Jump to content

Member logging Premium member caches


tarmacjohn
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I have a series of 25 caches in Worcestershire of which caches 2 through to 24 are premium members only (One of them is HERE). An ordinary member went round on September 25th and has logged them all today. I thought that Premium Member caches were just that - Premium members only. Anybody got any thoughts.

Edited by tarmacjohn
Link to comment

only the cache listings are for premium members only, not the caches themselves. if a basic member can get ahold of the listing somehow, then they can log the cache. remember, signature in the log = log online.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

It is possible for non-premium members to log PMO caches if you know how..............

Can someone please tell me the work-around (please PM or email to FollowMeChaps[at]hotmail[dot]co[dot]uk) as previously I've arranged to downgrade my premiums so non-members could log them then revert them after - this will save me this fuss.

Link to comment

It is possible for non-premium members to log PMO caches if you know how..............

Can someone please tell me the work-around (please PM or email to FollowMeChaps[at]hotmail[dot]co[dot]uk) as previously I've arranged to downgrade my premiums so non-members could log them then revert them after - this will save me this fuss.

 

PM on its way

Link to comment

It is possible for non-premium members to log PMO caches if you know how..............

Can someone please tell me the work-around (please PM or email to FollowMeChaps[at]hotmail[dot]co[dot]uk) as previously I've arranged to downgrade my premiums so non-members could log them then revert them after - this will save me this fuss.

 

And us, please.

Link to comment

there's no need to be secretive about it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?wp=GCxxxxx

 

Although it's well known (there are several ways actually) I wasn't aware it was supposed to be common knowledge. :(

 

I presume a CO of a PMO cache is allowed to delete logs by non premium members if they feel that way inclined... :D

 

 

Mark

Link to comment
I presume a CO of a PMO cache is allowed to delete logs by non premium members if they feel that way inclined... :(

No. If you visited the cache, you can log it. PMOCs are cache pages which are visible for PMs only, and as others have said, it's often 100% legitimate for non-PMs to be logging them. As the CO, you don't get to judge the legitimacy of the non-PM's status.

Link to comment
I presume a CO of a PMO cache is allowed to delete logs by non premium members if they feel that way inclined... :D

No. If you visited the cache, you can log it. PMOCs are cache pages which are visible for PMs only, and as others have said, it's often 100% legitimate for non-PMs to be logging them. As the CO, you don't get to judge the legitimacy of the non-PM's status.

 

At the top of the cache page on a PMO cache it quite clearly states "This is a Premium Member Only cache". It does NOT state that it is a Premium Member Only cache page. One has to assume, therefore, that it's the cache its self that is PMO and not the web page. If a PMO owner feels strongly enough about it to delete the logs of non Premium Members then he is entitled to do so... I expect :(

Link to comment

im a priemam member but i hate the member only caches, caching should be free and for familys. i understand the membership to be so maps and pq can be downloaded ect.

in a family you would most likly only have one membership so unfair to the others who cant get the info. i understand why it is done so it makes the cache safer as not just anyone can log on and get the co'ords. but if someone who is not got a priemam membership goes to the trouble of getting the info finding the cache and logging it i dont see this to be a problem. i have logged a few before i got my membership but most of the time i dont do them as i think it is not a fair part of the game.

 

lmn

Link to comment

At the top of the cache page on a PMO cache it quite clearly states "This is a Premium Member Only cache". It does NOT state that it is a Premium Member Only cache page. One has to assume, therefore, that it's the cache its self that is PMO and not the web page.

 

VERY good point! :D

 

If a PMO owner feels strongly enough about it to delete the logs of non Premium Members then he is entitled to do so... I expect :(

 

A couple of years ago had a perfectly valid 'find' deleted by a CO and I contacted a reviewer asking if it could be reinstated. The reviewer said that it's up to the CO and reviewers don't get involved... :D

 

 

Mark

Link to comment
At the top of the cache page on a PMO cache it quite clearly states "This is a Premium Member Only cache". It does NOT state that it is a Premium Member Only cache page. One has to assume, therefore, that it's the cache its self that is PMO and not the web page. If a PMO owner feels strongly enough about it to delete the logs of non Premium Members then he is entitled to do so... I expect :(

no they aren't. signature on log sheet = log online. with a signed log sheet, the CO has no right to deny a cacher their valid online log.

