Vorschlag: FP als Belohnung vom HQ

[+Pinibaldi]

Hallo, 

In unserer Region (nördliches Schleswig-Holstein) gibt es immer mehr sehr einfache Caches. Das ist ja auch völlig ok, denn jeder hat ja so seine Vorlieben. 

Ich finde etwas anspruchsvollere Dosen besser, aber das ist meine Meinung. Ich bewundere Leute, die viel basteln oder besondere Rätsel und Erlebnisse schaffen, nur damit alle Cacher Spaß haben. 

Wie wäre es, wenn das HQ solche Leistungen auch würdigen würde und dem Owner für z. B. 100 erhaltene FP, einen FP gibt, den dieser wieder vergeben kann? 

[+cerberus1]

This has been asked for before.  "Rewarding" a CO just because their cache received favorite points doesn't make much sense to me.  

One FP for every 100 received could probably be done with nondescript pill bottles on a power trail. 

The ET has 1,149 FPs.  How much in "quality and care" do you think went into that ? 

 

There are just as many (or more) that want to do those "simple caches" and reward them just as much. 

 - Wouldn't that defeat what you're proposing ?   

We know of guard rail and lamp post caches with favorite points.

I personally don't care for most puzzles, and if "tinkering" is similar to gadgets and such, the last eight out of nine found were no longer working. 

[+niraD]

I'll echo everything cerberus1 wrote. I'll also note that at this point, changing the way FP are awarded would change the meaning of FP. People award FP for all sorts of reasons, and many of those reasons are at odds with each other, but what meaning they have is based on the fact that premium members can award them to no more than 10% of their finds. Awarding FP more freely (and this suggestion could give some cache owners enough FP to award them to every cache they find) changes that meaning.

 

Also, I think it's best for Groundspeak to continue to avoid offering incentives for cache ownership. Cache owners should hide caches because they want to own and maintain caches. Adding incentives creates a situation where geocachers might hide caches for the incentives, and not because they're ready to (or want to) own and maintain caches.