The cost of membership.

[Mr.Yuck]

Regarding Groundspeak, as the "parent" so to speak, it establishes policies, guidelines and practices that that both promote low quality caches and discourages high quality caches.

Would you care to be more specific about how you think Groundspeak's policies, guidelines, and practices promote low quality caches and discourage high quality caches?

 

I'm generally a fan of gc.com (we have 2 premium accounts) but one thing Groundspeak management did which promoted low quality caches was open the flood gates to power trails. And then not providing a means of filtering them (without hours of work placing 100s of them on an ignore list).

 

Regarding Groundspeak, as the "parent" so to speak, it establishes policies, guidelines and practices that that both promote low quality caches and discourages high quality caches.

Would you care to be more specific about how you think Groundspeak's policies, guidelines, and practices promote low quality caches and discourage high quality caches?

 

A quote from the guidelines:

 

"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. If you have permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache listing for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache"

 

Groundspeak allows cachers to place caches in privately owned parking lots, thereby allowing the above guideline to be broken. I would bet money that walmart, or any other big chain, will not give permission for a cache placed under a lampskirt on the property. In my mind, and this is just one example, gc.com does help promote carpy hides by looking the other way and allowing these..

 

As far as the cost for premium membership goes,,, it's fine right where it is! Oh, and as others have mentioned, i don't want to see an explosion of new members.

 

I will +1 the comments of LoneR and Mudfrog as being consistent with what Emmett is talking about when he refers to Groundspeak promoting "low quality" caches. Many around here don't know that Power trails, as their called, were a no-go until about 3 years ago, and I am personally aware of two area's within a couple hundred miles of me where high density cache area's were designated as power trails, and that exact term was used when rejecting any further cache placements. Namely The Bruce Trail near Toronto, Ontario, and a commercial strip in Suburbia, Ohio, where one CO went a little overboard on the parking lot micros. By the standards of like 2008, that is.

 

And of course I've always been an opponent of the "look the other way and publish" policy on parking lot micros. Ever since the first one showed up in my area in 2005, as a matter of fact.

 

So yes, most of the people reading this, who didn't know. Power Trail was once a dirty word with negative connotations. So negative that it was used to reject any and all further cache placements in an area. And obviously a decision was made at the top to open up the floodgates, so to speak.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[DivaB]

For me, I thought the price a bit high; but then I'm comparing it to other group sites that are important to me. With that said, just because it's a high price for me right now, doesn't me that it will be after a few months of learning and testing the waters. I can certainly see both sides of the coin. An explosion of memberships can be a bit scary and very impersonal. Those are big downsides that I've seen at other places. The moderation becomes quite involved also. On the other side of the coin, it can allow the full family to take advantage of participating (if it was family friendly in allowing members with no age limit) and also allows others that are very financial strapped at these trying times to be able to participate in a family fun game that should be affordable. I've seen and witnessed both the positives and negatives of both sides of this topic.

 

Always two sides isn't there

[+Markwell]

Original poster posted at the beginning of the thread and then never came back...

 

Are we really trying to convince someone?

[jholly]

Original poster posted at the beginning of the thread and then never came back...

 

Are we really trying to convince someone?

Ourselves?

[+emmett]

Regarding Groundspeak, as the "parent" so to speak, it establishes policies, guidelines and practices that that both promote low quality caches and discourages high quality caches.

Would you care to be more specific about how you think Groundspeak's policies, guidelines, and practices promote low quality caches and discourage high quality caches?

 

Well to begin with, there are about 5,000 words of rules and guidelines, maybe more if I did not catch them all. Can you grasp how ridiculous that is? How many lawyers did it take to come up with all that nonsense? Aside from, “don’t do anything illegal or in violation of landowner rules,” how much more is really needed?

 

If quality was even a remote concern of Groundspeak, the rules would be kept simple to allow cache owners some creative license to think out of the box, push the envelope, expand the game. Reviewers would be instructed to work productively with cache owners so as not to squash their creativity. Yes, this can happen to some degree within the rules but the guidelines, and in some cases, the reviewers, are an obstacle.

