Jump to content

Basic Members finding Premium Member caches


deskdata
Followers 10

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Let me see.... hmmm.... so if I a lowly BASIC find a cache at all, then it must be a basic level cache, right?

And that is all I'm allowed to log under the 'rules'. Has anything changed? If it is listed as a PMOC then I should be unable to find it at all... thus for me it doesn't exist. In that case if I find it I can treat it like any other 'other brand' cache... except that I can't log it. I can treat it like trash, ignore it, take it as a prize, even log it on it's own listing and so forth. I do NOT see that as at all preferable, understandable yes, preferable NO.

 

On another tack IF they remove the PM listings from BM searches, they will blow one of the 'How to avoid proximity problem' tools that they now provide to all cachers placing hides. I'm sure the reviewers will enjoy the extra work load that that feature can and does reduce. They seem to be busy with mystery and multi caches now for conflicts in some areas.

 

All in all I still support the status quo with a clarification of the language/wording.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

Groundspeak has also been silent about whether Premium members can log Platinum caches through the back door. <_<

That is the only way you CAN log those caches.

Enough of these backdoor shenanigans, or you'll both be on platinum member double secret probtion.

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.

 

Let me see.... hmmm.... so if I a lowly BASIC find a cache at all, then it must be a basic level cache, right?

And that is all I'm allowed to log under the 'rules'. Has anything changed? If it is listed as a PMOC then I should be unable to find it at all... thus for me it doesn't exist. In that case if I find it I can treat it like any other 'other brand' cache... except that I can't log it. I can treat it like trash, ignore it, take it as a prize, even log it on it's own listing and so forth. I do NOT see that as at all preferable, understandable yes, preferable NO.

 

On another tack IF they remove the PM listings from BM searches, they will blow one of the 'How to avoid proximity problem' tools that they now provide to all cachers placing hides. I'm sure the reviewers will enjoy the extra work load that that feature can and does reduce. They seem to be busy with mystery and multi caches now for conflicts in some areas.

 

All in all I still support the status quo with a clarification of the language/wording.

 

Doug 7rxc

 

Hmmmm, I've never seen that page before but seems the crazy frenchman had a leg to stand on although I don't know why he'd want to.

 

They do need to rewrite some policies.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

 

... All in all I still support the status quo with a clarification of the language/wording.

 

Doug 7rxc

 

I'm not too bothered how Groundspeak clarify it all just as long as they include the word "cromulent" ... and maybe "probtion" :unsure:

 

 

MrsB ;)

 

They also need to embiggen the regular members.

Link to comment

 

... All in all I still support the status quo with a clarification of the language/wording.

 

Doug 7rxc

 

I'm not too bothered how Groundspeak clarify it all just as long as they include the word "cromulent" ... and maybe "probtion" :unsure:

 

 

MrsB ;)

 

They also need to embiggen the regular members.

 

Yes! (I get spam emails about that regularly)

 

MrsB

Link to comment

Stop it at once.

You are all being silly, and this is a very serous subject. :rolleyes:

 

The Frenchman has had his toes trod on, and that just won't do. :mad:

 

Just the same, the OP as had his toes trod on, and that won't do either. :mad::mad::mad:

 

Given the superficial evidence provided, I do see how someone could think PMO caches were something special that could/should only be LOGGED by premium members.

 

Based on this I would suggest:

 

Any reference that suggests that PMO caches are in any way superior to any other cache should be removed.

We all know they are not.

 

It should be made clear that Basic Members are in no way proscribed from logging 'PMO' caches...if they can figure out how to do it.

Link to comment

Any reference that suggests that PMO caches are in any way superior to any other cache should be removed.

We all know they are not.

 

I agree. I've read a few forum discussions where newbie's purchased PMs expecting to get better quality caches and are disappointed that they are just the same old same old, in fact many are below par.

Link to comment

Stop it at once.

You are all being silly, and this is a very serous subject. :rolleyes:

 

The Frenchman has had his toes trod on, and that just won't do. :mad:

 

Just the same, the OP as had his toes trod on, and that won't do either. :mad::mad::mad:

 

Given the superficial evidence provided, I do see how someone could think PMO caches were something special that could/should only be LOGGED by premium members.

