Groundspeak's non-premium approach is dead wrong to get new people interested.

[+noncentric]

The suggestion I really like is unlocking as you go... "Find ten more caches to unlock Multi-Caches! Find 25 more caches to unlock Mystery Caches!" That is a fantastic idea.

I am concerned that this kind of thing would just incite false logs.

+1

 

Hmmmm...while I don't like the idea of having to pay for premium membership to see most caches, I understand GS needing to stay solvent. Dunno why the $10 had to go...I guess new players would do one but not the other. But like...PMO caches are now pretty much the same as having a Mystery Cache or a D/T over 1.5? Huh.

New cachers that use the website will, hopefully, learn more about the hobby by exploring the various pages on the site. If they invest in a GPSr, then they can load individual caches, including Advanced caches, and go searching. If they go on the website and decide they don't want to buy a GPSr, but use their phone instead, then the added convenience of using the official app would mean paying something for that convenience.

 

The way I see it - Groundspeak is not prohibiting Basic Members from accessing all non-PMO caches. They are just limiting their app to BM's that are willing to pay for the additional convenience of using their app, instead of buying a GPSr or printing things from the website. I think there is still a significant difference between "Advanced" non-PMO caches and PMO caches. I've seen it mentioned several times in the forums that other apps do not restrict Basic Members from viewing "Advanced" caches.

 

App developers get high salaries, especially in the Seattle market. Creating and supporting apps requires staffing App developers that are 'extra' beyond the Web developer staff. It seems like Premium Members are subsidizing the use of apps by Basic Members, since Premium Members contribute revenue (via $30/year fees) to support the App team, while Basic Members do not contribute the same.

 

I think that the numbers just didn't work. Consider this:

-- Basic Members would pay a one-time fee of $10 to use a full-featured app. If a cacher used that app for 2 years, then that's $5/year revenue. The longer they use the app, the lower the annual revenue of that one-time $10 payment.

-- On the other hand, if Basic Members have to pay $30 per year for Premium Membership and use of a full-featured app, then that's a considerably larger annual revenue per user.

 

That being said: I do think it would be better if the Advanced banner was worded differently.

For instance, if the last sentence said "Upgrade to Premium Membership to see them on the app."

Because the way it's written now, it makes it sound like Basic Members can't find the Advanced caches at all without paying for PM.

 

[cezanne]

I would mention that if a "mentor" is helping new cachers, then that mentor should prepare the beginner appropriately and not direct them to the official app - but that has already been mentioned by others in earlier posts.

 

The issue might be that some "mentors" will use the Groundspeak app because they do not know any other app and being PM they are not aware of the restrictions of the new app for non PMs. Then disappointment can certainly arise.

[+ChileHead]

The suggestion I really like is unlocking as you go... "Find ten more caches to unlock Multi-Caches! Find 25 more caches to unlock Mystery Caches!" That is a fantastic idea.

I am concerned that this kind of thing would just incite false logs.

+1

 

Since they are generally using the app in the field near the cache, I'd only count those caches that are logged within some specified distance of the cache. This wouldn't eliminate false logs, but it would at least require the cacher to be near the cache they claimed to have found - so just assume a log in the field near the cache is good.

 

 

The way I see it - Groundspeak is not prohibiting Basic Members from accessing all non-PMO caches. They are just limiting their app to BM's that are willing to pay for the additional convenience of using their app, instead of buying a GPSr or printing things from the website. I think there is still a significant difference between "Advanced" non-PMO caches and PMO caches. I've seen it mentioned several times in the forums that other apps do not restrict Basic Members from viewing "Advanced" caches.

 

They can still see all the non PMO caches on the website, with coordinates. So all they have to do is enter the coords into the app (or another GPS app) and they can cache like us old timers used to in the pre smart phone days.

[+ChileHead]

Another option is to open up all non PMO caches, but they can see details of only 1 or 2 or 3 per day. This is a common strategery for online newspapers. I can read 2 or 3 articles per day, before having to login with my paid subscription.

[ohgood]

Boy scouts can be lovely kids but they don't tend to maintain their caches. I've NM'd and NA'd about 5 boyscout caches over the years. Half of them were those cool hollowed out log caches. When I found them they were a mess and the boyscouts and their leader weren't responding.

Found a girl scout cache last year that was too close to another cache. The girlscouts didn't go back to retrieve that cache. When I found it on my way back to the car, it was in pretty bad shape already - not watertight, looked like it had been out for at least a couple of months.

 

Sadly, my experience with caches placed by Guides and Scouts is similar. There's just too much turn-over from one year to the next and no accountability. I wish these organizations would focus on finding, rather than placing.

 

i'm saddened too. when i went on a fun dirt bike ride, and mentioned scouts, the camp owner immediately hated the idea. he also had a very poor experience with scouting, and would not allow it to happen again. telling someone "our kids and parents actually give a rip, and actually love the woods instead of trashing them" is ignored. understandably so. explaining to kids that they can't go to x location for a campout because the last two groups were spoiled brats that left trash everywhere devalues their impression of the organization too... i understand, but am trying to change it here and there.

 

I don't see the relevance of this comment. Nobody is trashing these organizations.

 

Geocaching is a good activity for Scouts and Guides. They should focus on finding, not hiding, because there are new kids and new leaders each year so the caches they put out aren't maintained.

 

Read it again I'd you don't see the conversations subject. No one is bagging on scouts, is more to do with realizing just how poorly parents have been set guiding done if them over the last decade, and that many outdoors venues note prefer to not deal with the headache of hosting. Arriving and hearing those things are eye openers, that offering to build a bench will not fix.