 

Worse than the guidelines is the manner in which the company interacts with cache owners. Be mindful first that Groundspeak has no business without cache owners yet engages in no meaningful dialogue, or give and take, to partner with the owners to make for a better overall experience for everyone. Quite to the contrary, Groundspeak’s interaction with the cache owners I know has been deplorable.

 

Finally, Groundspeak has cultivated a low quality culture by making it easy to publish crappy caches rather than discouraging or prohibiting them, while offering no incentives to encourage better quality.

 

Face it, Groundspeak cares only about making money. Simple as that. Nothing wrong with it either. It’s their business and they can do what they want with it. But let’s not be foolish to suggest that Groundspeak is not responsible for creating the crappy cache, plunder stash culture. The proof is in the pudding ... in my area over the past year, there is not one new cache that could be described as excellent, a "must grab." Five or six years ago, they were commonplace.

 

So what does this have to do with the cost of a premium membership? Well the price is just right in terms of the online features you get for the cash you pay. On the other hand, it is highway robbery in the sense that the game itself has been so cheapened and the company has become so terribly tone deaf and inconsiderate of its customers. The best way to get good value for your money is to withhold it from Groundspeak and tell them they will see your cash no more until they get serious about elevating the quality of the game.

 

.

[+The_Incredibles_]

in my area over the past year, there is not one new cache that could be described as excellent, a "must grab."

 

I'm not sure what your defintion of an excellent cache is. I'm quite happy to find small lock n locks and even bison tubes or film canisters if it means I get the opportunity to further explore this great city I live in. I enjoy creative caches too, but it would be a bit much, I think to ask that all caches be creative.

 

If you don't like the quality of caches in your area, you can always put one out yourself.

 

Can you give a specific example of a cache you want to hide that is prohibited by the guidelines? I don't personally find the guidelines very restrictive. The proximity guidelines are the main challenge as I see it, however not too bad as long as you're willing to cache an area well before hiding.

[+emmett]

in my area over the past year, there is not one new cache that could be described as excellent, a "must grab."

 

I'm not sure what your defintion of an excellent cache is. I'm quite happy to find small lock n locks and even bison tubes or film canisters if it means I get the opportunity to further explore this great city I live in. I enjoy creative caches too, but it would be a bit much, I think to ask that all caches be creative.

 

If you don't like the quality of caches in your area, you can always put one out yourself.

 

Can you give a specific example of a cache you want to hide that is prohibited by the guidelines? I don't personally find the guidelines very restrictive. The proximity guidelines are the main challenge as I see it, however not too bad as long as you're willing to cache an area well before hiding.

 

I think you are missing the point, there really is no denying that quality has deteriorated, while crappy caches have increased exponentially. Anyone who has been around for a while knows this. While there may be no one explanation, I cited some of the reasons why Groundspeak is the primary cause.

 

You want actual examples ... the most popular cache, by far, in my area was once shut down abruptly by Groundspeak for no good reason. I know the cache owner personally. He spent hours and hours of time putting it together. Everyone loves the cache. For this, a Groundspeak lackey, a real jerk, just flipped the switch. Likewise, I had a cache series that was also shut down, again for no good reason. A different offending person in charge was also a real jerk. These are just two cases, there are plenty of others. In both cases, you had long time premium members who owned many caches that were regarded as high quality, who were known to be conscientious with maintenance. Groundspeak showed zero regard and terrible customer relations. Among everyone I know who is familiar with either case, not one is in agreement with what was done. Several were known to place quality caches and not one has placed a cache since. Maybe they have other reasons but militant Groundspeak lackey types are certainly culpable.

 

So they can raise the price or lower it to a penny. Makes no difference. They won't see any more cash from me.

 

.

 

.

[+Roman!]

in my area over the past year, there is not one new cache that could be described as excellent, a "must grab."