 

Based on this I would suggest:

 

Any reference that suggests that PMO caches are in any way superior to any other cache should be removed.

We all know they are not.

 

It should be made clear that Basic Members are in no way proscribed from logging 'PMO' caches...if they can figure out how to do it.

These might help.

 

2-steel-toe-boots.jpg

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.

This looks to me like the marketing department has no idea what the site policies actually are. They're just making things up as they go along, leading to a page that's contradictory to other parts of the site. Perhaps someone well-versed in the site policies should be reviewing such pages before allowing them to be released to the public.

 

...or is it just a deliberate attempt to mislead potential customers and get them to hand over their money? The way things have been going with this site, I would no longer be surprised if this was the case...

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

Why do you think it would get longer?

 

Do you feel my views on Bullies GeoCaching are controversial? :anicute:

 

I just feel that bullies crop-up everywhere and I wish they'd grow-up...

 

No, not the Bullies part. The PMO caches stink of elitism part. There are a lot of people who think that, and they may even be the silent majority of Geocachers. But here in the forums, it'll be like 99 vs. 1. And you would be the one. :lol: As a matter of fact, many snide remarks about people who think PMO caches are elitist are thrown around here, even when it's not a topic.

 

Besides, most of us just found out we are VIP'S yesterday. Just roll with it. :laughing:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
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:

 

First, my apologies for being silent on this forum since raising this topic. I have just returned from another skiing and geocaching trip, this time in Spain, and I only had very flaky internet access. (Before you ask, I did not find any PMO caches so won't be upsetting any Spanish CO's).

I have not read through all the posts yet, but thanks to all the messages of support, and thank you to Bryan for deleting the defamatory notes posted by the CO on his archived caches. I originally let them go because my logs had been restored, so I had the result I wanted, the caches were archived anyway and, well, there's a danger of losing sight of the fact that this is a game and is MEANT TO BE FUN, so I was happy to let sleeping CO's lie. However, when my logs were subsequently deleted again by Groundspeak I was going to complain about the defamatory posts, but Bryan has saved me the bother, so thanks.

 

Now ... Mr. Yuck, you are exactly right. The CO latched onto the word "Exclusively" and gave that as justification for deleting my logs. And who can blame him?, that's how it reads.

 

In my original post I complained that Groundspeak were not applying their guidelines consistently, but the real problem is that the guidelines themselves are inconsistent. On the one hand Groundspeak are saying PMO caches are placed and FOUND exclusively by PMs and on the other hand they say that Basic Members can find and log PMO caches, and support a mechanism to do so.

 

PMO caches were obviously introduced as an inducement to persuade members to part with their cash for Premium Membership, but they are ill-conceived and only serve to introduce divisions into the geocaching community.

This "tinkering" with our hobby/game is the reason I choose to remain a basic member - I don't want to swell Groundspeak's coffers and encourage them to introduce further game "enhancements". Let's keep it simple and just enjoy it. It's only a game.

Link to comment

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.

 

I think you have it in a nutshell.

Link to comment
Let's keep it simple and just enjoy it. It's only a game.

It is a game that runs very well thanks to this website. Pay them the $30 and just enjoy it. Don't list any PMO caches if they bother you. You can still refuse to find them.

 

It would run better without the "enhancements" introduced for purely commercial gain.

I'd be more willing to pay Groundspeak $30 to get rid of Premium Membership and PMO caches.

Link to comment

It would run better without the "enhancements" introduced for purely commercial gain.

I'd be more willing to pay Groundspeak $30 to get rid of Premium Membership and PMO caches.

My thoughts on this thread have now come full circle. I can now ignore it in peace. Everyone got what was coming to them.

 

Yeah, there is extremely strong support for basic members logging PMO caches around here. However, you risk losing some of that support with quotes like that, Deskdata. :) This is because there is also extremely strong support around here for them making money. Or more accurately I suppose, for them to have enough to keep the website running the way it is.

Link to comment

It would run better without the "enhancements" introduced for purely commercial gain.