 

Sorry, maybe it's the language barrier? I don't see what this has to do with geocaches placed by Guides and Scouts.

 

When there are negative experiences, land owners will not allow scouts, or similarly organised groups, to use their land. I've heard this exact scenario four times now, at very nice camp sites with large areas of interesting land that could have hikes through it. At each area that has not experienced scouting, there was much less resistance to the idea of a caching event/hide.

[+narcissa]

Boy scouts can be lovely kids but they don't tend to maintain their caches. I've NM'd and NA'd about 5 boyscout caches over the years. Half of them were those cool hollowed out log caches. When I found them they were a mess and the boyscouts and their leader weren't responding.

Found a girl scout cache last year that was too close to another cache. The girlscouts didn't go back to retrieve that cache. When I found it on my way back to the car, it was in pretty bad shape already - not watertight, looked like it had been out for at least a couple of months.

 

Sadly, my experience with caches placed by Guides and Scouts is similar. There's just too much turn-over from one year to the next and no accountability. I wish these organizations would focus on finding, rather than placing.

 

i'm saddened too. when i went on a fun dirt bike ride, and mentioned scouts, the camp owner immediately hated the idea. he also had a very poor experience with scouting, and would not allow it to happen again. telling someone "our kids and parents actually give a rip, and actually love the woods instead of trashing them" is ignored. understandably so. explaining to kids that they can't go to x location for a campout because the last two groups were spoiled brats that left trash everywhere devalues their impression of the organization too... i understand, but am trying to change it here and there.

 

I don't see the relevance of this comment. Nobody is trashing these organizations.

 

Geocaching is a good activity for Scouts and Guides. They should focus on finding, not hiding, because there are new kids and new leaders each year so the caches they put out aren't maintained.

 

Read it again I'd you don't see the conversations subject. No one is bagging on scouts, is more to do with realizing just how poorly parents have been set guiding done if them over the last decade, and that many outdoors venues note prefer to not deal with the headache of hosting. Arriving and hearing those things are eye openers, that offering to build a bench will not fix.

 

Sorry, maybe it's the language barrier? I don't see what this has to do with geocaches placed by Guides and Scouts.

 

When there are negative experiences, land owners will not allow scouts, or similarly organised groups, to use their land. I've heard this exact scenario four times now, at very nice camp sites with large areas of interesting land that could have hikes through it. At each area that has not experienced scouting, there was much less resistance to the idea of a caching event/hide.

 

Okay, again, I don't really see how this is relevant to the issue of unmaintained geocaches. Whether or not a land manager allows a cache placement has nothing to do with the long-term maintenance of that cache.

[+niraD]

Since they are generally using the app in the field near the cache, I'd only count those caches that are logged within some specified distance of the cache. This wouldn't eliminate false logs, but it would at least require the cacher to be near the cache they claimed to have found - so just assume a log in the field near the cache is good.

On the other hand, some of us have suggested that Groundspeak add field note support to the app, so users don't NEED to be near the cache when they log it, so users can post meaningful logs from a real computer with a real keyboard.

[cezanne]

Okay, again, I don't really see how this is relevant to the issue of unmaintained geocaches. Whether or not a land manager allows a cache placement has nothing to do with the long-term maintenance of that cache.

 

Could it be that you and ohgood talk about completely different things? Could it be that ohgood meant to say that he encountered cases where a property owner did not want to allow scouts to camp due to bad experiences with other scout groups, not necessarily only geocaching specific experiences? If that were the case, then it would be unfortunate for scout groups which behave properly and would be another example that scout groups who do not behave properly (when it regards cache hiding and cache maintenance but also in aspect not related to geocaching, so for example not leaving trash at the camp site) cause problems for other scout groups and the reputation of scouts?

[+narcissa]

Okay, again, I don't really see how this is relevant to the issue of unmaintained geocaches. Whether or not a land manager allows a cache placement has nothing to do with the long-term maintenance of that cache.

 

Could it be that you and ohgood talk about completely different things? Could it be that ohgood meant to say that he encountered cases where a property owner did not want to allow scouts to camp due to bad experiences with other scout groups, not necessarily only geocaching specific experiences? If that were the case, then it would be unfortunate for scout groups which behave properly and would be another example that scout groups who do not behave properly (when it regards cache hiding and cache maintenance but also in aspect not related to geocaching, so for example not leaving trash at the camp site) cause problems for other scout groups and the reputation of scouts?

 

Yes, it seems likely that we're talking about entirely different issues so it's probably best to just drop it.

[ohgood]

Okay, again, I don't really see how this is relevant to the issue of unmaintained geocaches. Whether or not a land manager allows a cache placement has nothing to do with the long-term maintenance of that cache.

 

Could it be that you and ohgood talk about completely different things? Could it be that ohgood meant to say that he encountered cases where a property owner did not want to allow scouts to camp due to bad experiences with other scout groups, not necessarily only geocaching specific experiences? If that were the case, then it would be unfortunate for scout groups which behave properly and would be another example that scout groups who do not behave properly (when it regards cache hiding and cache maintenance but also in aspect not related to geocaching, so for example not leaving trash at the camp site) cause problems for other scout groups and the reputation of scouts?

 

Yes, it seems likely that we're talking about entirely different issues so it's probably best to just drop it.

 

The conversation drifted into scouts/stuff a while back. Maybe you missed that part in the multi quote?