 

and the word "cache" often refers to the cache listing, not the physical cache. disabling a cache, archiving the cache, reviewing the cache, etc, that all refers to the listing, not the cache itself. an "event cache" is also not a cache, but a cache listing for an event.

Link to comment

At the top of the cache page on a PMO cache it quite clearly states "This is a Premium Member Only cache". It does NOT state that it is a Premium Member Only cache page. One has to assume, therefore, that it's the cache its self that is PMO and not the web page.

VERY good point! :D

I learned a very long time ago that it's not a good idea to attempt to discern Groundspeak's precise intentions from the wording on the page. These kind of discussions about semantics are fine in front of a judge when discussing laws made by professionals, but with the exception of the Terms of Use and other things which govern business matters, most of the text on the cache pages &c has not been through any sort of legal approval process. I'd bet that Jeremy wrote those words on the fly 8 years ago and they have never been questioned since. I actually prefer things this way; it will be a sad day when everyone feels that they have to hide behind precise wordings.

 

(However, if you want a semantic discussion: Groundspeak only provides a listing service. So the only thing they can mean is the cache page. But again, what they mean is "If you can't see the coordinates, it's because you're not a PM. Finding this cache would be a lot simpler if you were.")

A couple of years ago had a perfectly valid 'find' deleted by a CO and I contacted a reviewer asking if it could be reinstated. The reviewer said that it's up to the CO and reviewers don't get involved... :(

The reviewers are there to publish and occasionally archive caches. They are not the referees of the game, and they aren't the log police. Did you write to appeals@geocaching.com about it? If they buy your version of the story, they will tell the CO to restore the log.

Link to comment

I will set a PMO cache if I do not want too much traffic to the site and / or to reward people with a little extra if they bother to contribute to our hobby by supporting Groundspeak.

 

I would ask a non PM to delete their log if they did so, unless it was a child of a PM etc., in which case, I would hope they would have sent a courteous email explanation.

Edited by Dorsetgal & GeoDog
Link to comment

I will set a PMO cache if I do not want too much traffic to the site and / or to reward people with a little extra if they bother to contribute to our hobby by supporting Groundspeak.

 

My thoughts exactly! We've recently set all ours to PMO to reduce the amount of maintenance.

 

I would ask a non PM to delete their log if they did so, unless it was a child of a PM etc., in which case, I would hope they would have sent a courteous email explanation.

 

I like this! :antenna:

 

 

Mark

Link to comment

<snip>

As far as making caches PM only to reduce the amount of maintainance, why bother hiding them.

 

Just my opinion folks.

 

...interesting angle, but I am sure you don't really mean that :antenna:

 

There should be room in the game for everyone ... I'd much rather someone who felt they were pushed for maintenance time, access etc set a PMO cache than no cache at all.

Link to comment

 

and the word "cache" often refers to the cache listing, not the physical cache. disabling a cache, archiving the cache, reviewing the cache, etc, that all refers to the listing, not the cache itself. an "event cache" is also not a cache, but a cache listing for an event.

Wrong! A cache is a cache, a cache listing is a cache listing, an event cache is the actual event. You only get a smilie for visiting a cache, not a cache listing.

 

AFAIC it's up to the discretion of the CO of a PM only cache as to whether the find stands or is deleted, that's what "Premium Member Only" cache means.

Link to comment

I read the thread that was linked earlier in this post (yes, the whole thing) and I want to quote an email that was sent to a basic member by Groundspeak who had their log on a PM cache deleted, and later reinstated by TPTB:

 

(http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?s=&showtopic=245047&view=findpost&p=4323968)

 

Basic Members can log finds for Premium Member Only caches when the physical logbook has been signed.

 

Groundspeak’s Guidelines state, “Geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed.” There are no restrictions or guidelines that prevent Basic Members from signing a Premium Member Only cache logbook.

 

Basic Members may have access to PMO caches through various means, including when they geocache with Premium Members.

