Jump to content

Basic Members finding Premium Member caches


deskdata
Followers 10

Recommended Posts

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

 

Sure. I think this is all of them:

 

log #1

log #2

log #3

log #4

log #5

log #6

log #7

log #8

log #9

log #10

log #11

log #12

log #13

log #14

log #15

log #16

log #17

log #18

log #19

 

There are a few others in French which complain about cheating but don't mention anyone by name; I don't think they violate any rules.

Edited by Nylimb
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"?

 

And the note has been deleted.

The keylogger on your computer is working quite well, though. :ph34r:

Link to comment

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

 

It didn't require any Googling. I'm sure I'm not the only one who read the OP's logs from France in January, saw who he was caching with, and checked to see which other caches his companion had logged. Compared to the research required for lots of puzzle caches, this was easy!

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"?

 

Sorry about that. Being a curious old soul and wanting to see if there was more to the story after reading the first few posts, I found that log by the cache owner on at least two of his caches, one of which is not PMO and has been archived, fairly quickly using some tools available to me on this site. ;) Didn't even think about using Google. :o Will have to try that sometime. :lol:

Link to comment

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

 

It didn't require any Googling. I'm sure I'm not the only one who read the OP's logs from France in January, saw who he was caching with, and checked to see which other caches his companion had logged. Compared to the research required for lots of puzzle caches, this was easy!

 

No problem, this actually tells me a lot. The guy basically Geocided over this incident, but only left the 2 PMO's , and for whatever reason, one other cache, still in play. He just copied and pasted the same "this cache has definitely been deleted" note to all his caches. I was thinking that he thought that disabling a cache was "deleting" it, as was posted to his 2 PMO caches.

Link to comment

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.

Count me in. Let's make better mistakes tomorrow.

Link to comment

 

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

 

Thank you for finally responding and clarifying.

 

So in a nutshell, the backdoor is okay to be used by regular members, but in this one instance a flaw was pointed out in the guidelines, so the logs were allowed to be deleted. However the CO geocided anyhow, despite getting his way, and if this message was relayed to the OP in the first place, then this thread would have never existed, or been much shorter.

Link to comment

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.

 

Why should this be conditional to whether a basic member is joined by a PM? There are many caches that are found just by coincidence (e.g. when trying to hide a new cache or when going for a walk) or by the cache name.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Come now chaps and ladies who are complaining, this isn't an exclusive thing to this site, many many things on the internet have a premium/gold/platinum membership which have little rewards for people who have paid. This is a incredibly high traffic site which also has files that are free to download but not for geocashing.com to host, it's a nice thing for premium members to have a few bonus cashes along with "how did I do this before" pocket queries.

 

Common sense dictates that there should be a real solid reason for all the cashes in an area to be premium only, I would imagine that 99.9% of the time it's because of annoying teenagers who think they are "trolls lol" and destroy any they can find for example. In this case it's not really fair to ask people to spend the time and money out of their own pocket to replace cashe after cashe when you could just chip in and pay your 30 a year.

Link to comment

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

 

Sure. I think this is all of them:

 

log #1

log #2

log #3

log #4

log #5

log #6

log #7

log #8

log #9

log #10

log #11

log #12

log #13

log #14

log #15

log #16

log #17

log #18

log #19

 

There are a few others in French which complain about cheating but don't mention anyone by name; I don't think they don't violate any rules.

 

And those bitter, entitled, name-calling archive notes are still there.

 

 

B.

Link to comment

*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.

 

The problem is most PMO caches in my area are just run of themill caches - nothing special. So no real incentive to find them.

 

I think a lot of hiders in my area set the PMO just so they can see who is looking at their caches.

Link to comment

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.

 

Why should this be conditional to whether a basic member is joined by a PM? There are many caches that are found just by coincidence (e.g. when trying to hide a new cache or when going for a walk) or by the cache name.

 

Cezanne

 

It says IF Not only if, not exclusively only when. Bryan was stating one(The most common?) way that a basic member can find a PMO cache. I'm sure he didn't have the time, to think of every possible scenario.

Link to comment
The problem is most PMO caches in my area are just run of themill caches - nothing special. So no real incentive to find them.

 

I think a lot of hiders in my area set the PMO just so they can see who is looking at their caches.

I agree. A PMO guardrail hide is no different than a regular.

Noticed two last week were PMO LPC hides. Really?

