Backdoor way to log PMO caches

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't know. There seems like there should be more to this story. What is it that was too much for you?

 

Anyway, seems like a simple thing. If you don't want to pay for premium services then don't use them.

Other than the fact that his owned caches are apparently still PMO, I see no evidence that the OP is using any premium services.

 

Another question I have is why did you make all your caches PMO?

Does it matter? Premium members have the ability to create PMO caches for whatever reasons they choose.

 

The question the OP asked was about logging PM caches if he gave up his PM. Logging such is a PM service.

 

Never said it mattered. I was just curious. Is there some problem with asking questions?

[+sbell111]

The OP never stated that he was against PMO caches.

No, but at least at the moment, it appears he's saying, "I only want people who pay for a site that I refuse to pay for to find my caches." I've never before seen a boycott that encourages patronage of its target.

 

If the OP is now locked out of pre-existing PMO caches, that's different. Recent logs by non-PMs on suggest that's not the case, though.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

 

The OP allowed his PM status to lapse. He neglected to change his caches from PMO to non-PMO prior to this lapse.

What I'm saying is that I question whether the second sentence is true. Many newbie non-PMs have logged some of his now-PM-caches recently, which suggests they weren't PMO caches recently. Admittedly, it doesn't make sense, but neither does using a site whose policies you wish to boycott.

 

But I'm sorry for dabbling in the cache detective game. My main point in posting is that while I never begrudge non-PMs their use of the site, I do find it classless to call the paid benefits a waste of money while simultaneously trying to use them.

I don't believe that it's possible for a non-PM to make his caches PMO.

[+sbell111]

I don't know. There seems like there should be more to this story. What is it that was too much for you?

 

Anyway, seems like a simple thing. If you don't want to pay for premium services then don't use them.

Other than the fact that his owned caches are apparently still PMO, I see no evidence that the OP is using any premium services.

 

Another question I have is why did you make all your caches PMO?

Does it matter? Premium members have the ability to create PMO caches for whatever reasons they choose.

 

The question the OP asked was about logging PM caches if he gave up his PM. Logging such is a PM service.

 

Never said it mattered. I was just curious. Is there some problem with asking questions?

The bolded bit is not correct.

[Mr.Yuck]

The OP never stated that he was against PMO caches.

No, but at least at the moment, it appears he's saying, "I only want people who pay for a site that I refuse to pay for to find my caches." I've never before seen a boycott that encourages patronage of its target.

 

If the OP is now locked out of pre-existing PMO caches, that's different. Recent logs by non-PMs on suggest that's not the case, though.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

 

The OP allowed his PM status to lapse. He neglected to change his caches from PMO to non-PMO prior to this lapse.

What I'm saying is that I question whether the second sentence is true. Many newbie non-PMs have logged some of his now-PM-caches recently, which suggests they weren't PMO caches recently. Admittedly, it doesn't make sense, but neither does using a site whose policies you wish to boycott.

 

But I'm sorry for dabbling in the cache detective game. My main point in posting is that while I never begrudge non-PMs their use of the site, I do find it classless to call the paid benefits a waste of money while simultaneously trying to use them.

I don't believe that it's possible for a non-PM to make his caches PMO.

 

The waters are definitely being muddied here, but if they were PM caches before he dropped his Premium membership, he would have no way of changing them back, without reviewer intervention. Now if someone has noticed non-PM's recently logging his caches, well, maybe all those non-PM's know the loophole, and the OP is wondering how to do it themselves??

[+sbell111]

The OP never stated that he was against PMO caches.

No, but at least at the moment, it appears he's saying, "I only want people who pay for a site that I refuse to pay for to find my caches." I've never before seen a boycott that encourages patronage of its target.

 

If the OP is now locked out of pre-existing PMO caches, that's different. Recent logs by non-PMs on suggest that's not the case, though.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

 

The OP allowed his PM status to lapse. He neglected to change his caches from PMO to non-PMO prior to this lapse.

What I'm saying is that I question whether the second sentence is true. Many newbie non-PMs have logged some of his now-PM-caches recently, which suggests they weren't PMO caches recently. Admittedly, it doesn't make sense, but neither does using a site whose policies you wish to boycott.

 

But I'm sorry for dabbling in the cache detective game. My main point in posting is that while I never begrudge non-PMs their use of the site, I do find it classless to call the paid benefits a waste of money while simultaneously trying to use them.

I don't believe that it's possible for a non-PM to make his caches PMO.

 

The waters are definitely being muddied here, but if they were PM caches before he dropped his Premium membership, he would have no way of changing them back, without reviewer intervention. Now if someone has noticed non-PM's recently logging his caches, well, maybe all those non-PM's know the loophole, and the OP is wondering how to do it themselves??

I am in complete agreement with your take on the situation.

[Dinoprophet]

The OP never stated that he was against PMO caches.

No, but at least at the moment, it appears he's saying, "I only want people who pay for a site that I refuse to pay for to find my caches." I've never before seen a boycott that encourages patronage of its target.

 

If the OP is now locked out of pre-existing PMO caches, that's different. Recent logs by non-PMs on suggest that's not the case, though.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

 

The OP allowed his PM status to lapse. He neglected to change his caches from PMO to non-PMO prior to this lapse.

