Looted MOC?

[+georgeandmary]

I remember a few months ago when MOC first bacame avaialable the debate was on how 'fair' it was to have MOC. Now they've been around for a little while and I was cuirious to know, has a MOC ever been looted? The whole point on creating MOC caches was to deter looters. Has it worked?

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

[+georgeandmary]

with over 85 views on this thread, and no one can list a MOC that's been looted. It looks like the whole purpose of MOC's is a success. There was a lot of controversy over MOC's in the beginning. I'm glad to see they are working.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

[Ron Streeter]

....Members Only Caches....may work to help prevent looting, but I wonder about their other aspect.

 

I am a member, but I shy away from placing a member's only cache, because I feel it's a little elitist and cuts people out who I would like to see go for my caches.

 

I can't think of a reason why I would place one, but I don't rule it out completely.

 

Maybe some of the folks viewing this will chime in on this aspect.

 

Ron

 

I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgeandmary:

with over 85 views on this thread, and no one can list a MOC that's been looted. It looks like the whole purpose of MOC's is a success. There was a lot of controversy over MOC's in the beginning. I'm glad to see they are working.

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/track/5867_200.gif

---

We haven't had any looted near me, but then again, there are only two within 100 miles of me, and they've only been there about a week. I guess that proves MOC caches prevent looting.

 

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgeandmary:

with over 85 views on this thread, and no one can list a MOC that's been looted. It looks like the whole purpose of MOC's is a success. There was a lot of controversy over MOC's in the beginning. I'm glad to see they are working.

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/track/5867_200.gif

---

We haven't had any looted near me, but then again, there are only two within 100 miles of me, and they've only been there about a week. I guess that proves MOC caches prevent looting.

 

[BassoonPilot]

There have been 4 MOCs in my area. None has been plundered, to my knowledge. Two of the MOCs were later changed to regular caches, and neither of them has been plundered. A third MOC may be changed to a regular by its owner, because of the lack of visitors. The fourth remains a MOC and has been infrequently visited.

 

Incidentally, last time I heard from Dan Miller, MOCs aren't "counted" by the leaderboard.

[+El Diablo]

I changed all mine to MOC to cut down on the care I have to give them. There has been a big increase of new cachers in the area that haven't learned how to replace the caches they find yet.

 

My caches take a lot of thinking to find and if someone dosen't replace it correctly it spoils it for the next cacher.

 

I'm tired of reading logs that the cache was exposed..and then having to go out every weekend to put it back.

 

I love to promote this sport and I encourage as many people as possible to do it, but it really dissapoints me to see how some treat the caches they find.

 

El Diablo

 

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

[+Acc-Risk and Snarflax]

quote:

---

Originally posted by El Diablo:

I love to promote this sport and I encourage as many people as possible to do it, but it really dissapoints me to see how some treat the caches they find.

---

 

I went to one last night that was near a very rocky area, with a steep drop off on one side. When I got there, every single rock within 30 feet of the cache was turned over and rolled off the side of the hill. It looked lke asteroids had hit a hundred times with all the holes in the ground... GPS was dead on, took me about 20 seconds to find it...

 

Dunno why I told that story, except that it took me ages to clean up the area so it didn't look like someone stole all of the rocks... Of course it got dark and I got on the wrong trail coming back down, thanks to the rock movers...

 

Contents Under Pressure...

[Squad51]

We don't hunt MOCs. Personal preference, I guess.

[+pizzachef]

I was thinking about placing a MOC because we've had a good share of caches get looted in my area. But I don't want to eliminate anyone either...so I was trying to think of a way to list the cache as a MOC, but I would email non-members the cache details if they asked for them. The problem would come with logging the find. Any ideas?

 

-pizzachef

[+El Diablo]

The way I do it Pizzachef is when a non member ask for access to the cache. I make it clear to them what is expected of them, then I change the cache to a public cache untill they can get the info they need or log it. Then I change it back.

 

I'm not trying to make this a Members only sport, I just want them to respect the work that went into it, and replace it the way it was found or better.

 

El Diablo

 

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgeandmary:

with over 85 views on this thread, and no one can list a MOC that's been looted.

