Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
ARFinders

Blocking access.-

Recommended Posts

Hi people,

 

We've been talking for a while in a spanish geocaching forum about premium members features and capabilities. And how unfare seem to be that, only those who pays can block the access to their caches regardless their implication and commitement to geocaching filosophy.

 

So here's the idea:

 

What if...

 

Everyone can publish caches but if you want to block access to your caché, you have to reach the (X/Y) level

X=a number of founds (lets say 250, per example)

Y=a number of published&actives caches (lets say 10)

 

So, users can find and hide all they want but, only those who have already found AND published the required quota (determined by participation and not by the size of the wallet), are entitled to block access

Not apply to the already found/hidden cachés, but for the new caches the user intend to publish, Blocked system allows the cache owner to decide how many founds has to have a geocacher to be able to see the listing info, and also be able to log the caché

So he can, per example, publish a caché restricted to 100. Then geocachers with 99 or less found are not gonna be able to see/log this caché, until they reach this parameter. Encouraging geocachers to keep finding in order to obtain access to a new level.

But this blocked system only aplies to the new caches the user publishes. So he has to maintain the quota of caches with 'all public access' because if this caches are deactivated, disabled or transfered the user loses blocking rights and all caches become public. Ensuring there will always be available cachés for new geocachers

 

Just a thought... what you think?

Share this post


Link to post

It's creative thinking. One issue I see is how to set the X/Y formula. Some have thousands of finds but *no* hides. Not "committed" enough??

 

Also, anyone who wanted to sidestep the restrictions could probably find a way.

 

It's also interesting to see the benefits of paid membership discussed in terms of the power to exclude rather in terms of gaining additional features, etc. Some may call that elitist, but COs who spent five hours building a cache sometimes prefer that careless new players search for the pill bottles first.

 

Let's hope that Godwin's Law doesn't strike what is likely to be a heated discussion.

:drama:

Share this post


Link to post

I would make the following small change to the equation:

 

X = tons of garbage CITO'd out.

Y = number of CITO Events hosted.

Share this post


Link to post

I would make the following small change to the equation:

 

X = tons of garbage CITO'd out.

Y = number of CITO Events hosted.

So you want an *extremely* exclusive club? Like 99.9% of our members kicked to the curb?? Or was that hyperbole in the heat of the moment?

:yikes:

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching rule changes sometimes have unintended consequences. I think that's especially true when the rule is based on the numbers of caches hidden or found. The rule would promote bad cache hides, faked cache finds and "numbers runs" -- all so that a premium member can reach the level where they earn the privilege of making a cache available for premium members only. I think we already have enough bad cache hides, faked cache finds and power trails as it is, thank you very much.

 

I've been a charter member since late 2002, soon after premium memberships were offered. Back then, there were very few advantages to paying for a membership. Pocket queries were in their infancy. There were no instant notifications, no bookmark lists, no favorite points. One of the very first PM benefits when the concept was created was the ability to make a cache available for viewing by premium members only. Adding extra requirements to that 15 year old right, above and beyond paying $30 a year, would be a step backwards. It would be a step away from what premium members have been paying for, each and every year.

Share this post


Link to post

Geocaching rule changes sometimes have unintended consequences. I think that's especially true when the rule is based on the numbers of caches hidden or found. The rule would promote bad cache hides, faked cache finds and "numbers runs" -- all so that a premium member can reach the level where they earn the privilege of making a cache available for premium members only. I think we already have enough bad cache hides, faked cache finds and power trails as it is, thank you very much.

 

Very good points--I agree completely. In addition, it would also encourage fake finds by the newcomers to reach the level required to see the blocked caches.

Share this post


Link to post
X=a number of founds (lets say 250, per example)
This already exists.

 

Y=a number of published&actives caches (lets say 10)
I don't think it's a good idea to create an incentive for listing a cache other than the desire to own and maintain a cache. Groundspeak appears to agree, since challenge caches are not allowed to require loggers to own caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "block access"? You mean make them only available to premium members?