[+narcissa]

Okay, again, I don't really see how this is relevant to the issue of unmaintained geocaches. Whether or not a land manager allows a cache placement has nothing to do with the long-term maintenance of that cache.

 

Could it be that you and ohgood talk about completely different things? Could it be that ohgood meant to say that he encountered cases where a property owner did not want to allow scouts to camp due to bad experiences with other scout groups, not necessarily only geocaching specific experiences? If that were the case, then it would be unfortunate for scout groups which behave properly and would be another example that scout groups who do not behave properly (when it regards cache hiding and cache maintenance but also in aspect not related to geocaching, so for example not leaving trash at the camp site) cause problems for other scout groups and the reputation of scouts?

 

Yes, it seems likely that we're talking about entirely different issues so it's probably best to just drop it.

 

The conversation drifted into scouts/stuff a while back. Maybe you missed that part in the multi quote?

 

I think some wires were crossed where you were replying to someone else's comment but quoted mine. It happens, especially with language barriers and multiple conversations. Time to move on.

[ohgood]

Okay, again, I don't really see how this is relevant to the issue of unmaintained geocaches. Whether or not a land manager allows a cache placement has nothing to do with the long-term maintenance of that cache.

 

Could it be that you and ohgood talk about completely different things? Could it be that ohgood meant to say that he encountered cases where a property owner did not want to allow scouts to camp due to bad experiences with other scout groups, not necessarily only geocaching specific experiences? If that were the case, then it would be unfortunate for scout groups which behave properly and would be another example that scout groups who do not behave properly (when it regards cache hiding and cache maintenance but also in aspect not related to geocaching, so for example not leaving trash at the camp site) cause problems for other scout groups and the reputation of scouts?

 

Yes, it seems likely that we're talking about entirely different issues so it's probably best to just drop it.

 

The conversation drifted into scouts/stuff a while back. Maybe you missed that part in the multi quote?

 

I think some wires were crossed where you were replying to someone else's comment but quoted mine. It happens, especially with language barriers and multiple conversations. Time to move on.

 

The only language I see used here is English. Are you using Google translate, or is English not yours ?

[+TriciaG]

You don't seem to understand the common English, "Time to move on." and "it's probably best to just drop it."

 

Here's the original topic, for anyone still reading this thread:

Last weekend I walked over a bridge, counting the number of panels needed to find the final coordinates of a multi-cache. At the end were two young ones and a parent standing with a phone, looking confused. While I got my pen and paper out and read through the formula to obtain the final coordinates, they asked me if I was also geocaching.

 

They were confused, because the map showed that there should be a geocache around here (there wasn't, it was a multi) but them using the Groundspeak app didn't show anything more than the first three lines of text. I told them about the limitation for non-premium members to not see the non-traditional caches and the higher rated ones. But since I just did a couple in the area, I told them to look for them, and then realized that because of the "foresty" area they were more than the 1.5 rating. FML. And theirs.

 

So at the end I logged in with my account to their phone, giving them access to all caches in the area. Then took them with me on the hunt for the multi, which was found. Asked them not to log anything on the phone as it will show up on my name :-P

 

So dear Groundspeak... Why do I have to apologize for your treatment of people who are just starting, who are as confused as a hungry baby in a topless bar, who try to find out how things work and why they don't work for them, who try to see if this is the right hobby for them? Get rid of that silly limitation to 1.5 rating and traditionals only and give people a chance to learn about the game.

Edited June 17, 2016 by TriciaG

[ZeekLTK]

See the bolded part of my comment. Supporting apps requires developers that are 'extra' compared to supporting the website or the database. App developers cost money. If Basic Members want to see everything in the app, then they should help support the cost of the app with a recurring fee. A one-time payment of $10 does not contribute as much as a recurring $30 payment.

 

Just an FYI - when I first started caching, the first couple apps that I downloaded were not the official app. When someone searches 'geocaching' in the Google Play Store, then a full page of apps is displayed and they could certainly try any of them. If they read the reviews of the apps, which they should do anyway, then they will likely end up not loading the official app anyway.

 

Sure, recurring $30 > $10, but $10 + ad revenue > $0.

 

$0 is what you get when your app sucks so much that even though it is the "official" app, people still don't use it (such as your example). So Groundspeak isn't getting $30 recurring payments, they are getting passed over and people are downloading other apps that work better. Those other apps are getting the ad revenue that Groundspeak COULD be getting. So what is the point of hiring those expensive developers to create an app that your primary target demographic (people who want to geocache) are not going to use?

 

IMO the 1.5/1.5 restriction makes absolutely no sense because, as others have pointed out, anything other than a lamppost cache is generally higher than that. We've been caching since 2009 and were without our phone for a weekend, so we tried to download the new app on someone else's phone to use, only to find out that it was essentially worthless because of the restriction. Every single cache we had planned to get that weekend was higher than 1.5/1.5, so we couldn't use the app to find any of them! We immediately deleted it and downloaded a different app instead.

 

So what is the point of it? Why not make an app that people will actually use? Are there that many people who do pay the $30 to make an app specifically for them? Because I just don't see how a non-paying member would ever find this one useful. And that means Groundspeak is missing out on a huge demographic that they could at least get ad revenue from, and instead they are channeling those people to other apps, and by doing so they get absolutely nothing out of it. Because previously, you would always hit something on Groundspeak - either the website or the app - to log a cache. Now you can completely skip interacting with Groundspeak at all by using these other apps and still geocache. By having this restriction on their own app, they are basically encouraging people to skip interacting with them. To me, it doesn't make any (financial or logical) sense.