---

 

One would need first-hand knowledge of a MOC being looted, since I would imagine that if a MOC was looted, the hider would probably go ahead and archive it after that happenned.

 

The search tools are not sophisticated enough to search for archived MOC's.

 

I did do a pocket query search for a maximum of 500 in my area, but it only came back with about 5. Reading the logs of the ones I found show no trouble.

 

It would appear from that point of view the MOC does work well to prevent looting. I think, however, the reason it works well is because it hides coordinates from unregistered lurkers as well as non charter member registered users.

 

If I had to guess the reason for it's success, I would guess that it is more because of the hiding of coordinates from the unregistered lurker harvesting waypoints to plunder, rather than from the registered user.

 

After all, the registered user is registered in order to log finds on the site, thus playing the game rather than destroying it.

 

Too bad the registered player who is not a charter member has to be excluded from hunting these, when it's purpose is really to prevent plundering, not excluding non-plunderers.

[+Alan2]

MOC's were created not to prevent plundering but to create an illusion of a special service that people would pay money for. If it did stop any plundering, that was just a coincidence to it's main purpose.

 

Alan

[+Web-ling]

There have been a few plundered by cachers with a personal grudge against the cache owner, as well as a few people with grudges against geocaching in general. However, I still think the vast majority of plundered caches are vandalized by non-cachers who stumble upon them. Making a cache MOC won't help a bit with that.

 

[iryshe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan2:

MOC's were created not to prevent plundering but to create an illusion of a special service that people would pay money for. If it did stop any plundering, that was just a coincidence to it's main purpose.

 

Alan

---

 

Wow. You're just flat out wrong. MOC were created to keep plundering from happening in some areas. Anyone can use a throwaway hotmail account and register to see "registered-user only caches," so the alternate, MOC, was the best "lesser of several evils" solution. As a tool it was decided by the owner whether to use the feature, so we (the site) did not have to impose any rules.

 

I do concede that at the beginning we only had MyPop! and member only caches as user features. I would have liked to have had pocket queries then but we were at a crisis financially to keep the site running. I think we were pretty straightforward with the (sadly) few features available at that time, and we're working to include more today.

 

A recent idea came up to allow a request list for users to ask permission to see a member's cache(s). I liked that idea since it's middle of the road. Both members and registered users would have the opportunity to see caches, and owners can give permission for people to see them.

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+Web-ling]

quote:

---

A recent idea came up to allow a request list for users to ask permission to see a member's cache(s). I liked that idea since it's middle of the road. Both members and registered users would have the opportunity to see caches, and owners can give permission for people to see them.

 

Jeremy

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

---

 

I like that! I paid for a membership for my account, but not for the accounts of other family members. If we all find a MOC, I'd be the only one able to log it. If there were a request list, then all of us could log. We actually skipped one cache on a recent cross-country trip specifically because of this issue.

 

On the flip side, if I placed a MOC, I'd be able to allow any cacher I trust to hunt the cache, even if they are not members. Great idea!

 

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

 

A recent idea came up to allow a request list for users to ask permission to see a member's cache(s). I liked that idea since it's middle of the road. Both members and registered users would have the opportunity to see caches, and owners can give permission for people to see them.

---

 

Why is it a terrible idea?

 

1. How will this stop anyone from requesting permission, receiving it, logging the cache, and then passing the coordinates on to others ... or even posting them somewhere on this site?

 

2. How will this stop someone who has received permission from returning at a later date to do mischief? The list of suspects would of course be limited to all who received permission. The only recourse would be to routinely deny permission to all who had received permission. That would be patently unfair.

 

3. There will be cache owners who deny permission for no apparent reason ... or to intentionally discriminate against certain individuals.

 

4. We already have two classes of caches: "Private caches" (MOCs) and "Public caches" (Everything else.) How many more "elite" classes of caches (or cache owners) do we actually need?

[+Alan2]

OK I'm not a mind reader so I'll accept your explanation Jeremy. It's just that when you charge for a service, regardless of the intended benefit to those who pay, there's a natural tendency to assume something else is going on from the standpoint of the person selling it.

