Jump to content

Geocaching is about 5 seconds away from being not fun anymore


Recommended Posts

This is getting out of control. The talk about pay to play, the *****ing and moaning about how evil geocaching is becasue it is so bad for the environment . . .

 

Regarding Pay to play: Why not just make the entire site pay based. Why have any free low class "Public caches" anyway. After all, they are just going to get plundered right? Why would I want to place any "public caches?" I would rather have my caches ALL listed as "MEMBERS ONLY" And by the way, what is going to happen when most all of the new caches placed are "MEMBERS ONLY??"

 

I think Bunkerdave said it best when he remarked:

 

"Personally, I think not placing any caches is a greater violation of caching etiquette than not buying a subscription. By far."

 

Well, you know what? I am willing to bet that there are many people who will not want to place "PUBLIC" caches when they can have them listed as "MEMBERS ONLY" caches. I am also willing to bet that the number of newly placed caches may well start to fall if you have to pay to play.

 

How long before someone else comes along and does it better, or cheaper? How long before those other sites siphon enough users to kill or neuter geocaching.com?

 

Regards,

Wesley Horton

Link to comment

I understand where you're coming from, but I think you might be overreacting a bit.

 

I think we will all be a little surprised how few MOCs there actually will be. I am placing one this weekend, weather permitting, but to be honest, it is just to see how the plan works. I will probably be switching it to a regular cache sooner than later.

 

Bear in mind, too, that the main reason the MOCs were implemented was to increase the level of security for caches, which will hopefully result in a higher level of caches overall, not a general degradation of the cache pool.

 

If the "best" new caches are MOCs, so what? Most of the caches out there now are not too bad, and even those that are lame still get plenty of action.

 

I don't see a whole lot of threat to caching likely to result from MOCs. I will be very surprised if the number of MOCs ever exceeds 10% of total caches. Barring a major epidemic of plundering, what would be the purpose?

 

That said, I still would like to see the option to audit cache page visits extended to ALL caches. This is the most useful security measure I see in the MOCs, and if it is truly any good, then all caches should have the same "protection." Restricting the access to cache pages provides limited protection at best, and as was stated by Tslack in another thread, even if we could find out for certain who plundered/stole a cache, what are we really going to do about it? A few great ideas were kicked around last Monday in the Clayjar Chats, but beyond that, it really makes little difference.

 

bunkerdave

6327_1600.gif

Link to comment

icon_eek.gif

Let's let time do the talking here. We (myself included) seem to be over-reacting to the paid membership thing.

1. $30 - big deal.

2. If there is a problem that is not fixable the membership will decrease and changes will be made.

3. It's obvious that GeoCaching is gaining in popularity, so some folks may want to go to another caching group.

4. Regardless of what we say, we're not driving the boat.

Link to comment

icon_eek.gif

Let's let time do the talking here. We (myself included) seem to be over-reacting to the paid membership thing.

1. $30 - big deal.

2. If there is a problem that is not fixable the membership will decrease and changes will be made.

3. It's obvious that GeoCaching is gaining in popularity, so some folks may want to go to another caching group.

4. Regardless of what we say, we're not driving the boat.

Link to comment

Time, and this little bump in the road, might also shake loose some of the whiners you find in most any community project.

 

There are those who do, and then there are those who complain.

 

Hopefully this will seperate the two.

 

As the sage one is often heard to say

 

"Have a nice day"

-tom

 

----------------------------

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

Link to comment

I wrote this for the "pay to play..." thread but Jeremy close that behemoth of a thread before I could post but since I put so much effort into writting it and it seems to fit here also, sort of, I will post it here. Forgive me if this is to off topic.

 

--------------

 

I have said my peace earlier in this thread. My position has been stated in my posts and Mikechim's earlier posts fit my opinion pretty good and are better said. Mike's posts have been most eloquent and express the views of a few people (myself included) in the geocaching community.

 

It seems that we, the geocaching community, have broken down into several groups over the newest changes to geocaching. Please don't take my descriptions of the groups too literally they are only there to try to make the issue clearer and are not meant as a personally attack on anyone. Individuals may see several of the faction that seems to fit them.

 

1) The militant unquestioning supporters of Jeremy

 

These are a small but vocal group of people that believe that whatever Jeremy does is going to be correct and cannot possible understand why anyone would question what he is doing with the web site and geocaching. They are more than willing to send their money but they are not will to question the changes or listen to anyone else question the changes. This group seems excessively closed minded to any concerns any of the following groups would make about what Jeremy is doing. This group is as destructive as the group that is dead set against the changes.

 

2) The supporters that are still open to question and concerns.

 

This group of people supports everything that Jeremy has done so far but is willing to entertain questions and concern about the changes that are happening to geocaching. They have been willing to discuss the issues in an intelligent manner and have helped calm some of the more militant readers. This by far seems the largest group out there.

