anywhere. I too use these same tricks and am pleasantly amazed that someone has a larger home territory than I do. I would submit that the fact that tricks are needed at all is yet another example of making data less accessible rather than more accessible (all within the PM). I suspect that many more geocachers might be premium members if these tools were less of a hurdle and more of an assistance, less focused on limiting what we get and more focused on letting us have what we need/want.

 

One point that was made was the cost of delivering more data or load on servers might be prohibitive in some way. I would argue that leaving data sitting in databases earns the company no money yet still incurs a maintenance cost. Profitability in IT means selling/leasing the data. The concept that you have to hang on to it and dole it out in as small portions as possible, if a false economy because of the reduced customer base.

 

I would submit also that one of the reasons that we have CAAR PQs is because there was a lot of constructive discussion about it over time prior to Groundspeak implementing it. It is an absolutely amazing tool and when it appeared it increased the value of the premium membership for anyone who travels. It serves as a clear example of the value of the Premium Membership today. Prior to it becoming available, the premium membership had also declined in value significantly, as it took huge amounts of inefficient querying anytime you went on a trip. Unfortunately the wonderful proliferation of geocaching has brought us back to that same place. I am not aware of some great new premium membership tool coming on line which might increase the value of the PM. I am aware of technology (mentioned by several in this thread) that is doing the opposite.

Link to comment
What seems to have been missed by individuals taking that approach is that the OP does consider the premium membership to be a good deal, is not contemplating giving up on his, also had more premium accounts than he “needs”...

Aren't you the OP? I find this referring to self in 3rd person trend (this is the 2nd post I've come across recently) amusing. Smacks of ringbone :)

 

A premium membership can decline in one's perceived value without anything to do with what Groundspeak did. If I lost interest in geocaching, then premium membership certainly won't be worth $30 / year. So I certainly won't disagree with you that you felt there has been a decline in value to you.

Link to comment
Actually from what I've read recently there has been some strict enforcement by Groundspeak representatives in regards to not allowing the mention of the pathtags being allowed in listing, logs, etc. Frankly, I find it both ridiculous and childish that they would disallow discussion of something that is at this point commonly used and passed around as a collectible and swag.

I've not seen any evidence of that here. Pathtags are commonly mentioned in the cache description page and in logs. As long as you're not requiring people to visit th pathtags site or force them to track your pathtags, or advertise the pathtags website, I don't see what right they have to disallow mention of the tags (other than the fact that this is a privately held company and is in sole control of the data).

 

If you just mention pathtags without encouraging people to make their own or give the URL I don't think Groundspeak has a good reason to disallow mention of it. Groundspeak apparently takes its "no spam" policy rather seriously - a local cacher was chastised for advertising his geocaching event in his logs.

 

Edit to add : "Left my pathtag, visit xxxx to make one of your own!" will probably get classed as spam. "Left my new pathtag, hope you like it" should be fine. BTW my avatar is from my pathtag.

 

I would point out the thread in the other forum where enforcement was brought up and what is presently being done but it would probably be deleted. If you have a membership in said forum as you would since your avatar is from your tag you should be able to find the thread easily. It's a rather lenghty one and details the experience of some cachers that have had bad experiences mentioning the tags on cache pages. From what I understood they were not advertising for anyone to make a purchase on the site.

Link to comment

I really do not get it. Why all the moaning and whinging. I rarely use the PM features, except for the Google Earth plug-in (that rocks). I am quite happy to pay $30.00 per year for membership as I do go geocaching and use the website, which strangely enough is not free to run.

 

I also wonder if people who find $30.00 per year too much shouldn't maybe think of cutting back on their alcohol consumption or drive around a bit less, both of which would save considerable more than $30.00 per year.

Link to comment

... I would submit that the fact that tricks are needed at all is yet another example of making data less accessible rather than more accessible (all within the PM). I suspect that many more geocachers might be premium members if these tools were less of a hurdle and more of an assistance, less focused on limiting what we get and more focused on letting us have what we need/want.

Here's the part of your argument I don't understand: Just how is Groundspeak limiting my access to data now any more than they did when I joined three almost four years ago? I have access to more tools now, using functionality that Groundspeak provides, than I did then. What I'm seeing from my perspective is some impatience on the part of some members as to the pace of innovation, which appears to be clashing with Groundspeak's priority of making sure the Web site stays up and people get the pocket queries they need to go caching.