Share this post


Link to post

I also don't understand.

 

I am a paying member. I also had hidden a couple of caches. Where can I block access of my caches for other cachers? And why would I want to do that?

 

Or do you mean premium only caches like dprovan suggests? I can't think of a reason why that would be unfair.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi people,

 

We've been talking for a while in a spanish geocaching forum about premium members features and capabilities. And how unfare seem to be that, only those who pays can block the access to their caches regardless their implication and commitement to geocaching filosophy.

 

So here's the idea:

 

What if...

 

Everyone can publish caches but if you want to block access to your caché, you have to reach the (X/Y) level

X=a number of founds (lets say 250, per example)

 

No. Of the 247 countries in the world on the "official" list of countries GS uses, only 71 have more than 250 caches in the entire country. Why should someone that lives in a cache dense country get a benefit that someone living in a cache sparse country can't (or is very difficult to) get.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Being able to make your cache available to premium members only is an additional benefit that comes with payment to the company. Of course it's sort of a bribe to get us to pay for premium membership. Like pocket queries and other premium member benefits,, if we want it, then we gotta to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post

Being able to make your cache available to premium members only is an additional benefit that comes with payment to the company. Of course it's sort of a bribe to get us to pay for premium membership. Like pocket queries and other premium member benefits,, if we want it, then we gotta to pay for it.

 

I heard that Charter member can block access to caches to geocachers that aren't using a "real GPS". ph34r.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

"Some have thousands of finds but *no* hides. Not "committed" enough??"

They're commited in using but no commited in enlarge and improve the system.

Besides, if they don't hide any, also don't have the need of setting a block parameter

Bad thing with the original proposal (that I'm realizing now that you've pointed it out) this people would be 'forced' to hide cachés they obviuosly don't want to. Maybe creating a proportion rule: the more founds you have, the less hide you need" to reach the requiered level

 

"Also, anyone who wanted to sidestep the restrictions could probably find a way."

 

Tricky subject... the cheaters!...

 

"It's also interesting to see the benefits of paid membership discussed in terms of the power to exclude rather in terms of gaining additional features, etc. Some may call that elitist, but COs who spent five hours building a cache sometimes prefer that careless new players search for the pill bottles first."

Thats the idea, but if everyone blocks all their cachés, the careless new players won't be able to get experience, that's the hiding quota for. 'You can block hour cachés for veteran people, but first help the newbees to get experience'

 

---

X = tons of garbage CITO'd out.

Y = number of CITO Events hosted.

If people only pick up trash on CITO events, its a shame. We need to be able to take care of the enviroment even when we're not geocaching.

 

---

"all so that a premium member can reach the level where they earn the privilege of making a cache available for premium members only. I think we already have enough bad cache hides, faked cache finds and power trails as it is, thank you very much."

With this idea, premium members and 'Filter Allowed' (lets call it so) are not the same thing

Rigth now, a paid member can block its cachés only for paid members. Regardless they know the concept and rules of geocaching. This way, many many people who cant (or wont) afford the fee, misses great cachés

With this, premium members keep their capabilities except 'the blocking' part, obtained not by cash but 'implication in geocaching' so, with your stats achieved all along those years, for sure, you also keep the 'block capability'

Also, you can filter who you want to be able to see/log you cachés: some of then for member (premium or not) with 100 founds, others more elaborates for 1500 founds

Owners gonna get more founds and geocachers gonna have more cachés availables according their experience in the game

 

---

Challenge cachés can be seen by all comunity ADN can be logged found even if you don't do what they ask. Of course there are high probabilities your log to be deleted but... its up to the owner

With the 'Filter allowed' method, youre not going to be able to see the listing Until you have what they ask

 

And the 'Y' part, youre rigth. As I told above in this post, maybe calculating a ratio: 'the more founds you have the less hides you need'

 

---

 

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "block access"? You mean make them only available to premium members?

No. It seems I havent explain myself clear enough.

What you've understood is what 'premium members' do rigth now.