 

They should want to be the primary source for geocaching, to get all traffic to come through them, but this is doing the opposite, it's pushing people away.

 

*Edit: lol, it automatically capitalizes the word Groundspeak. Interesting.

Edited June 18, 2016 by ZeekLTK

[+niraD]

Sure, recurring $30 > $10, but $10 + ad revenue > $0.

 

$0 is what you get when your app sucks so much that even though it is the "official" app, people still don't use it (such as your example). So Groundspeak isn't getting $30 recurring payments, they are getting passed over and people are downloading other apps that work better. Those other apps are getting the ad revenue that Groundspeak COULD be getting. So what is the point of hiring those expensive developers to create an app that your primary target demographic (people who want to geocache) are not going to use?

On the other hand, Groundspeak gets my recurring $30 even though I don't use their app. And one of the premium benefits that I value is full access to the API for the third-party partner app that I do use.

[+kunarion]

Sure, recurring $30 > $10, but $10 + ad revenue > $0.

 

$0 is what you get when your app sucks so much that even though it is the "official" app, people still don't use it (such as your example). So Groundspeak isn't getting $30 recurring payments, they are getting passed over and people are downloading other apps that work better. Those other apps are getting the ad revenue that Groundspeak COULD be getting. So what is the point of hiring those expensive developers to create an app that your primary target demographic (people who want to geocache) are not going to use?

 

IMO the 1.5/1.5 restriction makes absolutely no sense because, as others have pointed out, anything other than a lamppost cache is generally higher than that. We've been caching since 2009 and were without our phone for a weekend, so we tried to download the new app on someone else's phone to use, only to find out that it was essentially worthless because of the restriction. Every single cache we had planned to get that weekend was higher than 1.5/1.5, so we couldn't use the app to find any of them! We immediately deleted it and downloaded a different app instead.

 

So what is the point of it? Why not make an app that people will actually use? Are there that many people who do pay the $30 to make an app specifically for them? Because I just don't see how a non-paying member would ever find this one useful. And that means Groundspeak is missing out on a huge demographic that they could at least get ad revenue from, and instead they are channeling those people to other apps, and by doing so they get absolutely nothing out of it. Because previously, you would always hit something on Groundspeak - either the website or the app - to log a cache. Now you can completely skip interacting with Groundspeak at all by using these other apps and still geocache. By having this restriction on their own app, they are basically encouraging people to skip interacting with them. To me, it doesn't make any (financial or logical) sense.

 

They should want to be the primary source for geocaching, to get all traffic to come through them, but this is doing the opposite, it's pushing people away.

 

*Edit: lol, it automatically capitalizes the word Groundspeak. Interesting.

 

The Free Official Geocaching App requires no interaction with the Site. All the other Apps do, at least a little interaction. So "other App users" will see more site ads. And after purchase, those Apps do more with a Premium Membership.

 

It was a good idea for GS to make a free "Intro" App, and not "sell" Apps. (See? They had a good idea! Awesome! ). If you look at the App Stores, you see the vast majority of Apps are "FREE". With additional purchases. Additional as in umlimited amounts that you could spend. This is the current business model for Apps. I've even bought some Apps that also have the endless IAP included. You almost never see a review that mentions how much of a rip-of some of those are. Few of the pay-once Geocaching Apps I've purchased are supported. Apps that you buy are evidently not profitable. Also, since PMs pay anyway, there were a vast number of complaints about having to also buy an App.

 

OK, GS doesn't explain many decisions, but if the plan is to make an App that's pretty much just an ad to sign up for Premium Membership, that's what they've got. It's not a whole lot different from the way Basic Membership works if you have a handheld GPSr. You can use the web site, where it's kind of a pain to manage one's Geocaching for free. You can get by for free, but the idea is to encourage people to pay for PM. It's a business, it can't be all for free.

 

And if you have a smartphone with constantly online data service you don't need a "Geocaching App". You can browse the entire web site, and then switch to a free compass App (and first a street-routing App) to go find it. This works in iPhone and Android, and it's what I'd do if I had a data plan (but sadly, I just use Hotspots), and it even works for me, for navigating to one cache. A web site is very usable on an 8" tablet, but I can use the site features pretty well on my (wifi-only) iPhone 5. But that's just for caching emergencies (FTF or whatever). Don't rely on a phone, get a handheld GPSr, load maps and entire cities of Pocket Queries. The Free App is best used just to show interested people how to find one or two caches.

Edited June 18, 2016 by kunarion

[tttedzeins]

The part that irks me is this:

I was a premium member for about 11 years, I used to place vouchers in caches that, when returned to me, would earn the finder a years premium membership (I gifted about 10 memberships before the cards vanished). I purchased the app twice. once for the iPhone and then another when I got my Android phone.

Now that I am no longer a premium member the app is going to stop working.

What about the premium members who have paid for the app as well as membership, do they get a refund or anything extra?

I really dislike extortion, and in my opinion this is extortion. Others will have differing opinions.

[ohgood]

The part that irks me is this:

I was a premium member for about 11 years, I used to place vouchers in caches that, when returned to me, would earn the finder a years premium membership (I gifted about 10 memberships before the cards vanished). I purchased the app twice. once for the iPhone and then another when I got my Android phone.

Now that I am no longer a premium member the app is going to stop working.

What about the premium members who have paid for the app as well as membership, do they get a refund or anything extra?

I really dislike extortion, and in my opinion this is extortion. Others will have differing opinions.

 

that's pretty cool of you to do!