 

I'm not sure what your defintion of an excellent cache is. I'm quite happy to find small lock n locks and even bison tubes or film canisters if it means I get the opportunity to further explore this great city I live in. I enjoy creative caches too, but it would be a bit much, I think to ask that all caches be creative.

 

If you don't like the quality of caches in your area, you can always put one out yourself.

 

Can you give a specific example of a cache you want to hide that is prohibited by the guidelines? I don't personally find the guidelines very restrictive. The proximity guidelines are the main challenge as I see it, however not too bad as long as you're willing to cache an area well before hiding.

 

I think you are missing the point, there really is no denying that quality has deteriorated, while crappy caches have increased exponentially. Anyone who has been around for a while knows this. While there may be no one explanation, I cited some of the reasons why Groundspeak is the primary cause.

 

You want actual examples ... the most popular cache, by far, in my area was once shut down abruptly by Groundspeak for no good reason. I know the cache owner personally. He spent hours and hours of time putting it together. Everyone loves the cache. For this, a Groundspeak lackey, a real jerk, just flipped the switch. Likewise, I had a cache series that was also shut down, again for no good reason. A different offending person in charge was also a real jerk. These are just two cases, there are plenty of others. In both cases, you had long time premium members who owned many caches that were regarded as high quality, who were known to be conscientious with maintenance. Groundspeak showed zero regard and terrible customer relations. Among everyone I know who is familiar with either case, not one is in agreement with what was done. Several were known to place quality caches and not one has placed a cache since. Maybe they have other reasons but militant Groundspeak lackey types are certainly culpable.

 

So they can raise the price or lower it to a penny. Makes no difference. They won't see any more cash from me.

 

.

 

.

 

You didn't happen to steal the A.P.E. cache, did you?

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

So they can raise the price or lower it to a penny. Makes no difference. They won't see any more cash from me.

 

 

Sorry you had such an upsetting experience. It sounds like you invested a ton of time and energy into the game. It must have been terribly disappointing for you to have things to end the way they did.

 

I'm sure they must have had a reason, though, to archive those caches. What reason did they give? I have found some people who appear very abrupt over the internet are very caring and warm in person.

 

I have to say I'm a bit surprised that you archived all your caches 1 1/2 years ago and you're still on the forum. Hopefull you can find closure to this troubling experience.

[+niraD]

Well to begin with, there are about 5,000 words of rules and guidelines, maybe more if I did not catch them all. Can you grasp how ridiculous that is? How many lawyers did it take to come up with all that nonsense? Aside from, “don’t do anything illegal or in violation of landowner rules,” how much more is really needed?

It would be nice if that were all that we needed, but experience has shown otherwise. I haven't been geocaching as long as you have, but I have seen the guidelines change a few times. And AFAICS, the guidelines are changed in response to real problems. I may not always agree with the specific changes (and I don't expect to), but they haven't been developed in a vacuum, and they haven't been developed in an attempt to hinder quality caches (or to promote poor caches).

 

But let’s not be foolish to suggest that Groundspeak is not responsible for creating the crappy cache, plunder stash culture. The proof is in the pudding ... in my area over the past year, there is not one new cache that could be described as excellent, a "must grab." Five or six years ago, they were commonplace.

It seems to me that Groundspeak is at the mercy of the geocaching culture, not the other way around. Groundspeak didn't hide thousands of film canisters in the desert, each 528ft/161m from its neighbors. Geocachers did that. Geocachers eagerly did that. And Groundspeak resisted listing them for years.

 

IME, Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers are happy to work with cache owners to get creative, quality caches published. I'm sorry that hasn't been your experience.

[+Roman!]

Well to begin with, there are about 5,000 words of rules and guidelines, maybe more if I did not catch them all. Can you grasp how ridiculous that is? How many lawyers did it take to come up with all that nonsense? Aside from, “don’t do anything illegal or in violation of landowner rules,” how much more is really needed?

