Mandatory Membership

24.7k · September 15, 2003

Right now anyone can look up a cache. To log online you have to be a member and certain benifits come with being a premium member (MOC for example)

Does anyone see an advantage of making it so that you had to be a member to see caches. Maybe there could be some special caches that people can designate for 'everyone' to newbies.

What I'm thinking of is reducing plunder of caches by the membership requirment.

What are your thoughts on this?

2k · September 15, 2003

My initial reaction is "no". I would have been much less likely to have gotten involved in geocaching if there were an up-front membership cost.

There are already "members only" caches, which are sort of the reverse idea.

How much plundering is from information obtained on this site? I always thought most of it was due to people stumbling across the cache.

9.2k · September 15, 2003

No. If someone wants to look up caches to mess with, that's not really any kind of a road block It takes about 2 minutes to create a throw-away email account, which they can use to create a throw-away GC account.

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

September 15, 2003

To see the cords I am 50 50 on. But to post or do anything else I think you must be a member.. I am a member, because I love this sport and want to make it a better place for those who enjoy it.

Geocaching.com MUST make a true incentive to become a member to get the most out of the new sport...

You would be LACKING if you where not a member. Not seeing the posts, Hints, Clues Ect..

Mark.

September 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:
No. If someone wants to look up caches to mess with, that's not really any kind of a road block It takes about 2 minutes to create a throw-away email account, which they can use to create a throw-away GC account.

I agree with Prime Suspect. If a person really wants to be malicious he can easily set up a throw-away account and do some damage. I think the best way to prevent plundering is make a well thought out cache placement. Most caches that I see get plundered are ones that were poorly placed and some kids stumbled upon it and destroy it. As a matter of fact, I think that is majority of cache disapearances or plundering...poor cache placement. Only once have I heard of an intentional pilfering.

-Wily Javelina

[This message was edited by Wily Javelina on September 16, 2003 at 07:54 PM.]

September 15, 2003

OK, this is going to be a really wierd post but I am not currently a paying member and I agree with R.K.! Here are my reasons:

1) I would be super pissed if someone ganked a cache that I took the time to create and they only found it because they found it here.

2) Membership should have benefits.

Now, beejay&esskay has a good point about getting people involved. How about this for an idea.....

Only paying members can see all the caches. Users who sign up can only see "newbie caches". Name them what you want but they would be kind of like a microcache. Something small with only 1-2 items to trade. Something that would be fun would be to make one of the trade items in some "newbie caches" the waypoint and long/lat of an actual good cache. This would give them experience, a taste of the "good stuff" and a ton of work trying to find real caches to plunder if that is what they are in it for.

Just my opinion.

Rich

PS - I am going to buy my membership tonight. I'm tired of writing "I'm not a paying member"!

September 15, 2003

quote:
Only paying members can see all the caches. Users who sign up can only see "newbie caches". Name them what you want but they would be kind of like a microcache. Something small with only 1-2 items to trade. Something that would be fun would be to make one of the trade items in some "newbie caches" the waypoint and long/lat of an actual good cache. This would give them experience, a taste of the "good stuff" and a ton of work trying to find real caches to plunder if that is what they are in it for.

Just my opinion.

Rich

Actually Rich, very few if any are members only. I am a member and I don't want to restrict my caches and from what I have heard by talking to all of my GCing friends, that's their feeling on the matter as well. If I do a search my location, I would bet that in the SF Bay Area (where the highest density of caches are right <guestimate> that I would pull less than 50 members only caches.

It also seems that you might not fully understand how the members only cache works. It hider can select who (members only or all) can view their caches. The default is off and most people do not change it. So for those caches that are intentionally marked MO, then they won't show up unless you are a member. Not much of a deal because in the almost 400 finds that I have, only one is a MO cache.

/cw

BTW, I am running the querry and I will post the results when I get it.

aka : Chris Williams

Caching in the North Bay and beyond...

sonomarin.net

September 15, 2003

Oh right, I forgot about the pundering. Well, one of my caches has been visibly plundered three times actually. Each time the teenagers are kind enough to leave the "garbage" that is left so I can go back and recover it and build the cache back up.

Then again, another one of my caches got plundered and never showed up - Since the area was a know dealer hang out at night, I decided not to replace it. Someone else did with a micro - it's a nice park and many should visit.

