Jump to content

Basic Members finding Premium Member caches


deskdata
Followers 10

Recommended Posts

I don't see the problem with someone logging a PM cache if they found it. That's the very idea of the entire game! Find it, log it. How they find it is of no concern to me, and in fact it was probably more work than if they had a PM account. It would be nice if, when deleting a log, the CO had to check a ticky box reason (spoiler, was really a DNF) so that when these issues come up, the lackey moderating a dispute could see the CO's track record. Having never deleted a log, I have to assume there's nothing like that in place...and as a bonus, it might make some COs think when there's no ticky box for "I don't want people to see a string of DNFs because I'm lazy and don't want to go on a maintenance run" (which is a whole different issue). Or in this case, no ticky box for "log not from a premium member."

Link to comment

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of reasons to get a premium membership but the ability to hide a cache that only other premium members can find is long outdated now.

 

As a PM myself I will always make my caches available to all, but we have had some occurrences in the UK where people were going out and targeting caches and trashing them, when this happened people in those areas have tended to make their caches PMO, which means that those cache-trashers can no-longer find them unless they're prepared to stump up for the membership.

 

I know that's not a %100 guaranteed solution to that problem but I think it has helped, so the PMO status does have a useful purpose.

Link to comment

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. :laughing:

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! :laughing: )

It happens. ;)

 

Now that there, is some funny stuff. :laughing:

 

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. :ph34r:

 

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". :laughing:

 

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. :lol: I wonder if the ranting Frenchman is of this mindset? Jeesh, with supporters like him, who needs enemies?

 

I may be in the minority on this one but I might be in that crowd (though I don't own any PMO caches). I don't think of it as "reward people for supporting the websites" as providing an incentive for non-PMO members to become PMO members. *Theoretically* if placing a PMO cache provides a sufficient incentive for someone to become a PMO member, those membership fees go into Groundspeak coffers, and *theoretically* allow them to increase their development staff and result in improved service for everyone. In the real world we've got dozens of features suggestions that never get implemented and while new features and "improvements" do get added it often doesn't seem like GS is listening to what their customers actually want.

 

I'm with Mr. Yuck, and BBW in that it's perhaps time to eliminate the PMO cache as the drama that it creates withing the geocaching community outweighs any benefits.

Link to comment

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.

 

As a PM myself I will always make my caches available to all, but we have had some occurrences in the UK where people were going out and targeting caches and trashing them, when this happened people in those areas have tended to make their caches PMO, which means that those cache-trashers can no-longer find them unless they're prepared to stump up for the membership.

 

I know that's not a %100 guaranteed solution to that problem but I think it has helped, so the PMO status does have a useful purpose.

 

Absolutely, Marty. This was their one and only stated intended purpose when they came up with them in 2001! It also explains the (hated by me and others) Audit log, which tells you who viewed your cache page, how many times, and the date and time of their last visit. I would think to allow you to "accuse" someone. :ph34r:

 

Outdated? I can see where Blake is coming from. They were in fact one of the very first perks of a premium membership, back when there were very few perks.

Link to comment

I will not, even if subjected to waterboarding interrogation, reveal a link to this cache. Which is a moot point, as the Obama administration has discontinued the practice of waterboarding. :laughing:

 

This is a note posted to one of the caches in question by "The ranting Frenchman". He is actually a rather casual Geocacher, judging by his length of membership, and number of finds. He appears to believe he has "deleted" these two PMO's, although he only disabled them. There is no indication from anything on the page that he is even aware Groundspeak changed their minds and deleted deskdata's logs, although it would be impossible to say that for sure.

 

This cache is definitively deleted.

Some hackers as Deskdata dont respect the owner of premium caches and impose to Geocaching to accept their log.

I dont accept this method because that is no respect of the oner will.

Useless to be premium member, dont paid for that, you can find and log every cache because Grpundspeak accept it.

So, I prefer delete all my caches than autorise cheaters to play.

Thank you very much Deskdata and Groundspeak.

Link to comment

 

I'm with Mr. Yuck, and BBW in that it's perhaps time to eliminate the PMO cache as the drama that it creates withing the geocaching community outweighs any benefits.