 

After all, MOC's could be set up at no charge. You could set it up so you have to be a member with X number of finds and hides before you get clearance to use and/or see MOC's. This would have more or less the same effect as it would eliminate the guy who just creates an account to do ill will. But I seem to recall that this was one of the features you offered as a way to encourage people to become paying members.

 

Maybe I'm confused. I thought you said you're in business. If so than there's nothing wrong with charging for services. Frankly, if the extra services (the non-paying services are terrific) get good enough you might acually get me to pay for them.

 

Here's a hint. Stop improving the site for non-paying members. For example, want to do benchmark caching, you've got to be a paying member. Want to post pictures to your cache, you got to be a paying member. Want to be able to lock out specific caches from coming up when you search, you got to be a paying member. I think that would be fair to both you and your customers. You don't pay - you get the basics. Pay -and get the frills.

 

Alan

[+Alan2]

OK I'm not a mind reader so I'll accept your explanation Jeremy. It's just that when you charge for a service, regardless of the intended benefit to those who pay, there's a natural tendency to assume something else is going on from the standpoint of the person selling it.

 

After all, MOC's could be set up at no charge. You could set it up so you have to be a member with X number of finds and hides before you get clearance to use and/or see MOC's. This would have more or less the same effect as it would eliminate the guy who just creates an account to do ill will. But I seem to recall that this was one of the features you offered as a way to encourage people to become paying members.

 

Maybe I'm confused. I thought you said you're in business. If so than there's nothing wrong with charging for services. Frankly, if the extra services (the non-paying services are terrific) get good enough you might acually get me to pay for them.

 

Here's a hint. Stop improving the site for non-paying members. For example, want to do benchmark caching, you've got to be a paying member. Want to post pictures to your cache, you got to be a paying member. Want to be able to lock out specific caches from coming up when you search, you got to be a paying member. I think that would be fair to both you and your customers. You don't pay - you get the basics. Pay -and get the frills.

 

Alan

[+WaldenRun]

I usually start my caches out as MO for about a week. I like to see who is viewing it at the beginning as well as give supporting members a chance at the initial (> $.50) contents. I subsequently have opened them all up except for the two I created to offer cachers a chance to sign GeoQuilt squares. The squares are property of someone else and I need to protect them while they are in my care.

 

WR

 

"Why worry when you can obsess?"

[+joedohn]

I've had a number of MOC's and non-MOC's and changed a few from MOC to public when requested (by cachers not yet supporting the site financially). The only conclusion I've drawn about the worth of MOC's is they help protect caches in urban areas.

 

It stands to reason that the higher density of bored people with computers found in a city will result in more plundered caches. Particularly after geocaching has been advertised in the local media.

 

If I was an immature high-schooler on summer vacation I'd think plundering caches would be a fun source of punishment-free vandalism. I'm not trying to paint all kids with the same broad brush but I remember being this way myself (along with most of my little friends) at a certain point in my youth. I wouldn't have driven out of town for 20 miles and climbed a trail 2000ft for my thrills if I knew I could take the bus to a local park to search for and raid a hidden cache. And who know's, maybe Dad even has a GPSR I could borrow while he's away at work.

 

Anyway, it's a likely enough scenario and I think MOC's help protect against this kind of stuff.

 

We ought to change the name of MOC's to what they really are which is 'protected caches'. That will help defuse some of the populist posturing by those bent on labeling fellow cachers as elitist.

[+JeeperJohn]

Originally posted by WaldenRun:

I usually start my caches out as MO for about a week. I like to see who is viewing it at the beginning as well as give supporting members a chance at the initial (> $.50) contents. I subsequently have opened them all up except for the two I created to offer cachers a chance to sign GeoQuilt squares. The squares are property of someone else and I need to protect them while they are in my care.

 

QUOTE]

 

This is exactly what I plan to do with my next cache. I want to give supporting members the chance to be ftf then I will open it up to the general public.

[+Alan2]

Originally posted by joedohn:... The only conclusion I've drawn about the worth of MOC's is they help protect caches in _urban_ areas.