 

Given the intermittent glitches everyone here knows about, I would prefer that they use their limited resources to fix what's broken and keep things running before addressing requests for innovations that the majority of members don't even need at this point.

 

What I've been reading are increasing demands from members that Groundspeak make it easier for members to grab massive amounts of data, and that Groundspeak open up access to that data through means that they (Groundspeak) feel would compromise the security and/or integrity of the Web site and the data.

 

I'm still getting the same bang for the buck I enjoyed when I first joined, so I disagree that there is any decline in the value of a premium membership. If Groundspeak improved my access to cache data, and added functionality to the Web site that made some of the "tricks" we use obsolete, I'd be an even happier camper. However, they never promised me that in exchange for my $30 a year, and I won't be too disappointed if they simply continue the incremental improvements they've been making over the years.

 

--Larry

 

Edited to update how long I've been a member. Time flies when you're having fun. :)

Edited by larryc43230
Link to comment

Prior to it becoming available, the premium membership had also declined in value significantly, as it took huge amounts of inefficient querying anytime you went on a trip.

I would submit that the fact that tricks are needed at all is yet another example of making data less accessible rather than more accessible (all within the PM).

 

If someone is performing task A and finds that task A requires more effort than I would say the value has declined.

 

However, if performing task A has stayed the same but now someone discovers that they want to perform task B, which they have never performed before and find it difficult I would have to ask if task B is difficult because of a change or because it wasn't done before.

 

Just because someone tries to do something new or wants to do more and the system stayed the same that is not the fault of the system.

 

Failure to expand does not equal contraction. It just means in comparison to it may look to be getting smaller, but it is still the same. Last time I looked, there was nobody else providing a better product so we take what we get.

Link to comment
I very much enjoyed Markwell’s analysis...I too use these same tricks and am pleasantly amazed that someone has a larger home territory than I do. I would submit that the fact that tricks are needed at all is yet another example of making data less accessible rather than more accessible (all within the PM). I suspect that many more geocachers might be premium members if these tools were less of a hurdle and more of an assistance, less focused on limiting what we get and more focused on letting us have what we need/want...Profitability in IT means selling/leasing the data. The concept that you have to hang on to it and dole it out in as small portions as possible, if a false economy because of the reduced customer base.

 

Thanks for your kind words, but you seemed to miss my point. I wasn't so much talking about tricks and work-arounds as I was talking about two concepts: (1) You don't have to have ALL of the caches in your local database, and (2) The data doesn't have to be instantly fresh to be useful.

 

As a database administrator, I authored and maintain a system that tracks insurance claims. The system tracks many items such as file notes, payments, guesses as to the value of a claim, etc, all in live time. But once a month at 11:30 p.m. on the last day of the month, the system takes a snapshot of the database and stores a version of the claim record in a one-record-per-claim format in a separate database. This snapshot of data would be analogous to a single line record showing up in GSAK with all of the columns being displayed. The data that is in this snapshot is immediately stale as soon as a user changes information in the live system, but it does have its value. People can query the database and receive their results faster than if they looked at the live data. They can slice and dice the data with tools that aren't available on the live system. Sound familiar?

 

But the data becomes less and less useful the longer it sits without refreshing. By the time our staff reaches the 25th or 26th of the month, there's no longer any major activity on the database. The staff just figures they'll wait for the refresh at the first of the month and do their queries then.

The minute the data goes out of the main online Geocaching.com database, it's stale. Groundspeak has recently spent its time with iPhone applications and other features that allow users remote access to the main online (and most importantly) COMPLETELY FRESH database. While Opinionate has stated that they'll be increasing the size of the pocket queries, I still maintain that the level you're asking is extravagant based on the efficient needs that a cacher would actually HAVE to have to be able to cache.

Link to comment

Thanks for the feedback, RAH. We intend to increase the number of caches per PQ in the second quarter of this year.

 

Before that can be done, however, we need to shore up the PQ generator so it can handle the increased load. That is a difficult task but we are employing some strategery to accomplish it.

 

We are also researching ways to provide on-demand PQ downloads as an a la carte offering (for those days you need a few extra). I'll have more information on this in the future.