 

I wouldn't miss them.

 

But, what we don't know is how many 'Regular' members become PM to find PM caches vs. how many PMs would cancel if they couldn't have 'PM only' caches.

 

What other leverage could the CO that deleted the non-PM logs have on Groundspeak?

 

"Eef I cannot delete ze logs, I weel cancel ze membersheep!" :mad:

Link to comment

I may be in the minority on this one but I might be in that crowd (though I don't own any PMO caches). I don't think of it as "reward people for supporting the websites" as providing an incentive for non-PMO members to become PMO members. *Theoretically* if placing a PMO cache provides a sufficient incentive for someone to become a PMO member, those membership fees go into Groundspeak coffers, and *theoretically* allow them to increase their development staff and result in improved service for everyone. In the real world we've got dozens of features suggestions that never get implemented and while new features and "improvements" do get added it often doesn't seem like GS is listening to what their customers actually want.

 

I'm with Mr. Yuck, and BBW in that it's perhaps time to eliminate the PMO cache as the drama that it creates withing the geocaching community outweighs any benefits.

 

I think there's a place for PMO caches but Groundspeak should to get rid of the audit log and there should be a guideline that officially states non-members can log a find.

 

Don_J had the one reason that made sense to me to make a cache PMO....to get it out of the apps. He talked to a group of young guys who had found 100s of caches without creating a GC account. [Quasi Cachers]

Link to comment

Scenario - I (PM) go caching with Jack (basic, newer member than me and keen). We find a cache together that I'd stored on my phone. In fact he finds it, rummaging deeper into leaves than me. Only when he tries to log it does he find it's a PM cache (bu tI give him a work-around to log it anyway).

If a CO were to delete this find, I think it would be so discouraging for Jack to treated like a lower-class citizen in what is after all just a game.

Link to comment

I doubt very much that they are planning to eliminate PMO caches, as it's more likely that backdoor logging will disappear instead. The separate log page will disappear, and a box at the bottom of the page will be used instead. They will probably say that closing the backdoor was not the motive, but a just a consequence of the new design.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Scenario - I (PM) go caching with Jack (basic, newer member than me and keen). We find a cache together that I'd stored on my phone. In fact he finds it, rummaging deeper into leaves than me. Only when he tries to log it does he find it's a PM cache (bu tI give him a work-around to log it anyway).

If a CO were to delete this find, I think it would be so discouraging for Jack to treated like a lower-class citizen in what is after all just a game.

So jack gets access to a service he didn't pay for (the equivalent of you opening the exit door Ina theater to sneak him in or maybe the trunk of your car to a drive in) and he then decides he won't go to movies any more if he has to pay. My advice to jack would be if you liked what we did pay up.

Link to comment

Scenario - I (PM) go caching with Jack (basic, newer member than me and keen). We find a cache together that I'd stored on my phone. In fact he finds it, rummaging deeper into leaves than me. Only when he tries to log it does he find it's a PM cache (bu tI give him a work-around to log it anyway).

If a CO were to delete this find, I think it would be so discouraging for Jack to treated like a lower-class citizen in what is after all just a game.

So jack gets access to a service he didn't pay for (the equivalent of you opening the exit door Ina theater to sneak him in or maybe the trunk of your car to a drive in) and he then decides he won't go to movies any more if he has to pay. My advice to jack would be if you liked what we did pay up.

Fair point. S'pose the answer is for him not to log the point, though I've shown him how, if you really think that's the raison d'être for premium caches. Can't take away from him the pleasure of the find though.

Conversely - he intends to do the local 5/5 which involves diving in the Thames. I'll watch, might even hold a rope or some such, and will feel involved but won't log a found it, just a Note (long thread on this on the Facebook Extreme Geocaching page).

Link to comment

Here's an idea that I don't think has been floated yet:

Allow audit logs on ALL caches! The audit log was the first reason I made one of my caches PMO. I heard about it and just wanted to see what it looked like. Later I found other reasons and made some more cache PMO. Then I didn't care anymore and stopped making my caches pmo. I don't care if non-PM's find my caches. I have given gift memberships so that people could find my caches.