 

3) The ones that may be willing to pay but worry about member only caches

 

This seems to be a very small group of cachers, myself included, that don't mind that Jeremy has to get and probably disserves some funds to kept the web site running and growing but worry about the implication of creating a section of geocaching that is "pay to play". Yes geocaching is now "pay to play" in the minds of this third group. Not completely not even close to completely. It probable 99% free but if you want to be a FULL participant in the geocaching community and hunt any and all caches you will have to pay. If there were no mocaches then your claims of free geocaching would still be valid for this group as I see it. Restricting the fluffy features of the web site is one thing but restricting access to a subset of the caches is another thing for this third group of people. Access to the database should be free to all cachers in their opinion. This is the way it started and this is the way they would like it to stay if at all possible. I think this is that principal that Mike talks about. GPS-stash started as a free access activity on the sci.geo.satellite-nav newsgroups and was still free as it hit the first web site. We would like to see it stay free on this one.

 

4) The militant cachers against any payment of any kind.

 

This group is a small and again very vocal group that is as close minded as the first. They seem to have no appreciation for what Jeremy has done or any concept of the time and money invested in the web site. They are also destructive and divisive to the group.

 

That all typed I'm and not sure what else to say. I think that despite this massive, fast pace and furious discussion we have had Jeremy is going to do what he is going to do. I am afraid that the minority I am part of does not have a loud enough voice to change anything now but we have been heard I think.

 

Geocaching has past a point of no return I think, because there is going to be a group of cachers that are put out if things continue as they are. On the other hand if Jeremy reversed every thing he has done (don't hold your breath on that one but if he did) then there would be another group of cachers just as put out. So now, no matter what, the changes have happened and all we can do is ride out the storm that any change brings to a group like this. If the changes were for the better then the group will survive this challenge and if not it won't matter. Some people may leave and other will join. I personally think, despite my misgivings of the mocaches, that geocaching will survive in one form or another. It has already had one or two major changes since I saw it start in May of 2000.

 

I would ask only that we try not to let groups 1 and 4 get under our skins too much and the rest of us continue this difficult dialog. And if this all becomes just to frustrating go find a cache and relax in the great outdoors.

 

Thanks for reading

mcb

Link to comment

My concern was basically the same as his. With more and more people becoming members there will naturally be more and more mocaches. As the old public caches wear out and fade away we will have a smaller and smaller pool of caches from which to choose. Speaking for myself I know this is true. I just joined and the first thing I did was make two of my caches members-only. Any new caches I place will be members only. I figure I coughed up the 30 bucks, I want all the features that entitles me to. icon_wink.gif

 

"God bless those pagans" - Homer Simpson

Link to comment

My concern was basically the same as his. With more and more people becoming members there will naturally be more and more mocaches. As the old public caches wear out and fade away we will have a smaller and smaller pool of caches from which to choose. Speaking for myself I know this is true. I just joined and the first thing I did was make two of my caches members-only. Any new caches I place will be members only. I figure I coughed up the 30 bucks, I want all the features that entitles me to. icon_wink.gif

 

"God bless those pagans" - Homer Simpson

Link to comment

I hesitate to post a reply because I would really like to see this thread get buried.

 

Here in Western Washington, geocaching is pretty big. There are a couple hundred geocaches within an hour of my house. Speaking for several of us who place a lot of geocaches, we are in no hurry to make ours members only. We see this as Jeremy does: it's a security measure. We have been fortunate and have had few problems. Therefore, we'll continue to place regular geocaches which are available to everyone. I place some pretty kick-butt caches and I want as many people as possible to find them. Let's not get our panties in a wad here, folks.

 

-Seth!

(and yes, I'll be sending in my subscription dollars)

Link to comment

I see where this is going; the reasoning behind the new "1 hr edit" rule is clear: Jeremy is indeed the terrible capitalist a few have suggested in the forums, and he has a secret plan "to take over the world." (Just like he plans every night, Pinky.) In the plan, posting/downloading geocaches will remain "free," but a paypal account will be required in order to post to the forums. A modest fee will automatically be charged to our accounts per misspelling posted . . . icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

I see where this is going; the reasoning behind the new "1 hr edit" rule is clear: Jeremy is indeed the terrible capitalist a few have suggested in the forums, and he has a secret plan "to take over the world." (Just like he plans every night, Pinky.) In the plan, posting/downloading geocaches will remain "free," but a paypal account will be required in order to post to the forums. A modest fee will automatically be charged to our accounts per misspelling posted . . . icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

I just got my subscription because of the caches it now makes possible for me. I have a couple of create micro-caches that I wanted to place in fairly public areas with a cute idea, but it never was really possible to place them because they were two likly to be plundered and would require a lot of effort. No I can place those caches for those who are willing to join. Those unwilling would never have seen the caches anyway so no real loss.

 

Now I will say by default my caches I place in the future will be public caches unless there is some reason not too.

 

Still I am very excited about the caches I can now place. I never thought I would be able to do them and now I can.

 

Dan

Link to comment

Okay, I have signed up for the membership, but I do not plan to place any member only caches, and I do not plan to hunt any member only caches. I do not believe in member only caches as I began this activity due to the nature of hunting caches but also due to the interaction of the geocaching community on this web site. To me, my opinion only, the member ship is a formal way for me to make a donation for all the work that Jeremy has done on this web site in support of geocaching.