What I'm saying is that I question whether the second sentence is true. Many newbie non-PMs have logged some of his now-PM-caches recently, which suggests they weren't PMO caches recently. Admittedly, it doesn't make sense, but neither does using a site whose policies you wish to boycott.

 

But I'm sorry for dabbling in the cache detective game. My main point in posting is that while I never begrudge non-PMs their use of the site, I do find it classless to call the paid benefits a waste of money while simultaneously trying to use them.

I don't believe that it's possible for a non-PM to make his caches PMO.

 

The waters are definitely being muddied here, but if they were PM caches before he dropped his Premium membership, he would have no way of changing them back, without reviewer intervention. Now if someone has noticed non-PM's recently logging his caches, well, maybe all those non-PM's know the loophole, and the OP is wondering how to do it themselves??

I am in complete agreement with your take on the situation.

Could be, which is why I didn't say for certain. But this January 5th finder knowing the workaround, for example? I think you can probably see why I'm skeptical.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Dinoprophet

[Pup Patrol]

I was going to let my membership lapse this year too. If you don't use pqs there's really not much benefit. I figure I'll keep it for favorites and stats now but I will have a harder time justifying it as time goes on. For many the cost benefit ratio just doesn't work out.

 

This cannot happen!

We'd miss the pear far too much in OT!

 

It's completely possible to remain able to read the Off Topic forum, even after no longer paying for a Premium Membership.

 

As long as you don't click the "register" button when logging in under the Hide & Seek page...I believe that's what updates your membership status, at least as far as the forums go. For example, I can't see PMO cache pages, but I can still read and post in OT.

 

[+edscott]

I can see leaving it open for families to use, but that's it. If I had a family of 4 or more and we all cached together, I wouldn't want to pay for PM for all of us. I don't agree with using the backdoor, just because you don't want to spend the money to support your hobby.

 

So you are going to ask Groundspeak define the definition of "family" when the federal government and most of the state governments haven't been able to do it? I don't think they are quite ready to take that project on right now.

[+The Caching Coulters]

I can see leaving it open for families to use, but that's it. If I had a family of 4 or more and we all cached together, I wouldn't want to pay for PM for all of us. I don't agree with using the backdoor, just because you don't want to spend the money to support your hobby.

 

So you are going to ask Groundspeak define the definition of "family" when the federal government and most of the state governments haven't been able to do it? I don't think they are quite ready to take that project on right now.

 

Sure they can. Their definition doesn't have any legal implications. They are a private company.

[+edscott]

I can see leaving it open for families to use, but that's it. If I had a family of 4 or more and we all cached together, I wouldn't want to pay for PM for all of us. I don't agree with using the backdoor, just because you don't want to spend the money to support your hobby.

 

So you are going to ask Groundspeak define the definition of "family" when the federal government and most of the state governments haven't been able to do it? I don't think they are quite ready to take that project on right now.

 

Sure they can. Their definition doesn't have any legal implications. They are a private company.

 

Not saying they can't .. just saying it is a no win situation for them.

[Andronicus]

NOTE: That will help you log the cache, but without the premium membership you will have no way to know where the cache is in the first place. Only place it is helpful is if a premium member bring out new cachers and after you get home realize you brought them to a premium cache. I've used it once or twice but there is no way it replaces a premium membership.

 

I am also curious why you consider the premium membership a waste of money, I can't imagine myself doing serious caching without it.

Well, i know of 2 ways for a nonPM to figure out the coordinates of a PM cache. The obvious one is triangulation. I used that a few times when I was not a PM. The other one is a glitch in the websight, and seems too much like cheating, so i won't tell how it works.

[+lemon16]

 

Another question I have is why did you make all your caches PMO?

 

I have two kinds of hides: lower-quality hides that I could do without, and higher-quality hides that I'm proud of.

 

The low-quality hides are PMO because if new cachers' first 10 finds are "average" urban caches, they will think "That's what geocaching is about!" and place more low-quality hides.

 

I'd like to make my higher-quality hides non-PMO, but unfortunately I have had some problems where the caches were stolen and rude logs posted on the page by sockpuppet accounts. I dislike doing this, but feel that there needs to be some kind of control, even if it is not particularly effective.

[+lemon16]

The reason I started this thread is because I found some PMO caches but didn't log them before my PM expired. I have no intentions of abusing GC.com's services.

 

I am able to view my own caches and not "locked out" of them.

 

My caches were recently changed to PMO status, just a few days before my PM expired. I did not realize at the time that it would expire soon, and probably would not have changed the caches if I did know this.

[Dinoprophet]

 

Another question I have is why did you make all your caches PMO?

 

I have two kinds of hides: lower-quality hides that I could do without, and higher-quality hides that I'm proud of.

 

The low-quality hides are PMO because if new cachers' first 10 finds are "average" urban caches, they will think "That's what geocaching is about!" and place more low-quality hides.

 

I'd like to make my higher-quality hides non-PMO, but unfortunately I have had some problems where the caches were stolen and rude logs posted on the page by sockpuppet accounts. I dislike doing this, but feel that there needs to be some kind of control, even if it is not particularly effective.