 

just look at it as gs being the phone company: raise the rates and degrade the service until people yell, then back off a little or offer minimal concessions to keep customers less grumbly.

[+GeoLTL]

I was a premium member for about 11 years, I used to place vouchers in caches that, when returned to me, would earn the finder a years premium membership (I gifted about 10 memberships before the cards vanished).

 

You are awesome

 

I really dislike extortion, and in my opinion this is extortion. Others will have differing opinions.

 

I agree with all parts of this. While $30 won't break my bank account for an activity I enjoy regularly, I find the approach to the new app includes some arm twisting.

[Aoraki1]

Hmmmm...while I don't like the idea of having to pay for premium membership to see most caches, I understand GS needing to stay solvent. Dunno why the $10 had to go...I guess new players would do one but not the other. But like...PMO caches are now pretty much the same as having a Mystery Cache or a D/T over 1.5? Huh.

 

The suggestion I really like is unlocking as you go... "Find ten more caches to unlock Multi-Caches! Find 25 more caches to unlock Mystery Caches!" That is a fantastic idea.

 

Needing to stay solvent? It's not a game like it should be but a business. Serving data is cheap these days. So overheads are ??? Salaries, profits?

 

Just my view

[jwolf123]

The part that irks me is this:

I was a premium member for about 11 years, I used to place vouchers in caches that, when returned to me, would earn the finder a years premium membership (I gifted about 10 memberships before the cards vanished). I purchased the app twice. once for the iPhone and then another when I got my Android phone.

Now that I am no longer a premium member the app is going to stop working.

What about the premium members who have paid for the app as well as membership, do they get a refund or anything extra?

I really dislike extortion, and in my opinion this is extortion. Others will have differing opinions.

 

I agree and am not pleased with the new application. I paid for the old one on my iPhone, then on my Android. I only cache occasionally so am not a premium member and I was OK with not seeing premium caches because that was the rule when I signed up. Now, after roughly four years as a member and a conscientious geocacher, I pretty much must quit unless I pay for a membership that I will rarely use and is therefore not worth the money to me. I actually thought of artificially lowering the difficulty and terrain ratings on my cache so it would be available to everyone but I'm not sure that is fair. It is disappointing that profit seems to have won out over the concern for existing members but business is business.

[Tassie_Boy]

Hmmmm...while I don't like the idea of having to pay for premium membership to see most caches, I understand GS needing to stay solvent. Dunno why the $10 had to go...I guess new players would do one but not the other. But like...PMO caches are now pretty much the same as having a Mystery Cache or a D/T over 1.5? Huh.

 

The suggestion I really like is unlocking as you go... "Find ten more caches to unlock Multi-Caches! Find 25 more caches to unlock Mystery Caches!" That is a fantastic idea.

 

Needing to stay solvent? It's not a game like it should be but a business. Serving data is cheap these days. So overheads are ??? Salaries, profits?

 

Just my view

 

This attitude really, really s***s me. Groundspeak is a business and they've never claimed to be otherwise, you are confusing Groundspeak and their geocaching.com website with the game itself which are two completely different things. As they are a business they have costs, serving data may be cheap but power isn't, people aren't, rent isn't, the government(s) want their cut before it makes it to the bank.. And yes, they want to make a profit (go on, say it, it's not a dirty word.... I mean you aim to have at least as much money in the bank at the end of the year as what you started with don't you?)

 

Being a basic member with the current app is not, and is not supposed to be, a full geocaching experience. It's a taster, a gateway. You try a few caches that are supposed to be easy to find and if you want more of the fun then you make an investment be that $30 a year to keep using that app, another geocaching app or handheld gps systems. Christ, if you get a little creative there's dozens of combinations of options you could try.

 

At the end of the day all the data you need (except PMO) is available to you via the website.

[+TriciaG]

I agree and am not pleased with the new application. I paid for the old one on my iPhone, then on my Android. I only cache occasionally so am not a premium member and I was OK with not seeing premium caches because that was the rule when I signed up. Now, after roughly four years as a member and a conscientious geocacher, I pretty much must quit unless I pay for a membership that I will rarely use and is therefore not worth the money to me. I actually thought of artificially lowering the difficulty and terrain ratings on my cache so it would be available to everyone but I'm not sure that is fair. It is disappointing that profit seems to have won out over the concern for existing members but business is business.

Use one of the other apps out there. They don't have the T/D restriction, although the approved API partner apps do limit you to 3 caches in 24 hours.

 

There are even free apps that work very well.

[+cerberus1]

Use one of the other apps out there. They don't have the T/D restriction, although the approved API partner apps do limit you to 3 caches in 24 hours.

 

There are even free apps that work very well.

Is this still true for most?

After you corrected me once earlier on this, I flat-out asked a developer of one (kinda felt guilty about that...), and they said that wasn't so, that 1.5/1.5 traditionals "is a limitation of the geocaching.com API, and not one that we have implemented".

 

I haven't loaded a new app yet (was waiting for this new one), and I'd like to get a real idea of what each covers.

[+TriciaG]

Hmm. I don't know. I use an unapproved app. I was passing on what I had heard. Maybe it's wrong.

[+niraD]

According to the API license agreement, basic members are limited to "viewing full geocache details for up to 3 Geocaches per day". Furthermore, basic members are limited to traditional caches only in search results. They can view non-traditional caches by entering the GC code.

 

And FWIW, this matches my vague recollection of the behavior of API partner apps during the times when I allowed my premium membership to lapse, before I renewed it.