I'm talking about CO can filters the access to their cachés according to the experience owners want the geocachers already have to have access to the listing and the caché

 

---

I also don't understand.

 

I am a paying member. I also had hidden a couple of caches. Where can I block access of my caches for other cachers? And why would I want to do that?

 

Or do you mean premium only caches like dprovan suggests? I can't think of a reason why that would be unfair.

Thats what 'premium members' can do right now when checked the "Premium Members Only Caché"

 

---

No. Of the 247 countries in the world on the "official" list of countries GS uses, only 71 have more than 250 caches in the entire country. Why should someone that lives in a cache dense country get a benefit that someone living in a cache sparse country can't (or is very difficult to) get.

In countries with less than 250 cachés in it, doesnt really matters if youre premium or not. With a 'caché population' that small, filter a caché (by any method)... that would be selfish

Edited by ARFinders

Share this post


Link to post

dprovan

No. It seems I havent explain myself clear enough.

What you've understood is what 'premium members' do rigth now.

I'm talking about CO can filters the access to their cachés according to the experience owners want the geocachers already have to have access to the listing and the caché

Oh, OK. I would argue against any such thing. Put your caches out for everyone or don't put them out at all.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, OK. I would argue against any such thing. Put your caches out for everyone or don't put them out at all.

 

In a perfect world, it would be like that.

But, it's understandable that there are cachés so good and so elaborated, that should exist a fair way to protect them from 'careless newbees' who doesn't know (yet), or simply doesn't care about it

 

In the actual method, the only way is to pay the membership and block the caché for premium members, wich doesn't ensure that the next "premium member" who search for the caché has only 3 founds and or doesn't care

 

With the filter, CO can set a filter of (let's say) 200. So newbees, can't see it or log it. Only when they have a two hundred founds experience this will be shown

 

Its not a permanent block (like the premium only system), but a system to let the geocachers to search for certain cachés, only when they have some expertice in searching and caring

 

Im premium myself and my cachés are 'all public'. Even when I've hidden a gadget caché that last 'days' until been damaged.

 

I DO believe in the UNIVERSAL concept of geocaching, but Im also sure not everyone is ready for all cachés since the begining. No one runs before learn to walk

Edited by ARFinders

Share this post


Link to post
Also, you can filter who you want to be able to see/log you caches
This really stuck out for me...

 

We stopped doing PMO caches when we found that a couple anal-retentive, micro-managing COs were using the audit as a (non accurate) tool to accuse others for their cache's issues.

Often that type were also the ones with ALRs on their hides as well.

Happy to find there's now a few means to bypass that invasive audit.

 

There's no way we'd agree with someone who'd force others to place caches they can't maintain.

 

And if you feel "finds" equate experience, you have much to learn grasshopper.

 

With the 'Filter allowed' method, you're not going to be able to see the listing Until you have what they ask

It's people like that who finally made Additional Logging Requirements go bye-bye.

You want a company to change their logging code for a few who can't play well with others.

Good luck with that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
With the filter, CO can set a filter of (let's say) 200. So newbees, can't see it or log it. Only when they have a two hundred founds experience this will be shown

Funny you'd say that, now that you've finally reached 210...

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, OK. I would argue against any such thing. Put your caches out for everyone or don't put them out at all.

In a perfect world, it would be like that.

Whether perfect or not, the quality of the world is diminished when one person is allowed to declare another person unworthy.

 

Do you actually have a problem, or are you just imagining you would? If you know this will be a problem, I feel bad for you, but I'm not going to let you solve it by declaring who's good enough and who isn't.

 

But in my area, there are a few COs that put out very elaborate caches. Sometimes those caches break, I don't know why or who did it, but it doesn't happen enough for those COs to be discouraged: they continue to put more out. But one common factor is that those COs always build durable caches: what they ask is whether they are good enough at building elaborate caches that will last, not whether the people coming to visit those caches are good enough to enjoy them.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, good. It's been a while since we had a good discussion on how elitist and discriminatory premium membership is.

