Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
deskdata

Basic Members finding Premium Member caches

Recommended Posts

I thought this issue was cut and dried but I thought I'd share this incident which highlights Groundspeaks failure to apply their own geocaching guidelines consistently.

 

I am a basic member. Like many others I sometimes go geocaching in a group which includes Premium Members and have been logging any Premium Member caches found. I don't know exactly how many but I suppose I must have logged getting on for a hundred Premium member caches without problems.

 

Then in January, while skiing in France, I logged finds for two Premium Member caches. The CO subsequently deleted my logs without any explanation. I therefore contacted him to ask the reason and his reply was that Premium Member caches were for Premium Members only and he was in the habit of deleting any logs posted by basic members.

 

After a further exchange of emails where I tried to explain the current guidelines on basic members logging finds of Premium Member caches it was evident that the CO was not going to budge.

 

Now, the cache listing did not mention that basic members logs would be deleted, and because I had expended a considerable amount of effort to find them, I raised the issue with Groundspeak.

 

On 8th February I received this response from Groundspeak:

 

"Thank you for contacting us. I have reinstated and locked your two Found It logs.

My colleague is currently working with the cache owner to explain why we have taken this option. And to explain that in fact, yes, Basic members can log PMO caches.

Please let us know if you have further questions or concerns.

Best Regards,

Sara".

 

So, Result.

But then over a month later, on 11th March, my logs were deleted by another Grounspeak Lackey, Jessiep, again without any explanation.

 

When I asked what was going on I received the following responses:

 

"While this is not common practice we have decided to let the logs be removed. We are currently looking into our Guidelines in regards to basic members logging Premium Member caches and will be clarify this issue in the future.

Regards,

Jessica"

 

When I asked what had changed to cause them to change their decision I received the following response:

 

"We have addressed this issue as was appropriate for the situation.

Regards,

Jessica"

 

So, no explanation then. Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok....I think your logs should stay but nothing that can be done here....Try contacting Groundspeak to see why they did what they did...

Share this post


Link to post

Question...how do you log them if you can't even see them or access them?

Edited by J Grouchy

Share this post


Link to post

Ouch. That seems like a very unfair scenario, but we do have to keep perspective. It is Groundspeak's website and they can dictate how we use it. Just because they have allowed members to log PMO caches in the past, there is nothing that says that they can't change that rule. I hope they don't, but that is just feelings on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post

That really sucks and is very unfair! My husband and I are premium members and cache with our two teenage daughters who has just asked to have accounts of their own, which we arranged. Whilst we are very happy to pay for premium membership as we like the benefits would we really be expected to pay 3 times?? I guess, however, there isn't a great deal more you can do and just remember next time you are skiing give his caches a wide berth! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

and this is EXACTLY why I dont own any PM only caches and NEWER will..

and you should tell Jessica that Sara did handle this, case is closed,

it is a VERY old and fully accepted rule, non PM members can offcourse find PM caches, together with PM folks.

Share this post


Link to post

So, it appears that basic members will NOT be allowed to log PMO caches anymore? :o:huh::ph34r:

 

I don't think that decision will be very popular..

Share this post


Link to post

That really sucks and is very unfair! My husband and I are premium members and cache with our two teenage daughters who has just asked to have accounts of their own, which we arranged. Whilst we are very happy to pay for premium membership as we like the benefits would we really be expected to pay 3 times?? I guess, however, there isn't a great deal more you can do and just remember next time you are skiing give his caches a wide berth! :rolleyes:

 

Yeah...has anyone floated the idea of some sort of group or family membership? Maybe even a tier structure - one rate for 2-4 members, another for 5+. My wife didn't opt for the premium because I have it (and she's not as into caching as I am)...but she can't even pull those caches up on her device. I'm still wondering how basic members even are able to log them electronically if they can't access them through their account.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be nice if they announced changes like this ahead of time, because of the impact it could have on quite a few geocachers, but instead we find out from word of mouth.

 

Unfortunately, it seems to be more of a knee jerk reaction to pacify an angry cache owner.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Then in January, while skiing in France, I logged finds for two Premium Member caches. The CO subsequently deleted my logs without any explanation. I therefore contacted him to ask the reason and his reply was that Premium Member caches were for Premium Members only and he was in the habit of deleting any logs posted by basic members.

 

 

What a mean spirited action and I suggest not one that is compatible with geocaching. I suggest that everyone boycotts their caches so they get zero finds in the future. Also shame on Jessiep for deleting the logs - case had already been concluded. Surely this is a highly dangerous precedent. Even if the rules might be changed in the future, it is not good to change currently accepted practice on the fly.

Edited by lodgebarn

Share this post


Link to post

This is going to result in caches being destroyed by spiteful cachers.

 

Today, Groundspeak needs to either back up their lackey and state that PMO caches can now only be logged by PMO members or they need to reverse the log deletion and state nothing has changed.

Edited by fbingha

Share this post


Link to post

I am going to bet there is a "regional uproar" about the logs and Groundspeak...an "entitled sense of control" seems to be the main theme when items such as this come up.

 

While I would agree...having your logs deleted is uncalled for by the cache owner...having them reinstated then deleted by Groundspeak means there is a whole lot more to this situation then any of us my be able to know about at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
So, it appears that basic members will NOT be allowed to log PMO caches anymore? :o:huh::ph34r:

I think you're reading too much into that. What I see is, in case of dispute, Groundspeak changed their minds and sided with the cache owner. Maybe all cache owners.

 

And TDM22, let's not go down that rabbit hole again by bringing up Jeremy's pledge. Again. The game is still not pay-to-play. You play for free. It happens to be pay-for-premium-features, subtle difference.

Share this post


Link to post

I am going to bet there is a "regional uproar" about the logs and Groundspeak...an "entitled sense of control" seems to be the main theme when items such as this come up.

 

mqdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

So, it appears that basic members will NOT be allowed to log PMO caches anymore? :o:huh::ph34r:

 

I don't think that decision will be very popular..

 

I pulled this quote from the Announcements section, under "we're retiring challenges".

 

On an office wall here at HQ is a sign that reads, “Let’s make better mistakes tomorrow.”

 

Apparently, not. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Question...how do you log them if you can't even see them or access them?

 

There are well documented methods though off the top of my head I can't remember where I have seen them, which we use for my daughters when they have been out caching with us and we have found PMO caches.

Share this post


Link to post
So, it appears that basic members will NOT be allowed to log PMO caches anymore? :o:huh::ph34r:

I think you're reading too much into that. What I see is, in case of dispute, Groundspeak changed their minds and sided with the cache owner. Maybe all cache owners.

 

Telling people to use the backdoor method at their own risk is not going to make anyone happy, especially if they will need to e-mail the cache owner ahead of time for permission. Then when permission is not granted, a entire slew of "elitist PMO" bashers will start threads about it.

 

Taking sides with the person who deletes valid "found" logs, is a very poor public relations stance, especially when there are people who go caching with their family or other groups, some of which are basic members. There will be now be many more conflicts with angry cachers who will now seize the opportunity to delete logs, when previously they only tolerated it. I really hope they are not changing this policy. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
So, it appears that basic members will NOT be allowed to log PMO caches anymore? :o:huh::ph34r:

I think you're reading too much into that. What I see is, in case of dispute, Groundspeak changed their minds and sided with the cache owner. Maybe all cache owners.

 

But I think that in case you are right, this is a very dangerous thing to do. I see many more reasons for allowing a cache owner to delete the find log for a difficult puzzle cache or long distance hiking multi cache where the finder obtained the coordinates by cheating than for allowing to delete the find of a 1*/1* PMO traditional a basic member happened to find by chance. This will end in some form of anarchy.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

If the correspondence is accurate it appears that GS initially determined the logs were valid and re-instated and locked them. Then a month later they did an about-face and deleted the logs??

 

Even if they are planning a change or have just made a change to the back-door PMO cache logging policy they shouldn't have reversed their initial decision on these caches.

Share this post


Link to post

That really sucks and is very unfair! My husband and I are premium members and cache with our two teenage daughters who has just asked to have accounts of their own, which we arranged. Whilst we are very happy to pay for premium membership as we like the benefits would we really be expected to pay 3 times?? I guess, however, there isn't a great deal more you can do and just remember next time you are skiing give his caches a wide berth! :rolleyes:

 

Yeah...has anyone floated the idea of some sort of group or family membership? Maybe even a tier structure - one rate for 2-4 members, another for 5+. My wife didn't opt for the premium because I have it (and she's not as into caching as I am)...but she can't even pull those caches up on her device. I'm still wondering how basic members even are able to log them electronically if they can't access them through their account.

There is (or was) a way to log the caches. It wasn't in the help center, you had to look it up on the Forums.

 

Is it true that now the policy is that every family member must buy PM to log PMO caches? I can already think of a couple reasons why that plan will backfire badly for Groundspeak. This is at least as bas as looking the other way when TBs get stolen and sold. Are there any of TPTB remaining who can make sensible decisions?

Share this post


Link to post

 

There is (or was) a way to log the caches. It wasn't in the help center, you had to look it up on the Forums.

 

Actually, the method is that obvious that anyone with basic experience with computers can easily come up with the approach him/herself - no forum/help center etc required. It is so easy to understand how logging works regardless of the member status.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Is it time to do away with PMO caches?

 

I doubt there are many people who sign up for PM just becuase of this feature.

Share this post


Link to post

Is it time to do away with PMO caches?

 

I doubt there are many people who sign up for PM just becuase of this feature.

 

I would agree that this is the least important reason for paying for a membership. The pot has been sweetened in many other, more positive ways than segregation.

Share this post


Link to post

I await the impending "PM=elitist snobs" thread barage.

 

I don't think this has that much to do with "The game will always be free -Jeremy" thing, but more with a strange switch in rationale when dealing with the guidelines.

 

Right now there are guidelines that are in conflict:

-Owners can delete logs etc etc

-PMO caches can be viewed online by PMs only etc etc

-Basic members can backdoor log PMO caches etc etc

 

Until that gets reconciled, I guess I can see why they are heading back to the huddle to get it sorted out.

 

I do wonder how long the second Lackey has been around the game...hmm :sunsure:

Share this post


Link to post

I await the impending "PM=elitist snobs" thread barage.

 

I don't think this has that much to do with "The game will always be free -Jeremy" thing, but more with a strange switch in rationale when dealing with the guidelines.

 

Right now there are guidelines that are in conflict:

-Owners can delete logs etc etc

-PMO caches can be viewed online by PMs only etc etc

-Basic members can backdoor log PMO caches etc etc

 

Until that gets reconciled, I guess I can see why they are heading back to the huddle to get it sorted out.

 

I do wonder how long the second Lackey has been around the game...hmm :sunsure:

 

They haven't needed to head back to the huddle for 11 years, why now? I like the Mad Frenchman theory. Maybe he threatened international litigation or something. :laughing:

 

I also like the Flintstone theory, maybe they're considering finally getting rid of PMOC's. At the very least, the audit log. :P

 

EDIT: P.S. Just about everyone around here seems to be "for" letting basic members log PMO caches. Just about everyone seems to be "against" the occasional ranter who comes around and calls PMO caches elitist. I'm not expecting any elitist posts. Key words being not expecting.

 

P.S.S. If they really enact a policy of letting CO's delete the logs of basic members on PMO caches, I'm going to go ahead and consider that a green light for me to delete those "Tftc", "Found it", or ": )" logs that annoy me on my caches. :ph34r:

Edited by Mr.Yuck

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

They haven't needed to head back to the huddle for 11 years, why now? I like the Mad Frenchman theory. Maybe he threatened international litigation or something. :laughing:

Right? Interesting...

 

I also like the Flintstone theory, maybe they're considering finally getting rid of PMOC's. At the very least, the audit log. :P

I think that the audit log might be the only thing worth hanging onto with PMO caches. I think if a PM can choose to add an audit log to their cache, great. But, with users of the apps not registering on the audit log, it really is useless. I really have only used the audit log in recent memory as a way to see who might be taking a peek at a new puzzle I've made. (That is hardly reason enough for me to want to protect that PM feature from being removed)

 

EDIT: P.S. Just about everyone around here seems to be "for" letting basic members log PMO caches. Just about everyone seems to be "against" the occasional ranter who comes around and calls PMO caches elitist. I'm not expecting any elitist posts. Key words being not expecting.

Me either, really. But, that is why I said it. :laughing: Only when some member's kid pees in the pool do the country club members get a bad name. Why this CO feels the need to delete a non-PM log is strange. Why they felt they needed to push it to have a Lackey's original ruling overturned is even more strange. What an elitist snob! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
"We have addressed this issue as was appropriate for the situation.

Regards,

Jessica"

 

Apparently the Groundspeak policy is to address each issue as approriate for the situation. No need for revealing the rationale behind their decision.

 

You can speculate why there may be cases where Groundspeak would want to side with the owner of a PMO cache in these cases. But it would only be speculation, since TPTB like to give terse responses like the one quoted above. (I can't resist however - one reason is that TPTB hope you buy a premium membership so you can go back and log the caches :ph34r: )

 

While I don't want to condone a cache owner deleting the log of someone who legitimately found their cache, I want to point out that the find count is not a score. If some jerk wants to keep deleting your log, why make such a big deal? As long as it happens only on a few caches, there are other ways to keep track of caches you found but the owner won't let you log. I'd take a deep breath and accept that in this case the owner is being allowed to delete your logs and go out find someone else's caches.

Share this post


Link to post

So...If the OP becomes a Premium member, will they then be allowed to log it as a find? That's a rather cheesy way to promote Premium members. Or will they be forever barred because they were not PM when they found it? OR, will they have to go back and resign the log again as a PM? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I never would have considered that angle. I can only imagine the outcry from long time members that have a dozen PMO caches within their history, when they are snatched away from record. I think that would be an ugly scene, but the strategy is very clever.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently the Groundspeak policy is to address each issue as approriate for the situation. No need for revealing the rationale behind their decision.

 

 

The way I read the OP's correspondence is that nobody knows what the Groundspeak policy might be. As Jessica wrote, ""We are currently looking into our Guidelines in regards to basic members logging Premium Member caches and will be clarify this issue in the future."

 

And Groundspeak's actions in this case indicates a certain confusion. They went with the old policy and reinstated the logs. They decided to review the guidelines and deleted the logs. They then issued the typical terse reply that says nothing -- it is kind of like when I write my representative and get a letter thanking me for my views. The "we're going to do what we want and not tell you why" approach to customer service.

 

If I were the OP I would find the situation to be mystifying but do exactly what Toz suggests: take a deep breath, ignore all caches by that particular CO, and (my addition) grumble to my friends and hope that they ignore the caches, too. Groundspeak's response to the situation and retroactive deletion would hardly make me want to become a premium member so I would let things remain as they are. But for the rest of us, we can only wait and see what new guidelines await us.

Edited by geodarts

Share this post


Link to post

So...If the OP becomes a Premium member, will they then be allowed to log it as a find? That's a rather cheesy way to promote Premium members. Or will they be forever barred because they were not PM when they found it? OR, will they have to go back and resign the log again as a PM? :ph34r:

 

Or will PMs who let their "membership" lapse have finds deleted? Or... - heck, the number of possible conflict situations is almost limitless here isn't it.

 

Fwiw (for those who asked) the easiest way I find to log *any* cache is through the map view.

Share this post


Link to post

I am going to bet there is a "regional uproar" about the logs and Groundspeak...an "entitled sense of control" seems to be the main theme when items such as this come up.

 

While I would agree...having your logs deleted is uncalled for by the cache owner...having them reinstated then deleted by Groundspeak means there is a whole lot more to this situation then any of us my be able to know about at this time.

 

I don't know, is there any drama going on in France-Geocaching forum? Seems I can't read it. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

So, it appears that basic members will NOT be allowed to log PMO caches anymore? :o:huh::ph34r:

 

I don't think that decision will be very popular..

 

I pulled this quote from the Announcements section, under "we're retiring challenges".

 

On an office wall here at HQ is a sign that reads, “Let’s make better mistakes tomorrow.”

 

Apparently, not. :ph34r:

 

They are very good at making mistakes. Lots of practice.

Share this post


Link to post
"We have addressed this issue as was appropriate for the situation.

Regards,

Jessica"

 

Apparently the Groundspeak policy is to address each issue as approriate for the situation. No need for revealing the rationale behind their decision.

 

You can speculate why there may be cases where Groundspeak would want to side with the owner of a PMO cache in these cases. But it would only be speculation, since TPTB like to give terse responses like the one quoted above. (I can't resist however - one reason is that TPTB hope you buy a premium membership so you can go back and log the caches :ph34r: )

 

While I don't want to condone a cache owner deleting the log of someone who legitimately found their cache, I want to point out that the find count is not a score. If some jerk wants to keep deleting your log, why make such a big deal? As long as it happens only on a few caches, there are other ways to keep track of caches you found but the owner won't let you log. I'd take a deep breath and accept that in this case the owner is being allowed to delete your logs and go out find someone else's caches.

 

Deep breath my big toe. How about TPTB pick a lane and use it? Either it is acceptable for basic members to log PMO caches or it isn't. While I understand that some of the rules, excuse me, guidelines are effected by local laws and conditions I don't think it unreasonable for the OP to expect some sort of explanation if that is the case here.

Share this post


Link to post

So...If the OP becomes a Premium member, will they then be allowed to log it as a find? That's a rather cheesy way to promote Premium members. Or will they be forever barred because they were not PM when they found it? OR, will they have to go back and resign the log again as a PM? :ph34r:

 

And what happens when a logger lets their PM laps? Do the logs get deleted?

Share this post


Link to post

Well if Groundspeak will agree to re-instate deskdata's original logs on these caches if they become a premium member I will personally gift deskdata a one year membership subscription.

 

I'd like an explanation for the flip-flopping but I won't make it a requirement for gifting the membership.

Share this post


Link to post

I looked at both the hides, where the CO posted a rude note on each that basic members (and mentioning the OP by name) are cheaters with the help of Groundspeak.

- Then to have Groundspeak back him (the CO) up on a policy that most haven't been informed has changed is really odd...

Share this post


Link to post

I too think this stinks. GC sided with the OP in the first instance and should have stuck with that.

 

Very sad.

Share this post


Link to post

Good grief. If only there was some sort of mass email letter news system for distributing guideline changes. Assuming the intention is for us to know what they are. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
"We have addressed this issue as was appropriate for the situation.

Regards,

Jessica"

 

Apparently the Groundspeak policy is to address each issue as approriate for the situation. No need for revealing the rationale behind their decision.

 

You can speculate why there may be cases where Groundspeak would want to side with the owner of a PMO cache in these cases. But it would only be speculation, since TPTB like to give terse responses like the one quoted above. (I can't resist however - one reason is that TPTB hope you buy a premium membership so you can go back and log the caches :ph34r: )

 

While I don't want to condone a cache owner deleting the log of someone who legitimately found their cache, I want to point out that the find count is not a score. If some jerk wants to keep deleting your log, why make such a big deal? As long as it happens only on a few caches, there are other ways to keep track of caches you found but the owner won't let you log. I'd take a deep breath and accept that in this case the owner is being allowed to delete your logs and go out find someone else's caches.

 

Deep breath my big toe. How about TPTB pick a lane and use it? Either it is acceptable for basic members to log PMO caches or it isn't. While I understand that some of the rules, excuse me, guidelines are effected by local laws and conditions I don't think it unreasonable for the OP to expect some sort of explanation if that is the case here.

 

A definitive answer from TPTB is required here! Either basic members can log a PMO, or s/he cannot. It is either "Yes" or "No". No "appropriate to the situation". OP's find must be reinstated.

If basic member can no longer log PMOs, then I shall stop looking for them. My caching companion is not a Premium Member. If he can no longer log them, then we won't bother looking for them.

This is a namby-pamby situation. "This CO complained too much, so we gave in to him???" Nope. That does not work. It's either "Yes" or "No".

TPTB please let us know is basic member are still permitted to log PMO caches.

Share this post


Link to post

We really need Groundspeak to explain themselves here.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!! :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

You're kidding right? You actually think they will address this on the forums? You are either new to the forums or are very naive.

 

Don't hold your breath. :laughing:

 

Their a better chance that Ahmadinejad will address the Israeli Parliament then Groundspeak will address us (the people who pay for their services) and (pretend to) show the slightest amount customer service.

Share this post


Link to post

Why oh why do I strongly suspect there is more to the story than we can see here........

 

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see any evidence that indicates an official policy shift here, so I don't fully understand all the pitchforks being pointed towards Seattle. Having said that, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

In the meantime, I would suggest that basic members who want to log Premium Member Only caches continue to do so until they are instructed by someone in a position of authority to desist.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

×