 

Groundspeak encourages Cache Owners to allow these logs. If we find that a log was deleted inappropriately, Groundspeak can reinstate the log.

 

The general consensus is that anyone can find a PM cache, as it is only the listing that is private. Even muggles can find a PM cache, and there is a back-door to enable basic member logging to PM caches that Groundspeak know about and have refused to close because they feel that once a cache has been found--any cache, by any person, through any means--that person has a right to log online, and by saying that only PMs can log a PM-only listed cache is enforcing an ALR, which is, of course, banned, and they will reinstate deleted logs on PM-only caches. :antenna:

Link to comment
Wrong! A cache is a cache, a cache listing is a cache listing, an event cache is the actual event.

really? so when the page tells me that "this cache hasn't been reviewed yet", that means that the reviewer still needs to go to the coordinates and check out the cache, right?

Link to comment

When a non-premium member accesses a PMO cache they get the message:

The owner of [cache name] has chosen to make this cache listing visible to Premium Members only. Please log in as a Premium Member to view this content or visit the Membership page to learn more.

 

So why don't Groundspeak change the page to say:

The owner of [cache name] has chosen to make this cache listing visible to Premium Members only.

Don't worry though, you can still log a find by following this link: [link]

 

??

 

:antenna:;)

Link to comment

When a non-premium member accesses a PMO cache they get the message:

The owner of [cache name] has chosen to make this cache listing visible to Premium Members only. Please log in as a Premium Member to view this content or visit the Membership page to learn more.

 

So why don't Groundspeak change the page to say:

The owner of [cache name] has chosen to make this cache listing visible to Premium Members only.

Don't worry though, you can still log a find by following this link: [link]

 

??

 

:antenna:;)

 

You might aswell have asked why Groundspeak didn't write:

 

The owner of [cache name] has chosen to make this cache listing visible cache available to Premium Members only. Please log in as a Premium Member to view this content find and log this cache or visit the Membership page to learn more.

 

So where's your point? The wording is ambigious, but if you want to delete logs made by non-PMs on your PMO caches then feel free, but Groundspeak have clearly stated (in the guidelines and in emails to members) that they will reinstate wrongly deleted logs in these cases (and they have done so). ;)

 

To expand on this..., editing to add a few points:

 

1. Groundspeak don't advertise that you can still log without becoming a PM because that doesn't exactly convince users to pony up the cash, and wouldn't be particularly profitable, would it? At least that is my personal assumption. XD

 

2. Upon being notified that there was a bug preventing people from logging PMO caches this way, they prompty fixed it and apologised (apparently).

 

3. It would take approximately 5 minutes to fix this if it were an actual bug, but they have not fixed it in many years of it being there and have no intention to. Although it is not documented, it is widely known and not against TOS to use this method of logging.

 

4. The activity is meant to be free for all and the intention of PMO caches is to somehow prevent mass traffic or potential muggling if it's slightly more difficult to get hold of the co-ordinates. Just like wrapping your suitcase in clingfilm at the airport isn't going to deter the determined thief, it just might put them off for the time being - preventing opportunistic crime. Not foolproof.

 

5. It's not supposed to be an elitist thing for the privileged only, or for contributors. As I said earlier, stating that in order to log the cache you must be a premium member is considered to be an ALR which is against Groundspeak's terms, in the same way that saying you can't log unless you have blue eyes. Groundspeak will reinstate deleted logs in these cases.

Edited by maccath
Link to comment
I presume a CO of a PMO cache is allowed to delete logs by non premium members if they feel that way inclined... :antenna:

I think we've established this isn't Groundspeak's position on the matter but the point that sprung to mind when I read that hasn't been raised - how on earth do you know with any certainty whether or not somebody was a PM at the time of finding?

 

What if I find your PMO cache as a premium member today, log it and my status expires tomorrow? A week later? A year later? Is the log in danger of deletion? There's no way for you to tell the difference between somebody who has always been a regular member and somebody who was a premium member in the past (including the very recent past) and has let it lapse.

Edited by JeremyR
Link to comment

Out of interest how many PM cache owners actually check up to see if a finder is a PM.