Plundering happenes, it's usually not the GC community that does it.

/cw

aka : Chris Williams

Caching in the North Bay and beyond...

sonomarin.net

24.7k · September 15, 2003

Quetzalteco,

I think gpsrich got the gist of what I was saying with the newbies only caches. Mandatory membership would be before you could see any cache except those specifically designated by their owners for 'newbies'. Under the system I proposed for discussion the current members only caches really would not exist as such since all caches would require enough information to track down a pirate.

Prime Suspet. Good point and very true under the current membership rules. What do you think about having to provide an actual physical address as a member? I suspect I can guess your answer but what the heck.

September 15, 2003

quote:

Quetzalteco,

I think gpsrich got the gist of what I was saying with the newbies only caches. Mandatory membership would be before you could see any cache except those specifically designated by their owners for 'newbies'. Under the system I proposed for discussion the current members only caches really would not exist as such since all caches would require enough information to track down a pirate.

Yes you are probably right, but my internal clock was off and I just HAD to comment .

BTW, I got the query back - based on 95403, in a 500 mile radius (pretty much all of California except the far South East and far North East I found 218 Member's Only caches out of 7723. Not a bad ratio - that mean in this highly unscientific study member caches only constitute around 2.8227372782597436229444516379645% of the caches <grin> - oh yeah, +/- 97% accuracy.

Enough of this! My hair hurts...

/cw

aka : Chris Williams

Caching in the North Bay and beyond...

sonomarin.net

1.3k · September 16, 2003

Just saw this, and I don't think mandatory membership will help.

Firstly, it would reduce the numbers of new players. Secondly, whilst an email address and GC id are easy to create in order to seek and destroy caches, I feel that very few people would go to the bother of buying a GPSr for that purpose. If any of my caches are plundered, I intend to replace them with MOCs in the immediate area, but this would be only to reduce the traffic to the new site, and thus reduce the chance of a trail being created from the path to the cache.

I just looked, and in the UK I can only see 4 members-only caches, the nearest of which is 170 miles from me... so maybe I'll place a MOC just to give local cachers an added incentive to sign up for a month. Once somebody has signed up, I feel that pocket queries alone will keep them in premium membership as I find it invaluable.

I'm proud to pay my 3 dollars a month to support this website, and will do anything I can to encourage others to do the same, but I feel mandatory membership would be harmful to the game.

Maybe though to prevent the few who do create an account to trash caches, a credit-card validifcation could be a good idea... no charge, but you have to give a valid card number to sign up.

Neil.

Proud to support the GAGB

38.2k · September 16, 2003

First, Jeremy made a pledge some time ago that this site would never be "pay to play". I can't see him going back on it.

quote:
No. If someone wants to look up caches to mess with, that's not really any kind of a road block It takes about 2 minutes to create a throw-away email account, which they can use to create a throw-away GC account

I do think you should at least be logged onto the site to see the cache coordinates. If the 2 minutes it takes to create a throw away account discourages one person who is up to no good, then its worth it. Many of these miscreants are lazy and creating an account might be more than they are willing to deal with.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

September 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
I do think you should at least be logged onto the site to see the cache coordinates. If the 2 minutes it takes to create a throw away account discourages one person who is up to no good, then its worth it. Many of these miscreants are lazy and creating an account might be more than they are willing to deal with.

As long as the rest of the information can be seen about the cache I am ok with this solution. I like to send links of information to my parents, friends, etc, via email or AIM and it wouldn't be very useful if these people had to be logged in...

They don't need the coordinates to get a sense of the cache, just the logs, info, etc.

Works for me,

Silent Bob

September 16, 2003

In the current "let's return to our roots" mentality of geocaching.com, mandatory membership/required log-in to view coordinates are clearly contrary to the site's mission and core values.

9.2k · September 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

Prime Suspet. Good point and very true under the current membership rules. What do you think about having to provide an actual physical address as a member? I suspect I can guess your answer but what the heck.

Let's see if you win...

Providing a physical address will only work if some type of confirmation is used. Otherwise, I could just pick an address out of the phone book at random. The only practical confirmation would be to send a confirmation code to the person through the mail.