 

This suggestion was made mostly tongue-in-cheek. I don't really expect anyone to agree with it...

Link to comment

So jack gets access to a service he didn't pay for

 

I do not agree at all as caches are hidden by cachers and not by Groundspeak.

The idea of logging finds online is to inform the owner of a cache about the cache status and not sharing experiences - the ability to write an online log is not a privilege at all. The essential part is the cache hunt and not whether a counter is increased by one.

 

Keep in mind that many PM-only caches can easily be found by basic members without any help of other cachers. Regardless of whether online logs remain possible or not, it can never be avoided that a basic member or even someone not registered at geocaching.com at all finds caches out there.

 

Closing the backdoor would be very silly anyway as it then also prohibits notes and DNF logs and thus makes messages about the cache status impossible. I often happy to check on the status of caches I have found some time ago when I pass the area and if there is something to report, I write a note. If a cache turned into PM-only at a later stage, I could not even continue to provide status information to the owner and future visitors (yes, I could write a private e-mail, but I'm certainly not willing to do that except if the cache owner is a close friend).

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

what drives me nuts is :

WHAT exactly is the current RULE about this..

what ever it is I care less,

THEN case is closed, and ALL just follow the SAME rule..

so GS need to come up with one simply answer :

is it OK ? YES OR NO, for a non PM to find and log a PM cache.

Edited by OZ2CPU
Link to comment

Here's an idea that I don't think has been floated yet:

Allow audit logs on ALL caches! The audit log was the first reason I made one of my caches PMO. I heard about it and just wanted to see what it looked like. Later I found other reasons and made some more cache PMO. Then I didn't care anymore and stopped making my caches pmo. I don't care if non-PM's find my caches. I have given gift memberships so that people could find my caches.

 

This suggestion was made mostly tongue-in-cheek. I don't really expect anyone to agree with it...

 

Guess again. I have seen multiple, probably even 5 over the years, threads started by people who own some PMO's and want the audit log on all their owned caches. I don't feel like looking them up though. :P

Link to comment

what drives me nuts is :

WHAT exactly is the current RULE about this..

what ever it is I care less,

THEN case is closed, and ALL just follow the SAME rule..

so GS need to come up with one simply answer :

is it OK ? YES OR NO, for a non PM to find and log a PM cache.

Whatever is appropriate for the situation. :unsure:

Link to comment

It amazes me no one sees that there is something more to this story. The backdoor methods are not only well known, but when they were inadvertently broken during an update a few years ago, GS rushed to fix them.

 

The fact that it was handled, then retracted in a move that on the surface appears to go against GS position on the matter, begs the question of what part of the story are we not hearing?

Link to comment

It amazes me no one sees that there is something more to this story. The backdoor methods are not only well known, but when they were inadvertently broken during an update a few years ago, GS rushed to fix them.

 

The fact that it was handled, then retracted in a move that on the surface appears to go against GS position on the matter, begs the question of what part of the story are we not hearing?

 

+1

 

Also the fact that the CO has called out OP on the pages of the caches as well (or had, i don't know if its still there...) i can't see why GS would ignore that and i can't see how GS would then side with the CO after that either.

 

i'd be claiming harassment.

 

There has to be something we're missing.

Link to comment

There has to be something we're missing.

 

An explanation from Groundspeak would be nice, but since they didn't communicate too much to the OP, I wouldn't expect too much communication from them. Perhaps they could erect a chimney and send some smoke signals.

 

Don't be so quick to say there was not more communication with the OP. Again, something here is missing.

 

Until stated otherwise, their previous stance is in effect. If you are in the log, it is a legit find. No matter PM status.

 

Someone form GS may feel free to correct me, however I have heard nothing to show they have made an official change to this stance.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

It amazes me no one sees that there is something more to this story. The backdoor methods are not only well known, but when they were inadvertently broken during an update a few years ago, GS rushed to fix them.

 

The fact that it was handled, then retracted in a move that on the surface appears to go against GS position on the matter, begs the question of what part of the story are we not hearing?