I usually mention anal-retentive and micro-managing when asked about my aversion to the audit.

- And with over half in my area being micros, it fits. :D

Link to comment
. The guy basically Geocided over this incident, but only left the 2 PMO's , and for whatever reason, one other cache, still in play. He just copied and pasted the same "this cache has definitely been deleted" note to all his caches. I was thinking that he thought that disabling a cache was "deleting" it, as was posted to his 2 PMO caches.

 

And lowly, unwashed, basic members can still log them through the back door. Muahahaha :D

 

Edit- they are archived and all changed to basic. A basic member from Germany has been logging them also.

 

Logged without respect like the other one. And I am Not beshamed about my behavior. Thanks and Greetings from Germany
Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

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"?

When the official response from TBTP was "Our answer is Yes and Absolutely No", maybe the examination was a little overdue?

Link to comment

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.

 

Why should this be conditional to whether a basic member is joined by a PM? There are many caches that are found just by coincidence (e.g. when trying to hide a new cache or when going for a walk) or by the cache name.

 

Cezanne

 

It says IF Not only if, not exclusively only when. Bryan was stating one(The most common?) way that a basic member can find a PMO cache. I'm sure he didn't have the time, to think of every possible scenario.

The entire statement was, " 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. "

 

I wrote it down yesterday to ask at some point (yes, some still use paper).

It may well have been a statement pressed for time, but like Cezanne, I took it the same way.

As you can see, "if" isn't the reason it caught my attention.

Link to comment

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.

 

Why should this be conditional to whether a basic member is joined by a PM? There are many caches that are found just by coincidence (e.g. when trying to hide a new cache or when going for a walk) or by the cache name.

 

Cezanne

 

It says IF Not only if, not exclusively only when. Bryan was stating one(The most common?) way that a basic member can find a PMO cache. I'm sure he didn't have the time, to think of every possible scenario.

 

I can assure you that given my background I'm aware of the difference between if and only if. I still wonder whether it would not be more consistent to argue that a legitimate find (signed logbook) should lead to a valid online log. Then the family/friend etc comment is rather a side issue.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Just in case that logging of PMOC will be forbidden for BM: what happens with logs of geocachers that were PM as they logged the cache and became a BM later?

 

And if you decide to disallow BM to log PMOC: can you please accept logs that were written before this guideline change/clarification? (Ex post facto law)

Link to comment

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

 

In my experience, if a rule (or guideline, or law, or anything really) is interpreted one way by 99.9% of people and another way by 0.01%, the rule is very clear, and not "a little bit vague". The 0.1% are those not reading it with a mind willing to understand and therefore deliberately misinterpreting it. I don't think the rule really needs fixing. Seems clear to me what the intended meaning is. Of course, I'm just an engineer, not a lawyer :lol:

 

There is no way to make a rule perfectly immune to deliberate misinterpretation. And attempts to achieve this often result in a 2 line rule becoming a 2 page long one <_<

Link to comment

we are going to work it out ??

means what ??

OK to log a PM only, or NOT ??

Say YES or NO.. and undelete those logs he deleted, for crying out loud.

It depends on what is appropriate for the situation. :unsure:

 

I think Bryan's explanations was clear enough. A basic member should be allowed to a log a find on a PM only cache. That is why Groundspeak provides the backdoor and will continue to provide the backdoor. Groundspeak has not made this clear and the current description of PMO caches is subject to some interpretation. It says that the PMO caches are for premium members only, and some owners of PMO have understood this to mean that the should be deleting logs made by basic members.

 

In this situation, Groundspeak felt is it was appropriate to not get an angry Frenchman angrier.

 

As I've pointed out many time, the find count is not a score. There are far worse things that can happen than having your log deleted. Those who see the find count a score see this as if the referee ruled a touchdown and, three weeks later, the league office decided it wasn't a touchdown and changed the results of the game. I think it's better to view this as a dispute between two cachers where various people at Groundspeak tried unsucessfully to resolve the dispute. In the end Groundspeak decided to try to find a way to avoid disputes like this one in the future.

Link to comment

As I've pointed out many time, the find count is not a score. There are far worse things that can happen than having your log deleted.

 

I find it equally annoying to get a DNF log or note deleted than a find it log and fighted for each of those as well and will continue to do so.