I'd be more willing to pay Groundspeak $30 to get rid of Premium Membership and PMO caches.

My thoughts on this thread have now come full circle. I can now ignore it in peace. Everyone got what was coming to them.

 

Yeah, there is extremely strong support for basic members logging PMO caches around here. However, you risk losing some of that support with quotes like that, Deskdata. :) This is because there is also extremely strong support around here for them making money. Or more accurately I suppose, for them to have enough to keep the website running the way it is.

 

I am one who supports them making money and posts like that make me wish there was no free geocaching and memberships were more expensive.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment
Let's keep it simple and just enjoy it. It's only a game.

It is a game that runs very well thanks to this website. Pay them the $30 and just enjoy it. Don't list any PMO caches if they bother you. You can still refuse to find them.

 

It would run better without the "enhancements" introduced for purely commercial gain.

I'd be more willing to pay Groundspeak $30 to get rid of Premium Membership and PMO caches.

 

I know that this was a bad experience but please understand that not all of us premium members are like that guy, even some of us that have chosen to make some of our caches as premium. If you like, I'll go write your name in two of mine, send you the codes and you can log them and get your smilies back. Logging my caches has never been an issue. In fact, I have given coordinates to basic members when they ask me about them at events.

 

My only reason for restricting them is because they are hide in plain sight type caches in somewhat busy areas and I want to restrict them to GEOCACHERS. By that I mean people who have taken the time to decide that they want to play the game within the guidelines and respect the caches that they are finding. Groundspeak, unfortunately, now allows people to create instant accounts with the phone app, they never have to visit the web site or read any of online literature, they never have to validate an email address, and you have no way to contact them if they have an issue with your cache. The only thing they know about geocaching when they head out to find that first cache is the newspaper article that peaked their interest. I don't want that first cache to be one of my highly visible urban, or close to parking trail caches, and if that makes me elitist than I'll simply have to live with that label.

 

Additionally, there are apps that will give cache information on basic caches to people that have not even created an account. If Groundspeak were to give me the option to set caches for only people that have validated accounts, my PMO list of caches would drop drastically.

Link to comment

It would run better without the "enhancements" introduced for purely commercial gain.

I'd be more willing to pay Groundspeak $30 to get rid of Premium Membership and PMO caches.

My thoughts on this thread have now come full circle. I can now ignore it in peace. Everyone got what was coming to them.

 

Yeah, there is extremely strong support for basic members logging PMO caches around here. However, you risk losing some of that support with quotes like that, Deskdata. :) This is because there is also extremely strong support around here for them making money. Or more accurately I suppose, for them to have enough to keep the website running the way it is.

 

I am one who supports them making money and posts like that make me wish there was no free geocaching and memberships were more expensive.

 

I tend to agree with all of the above replies. I still support the backdoor, but no longer deskdata -- yer on yer own.

Link to comment

It would run better without the "enhancements" introduced for purely commercial gain.

I'd be more willing to pay Groundspeak $30 to get rid of Premium Membership and PMO caches.

 

I tend to agree with all of the above replies. I still support the backdoor, but no longer deskdata -- yer on yer own.

 

While I don't agree with deskdata, I think his position is perfectly cromulent. When Jeremy announced premium memberships he promised that it would always be free to hide or find caches. Many people felt that the introduction of PMO caches introduced a class of caches that were not free to hide or find, and that in doing this Jeremy reneged on his promise. While it can be argued that basic members can still hide and find caches, the existence of PMO caches is troubling for some.

 

PMO caches were added at a time there were few benefits for premium memberships. TPTB asked for suggestions for more PM features and the ability to hide PMO caches was one thing that was often suggested. Today with PQs, bookmark lists, caches along routes, premium maps, etc., there are plenty of other features for premium members and the troubling PMO cache may no longer be necessary.

Link to comment
It would run better without the "enhancements" introduced for purely commercial gain.

I'd be more willing to pay Groundspeak $30 to get rid of Premium Membership and PMO caches.