 

:drama:

:mmraspberry:

:omnomnom:

Share this post


Link to post

With the filter, CO can set a filter of (let's say) 200. So newbees, can't see it or log it. Only when they have a two hundred founds experience this will be shown

All this will do is push new cachers to submit lots of bogus logs to get to the required number. So, not only will these new cachers still gain access to the cache, but now far bigger problems will have been created for other COs.

 

This all just seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it's a good idea, and I'm pretty sure Groundspeak would never implement it.

 

If you want to prevent inexperienced newbies finding your caches then make them puzzles or complex multies - both of which will require some dedicated effort to find, it won't eliminate all newbies but at least the ones who do get through will have shown a commitment to put in some effort.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for letting me know what you think guys

 

All this will do is push new cachers to submit lots of bogus logs to get to the required number. So, not only will these new cachers still gain access to the cache, but now far bigger problems will have been created for other COs.

 

This all just seems like a solution looking for a problem.

 

Maybe youre right. There will always be trolls and cheaters.

---

 

I don't think it's a good idea, and I'm pretty sure Groundspeak would never implement it.

So do I. The moment you touch their pockets... but thinking out loud is free

 

If you want to prevent inexperienced newbies finding your caches then make them puzzles or complex multies - both of which will require some dedicated effort to find, it won't eliminate all newbies but at least the ones who do get through will have shown a commitment to put in some effort.

 

Not the goal, but its a solution. Thanks

 

Although I'm not talking about MY cachés only. I'm not That selfish (yet, apparently, jeje) but the whole community's

Share this post


Link to post

Returning to the thread, I'd like to thank ARFinders for having a good dialogue instead of reacting strongly to the criticism. We all learn better from productive discussions where everyone is respectful of opposing views.

 

That said, I'd like to offer one further observation.

 

It seems to me that the proposed change seeks to impose worldwide restrictions to solve what I view as a local problem. If there are not enough cool caches hidden to attract and retain newbies, then hide more caches! If too many prolific hiders are making caches PM-only for no good reason, encourage them to reserve PM-only status for just a few caches that really need it. Boycott finding their caches if that's what it takes.

 

My local area has a "normal" ratio of PM-only caches to total caches. Personally, I have three out of about thirty active hides. One's a challenge cache, and the other two are somewhat technical urban hides in high-muggle locations.

 

ARFinders, if the overall percentage of PM-only caches in your area is high (20% plus) then I recommend rallying within your community -- at events, in social media, etc. -- to change that mindset. It is a local community problem, best solved locally.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, good. It's been a while since we had a good discussion on how elitist and discriminatory premium membership is.

Don't look at me. I see the premium cache as perfectly acceptable way for COs that with a certain level of interest demonstrated by paying the premium membership fee to restrict their caches to others with a similar level of interest. That's nothing like this proposal.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, good. It's been a while since we had a good discussion on how elitist and discriminatory premium membership is.

Don't look at me. I see the premium cache as perfectly acceptable way for COs that with a certain level of interest demonstrated by paying the premium membership fee to restrict their caches to others with a similar level of interest. That's nothing like this proposal.

Wasn't looking at you. Those threads have been around since there was premium membership.

 

We used to have a forum schedule that set the proper time to rehash perennial debates like "Premium membership is elitist and was invented to maintain the borgeois oppression of the working classes," or "528 feet is too far and abuses my constitutional rights," or "My reviewer is a godless communist and won't publish my 40,000 new lamp post and guard rail micros just because half of them didn't comply with the guidelines," but it seems to have gone by the wayside when its author got a drivers license and discovered girls.

Share this post


Link to post

I too, don't think it's a good idea to restrict caches based solely on find count. But this thread did get me to thinking about a problem we have concerning the geocaching app. One of the issues with the app is that it restricts higher difficulty caches unless the user buys into premium. This does help to help keep our more involved caches safe from newbie hands but it also keeps many of those same newbies from ever having an even better caching experience. Regardless of member status, i think it would be a win win if the app automatically opened up higher difficulty caches to users after a certain number of finds.