 

+1

 

Also the fact that the CO has called out OP on the pages of the caches as well (or had, i don't know if its still there...) i can't see why GS would ignore that and i can't see how GS would then side with the CO after that either.

 

i'd be claiming harassment.

 

There has to be something we're missing.

 

Thanks for that point Baloo!! They did mistakenly break the back door method, and quickly fix it. This was at most 3 years ago, probably less. Another reason this is such a shocker.

 

I posted the note that appears on the cache page where the CO calls out the OP in post #105. I figured that would generate a lot of interest, but no one has of yet even mentioned it, let alone quote it. Shows what I know. :)

 

The rant, as shown in post #105, was posted in early February. We could call it the English version of the disable listing log, which was immediately preceding it in French on the same day. It's still there. And the cache is still disabled, despite the cache owner appearing to think he has "deleted" the cache.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

Also the fact that the CO has called out OP on the pages of the caches as well (or had, i don't know if its still there...) i can't see why GS would ignore that and i can't see how that appears on the cache page where the CO calls out the OP in post #105. I figured that would generate a lot of interest, but no one has of yet even mentioned it, let alone quote it. Shows what I know. :)

 

The rant, as shown in post #105, was posted in early February. We could call it the English version of the disable listing log, which was immediately preceding it in French on the same day. It's still there. And the cache is still disabled, despite the cache owner appearing to think he has "deleted" the cache.

 

I thought it was interesting! It drfinitely supported the angry Frenchman theory. If I were Deskdata I might have taken exception to being called a hacker and cheater for following well established Groundspeak methods and asked for it to be deleted. But I can also see where he would be tired of dealing with both the CO and Groundspeak about this issue. In the end it says more about the CO than Deskdata.

 

I own one PMO cache - I went that route to keep it off the list for people who are just picking up a phone app for the first time. It is a multi that is not meant to be a puzzle but requires careful reading of the cache description lest you get distracted. Only one person has found it without asking me for help. So in the interests of reducing frustration and maintaining the cache location, I went with PMO. I would archive it if Groundspeak removed the back door option. The option for everyone to log PMO caches is at least a small part of my reason "to support this site" through my membership. I would not like to see it go, and therefore hope that your theory (that Groundspeak might eliminate PMO caches altogether) is correct. Or that they simply follow existing policy and not back down if a CO rants back at them.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

Has anything here actually changed?

 

Look back at the post MrsB quoted, specifically the bolded and underlined language.

 

OK for those interested here is an extract of the email received from Groudspeak that should leave no doubt about how they wish us to play the game:

 

'Basic Members can log finds for Premium Member Only caches when the physical logbook has been signed.

 

Groundspeak’s Guidelines state, “Geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed.” There are no restrictions or guidelines that prevent Basic Members from signing a Premium Member Only cache logbook.

 

Basic Members may have access to PMO caches through various means, including when they geocache with Premium Members.

 

Groundspeak encourages Cache Owners to allow these logs. If we find that a log was deleted inappropriately, Groundspeak can reinstate the log.'

 

Yep. This has always been the stated mindset of Groundspeak on this issue.

 

The policy doesn't seem to be that basic member logs on a premium member only (PMO) cache are perfectly cromulent as a matter of course.

 

The policy seems to be that:

(1) basic members can't log PMO caches through the operation of the regular website or phone apps;

(2) Groundspeak has a backdoor system that they actively maintain that allows the possibility of basic members to log PMO caches;

(3) Groundspeak is cool with basic members using this workaround to log PMO caches;

(4) Groundspeak would be happy if all cache owners were cool with this workaround as well;

(5) cache owners are still within their rights to delete basic member logs when appropriate; and

(6) Groundspeak has the ability to reinstate inappropriately deleted logs.

 

What isn't defined is what exactly the word "inappropriately" entails in these situations.

 

In this particular case, the cache owner deleted some logs merely on the principle that he is not cool with with #4 and only wants premium members logging his cache. Groundspeak's initial reaction was that this was not an appropriate exercise of the cache owner's power to delete logs, but on review reversed its decision and re-deleted the logs. Here, then, this particular cache owner was acting appropriately. Or, at least, not acting inappropriately.