 

Thanks, that's very good news. When I first joined a few years ago, 500 caches was more than enough to cover the area I might want to cache in. Now that I've started caching again, I have to be selective about types, and still, 500 just covers about an 8 mile radius. Yes, I know I could run multiple queries (and I do) but it would be easier if I could just get one file.

Edited by Mosaic55
Link to comment

I do find it interesting that some individuals need to precede their own arguments with derogatory comments about other’s point of few as if this would somehow make their own point of view more valid. What seems to have been missed by individuals taking that approach is that the OP does consider the premium membership to be a good deal, is not contemplating giving up on his, also had more premium accounts than he “needs”, has no intention of whining about anything (and did not do that in this thread), has no intention of ranting (and did not do it in this thread), loves geocaching more than sitting at the computer crunching data (while being a data crunching pro), knows exactly how to use the allocation of 40 Pqs and 5 per day to the fullest, is generally really pleased with Groundspeak and their efforts, and wishes for life to go on like this for a long time (perhaps with some improvements). Anyone wishing to argue against the OP’s point of view (that the premium membership is declining in value) should probably focus on that and perhaps avoid discussing using alternate (non-PM) methods to secure geocaching data.

 

I very much enjoyed Markwell’s analysis; in fact, his approach to responding in this thread is a clear example of why he is one of the most respected geocachers anywhere. I too use these same tricks and am pleasantly amazed that someone has a larger home territory than I do. I would submit that the fact that tricks are needed at all is yet another example of making data less accessible rather than more accessible (all within the PM). I suspect that many more geocachers might be premium members if these tools were less of a hurdle and more of an assistance, less focused on limiting what we get and more focused on letting us have what we need/want.

 

One point that was made was the cost of delivering more data or load on servers might be prohibitive in some way. I would argue that leaving data sitting in databases earns the company no money yet still incurs a maintenance cost. Profitability in IT means selling/leasing the data. The concept that you have to hang on to it and dole it out in as small portions as possible, if a false economy because of the reduced customer base.

 

I would submit also that one of the reasons that we have CAAR PQs is because there was a lot of constructive discussion about it over time prior to Groundspeak implementing it. It is an absolutely amazing tool and when it appeared it increased the value of the premium membership for anyone who travels. It serves as a clear example of the value of the Premium Membership today. Prior to it becoming available, the premium membership had also declined in value significantly, as it took huge amounts of inefficient querying anytime you went on a trip. Unfortunately the wonderful proliferation of geocaching has brought us back to that same place. I am not aware of some great new premium membership tool coming on line which might increase the value of the PM. I am aware of technology (mentioned by several in this thread) that is doing the opposite.

 

Very well said.

 

The PQs have not kept up with the times, the technology, the proliferation of caches and the needs of many cachers. They are adequate.

Link to comment
I'm still getting the same bang for the buck I enjoyed when I first joined, so I disagree that there is any decline in the value of a premium membership.

Value is subjective. You won't be able to convince my wife premium membership here is worth $30 a year to her, for example.

 

OP's needs changed, so to him, there is a decrease in value. I can accept that, as long as he's not trying to insist that the value decreased for everyone.

Link to comment

Markwell - Thank you for the very informative and excellent example. I agree this is a very effective solution for my home area. Although for traveling it is a bit harder than having a broad home area of interest from my perspective. Where my problem lies is we are not exactly sure where we are going to stop as of yet on our 2600+ mile trek to Carnation. We decided last year that we were going to determine a rough route that will take us by some Landmarks we wish to see, but other than those few areas we plan to just wing it. With that said your method works well for a broad area but for a linear corridor it does not work quite as well. The CAAR works fairly well, but it is limited to 500 miles / 500 caches... The issues I see are all the specific tool based upper bound limits instead of a more general data limit per day/week/month. I also agree with you that one does not need the data for every cache in the region, but being able to chose geographic areas to get small clusters versus non-deterministic geographical clusters based on date ranges would be more preferable to me.

 

HYNR - I agree in general I am satisfied 90+% of the time with my PM and with that do not see a huge decline in my value other than I still can not run a PQ like query on Waymarking (unless there has been a change I am not aware of). I responded with sentiment to the pain of planning for GW and the request for suggestions on improving the flexibility of data delivery based on my route planning experience for this trip.

Link to comment

OP's needs changed, so to him, there is a decrease in value. I can accept that, as long as he's not trying to insist that the value decreased for everyone.