 

Probably a similar number to those who check that someone who claimed a find actually found it. When cache logs get full and people take to writing in very small letters wherever they can find a space, or just marking initials on a nano log or whatever, I reckon the chances of getting "caught out" claiming a find you didn't actually find are pretty slim.

Link to comment

I will set a PMO cache if I do not want too much traffic to the site and / or to reward people with a little extra if they bother to contribute to our hobby by supporting Groundspeak.

 

I would ask a non PM to delete their log if they did so, unless it was a child of a PM etc., in which case, I would hope they would have sent a courteous email explanation.

 

Does this really happen enough to greatly increase the traffic to your site? Wouldn't have thought so - surely as long as the paper log has been signed they can log the cache - or will you sprint down to the cache and remove their entry there too? You can't escape the fact that they found your cache!!

 

Also, as mentioned above, Premium Membership is fluid - if I know I'm going to be busy for 6 months why bother renewing for that period - I'd be mightily narked if when I logged in again someone had deleted half my logs because my profile had showed I wasn't a premium member!! And are you prepared to re-instate all those logs when I restart my subscription?

 

You're making the game overly complicated, and adding an element of elitism that was never meant to be there - I'm sure people look for reasons to make waves sometimes :antenna:

 

Chalky

Link to comment
there is a back-door to enable basic member logging to PM caches that Groundspeak know about and have refused to close because they feel that once a cache has been found--any cache, by any person, through any means--that person has a right to log online, and by saying that only PMs can log a PM-only listed cache is enforcing an ALR, which is, of course, banned, and they will reinstate deleted logs on PM-only caches. ;)

Thanks. I was reasonably sure that I was right on the facts. As to whether Groundspeak's policy is "right", that's a matter of opinion; in cases like this I tend to fall back on the fact that it's their web site, so they get to make the rules (see endless other debates passim).

You're making the game overly complicated, and adding an element of elitism that was never meant to be there - I'm sure people look for reasons to make waves sometimes :antenna:

+1. And a few more. And for every person who wants Groundspeak to police PMOCs as if we were talking about riding the bus without paying, or forging Cup Final tickets, or sneaking through airport security, there's someone else complaining that PMOCs are an example of how Groundspeak is an evil, faceless capitalist operation out to smash the legitimate aspirations of the workers, or something.

Link to comment

Wouldn't insisting on logging by Premium Members only be considered an ALR?

 

My understanding of an ALR is it's something you have to complete after or as well as signing the log - so no, it wouldn't, in the same way that completing a task before logging a challenge or ? cache isn't an ALR.

Edited by keehotee
Link to comment
Wrong! A cache is a cache, a cache listing is a cache listing, an event cache is the actual event.

really? so when the page tells me that "this cache hasn't been reviewed yet", that means that the reviewer still needs to go to the coordinates and check out the cache, right?

Durrr!

 

A reviewing tool to make sure the quoted coords (on the cache listing) of a cache conform to the guidelines. (Please note that this is only one of the possible reviewing tools)

Link to comment

I will set a PMO cache if I do not want too much traffic to the site and / or to reward people with a little extra if they bother to contribute to our hobby by supporting Groundspeak.

 

I would ask a non PM to delete their log if they did so, unless it was a child of a PM etc., in which case, I would hope they would have sent a courteous email explanation.

 

Does this really happen enough to greatly increase the traffic to your site? Wouldn't have thought so - surely as long as the paper log has been signed they can log the cache - or will you sprint down to the cache and remove their entry there too? You can't escape the fact that they found your cache!!

 

Yes, indeed it does make a difference, of course it does, think about it, if not so many people can see the co-ordinates, not so many people will attempt the cache, therefore not so many people at the geocache site. Simples!

 

Secondly, I don't do sprinting.

 

Yes, I do check log books, especially on one or two of my caches that have in the past shown some phantom logs, and yes, have deleted online logs where the person has not signed the log book. Yeh, sure, one complained and went to Groundspeak, and my position was upheld after investigation.

 

 

You're making the game overly complicated, and adding an element of elitism that was never meant to be there - I'm sure people look for reasons to make waves sometimes :antenna:

 

Chalky

 

Oh puhleeeeeease! Elitism?

