Suggestion: seeing friends' premium caches

[I!]

First post here; apologies if a FAQ ...

 

I would like to allow a particular ordinary member to view my premium caches. I would have thought that the natural mechanism was to make him a geocaching.com friend; but this doesn't have the desired effect. I can't see any way of achieving what I want except to pay for him to have a membership upgrade (fat chance!).

 

Thoughts? (I can't see why anyone would want to hide caches from their friends ...)

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I want except to pay for him to have a membership upgrade (fat chance!).

Not that good of a friend, eh?

 

I take it you want him/her to VIEW your caches. But not hunt for them? Hmmmmmmm...

Well, your choices seem to be to wait until your friend decides to go premium, or make your caches open for all members. You can "de-premium-ize" a cache.

[I!]

I want except to pay for him to have a membership upgrade (fat chance!).

Not that good of a friend, eh?

 

I take it you want him/her to VIEW your caches. But not hunt for them? Hmmmmmmm...

Well, your choices seem to be to wait until your friend decides to go premium, or make your caches open for all members. You can "de-premium-ize" a cache.

No, I want him to be able to access my caches as if he was a premium member; but I don't want to open up those particular ones to the general population.

 

I could obviously print off the cache description, hand him the paperwork, and say "off you go". He'd find the cache and could write in the log book ... but geocaching.com wouldn't offer him the facility to log that find online (nor to log the removal of any trackables). That's an unfortunate gap in functionality IMO.

[+baloo&bd]

I want except to pay for him to have a membership upgrade (fat chance!).

Not that good of a friend, eh?

 

I take it you want him/her to VIEW your caches. But not hunt for them? Hmmmmmmm...

Well, your choices seem to be to wait until your friend decides to go premium, or make your caches open for all members. You can "de-premium-ize" a cache.

No, I want him to be able to access my caches as if he was a premium member; but I don't want to open up those particular ones to the general population.

 

I could obviously print off the cache description, hand him the paperwork, and say "off you go". He'd find the cache and could write in the log book ... but geocaching.com wouldn't offer him the facility to log that find online (nor to log the removal of any trackables). That's an unfortunate gap in functionality IMO.

 

Actually, GC has provided the capability for him to log them. See the thread referenced in my signature. GC intentionally put in a backdoor for exactly these types of occurrences.

 

You will still need to give him the info up front or, just don't make them MOC in the first place.

[+Lil Devil]

Actually, GC has provided the capability for him to log them. See the thread referenced in my signature. GC intentionally put in a backdoor for exactly these types of occurrences.

I'm pretty sure it was not "intentionally" added. Rather, it was a bug in that the log form didn't do error checking to make sure you were a PM. Later it was decided that this was an acceptable thing, so the "bug" has been reclassified as a "feature."

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

You don't see any disparity in this line of thinking?

No, I want him to be able to access my caches as if he was a premium member; but I don't want to open up those particular ones to the general population

But he isn't a PM, why should he have that option when others do not?

 

Why not just suggest he become a PM, if for nothing else but to support the site that allows these listings that he enjoys so much?

 

Sorry if this response seems jaded. I'm gonna have somebody bake a cake so I can eat it, too.

[+t4e]

That's an unfortunate gap in functionality IMO.

 

no,its not, its called Premium Members perks

 

if everything would be available to anyone, than what would be the incentive to become Premium Member?

 

as for the possibility of logging them through a backdoor, i don't think that's fair either...but w/e

[BlueRajah]

A great reason for this feature is a family. Each of the five members may choose to have their own account, yet the family only pays for 1 or 2. That particular feature allows for a child, teenager, or in some cases the owners dog to log the cache as visited. A non member cannot search for members only caches, they would have to be given the information, or taken to the cache.

[I!]

Thank-you, people, for the helpful advice, especially baloo&bd's link.

 

When I make a cache "PMOC" it's because I want to give it protection from scavengers. I am in the fortunate position of being able to trust my friends, so wish to include them among the group that can view my protected caches. Why the few dissenters here should wish to deny their "friends" this privilege (which extends only to one's own caches) is beyond me

Edited May 6, 2010 by I!

[+tozainamboku]

I want to hide a cached that only my friends can see (whether or not they are premium members). I think I should be able to have a private cache hidden from everyone except those whom I explicitly invite to look a it.

 

Does that help in understanding the reaction you are seeing to the idea of having a premium cache and then inviting non premium member friends to see it?

 

Its fairly easy to print out the cache page and give it to your friends along with the instructions for backdoor logging of PMO caches. Just don't give them the GPX file with your PMO caches as that would violate the Waypoint Download License Agreement.

[+baloo&bd]

Its fairly easy to print out the cache page and give it to your friends along with the instructions for backdoor logging of PMO caches. Just don't give them the GPX file with your PMO caches as that would violate the Waypoint Download License Agreement.

 

Not to be nit picky however, if you were to follow both letter and spirit of the TOU, printing it and giving it to them is also a violation. Otherwise you would just create a GPX using another program like GSAK and give that to them.

 

Not saying if it is right, wrong or even reasonable, just pointing it out.

[I!]

Gitchee-Gummee, t4e and tozainamboku ... Imagine there was a check-box when editing your PMO cache that said: "extend access to basic member friends as well? [Yes/No]". Some people, me included, would definitely use that. Some others would ignore it. And a significant remainder would, it seems, object to the existence of this feature. Why? Are they (/you) worried that the loss of upgrade revenue from these lucky friends will push up your subscription by a few pence?