I agree with you completely. Then again, I don't remember Groundspeak ever promising to keep up with the needs (or at least desires) of every member, no matter how they wish to cache or how much data they'd like to have at their fingertips.

 

Groundspeak is a company that's in business to make at least a little profit at the end of the day. They presumably don't have the luxury of unlimited resources (staff or hardware). My personal opinion is that the product they provide is more than worth the $30 a year I'm paying for it. As always, YMMV.

 

--Larry

Link to comment
Thanks for your kind words, but you seemed to miss my point. I wasn't so much talking about tricks and work-arounds as I was talking about two concepts: (1) You don't have to have ALL of the caches in your local database, and (2) The data doesn't have to be instantly fresh to be useful.

I don't think I misunderstood. I am finding that I cannot respond to agree or disagree with every point that is being made; I should probably have been more complete, but I am afraid I am already too wordy.

 

I do everything exactly as you say and completely agree with the points you make. Over the years I have had to constrain my queries to less frequent updates, thus making do with "less fresh data"; as you point out the value declines with degree of freshness. I too no longer pull caches that I have no intention of looking for (if I can get the query tool to exclude those reliably). I do know that what you are demonstrating is easy for you and me. Many do not have this skill and for them this would be viewed as a hurdle to making use of the PM.

 

I would be curious how things will change for you with regard to your system in June as you make plans to go to Geowoodstock (are you going?). I presume that you will (would) have to let your database go a bit staler while you are away from home, than you normally do; perhaps you'll archive some (all?) PQs and rebuild (or restore) them later to cope with the limits. How early in June will (would) you start collecting data so that you will have cache data when you want it (without resorting to a mobile browser)?

 

In my case I will be traveling a slightly shorter distance than you, but I will be with 3 extraordinary geocachers who love to take detours for caches and other fun things. Not having caches when this team wants to go caching is simply not a realistic option for us. :( I just learned that we will be packing the needed equipment to hunt down any cache without being dependent on PQs. So perhaps the decline in value is not going to be as problematic for me as I had thought.

Link to comment
I'm still getting the same bang for the buck I enjoyed when I first joined, so I disagree that there is any decline in the value of a premium membership.
Value is subjective. You won't be able to convince my wife premium membership here is worth $30 a year to her, for example.

 

OP's needs changed, so to him, there is a decrease in value. I can accept that, as long as he's not trying to insist that the value decreased for everyone.

I certainly agree with the fact that everyone has a different perception. But do be aware that everyone means not just the techno experts here, but all those geocachers who haven't even figured out how to make post in these forums or how to get a PQ to return more than zero caches.

 

Indulge me (and your wife) for a minute: suppose that the data retrieval tool allowed your wife to attach her GPSr, indicate a route where she wants to go in a way that she feels comfortable communicating with the computer, click a button, watch a progress meter for a few seconds and then go caching. Would this appeal to her enough to get a membership for herself?

 

My needs have not changed. I am in exactly the same situation I was in last June when I visited Canada, Washington and Oregon (by way of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Montana, and Idaho). I ran out of data on three occasions. What has changed is that I will be on a different, more-direct route and there will now be even more caches so more PQs are needed, each covering less area. I anticipate outrunning my PQ-generated data every day.

Link to comment

So it seems that the value or premium membership has declined because you use to be able to load 2500 caches a day and they covered, say a 25 mile radius around your home coordinates. Now there are more caches so 2500 caches covers only a 17.5 mile radius. That's 1000 square miles less area. Your getting just under half the area you used to get. So you have a few options. You can be more selective in the caches you download and not get all the caches in the 25 mile radius. You can cover the bigger area by accepting that you wont have every cache. Or you can get 2500 cache one day and a different 2500 the next day and cover the 25 mile radius with half of the data being a day old. I suppose you could say the value is less because you either have to skip caches or use older data.

 

Now look at it this way. You live in a cache dense area where 2500 caches covers only a 17.5 mile radius. You move (or just travel) to someplace with a lot few caches. Now you can get 2500 caches and it covers 30 miles from your center point. The value of the premium member just increased because you went somewhere with fewer caches. I won't argue with this logic because I live in a pretty cache dense area. I'm hoping that Groundspeak will adopt a pricing policy based on the area one can cover with PQs because where I live a premium membership is certainly worth less than most anyplace else. :(

Link to comment
I certainly agree with the fact that everyone has a different perception. But do be aware that everyone means not just the techno experts here, but all those geocachers who haven't even figured out how to make post in these forums or how to get a PQ to return more than zero caches.