 

I'd like to hear from a Groundspeak lackey on this, though -- even if it's just "you're right, we realize that the rule is still a little vague, so we're working on clarifying it one way or another."

Link to comment

The policy doesn't seem to be that basic member logs on a premium member only (PMO) cache are perfectly cromulent as a matter of course.

You can't say perfectly cromulent. Something is either cromulent or it isn't. However, cache owners who allow basic members to log PMO caches embiggen the game.

 

mmmm donuts.

Link to comment

... cache are perfectly cromulent as a matter of course.

You can't say perfectly cromulent...

 

Hands up who's off to google cromulent :unsure:

Doh!. I googled cromulent and it seem the earliest recorded use of cromulent was in the phrase "perfectly cromulent". So who am I to say that perfectly can't be used with cromulent. Now I feel embiggened.

Link to comment

Here's an idea that I don't think has been floated yet:

Allow audit logs on ALL caches! The audit log was the first reason I made one of my caches PMO. I heard about it and just wanted to see what it looked like. Later I found other reasons and made some more cache PMO. Then I didn't care anymore and stopped making my caches pmo. I don't care if non-PM's find my caches. I have given gift memberships so that people could find my caches.

 

This suggestion was made mostly tongue-in-cheek. I don't really expect anyone to agree with it...

 

Guess again. I have seen multiple, probably even 5 over the years, threads started by people who own some PMO's and want the audit log on all their owned caches. I don't feel like looking them up though. :P

Way more than five. I've participated in all.

I do recall that at some point, TPTB were considering canning the audit and stated so , as it's now easily bypassed anyway with phones and PQs - and privacy issues were mentioned.

Privacy issues were (and still are) my concern.

No difference (really) between privacy on the watchlist or audit.

With COs not able to view people watching for (possibly) the life of the cache, why is it okay to see who's merely looking at it (with the audit) ?

Link to comment

... cache are perfectly cromulent as a matter of course.

You can't say perfectly cromulent...

 

Hands up who's off to google cromulent :unsure:

Doh!. I googled cromulent and it seem the earliest recorded use of cromulent was in the phrase "perfectly cromulent". So who am I to say that perfectly can't be used with cromulent. Now I feel embiggened.

 

Picture0003.jpg

Link to comment

That's why I'm the puritan and you're the geocache talking guy.

 

p.s. I've gotten to the point where I use "perfectly cromulent" in my legal lectures. I think it worked its way into my military search and seizure class this afternoon. But I'm glad you caught it on your own. Truly, you have the kind of noble spirit that embiggens the smallest man.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

I'm with Mr. Yuck, and BBW in that it's perhaps time to eliminate the PMO cache as the drama that it creates withing the geocaching community outweighs any benefits.

 

I wouldn't miss them.

 

But, what we don't know is how many 'Regular' members become PM to find PM caches vs. how many PMs would cancel if they couldn't have 'PM only' caches.

 

What other leverage could the CO that deleted the non-PM logs have on Groundspeak?

 

"Eef I cannot delete ze logs, I weel cancel ze membersheep!" :mad:

 

Why am I picturing Inspector Clouseau as a geocacher lifting up a lamp post skirt?

Link to comment

Here's an idea that I don't think has been floated yet:

Allow audit logs on ALL caches! The audit log was the first reason I made one of my caches PMO. I heard about it and just wanted to see what it looked like. Later I found other reasons and made some more cache PMO. Then I didn't care anymore and stopped making my caches pmo. I don't care if non-PM's find my caches. I have given gift memberships so that people could find my caches.

 

This suggestion was made mostly tongue-in-cheek. I don't really expect anyone to agree with it...

 

Actually something similar to that was proposed in the feature suggestions forum. Basically it was a suggestion to split up a PMO cache and audit logging. That would effective mean that a premium member could turn an audit log on (and off) for any cache they own. Of course, like many feature suggestions in that forum that is about as far as it went.

Link to comment

...

The policy doesn't seem to be that basic member logs on a premium member only (PMO) cache are perfectly cromulent as a matter of course.

