Double premium membership

[4wheelin_fool]

What business would alienate a large percentage of their customers, for a small profit from a few? If the puzzles were made optional, there would be quite a few geocides along with a sharp decline of new puzzles, which could be easily ignored in the first place. If you want drama, how about waiting until Russia invades Finland?

[+kunarion]

to save me time I'd be willing to spend money

Get an inexpensive mobile phone, and you can do the PAF thing.

[+wmpastor]

to save me time I'd be willing to spend money

Get an inexpensive mobile phone, and you can do the PAF thing.

Or you could save time by (1) only getting 1.5/1.5 or lower, (2) caching less, (3) blatantly asking others for puzzle answers, or (4) not geocaching. Problems solved - happy to help!

[+Roman!]

to save me time I'd be willing to spend money

Get an inexpensive mobile phone, and you can do the PAF thing.

Or you could save time by (1) only getting 1.5/1.5 or lower, (2) caching less, (3) blatantly asking others for puzzle answers, or (4) not geocaching. Problems solved - happy to help!

 

As I've said, I don't mind working for a cache, I just want to do the least amount of work possible. If there's a cache atop a mountain with a gondola I'll take the gondola, if there is no gondola then I'll hike it.

 

If GS offered to sell final coordinates I'd buy them, that's a feature I'd like to see.

[+wmpastor]

to save me time I'd be willing to spend money

Get an inexpensive mobile phone, and you can do the PAF thing.

Or you could save time by (1) only getting 1.5/1.5 or lower, (2) caching less, (3) blatantly asking others for puzzle answers, or (4) not geocaching. Problems solved - happy to help!

 

As I've said, I don't mind working for a cache, I just want to do the least amount of work possible. If there's a cache atop a mountain with a gondola I'll take the gondola, if there is no gondola then I'll hike it.

 

If GS offered to sell final coordinates I'd buy them, that's a feature I'd like to see.

Right, & that's why headquarters will continue to follow my advice and not sell shortcuts -- so that we can save you from yourself!

 

You know, life ain't iust one big comfy gondola ride!

Edited September 1, 2014 by wmpastor

[+niraD]

Right, & that's why headquarters will continue to follow my advice and not sell shortcuts -- so that we can save you from yourself!

Yeah, that and the whole prohibition of "solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates [...] without consent from the geocache owner" in the terms of use.

[+Roman!]

Right, & that's why headquarters will continue to follow my advice and not sell shortcuts -- so that we can save you from yourself!

Yeah, that and the whole prohibition of "solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates [...] without consent from the geocache owner" in the terms of use.

 

That's just so no one can compete with GS selling solutions which makes sense since GS does own the listings.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't mind working for a cache, I just want to do the least amount of work possible.

[+wmpastor]

Right, & that's why headquarters will continue to follow my advice and not sell shortcuts -- so that we can save you from yourself!

Yeah, that and the whole prohibition of "solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates [...] without consent from the geocache owner" in the terms of use.

 

That's just so no one can compete with GS selling solutions which makes sense since GS does own the listings.

The reason for the rule doesn't matter as much as that it's the rule. And even if it weren't, it would still come down to cheapening the game - ironically while making it more expensive.

 

Years from now you'll (maybe) see the wisdom of my point of view (and GS' & niraD's, etc.) and thank us from saving you from yourself!

 

Buying shortcuts! Hmmph!

Edited September 1, 2014 by wmpastor

[+niraD]

That's just so no one can compete with GS selling solutions which makes sense since GS does own the listings.

Well, according to the terms of use, Groundspeak's "services display content that does not belong to Groundspeak."

[+Roman!]

That's just so no one can compete with GS selling solutions which makes sense since GS does own the listings.

Well, according to the terms of use, Groundspeak's "services display content that does not belong to Groundspeak."

 

The Rights You Grant Us to Your Content. By submitting content to our services, you grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully transferable and sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content in any media now known or created in the future. You agree that we have no obligation to monitor or protect your rights in any content that you may submit to us,

 

They do have right to use the content how they like though.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Roman!