 

Indulge me (and your wife) for a minute: suppose that the data retrieval tool allowed your wife to attach her GPSr, indicate a route where she wants to go in a way that she feels comfortable communicating with the computer, click a button, watch a progress meter for a few seconds and then go caching. Would this appeal to her enough to get a membership for herself?

Second point first - since she thinks that geocaching is a waste of time, I doubt it'll change her mind :( But back to the topic, you're asking for better, more user friendly features. I'm all for that. It doesn't fit the "decline in value" scenario though, and that is the phrase most people in this thread seem to take issue with.

 

My needs have not changed. I am in exactly the same situation I was in last June when I visited Canada, Washington and Oregon (by way of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Montana, and Idaho). I ran out of data on three occasions. What has changed is that I will be on a different, more-direct route and there will now be even more caches so more PQs are needed, each covering less area. I anticipate outrunning my PQ-generated data every day.

I still don't see the "decline in value" in the scenario there, though I admit that there certainly is no easy solution to your situation.

 

I've never said that what is currently offered is perfect / sufficint, and that Groundspeak should carry on with things the way they are. I'm all for improvement, better products and services, and all that. What I don't agree with is that they should do it because the value of a PM has declined.

Link to comment
My needs have not changed. I am in exactly the same situation I was in last June when I visited Canada, Washington and Oregon (by way of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Montana, and Idaho). I ran out of data on three occasions. What has changed is that I will be on a different, more-direct route and there will now be even more caches so more PQs are needed, each covering less area. I anticipate outrunning my PQ-generated data every day.

 

I still don't see the "decline in value" in the scenario there, though I admit that there certainly is no easy solution to your situation.

 

Compare the number of caches that could retrieved with PQs back when we first became PMs to what can be retrieved now, using a percentage of all caches and you can see the decline.

 

That leaves the OP with the options of buying more Premium memberships ($60, $90, etc) and then spending another $100 or so for a Droid plus the "contract" price for its use (to get immediate fresh data), and the value isn't as great as it once was.

 

That just leaves the question for each individual to decide on, 'Is the Premium membership worth the cost?'.

 

It appears that most of the respondents have answered that last question, but fail to see that one shouldn't need to 'buy' 2 or 3 more memberships, or need to 'buy' an I-phone or Droid to get the same percentage of coverage.

 

John

Link to comment

I would argue, based on range, the value of the PM has gone up. It now saves you on gas because you don't have to travel as far to find caches.

 

That is not a benefit of the PM. The caches are there to find regardless of membership status.

 

John

 

Sure it is. With a PM you can run a PQ and see you are going to save gas. Knowing you are going to save gas vs finding out later has to be of value.

Edited by Keith Watson
Link to comment

Id say the value of the site as a whole has stayed the same / improved however the value of the pq system has been erroded.

If pq's are your primary reason for a PM (thats the case for us) then the OP is correct.

It can take several hours to plan a holidays pq's just to get a reasonable radius from your base co ords, im pleased GC are planning to adress this. Allthough gc time is starting to remind me of valve time http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time

Link to comment

<snip>...the value of the pq system has been erroded.

 

If pq's are your primary reason for a PM (thats the case for us) then the OP is correct.

 

Actually, if you base it strictly on the PQs, the OP is INCORRECT.

 

I signed up shortly before the OP. At the time I signed up you could get 500 caches in a PQ 5 times a day. As of this writing, 4MAR10, you can get 500 caches 5 times a day. No change, no decrease in value, perceived or real.

 

In fact, I think (if memory serves) at some point the PQs were raised from 35 to 40. In that time period they also added attributes as well for filtering for them. I know they added saved PQs recently and, again if memory serves, I think CAaR was added since I became a member.

 

Looks like the value of strictly the PQs went up significantly.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment
... they added saved PQs recently ...
Whoa. I missed that. Indeed, a recent addition. Obviously an increase in value of some sort for somebody.