 

The policy seems to be that:

(1) basic members can't log PMO caches through the operation of the regular website or phone apps;

(2) Groundspeak has a backdoor system that they actively maintain that allows the possibility of basic members to log PMO caches;

(3) Groundspeak is cool with basic members using this workaround to log PMO caches;

(4) Groundspeak would be happy if all cache owners were cool with this workaround as well;

(5) cache owners are still within their rights to delete basic member logs when appropriate; and

(6) Groundspeak has the ability to reinstate inappropriately deleted logs.

 

What isn't defined is what exactly the word "inappropriately" entails in these situations.

 

In this particular case, the cache owner deleted some logs merely on the principle that he is not cool with with #4 and only wants premium members logging his cache. Groundspeak's initial reaction was that this was not an appropriate exercise of the cache owner's power to delete logs, but on review reversed its decision and re-deleted the logs. Here, then, this particular cache owner was acting appropriately. Or, at least, not acting inappropriately.

 

I'd like to hear from a Groundspeak lackey on this, though -- even if it's just "you're right, we realize that the rule is still a little vague, so we're working on clarifying it one way or another."

 

I am sorry for the delay in responding to this topic. I hope this helps...

 

You are right. We realize that this rule is a little bit vague, so we're working on clarifying it one way or another. Some notes:

 

In (1) above, I'd add "or view" after the word 'log' so it should read: (1) basic members can't log or view PMO caches through the operation of the regular website or phone apps;

 

Historically, we haven't seen many Owners of PM caches who weren't cool with the workaround. In this case, we found a CO who believed it was his PM right to delete logs of basic members, which he did. When we reinstated them, he pointed out our own language which suggests that he does, in fact, have the right to delete those logs... or more clearly that PM caches are only available to PMs. Upon review of our own policy and his seemingly valid complaint, we reversed our decision. It's a regrettable outcome and we need to do a better job of clarifying expectations here, one way or another.

 

We're going to work it out shortly.

 

Thank you for helping to frame the issue.

 

-Bryan

Link to comment

We realize that this rule is a little bit vague, so we're working on clarifying it one way or another.

 

Thanks for the reply, Bryan.

 

However you decide to clarify the rules, I hope that you'll do something about the CO's numerous logs in which he refers to Deskdata as a hacker and a cheater (e.g. this one). Those seem to be defamatory, and therefore to violate section 4 of Groundspeak's terms of use agreement:

 

You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

Link to comment

Bryan,

 

Thank you for the follow up. I don't know what factors you are taking into account while deliberating this issue but I urge you (as a premium member) to leave the "backdoor" open as a matter of fact and policy. Jeremy Irish has repeatedly emphasized that the game should be free and locking basic mambers out of logging PMO caches would set a very bad precedent. Secondly, it would require that families with multiple members that keep seperate accounts each get a PM in order to log caches that they find together. In the interest of full disclosure, that would apply to my household, although Susancycle logs less than 10% of her caches online.

Link to comment

Bryan,

 

Thank you for the follow up. I don't know what factors you are taking into account while deliberating this issue but I urge you (as a premium member) to leave the "backdoor" open as a matter of fact and policy. Jeremy Irish has repeatedly emphasized that the game should be free and locking basic mambers out of logging PMO caches would set a very bad precedent. Secondly, it would require that families with multiple members that keep seperate accounts each get a PM in order to log caches that they find together. In the interest of full disclosure, that would apply to my household, although Susancycle logs less than 10% of her caches online.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this, and for the record my family circumstances are similar to Michaelcycle.

Link to comment

Bryan,

 

Thank you for the follow up. I don't know what factors you are taking into account while deliberating this issue but I urge you (as a premium member) to leave the "backdoor" open as a matter of fact and policy. Jeremy Irish has repeatedly emphasized that the game should be free and locking basic mambers out of logging PMO caches would set a very bad precedent. Secondly, it would require that families with multiple members that keep seperate accounts each get a PM in order to log caches that they find together. In the interest of full disclosure, that would apply to my household, although Susancycle logs less than 10% of her caches online.