[+gpsblake]

If GS offered to sell final coordinates I'd buy them, that's a feature I'd like to see.

 

Counter argument... If people could just buy the final coordinates, what incentive other then geo-art would people have to design a puzzle/mystery cache?? Or a mystery cache that requires you to find words on other caches in a series to calculate the final coordinates.

 

I do think something like raising the pocket query limit to 5,000 or more caches would serve a purpose. Let's say you want to find a series of caches, and I'll use our states P&G series in the Upstate. Right now if I were to only want to find those, I have to download several pocket queries, combine them on GSAK or other software, then filter out the results. Or perhaps be reliant on someone elses favorite list. By being able to download a large gpx set, it would make it far easier to filter what I want to find. The alterative would be for Groundspeak to allow "keyword" searches for pocket queries, so if I want to find a series of caches called "chicken feathers", I wouldn't have to do all the extra steps to filter down to those caches, the pocket query would do this for me. And considering some areas (not mine) that 5,000 or even 10,000 doesn't cover an entire county, I could see that being a feature.

 

I guess what I am saying is I would be willing to pay somewhat extra for features that 3rd party software gives, without having to pay for the 3rd party software or put in the effort.

[+SwineFlew]

I can feel GS looking over our shoulders and reading this thread.

[cezanne]

As I've said, I don't mind working for a cache, I just want to do the least amount of work possible.

 

Would you like the situation where cache owners applied the same philosophy? Just put out those caches that cause them the least amount of work? I'm thankful about the extra effort still so many cache owners invest.

 

Do you climb mountains with caches which are not reachable by a gondola just for the sake of logging a cache? Don't you enjoy the hike too? If so, wouldn't be a pity if no such caches are hidden any further because they require more work than necessary?

Edited September 1, 2014 by cezanne

[+Roman!]

As I've said, I don't mind working for a cache, I just want to do the least amount of work possible.

 

Would you like the situation where cache owners applied the same philosophy? Just put out those caches that cause them the least amount of work? I'm thankful about the extra effort still so many cache owners invest.

 

Do you climb mountains with caches which are not reachable by a gondola just for the sake of logging a cache? Don't you enjoy the hike too? If so, wouldn't be a pity if no such caches are hidden any further because they require more work than necessary?

 

You misunderstand what I said. I want to do the least amount of work to find a cache, I don't mind if it's a lot of work or very little. If I have to hike to the top of a mountain I will and do, I just take the easiest route up. If I'm doing a P&G I'll park as close as I can to GZ.

 

If I do an earthcache or virtual I will email the CO the info because that is what's required to log the cache.

 

Solving a puzzle is extra work that is not necessarily needed to log a cache so if I could legitimately pay to not have to solve puzzles I would.

[cezanne]

You misunderstand what I said. I want to do the least amount of work to find a cache, I don't mind if it's a lot of work or very little. If I have to hike to the top of a mountain I will and do, I just take the easiest route up. If I'm doing a P&G I'll park as close as I can to GZ.

 

No, I have got what you said from the beginning. I just asked you two questions. One was if you "the work" just for logging a cache or whether you finally also enjoy "the work" (hike up the moutain). The other was whether you would enjoy if everyone just hid their caches with the minimum effort.

 

You told us several times that people who spend too much time in front of their PC to solve puzzles get fat while your caching style keeps you slim and healthy. So what if you ended up with exclusively park and grab caches as these are the ones that cause the least effort for the hider?

Edited September 1, 2014 by cezanne

[+Roman!]

You misunderstand what I said. I want to do the least amount of work to find a cache, I don't mind if it's a lot of work or very little. If I have to hike to the top of a mountain I will and do, I just take the easiest route up. If I'm doing a P&G I'll park as close as I can to GZ.

 

No, I have got what you said from the beginning. I just asked you two questions. One was if you "the work" just for logging a cache or whether you finally also enjoy "the work" (hike up the moutain). The other was whether you would enjoy if everyone just hid their caches with the minimum effort.