 

But as I study this new feature, I am having a really hard time seeing how this is going to help anyone with a mobile device. Why wouldn't folks just load the data directly to their mobile device from the third-party software? I'm obviously missing something. I do have a data-enabled phone (Blackberry Curve on Verizon) and I see no way to make use of this feature. So while it COULD have a reversing effect on the decline in value that I perceive, it does not accomplish that. Does this feature do anything for folks with Droids?

Link to comment

Actually, if you base it strictly on the PQs, the OP is INCORRECT.

...

Looks like the value of strictly the PQs went up significantly.

Oh, come on. I am not sure I agree with the OP, but your argument here is just disingenuous. I think he at least deserves an honest discussion, which your reply is not.

 

When I first got PQs, I could get all caches out to about 25 miles from my house in one PQ. I could schedule PQs to run every day and they would.

 

Today, a PQ goes out about 7 or 8 miles, and regularly-scheduled PQs frequently run more like once a week. I don't know anybody who can schedule PQs to run every day and have them reliably run.

 

I think the argument that the value of PQs has decreased is a legitimate one. I think I disagree; the advent of queries along a route has greatly increased their value for me. But I understand and respect Hynr's point, and I think bogus arguments like yours have no place in an honest discussion.

Link to comment

<snip>...the value of the pq system has been erroded.

 

If pq's are your primary reason for a PM (thats the case for us) then the OP is correct.

 

Actually, if you base it strictly on the PQs, the OP is INCORRECT.

 

I signed up shortly before the OP. At the time I signed up you could get 500 caches in a PQ 5 times a day. As of this writing, 4MAR10, you can get 500 caches 5 times a day. No change, no decrease in value, perceived or real.

 

In fact, I think (if memory serves) at some point the PQs were raised from 35 to 40. In that time period they also added attributes as well for filtering for them. I know they added saved PQs recently and, again if memory serves, I think CAaR was added since I became a member.

 

Looks like the value of strictly the PQs went up significantly.

 

In what wierd maths world do you live ?? there are more caches so you can get less % of them for your PQ you can still only use 35 a week most caches have the wrong or no attributes set.

 

and caar is not a pocket query its one of those improved tools i mentioned, as someone else stated 1 pq used to get 25 miles your lucky to get outside your neighborhood with one now,

 

but GC have stated they are adressing this so good news :blink:

Link to comment

Today, a PQ goes out about 7 or 8 miles, and regularly-scheduled PQs frequently run more like once a week. I don't know anybody who can schedule PQs to run every day and have them reliably run.

 

Naive, simple arguments such are just muddying the waters. As you get older, with more experience, you will start to see the reality of these types of things.

 

I live in a cache rich environment and can get 9000+ caches in my area every week without ever having to run a PQ twice and still have plenty of PQs left over for CAaR or specific other areas when I travel. Yes, I am a product of a society that has created data hoarders. I have not yet found even a small fraction of these in a given week. If I am going to be out of the area for an extended period of time I can shut off or simply archive some of the PQs and restore them when I return. (See elsewhere for how to restore without recreating) Not to mention that there are few areas you can go into now where you can not access free WiFi when traveling.

 

When McDonald's first opened, they had a very limited menu. Several items have been added and removed over the years. Because all these items have been added, does it make the original hamburger less of a value, even though the price has been raised?

 

You have more choices in a given target area, so the tool to get them has less value? My PQs do run reliably and have rarely had to wait on them. The other day was the first time they got significantly backed up due to a system issue and I still got them the next day. Big deal, 20% of my data was 7 days old for about a 24 hour period.

 

If the PQs get raised, great. That will increase the value however there are many more pressing things that resources could be used on that have a real impact.

 

Once again, based strictly on the PQs, the question was if the value had DECREASED, to which the fact is that it has not. Whether or not that value could or should be INCREASED is not what was implied or asked. If you want to change the question, yes, while not necessary, increased PQ size or number of PQs would increase the value provided it does not result in a performance hit.

Link to comment

I don't know anybody who can schedule PQs to run every day and have them reliably run.

 

Just about everyday there's a message (or 2) in the forums from frustrated PMs, because their PQs are not working. It does seem like reliability is a problem.

Link to comment

I don't know anybody who can schedule PQs to run every day and have them reliably run.

 

Just about everyday there's a message (or 2) in the forums from frustrated PMs, because their PQs are not working. It does seem like reliability is a problem.