I doubt if GC wants to spend the time and money necessary to do this, and really doubt if first-timers want to sit around twiddling their thumbs for several days before they can go on their first hunt.

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

September 16, 2003

We are new to the game but have seen 2 caches which were visible due to not being hidden well enough by previous visitors. I think more damage will happen to caches due to our own negligence than by malicious use of GC.Com which (and I applaud the philosophy) should be free to use if required.

Just my tuppence-worth

Andy

24.7k · September 16, 2003

Prime Suspect, I lose. The registration code is something I've thought about combined with a 10 cache maximum while the code is winding it's way through the mail.

That of course puts the entire thing back into a sock puppet account for the 10 caches.

Thanks for the input.

2.3k · September 16, 2003

I am a firm believe in the K.I.S.S. prinipal and I don't see how RK idea will significantly help the problem but it would sure cause more difficulty playing the game.

---------------------------------------------------

Free your mind and the rest will follow

9.2k · September 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
The registration code is something I've thought about combined with a 10 cache maximum while the code is winding it's way through the mail.

Curious about the 10 cache maximum. Did you intend that to mean you could only log 10 caches, or only see 10 caches? If it's the former, vandals aren't going to bother to post logs (usually). If it's the latter, how would that be implemented? Who selects which 10 logs? If it's the cache hunter, are they expected to do that without the luxury of knowing exactly where they are?

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

September 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by The Cuthberts:
We are new to the game but have seen 2 caches which were visible due to not being hidden well enough by previous visitors. I think more damage will happen to caches due to our own negligence than by malicious use of GC.Com which (and I applaud the philosophy) should be free to use if required.

To heck with a good, well thought out cache placements and a little common sense when rehiding a cache once it is found. Lets just add more rules and regulation, more bells and whistles to make it as complicated as possible, thus, confusing any evil, wrong doing, malicious person.

-Wily Javelina

24.7k · September 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:
...Curious about the 10 cache maximum. Did you intend that to mean you could only log 10 caches, or only see 10 caches?...

Quit being logical! It would have to be 10 look ups or 10 views since you are right that logging just would not happen for a cache pirate.

4.5k · September 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
Prime Suspect, I lose. The registration code is something I've thought about combined with a 10 cache maximum while the code is winding it's way through the mail.

That of course puts the entire thing back into a sock puppet account for the 10 caches.

Thanks for the input.

That's a good idea. Not for protecting against sock puppet looters but for creating anew business model to have cachers pay while sticking to the principle of "free" caching.

A person get 10 cache point counts and then the counter gets locked out unless he becomes a paying customer. Jeremy's promise is "kept". Sure he can start a new account but his cache counter in effect start over at zero. Or he can keep the same account - with a counter frozen at 10. So free caching is available but if you're serious about caching you'll want the count to continue counting.

Alan

38.2k · September 18, 2003

quote:
A person get 10 cache point counts and then the counter gets locked out unless he becomes a paying customer. Jeremy's promise is "kept". Sure he can start a new account but his cache counter in effect start over at zero. Or he can keep the same account - with a counter frozen at 10. So free caching is available but if you're serious about caching you'll want the count to continue counting.

If you thought there was a firestorm because they decided they woundn't list every plaque and roadside marker as a cache, just imagine the outcry if they did something like this.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

4.5k · September 18, 2003

Of course you're right Brian that people will complain. That's always the risk you take when you raise rates or change services. I've been thinking about raising rates with one of my clients for months. I'm afraid he'll go elsewhere.

In addition to being a "labor of love", Groundspeak is also (mainly?) a business. Jeremy et al deserve to make a profit. (Leaving aside whether they are or not for the moment) or at least try to increase it.

Doing the 10 count idea would get guys like me to become paying members. Others who already pay won't have anything to gripe about. Newbies will have a chance to try it out. If they're going to spend money on a GPS they'll know in advance they'll have to pay a little more for membership.

It could cause the "other" geocaching sites to gain customers; I'm sure that's what on Jeremy's mind as he goes to sleep when he thinks about changes like this.

But is that a bad idea for either geocaching or Groundspeak? Competition spreads the interest in a sport or product. More customers means more money for all companies. For example, patented products are licensed out to others to be made and sold under different names.