 

If your objection is on the grounds of pain (for Groundspeak developers) outweighing gain then I have no argument with you. But if you feel that the idea is, in itself, somehow morally reprehensible then I'm baffled.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I don't get it... I (and others) are not the ones trying to bend the rules guidelines.

 

Please don't throw "what-ifs" at us, as such is merely meaningless conjecture.

 

I went PM primarily to support the website/access that it provides. If it makes you happy, that's great.

I also like rules and guidelines because they supposedly provide a route for everyone to follow.

 

That being said is well,... enough.

[I!]

If you don't get it then that puts you in the "ignore" camp in my hypothetical example. Okay, I have no argument with that.

 

You are mistaken that I am trying to bend the guidelines. The thread title is "Suggestion: ..." -- I was hopeful of getting broad agreement that friends access to PMO caches could be a Good Thing, and that the developers might consider implementing it. However, after several replies exhibiting rigid adherence to the status quo, I see little future for the idea. Oh well, it was worth a go.

[+tozainamboku]

Gitchee-Gummee, t4e and tozainamboku ... Imagine there was a check-box when editing your PMO cache that said: "extend access to basic member friends as well? [Yes/No]". Some people, me included, would definitely use that. Some others would ignore it. And a significant remainder would, it seems, object to the existence of this feature. Why? Are they (/you) worried that the loss of upgrade revenue from these lucky friends will push up your subscription by a few pence?

 

If your objection is on the grounds of pain (for Groundspeak developers) outweighing gain then I have no argument with you. But if you feel that the idea is, in itself, somehow morally reprehensible then I'm baffled.

You should look at some of the threads that call PMO caches elitist. I happen to feel that it is reasonable to make some caches PMO as a way to thank people for supporting the website. I am less inclined to support PMO caches as some kind of protection against a cache pirate or similar hazard.

 

I tried to give an example to show that if you remove the PMO from what you are asking for it would show that you are asking for the ability to list a private cache on Geocaching.com. You expect to be able to list a cache that no one can find unless they are individually friended by you. This is not what I think geocaching is about.

 

I understand that by adding all premium members to the restricted list of your friends, you end up with a cache that is less restrictive than an ordinary PMO cache. And since PMO caches are allowed, what could be wrong with that?

 

What it amounts to is rewarding your personal friends with a cache simply because they are your friends.

 

This doesn't bother me particularly but I think it would bother a substantial number of cachers. One only has to look at the threads on caches where the FTF was claimed by someone who found the cache before it was published or where the co-hiders logged finds as beta testers to see that people are bothered by cachers giving preferential treatment to friends.

 

Again I am not bothered by this. I gave you instructions on how to accomplish what you want with no need to change the site. Simply make the cache PMO then give your friends the information they need to find and log your cache. You are free to request a change to the webisite to add a checkbox like you describe. I can guarantee that there will be people who will object to this change because they will find it elitist or unfair. If you don't understand this I am baffled.

[I!]

I can guarantee that there will be people who will object to this change because they will find it elitist or unfair.

Ah-ha. That's an interesting contrast to at least one other dissenting opinion which, dare I say it, seemed to be of an elitist "I paid for PM so why should the OM oiks get a look-in" nature.

 

So I imagine the people you refer to would object to my idea on the grounds that it would encourage the proliferation of PMOCs.

 

Oh, what's the point arguing. I'm only on this forum today because it's rainy outside!

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Nice.

 

I probably should have spelled it out for you very slowly.

 

What I didn't get, was your OP specifically asked for:

Thoughts? (I can't see why anyone would want to hide caches from their friends ...)

Then you throw stones at those who gave you their thoughts. Rather than let it slide because you did not like it, you seemingly wish to make an argument about it.

 

If you have no intention of respecting another person's opinion, perhaps you shouldn't ask for it!

[+t4e]

Gitchee-Gummee, t4e and tozainamboku ... Imagine there was a check-box when editing your PMO cache that said: "extend access to basic member friends as well? [Yes/No]". Some people, me included, would definitely use that. Some others would ignore it. And a significant remainder would, it seems, object to the existence of this feature. Why? Are they (/you) worried that the loss of upgrade revenue from these lucky friends will push up your subscription by a few pence?

 

If your objection is on the grounds of pain (for Groundspeak developers) outweighing gain then I have no argument with you. But if you feel that the idea is, in itself, somehow morally reprehensible then I'm baffled.

 

i don't have any PMO caches and i have no intention of placing any

 

what does that tell you?....it tells you that i do not care if there's people that chose not to be Premium, my caches are out there for all to enjoy, premium members or not

 

what i don't agree with is that what you are suggesting is in a sense trying to pass on the perks you are getting as premium member onto your friends, different story if they were family members

 

the reason i chose to be Premium is to support GC, there is two of us in the household and we are both premium, could have easily canceled one membership and still get the benefits, but as long as we can afford the meager $30/year we will continue to support GC

Edited May 7, 2010 by t4e

[I!]

what i don't agree with is that what you are suggesting is in a sense trying to pass on the perks you are getting as premium member onto your friends, different story if they were family members

Although this still doesn't quite answer my "why?", your preceding sentence suggests you're in the same egalitarian-minded group that toz described: so I can see that providing the temptation and means to make PMO caches specifically for one's friends would be objectionable. (Note, however, that my aim was subtly different: if a cache "had" to be PMO for whatever reason then I'd like my friends still to be able to see it).

 

Thanks t4e and toz -- you've told me something about geocaching culture that I'd not appreciated before.