 

We believe the 'backdoor' is an important element of family geocaching (caching with friends too) and have no plans to eliminate it. Rather, I think we need to do a better job of setting clear expectations for PM only caches in the guidelines. While PMO caches should not appear in searches by basic members, if a basic member participates in a geocaching excursion with a PM and finds a PMO cache, signs the logbook, etc, we believe they should be able to get credit for the find. That was the original purpose of the backdoor and will continue to be the purpose. At the same time, to be fair to PMs, we need to set expectations properly and we, admittedly, haven't done a great job of this historically.

Link to comment

It seems straws were finally brought to a high level meeting, and we see who drew the short one.

 

I was intrigued by one word of the post. RULE. Anyone who has been around the block around here a few times has heard: we don't have rules, we have guidelines (leaving maximum wiggle room for TPTB). That is more than just semantics. That is a palpable difference. So, which is it?

 

We realize that this rule is a little bit vague ...

Link to comment

It seems straws were finally brought to a high level meeting, and we see who drew the short one.

 

I was intrigued by one word of the post. RULE. Anyone who has been around the block around here a few times has heard: we don't have rules, we have guidelines (leaving maximum wiggle room for TPTB). That is more than just semantics. That is a palpable difference. So, which is it?

 

We realize that this rule is a little bit vague ...

 

I was part of the decision making process on this and it was my choice to respond. No straws involved.

 

Yes, 'rule' was a poor choice of words. I should have said 'guideline'. I am not sure how much wiggle room that provides us in this particular case, but it's more appropriate to call it a guideline, for the sake of consistency at the very least.

Link to comment

Bryan,

 

Thank you for the follow up. I don't know what factors you are taking into account while deliberating this issue but I urge you (as a premium member) to leave the "backdoor" open as a matter of fact and policy. Jeremy Irish has repeatedly emphasized that the game should be free and locking basic mambers out of logging PMO caches would set a very bad precedent. Secondly, it would require that families with multiple members that keep seperate accounts each get a PM in order to log caches that they find together. In the interest of full disclosure, that would apply to my household, although Susancycle logs less than 10% of her caches online.

 

We believe the 'backdoor' is an important element of family geocaching (caching with friends too) and have no plans to eliminate it. Rather, I think we need to do a better job of setting clear expectations for PM only caches in the guidelines. While PMO caches should not appear in searches by basic members, if a basic member participates in a geocaching excursion with a PM and finds a PMO cache, signs the logbook, etc, we believe they should be able to get credit for the find. That was the original purpose of the backdoor and will continue to be the purpose. At the same time, to be fair to PMs, we need to set expectations properly and we, admittedly, haven't done a great job of this historically.

This is good news. While you may not be able to re-instate deskdata's logs due to a cacher that I consider to be a (insert appropriate descriptive term here) I'd hope you would delete the notes from the CO referring to deskdata as a "cheater" and a "hacker". As NYlimb pointed out these notes violate your rules as well.

 

I am hopeful you will be able to convey your intentions for non-PMs to be able to log PM caches in the future.

 

I'd also suggest you do it ASAP. It probably won't be long before other COs want to delete logs for this very same reason.

Link to comment

Bryan,

 

Thank you for the follow up. I don't know what factors you are taking into account while deliberating this issue but I urge you (as a premium member) to leave the "backdoor" open as a matter of fact and policy. Jeremy Irish has repeatedly emphasized that the game should be free and locking basic mambers out of logging PMO caches would set a very bad precedent. Secondly, it would require that families with multiple members that keep seperate accounts each get a PM in order to log caches that they find together. In the interest of full disclosure, that would apply to my household, although Susancycle logs less than 10% of her caches online.

 

We believe the 'backdoor' is an important element of family geocaching (caching with friends too) and have no plans to eliminate it. Rather, I think we need to do a better job of setting clear expectations for PM only caches in the guidelines. While PMO caches should not appear in searches by basic members, if a basic member participates in a geocaching excursion with a PM and finds a PMO cache, signs the logbook, etc, we believe they should be able to get credit for the find. That was the original purpose of the backdoor and will continue to be the purpose. At the same time, to be fair to PMs, we need to set expectations properly and we, admittedly, haven't done a great job of this historically.