If the change does get people to go to other sites or start their own, the other sites aren't going to do it for nothing either. So customers will still have to decide to pay - only to whom and how much. If this site maintains its quality, people will stay. It could eventually force the membership fee down. (Who's going to gripe about that). However, with more paying customers, there could be more profit, a better service, more features, better quality members, etc.

Business is a risk.

Alan

September 18, 2003

Groundspeak should require a $25 deposit for every cache placed.

When the time comes for the cache to be archived, a volunteer would be sent to determine that the cache was, in fact, removed. The deposit would then be refunded to the cache owner. (Whoops! Illegal cache placement? Sorry, deposit forfeited. Too close to another cache? Whoops! Sorry, deposit forfeited. The cache violates a newly instituted, unannounced rule or guideline? Whoops! You guessed it!)

Think of all the money Groundspeak could make off of forfeits and short term investments. And Jeremy will be a hero for limiting the number of cache placements and eliminating abandoned caches/geolitter. Attaboy!

[This message was edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox on September 18, 2003 at 06:40 AM.]

9.2k · September 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

That's a good idea. Not for protecting against sock puppet looters but for creating anew business model to have cachers pay while sticking to the principle of "free" caching.

A person get 10 cache point counts and then the counter gets locked out unless he becomes a paying customer. Jeremy's promise is "kept". Sure he can start a new account but his cache counter in effect start over at zero. Or he can keep the same account - with a counter frozen at 10. So free caching is available but if you're serious about caching you'll want the count to continue counting.

A good idea, if you want to destroy everything you've built up. It's one thing to create new functionality and have it be a perk for the paying members. It's quite another to take away something that's always been freely available, and say "Now, you have to pay for it". A recipe for disaster. Something that many internet content providers found out when they attempted to switch from a free, ad-based model to a subscription model.

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

24.7k · September 18, 2003

Alan2, that angle didn't cross my mind as it was a different problem I was working on. But that is a direction that the concept could be taken.

4.5k · September 19, 2003

Based on what I'm reading in the other topic regarding a stat page, that feature could be included with the 10 count counter concept - both only available for paying members.

The site is still free for people who want to cache. They can still post their logs, etc.

Alan

September 22, 2003

A new problem I am reading about and should be addressed is this www.piratecaching.com. It has been responsible for the deliberate plundering of three caches in my area, and it is making a major problem for the game, and for the children that have been getting involved with their families.

Perhaps this is a clan that needs to be politely asked to turn their creativity to something else?

Thoughts?

-Ken

Never hold back your step for a moment...

Never doubt that your courage will grow...

Hold your head even higher, and Into the Fire we go!

September 22, 2003

Presented for your consideration...

The same thing can be made optional to the hider and done through a simple policy change without coding.

The idea would be to allow hiders to have the option of hiding "on request" caches. The coords listed would be to a parking lot, trailhead, or other starting point. The first line would be to the effect, "PM the owner for the cache coordinates."

This would involve slightly more work for a hider who chooses to hide an on-request cache, but no more than for someone who owns a virt.

As with a multi, the approvers would still need to know the location of the cache and all stages.

It'd also be possible to automate coords-on-request, using a "Request coordinates" link that logs the requesting user and puts up the cache coords. While this is a bit less work for all involved (except the site maintainer), it's also inherently less secure due to the possibility of pirates using sock puppet accounts.

Either manual or automated requesting would require a paragraph or two to be inserted into the FAQ.

Again, this would be totally optional to both the hider and the seekers.

____________________________

- Team Og Rof A Klaw

All who wander are not lost.

[This message was edited by Team Og Rof A Klaw on September 22, 2003 at 08:51 AM.]

September 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by GPThespians:
It has been responsible for the deliberate plundering of three caches in my area, and it is making a major problem for the game, and for the children that have been getting involved with their families.

Rule number 4 from the "rules of lootin" states that:

4. Leave some Pirate toys for the little hooligans to find. We don't want them little hooligans a cryin all the way home...

Seems pretty harmless to me .

-Wily Javelina

1.3k · September 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
Right now anyone can look up a cache. To log online you have to be a member and certain benifits come with being a premium member (MOC for example)

Does anyone see an advantage of making it so that you had to be a member to see caches. Maybe there could be some special caches that people can designate for 'everyone' to newbies.