 

You told us several times that you people who spend too much time in front of their PC to solve puzzles get fat while your caching style keeps you slim and healthy. So what if you ended up with exclusively park and grab caches as these are the ones that cause the least effort for the hider?

 

My hides are generally a decent steep hike and my hides are different but I always take the easiest way to GZ hence doing the least possible amount of work to hide my cache.

 

I am not saying I want every cache to be easy, but I always look for the easiest way to get to a cache no matter how hard it may be.

 

Buying coordinates would make finding puzzles easier by eliminating a step (solving) that really is not necessary and for that I'd pay.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Roman!

[cezanne]

My hides are generally a decent steep hike and my hides are different but I always take the easiest way to GZ hence doing the least possible amount of work to hide my cache.

 

I am not saying I want every cache to be easy, but I always look for the easiest way to get to a cache no matter how hard it may be.

 

Buying coordinates would make finding puzzles easier by eliminating a step (solving) that really is not necessary and for that I'd pay.

 

Your definition of necessary seems however just be based on what makes a legitimate find on gc.com. If you log a multi cache final 20m from the parking lot while the cache involves a nice hike, you'll skip the essential and nice part of the cache.

 

You just look at the issue from your personal point of view as a finder. You do not seem to take into account the hiders' point of view. While you did not say that every cache needs to be easy for you, this might be a possible result of your wish to be supplied with the final coordinates. A much increased number of micros in parking lots will be the ultimate consequence. Would you like this to happen?

 

 

Cezanne

[+niraD]

Another likely outcome would be for puzzle cache owners to provide "soft" coordinates for their final waypoints. Use Roman!'s double premium membership to get the coordinates, and you'll have a 200ft search radius. Solve the puzzle, and you'll have a 20ft search radius.

Even handing out soft coordinates would probably give the game away. If the clue gives an idea of what the target object is then the chances are it's not going to take all that long to find something that matches, even with soft coordinates.

Somehow, I think the creative types who create puzzle caches would figure out how to use additional waypoints in ways that subvert the purchase of solutions via Roman!'s double premium memberships.

 

Of course, I think there's no chance that this "serious" suggestion will be implemented. But the discussion can still be interesting.

[+Ben0w]

You just look at the issue from your personal point of view as a finder. You do not seem to take into account the hiders' point of view. While you did not say that every cache needs to be easy for you, this might be a possible result of your wish to be supplied with the final coordinates. A much increased number of micros in parking lots will be the ultimate consequence. Would you like this to happen?

There are a lot of traditional caches out there in interesting locations.

 

I don't like the argument, that only multi and puzzle caches lead you to interesting places. Especially puzzle owners often put more effort in the puzzle than in the hide itself.

 

The option of getting final coordinates may reduce multi and puzzle caches, but as well it could enhance the placing of good traditional caches.

 

I generally like puzzles, but there are a lot lame ones (puzzles and final hides), wasting time better spent on hunting traditional caches at interesting locations.

[cezanne]

You just look at the issue from your personal point of view as a finder. You do not seem to take into account the hiders' point of view. While you did not say that every cache needs to be easy for you, this might be a possible result of your wish to be supplied with the final coordinates. A much increased number of micros in parking lots will be the ultimate consequence. Would you like this to happen?

There are a lot of traditional caches out there in interesting locations.

 

Of course, but many of those are not based on the idea is to miminize the effort.

 

I don't like the argument, that only multi and puzzle caches lead you to interesting places. Especially puzzle owners often put more effort in the puzzle than in the hide itself.

 

I did not come up with this sort of argument. A traditional at a nice location with a container that took days to construct is however also wasted time along the lines of Roman's way to argue as one could provide a hide also with much less work. The minimum required effort for physical caches to log a find is to sign the log book. The minimum required effort to hide a cache is to put out an arbitrary container with a log sheet at an arbitrary location. Got the message?