But now you want to change them, I assume, since keeping them PMO encourages people to pay for the site, and that's a waste of money. Right?

[+lemon16]

 

Another question I have is why did you make all your caches PMO?

 

I have two kinds of hides: lower-quality hides that I could do without, and higher-quality hides that I'm proud of.

 

The low-quality hides are PMO because if new cachers' first 10 finds are "average" urban caches, they will think "That's what geocaching is about!" and place more low-quality hides.

 

I'd like to make my higher-quality hides non-PMO, but unfortunately I have had some problems where the caches were stolen and rude logs posted on the page by sockpuppet accounts. I dislike doing this, but feel that there needs to be some kind of control, even if it is not particularly effective.

But now you want to change them, I assume, since keeping them PMO encourages people to pay for the site, and that's a waste of money. Right?

 

I can't decide whether I should chage them back or not. I see (and agree with) the pros and cons of both outcomes.

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't know. There seems like there should be more to this story. What is it that was too much for you?

 

Anyway, seems like a simple thing. If you don't want to pay for premium services then don't use them.

Other than the fact that his owned caches are apparently still PMO, I see no evidence that the OP is using any premium services.

 

Another question I have is why did you make all your caches PMO?

Does it matter? Premium members have the ability to create PMO caches for whatever reasons they choose.

 

The question the OP asked was about logging PM caches if he gave up his PM. Logging such is a PM service.

 

Never said it mattered. I was just curious. Is there some problem with asking questions?

The bolded bit is not correct.

 

Premium Member Only Caches

Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches "Premium Member Only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out. (Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each cache is managed by their cache owner.)

 

If they need a PM to seek it out it is a PM feature. There is an acknowledge loophole that affords non-pms to log them despite the PM status. If the OP was to be honest in his convictions, and I am not saying he isn't, he wouldn't log PM caches found after his membership expired.

[GOF and Bacall]

Thanks for the answers Lemon. I would be interested in hearing what some of your issues with Groundspeak are. If you care to discuss, but don't want to do so openly, Pm or email is always an option.

[+lemon16]

My main issue with Groundspeak is that the world is being inundated with (in my opinion) low-quality caches, and Groundspeak isn't doing much to control them. Yes, some people enjoy these caches, and I'm not trying to discriminate against anyone - I just don't think I should pay for something that I don't like. It's like buying an ugly shirt that you know you'll never wear - i don't want to pay for caches that I won't enjoy finding.

Edited January 28, 2011 by lemon16

[+WRASTRO]

My main issue with Groundspeak is that the world is being inundated with (in my opinion) low-quality caches, and Groundspeak isn't doing much to control them. Yes, some people enjoy these caches, and I'm not trying to discriminate against anyone - I just don't think I should pay for something that I don't like. It's like buying an ugly shirt that you know you'll never wear - i don't want to pay for caches that I won't enjoy finding.

 

Does this mean you will start to search only for caches you do not enjoy?

[+Manville Possum]

When I had more interest in geocaching I wanted to support this site. I like the notifycations features, and being a PM gave me the right to vote on the Waymarking site where I was able to create a category that I manage there. But as far as PMO caches? I am strongly against them. When I was a basic member and was locked out of PMO caches that users made them PMO just to keep basic members away, I formed my opinion on these type caches. Now that I am a PM, I still keep my caches open for all users. The way that I see it is if I had to pay to find out if I would enjoy geocaching or not, it may have been a waste of money for me. When I decided to become a PM, I almost opted for the 3 month membership because I was still not sure if I wolud like being a PM. I feel that keeping my caches open to basic members will give new users a chance to decide if they like geocaching or not, and will attract more potential members to use this site. Now there are some good reasons to make SOME caches PMO, like cache saturation issues. But making caches PMO just because the CO is a PM and they can, they look at it like I pay to play so if you seek my caches, you will pay to play too. If you truely belive in supporting this site and attracting more members to a hobby that you enjoy, then pay your PM dues and leave your caches open to basic members.

[GOF and Bacall]

Interesting way to look at it Lemon. But to be honest I pay the money to help me avoid the "lower quality" caches. More precisely to avoid those that don't interest me. It's an imperfect system but it helps. I have hopes that the favorites system will help considerably but it depends on how the average user votes. Only time will tell.

 

MPH I am really not sure why you are here. If you have no interest in geocaching then why do you participate? Anyway, I am not sure that adding masses of new users is such a great thing. I think the hobby is growing too fast as it is. But that is just my opinion.

[+lemon16]

MPH I am really not sure why you are here. If you have no interest in geocaching then why do you participate?

 

I do have interest in geocaching, but I prefer to go for a long hike and find 1 cache rather than find 20 in strip mall parking lots. Like I said, that's just my preference and there's nothing really 'wrong' with urban hides.

[GOF and Bacall]

MPH I am really not sure why you are here. If you have no interest in geocaching then why do you participate?

 

I do have interest in geocaching, but I prefer to go for a long hike and find 1 cache rather than find 20 in strip mall parking lots. Like I said, that's just my preference and there's nothing really 'wrong' with urban hides.