 

Next you'll be telling us is is discrimination! ;)

 

BTW, you may change your mind when you set your own caches, and have to maintain them ;)

Link to comment
Wrong! A cache is a cache, a cache listing is a cache listing, an event cache is the actual event.
really? so when the page tells me that "this cache hasn't been reviewed yet", that means that the reviewer still needs to go to the coordinates and check out the cache, right?

Durrr!

 

A reviewing tool to make sure the quoted coords (on the cache listing) of a cache conform to the guidelines. (Please note that this is only one of the possible reviewing tools)

exactly. so they review the listing, not the cache, even though the page says they will review the cache. in the same manner does the term "premium-member-only cache" refer to the listing, not to the cache. in fact, the edit page says: "Check if you only want Premium and Charter Members to view this cache". "viewing" obviously refers to the listing, while "visiting" or "logging" would refer to the cache.

 

Groundspeak has no authority or control over the physical caches, only over the listings on their website, therefore it makes no sense to have an option on their website to restrict who can visit or log the caches, as they can only restrict who can view the listings.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

There was recently a small series set close to my home by a local cacher I know from events and such. He has told me that the only reason he has set it to be PM only is that he had a previous series muggled and he feels it might be safer this way. When we get around to doing the series our kiddies will be with us, they have their own account but it’s just a basic membership. I’m quite sure that the series owner will be more than happy to let them log their finds, but we would certainly drop him an email to check that he’s ok with it first, just out of courtesy.

 

Lots of aspects of this hobby would be greatly improved by the application of basic good manners, don’t you think?

Link to comment

 

Lots of aspects of this hobby would be greatly improved by the application of basic good manners, don’t you think?

 

Indeed I do! A quick email to explain goes a long way.

 

As an example of bad manners, I have had a couple of people think it was their duty to tell me off because they could not perform the simple tasks required to complete an earthcache ... even though I had offered them help ... I think that sometimes people lose sight of the fact that without cache setters there would be no game ...

Link to comment

Points to consider:

 

A PM could have the co-ords already in an off-line database, then let their membership lapse, prior to finding/logging)

 

It could be found whilst a PM, but then membership lapses after logging.

 

A non-PM could have the co-ords from before the cache was made PMO (If it wasn't PMO to start with)

 

It could be a family member (kids/partner/significant other/etc) caching with a PM.

 

I could be looking for somewhere to hide a cache of my own. "This looks like a good spot... Ooo look a cache already here!" ;)

 

Groundspeak allow it, and have reinstated the 'backdoor' method of logging.

What's the problem? :antenna:

 

*However, if a PM is sharing PQ data with a non-family member (kids/partner/significant other/etc) maybe they need to be reported to Groundspeak for breaking the TOU? ;)

Link to comment
*However, if a PM is sharing PQ data with a non-family member (kids/partner/significant other/etc) maybe they need to be reported to Groundspeak for breaking the TOU? :antenna:

I very much doubt whether Groundspeak would initiate action against any player based on a "snitch" e-mail. They tend to worry mostly about people posting PQ results, etc, on public sites.

Link to comment
*However, if a PM is sharing PQ data with a non-family member (kids/partner/significant other/etc) maybe they need to be reported to Groundspeak for breaking the TOU? :santa:

 

Agree with all your points but did feel the need to comment on this one.

 

I am a premium member and download PQs into my GPS. If I'm out caching with a guy I recently introduced to caching (who isn't a premium member as yet) I'm not going to go through my entire list of 1000 caches from my latest PQ and make sure each and every one of them is open to all members. There's a big difference between passing on the PQ information to someone else (especially a regularly run PQ that effectively means someone else gets the perks of premium membership without paying for it, and becomes somewhat like sharing a bus pass) and going caching with someone else while holding PMO caches in my GPS.

 

If we worry too much about the "sharing" that takes place when people go caching together, should we also start taking action against people caught by muggles while hunting a PMO cache? What if I meet another cacher on a loop while I'm doing an additional cache that's PM only that they didn't know about, and as a result of that chance meeting they also find it? Where do we draw the line.... and does it matter if the odd person gains an incidental perk?