[+gpsblake]

What might be a better approach is for Groundspeak to show Favorite caches with points to be shown on the app for non-premium members instead of the 1.5/1.5 approach which encourages people to go after LPC's.

 

That would introduce new cachers to quality caches. Thus they would more likely to remain with the hobby.

[+narcissa]

What might be a better approach is for Groundspeak to show Favorite caches with points to be shown on the app for non-premium members instead of the 1.5/1.5 approach which encourages people to go after LPC's.

 

That would introduce new cachers to quality caches. Thus they would more likely to remain with the hobby.

 

I would hope that I could opt out of such a system. I wouldn't want my caches to become targets that way.

[+The Rat]

So far as I'm concerned anything that makes it harder for new members to start geocaching is a good thing. There is a glut of caches and geocachers in this area such that it's difficult to find a good place to put a new cache and of the last thousand or so caches I've found, probably less than 3% were what I'd call acceptable quality (and that's with a concerted effort being made to study individual caches, review logs, and note favorite points before going for them). It's somewhat like TV. When I was a kid there were only three channels and there was almost always something good on, at least during prime time. Now, with cable and Netflix and 100s of channels, my wife and I go many days without being able to find a single show worth watching. When you have too much of something, the quality gets so watered down as to make it all nearly worthless. I wish they'd get rid of the app altogether, free or not.

[+cerberus1]

So far as I'm concerned anything that makes it harder for new members to start geocaching is a good thing. There is a glut of caches and geocachers in this area such that it's difficult to find a good place to put a new cache and of the last thousand or so caches I've found, probably less than 3% were what I'd call acceptable quality (and that's with a concerted effort being made to study individual caches, review logs, and note favorite points before going for them). It's somewhat like TV. When I was a kid there were only three channels and there was almost always something good on, at least during prime time. Now, with cable and Netflix and 100s of channels, my wife and I go many days without being able to find a single show worth watching. When you have too much of something, the quality gets so watered down as to make it all nearly worthless. I wish they'd get rid of the app altogether, free or not.

Wow.

 

How would the site be able to keep going without new members?

You think that GPSr pms could keep it afloat?

With this new app, we're seeing many brand-new (no find) cachers starting with a pm.

- We didn't see that years ago...

 

I don't see where one can blame less-than-ideal caches on new members.

If you really thought about it, you'd remember it's long-time players years ago and this numbers thing, who've turned this hobby into a game.

[ohgood]

So far as I'm concerned anything that makes it harder for new members to start geocaching is a good thing. There is a glut of caches and geocachers in this area such that it's difficult to find a good place to put a new cache and of the last thousand or so caches I've found, probably less than 3% were what I'd call acceptable quality (and that's with a concerted effort being made to study individual caches, review logs, and note favorite points before going for them). It's somewhat like TV. When I was a kid there were only three channels and there was almost always something good on, at least during prime time. Now, with cable and Netflix and 100s of channels, my wife and I go many days without being able to find a single show worth watching. When you have too much of something, the quality gets so watered down as to make it all nearly worthless. I wish they'd get rid of the app altogether, free or not.

 

GPS makes caching too easy. the coordinates should go away and everyone use a sextant and geographic clues.

 

sextant makes it too easy, it should just be vague hints of which city center to look in.

 

etc

 

or, were could use the wonderful filters to decide which caches to skip, and ignore the uninteresting glut :-)

 

 

killing off the apps won't stop people from sharing waypoints of cool places, they just won't use the official apps next time. once data reaches the internet, it can't be uncopied

Edited August 31, 2016 by ohgood

[+narcissa]

So far as I'm concerned anything that makes it harder for new members to start geocaching is a good thing. There is a glut of caches and geocachers in this area such that it's difficult to find a good place to put a new cache and of the last thousand or so caches I've found, probably less than 3% were what I'd call acceptable quality (and that's with a concerted effort being made to study individual caches, review logs, and note favorite points before going for them). It's somewhat like TV. When I was a kid there were only three channels and there was almost always something good on, at least during prime time. Now, with cable and Netflix and 100s of channels, my wife and I go many days without being able to find a single show worth watching. When you have too much of something, the quality gets so watered down as to make it all nearly worthless. I wish they'd get rid of the app altogether, free or not.

 

When I had only three or four channels, there was rarely anything on that was interesting to me. With a diverse range of channels and other options I can always find something to suit my mood and my tastes. There are lots of shows I skip over but I don't wish they would go away just because I don't like them.

 

Same with geocaching. There are way more geocaches than there used to be and I don't expect to like them all, but I find enough good ones to keep me going. I can skip the ones I don't like.

[+gpsblake]

 

I would hope that I could opt out of such a system. I wouldn't want my caches to become targets that way.

 

You could by just making them Premium members only.

 

Perhaps giving free members access to small, medium, and large caches instead of the 1.5/1.5 approach. Again, you want newbies to find quality caches that will encourage them to enjoy the hobby. Restricting them to guard rails, lamp post, and shopping centers isn't the answer. Give them QUALITY at first.

[+narcissa]

 

I would hope that I could opt out of such a system. I wouldn't want my caches to become targets that way.

 

You could by just making them Premium members only.

 

Perhaps giving free members access to small, medium, and large caches instead of the 1.5/1.5 approach. Again, you want newbies to find quality caches that will encourage them to enjoy the hobby. Restricting them to guard rails, lamp post, and shopping centers isn't the answer. Give them QUALITY at first.

 

I would never make a cache PMO. It leaves out too many good geocachers without paid accounts and does nothing to improve the quality of finders.