 

MPH! Is that you?

[+cx1]

 

MPH! Is that you?

Having the expectation that on a public forum that only the intended member is going to be the one to reply....

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of the internet. This your first day?

[GOF and Bacall]

 

MPH! Is that you?

Having the expectation that on a public forum that only the intended member is going to be the one to reply....

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of the internet. This your first day?

Sorry. Did I forget the smilie?

[+Manville Possum]

MPH I am really not sure why you are here. If you have no interest in geocaching then why do you participate?

 

I do have interest in geocaching, but I prefer to go for a long hike and find 1 cache rather than find 20 in strip mall parking lots. Like I said, that's just my preference and there's nothing really 'wrong' with urban hides.

 

MPH! Is that you?

 

Well, I have the same feelings but am in no way connected to that account. You have misunderstood me about geocaching, I just have no interest in seeking lame hides or will I log some lame waymark. I will seek caches that are of interest to me, I still geocache with my kids. I uploaded a video of us caching over the weekend in another thread in this forum about caching with kids, why not take a look at it? That was a fun cache and Schnitzle and I discovered 2 trackables in it. Little Possum made the find, it was a good kid friendly cache. I enjoy developing historically accurate geocaches and waymarks. This is how I enjoy geocaching. Creating interesting caches that others would enjoy and keeping them open for basic members to find. I am quite interested in developing some of the new virtual caches also. Why don't you take a look at some of my geocaches and waymarks? I would like your (and others) honest opinon's on what you think of them. I hope that you better understand now why I participate.

[GOF and Bacall]

I will look over your hides, but another day. It is already past my bedtime. We Grumpy Old Farts don't usually stay up late on school nights. Let me just say that I don't mean to denigrate anyone who doesn't wish to pay for a premium membership. I just think that if someone doesn't want to they should except that everything is not available to them. There are plenty of caches out there without the restriction. I really think this whole discussion would have gone much smoother if the OP had not started by implying that we who are PMs are wasting our money. I don't think it was his intention but it came across like that. Some met the apparent hostility with hostility. As for my "is that you" comment I was being silly. I often do that in these forums. I'll try to remember the next time.

[+WhoDis]

I no longer pay for my PM because I dislike the way Groundspeak is regulating geocaching, and do not wish to help them support things that I am against.

So, your taking a stand against Groundspeak tyranny, by not giving them your money, but continuing to use their services? Isn't that sort of like protesting for animal rights, while wearing a mink coat that you didn't pay for?

TPTB have long taken the stance that there are many ways to support the game and the site beyond paying for a membership. The OP owns caches for instance. Also, he hasn't been overly rude in the forums, unlike many others in this thread.

 

So, as you have pointed out, the OP is still supporting the sight by having caches. The OP has stated, in bold, that they do not wish to support the sight.

Were you making a statement against me or the OP? You lost me there.

[WildNTexas]

Hi,

 

I have a basic account. My husband has a Premium account. He caches more than I do. So he gets the premium.

 

WE wished Groundspeak would have a "Family Membership" plan instead of just individual plans. Like a 2 person family plan for $45 instead of having to get 2 single memberships for $60. So instead we just get one premium account. I still get all the benefits of a premium for the most part. Except easy logging of Premiums. We use GSAK for doing statistics so thats not a big deal. He gets the "My Finds" downloads and then for me just deletes the one I didn't get with him. So we can still do statistics for me. Groundspeak looses $15 they could have had if they had a family membership.

 

Using his account we load our Garmin GPS units up with all the geocaces includeing the premiums. I have a GPS and he has one.

 

The only drawback is while I find the premiums with him, and I can even find premiums without him. I can't log the premiums

 

However, thanks to this backdoor I can! WOO HOO! I love it! Now I can go back and log the 200+ or so premiums that I found along with my husband. Only thing is now I have to figure out which ones they were. Oh heck nevermind, thats to much work. Well any new premiums I find with my husband I will log with the backdoor.

 

So while if your individual, premium caches are hidden from you. In a family where at least one has the premium account, you can see then & find them when your with the one that has the premium account.

 

So thanks for posting the backdoor method! I love it!

 

WNT

Edited January 28, 2011 by WildNTexas

[+sbell111]

I don't know. There seems like there should be more to this story. What is it that was too much for you?

 

Anyway, seems like a simple thing. If you don't want to pay for premium services then don't use them.

Other than the fact that his owned caches are apparently still PMO, I see no evidence that the OP is using any premium services.

 

Another question I have is why did you make all your caches PMO?

Does it matter? Premium members have the ability to create PMO caches for whatever reasons they choose.

 

The question the OP asked was about logging PM caches if he gave up his PM. Logging such is a PM service.

 

Never said it mattered. I was just curious. Is there some problem with asking questions?

The bolded bit is not correct.

 

Premium Member Only Caches

Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches "Premium Member Only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out. (Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each cache is managed by their cache owner.)

 

If they need a PM to seek it out it is a PM feature. There is an acknowledge loophole that affords non-pms to log them despite the PM status. If the OP was to be honest in his convictions, and I am not saying he isn't, he wouldn't log PM caches found after his membership expired.