 

The option of getting final coordinates may reduce multi and puzzle caches, but as well it could enhance the placing of good traditional caches.

 

I do not think so. Moreover, traditionals have the big disadvantage that most cachers do not read the description.

This is not such a big issue in remote locations, but is a big one in areas where people live.

 

I generally like puzzles, but there are a lot lame ones (puzzles and final hides), wasting time better spent on hunting traditional caches at interesting locations.

 

I cannot even say that I enjoy solving puzzles in connection with geocaching. Some puzzles are nice, but my main focus is on the outdoor part. Visiting the final of long hiking multi caches without having walked along the route is utterly meaningless however. You do not need to agree, but I do not think that placing 20 traditionals along a 20km route is even close to replace one single multi cache along the same route. This is not a question of nice locations and the chosen hideouts - it's that people like Roman calculate the effort per log and then of course it is cheaper to visit just the final instead of walking 20 km or to score 20 finds if the walk is required.

 

There are lame caches in each category of caches. However I regard it as lame just to visit finals.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 1, 2014 by cezanne

[+niraD]

The option of getting final coordinates may reduce multi and puzzle caches, but as well it could enhance the placing of good traditional caches.

How do you figure that it "could enhance the placing of good traditional caches"?

 

I don't see anything about Roman!'s proposal that would promote better traditional caches. If anything, it promotes the "just give me a smiley" mentality, which promotes numbers-oriented traditional caches rather than quality-oriented traditional caches.

[team tisri]

But if you look at it as "10 sets of search criteria per day", then some people might still need more. For example, if I have 20 different bookmark lists for caches I'm interested in, then I need 2 days worth of PQs to get them all, because each bookmark list requires its own PQ. Even if all the lists together contain fewer than 1000 caches, there is no way to run a single PQ that will get all the caches on 20 separate bookmark lists.

True, although if you've got that many bookmarks so close to home it's probably easier to just download based on a radius rather than the bookmarks?

A lot depends on how selective you're being. If you're restricting yourself to caches in a certain park district, and they provide bookmark lists of the caches in each park (one bookmark list per park), then you could end up with one PQ per park in the district.

 

Or you could be doing something complicated with attributes. For example, you might want all caches that have any 2 of the attributes from a set of 6 different attributes. Each combination of 2 attributes would require a different PQ, so you'd need 30 PQs.

 

Or you could be doing something complicated with difficulty/terrain ratings. For example, if you want caches with a difficulty+terrain sum of 5 or more, then that requires 7 PQs (>4/1, >3.5/1.5, >3/2, >2.5/2.5, >2/3, >1.5/3.5, and >1/4).

 

It really depends how selective you're being, and how complicated your criteria are, because the only way to create a union of caches that meet any of several different criteria is to create multiple PQs.

 

Personally, I found 5 PQs per day to be more than enough. And 10 per day is downright extravagant. But I know there were people who bought extra premium memberships for PQs back when PQs were limited to 5 per day. There may still be people who buy extra premium memberships for PQs.

 

All that would still be addressed with the next paragraph in my post, namely:

 

I've thought for a while it would make sense to have as many PQs as you want running and have a limit of how many caches you can download per day. So if you want to say "show me the 10,000 caches closest to home that I haven't found" you'd get one honking great query. If you wanted to run 200 queries of 50 caches each you could do that too.

 

This would let you run as many bookmark PQs as you wanted, as many weird and wonderful D/T selections as you wanted, and you'd be limited only by how many caches in total you could download.

[+niraD]

This would let you run as many bookmark PQs as you wanted, as many weird and wonderful D/T selections as you wanted, and you'd be limited only by how many caches in total you could download.

That assumes that download size (either storage space or bandwidth) is the primary concern. My guess is that there is a fixed cost in computing each PQ, no matter how many or how few caches it returns. In that case, limiting both the number and the size of the PQs makes sense.

[team tisri]

This would let you run as many bookmark PQs as you wanted, as many weird and wonderful D/T selections as you wanted, and you'd be limited only by how many caches in total you could download.