It would be nice if that were all that we needed, but experience has shown otherwise. I haven't been geocaching as long as you have, but I have seen the guidelines change a few times. And AFAICS, the guidelines are changed in response to real problems. I may not always agree with the specific changes (and I don't expect to), but they haven't been developed in a vacuum, and they haven't been developed in an attempt to hinder quality caches (or to promote poor caches).

 

But let’s not be foolish to suggest that Groundspeak is not responsible for creating the crappy cache, plunder stash culture. The proof is in the pudding ... in my area over the past year, there is not one new cache that could be described as excellent, a "must grab." Five or six years ago, they were commonplace.

It seems to me that Groundspeak is at the mercy of the geocaching culture, not the other way around. Groundspeak didn't hide thousands of film canisters in the desert, each 528ft/161m from its neighbors. Geocachers did that. Geocachers eagerly did that. And Groundspeak resisted listing them for years.

 

IME, Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers are happy to work with cache owners to get creative, quality caches published. I'm sorry that hasn't been your experience.

 

Which led to the E.T. highway and 0001-E.T. has 478 favorites out of some 1200 finds. I know people that have done it and all agree it was an amazing experience, what more could you ask for?

 

I took a quick look at some of the caches emmett found and it seems the ones he found recently have more favorite points than the ones he found years ago. Maybe it's just as case of "when I was your age I walked to school uphill both ways in the snow" syndrome.

[Keystone]

The thread is about the cost of premium membership. While it's fine to make a point that cache quality or Groundspeak policies impact someone's perception of the value from premium membership, we ought not let the entire thread turn into a debate about those subjects. Let's get back to talking about the cost / price point. Thanks!

[+Roman!]

The thread is about the cost of premium membership. While it's fine to make a point that cache quality or Groundspeak policies impact someone's perception of the value from premium membership, we ought not let the entire thread turn into a debate about those subjects. Let's get back to talking about the cost / price point. Thanks!

 

Right, it's too cheap.

[+Totem Clan]

Let's see. For me it's about 500 caches so far this year at $30/year. That's $0.06/cache. That's not a bad price for all the fun I've had.

 

As for all the gas, well I'm sure I would burn it anyway driving to hikes, hunting, or just out driving with the kids rock hunting or sight seeing in the country.

 

Of course this comes from a man who went to the store the other day and spent $130 on supplies that will all end up used just for caching.

 

I think the membership fees as they stand are the last thing cachers need to worry about.

[+Colonial Cats]

The thread is about the cost of premium membership. While it's fine to make a point that cache quality or Groundspeak policies impact someone's perception of the value from premium membership, we ought not let the entire thread turn into a debate about those subjects. Let's get back to talking about the cost / price point. Thanks!

 

Right, it's too cheap.

It's plenty cheap. The cost of 2 haircuts (or 1 lady's beauty parlor visit) is less than a one year membership. On the other hand, Platinum Membership is a little pricey.

[+niraD]

The thread is about the cost of premium membership. While it's fine to make a point that cache quality or Groundspeak policies impact someone's perception of the value from premium membership, we ought not let the entire thread turn into a debate about those subjects. Let's get back to talking about the cost / price point. Thanks!

Keystone, thanks for the reminder. I'll try to keep the discussion related to the cost/value of membership.

 

But one of the benefits of premium membership is "LOVE! Support the development and maintenance of the Geocaching.com site." So IMHO, some discussion of that benefit is appropriate.

 

Roman!, my point isn't to discuss the merits of numbers run trails in general, or the merits of specific numbers run trails. My point is that Groundspeak isn't controlling the geocaching culture. (And that point relates to emmett's claim that Groundspeak somehow promotes low quality caches and discourages high quality caches, which relates to the topic of this thread.)

[+baloo&bd]

To be honest, I don't know how they maintain the site at just $30 membership. I appreciate them keeping it at that, however would not have any qualms about paying a higher fee.

[+TeamPennyFinder]

I need to Thank the OP. It jarred my memory that I got my PM expiration notice in less than 7 days in an email yesterday. It had slipped my mind already.