Moreover, there is an important advantage of find it logs. They can be found in my profile by geocachers who like to follow my experiences while this is not possible for notes and DNF logs which is quite unfortunate. Whenever a friend experiences a nice adventure, but does not manage to find the cache, he/she needs to notify me and others separately which is very inconvenient.

 

The number of finds is the least I care about. I care however about the history of my caching experiences.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

.

 

As I've pointed out many time, the find count is not a score. There are far worse things that can happen than having your log deleted. Those who see the find count a score see this as if the referee ruled a touchdown and, three weeks later, the league office decided it wasn't a touchdown and changed the results of the game. I think it's better to view this as a dispute between two cachers where various people at Groundspeak tried unsucessfully to resolve the dispute. In the end Groundspeak decided to try to find a way to avoid disputes like this one in the future.

Yep, as a CO, that what I think about before I hit the delete button. To me, its not worth deleting anyone logs.

Link to comment

Bryan, thanks very much for the responses.

 

I like this part in particular:

 

...

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.

 

Well played. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Link to comment

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

 

In my experience, if a rule (or guideline, or law, or anything really) is interpreted one way by 99.9% of people and another way by 0.01%, the rule is very clear, and not "a little bit vague". The 0.1% are those not reading it with a mind willing to understand and therefore deliberately misinterpreting it. I don't think the rule really needs fixing. Seems clear to me what the intended meaning is. Of course, I'm just an engineer, not a lawyer :lol:

 

There is no way to make a rule perfectly immune to deliberate misinterpretation. And attempts to achieve this often result in a 2 line rule becoming a 2 page long one <_<

 

I remember a seminar once regarding 'zoning bylaws'... one presenter pointed out that in HIS opinion that any bylaw that accumulated more variances (by low number) than the original bylaw took to print in the first place, should immediately become a candidate for a full review.

 

While not Geocaching, the thought is applicable to many rule/guideline situations in general. The goal being to bring the guideline and normal practice into alignment, after considering the matter. There could be many valid reasons for the need of course. His basic premise was that when variances became automatic, why not just change the bylaw and save the local government time and money doing variance applications that were going to be granted any way.

 

When I read some of this post (after Bryan's comments) I wonder if we are all talking the same thing.

There have been many contradictions stated (compared to the way it has been / is) which indicates that we may have to wait and see what they clear up when discussing it. Personally I think the current site setup is fine as is, but it needs to be clarified that the PM perk for PMOC caches is simply the inability for non PMs to see the cache page and hints etc. The finding and logging methods provided are fine right now.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

As often as I have complained about the lack of communication from TPTB I am feeling a bit sorry that I have taken so long to thank Bryan for coming in to this conversation. It is refreshing to hear what's going on from the GS perspective.

 

I agree with Radioscout.

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.
should cover it. If Deskdata signed the log book in the cache he should be allowed to claim the find.

 

I look forward to this being resolved.

Link to comment

I agree with Radioscout.

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.
should cover it. If Deskdata signed the log book in the cache he should be allowed to claim the find.

Agreed. I don't see any ambiguity in that quoted statement. The only exception listed on that page of the guidelines is for challenge caches, which doesn't apply to this scenario.

Link to comment

Personally I think the current site setup is fine as is, but it needs to be clarified that the PM perk for PMOC caches is simply the inability for non PMs to see the cache page and hints etc. The finding and logging methods provided are fine right now.

 

I agree.

Link to comment

I guess what I'm saying is "why now"?

 

That was my thought as well. All these years common understanding of the intent was perfectly fine and suddenly we are concerned about the literal meaning of the specific wording of THIS guideline? Kinda sets a bad precedent for folks who want to challenge things they don't like about all the other guidelines that are just as vague if not worse.

Link to comment

I guess what I'm saying is "why now"?

 

That was my thought as well. All these years common understanding of the intent was perfectly fine and suddenly we are concerned about the literal meaning of the specific wording of THIS guideline? Kinda sets a bad precedent for folks who want to challenge things they don't like about all the other guidelines that are just as vague if not worse.

I find that what the forum regulars see as "common understanding" is often quite different from what the general geocaching public sees.

 

My guess is that a substantial number of cachers believe that PMO caches are for premium member only. This includes both hiders of the these caches and people who find them. I would guess that many times when a basic member finds a PMO cache, they simply believe they are not supposed to log this online. The "backdoor" is well enough hidden that many basic members will not find it or even suspect that it exists so as to search for it.