There is no dishonesty involved in a non-PM logging PMO caches. If a cacher (any cacher) signs the logbook of any cache, he can log it online.

[+sbell111]

I no longer pay for my PM because I dislike the way Groundspeak is regulating geocaching, and do not wish to help them support things that I am against.

So, your taking a stand against Groundspeak tyranny, by not giving them your money, but continuing to use their services? Isn't that sort of like protesting for animal rights, while wearing a mink coat that you didn't pay for?

TPTB have long taken the stance that there are many ways to support the game and the site beyond paying for a membership. The OP owns caches for instance. Also, he hasn't been overly rude in the forums, unlike many others in this thread.

 

So, as you have pointed out, the OP is still supporting the sight by having caches. The OP has stated, in bold, that they do not wish to support the sight.

Were you making a statement against me or the OP? You lost me there.

To some extent, you are confusing the game with the site. The OP is supporting the game by hiding caches for the rest of us to find. In many ways, this also supports GS, but isn't contridictory with his desire to not financially support GS, in my opinion.

[+Chokecherry]

GS brands a lot of stuff (look in their store) which people buy. They also have deals with other companies. Those Expedia travel bugs did not happen because GS decided to do it out of the kindness of their heart for example. I would find it a hard pill to swallow that the Jeep ones did either back in the day for example. Their charge for the website is just another financial venture. They are charging for a service (PM benefits). I don't see this as "supporting gs" I see this as me purchasing a service and if that service is worth the charge for me as in am I using enough benefits or are the benefits good enough to justify the cost to me.

 

I've spent plenty of money on their branded stuff and also spent money to buy a phone application. All in all the premium benefits don't benefit me that much. I don't use PQ's sans one time when I went on a trip. I have a tough time justifying the cost of the other benefits (but I'm letting it slide this year). Why would I pay for something that gives me no benefit? It would be like giving money to Apple without getting anything back to support the company or something like that to me. I just don't get the warm fuzzies tossing money at businesses and not getting anything useful in return. And this is a business at the end of the day.

 

Anyhow, PMO caches are few and far between where I am in the world. To some of us it's just a hobby and we just want to enjoy it with other people who enjoy it regardless of their desire or ability to purchase a service which may or may not be of use to them in the long run.

[+WhoDis]

I no longer pay for my PM because I dislike the way Groundspeak is regulating geocaching, and do not wish to help them support things that I am against.

So, your taking a stand against Groundspeak tyranny, by not giving them your money, but continuing to use their services? Isn't that sort of like protesting for animal rights, while wearing a mink coat that you didn't pay for?

TPTB have long taken the stance that there are many ways to support the game and the site beyond paying for a membership. The OP owns caches for instance. Also, he hasn't been overly rude in the forums, unlike many others in this thread.

 

So, as you have pointed out, the OP is still supporting the sight by having caches. The OP has stated, in bold, that they do not wish to support the sight.

Were you making a statement against me or the OP? You lost me there.

To some extent, you are confusing the game with the site. The OP is supporting the game by hiding caches for the rest of us to find. In many ways, this also supports GS, but isn't contridictory with his desire to not financially support GS, in my opinion.

Ah, but making all their hides PMO does financially support the site because people have to have to pay to see them. Seems to me that if they are so against what GS does, there are other listing sites they should use. Why would you stick with something you are so against when there are other options?

[Dinoprophet]

I no longer pay for my PM because I dislike the way Groundspeak is regulating geocaching, and do not wish to help them support things that I am against.

So, your taking a stand against Groundspeak tyranny, by not giving them your money, but continuing to use their services? Isn't that sort of like protesting for animal rights, while wearing a mink coat that you didn't pay for?

TPTB have long taken the stance that there are many ways to support the game and the site beyond paying for a membership. The OP owns caches for instance. Also, he hasn't been overly rude in the forums, unlike many others in this thread.

 

So, as you have pointed out, the OP is still supporting the sight by having caches. The OP has stated, in bold, that they do not wish to support the sight.

Were you making a statement against me or the OP? You lost me there.

To some extent, you are confusing the game with the site. The OP is supporting the game by hiding caches for the rest of us to find. In many ways, this also supports GS, but isn't contridictory with his desire to not financially support GS, in my opinion.

But as I said before, by making his caches PMO, he is encouraging others to pay for the site. He doesn't want you to find his caches unless you've paid GS.

 

This keeps getting better. Lemon16 says he dislikes the sprawl of lame caches, yet admits that he himself owns and operates such caches, ones that he says are so lame he wants to hide them from newbies so they won't copy them (this doesn't seem to be working, as I've pointed out -- the newbies are still finding and logging them).

 

Next time we get a thread asking what's special about PMO caches, here's the definitive answer.

 

I agree with GOF's last post. None of this would have come up if the question had been asked without the declaration of intent. And I also take no issue with someone choosing not to pay; it's the follow-up actions that have me scratching my head.

[+WhoDis]

I no longer pay for my PM because I dislike the way Groundspeak is regulating geocaching, and do not wish to help them support things that I am against.

So, your taking a stand against Groundspeak tyranny, by not giving them your money, but continuing to use their services? Isn't that sort of like protesting for animal rights, while wearing a mink coat that you didn't pay for?