 

It is now taken care of and I have one more year. I am by no means a heavy duty geocacher. BUT! For this $30.00 I have gotten so much.

 

Fun excersise! Sounds like an oxymoron doesn't it?

Quality time with the wife!

Quality time with the grandkids!

I got to introduce my sons to this sport.

In other words it is a great family activity.

 

My regret is that we cannot geocache more often due to time restrictions.

 

So Thank You OP for reminding me to renew my membership.

[+TL&MinBHIL]

Original poster posted at the beginning of the thread and then never came back...

 

Are we really trying to convince someone?

I don't know if this is true of the OP, but I think many people who post their opinion to internet forums simply don't count on such a backlash against their opinion. I know, I know, welcome to the internet. But when the response is so overwhelmingly against you, it can be quite daunting & disconcerting. Maybe even intimidating. Let's face it, the Geo forums can be a harsh environment for newcomers at times. They're constantly reading that the influx of newcomers has negatively affected the hobby and that newcomers & smartphone cachers = bad caches, bad logs, and bad swag. It didn't take long for this thread to go that direction. I don't blame some people for not coming back.

[+unabowler]

I've always thought the way for Groundspeak to make dough is to convert the casual cachers with cell phones, using the shareware apps, to become serious cachers who are premium members. A premium membership is definitely worth the money for those who are seriously into the hobby. I'm not sure how they should go about convincing those people since they didn't have to do anything special to convince me.

 

On another note, I'm not sure the influx of newcomers is all that negative. Yeah, there are a lot of crummy caches out there, and many that aren't maintained because somebody hid it when they were new to the game and quit. But as long as there are good caches, does it really matter how many bad ones there are? I'm new enough myself, less than a year, and I don't have any trouble figuring out which caches are good and which ones aren't. There's a power trail less than an hour away from me and I don't detect any negative affect on my experiences in the hobby.

[+Roman!]

The thread is about the cost of premium membership. While it's fine to make a point that cache quality or Groundspeak policies impact someone's perception of the value from premium membership, we ought not let the entire thread turn into a debate about those subjects. Let's get back to talking about the cost / price point. Thanks!

Keystone, thanks for the reminder. I'll try to keep the discussion related to the cost/value of membership.

 

But one of the benefits of premium membership is "LOVE! Support the development and maintenance of the Geocaching.com site." So IMHO, some discussion of that benefit is appropriate.

 

Roman!, my point isn't to discuss the merits of numbers run trails in general, or the merits of specific numbers run trails. My point is that Groundspeak isn't controlling the geocaching culture. (And that point relates to emmett's claim that Groundspeak somehow promotes low quality caches and discourages high quality caches, which relates to the topic of this thread.)

 

My reply was intended to emmitt, there are many many awesome caches but in general there are a lot more caches now than there were 7 years ago thus the number of lame caches had to increase as well, maybe it's your perception, maybe it's your location but where I sit I have found countless awesome caches and lots more I still need to find.

 

Now I know no one will ever argue that GS has great business acumen but to suggest they promote low quality caches is absurd, me thinks emmitt has larger issues with GS that we are not aware of.

[jholly]

<snip>

Now I know no one will ever argue that GS has great business acumen but to suggest they promote low quality caches is absurd, me thinks emmitt has larger issues with GS that we are not aware of.

Yeah, he has larger issues. About year and half ago, or maybe two, he did a geocide after a major snit in the forums. I'm sure if you spend some time searching you will find it.

[+Ahern Clan]

In reading through some of the posts (not all), I am of the opinion the price is fair at $30 a year. Offering a 2-year at $50 would be even better (from the member point of view).

 

The one thing I would like to see is better 'statistics' similar to some I have seen from other companies i.e. GSAK. The stats on a person's profile page that I recently viewed are awesome.

 

The ones willing to pay the $30 a year are die-hard cachers that are hooked (like me). At $30 a year I will continue to be a premium member. I wouldn't want to pay more though unless there were some major improvements that are enticing.