 

I would hate to see the selection based on any factor that I can't control. I can't remove favourite points or stop people from adding them.

 

Besides, that system is biased toward caches that are novel and high traffic, but not necessarily high quality. It's all well and good to have cachers acknowledge caches they like, but it has never been a good system for identifying quality caches.

Edited September 1, 2016 by narcissa

[+mrmayfair]

I kinda habe the same problem me n my friend are truckers are cache together hes p2p im f2p so rarely we find a p2p cache and do it for his finds...i sign it anyways bc we all or most of u s is apart of a caching group so ofcourse we tag together. Maybe ome day ill be able to afford a member ship but for now i, free to play.

 

#MRMAYFAIR #FLBOI

[+kunarion]

Perhaps giving free members access to small, medium, and large caches instead of the 1.5/1.5 approach. Again, you want newbies to find quality caches that will encourage them to enjoy the hobby. Restricting them to guard rails, lamp post, and shopping centers isn't the answer. Give them QUALITY at first.

Groundspeak seems to have put some thought into how the free “demo” App should work. I would prefer that someone loading the App without even verifying their email address, be very limited on what they will see listed to find. The instant App user doesn't even yet know if he or she would even play. Just show specially filtered super-easy caches, just to test the phone and to get an idea of how it works, that's plenty. The App is set up as a demo for these people testing the waters, and already gives them more than they get on the web site. Remember, someone who has merely loaded some "App" has almost no info at all on the web site to go find Geocaching.com caches. On the website without completely signing up, visitors not only don't get "quality", they don't get coordinates.

 

Sure, the whole Amazing Geocaching Experience Beyond Mere LPCs is unavailable to someone just now installing the App. But it's fair to paying members for sure, and fair to others who at least have signed up on the site, to limit what the App will do. Anyone can then go learn that Geocaching is more than 1.5/1.5 hides, by participating on the web site, and then selecting an App that works the way that suits them (maybe an API partner App), or heaven forfend, using a handheld GPSr, and either way, go beyond the limited LPC stuff. I can't tell if TPTB actually did plan it this way, but it's fair, and a good plan.

Edited September 1, 2016 by kunarion

[+The Rat]

If you really thought about it, you'd remember it's long-time players years ago and this numbers thing, who've turned this hobby into a game.

I do remember, and that's the problem. It was a lot of fun as a hobby. It's much less so now as a "game", if that's what it is now. You make it sound like a competition, which it isn't, or at least certainly shouldn't be.

[+cerberus1]

If you really thought about it, you'd remember it's long-time players years ago and this numbers thing, who've turned this hobby into a game.

I do remember, and that's the problem. It was a lot of fun as a hobby. It's much less so now as a "game", if that's what it is now. You make it sound like a competition, which it isn't, or at least certainly shouldn't be.

I merely replied to your rant.

I still consider this a hobby, and happily skip the nondescript caches that you griped about earlier, blaming it on new members and the app.

[+thebruce0]

Fundamentally geocaching isn't a game in the traditional sense, it is a hobby. People make it a game, but they really only play against others who choose to make it the same game. It's a hobby and promoted as such. Numbers and stats don't make it a game - they're just metrics that are informational, out of which some people choose to make a game (by implied competition, pride in their own stats out-pacing others')

 

It doesn't have to be a game to you if you don't want it to be a game. If you don't like caches that people (who play it like a game) put out, then you don't have to find those ones. Yes, since it's a shared 'playing field', as it were, those caches can disrupt placement of subjectively "better" caches you might enjoy, but that still doesn't make it a game Half empty/half full - you could look at all those unenjoyable ones, and value that much more the enjoyable caches you do want to find, as part of your hobby. Even consider it more personally rewarding if you find a great place to set a cache that hasn't been encroached by 'game player' caches.

 

Man, this all makes "game" out to sound like a bad word or something.

Geocaching isn't a game. But technically it is a game. It's just not inherently a competitive one. And because it's shared, many tastes and preferences are "playing", which means there will always be "good" and "bad" caches, according to everyone's differing tastes.

[+Manville Possum]

I'm sure that Groundspeak knows what they are doing. I'm seeing more new members going straight to premium membership, and a few old ones going back to basic membership.

[+mrmayfair]

What about the ones who cannot afford membership? But enjoy playing the game? Hobby? Salute to the people who keep placing free to play caches

[+J Grouchy]

I'm sure that Groundspeak knows what they are doing. I'm seeing more new members going straight to premium membership, and a few old ones going back to basic membership.

 

I'm leaning toward NOT renewing my premium membership if, when the time comes around, they still only offer automatically renewing membership. To be blunt, I think it's a lousy, slimy practice that relies on laziness and forgetfulness for financial gain and I avoid such agreements whenever possible.

 

EDIT: made sure to put the "NOT" in there...

Edited September 8, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+Manville Possum]

I'm sure that Groundspeak knows what they are doing. I'm seeing more new members going straight to premium membership, and a few old ones going back to basic membership.

 

I'm leaning toward renewing my premium membership if, when the time comes around, they still only offer automatically renewing membership. To be blunt, I think it's a lousy, slimy practice that relies on laziness and forgetfulness for financial gain and I avoid such agreements whenever possible.

 

Shady as stink ain't it? Premium membership here just don't have much to offer me anymore. I enjoyed the Waymarking perks, but those are of no use to me anymore either.

 

I do miss being able to read PMO listings, but I can still find them and log them.

 

I'll renew my premium membership here when the site has more to offer other than locking out non-paying members.