That assumes that download size (either storage space or bandwidth) is the primary concern. My guess is that there is a fixed cost in computing each PQ, no matter how many or how few caches it returns. In that case, limiting both the number and the size of the PQs makes sense.

 

There would be a processing cost in generating a PQ but I would have thought (I can't say for sure, not knowing the design of Groundspeak systems) that "give me all the caches on this list" would carry a much lower cost than "show me 1000 caches nearest this designated point".

 

If the processing cost were on a per-query rather than a per-cache basis I'd expect an option to add more caches to a query. If that were the case it would be computationally much cheaper to say "show me 2000 caches nearest home" than "show me 1000 caches nearest home placed on or before January 2010" followed by "show me 1000 caches nearest home placed on or after February 2010", especially when the date-based queries would be used to cover a wider area with minimal overlap.

 

In my own GPX processing software I maintain specific points of interest and store the distance from each cache to each point. That works when it's dealing with a few thousand caches and maybe 10 reference points. With that information stored a query like "show me the 500 caches nearest to 'Home'" is easy because I can use a simple ORDER BY DISTANCE clause. Doing the same thing with a couple of million geocaches and an unknown number of user reference points seems like it would be a much more expensive process.

 

On that basis it would make a lot of sense to make the selection process more useful (to use your example it might be nice to be able to use Difficulty+Terrain as an option), and maybe allow a PQ that produces everything on multiple bookmark lists.

[+wmpastor]

As I've said, I don't mind working for a cache, I just want to do the least amount of work possible.

 

Would you like the situation where cache owners applied the same philosophy? Just put out those caches that cause them the least amount of work? I'm thankful about the extra effort still so many cache owners invest.

 

Do you climb mountains with caches which are not reachable by a gondola just for the sake of logging a cache? Don't you enjoy the hike too? If so, wouldn't be a pity if no such caches are hidden any further because they require more work than necessary?

 

You misunderstand what I said. I want to do the least amount of work to find a cache, I don't mind if it's a lot of work or very little. If I have to hike to the top of a mountain I will and do, I just take the easiest route up. If I'm doing a P&G I'll park as close as I can to GZ.

 

If I do an earthcache or virtual I will email the CO the info because that is what's required to log the cache.

 

Solving a puzzle is extra work that is not necessarily needed to log a cache so if I could legitimately pay to not have to solve puzzles I would.

 

R!, your focus here is getting coords to puzzle caches. Why pay GS? Team up with a puzzle aficionado. Or PAF your new puzzle-loving neighbor for coords. And what's the big deal about finding puzzle caches? The number is low & many of the finals are so-so. Forget puzzles. Or is debating the point too much fun?!

[team tisri]

to save me time I'd be willing to spend money

Get an inexpensive mobile phone, and you can do the PAF thing.

Or you could save time by (1) only getting 1.5/1.5 or lower, (2) caching less, (3) blatantly asking others for puzzle answers, or (4) not geocaching. Problems solved - happy to help!

 

As I've said, I don't mind working for a cache, I just want to do the least amount of work possible. If there's a cache atop a mountain with a gondola I'll take the gondola, if there is no gondola then I'll hike it.

 

If GS offered to sell final coordinates I'd buy them, that's a feature I'd like to see.

 

Hey, if we can do that sort of thing would it also work to have a double premium membership that gave me an automatic entitlement to round up film pots from behind posts and throw them all in the trash?

[+Pinkpiggy7]

How about a quadruple double premium, where GS run a program which everyday, automatically logs 172 caches on your behalf with random log entires. the caches will be programatically spread accross all of the different cache types, ensure you have at least 7 FTF's per day, and ensure you achieve the requirements for every challenge cache available within a 10 day timeframe.

[+wmpastor]

How about a quadruple double premium, where GS run a program which everyday, automatically logs 172 caches on your behalf with random log entires. the caches will be programatically spread accross all of the different cache types, ensure you have at least 7 FTF's per day, and ensure you achieve the requirements for every challenge cache available within a 10 day timeframe.