 

Increasing the size is a fix for this?

 

Let me make something clear, I am not against increasing the size however it is not critical, as it works well as is, and the very problem cited here is what I would rather see resources concentrated on.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

This needs an ice cream analogy.

 

My local ice cream parlor offers a premium membership. Premium members can get up to 5 sample tastes per day of ice cream. When the premium membership began 6 or 7 years ago, the store had five flavors of ice cream. So my premium mebership entiltled me to taste every flavor of ice cream in the store every day. They now have 50 flavors of ice cream. But the premium membership still is only 5 samples per day. It now takes me 10 days to sample all the flavors in the store. Clearly the premium membership has declined in value. :)

 

I find this theory for the value of a premium Groundspeak membership intriguing. Since I live in a cache dense area, my pocket queries cover a smaller area than if I lived somewhere with fewer caches. Perhaps I should be getting a discount because I live in a cache dense area. Or, if $30 is the right price for Los Angeles, then someone living in a less dense cache area should be paying more. The pricing scheme for premium membership is clearly unfair to people who live in cache rich areas. :D

Link to comment

The solution to better premium benefit value when living in a cache rich environment is to get busy and find the caches. Then your PQ's will cover a larger area when you request caches you have not found. Seems obvious to the casual observer.

Link to comment

In what wierd maths world do you live ?? there are more caches so you can get less % of them for your PQ you can still only use 35 a week

In what plane of existence did Groundspeak ever say they would offer a percentage of the caches to be available in a PQ?

 

most caches have the wrong or no attributes set.
Did you know that once when I was in elementary school, I didn't like the color of my black Schwinn Bike. So I took a spray-can and painted everything (including the chain and handlebars) blue.

 

Both of those two statements have about the same relevance to this discussion

Link to comment

In what wierd maths world do you live ?? there are more caches so you can get less % of them for your PQ you can still only use 35 a week

In what plane of existence did Groundspeak ever say they would offer a percentage of the caches to be available in a PQ?

 

To determine if the value has gone down, using percentages is one way to see if you are getting as much for the price as when you became a PM.

 

Groundspeak never offering a percentage of the available caches is irrelevant to determining if the value has changed. The question is has the value changed? Increased or Decreased?

 

Considering how many have more than 1 Premium membership so they can get more PQs, then the value must have gone down for them if they need extra PQs now.

 

John

Link to comment

If value is calculated by what you get for what you pay, has Groundspeak decreased anything they provide that you are paying for? Since the upper limits on a pocket query is distance AND number of caches and neither have been lowered by Groundspeak I would say there has not been a reduction on the part of Groundspeak.

 

If you 500 cache circle is getting smaller than you have two people to blame. Yourself for not getting out and finding those caches to increase the radius and/or the people that are placing the caches that are shrinking the radius for you.

Link to comment

Considering how many have more than 1 Premium membership so they can get more PQs, then the value must have gone down for them if they need extra PQs now.

Exactly how did you determine how many geocachers have more than one premium account? I don't remember ever seeing that statistic. The only ones I know of are the few that have mentioned the fact here in these forums.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

Considering how many have more than 1 Premium membership so they can get more PQs, then the value must have gone down for them if they need extra PQs now.

Exactly how did you determine how many geocachers have more than one premium account? I don't remember ever seeing that statistic. The only ones I know of are the few that have mentioned the fact here in these forums.

And I'd also like to know how many of those with multiple PM accounts did so only for the additional PQs?

Link to comment

To determine if the value has gone down, using percentages is one way to see if you are getting as much for the price as when you became a PM.

Looking SOLELY at PQs...

 

When Premium Membership and Pocket Queries were first offered in June/July of 2002, users were able to get 5 pocket queries, with up to 500 caches each. With 500 caches per PQ, 5 PQs per day (if I did it daily), and paying $30 per year, that means that I get about 25 caches per penny - that's the cost both then and now. When I started, I got 100% of the queries I requested. Each query had about 490 caches. This week, I got 100% of the queries I requested. Each query had about 490 caches. I got 100% of the 490 caches in each PQ. The actual value of the percentage of caches I request has not changed. When the system was first brought online, we were able to save 20 queries online. Over time that increased to 35 (5 per day and 7 days) and eventually 40. The value there for has increased because I can save twice as many queries for the same price - and INCREASE of 100%. dance-go.gif

When I was first a premium member, there were no Bookmarks, Caches Along a Route, Ignore Lists, Instant Notifications, or "Off Topic" forum. Each of those items has been added without an increase in the cost of premium membership. The actual value of a premium membership has actually increased. The difference here is perceived value, which the Business Dictionary defines as a "Customer's opinion of a product's value to him or her. It may have little or nothing to do with the product's market price, and depends on the product's ability to satisfy his or her needs or requirements."