 

It stands to reason that the higher density of bored people with computers found in a city will result in more plundered caches. Particularly after geocaching has been advertised in the local media.

 

If I was an immature high-schooler on summer vacation I'd think plundering caches would be a fun source of punishment-free vandalism. I'm not trying to paint all kids with the same broad brush but I remember being this way myself (along with most of my little friends) at a certain point in my youth. I wouldn't have driven out of town for 20 miles and climbed a trail 2000ft for my thrills if I knew I could take the bus to a local park to search for and raid a hidden cache. And who know's, maybe Dad even has a GPSR I could borrow while he's away at work.

 

Anyway, it's a likely enough scenario and I think MOC's help protect against this kind of stuff...QUOTE]

 

I better keep an eye on my next door neighbor since I live in an urban area. You never know. He might be a no good plunderer. Let's see, he goes out and buys, or maybe steals or borrows a GPS from one of his nogoodnick buddies., logs onto geocaching.com, gets on a bus or maybe takes a cab or steals a car, and hunts down a cache so he can steal a McDonalds toy! Yo gotta be kiddin'? Why would he do that when he could be out muggin' some poor old lady at the ATM?

 

No, you've created a canard. Of the how many thousand of non-MOC caches there are out there, who has proof that some urban cowboy plundered a cache? There's a better chance that some paying member who has access to MOCs in a pique plundered a cache of someone who got a better score, or went out and plundered a cache because of what they said in these forums (hmmm) than some non-cacher joinng as a non-payer and plundering by using a GPS. If that happened more than once or twice in the entire world I'd be shocked.

 

Alan

[+mrcpu]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

A recent idea came up to allow a request list for users to ask permission to see a member's cache(s). I liked that idea since it's middle of the road. Both members and registered users would have the opportunity to see caches, and owners can give permission for people to see them.

---

 

I don't like this idea because it would be a pain and it would interfere with pocket queries.(Otherwise, if it didn't interfere then what would be the point!)

 

(OFF TOPIC: Why not implement a "Enter Password" field on the cache LOG. The reason I'd like to see a "Enter Password" is two-fold. Firstly on a virtual people will sometimes log entries and forget to email me first. A password would mean that they would HAVE TO email me first!. Another twist would be to use a piece of information found at a virtual as the password and then they wouldn't have to email me at all! For a regular cache you could tape the password on the inside of the lid or logbook so there is proof the user actually found it.)

 

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrcpu:

 

(OFF TOPIC: ... For a regular cache you could tape the password on the inside of the lid or logbook so there is proof the user actually found it.)

---

 

Lately, we've had pranksters here in Jersey who have compromised caches without actually stealing them ... this might provide them a new sport: "Password Obliteration."

[+pizzachef]

There are some people engaged in this activity with some pretty over-active imaginations. An illusion of a special service?? Cachers 'gone bad' that return to do mischief after they've had enough with traditional geocaching?? People secretly passing MOC coordinates in some underground geocacher-rebel cult?? These are the makings of a villian from the Brady Bunch.

 

I like the idea of giving people permission to search and log a MOC because I don't really want to eliminate geocachers from the game. But I would like to eliminate cache looters from the Earth...since that's not feasible, keeping them out of the know is going to have to be good enough. I realize that most looters probably just stumble on the caches or see others finding/hiding them. But since there ARE immature high-schooler d**kf***s that need a good head-stomping, I like the ability to keep the cache info under cover.

 

I don't think I'm better than anyone else because I have this ability, in fact, there's probably more non-charter members with an elitist mentality because they stood their ground and didn't suck up to The Man. That being said, I offer the info for any of my MOCs (right now, none, but maybe in the future) to anyone who has an active geocaching history, regardless of social status, political preference, physical appearance, or sexual orientation. We're all geocachers here, so let's go find some friggin geocaches.

 

-pizzachef

[+cachew nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan2:

 

He might be a no good plunderer. Let's see, he goes out and buys, or maybe steals or borrows a GPS from one of his nogoodnick buddies., logs onto geocaching.com, gets on a bus or maybe takes a cab or steals a car, and hunts down a cache so he can steal a McDonalds toy!