 

There is nothing new about people challenging vague guidelines. It has the unfortunate result of forcing Grounspeak's hand from time to time. The "no bury" guidelines has undergone umpteen revisions as people debated what was a pointy object or what constitutes breaking ground. The saturation guideline has lost any mention of its goals and become a simple 528 ft. rule that allows powertrails but few exceptions for caches to be closer. IMO, vague guidelines with rationale are better; but if I was a reviewer or a Grounspeak lackey hearing an appeal, I can see why clear and succinct "rules" might be prefered.

Link to comment

Personally I think the current site setup is fine as is, but it needs to be clarified that the PM perk for PMOC caches is simply the inability for non PMs to see the cache page and hints etc. The finding and logging methods provided are fine right now.

 

I agree.

 

I agree as well. When I go in to Edit one of my cache pages, I can change the listing to PMO. The wording is "Check if you only want Premium and Charter Members to VIEW this cache." It doesn't say anything about having only Premium or Charter members FINDING the cache.

 

 

 

My guess is that a substantial number of cachers believe that PMO caches are for premium member only. This includes both hiders of the these caches and people who find them.

 

Well, PMO does stand for Premium Members Only :P

Link to comment

I agree as well. When I go in to Edit one of my cache pages, I can change the listing to PMO. The wording is "Check if you only want Premium and Charter Members to VIEW this cache." It doesn't say anything about having only Premium or Charter members FINDING the cache.

 

Similarly the cache listing page that non-premium members get when they click on a blocked cache listing has the wording "...has chosen to make this cache listing visible to Premium Members only." (my emphasis).

 

It then goes on to list the many and varied "benefits" of paid membership, although it doesn't, at any point, mention blocked cache listings - both paid members and basic members have a tick next to "View coordinates and location information for geocaches."

 

 

My guess is that a substantial number of cachers believe that PMO caches are for premium member only. This includes both hiders of the these caches and people who find them.

 

Well, PMO does stand for Premium Members Only :P

 

Is "PMO" an actual term in use though? It may well be - I tend to only use the maps to find caches and the key on that called them "Premium Member caches" which is pretty close to PMO I suppose. And it doesn't make any real difference imo anyway, although to some the "only" may be particularly significant I spose.

Link to comment

Forget the back door -- there is a front door way to do it (through the map), and it has not been disabled for non-Premium users.

 

Ergo it is implicitly OK for them to log.

Of course if I were a puritan I could point out that there is a front door for logging a find online when you haven't signed the log. Ergo, it is implicitly OK to log a find without signing the log.

 

The question isn't whether a basic member can log a PMO cache online, it is whether the cache owner may delete this log. In that respect the guidelines are silent, and other information that Groundspeak provides sounds as if the owners should delete basic member logs. For example, this description in the list of premium member benefits:

VIP access to Premium Member Only caches.

 

Premium Member Only caches are placed and found exclusively by Geocaching Premium Members. This makes you a VIP in the caching world. Geocaching Premium Members experience geocaching at its fullest and finest, with access to thousands of additional caches on Geocaching.com. Welcome to a whole new world of exclusive caches.

Link to comment

Saw that a while ago, looking up notications (which is all about FTFs that some believe isn't recognized). :lol:

I think that this is a reason "premium this", "All of us premium members" "premium,premium,premium..." on some of the off-the-wall threads that have popped up recently comes from.

Some apparently believe the hype. Could really be toned down a little.

Link to comment

OOOHHH. I didn't realize I was a VIP. Well now that I know that, I expect all you commoners to respect and admire my status. And, remember that PMO caches are reserved exclusively for VIP's like me. We can't let the rif raf come into our club now can we? Now I'm going to see if my membership to Augusta National is waiting on me. :laughing:

Link to comment

 

The question isn't whether a basic member can log a PMO cache online, it is whether the cache owner may delete this log. In that respect the guidelines are silent, and other information that Groundspeak provides sounds as if the owners should delete basic member logs. For example, this description in the list of premium member benefits:

VIP access to Premium Member Only caches.

 

Premium Member Only caches are placed and found exclusively by Geocaching Premium Members. This makes you a VIP in the caching world. Geocaching Premium Members experience geocaching at its fullest and finest, with access to thousands of additional caches on Geocaching.com. Welcome to a whole new world of exclusive caches.

 

I think we have a winner! I'll bet you a croissant that's the language and "quote" on the website that set the Cache owner in question off. :unsure:

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...