Sign up Roman! His main goal is to save unnecssary work, which includes actually seeking caches.

[+Roman!]

How about a quadruple double premium, where GS run a program which everyday, automatically logs 172 caches on your behalf with random log entires. the caches will be programatically spread accross all of the different cache types, ensure you have at least 7 FTF's per day, and ensure you achieve the requirements for every challenge cache available within a 10 day timeframe.

Sign up Roman! His main goal is to save unnecssary work, which includes actually seeking caches.

 

Absolutely not true, there is no rule you have to solve a puzzle, there is a rule you have to sign the cache, my suggestion breaks no rules, yours does.

[+rjb43nh]

“The point of paying is to make finding caches easier so what double premium membership would get you is final coordinates for all puzzle and multi cache. This would be a simple way for those that do not enjoy solving puzzles or visiting multiple waypoints to find one cache and option to find caches that were not feasible for them while those that enjoy puzzles and multis would not be affected and would not need to pay more.”

 

If you’re not trying to emulate a creature that lives under bridges and just trying to cheapen the game for the benefits for some lowest common denominator cache seeker, then your double premium membership is neglecting to add any benefits for the cache hiders. To make it fair, an added benefit for double premium member cache hiders should be that other members can’t see the final coordinates of their cache hides without actually doing all of the cache, just like normal cachers have to do.

 

Your premise that the goal of geocaching is just the smilie would appeal to many who already have logged the APE cache and ISS cache from the comfort of their own homes, but there are those who feel the quest is an important part of caching, not just the goal of a smilie. Where I have about 1700 puzzle finds, having those solutions handed to me would certainly have made my caching life easier but it would have lost some of the important ‘stuff’ that I and so many others enjoy. It would be like being born and then dying without any of the ‘stuff’ in between.

[+ADKer]

How about a quadruple double premium, where GS run a program which everyday, automatically logs 172 caches on your behalf with random log entires. the caches will be programatically spread accross all of the different cache types, ensure you have at least 7 FTF's per day, and ensure you achieve the requirements for every challenge cache available within a 10 day timeframe.

Sign up Roman! His main goal is to save unnecssary work, which includes actually seeking caches.

 

Absolutely not true, there is no rule you have to solve a puzzle, there is a rule you have to sign the cache, my suggestion breaks no rules, yours does.

 

According to the Terms of Use, no one is allowed to:

Publish on our websites the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the geocache owner.

 

So yes, it is breaking a rule.

 

And I doubt many puzzle owners would give consent.

Edited September 1, 2014 by ADKer

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I bought the Elite Membership with PAF Contact List, Puzzle Solutions and a Sharpie included. Worth every penny!

 

Edited September 1, 2014 by TheAlabamaRambler

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm starting to think double premium is a good idea. However instead of giving away puzzle solutions, puzzle owners could pay for the system to identify geocachers who do not like puzzles, and make the puzzles invisible to them. This could be done with a combination of log analysis and frequency of puzzle finds. This would also help people who are unable to ignore them. It's a win-win situation.

[team tisri]

How about a quadruple double premium, where GS run a program which everyday, automatically logs 172 caches on your behalf with random log entires. the caches will be programatically spread accross all of the different cache types, ensure you have at least 7 FTF's per day, and ensure you achieve the requirements for every challenge cache available within a 10 day timeframe.

Sign up Roman! His main goal is to save unnecssary work, which includes actually seeking caches.

 

Absolutely not true, there is no rule you have to solve a puzzle, there is a rule you have to sign the cache, my suggestion breaks no rules, yours does.

 

A CO is allowed to accept a find without a signed log book. No reason why a new super-membership shouldn't make it impossible to delete your logs. If the prohibition of ALRs can be waived if you call your cache a "challenge" there's no reason why the requirement to sign the log can't be waived if you pay Groundspeak a bit more each year.