 

I interpret this differently than some. If I ran up against an angry CO, had my logs reinstated by Groundspeak, only to have them deleted again, I would probably have a similar reaction. It does not seem to be about the money but about the frustration. And I can understand that.

 

We are playing a game that is a hybrid of community and business. It grew out of a free activity, where the community itself set limits on some of the ways that Grounded, Inc. approached the game. But it also had to be a business to thrive. In one respect, the benefits offered by premium membership (including PMO caches) might be "purely commercial." They are there to encourage people to pay Groundspeak and make money. On the other hand, they enhance the game and provide value. Some people will pay to support the site. Some people will pay because the added value makes premium membership worthwhile. Some people, perhaps Deskdata, might choose not to pay if they are frustrated by the company or do not perceive that the added benefits are of significant value. I have a PM for my own reasons but would not judge anyone who takes one position or the other.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

It would run better without the "enhancements" introduced for purely commercial gain.

I'd be more willing to pay Groundspeak $30 to get rid of Premium Membership and PMO caches.

 

I tend to agree with all of the above replies. I still support the backdoor, but no longer deskdata -- yer on yer own.

 

While I don't agree with deskdata, I think his position is perfectly cromulent. When Jeremy announced premium memberships he promised that it would always be free to hide or find caches. Many people felt that the introduction of PMO caches introduced a class of caches that were not free to hide or find, and that in doing this Jeremy reneged on his promise. While it can be argued that basic members can still hide and find caches, the existence of PMO caches is troubling for some.

 

PMO caches were added at a time there were few benefits for premium memberships. TPTB asked for suggestions for more PM features and the ability to hide PMO caches was one thing that was often suggested. Today with PQs, bookmark lists, caches along routes, premium maps, etc., there are plenty of other features for premium members and the troubling PMO cache may no longer be necessary.

 

Cromulent? Maybe. Certainly not perfectly so.

 

At the end of the day, all the evidence I've seen is that the back door is still available to nearly all basic members, with limited exceptions (e.g., one angry Frenchman).

 

Is there any other enhancement available to premium members only that prevents any basic member from finding the same caches I can find?

 

I wouldn't know, since we signed up for premium membership a week after we started. But I've been trying to think of one for a while now, and I can't come up with one off the top of my head.

Link to comment

Is there any other enhancement available to premium members only that prevents any basic member from finding the same caches I can find?

 

I wouldn't know, since we signed up for premium membership a week after we started. But I've been trying to think of one for a while now, and I can't come up with one off the top of my head.

 

Puzzle caches and some multis are obviously going to be difficult as it's not possible to access the page to read the information necessary to find the clues - although I think that was what you meant anyway. I have, I think, seen a couple of PM only Virtuals as well - there must be a good reason for them I suppose, possibly related to environmental sensitivity, although it does seem a bit odd (and I may have imagined them tbf).

 

Beyond that it seems to be convenience related stuff as far as I can tell.

Link to comment
It would run better without the "enhancements" introduced for purely commercial gain.

I'd be more willing to pay Groundspeak $30 to get rid of Premium Membership and PMO caches.

 

I interpret this differently than some. If I ran up against an angry CO, had my logs reinstated by Groundspeak, only to have them deleted again, I would probably have a similar reaction. It does not seem to be about the money but about the frustration. And I can understand that.

 

 

Good point, I guess I didn't look at it that way. I can see some serious frustration over this on the part of deskdata. Then again, I can see some serious misinterpretation on his part regarding his supporters. Not a lot of anti-privately owned for profit American company having a world-wide monopoly on Geocaching support there either. Anyways, I'd better go look up cromulent, I didn't do it the first time it came up, so if it came up again, I figure I'd better do it now. :blink:

Link to comment

I made all my caches Premium some time ago and would never go back to "basic". If that option was taken away, I wouldn't hide anymore caches. Making them Premium didn't solve all my CO issues, but I can assure you, it reduced them drastically.

Link to comment
It would run better without the "enhancements" introduced for purely commercial gain.

I'd be more willing to pay Groundspeak $30 to get rid of Premium Membership and PMO caches.