TPTB have long taken the stance that there are many ways to support the game and the site beyond paying for a membership. The OP owns caches for instance. Also, he hasn't been overly rude in the forums, unlike many others in this thread.

 

So, as you have pointed out, the OP is still supporting the sight by having caches. The OP has stated, in bold, that they do not wish to support the sight.

Were you making a statement against me or the OP? You lost me there.

To some extent, you are confusing the game with the site. The OP is supporting the game by hiding caches for the rest of us to find. In many ways, this also supports GS, but isn't contridictory with his desire to not financially support GS, in my opinion.

But as I said before, by making his caches PMO, he is encouraging others to pay for the site. He doesn't want you to find his caches unless you've paid GS.

 

This keeps getting better. Lemon16 says he dislikes the sprawl of lame caches, yet admits that he himself owns and operates such caches, ones that he says are so lame he wants to hide them from newbies so they won't copy them (this doesn't seem to be working, as I've pointed out -- the newbies are still finding and logging them).

 

Next time we get a thread asking what's special about PMO caches, here's the definitive answer.

 

I agree with GOF's last post. None of this would have come up if the question had been asked without the declaration of intent. And I also take no issue with someone choosing not to pay; it's the follow-up actions that have me scratching my head.

+1

 

That's what I'm saying. Their actions do not support their words. They are against what GS does, but they continue to use their services. They don't want to financially support the site, but all their hides are PMO. And as you pointed out, the lame cache thing.

 

I'm not against not paying either, if you want a backdoor because you don't want to pay, just say so, but don't do it under the guise that you're trying to make some kind of stand.

[+sbell111]

I no longer pay for my PM because I dislike the way Groundspeak is regulating geocaching, and do not wish to help them support things that I am against.

So, your taking a stand against Groundspeak tyranny, by not giving them your money, but continuing to use their services? Isn't that sort of like protesting for animal rights, while wearing a mink coat that you didn't pay for?

TPTB have long taken the stance that there are many ways to support the game and the site beyond paying for a membership. The OP owns caches for instance. Also, he hasn't been overly rude in the forums, unlike many others in this thread.

 

So, as you have pointed out, the OP is still supporting the sight by having caches. The OP has stated, in bold, that they do not wish to support the sight.

Were you making a statement against me or the OP? You lost me there.

To some extent, you are confusing the game with the site. The OP is supporting the game by hiding caches for the rest of us to find. In many ways, this also supports GS, but isn't contridictory with his desire to not financially support GS, in my opinion.

Ah, but making all their hides PMO does financially support the site because people have to have to pay to see them. Seems to me that if they are so against what GS does, there are other listing sites they should use. Why would you stick with something you are so against when there are other options?

Surely, you would agree that each of us is allowed to choose the level of support that we give.

[+sbell111]

I no longer pay for my PM because I dislike the way Groundspeak is regulating geocaching, and do not wish to help them support things that I am against.

So, your taking a stand against Groundspeak tyranny, by not giving them your money, but continuing to use their services? Isn't that sort of like protesting for animal rights, while wearing a mink coat that you didn't pay for?

TPTB have long taken the stance that there are many ways to support the game and the site beyond paying for a membership. The OP owns caches for instance. Also, he hasn't been overly rude in the forums, unlike many others in this thread.

 

So, as you have pointed out, the OP is still supporting the sight by having caches. The OP has stated, in bold, that they do not wish to support the sight.

Were you making a statement against me or the OP? You lost me there.

To some extent, you are confusing the game with the site. The OP is supporting the game by hiding caches for the rest of us to find. In many ways, this also supports GS, but isn't contridictory with his desire to not financially support GS, in my opinion.

But as I said before, by making his caches PMO, he is encouraging others to pay for the site. He doesn't want you to find his caches unless you've paid GS.

 

This keeps getting better. Lemon16 says he dislikes the sprawl of lame caches, yet admits that he himself owns and operates such caches, ones that he says are so lame he wants to hide them from newbies so they won't copy them (this doesn't seem to be working, as I've pointed out -- the newbies are still finding and logging them).

 

Next time we get a thread asking what's special about PMO caches, here's the definitive answer.

 

I agree with GOF's last post. None of this would have come up if the question had been asked without the declaration of intent. And I also take no issue with someone choosing not to pay; it's the follow-up actions that have me scratching my head.

He's human. All of us are chock full of contradictions. Edited January 28, 2011 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I no longer pay for my PM because I dislike the way Groundspeak is regulating geocaching, and do not wish to help them support things that I am against.

So, your taking a stand against Groundspeak tyranny, by not giving them your money, but continuing to use their services? Isn't that sort of like protesting for animal rights, while wearing a mink coat that you didn't pay for?

TPTB have long taken the stance that there are many ways to support the game and the site beyond paying for a membership. The OP owns caches for instance. Also, he hasn't been overly rude in the forums, unlike many others in this thread.

 

So, as you have pointed out, the OP is still supporting the sight by having caches. The OP has stated, in bold, that they do not wish to support the sight.

Were you making a statement against me or the OP? You lost me there.