What I'm thinking of is reducing plunder of caches by the membership requirment.

What are your thoughts on this?

Well, instead of making all kinds of changes, why not just make all of your favorite caches MOC's? If everyone did this, and placed a few "Regular caches" would that not have the same effect as creating "newbie caches"? There is already the means for implementing this in place. The entire caching community doesn't need to have to adjust to another change in the site. I realize the intent is to protect everyone (who is a paying member) from plunder by non paying members. Everyone who has a premium membership has the ability to do this at their own discretion. If their regular cache gets plundered by someone without a premium membership, then perhaps they should have made the cache MO.

As it stands you do have to be a member to see member caches.

There are special caches only viewable by "newbies". (regular caches)

And those are my thoughts.

September 24, 2003

I'm a new member here, a newbie (12 finds), I believe that if you start charging, you will lose a lot of potential geocachers. I have been drumming a lot of interest here in my area and there are going to be a lot of new members. It will be a shame if they find out at this point that it will require some type of payment.

I also know that running this site is not cheap.

24.7k · May 5, 2004

After a recent spate of plundered caches locally I'm thinking that mandatory membership is still a good idea. Not premium membership, but provide a working email address membership like all site members have. Except you can't see caches until you do it.

I've got about 20 Altoids tins and can probably outlast the guys interest but I'd rather he had to work harder to steal them.

7.2k · May 5, 2004

I doubt a commercial site whose main goal is to grow would accept a scheme that would hinder the curious from joining.

May 5, 2004

After a recent spate of plundered caches locally I'm thinking that mandatory membership is still a good idea. Not premium membership, but provide a working email address membership like all site members have. Except you can't see caches until you do it.

I've got about 20 Altoids tins and can probably outlast the guys interest but I'd rather he had to work harder to steal them.

I haven't read up on the other old posts, but how would you know who plundered a cache? Would any recent viewers be, pardon the term, prime suspects?

May 5, 2004

There's a pretty successful French site called "Cistes". It's a kind of letterboxing/geocaching without GPS. The cache descriptions on the web are incomplete (the clues are missing).

You can request the clues for a cache by pressing a button on the cache page. They are sent to you by email (you have to be registered) and your name is added to the cache page ('cachers interested in this cache').

This system seems to work, at least in France.

Cornix

24.7k · May 5, 2004

...I haven't read up on the other old posts, but how would you know who plundered a cache? Would any recent viewers be, pardon the term, prime suspects?

People who log their finds wouldn't be suspects. That goes for both the ones who do online logs and the cache log, logs. Though you can't know who those people are because the log is stolen with the cache.

There are people who create pirate accounts, and once their intents are known they tend to get banned quickly. The odds (and this is my opinion) are that the more successful thieves just read cache pages and then steal the caches. They get their kicks by watching them go missing. Since they don't have to join to see caches they can do this with about zero risk. There really is no way to know who these people are. All you can do is make is so they have to sign up to steal caches.

May 5, 2004

...I haven't read up on the other old posts, but how would you know who plundered a cache? Would any recent viewers be, pardon the term, prime suspects?

People who log their finds wouldn't be suspects. That goes for both the ones who do online logs and the cache log, logs. Though you can't know who those people are because the log is stolen with the cache.

There are people who create pirate accounts, and once their intents are known they tend to get banned quickly. The odds (and this is my opinion) are that the more successful thieves just read cache pages and then steal the caches. They get their kicks by watching them go missing. Since they don't have to join to see caches they can do this with about zero risk. There really is no way to know who these people are. All you can do is make is so they have to sign up to steal caches.

Creating a throwaway email account is painfully easy these days. Registering under a new account for the purpose of gaining access to the cache pages doesn't appear to be something that would stop someone with malicious intent. It would be an obstacle that could thwart some people.

The benefit of a mandatory membership doesn't appear to outweigh the possibility of sending away potential paying members. It doesn't cost the Groundspeak anything if a cache is plundered. Well, maybe slightly as more database space will be taken up with a replacement cache!

While it would be nice to know how many people are viewing a cache, for now I'll sit on the fence on this one.

24.7k · May 5, 2004

...Creating a throwaway email account is painfully easy these days. Registering under a new account for the purpose of gaining access to the cache pages doesn't appear to be something that would stop someone with malicious intent. It would be an obstacle that could thwart some people.