 

Now that we can stop the nitpicking and deal with the issue at hand...

There are people in here that believe that the Perceived Value of the Premium Membership has declined. The basis for this is that while the cache have been proliferating around their home area faster than they can find them, the pocket query results have not kept up with the speed of un-found caches. These premium members wish to download un-found caches all at once to an offline database to be able to store it locally, and have the data as fresh as possible. These users either to take the data on the go where there won't be internet connectivity, or to mine the data using other tools currently unavailable on the website.

 

Please tell me if I'm stating anything incorrectly.

 

Since it is extremely difficult to change someone's perception of value, I suggest that this dialog will be going no where, given that Opionate has already stated that the actual value will be going up (but possibly not in light of perceived value).

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment

When PQs started, in 2003, a typical computer had a 2.4 GHz CPU, 512 MB of RAM, a 20 GB hard drive, and a 17-inch CRT monitor. That would cost you about $1500 - $2000. Broadband speeds of 384 kb/s ran about $50 a month.

 

According to many posters here, the same configuration is still worth exactly the same as it was then. The problem is that today, for $1500 - $2000, you can get a quad-core machine with 1 TB disk storage and 8 GB of RAM. That $50 a month should get you a minimum of 8Mb/s broadband.

 

Good luck selling that mint-condition, never used computer from 2003 for what you tell us it is worth.

 

See, that's economics. As productivity goes up, we get more for the same amount of money! And productivity has changed a lot since 2003. Do you think Groundspeak spends as much per PQ delivery today as it did then? Do you think that the capacity of Groundspeak's servers is the same today as it was then? Do you think Groundspeak's CPU, storage and bandwidth costs are the same today as they were then?

 

In your dreams.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment
According to many posters here, the same configuration is still worth exactly the same as it was then.

No, you're the only one with such a quaint notion.

 

See, what's being discussed here is the value of a service, not a physical product. And specifically not a computer system. Not only that, we're talking about a service that has no direct equivalent competition.

 

See, that's economics. As productivity goes up, we get more for the same amount of money! And productivity has changed a lot since 2003. Do you think Groundspeak spends as much per PQ delivery today as it did then? Do you think that the capacity of Groundspeak's servers is the same today as it was then? Do you think Groundspeak's CPU, storage and bandwidth costs are the same today as they were then?

Gee, I wonder what about personnel costs. Think they have the same number of employees as 2003? That they're still being paid the same? Healthcare cost, it must have gone down, right?

 

Besides, a product or service is priced at what the seller believes the market will bear. You don't argue that you're getting less value simply because the cost of producing something has gone down.

Link to comment
According to many posters here, the same configuration is still worth exactly the same as it was then.

See, what's being discussed here is the value of a service, not a physical product. And specifically not a computer system. Not only that, we're talking about a service that has no direct equivalent competition.

As in a monopoly. Bingo.

 

Anyway, you ignored the part about bandwidth costs. That's a service, just like this one. And the cost of the equivalent service has decreased (as I pointed out in the part of my post you snipped).

 

Gee, I wonder what about personnel costs. Think they have the same number of employees as 2003? That they're still being paid the same? Healthcare cost, it must have gone down, right?

The number of employees per premium subscriber has decreased a great deal since 2003. If we assume that premium subscribers are a constant fraction of the total number of members, then the former has gone up by a factor of maybe three while the latter has gone up by a factor of around 30. Sorry, your argument fails. By a lot.

 

Here's the picture of user growth. PQs were first available in early 2003.

Users02-2010.gif

 

Besides, a product or service is priced at what the seller believes the market will bear. You don't argue that you're getting less value simply because the cost of producing something has gone down.

Right. In a monopoly market the cost of services is unrelated to their value, because there is no competition. The value to cost ratio tends to decline, which is what Hynr perceives.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...