[+GeoBain]

I propose that Groundspeak do away with premium memberships altogether and offer found logs for $1 a pop. Not only would that eliminate the time it takes to solve puzzles, but it would remove all the impediments to increasing one's find count.

 

A nice side benefit is that more people could then give Alamogul a run for their money, literally.

[+Chrysalides]

I propose that Groundspeak do away with premium memberships altogether and offer found logs for $1 a pop. Not only would that eliminate the time it takes to solve puzzles, but it would remove all the impediments to increasing one's find count.

 

A nice side benefit is that more people could then give Alamogul a run for their money, literally.

I suggested something like that (without the $1 fee) early on in the thread, but Roman! seems to think that it would require a change in his citizenship status.

[+niraD]

R!, your focus here is getting coords to puzzle caches. Why pay GS? Team up with a puzzle aficionado.

Maybe he's already done so, but buying his puzzle-loving geobuddy a beverage at every event is getting expensive. Maybe Roman! is trying to reduce his bar tab by paying Groundspeak to violate their own TOU.

[team tisri]

I propose that Groundspeak do away with premium memberships altogether and offer found logs for $1 a pop. Not only would that eliminate the time it takes to solve puzzles, but it would remove all the impediments to increasing one's find count.

 

A nice side benefit is that more people could then give Alamogul a run for their money, literally.

 

You'd need a pricing structure... maybe $1 for one log, $10 for 20 logs, $100 for 500 logs and so on. Maybe add a 20% premium to choose which caches you get to log and when they get logged, then you could also have specific pricing structures for rapid completion of the D/T grid, the calendar and so on.

[+nosynellies]

5 bucks and I'll send you the final for my multi. Just saying.

[team tisri]

As I've said, I don't mind working for a cache, I just want to do the least amount of work possible.

 

Would you like the situation where cache owners applied the same philosophy? Just put out those caches that cause them the least amount of work? I'm thankful about the extra effort still so many cache owners invest.

 

Do you climb mountains with caches which are not reachable by a gondola just for the sake of logging a cache? Don't you enjoy the hike too? If so, wouldn't be a pity if no such caches are hidden any further because they require more work than necessary?

 

You misunderstand what I said. I want to do the least amount of work to find a cache, I don't mind if it's a lot of work or very little. If I have to hike to the top of a mountain I will and do, I just take the easiest route up. If I'm doing a P&G I'll park as close as I can to GZ.

 

If I do an earthcache or virtual I will email the CO the info because that is what's required to log the cache.

 

Solving a puzzle is extra work that is not necessarily needed to log a cache so if I could legitimately pay to not have to solve puzzles I would.

 

So why not club together with people, solve one puzzle each, then share your answers? Or talk to people who have found the caches that interest you and offer them money for the solution?

[+wmpastor]

As I've said, I don't mind working for a cache, I just want to do the least amount of work possible.

 

Would you like the situation where cache owners applied the same philosophy? Just put out those caches that cause them the least amount of work? I'm thankful about the extra effort still so many cache owners invest.

 

Do you climb mountains with caches which are not reachable by a gondola just for the sake of logging a cache? Don't you enjoy the hike too? If so, wouldn't be a pity if no such caches are hidden any further because they require more work than necessary?

 

You misunderstand what I said. I want to do the least amount of work to find a cache, I don't mind if it's a lot of work or very little. If I have to hike to the top of a mountain I will and do, I just take the easiest route up. If I'm doing a P&G I'll park as close as I can to GZ.

 

If I do an earthcache or virtual I will email the CO the info because that is what's required to log the cache.

 

Solving a puzzle is extra work that is not necessarily needed to log a cache so if I could legitimately pay to not have to solve puzzles I would.

 

So why not club together with people, solve one puzzle each, then share your answers? Or talk to people who have found the caches that interest you and offer them money for the solution?

 

Helpful hints by everyone, but i think Roman! knows all this. He likes to discuss. Actually, he doesn't. That's too much work. He likes *us* to discuss.

[+The Jester]

As I've said, I don't mind working for a cache, I just want to do the least amount of work possible.