[+narcissa]

What about the ones who cannot afford membership? But enjoy playing the game? Hobby? Salute to the people who keep placing free to play caches

 

This discussion isn't about cache placement. Most caches are still available to non-premium members, just not with the official app.

[+wmpastor]

 

I would hope that I could opt out of such a system. I wouldn't want my caches to become targets that way.

 

You could by just making them Premium members only.

 

Perhaps giving free members access to small, medium, and large caches instead of the 1.5/1.5 approach. Again, you want newbies to find quality caches that will encourage them to enjoy the hobby. Restricting them to guard rails, lamp post, and shopping centers isn't the answer. Give them QUALITY at first.

 

I would never make a cache PMO. It leaves out too many good geocachers without paid accounts and does nothing to improve the quality of finders.

 

I would hate to see the selection based on any factor that I can't control. I can't remove favourite points or stop people from adding them.

 

Besides, that system is biased toward caches that are novel and high traffic, but not necessarily high quality. It's all well and good to have cachers acknowledge caches they like, but it has never been a good system for identifying quality caches.

 

Maroon = disagree.

PMO eliminates the small but troublesome group of people experimenting with the game, who are not yet familiar with the rules and the courtesies, and who through maliciousness or negligence cause problems for COs. By eliminating much of the left extreme of the bell curve, IMO it is crystal clear that PMO improves the quality of finders. 90%+ non-PMO members are fine - it's the others that drag the average down. COs who I know that make or buy creative caches would rather not have to deal with the results of carelessness, theft or vandalism, which is hard to eliminate completely, but a PMO listing helps.

 

Those who choose to believe that favorites points are meaningless can choose to ignore them. In fact those people may be correct - for their objectives and preferences in the game. Others find them useful in helping - on average - to assure a better caching experience.

 

I agree, FPs may favor novel or high-traffic caches. I like novel caches and am neutral on high-traffic caches. Maybe negative - a scenic hike is better than a stealth-required scenario, usually. Data - give us data! What a person does with it is up to them. Click on the FP area on the cache page, and it shows you *favorite percentage*. Now *that's* a meaningful number for both high or low traffic caches.

[+Viajero Perdido]

PMO eliminates the small but troublesome group of people experimenting with the game, who are not yet familiar with the rules and the courtesies, and who through maliciousness or negligence cause problems for COs. By eliminating much of the left extreme of the bell curve, IMO it is crystal clear that PMO improves the quality of finders. 90%+ non-PMO members are fine - it's the others that drag the average down. COs who I know that make or buy creative caches would rather not have to deal with the results of carelessness, theft or vandalism, which is hard to eliminate completely, but a PMO listing helps.

Can this be written on a plaque somewhere?

[+thebruce0]

I agree, FPs may favor novel or high-traffic caches. I like novel caches and am neutral on high-traffic caches. Maybe negative - a scenic hike is better than a stealth-required scenario, usually. Data - give us data! What a person does with it is up to them. Click on the FP area on the cache page, and it shows you *favorite percentage*. Now *that's* a meaningful number for both high or low traffic caches.

Even that meaning isn't as good as it could be. Now if every cache visitor was required to choose whether to favorite a find or not -- some people just don't do favorites at all or always forget -- then the favorite ratio would make more sense. As it stands, there could be many who find a cache who might consider it a favorite but for whatever reason don't add +1, so that instead assumes the negative and sways the ratio down. % is a relative figure.

 

The only unaffected value I see in favorites is inferring what the number means. A high count could mean it's a great cache, it could mean lots of new players in the area haven't seen one before and loved it, it could mean it's rare, it could just mean a very high traffic listing...

 

Now, there could be value in seeing a high % favorite alone, but the problem is, a low percent doesn't mean something 'worse' than a high %, since there's no way to tell if by its history of finders there could be enough to give it the same % if everyone had favorited it.

 

Personally, the only value I see in favs in sorting by count (not %) and using it as an indicator of which caches to read up on first if looking for potentially interesting targets. That's about it =/

[+HavreTeam]

From a new geocacher's perspective:

 

We learned about geocaching from a nice couple we met while on a weekend getaway about a month ago. When the couple explained what geocaching was, I remembered an episode of "Bones" the involved geocaching. Anyway, when we got home, I downloaded the app, purchased the premium membership and we have found over 80 caches so far. If I were to complain about the pricing of anything, it would be the cost to buy trackable items.

 

Over the last month, I've spent more money on gas than the cost of the yearly premium membership fee. I actually like the app better than using other GPS apps or devices. The only things I would improve are: the sorting function of lists; ability to add caches to favorites; and improved cache description accuracy (html coding errors on iPhone).

 

It's been a little difficult learning about geocaching since information seems to be spread across these two sites. I'm also not a fan of watching tutorial videos, although I appreciate the humor of the videos I've watched.

 

From my perspective, I'd rather see premium memberships and have an enriched geocaching experience.

 

--Thank you to everyone that has led the way, maintains current geocaches and continues to make this a fun experience.--

[+L0ne.R]

Over the last month, I've spent more money on gas than the cost of the yearly premium membership fee.

 

Yes, same here. I think on average, I spend $50 per month on gasoline to go geocaching.

[+narcissa]

I also get great value from premium membership, as does my husband, who holds his own membership.

 

Still, I find that I am increasingly dismayed at the way that non-premium members are being vilified by cache owners and here in the forum. Some people just need more time to realize the value of premium membership, others find that they just don't need it because they don't cache that often, and yet others just don't want to spend the money for whatever reason. There is no need to treat these geocachers so poorly.