The benefit of a mandatory membership doesn't appear to outweigh the possibility of sending away potential paying members. It doesn't cost the Groundspeak anything if a cache is plundered. Well, maybe slightly as more database space will be taken up with a replacement cache!...

Those are valid counterpoints. It's not Groundspeak I'm worried about though. It's local geocaching.

Another options is that if nobody uses Navicache then cache maggots wont' either. (I can't dignify them withe the term Pirate)

9.4k · May 5, 2004

I've thought of the permission-only cache concept before. It seemed like a nice compromise. Once you get permission you can see the coordinates.

Taking that one step further, we could create a "trusted" network of players. You could vouch for particular users and your trust ranking would allow you to see certain caches.

Dumbing it down, you could go the route of the friends list, where your friends could only see the caches you post. So it would be a small network of caches that only a select group could see.

All interesting ideas. What won't happen is forcing people to create accounts to view the traditional caches out there. It would go against the original design. There are valid points about problems with the negative aspects of open access to cache listings, however. There just isn't an easy way to solve it.

1.4k · May 5, 2004

A relationship thing would be interesting. Extending it out to friends of friends of friends, etc. would be neat but more difficult. If I have a friend I put on my trusted list, and they have a friend... I trust my friend enough that anyone they trust would be welcome to me as well.

With 100,000+ caching accounts and each of them having up to many trusted relationships, this could be a doctoral thesis type project.

I don't think intentional plundering is so prevalent that it needs to be addressed yet. A request/allow mechanism that logs email and IP might go a way to ease it. It's like locks on doors though. Locks keep honest people honest. Crooks are still going to break in.

24.7k · May 5, 2004

...I don't think intentional plundering is so prevalent that it needs to be addressed yet....

That depends on which side of the prevelance you are on!

May 5, 2004

I wonder if it would be possible to make a cache page visible to everyone, but the actual coordinates would not show unless you were registered. Maybe not as secure as forced registration, but it still leaves viewing the site open to all, and maybe makes it that much harder for the "maggots" as RK calls them.

9.4k · May 5, 2004

Nothing is impossible, but the site has so many places where the coordinates are used, it would be improbable to shut all of them down so non-logged user can't see them.

Besides, most people initially have distrust over a new site/idea/etc. and are unwilling to offer up their email address to check something out. I certainly am. And as others have mentioned, you can just create a throwaway hotmail account and view the listings anyway.

Even when you know who the cache maggots are (nice term), it's hard to block them. Many are AOL users with a plethora of IP addresses, or they use another ISP that has random IP addresses. We've had the most luck with the unfortunate dsl users that have static IP addresses.

Tracking their phone numbers down and calling their mom has helped on several occasions.

9.2k · May 5, 2004

I haven't read up on the other old posts, but how would you know who plundered a cache? Would any recent viewers be, pardon the term, prime suspects?

Hey! Watch it!

1.9k · May 6, 2004

i think plundering happens due to non cachers(thore who know NOTHING about geocaching) more than due to 'cachers'

this idea i am afraid would ruin the site.

May 6, 2004

What about a system whereby the cordinates are not initially shown. Users can browser all the entries they want but they never see any co-ords until they click "I want to go after this one" (or something similiar). Then they are given a limited number of days in which they have to come back to the cache page and click on either "I found it" or "I didn't find it", otherwise their account gets put on hold. I don't know if this would really help the matter as people could copy down the co-ords, come back and click "I didn't find it" and then go plunder it a month later.

May 6, 2004

I agree that requiring an email address would potentially scare some people away from trying the game. A couple of different people that I have explained caching to got on the site and found a cache before they decided they liked it and later created an account.

May 6, 2004

I'm sort of weirded out about people going to caches and not logging in one way or the other. I recently met a geocacher on the trail and we both ended up at the cache at the same time. Weird thing is, he has never logged that he found it. That's ok, I guess but it makes me wonder if anything would have been left in the cache had I not been there with him. I don't understand people that geocache without logging them in or anything. I think logging a cache is part of the fun of the whole game. Maybe this cache was listed at Navicache too. Do they log caches like we do here at GC.com? I have never investigated the Navicache site that much to find out.

Mandatory Membership

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment