Basic Members finding Premium Member caches

[+FunnyNose]

Lucy is Groudspeak

Charlie Brown is deskdata

 

[+Colonial Cats]

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.

We must consider the Mad Frenchman's views. After all, the French are smarter than us; they can all speak French.

[+Colonial Cats]

My caches use to be all premium caches. I changed them all to basic caches when I realized that many new Geocachers who were not members yet were missing out from finding my caches. The only reason I can think of for a policy change is to try to encourage more paid memberships. I believe that this would be bad policy. Instead, I believe it would be better to get rid of Premium Caches.

 

Mon utilisation de cachettes d'être toutes les cachettes de prime. Je les ai changées toutes en cachettes de base quand je me suis rendu compte que beaucoup nouveau Geocachers qui n'étaient pas des membres encore étaient absent de trouver mes cachettes. La seule raison que je peux penser à pour un changement de politique est d'essayer d'encourager des adhésions plus payées. Je crois que ce serait mauvaise politique. Au lieu de cela, je crois qu'il vaudrait mieux de se débarasser des cachettes de la meilleure qualité.

[+The A-Team]

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.

It was a Lackey from HQ that stated "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."

When a Lackey makes a statement, it can and should be taken as an official statement.

 

The part that gets me is that they said they are looking into the guideline, not that they've made a change. If they had made the change already, then I'd have no problem with them re-deleting the finds. However, there's no indication that any policy has actually changed. Their action is now completely in conflict with their currently-stated policy (see the quoted stanolli post).

 

Until stated otherwise, the current policy is that basic members are allowed to log PMO caches, so TPTB should be following that policy. If they want to do something contrary to that policy, they need to officially change the policy and tell us.

 

Edit to add: ...or at least explain their reasons for doing something contrary to their own policy.

Edited March 16, 2013 by The A-Team

[+T.D.M.22]

I, Jeremy Irish, PDG de la terre, Inc ne sera jamais en faire un salaire à jouer pour Geocaching site Web. Il est dans le meilleur intérêt de tous les joueurs que le jeu reste libre et le partage non commercial de ces coordonnées sur le site Web. Non pas que je me prépare pour quelque chose, mais dans le cas où il y avait une sorte de jeu de cache (qui sait, des trucs bizarre s'est passé), je suppose que ce serait par essence un «payer pour jouer» cache. Mais le jeu traditionnel restera purement gratuite. Comment est-ce? Jeremy<<<

 

Si Groundspeak exige que les membres premium seulement pouvez vous connecter géocaches membre Premium uniquement, alors il serait en fait être nous obliger à payer pour jouer le match. Accordée non pas l'ensemble du jeu, juste une partie de celui-ci. Mais de toute façon il va agains ce que je venais de citer, et il est contraire à l'esprit du jeu. Il me semble que Groundspeak est de plus en plus de la grande entreprise que Jeremy n'a pas l'intention qu'il soit. Groundspeak a grandi et est restée la petite entreprise de l'attitude des gens pendant un bon moment. Malheureusement, je ne pense pas qu'ils deviennent la grande entreprise est une bonne chose .... En fait je suis surpris que personne ne Lackey's ou modérateurs, ou toute personne vient d'entrer dans cette conversation. et par la manière En Avant thread verrouillé.

 

 

PS; Puisqu'il s'agit d'une partie internationale des forums, et je suis canadien, et le français est une des langues officielles du Canada, je pense que cela devrait être permis. Si quelqu'un prend la peine de traduire ce.

Edited March 16, 2013 by T.D.M.22

[+kunarion]

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

 

Sure, it's possible that the OP didn't sign the container's paper log, or that there's some other missing info that would explain it. But since I've personally been on the receiving end of an extremely bad brush-off by TPTB, the OP's topic rings true.

[+cwgrizz]

Logging a PMO cache by Basic Members is not a backdoor issue as far as I can see. Go to http://www.geocachingadmin.com/ and the ability to log a cache find is right there. It is not hidden or trickery in anyway that I can see. When I was a basic member I used it many times to log PMO caches as well as using a few backdoor methods (maps, etc) prior to finding this admin site.

 

I guess now that I am a PMO, my old logs won't be deleted. (Unless I drop my PM at a later date. )

[+jellis]

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

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.

Sounds like a dispute to me too. Why would GS go out of their way to find Non members to delete logs on PMO caches? Someone like the CO must have kept complaining.

And the Backdoor method was even given out by moderators and reviewers.

I don't even bother looking to see if the finders are PMO or not. Some write to me and I tell them how they can log my caches.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

It was a Lackey from HQ that stated "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."

When a Lackey makes a statement, it can and should be taken as an official statement.

 

It's that statement that makes me give some credence to the mad Frenchman theory. As anyone from Google or Microsoft can tell you, the EU has some pretty tough laws that limit not only what personal data they can collect but also what modifications they can make to information on a persons individuals webpages. Groundspeak has long held the cache owner to be the owner of the listing with the responsibility to maintain the quality of posts to their page. As the guidelines are currently written Groundspeak may have difficulty making any changes to a cache page (including archiving it), without the agreement of the cache owner.

 

It has been mentioned before that the Terms of Use contains this statement

Groundspeak reserves the right to revise the terms of this Agreement at any time and from time to time. Each time You use the Site, You are bound by the version of this Agreement that is in effect and posted on the Site at the time of Your use. Please review them.

 

I don't know EU law, but it wouldn't surprise me if this clause is unenforceable in the EU. They probably require websites to send notification to everyone before a TOU change tskes effect.

 

My guess is that the cache owner claims the policy that prevents cache owners from deleting basic member logs was put in place after they became a member and that they were not notified of this change. Rather than than fighting this out in the European courts, even if they are likely to win, Groundspeak may just have decided in this case to allow the cache owner to delete logs.

 

If Groundspeak is looking into the guidelines regarding this, it is likely to find a way to do so that would comply with EU law. This could require that they grandfather in existing PMO caches or perhaps that they eliminate the category of PMO caches altogether. It may take some time for Groundspeak's lawyers to formulate new guidelines. In the meantime, it could be that any EU cache owner can delete whatever logs they dislike.

[4wheelin_fool]

What I cannot understand is how someone could get so upset because a non-member found their cache, as to delete their log. It's pretty rude to delete a log without any explanation at all, and then to only provide one after the person asks why.

 

But then Groundspeak does the exact same thing. Same 2 logs deleted twice, and again without any warning.

 

I suppose the cache owner could be written off as petty and overly abrasive, but what about the Lackey? He had to again e-mail someone and ask why they were deleted. A second Lackey was called in to explain the policy to the angry Frenchman, but then decides to change the policy after the fact, and not explain anything to the geocacher until they asked. I can't help but wonder if he was treated differently because he was not a paid member? If not, then what is the explanation for it? Angry Premium Frenchman gets explanation, and regular cacher gets nil?

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

What would be fair if they were going to change the policy, would be to reinstate his log because the policy was not changed at the time of the find anyhow. There was absolutely no way he could have known that they were going to spring that on him. I don't know what the hourly rate is there, but it appears that this is going to cost Groundspeak a bit over the $30 that Angry Premium Frenchman paid.

Edited March 16, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[cezanne]

I don't know EU law, but it wouldn't surprise me if this clause is unenforceable in the EU. They probably require websites to send notification to everyone before a TOU change tskes effect.

 

My guess is that the cache owner claims the policy that prevents cache owners from deleting basic member logs was put in place after they became a member and that they were not notified of this change.

 

But this is certainly not true. I can recall some early cases where Groundspeak took action against the deletion of legitimate logs and reinstated the deleted logs if contacted.

 

Moreover, typically the PMs that are against logs from basic members for their PM-only caches are not educated in law and typically they do not have any academic training at all. Moreover, they are not aware of the statement of Jeremy that the basic geocaching will always stays free - they typically argue in the way "I pay and everyone else has to pay and geocachers who do not pay for a PM-ship are bad people and my caches are only for good people".

 

In the meantime, it could be that any EU cache owner can delete whatever logs they dislike.

 

I do not think that they will ever follow this strategy, not even for a short time.

For me it sounds that they have in mind specifically concerns the PM vs basic member issue. Somehow I believe that Jeremy regrets by now what he stated years ago. I guess Groundspeak would somehow love to turn geocaching into something for which one has to pay regardless of the member level.

 

For me even thinking about installing additional logging requirements for traditionals is a no go. Should they ever decide that one has to pay for writing a find log for a cache one has found in a legitimate manner (there are many PM-only traditionals where already from the cache name it is obvious where the cache is hidden and so no help by a PM is needed), then this would be a clear sign for me that Groundspeak totally went for the commercial track and turned geocaching into something quite different from what it has been for many years. I do not mind the existence of PM-only caches and it is not really important for me whether I can log them or not, but the destruction of the spirit of geocaching as an activity carried by a community and not by a company would lead me to archive all my caches on this site. It is perfectly ok for me if Groundspeak offers premium services and charges them, but if they come up with rules that make it impossible for a basic member to write a log for a legitimate find, then they clearly demonstrate that is not any longer about the cache experience and sharing it with the community.

 

Cezanne

[+wmpastor]

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.

Mostly it sounds like the CO who deleted the log has a whacked-out attitude!

 

By the way, thanks for posting the rope ladder details elsewhere. I'm planning to make one.

[+MartyBartfast]

As anyone from Google or Microsoft can tell you, the EU has some pretty tough laws that limit not only what personal data they can collect but also what modifications they can make to information on a persons individuals webpages.

 

IANAL but I seriously doubt Groundspeak is constrained by any EU laws. Microsoft & Google have corporate presence in Europe so have EU law applies to them, whereas GS is a little outfit running a website out of Seattle, I expect there's something on their site somewhere saying that they operate under the laws of Washington State (or somewhere else) and that plus US Federal law is almost certainly all they need to comply with.

[Mr.Yuck]

We really need Groundspeak to explain themselves here.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!

 

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.

 

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.

Yeah? I'm going to tell you what, pal. I said the same thing about Sadat in '76, and look what happened.

 

My caches use to be all premium caches. I changed them all to basic caches when I realized that many new Geocachers who were not members yet were missing out from finding my caches. The only reason I can think of for a policy change is to try to encourage more paid memberships. I believe that this would be bad policy. Instead, I believe it would be better to get rid of Premium Caches.

 

Mon utilisation de cachettes d'être toutes les cachettes de prime. Je les ai changées toutes en cachettes de base quand je me suis rendu compte que beaucoup nouveau Geocachers qui n'étaient pas des membres encore étaient absent de trouver mes cachettes. La seule raison que je peux penser à pour un changement de politique est d'essayer d'encourager des adhésions plus payées. Je crois que ce serait mauvaise politique. Au lieu de cela, je crois qu'il vaudrait mieux de se débarasser des cachettes de la meilleure qualité.

Why you. You can read that French Geocaching forum, can't you? Tell me, is there a "Lowlife freeloading Brit tries to log one of my PMO caches" thread on there?

 

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

 

This is very possible. Like for example, Deskdata could have been totally taunting the mad Frenchman. Na na na na na na, Groundspeak reinstated my lo-oooog!!!!

Edited March 16, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[cezanne]

 

Why you. You can read that French Geocaching forum, can't you? Tell me, is there a "Lowlife freeloading Brit tries to log one of my PMO caches" thread on there?

 

I could find one in the linked forum (I looked through all subforums where such a post would make sense, not the hardware forum e.g.), but there are other forums as well and probably also forums that I do not even know of and probably also non public ones (several of them exist e.g. in Austria).

 

What really makes me worry is not the single incident, but the fact that lackeys acted the way they did and what they wrote (in particular that they plan to change their policy with respect to logging of PM-only caches.)

 

For the general picture it does not play a role where the complaining cache owner comes from. (BTW: I'm aware of several incidents where Autrian PMs complained about non PMs logging their PM-only caches and they did not win after all when Groundspeak had been involved.)

 

Cezanne

[Trinity's Crew]

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.

Everyone continue to log PMO caches? You mean everyone but deskdata, right?

[+kunarion]

As anyone from Google or Microsoft can tell you, the EU has some pretty tough laws that limit not only what personal data they can collect but also what modifications they can make to information on a persons individuals webpages.

 

IANAL but I seriously doubt Groundspeak is constrained by any EU laws. Microsoft & Google have corporate presence in Europe so have EU law applies to them, whereas GS is a little outfit running a website out of Seattle, I expect there's something on their site somewhere saying that they operate under the laws of Washington State (or somewhere else) and that plus US Federal law is almost certainly all they need to comply with.

Even if GS were bound by EU Law, there would be no need to "look into our guidelines". GS could adopt the consistent policy that Cache logs are controlled by Cache Owners. ...So nobody has to guess.

Edited March 16, 2013 by kunarion

[+cache_test_dummies]

What really makes me worry is not the single incident, but the fact that lackeys acted the way they did and what they wrote (in particular that they plan to change their policy with respect to logging of PM-only caches.)

What they (actually just Jessica) wrote was "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."

 

That statement doesn't mean that the policy is necessarily going to change. Perhaps there will be a change, or perhaps there won't - we just don't know yet.

[GOF and Bacall]

Like I said, even if this is a legal issue they could just tell the OP what the hell is going on. But instead they get the usual Groundspeak level of communication. 'send us your money and don't ask any questions'.

[+cache_test_dummies]

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.

Everyone continue to log PMO caches? You mean everyone but deskdata, right?

No, I mean everyone. There is no reason to think that deskdata is being singled out and isn't being allowed to log Premium Member Only caches owned by other COs.

[+kunarion]

But instead they get the usual Groundspeak level of communication. 'send us your money and don't ask any questions'.

Yes. It's as if the policy is to make people juuuuust frustrated enough to pay, but not so frustrated that they quit.

Edited March 16, 2013 by kunarion

[+murrayegger]

Seems like the problem has taken care of itself, the Cache owner has disabled all of his/her PMO caches. Also I don't see anything obvious in the France forums but my French skimming could have missed something.

[+Cardinal Red]

Like I said, even if this is a legal issue they could just tell the OP what the hell is going on. But instead they get the usual Groundspeak level of communication. 'send us your money and don't ask any questions'.

 

Such a cynical response. I only wish I could claim to have written it. Sounds a little like my usual level of communication. And to think, I used to be a strong defender of everything Groundspeak. Live and learn.

[GOF and Bacall]

Like I said, even if this is a legal issue they could just tell the OP what the hell is going on. But instead they get the usual Groundspeak level of communication. 'send us your money and don't ask any questions'.

 

Such a cynical response. I only wish I could claim to have written it. Sounds a little like my usual level of communication. And to think, I used to be a strong defender of everything Groundspeak. Live and learn.

 

You and me both. They really should think about what they are doing that keeps alienating those who once defended them. But what do they care. It used to be about the cache. Now it's only about the cash.

[4wheelin_fool]

The Lackeys do not seem to participate in the hobby too much and perhaps that is the core issue, as they do not have the pulse of the game. Seems like with only a few finds, they really are not very interested.

[+Fiver1]

The Lackeys do not seem to participate in the hobby too much and perhaps that is the core issue, as they do not have the pulse of the game. Seems like with only a few finds, they really are not very interested.

 

How do you know that to be true? They could have accounts under other names and have thousands of finds.

 

However, I do agree that an explanation by GS should be in order here.

 

I haven't hidden but two caches in my time geogaching, one was an open cache, and the latest I made a PMO just to see what effect it would have. My intent is to make it a regular cache after it's lived for about a month. Then I'll see how that goes too. While it's a PMO, I wouldn't have any heartburn at all if a non-premium member logged it. To me it's just not worth the worry.

 

I have another half dozen ready to be hidden and will place them as time permits. They will all be open as well.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Fiver1

[7rxc]

It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

I do note that as of a few minutes ago (just long enough to read the whole thread) I could still access the 'log this cache' option on the map pages... the front door method for logging PMOCs. Just find the cache and click, use the balloon, not the 'hidden' cache page.

 

As for the EU legalities (or even just French ones), while the CO could argue that only he can change the cache page on that basis, it would strike me that a cache log (regardless of type or status) would equally be the property of the logger. In that case they would be able to 'defend' a find that would be acceptable elsewhere.

 

Perhaps the re-deletion was more a form of 'stasis' while the matter was discussed fully, not an indication of potential changes. To be sure there is lot's we don't know.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+wimseyguy]

I'm agreeing with the Mad French Man theory on this one. I'll bet that the back door is still wide open and will stay that way. But this one knucklehead raised such a ruqus and probably threatened to take his fois gras and baguettes and go home if they didn't let him delete the logs of the invading Anglais. Especially since he's disabled his listings in a pique.

[+The Blorenges]

I'm agreeing with the Mad French Man theory on this one. I'll bet that the back door is still wide open and will stay that way. But this one knucklehead raised such a ruqus and probably threatened to take his fois gras and baguettes and go home if they didn't let him delete the logs of the invading Anglais. Especially since he's disabled his listings in a pique.

 

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Why you. You can read that French Geocaching forum, can't you? Tell me, is there a "Lowlife freeloading Brit tries to log one of my PMO caches" thread on there?

 

I could find one in the linked forum (I looked through all subforums where such a post would make sense, not the hardware forum e.g.), but there are other forums as well and probably also forums that I do not even know of and probably also non public ones (several of them exist e.g. in Austria).

 

What really makes me worry is not the single incident, but the fact that lackeys acted the way they did and what they wrote (in particular that they plan to change their policy with respect to logging of PM-only caches.)

 

For the general picture it does not play a role where the complaining cache owner comes from. (BTW: I'm aware of several incidents where Autrian PMs complained about non PMs logging their PM-only caches and they did not win after all when Groundspeak had been involved.)

 

Cezanne

 

My post was meant to be 100% comedic in nature, including the obscure historical knowledge that the late Anwar Sadat addressed the Israeli Parliment in 1977. I was really interested in whether or not there was an angsty thread about the incident at the Nationwide French Geocaching forum though. You are fluent in German, French and English? Impressive.

 

Interesting about some Austrian PM owners complaining. This is certainly not the first thread about a PM owner not liking basic members logging their PMO's. These owners are few and far between though. And I don't get it, why would this bother them?

[4wheelin_fool]

The Lackeys do not seem to participate in the hobby too much and perhaps that is the core issue, as they do not have the pulse of the game. Seems like with only a few finds, they really are not very interested.

 

How do you know that to be true? They could have accounts under other names and have thousands of finds.

 

 

That could be true, but I see 3 finds of an insignificant nature on the account. If they are logging under 2 names usually the finds under the official account have some meaning to them, such as events. Other Lackey profiles show a similar pattern.

[+Semper Questio]

The Lackeys do not seem to participate in the hobby too much and perhaps that is the core issue, as they do not have the pulse of the game. Seems like with only a few finds, they really are not very interested.

 

How do you know that to be true? They could have accounts under other names and have thousands of finds.

 

 

That could be true, but I see 3 finds of an insignificant nature on the account. If they are logging under 2 names usually the finds under the official account have some meaning to them, such as events. Other Lackey profiles show a similar pattern.

 

To get REALLY cynical....

 

I think the company was started by people who saw profit potential but genuinely loved the game. As the site and the game became more complex and, accordingly, the company grew, the need for skilled technicians far outweighed the need for lovers of the game that wanted to do their part to grow the game.

 

Consequently, instead of having geocachers trying to build something special and make a living doing it, we now have web developers, network engineers, and other technicians that heard about the company and wanted a good job with great working conditions and, I think I can safely assume, at least pretty decent pay and benefits.

 

However, the company is still run by a core team of cachers who still see this as more of a money-making hobby site for other fans of the game and do not see this so much as a true business with a growing customer base.

 

Therefore, we do get new bells and whistles from time-to-time, but ones mainly thought up by the techs, not the ones identified as desired by the players (customers). Also, the site and its rules are run by people trying to be all things to all players rather behaving as a company responding to the needs and desires of a paying customer base.

 

This leads to seemingly odd actions by the company with no apparent explanation or direction and no sense of loyalty to their customers. It also leads to a failure in separating and properly tending to the business aspects of PR and policy from the gaming aspects of the player community and the fair application of game rules.

 

I have always touted the "their sandbox, their rules" mentality and I still do to some degree. However, there comes a time when a hobby becomes a business and has to start behaving like one that wants to succeed by not only attracting new business, but also keep longtime customers happy. I believe Groundspeak is now well beyond that point.

 

How does this tirade tie back to the topic? Simple. If the rules and policies are published, they should be enforced. If they are changing, they should not be enforced until they are at least published and preferably until after the customer base is notified. They certainly should not be changed on the fly without any noticed or explanation, especially to the person(s) who are directly affected.

 

In this case, the published and long-standing policy says member logging of a premium cache is fine. The logs were restored and locked in accordance with those rules. That should have been the end of it. But then actions counter to those policies occurred, apparently without warning or explanation to anyone. In Texas vernacular, That just ain't right.

 

</soapbox>

 

(Sorry, didn't expect all THAT to happen when I started! )

[+tozainamboku]

(Sorry, didn't expect all THAT to happen when I started! )

It happens.

[Mr.Yuck]

(Sorry, didn't expect all THAT to happen when I started! )

It happens.

 

Now that there, is some funny stuff.

 

Now that I've posted, I guess I have to say something else. You know what? Call me crazy, but I think this is a prelude to them getting rid of PMO caches altogether. Most of us couldn't even imagine the drama that comes through at the contact at geocaching.com email address. We'll see if I'm right, but after all, I did tell you to call me crazy. Now if for some odd reason they really are not going to allow basic members to log PMO caches, I might get a little vocal on that matter.

[+Semper Questio]

(Sorry, didn't expect all THAT to happen when I started! )

It happens.

 

Something tells me you may be an authority on that.

[+K13]

(Sorry, didn't expect all THAT to happen when I started! )

It happens.

 

Now that there, is some funny stuff.

 

Now that I've posted, I guess I have to say something else. You know what? Call me crazy, but I think this is a prelude to them getting rid of PMO caches altogether. Most of us couldn't even imagine the drama that comes through at the contact at geocaching.com email address. We'll see if I'm right, but after all, I did tell you to call me crazy. Now if for some odd reason they really are not going to allow basic members to log PMO caches, I might get a little vocal on that matter.

 

I hope this happens.

 

Yes, me too.

 

BTW, I wouldn't call you crazy...

[+Manville Possum]

Like I said, even if this is a legal issue they could just tell the OP what the hell is going on. But instead they get the usual Groundspeak level of communication. 'send us your money and don't ask any questions'.

You mean I'm not alone and others feel that way too? I have PMO listings, and two basic members in my household. I allow basic members to log my PMO listings. I never liked PMO listings, but constant muggles have slowed or ceased with some of my listings. I have another listing that may have been muggled, and if it has, then PMO it goes.

[+Semper Questio]

(Sorry, didn't expect all THAT to happen when I started! )

It happens.

 

Now that there, is some funny stuff.

 

Now that I've posted, I guess I have to say something else. You know what? Call me crazy, but I think this is a prelude to them getting rid of PMO caches altogether. Most of us couldn't even imagine the drama that comes through at the contact at geocaching.com email address. We'll see if I'm right, but after all, I did tell you to call me crazy. Now if for some odd reason they really are not going to allow basic members to log PMO caches, I might get a little vocal on that matter.

 

OK, you're crazy.

 

But that doesn't negate the fact that you may well be on to something. Time will tell.

[+LukePast]

In this case, I feel that Groundspeak are pandering to a bully. I know it's not a nice thing to say but I do feel that some owners of some caches are bullies :-(

 

I feel that PMO caches just stinks of elitism -- I personally pay a membership so that I can do pocket queries and load them into my handheld GPS device -- makes caching so much easier. None of the caches I have placed are for PMOs and I'll never place one that has that sort of restriction.

 

I've had several experiences of bullies placing caches. There was the one in Gran Canaria that had been archived and had a note in a foreign language that (after I had my log entry deleted) I assume was saying it was an archived log and any new finds would be deleted -- why!? I just tend to let whatever happens happen and not let it spoil my GeoCaching hobby.

 

Over Xmas, I was in Cyprus for 2 weeks GeoCaching and came across several caches placed by someone who, it appeared, was only placing caches to feed their ego :-( every cache of their's that I went for had no hint and had as part of the description that anyone that made a log entry with a hint helping people find the cache would have their log entry deleted! GeoCaching is meant to be FUN!!! Not some vehicle for control freak bullies to play their totally different games.

[GOF and Bacall]

(Sorry, didn't expect all THAT to happen when I started! )

It happens.

 

Now that there, is some funny stuff.

 

Now that I've posted, I guess I have to say something else. You know what? Call me crazy, but I think this is a prelude to them getting rid of PMO caches altogether. Most of us couldn't even imagine the drama that comes through at the contact at geocaching.com email address. We'll see if I'm right, but after all, I did tell you to call me crazy. Now if for some odd reason they really are not going to allow basic members to log PMO caches, I might get a little vocal on that matter.

 

You want me to repeat myself?

 

As much as some of what Groundspeak does just annoys the crap outta me I wouldn't want to be the one to have to deal with that drama at the contact email. But it would probably be a lot less if they would state their policies clearly, stick to them, and communicate more effectively when issues arise.

 

This case is a good example. The policy is in place and has been for a long time. They followed the long standing policy and restored the log in question. All as should be. But then they reversed that decision. Without a stated policy to back up that reversal they should really communicate at least with the logger as to why they changed there minds. It is possible that they have reasonable cause to do so. Obviously they thought so. But because of the lack of effective communication we have this growing thread. They could have headed all this animosity off at the start by keeping the OP fully informed.

 

All that said there is still the fact that you can't please everyone. But come on Groundspeak, that doesn't mean you should go out of your way to tick of as many people as possible.

[GOF and Bacall]

Like I said, even if this is a legal issue they could just tell the OP what the hell is going on. But instead they get the usual Groundspeak level of communication. 'send us your money and don't ask any questions'.

You mean I'm not alone and others feel that way too? I have PMO listings, and two basic members in my household. I allow basic members to log my PMO listings. I never liked PMO listings, but constant muggles have slowed or ceased with some of my listings. I have another listing that may have been muggled, and if it has, then PMO it goes.

 

More and more people I talk to have stated dissatisfaction with something Groundspeak has done. Personally I have not renewed my PM that expired months ago. Every time I think about doing so TPTB do something that irritates me and I put it off again. I will probably break down and eventually renew. But I'm in no hurry. Who knows, at this rate I may never renew.

[GOF and Bacall]

In this case, I feel that Groundspeak are pandering to a bully. I know it's not a nice thing to say but I do feel that some owners of some caches are bullies :-(

 

I feel that PMO caches just stinks of elitism -- I personally pay a membership so that I can do pocket queries and load them into my handheld GPS device -- makes caching so much easier. None of the caches I have placed are for PMOs and I'll never place one that has that sort of restriction.

 

I've had several experiences of bullies placing caches. There was the one in Gran Canaria that had been archived and had a note in a foreign language that (after I had my log entry deleted) I assume was saying it was an archived log and any new finds would be deleted -- why!? I just tend to let whatever happens happen and not let it spoil my GeoCaching hobby.

 

Over Xmas, I was in Cyprus for 2 weeks GeoCaching and came across several caches placed by someone who, it appeared, was only placing caches to feed their ego :-( every cache of their's that I went for had no hint and had as part of the description that anyone that made a log entry with a hint helping people find the cache would have their log entry deleted! GeoCaching is meant to be FUN!!! Not some vehicle for control freak bullies to play their totally different games.

 

You should break this post out into its own thread. It would be longer than this thread in no time.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

More and more people I talk to have stated dissatisfaction with something Groundspeak has done. Personally I have not renewed my PM that expired months ago. Every time I think about doing so TPTB do something that irritates me and I put it off again. I will probably break down and eventually renew. But I'm in no hurry. Who knows, at this rate I may never renew.

Huh, you're listed in the PM group...flying under the radar?

[GOF and Bacall]

More and more people I talk to have stated dissatisfaction with something Groundspeak has done. Personally I have not renewed my PM that expired months ago. Every time I think about doing so TPTB do something that irritates me and I put it off again. I will probably break down and eventually renew. But I'm in no hurry. Who knows, at this rate I may never renew.

Huh, you're listed in the PM group...flying under the radar?

 

Not sure why that is. But it isn't something I'm doing. At least not that I know of.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

More and more people I talk to have stated dissatisfaction with something Groundspeak has done. Personally I have not renewed my PM that expired months ago. Every time I think about doing so TPTB do something that irritates me and I put it off again. I will probably break down and eventually renew. But I'm in no hurry. Who knows, at this rate I may never renew.

Huh, you're listed in the PM group...flying under the radar?

 

Not sure why that is. But it isn't something I'm doing. At least not that I know of.

 

Don't worry. When a Lackey notices, they'll pull your PM status...but then a month later, they'll reverse the decision and make you a PM again but not tell you why they did it.

[Mr.Yuck]

More and more people I talk to have stated dissatisfaction with something Groundspeak has done. Personally I have not renewed my PM that expired months ago. Every time I think about doing so TPTB do something that irritates me and I put it off again. I will probably break down and eventually renew. But I'm in no hurry. Who knows, at this rate I may never renew.

Huh, you're listed in the PM group...flying under the radar?

 

Not sure why that is. But it isn't something I'm doing. At least not that I know of.

 

Don't worry. When a Lackey notices, they'll pull your PM status...but then a month later, they'll reverse the decision and make you a PM again but not tell you why they did it.

 

This has come up before. It takes a long time to update in the forums. Just how long, we'll never know. Became premium in February 2004, and I had 2 or even 3 pay pal screw-up that left me non premo for up to a week. It never changed here in the forums.

 

(Sorry, didn't expect all THAT to happen when I started! )

It happens.

 

Now that there, is some funny stuff.

 

Now that I've posted, I guess I have to say something else. You know what? Call me crazy, but I think this is a prelude to them getting rid of PMO caches altogether. Most of us couldn't even imagine the drama that comes through at the contact at geocaching.com email address. We'll see if I'm right, but after all, I did tell you to call me crazy. Now if for some odd reason they really are not going to allow basic members to log PMO caches, I might get a little vocal on that matter.

 

OK, you're crazy.

 

But that doesn't negate the fact that you may well be on to something. Time will tell.

 

Hey, it's a plausible theory. You know, "we're getting rid of these things in April anyways, so delete the log to appease the ranting Frenchman".

 

A common statement heard from the "make all my caches PMO" crowd is that they do it to "encourage people to support the website", or to "reward people for supporting the website". To which I say phooey. They've grown from 0-70 full-time employees in 12 years, they don't need you owning 73 PMO caches to help them out. I wonder if the ranting Frenchman is of this mindset? Jeesh, with supporters like him, who needs enemies?

[AZcachemeister]

I truly feel sorry for the OP.

But, it's only two finds by one cacher, right?

 

Much like the grey icon fiasco, it makes me think 'What the hell, were they thinking?'

And that is the bigger issue.

I just have to wonder if any such 'clarification' is really forthcoming, or if that statement was a diversionary ruse.

 

In the meantime, we can all donate memberships to deserving regular members to support the website.

[Mr.Yuck]

I truly feel sorry for the OP.

But, it's only two finds by one cacher, right?

 

Much like the grey icon fiasco, it makes me think 'What the hell, were they thinking?'

And that is the bigger issue.

I just have to wonder if any such 'clarification' is really forthcoming, or if that statement was a diversionary ruse.

 

In the meantime, we can all donate memberships to deserving regular members to support the website.

 

I'd do it if you could gift a $10 3 month membership, but you can't. $30 is a little steep.

 

Where was this deskdata guy when Roman was giving out free Premium memberships? I say that plural because he tried to give out a 2nd one, but for some reason that thread was locked after about two posts. Didn't think anyone remembered that one, did you, R?

[+gpsblake]

My opinion. Just get rid of premium caches all together. There are plenty of reasons to get a premium membership but the ability to hide a cache that only other premium members can find is long outdated now. I don't think anyone is going to stop their premium membership if they got rid of premium member-only caches. And if a family of 4 goes out geocaching, they shouldn't have to buy 4 premium memberships just to log caches.

[AZcachemeister]

...they shouldn't have to buy 4 premium memberships just to log caches.

 

And as far as we know right now, they still don't.