 

If anything it seems to me to be somewhat elitist to get too obsessed about making sure nobody stands the slightest chance of finding or logging a PMO cache unless they have paid in full. As you say, there are so many ways someone might find such a cache it's best to regard the premium membership as simply making it easier to locate them.

Link to comment

I will set a PMO cache if I do not want too much traffic to the site and / or to reward people with a little extra if they bother to contribute to our hobby by supporting Groundspeak.

 

I would ask a non PM to delete their log if they did so, unless it was a child of a PM etc., in which case, I would hope they would have sent a courteous email explanation.

 

Does this really happen enough to greatly increase the traffic to your site? Wouldn't have thought so - surely as long as the paper log has been signed they can log the cache - or will you sprint down to the cache and remove their entry there too? You can't escape the fact that they found your cache!!

 

Yes, indeed it does make a difference, of course it does, think about it, if not so many people can see the co-ordinates, not so many people will attempt the cache, therefore not so many people at the geocache site. Simples!

 

Secondly, I don't do sprinting.

 

Yes, I do check log books, especially on one or two of my caches that have in the past shown some phantom logs, and yes, have deleted online logs where the person has not signed the log book. Yeh, sure, one complained and went to Groundspeak, and my position was upheld after investigation.

 

 

You're making the game overly complicated, and adding an element of elitism that was never meant to be there - I'm sure people look for reasons to make waves sometimes :D

 

Chalky

 

Oh puhleeeeeease! Elitism?

 

Next you'll be telling us is is discrimination! :laughing:

 

BTW, you may change your mind when you set your own caches, and have to maintain them :laughing:

 

Seriously? It makes that much difference to the traffic? OK.

 

I totally agree that if they haven't signed, they shouldn't log online - what I was saying is "do you remove/delete their physical log in the cache?" - the point being, they've still found your cache, why delete their online log?

 

Elitism - yes, you're saying that only a certain group (PMs) can log your caches, whereas Groundspeak says only a certain group (PMs) can view your caches online via their website, but anyone can log them, in fact that statement isn't totally accurate, because GS have left a back door open so that they can see the details online!! :huh:

 

Can't see your point at all I'm afraid, can't see the point of deleting someones legitimate online log, that fulfils all the GS requirements - smacks of something beginning with "E".......

 

:laughing:

 

Chalky

Link to comment

My own personal reason for paying for PM status is to be able to use the expanded features. I've got about 100 hides out, many of them fairly elaborately modified ammo cans with various features to surprise the cacher when opened. None of these are PMO since most are so far out in the woods and may only get hit 3 or 4 times a year. And frankly, I enjoy hearing the little stories when these are found. I do agree that posting with the PMO option keeps the casual jerks in town from going and trashing the caches just because they have a smart phone and a free down load and crappy sportsmanship (or "manners", as another poster noted.)

 

I've an acquaintance who is a reviewer and she LOATHES this topic. She points out that Groundspeak is a listing service, not some kind of police force. She has enough work to do enforcing the proximity issues and location concerns (don't put a sketchy looking tubular thing near City Hall) to keep responding to complaints about who is logging what.

 

I know several players who cache in groups. Some PMs, and others POMs (plain ol' members). No one I cache with gets too excited about player status. The only time we do talk about it is when we're encouraging newer players to help support Groundspeak while also getting premium features to help them play. I played for free my first year, and have paid my dues ever since. Didn't make me feel any different.

Link to comment

Since I was the 'GS test case' mentioned earlier I thought I would give a quick update.

I actually had logs deleted and reinstated on two PMO caches within 1/2 mile of my home. It was mainly a case of curiousity getting the better of me, but I found them with local knowledge and just the caches titles. The second was a puzzle than I needed a code to access, but I was on my 3rd or 4th visit using 'brute force' to solve when I met a very nice PM cacher and we 'teamed up'. At the time I did not know I could log them and did not intend to, but was encouraged to do so by other members.

Since then I have actually done some quick maintenance on the first cache when I noticed it missing, found it nearby and replaced it when passing by. The second cache has now been disabled for some months and has disapeared. I cannot see the page to tell why this is, but so much for PMO caches being more secure.

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...