To some extent, you are confusing the game with the site. The OP is supporting the game by hiding caches for the rest of us to find. In many ways, this also supports GS, but isn't contridictory with his desire to not financially support GS, in my opinion.

But as I said before, by making his caches PMO, he is encouraging others to pay for the site. He doesn't want you to find his caches unless you've paid GS.

 

This keeps getting better. Lemon16 says he dislikes the sprawl of lame caches, yet admits that he himself owns and operates such caches, ones that he says are so lame he wants to hide them from newbies so they won't copy them (this doesn't seem to be working, as I've pointed out -- the newbies are still finding and logging them).

 

Next time we get a thread asking what's special about PMO caches, here's the definitive answer.

 

I agree with GOF's last post. None of this would have come up if the question had been asked without the declaration of intent. And I also take no issue with someone choosing not to pay; it's the follow-up actions that have me scratching my head.

+1

 

That's what I'm saying. Their actions do not support their words. They are against what GS does, but they continue to use their services. They don't want to financially support the site, but all their hides are PMO. And as you pointed out, the lame cache thing.

 

I'm not against not paying either, if you want a backdoor because you don't want to pay, just say so, but don't do it under the guise that you're trying to make some kind of stand.

Why does it matter?

 

He was a PM. He found some caches while a PM, but has since allowed his membership to lapse. TPTB allow for non-PMs to log PMO caches, so he inquired as to the logging method.

 

At this point, the only issue is whether a non-PM can own PMO caches. The OP has stated that he is allowed to view these cache pages, so it does appear that there is support built in to allow this. If TPTB decide that a non-PM should not own PMO caches, they will either instruct the OP to revert them to non-PM or they will simply do it themselves.

[+GeoGeeBee]

My main issue with Groundspeak is that the world is being inundated with (in my opinion) low-quality caches, and Groundspeak isn't doing much to control them.

 

Groundspeak is just a listing service. You might as well complain that you are being inundated with low-quality birthday presents, and UPS isn't doing much to control them. UPS just delivers the boxes, they don't control what goes into them.

[Dinoprophet]

I no longer pay for my PM because I dislike the way Groundspeak is regulating geocaching, and do not wish to help them support things that I am against.

So, your taking a stand against Groundspeak tyranny, by not giving them your money, but continuing to use their services? Isn't that sort of like protesting for animal rights, while wearing a mink coat that you didn't pay for?

TPTB have long taken the stance that there are many ways to support the game and the site beyond paying for a membership. The OP owns caches for instance. Also, he hasn't been overly rude in the forums, unlike many others in this thread.

 

So, as you have pointed out, the OP is still supporting the sight by having caches. The OP has stated, in bold, that they do not wish to support the sight.

Were you making a statement against me or the OP? You lost me there.

To some extent, you are confusing the game with the site. The OP is supporting the game by hiding caches for the rest of us to find. In many ways, this also supports GS, but isn't contridictory with his desire to not financially support GS, in my opinion.

But as I said before, by making his caches PMO, he is encouraging others to pay for the site. He doesn't want you to find his caches unless you've paid GS.

 

This keeps getting better. Lemon16 says he dislikes the sprawl of lame caches, yet admits that he himself owns and operates such caches, ones that he says are so lame he wants to hide them from newbies so they won't copy them (this doesn't seem to be working, as I've pointed out -- the newbies are still finding and logging them).

 

Next time we get a thread asking what's special about PMO caches, here's the definitive answer.

 

I agree with GOF's last post. None of this would have come up if the question had been asked without the declaration of intent. And I also take no issue with someone choosing not to pay; it's the follow-up actions that have me scratching my head.

He's human. All of us are chock full of contradictions.

Indeed. I admit I've been snarky here, but hopefully my points will be considered as he decides what to do with his caches.

[Andronicus]

Hi,

 

I have a basic account. My husband has a Premium account. He caches more than I do. So he gets the premium.

 

WE wished Groundspeak would have a "Family Membership" plan instead of just individual plans. Like a 2 person family plan for $45 instead of having to get 2 single memberships for $60. So instead we just get one premium account. I still get all the benefits of a premium for the most part. Except easy logging of Premiums. ...

WNT

Logging is easy

 

After he loggs, just have him go back to the log page, and then log out. YOu can then log in, and the logging page will still be there.

 

Or, just enter the URL like this:

geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?WP=<insert GC Code here, without the pointy brackets>

[+WhoDis]

I no longer pay for my PM because I dislike the way Groundspeak is regulating geocaching, and do not wish to help them support things that I am against.

So, your taking a stand against Groundspeak tyranny, by not giving them your money, but continuing to use their services? Isn't that sort of like protesting for animal rights, while wearing a mink coat that you didn't pay for?

TPTB have long taken the stance that there are many ways to support the game and the site beyond paying for a membership. The OP owns caches for instance. Also, he hasn't been overly rude in the forums, unlike many others in this thread.

 

So, as you have pointed out, the OP is still supporting the sight by having caches. The OP has stated, in bold, that they do not wish to support the sight.

Were you making a statement against me or the OP? You lost me there.

