Members only Travel Bug

[+Glenn]

What do you think about this idea...

 

MOB, Members Only travel Bugs.

Just like the members only caches. You have to be a member to be able to see what cache these bugs are in. Non-member will not see the travel bug indicator on caches with a MOB in it.

 

- Lone Rangers

[+gnbrotz]

In my mind, the biggest problem with travel bugs is people not logging them correctly. Even if an inexperienced cacher doesn't know the bug is there before they go, there is nothing to prevent them from taking the bug when they find it.

 

I'm not sure if that was your intent or not, but if so, I don't see how it would help the situation.

 

Greg

N 39° 54.705'

W 77° 33.137'

[BassoonPilot]

You didn't mention any other conditions regarding your idea of MOBs, but would one requirement be they could only be moved between MOCs?

 

If not, even if the travel bug icon doesn't appear on the page, what would prohibit a non-subscribing member from picking up a MOB found in a standard cache?

 

If so, that could still present a problem, because in some parts of the country (world) MOCs are few and far between . . . the bug would not be moved along very often.

[+Glenn]

If we have MOCs then the next logical step is MOBs. So I thought I'd put the idea out there and see what peoples thought on the subject are.

 

I've thunk some on the subject but I still don't have any solid convictions either way. I didn't put much detail in the opening post because I do not want to steer the converstion one way or the other.

 

The fact that a TBs location is hidden from non-members will not change the fact that anyone can grab a TB from a cache once they get there. But some areas seem to be experiencing TB hunters. It would add a sence of security to though wary of placing bugs for fear that they will hunted. Would this really add a layer of protection to TBs or would it just add a false sence of security.

 

Would it be unrealistic to restric MOBs to MOCs. We really can't answer that now. However, MOC are growing and within a year I'd bet we see at least one in each major cacheing area. Even so, wouldn't that just be redundant. Non-members cant see MOCs so therefore they can't see any TBs in the MOCs.

 

More things for me think about

 

- Lone Rangers

[+Glenn]

If we have MOCs then the next logical step is MOBs. So I thought I'd put the idea out there and see what peoples thought on the subject are.

 

I've thunk some on the subject but I still don't have any solid convictions either way. I didn't put much detail in the opening post because I do not want to steer the converstion one way or the other.

 

The fact that a TBs location is hidden from non-members will not change the fact that anyone can grab a TB from a cache once they get there. But some areas seem to be experiencing TB hunters. It would add a sence of security to though wary of placing bugs for fear that they will hunted. Would this really add a layer of protection to TBs or would it just add a false sence of security.

 

Would it be unrealistic to restric MOBs to MOCs. We really can't answer that now. However, MOC are growing and within a year I'd bet we see at least one in each major cacheing area. Even so, wouldn't that just be redundant. Non-members cant see MOCs so therefore they can't see any TBs in the MOCs.

 

More things for me think about

 

- Lone Rangers

[+Webfoot]

quote:

---

MOB, Members Only travel Bugs.

---

 

I personally don't like this idea, nor do I like the idea of members only (MO) caches. Right now, I have a travel bug in a MO cache. It wasn't a MO cache when I placed the bug in it, but now it is. Now, short of going back to the cache, (fairly easy to do since I've been there once, so therefore, I don't need to be a member to find it again), the only way I can monitor the bug is hope that the next person who finds it, logs it correctly.

 

I had the cache on my watch list, but I don't know if the MO status prevents me from getting the logs via email to MO caches or not. Any answers to this? I lost one travel bug because someone didn't log it, but I pretty much know who took it based upon log entries on the cache. I can't do that with this one, since I can't view the cache page. So here I sit, not able to access a page to see where a bug of mine is, a bug that I already paid for, unless I pay some more money. That stinks imo.

 

In short, this really isn't an answer to your question, but I don't think a MO T-Bug will solve anything. If a person stumbles upon a MO T-bug, they can still take it and then if they can't enter and log it due to its MO status, it's going to be lost permanently to the owner and the site. A loss for all of us. The whole thing sounds more and more elitist in nature and that probably galls me more than anything else.

[+Webfoot]

quote:

---

MOB, Members Only travel Bugs.

---

 

I personally don't like this idea, nor do I like the idea of members only (MO) caches. Right now, I have a travel bug in a MO cache. It wasn't a MO cache when I placed the bug in it, but now it is. Now, short of going back to the cache, (fairly easy to do since I've been there once, so therefore, I don't need to be a member to find it again), the only way I can monitor the bug is hope that the next person who finds it, logs it correctly.

 

I had the cache on my watch list, but I don't know if the MO status prevents me from getting the logs via email to MO caches or not. Any answers to this? I lost one travel bug because someone didn't log it, but I pretty much know who took it based upon log entries on the cache. I can't do that with this one, since I can't view the cache page. So here I sit, not able to access a page to see where a bug of mine is, a bug that I already paid for, unless I pay some more money. That stinks imo.

 

In short, this really isn't an answer to your question, but I don't think a MO T-Bug will solve anything. If a person stumbles upon a MO T-bug, they can still take it and then if they can't enter and log it due to its MO status, it's going to be lost permanently to the owner and the site. A loss for all of us. The whole thing sounds more and more elitist in nature and that probably galls me more than anything else.

[BassoonPilot]

If a travel bug designated as a MOB could be placed into standard caches and picked up by non-subscribers, who, if MOBs were implemented in the same manner as MOCs, would not be able to log them, then one would only be adding to the problem of bugs going missing, and not rectifying anything.

 

So I believe it's not a good idea.

[+RAD Dad]

The only way it would work is to have the Travel Bugs start in MOC's and stipulate that they only be placed in MOC's.

 

I like that this site it free, I also like that there is an option to help out by becoming a member, and that there are some perks to that. But frankly, I don't really like MOC's. However, until they do something to make sure that those who come to the site for free must first AGREE to a few codes of conduct and read the rules and at least register with a valid email address and that ONLY those who have gone that minimal process can look up co-ordinates I think we are going to see more MOC's. Too many people are not logging caches, taking and not leaving, taking travel bugs and keeping them, and not logging them. And many defend all this in that this game has "no rules" and that's what makes it fun blah blah blah. Well we need to have SOME control on who can get a hold of the co-ordinates to a cache, and people should have to agree to play by a few basic rules, and have a basic understanding of what is expected before they run out with thier GPSr and start taking stuff from caches.

 

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

[+Web-ling]

Even if there were a stipulation that MOBs could only go in MOCs, eventually most of them would end upin the hands of someone who couldn't log it.

 

[+culpc]

I have to agree that MOB are probably impractical. I kind of like the idea but if they are placed in an MOC then non-members won't get a chance at them and if the are in "general" caches then there is no prevention of pipck-up by non-members.