---

 

Almost correct. The way the game is now, he does not even have to log on to geocaching.com to find out where the cache is. The information is freely available to anyone who points his or her browser to the site, without the need to log in.

 

Jeremy emailed me that he would take care of this after getting the pocket query stuff to work, but now when I email him to ask when this will be implemented, he does not respond to the emails. Perhaps he has changed his mind.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pizzachef:

... But since there ARE immature high-schooler d**kf***s that need a good head-stomping, I like the ability to keep the cache info under cover.

---

 

There's a non-discriminatory comment if ever I've seen one. My belief is that most caches are plundered by similarly immature middle-aged men with a "bone to pick."

 

quote:

---

That being said, I offer the info for any of my MOCs (right now, none, but maybe in the future) to anyone who has an active geocaching history, regardless of social status, political preference, physical appearance, or sexual orientation.

---

 

Unless, of course, they are "immature high-schooler d**kf***s that need a good head-stomping" who happen to also have a legitimate geocaching history?

[+Jumpmaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

A recent idea came up to allow a request list for users to ask permission to see a member's cache(s). I liked that idea since it's middle of the road. Both members and registered users would have the opportunity to see caches, and owners can give permission for people to see them.

---

 

Having had two ammo box caches stolen from VERY well-hidden areas in the last 6 months as well as third one that belonged to a buddy, I think this is a great idea. I would be willing to pay for a membership to have access to a feature like this but it would be nice if everyone could use it. It's clear we have a looter in our particular neck of the woods and it's also very clear that they didn't just stumble onto the cache while out on a hike...they are, or WERE, very well-hidden.

 

I think it's an excellent idea...you people that haven't had caches stolen or only stand to lose < a $5.00 total investment in a cache probably won't agree with those of us that like this idea. I don't honestly care...I'm sick to death of having my caches stolen now. It's just getting really old, really fast.

 

JM-99

[syd_b_lives_on]

I have a question for all of my fellow geocachers.

***********************************************

 

Would you rather pay the $30 so you can go after a MO cache that has several clues, thus fairly easy to find if you were a member? Or, would you rather not become a member and go after a cache that had no clues at all, thus harder to find. At the present time I feel that these are the only 2 choices I have for preventing plunderage.

 

I've been giving this whole MO vs. public caches some thought and am leaning towards going with all public caches with no clues given. I feel that this is a good compromise because it gives everyone the oppurtunity to look for one of my caches, although it may be hard to find them, yet it should help to impede any potential plunderer.

 

If you hide it, they will come.

[BassoonPilot]

I paid my $30 to become a member. I do not intend on placing any MOCs.

 

Of the two MOCs I've visited, there was nothing in terms of quality or placement that would distinguish them from any public cache. I discussed the matter with one of the cache owners, who told me he had made it a MOC "just to see what it was all about," and that after a few days he intended to change it into a public cache.

 

I often do public caches without clues.

 

I will never do a cache where I have to seek permission from a cache owner first. I'd walk away from geocaching first. But happily, there are plenty of quality, public caches out there.

[+Whidbey Walk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassonPilot:

I will never do a cache where I have to seek permission from a cache owner first. I'd walk away from geocaching first. But happily, there are plenty of quality, public caches out there.

---

 

I don’t mind MOC’s but agree with BassoonPilot statement regarding permission caches.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumpmaster:

Having had two ammo box caches stolen from VERY well-hidden areas in the last 6 months as well as third one that belonged to a buddy, I think this is a great idea. I would be willing to pay for a membership to have access to a feature like this but it would be nice if everyone could use it. It's clear we have a looter in our particular neck of the woods and it's also very clear that they didn't just stumble onto the cache while out on a hike...they are, or WERE, very well-hidden.

---

 

Well, it’s been my experience that very well hidden only lasts until the first finder. The caches then tend to become less and less hidden. Eventually statements like “…cache was sitting out in the open…” start to show up on log entries. Unless you revisit the cache after each find (logged on the site or not) you really don’t know how well they are hidden. I am still of the belief that the vast majority of missing or plundered caches are by accidental finders and that no matter what is done on this site that will continue to happen.

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/