This is good news. While you may not be able to re-instate deskdata's logs due to a cacher that I consider to be a (insert appropriate descriptive term here) I'd hope you would delete the notes from the CO referring to deskdata as a "cheater" and a "hacker". As NYlimb pointed out these notes violate your rules as well.

 

I am hopeful you will be able to convey your intentions for non-PMs to be able to log PM caches in the future.

 

I'd also suggest you do it ASAP. It probably won't be long before other COs want to delete logs for this very same reason.

 

Can you please share some links to the inappropriate notes from the CO? Thanks.

Link to comment

Can you please share some links to the inappropriate notes from the CO? Thanks.

 

http://coord.info/GLA7QC4E

which says, "This cache is definitively deleted.

Some hackers as Deskdata dont respect the owner of premium caches and impose to Geocaching to accept their log.

I dont accept this method because that is no respect of the oner will.

Useless to be premium member, dont paid for that, you can find and log every cache because Grpundspeak accept it.

So, I prefer delete all my caches than autorise cheaters to play.

Thank you very much Deskdata and Groundspeak."

Link to comment

Bryan, thank you for tackling this problem. We all should realize that no matter what the outcome is, not everyone is going to be happy. I think that the back door should remain open. As long as a basic member cacher signs the physical log, the CO should not be able to delete the web log solely due to that cacher's status. Requiring premium membership to sign a log should be considered as an ALR.

Link to comment

Bryan,

 

Thank you for the follow up. I don't know what factors you are taking into account while deliberating this issue but I urge you (as a premium member) to leave the "backdoor" open as a matter of fact and policy. Jeremy Irish has repeatedly emphasized that the game should be free and locking basic mambers out of logging PMO caches would set a very bad precedent. Secondly, it would require that families with multiple members that keep seperate accounts each get a PM in order to log caches that they find together. In the interest of full disclosure, that would apply to my household, although Susancycle logs less than 10% of her caches online.

 

We believe the 'backdoor' is an important element of family geocaching (caching with friends too) and have no plans to eliminate it. Rather, I think we need to do a better job of setting clear expectations for PM only caches in the guidelines. While PMO caches should not appear in searches by basic members, if a basic member participates in a geocaching excursion with a PM and finds a PMO cache, signs the logbook, etc, we believe they should be able to get credit for the find. That was the original purpose of the backdoor and will continue to be the purpose. At the same time, to be fair to PMs, we need to set expectations properly and we, admittedly, haven't done a great job of this historically.

I'd also like to point out that GS allowed ONE abusive CO to reverse a policy that's been in place for YEARS! I'd suggest you send him a refund and let the logs stand. If you'd like I'll send you the money for the lost revenue.

 

Alternatively, I will re-iterate my offer to gift deskdata one year membership if you will re-instate his logs.

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment

 

Alternatively, I will re-iterate my offer to gift deskdata one year membership if you will re-instate his logs.

 

I'll split it with ya. ;)

 

More importantly I would like to thank Bryan for weighing-in on this discussion to give us an official perspective on the issue.

 

I hope the final outcome is a plain language clarification that regular members are in no way prevented from logging PMO caches.

Link to comment

Can you please share some links to the inappropriate notes from the CO? Thanks.

 

http://coord.info/GLA7QC4E

which says, "This cache is definitively deleted.

Some hackers as Deskdata dont respect the owner of premium caches and impose to Geocaching to accept their log.

I dont accept this method because that is no respect of the oner will.

Useless to be premium member, dont paid for that, you can find and log every cache because Grpundspeak accept it.

So, I prefer delete all my caches than autorise cheaters to play.

Thank you very much Deskdata and Groundspeak."

 

I posted that note as a quote, but didn't know people would be able to find it. I figured the Googlebot didn't have a premium membership. :P

 

This cache owner does not appear to even know the logs have been deleted by Groundspeak, and the caches are still disabled, him having thought he "deleted" them, in his words, by disabling them in early February. It just seems awful strange, if you don't mind me saying, that this particular incident with this particular cache owner, after 11 years of PMO caches, is the one that made Groundspeak re-examine it's wording. I guess what I'm saying is "why now"?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 10
×
×
  • Create New...