Share this post


Link to post

... ever having an even better caching experience.

 

Unless they use the homepage instead of the app, once in a while.

Edited by RuideAlmeida

Share this post


Link to post

... ever having an even better caching experience.

 

Unless they use the homepage instead of the app, once in a while.

But they don't. People are glued to their phones with the belief that their phones can do everything. Unless there was a pop up in the app that stated something like, "go to geocaching.com to see more caches", i doubt very many app users ever bring up the website itself. They just don't know what's out there.

Share this post


Link to post

Returning to the thread, I'd like to thank ARFinders for having a good dialogue instead of reacting strongly to the criticism. We all learn better from productive discussions where everyone is respectful of opposing views.

 

Always. And thank you ;)

 

It seems to me that the proposed change seeks to impose worldwide restrictions to solve what I view as a local problem.

 

If there are not enough cool caches hidden to attract and retain newbies, then hide more caches!

 

If too many prolific hiders are making caches PM-only for no good reason, encourage them to reserve PM-only status for just a few caches that really need it. Boycott finding their caches if that's what it takes.

 

My local area has a "normal" ratio of PM-only caches to total caches. Personally, I have three out of about thirty active hides. One's a challenge cache, and the other two are somewhat technical urban hides in high-muggle locations.

 

ARFinders, if the overall percentage of PM-only caches in your area is high (20% plus) then I recommend rallying within your community -- at events, in social media, etc. -- to change that mindset.

 

It is a local community problem, best solved locally.

 

I'm afraid I don't handle the caché ratios in this area... couldn't tell. But most of them are 'all public'

 

And the issue I see isn't the lack of cool cachés for newbies but, really cool cachés jepardized by careless searches: bending over the benches, poking around all over the place, groups arriving at GZ like "ATF comando" playing 'who find it first', things like that. If all of this happens in a bottle-cap caché, no problem. But if happens in a hand-made elaborated and very well camouflage cachés, is a real pity. Because they end up archived

 

Other case, early this year we were in Norway and made tandem with local (no premium) geocachers. We end up using my cell phone because i have inet connection and, Several cachés founded as a team or 'first view' by them, they couldn't log because they weren't premium.

 

Other case, an excellent Wherigo from top to toes. It had it all, history, fun games, tricky test, logic puzzles, timed runs, etc, and the final caché was wonderful Totally integrated into the 'public furniture' (sort of speak). A Masterpiece. Plundered and Damaged for good

 

That's why, among other things, I came up with this idea. Its not about letting anybody outside (as happens rigth now with PM only caches), but setting levels acording experience acquired

 

When you gonna lear to swim, first at the little pool, then the middle, finally the big&deep pool, don't you?

But the same with cachés, first the easy-ones, and when people have some experience then Tthey can access to better ones

 

 

 

... Put your caches out for everyone or don't put them out at all.

 

... that first, then

 

... I see the premium cache as perfectly acceptable way for COs .../... to restrict their caches to others

 

There's something I'm missing...

 

 

 

 

I too, don't think it's a good idea to restrict caches based solely on find count. But this thread did get me to thinking about a problem we have concerning the geocaching app. One of the issues with the app is that it restricts higher difficulty caches unless the user buys into premium. This does help to help keep our more involved caches safe from newbie hands but it also keeps many of those same newbies from ever having an even better caching experience. Regardless of member status, i think it would be a win win if the app automatically opened up higher difficulty caches to users after a certain number of finds.

 

This could be a good idea. but had to work the same in both platforms: app and www

Share this post


Link to post
...And the issue I see isn't the lack of cool cachés for newbies but, really cool cachés jepardized by careless searches: bending over the benches, poking around all over the place, groups arriving at GZ like "ATF comando" playing 'who find it first', things like that.

How could that possibly be based on "experience" ?

 

A few years ago a bunch of long-time premium members ravaged two states on a "numbers cache run" that left caches open, items scattered at GZ, and a couple, signing their names on the outside of the container.

- As a repeat, these were high numbered, long-time premium members.