 

I interpret this differently than some. If I ran up against an angry CO, had my logs reinstated by Groundspeak, only to have them deleted again, I would probably have a similar reaction. It does not seem to be about the money but about the frustration. And I can understand that.

 

 

Good point, I guess I didn't look at it that way. I can see some serious frustration over this on the part of deskdata. Then again, I can see some serious misinterpretation on his part regarding his supporters. Not a lot of anti-privately owned for profit American company having a world-wide monopoly on Geocaching support there either. Anyways, I'd better go look up cromulent, I didn't do it the first time it came up, so if it came up again, I figure I'd better do it now. :blink:

 

I can't speak directly for the OP, but I think a lot has to do with the way that the decision was conveyed to the the OP. No real explanation with a basic, "my word is final" attitude. If it were me and the explanation that Bryan posted here was in the original email to me, I'd just chock it up to a bad experience and move on. If you convey to me upfront that you need to work on the wording in the guidelines so that this never happens again, but unfortunately, in this particular situation my logs can not be reinstated, I'll probably pout a bit, but I wouldn't even consider not sending in my $30 next June.

 

Of course, none of us is privy to the entire situation, but from the outside looking in, it seems that the PR was handled very badly.

 

Oh, I looked up cromulent too. It's not a light airy French pastry after all.

Link to comment

In my opinion, if a non-premium member is out caching with a premium member, and they find the cache together, then it should be a legitimate find for tne non-premium member. There may be financial reasons why a cacher cannot be a premium member, but due to the caching community, will go caching with others who are premium members. In the event that they go caching with these premium members, their finds should be as legitimate as those logged of the premium cachers.

Link to comment

In my opinion, if a non-premium member is out caching with a premium member, and they find the cache together, then it should be a legitimate find for tne non-premium member. There may be financial reasons why a cacher cannot be a premium member, but due to the caching community, will go caching with others who are premium members. In the event that they go caching with these premium members, their finds should be as legitimate as those logged of the premium cachers.

 

I understand your point, but I don't care of they are with a premium member or not. The backdoors are there, they've always been there, and they've always been maintained and supported by Groundspeak. Heck, Groundspeak has even fixed the backdoor when it was busted by a site update. If any player finds any cache and gets their name in the log, they should be free and clear to log it online.

Link to comment

I am one who supports them making money and posts like that make me wish there was no free geocaching and memberships were more expensive.

 

I have just read this thread, and I have to agree. I think there should be a basic (financial) hurdle to join in,

if just to avoid hordes of folks signing up who either have mischief in mind or prevent too many sockpuppet accounts.

 

I do acknowledge Jeremy's intention to keep it free, but that could be achieved by providing additional value

of the value equal to the signup charge, like eg giving each paid-up member free credit at the online store(s)

to buy equipment, coins etc.

Link to comment

I have just read this thread, and I have to agree. I think there should be a basic (financial) hurdle to join in,

if just to avoid hordes of folks signing up who either have mischief in mind or prevent too many sockpuppet accounts.

 

That is one sure way to ensure the death of geocaching.com. The overwhelming majority of cachers are casual, and of the premium members it is probably a safe bet that a significant percentage of them did not find their first caches after becoming premium members. Not to mention cacheers who come and go due to life situations and may become casual for a extended period of time.

 

Premium does not equate to quality cacher. In our area, the most ignored cacher who also create lots of issues is premium and has multiple sockpuppet accounts, some also premium.

 

I do acknowledge Jeremy's intention to keep it free, but that could be achieved by providing additional value

of the value equal to the signup charge, like eg giving each paid-up member free credit at the online store(s)

to buy equipment, coins etc.

 

This adds no value to a member who is not interested in purchasing from the online store or can not afford membership.

 

This, quite frankly, was a volunteer or staff member who caved to a CO who did not want to play nice in the sandbox. It should have been handled along the lines of "thanks for pointing out the inconsistency in the wording on the site, we will fix it as soon as possible. In the meantime, the found it log will stand as it complies with stated guidelines as well as long standing practices and intentions of Groundspeak".

 

Problem solved, no drama with the exception of a control freak CO possibly dropping out. Net result would be a positive for Geocaching.