 

Would you like the situation where cache owners applied the same philosophy? Just put out those caches that cause them the least amount of work? I'm thankful about the extra effort still so many cache owners invest.

 

Do you climb mountains with caches which are not reachable by a gondola just for the sake of logging a cache? Don't you enjoy the hike too? If so, wouldn't be a pity if no such caches are hidden any further because they require more work than necessary?

 

You misunderstand what I said. I want to do the least amount of work to find a cache, I don't mind if it's a lot of work or very little. If I have to hike to the top of a mountain I will and do, I just take the easiest route up. If I'm doing a P&G I'll park as close as I can to GZ.

 

If I do an earthcache or virtual I will email the CO the info because that is what's required to log the cache.

 

Solving a puzzle is extra work that is not necessarily needed to log a cache so if I could legitimately pay to not have to solve puzzles I would.

 

So why not club together with people, solve one puzzle each, then share your answers? Or talk to people who have found the caches that interest you and offer them money for the solution?

Why involve others, offer the CO of the puzzle/multi the money. No need for any middlemen (previous finders or GS) just go for the source.

 

Probably a per digit fee - some puzzles make you solve for all 15 digits, some for 10 and some for just the last 6. There'd probably need to be a bulk rate for CO's with many puzzles/multi's. Hmmm, maybe a multi layer fee schedule, depending on the D/T of the cache... Digits for a 1* are cheaper than for 4* puzzles.

[+Roman!]

So here's an option, puzzle caches have paypal buttons on the page and the cO can decide how much to charge for the solution, the cO gets 75% and GS gets 25% of each sale.

 

Only problem, I'm sure there would be a huge influx of puzzle caches.....hmmm, never mind, it's a terrible idea.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I like solving puzzles. I also need money. I'm sure we can work something out.

[+wmpastor]

I like solving puzzles. I also need money. I'm sure we can work something out.

There ya go. A puzzle consultant. If I ever have greater time for and interest in puzzle caches, I know who to call.

[+kunarion]

So here's an option, puzzle caches have paypal buttons on the page and the cO can decide how much to charge for the solution, the cO gets 75% and GS gets 25% of each sale.

 

Only problem, I'm sure there would be a huge influx of puzzle caches.....hmmm, never mind, it's a terrible idea.

And if I find a cache and it turns out to be just a Hot Pocket (duct taped baggie) in a guard rail, the CO clicks paypal, and I get 75% and GS gets 25%.

[+stijnhommes]

I don't get it. Why do so many people feel entitled to log puzzle caches and multi's when they're not putting in the effort of actually going through the motions?

What is next? A triple platinum membership that allows you to log caches without visiting the physical location?

 

Either do them or don't, but don't expect cheating to be an accepted practice.

[+Roman!]

I don't get it. Why do so many people feel entitled to log puzzle caches and multi's when they're not putting in the effort of actually going through the motions?

What is next? A triple platinum membership that allows you to log caches without visiting the physical location?

 

Either do them or don't, but don't expect cheating to be an accepted practice.

 

The rules state you have to sign the log hence your triple platinum membership makes no sense. There is no rule you have to solve a puzzle to log it hence you are not cheating.

[+Gill & Tony]

Wait... this was a serious thread?

Yes, a serious whine about puzzle and multi caches being too much effort for him.

I knew we could count on "The Jester" for serious insights!

I'm Jest what you needed.

 

It's not about the effort, I have many mountain top finds I have spent the better part of a day hiking to.

 

It's about wasted effort, no where does it say I have to solve a puzzle or do all the stages of a multi to get a legitimate find hence to save me time I'd be willing to spend money, a lot of businesses are built on this model.

 

I would hate to waste better part of a day hiking up some stupid mountain to find a cache. I'd rather spend the time solving a few puzzles.

 

Would it be valid for me to get the right to log, say, 50 terrain 4+ caches each year from my armchair by paying some money? Of course not! That would be completely against the spirit of high-terrain caches.