To some extent, you are confusing the game with the site. The OP is supporting the game by hiding caches for the rest of us to find. In many ways, this also supports GS, but isn't contridictory with his desire to not financially support GS, in my opinion.

But as I said before, by making his caches PMO, he is encouraging others to pay for the site. He doesn't want you to find his caches unless you've paid GS.

 

This keeps getting better. Lemon16 says he dislikes the sprawl of lame caches, yet admits that he himself owns and operates such caches, ones that he says are so lame he wants to hide them from newbies so they won't copy them (this doesn't seem to be working, as I've pointed out -- the newbies are still finding and logging them).

 

Next time we get a thread asking what's special about PMO caches, here's the definitive answer.

 

I agree with GOF's last post. None of this would have come up if the question had been asked without the declaration of intent. And I also take no issue with someone choosing not to pay; it's the follow-up actions that have me scratching my head.

+1

 

That's what I'm saying. Their actions do not support their words. They are against what GS does, but they continue to use their services. They don't want to financially support the site, but all their hides are PMO. And as you pointed out, the lame cache thing.

 

I'm not against not paying either, if you want a backdoor because you don't want to pay, just say so, but don't do it under the guise that you're trying to make some kind of stand.

Why does it matter?

 

He was a PM. He found some caches while a PM, but has since allowed his membership to lapse. TPTB allow for non-PMs to log PMO caches, so he inquired as to the logging method.

 

At this point, the only issue is whether a non-PM can own PMO caches. The OP has stated that he is allowed to view these cache pages, so it does appear that there is support built in to allow this. If TPTB decide that a non-PM should not own PMO caches, they will either instruct the OP to revert them to non-PM or they will simply do it themselves.

No, that's not an issue with me. It doesn't matter as far as I'm concerned. I don't care who pays and who don't either, if GS allows it, then it's ok. I know a few people who don't pay, doesn't bother me at all, but they don't masquerade the fact that they are cheap by proclaiming to make some kind of moral stand. My only issue was they they were saying one thing, while their actions showed another, all in an attempt, in my opinion, to cover the fact that they just don't want to pay.

[+lemon16]

I attempted to remove PMO status from all my caches today. However it appears I cannot do that unless I renew my membership. The checkbox on the edit listing page ("Allow only Premium and Charter Members to view this cache") no longer appears. So it looks like the caches are stuck being PMO.

[GOF and Bacall]

I attempted to remove PMO status from all my caches today. However it appears I cannot do that unless I renew my membership. The checkbox on the edit listing page ("Allow only Premium and Charter Members to view this cache") no longer appears. So it looks like the caches are stuck being PMO.

 

Contact your reviewer or write to contact@geocaching.com.

[+Manville Possum]

I attempted to remove PMO status from all my caches today. However it appears I cannot do that unless I renew my membership. The checkbox on the edit listing page ("Allow only Premium and Charter Members to view this cache") no longer appears. So it looks like the caches are stuck being PMO.

 

Contact your reviewer or write to contact@geocaching.com.

If contacting the above does not work, you may wish to use the 3 month option if you have to renew. If GS would allow a 3 month $10 gift membership, I would gift you a membership just to get rid of the PMO status of your caches. But GS only has the option for a 1 year gift membership. I hope that all works out well for you.

[GOF and Bacall]

Betcha a nickle it works.

[+WRASTRO]

+.01

[+eddyandlinder]

I have been informed that there is a backdoor way for basic members to log PMO caches. I have decided to stop wasting my money for a PM account but this means I can't log the PMO caches I just found. Can you explain know how the backdoor method works (if it exists)?

Thanks

 

Well, finally you and the response received has caused me to get my opinion in also. I believe that anyone for their own reasons may make the decision to drop or change memberships whenever they want.I think that there is enough benefit to PM that it is worth the money. You don't and that is OK. If you don't agree with it, get rid of it. My question is do you or have you used the map filters, custom search option? Do you want to see the new caches placed? No help as you are traveling to another town without route caches.. I would ask you to think about it before dropping it, there really are good benfits if you are really into Geocaching. I am considered a newbie as only 100+ caches to credit but believe that all the discussion on this will not change your decision once made.

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

I have been informed that there is a backdoor way for basic members to log PMO caches. I have decided to stop wasting my money for a PM account but this means I can't log the PMO caches I just found. Can you explain know how the backdoor method works (if it exists)?

Thanks

Surely I must've had a few too many watching the Packers take SB 2011 home and I'm hallucinating !! Does the OP own 40 something hides 38 of which are PMO ????

[4wheelin_fool]

I have been informed that there is a backdoor way for basic members to log PMO caches. I have decided to stop wasting my money for a PM account but this means I can't log the PMO caches I just found. Can you explain know how the backdoor method works (if it exists)?

Thanks

Surely I must've had a few too many watching the Packers take SB 2011 home and I'm hallucinating !! Does the OP own 40 something hides 38 of which are PMO ????

 

It's true. If you own a PMO cache and your premium membership expires, you cannot edit the cache back to regular status. The backdoor method around this is to send it to a premium member via the adoption process and have them edit it out and send it back to you.

 

I recall an early bug that allowed regular members to create premium caches, but they fixed that which created this situation.