"Careless searchers" can be anybody, and there is no way to see into the future as to who they might be. :)

Share this post


Link to post
...And the issue I see isn't the lack of cool cachés for newbies but, really cool cachés jepardized by careless searches: bending over the benches, poking around all over the place, groups arriving at GZ like "ATF comando" playing 'who find it first', things like that.

How could that possibly be based on "experience" ?

 

A few years ago a bunch of long-time premium members ravaged two states on a "numbers cache run" that left caches open, items scattered at GZ, and a couple, signing their names on the outside of the container.

- As a repeat, these were high numbered, long-time premium members.

"Careless searchers" can be anybody, and there is no way to see into the future as to who they might be. :)

 

Ok. Let's say: Experience AND probabilities.

 

You're totally right about ""Careless searchers" can be anybody" and there are "long-time premium members" such a #%$%&% with cachés... but seems to me, that it's also true, that it's more likely to find this 'kind' of players in newbies than veterans

Share this post


Link to post

That's why, among other things, I came up with this idea. Its not about letting anybody outside (as happens rigth now with PM only caches), but setting levels acording experience acquired

My problem is that in my experience, the less experienced cachers are less likely to do the things your describing. When I hear about commando raids, it's almost always a group of very experienced cachers with lots of finds, so they'd satisfy any minimum requirement you wanted to put on your cache. So I'm reluctant to offer any advice since I've never experienced the problem you seem to have in your area. For example, one thing that people do in my area is to limit access by putting the cache behind a puzzle, but if you're seeing Wherigo's plundered in this way, you're attracting some very sophisticated and hardcore newbie jerks to geocaching in your area.

 

... Put your caches out for everyone or don't put them out at all.

... that first, then

 

... I see the premium cache as perfectly acceptable way for COs .../... to restrict their caches to others

There's something I'm missing...

I went to some lengths to try and explain it, but it boils down to a difference between you picking who you consider worthy, and a general choice of limiting caches to people interested enough in geocaching to invest in the hobby.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

 

Other case, early this year we were in Norway and made tandem with local (no premium) geocachers. We end up using my cell phone because i have inet connection and, Several cachés founded as a team or 'first view' by them, they couldn't log because they weren't premium.

 

</snip>

 

Just to let you know, Groundspeak left it open so that basic members who are caching with a premium member can log premium member caches. Use http://www.geocachingadmin.com/ to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
With the filter, CO can set a filter of (let's say) 200. So newbees, can't see it or log it. Only when they have a two hundred founds experience this will be shown

Funny you'd say that, now that you've finally reached 210...

 

So ARFinders wants the ability to stick a Challenge Checker on the front of a cache description and only those that meet the requirements of the checker get to see the cache description? Is that what ARFinder is saying?

 

Would non-qualified cachers be able to include the cache in a PQ and get it downloaded? Or would these "blocked" caches only be downloadable from the cache page after you passed the Challenge Checker? If the latter, I and many others would ignore the cache even if we qualify.

Share this post


Link to post

So ARFinders wants the ability to stick a Challenge Checker on the front of a cache description and only those that meet the requirements of the checker get to see the cache description? Is that what ARFinder is saying?

 

Would non-qualified cachers be able to include the cache in a PQ and get it downloaded? Or would these "blocked" caches only be downloadable from the cache page after you passed the Challenge Checker? If the latter, I and many others would ignore the cache even if we qualify.

 

ARFinders doesn't "want" anything. Jeje (win the lottery, that we DO want)

 

ARFinders speaks out a thought, and idea. (As you can see at the end of the original post)

 

Also:

Yes, that's the idea and,

No, i haven't think about the "implementing specific requirements' of the proposal. That's why this threads are for.

Now that you've pointed out. It's a great issue for off-line users don't be able to 'reach the goal' on the way.

 

If (a red, bold, italic, caption, neon, firepowered IF) GS ever consider this idea, they'll have to think the thechnical tools required for avoid this big issue.

 

Thanks for thinking out of the box

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...