Link to comment

I have just read this thread, and I have to agree. I think there should be a basic (financial) hurdle to join in,

if just to avoid hordes of folks signing up who either have mischief in mind or prevent too many sockpuppet accounts.

 

That is one sure way to ensure the death of geocaching.com. The overwhelming majority of cachers are casual, and of the premium members it is probably a safe bet that a significant percentage of them did not find their first caches after becoming premium members. Not to mention cacheers who come and go due to life situations and may become casual for a extended period of time.

 

Premium does not equate to quality cacher. In our area, the most ignored cacher who also create lots of issues is premium and has multiple sockpuppet accounts, some also premium.

 

I do acknowledge Jeremy's intention to keep it free, but that could be achieved by providing additional value

of the value equal to the signup charge, like eg giving each paid-up member free credit at the online store(s)

to buy equipment, coins etc.

 

This adds no value to a member who is not interested in purchasing from the online store or can not afford membership.

 

This, quite frankly, was a volunteer or staff member who caved to a CO who did not want to play nice in the sandbox. It should have been handled along the lines of "thanks for pointing out the inconsistency in the wording on the site, we will fix it as soon as possible. In the meantime, the found it log will stand as it complies with stated guidelines as well as long standing practices and intentions of Groundspeak".

 

Problem solved, no drama with the exception of a control freak CO possibly dropping out. Net result would be a positive for Geocaching.

Question is...WHY would a Premium Member be so dead-set against Premium Member only caches?

Link to comment

how can I get rid of my premium ?

I dont want to be VIP or elite or snob..

just a regular geocacher like anyone else..

I own quite alot of caches, NONE are PMO, and none ever will be..

I like ANYONE to come and find my caches, no matter how much they are into geocaching,

just started, or been arround for 13 years, 10 years old or 100 years old, ALL are welcome in my area..

Edited by OZ2CPU
Link to comment

 

I know that this was a bad experience but please understand that not all of us premium members are like that guy, even some of us that have chosen to make some of our caches as premium. If you like, I'll go write your name in two of mine, send you the codes and you can log them and get your smilies back. Logging my caches has never been an issue. In fact, I have given coordinates to basic members when they ask me about them at events.

 

My only reason for restricting them is because they are hide in plain sight type caches in somewhat busy areas and I want to restrict them to GEOCACHERS. By that I mean people who have taken the time to decide that they want to play the game within the guidelines and respect the caches that they are finding. Groundspeak, unfortunately, now allows people to create instant accounts with the phone app, they never have to visit the web site or read any of online literature, they never have to validate an email address, and you have no way to contact them if they have an issue with your cache. The only thing they know about geocaching when they head out to find that first cache is the newspaper article that peaked their interest. I don't want that first cache to be one of my highly visible urban, or close to parking trail caches, and if that makes me elitist than I'll simply have to live with that label.

 

Additionally, there are apps that will give cache information on basic caches to people that have not even created an account. If Groundspeak were to give me the option to set caches for only people that have validated accounts, my PMO list of caches would drop drastically.

 

I totally agree with you. When we started caching we placed a few travel bugs in non-PM caches and not long after they came up missing. If I place a TB in a PM cache I want to believe that the TB will be discovered or grabbed by people that respect the intent of the TB.

Link to comment

how can I get rid of my premium ?

I dont want to be VIP or elite or snob..

just a regular geocacher like anyone else..

I own quite alot of caches, NONE are PMO, and none ever will be..

I like ANYONE to come and find my caches, no matter how much they are into geocaching,

just started, or been arround for 13 years, 10 years old or 100 years old, ALL are welcome in my area..

Let it lapse. What's with the drama queen act?

Link to comment

how can I get rid of my premium ?

I dont want to be VIP or elite or snob..

just a regular geocacher like anyone else..

I own quite alot of caches, NONE are PMO, and none ever will be..

I like ANYONE to come and find my caches, no matter how much they are into geocaching,

just started, or been arround for 13 years, 10 years old or 100 years old, ALL are welcome in my area..

 

If you stop paying for it I think I guarantee that Groundspeak will "get rid" of your premium for you.

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...