 

That said, I hope that the membership only caches go the way of the dodo bird quickly. I will continue to hunt caches, I am planning my first hide soon, and it will be open to all to hunt. The fact that I have purchased a membership will not change the way I do anything with regard to geocaching. My children do not care whether geocaching is free or not, they don't care if we are members or not, they don't care if there are caches we are going to skip on principle, they just love getting out with their dad to treasure hunt and see neat stuff along the way. And that is the way it will stay.

 

My secret wish: Jeremy decides that member only caches are just one little step too far, and he'll find some other benefit for members that is just as good and not as devisive. Anything that I can do beyond paying a paltry $30.00 a year, less than $3.00 a month, one tenth of what I probably spend on diet cokes alone a year, I will be willing to do to support Jeremy and geocaching both. Just let me know.

 

Mac McKinney

"Breaktrack" icon_razz.gif

Link to comment

Okay, I have signed up for the membership, but I do not plan to place any member only caches, and I do not plan to hunt any member only caches. I do not believe in member only caches as I began this activity due to the nature of hunting caches but also due to the interaction of the geocaching community on this web site. To me, my opinion only, the member ship is a formal way for me to make a donation for all the work that Jeremy has done on this web site in support of geocaching.

 

That said, I hope that the membership only caches go the way of the dodo bird quickly. I will continue to hunt caches, I am planning my first hide soon, and it will be open to all to hunt. The fact that I have purchased a membership will not change the way I do anything with regard to geocaching. My children do not care whether geocaching is free or not, they don't care if we are members or not, they don't care if there are caches we are going to skip on principle, they just love getting out with their dad to treasure hunt and see neat stuff along the way. And that is the way it will stay.

 

My secret wish: Jeremy decides that member only caches are just one little step too far, and he'll find some other benefit for members that is just as good and not as devisive. Anything that I can do beyond paying a paltry $30.00 a year, less than $3.00 a month, one tenth of what I probably spend on diet cokes alone a year, I will be willing to do to support Jeremy and geocaching both. Just let me know.

 

Mac McKinney

"Breaktrack" icon_razz.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Drive-in: This is getting out of control.


Not really. There have been heated debates over the course of the almost two years that the site has been online. Usually there is a great roar, then people go back to geocaching, or some sort of compromise is reached. Conflict is the spice of life!

 

quote:

Regarding Pay to play: Why not just make the entire site pay based.


 

Because I promised not to, way back when. And I think this would be the absolute WORST thing for the sport to do. Your last statement about folks jumping ship seems to contradict this statement.

 

quote:

I think Bunkerdave said it best when he remarked:

 

"Personally, I think not placing any caches is a greater violation of caching etiquette than not buying a subscription. By far."


I agree. Sorta. My personal opinion is if you can't place a decent cache, don't think you're forced to do so. I'd rather have folks play and not feel obligated to do anything except perhaps cache in trash out. Last thing we want is more sneaker caches.

 

quote:

Well, you know what? I am willing to bet that there are many people who will not want to place "PUBLIC" caches when they can have them listed as "MEMBERS ONLY" caches.


That may be true. I also think that some folks who have been planning on quitting may still decide to play because this option exists. Until you are specifically targetted by an intentional plunderer in the game you really don't know how it feels. Whether this will stop folks from registering and plundering the caches anyway is yet to be seen.

 

quote:

I am also willing to bet that the number of newly placed caches may well start to fall if you have to pay to play.


 

I hope so in some areas. Reducing the number of caches to quality caches (which I believe would happen in your scenario) will actually be a good thing.

 

quote:
How long before someone else comes along and does it better, or cheaper? How long before those other sites siphon enough users to kill or neuter geocaching.com?

 

As I've said in earlier posts, Geocaching is not profitable. If someone can find out a way to create a better or cheaper site then I applaud them. I do think I keep the interests of the community in mind.

 

Jeremy

Link to comment

First of all, I would like to thank Jeremy for taking the time to address many of the concerns I outlined in my posting that opened this thread.

 

I would really like to see someone address the question that has been sidestepped since the begining of this debate. Namely:

 

How are MEMBERS ONLY caches going to stop or reduce pilfering or vandalism? It is sort of like the question:

 

How is making alcohol illegal for people under 21 going to stop underage drinking? (It has not)

 

How is registration of automobiles going to cut down on drunk drivers or auto theft? (It has not)

 

Simply put, making things less accessable to the public has not reduced the misuse of such items. Conversly, Members only caches will not be free from plundering or vandalism.

 

Let me state categorically, I am not opposed to paying per se, and $30 a year is not much but that is not the question. The question is what is going to happen to the availability of "PUBLIC" caches once people have the option of placing "MEMBERS ONLY" caches. Over time, (and I am not going to guess how long.) the number of public caches will shrink while pay per view caches will increase. -I'll bet you on that one. When I mentioned this, Jeremy remarked: "That may be true." I would hazard to guess, it is most likely true.

 

Geoquest remarked about the issue:

 

"Speaking for myself I know this is true. I just joined and the first thing I did was make two of my caches members-only. Any new caches I place will be members only. I figure I coughed up the 30 bucks, I want all the features that entitles me to."

 

I am going to be honest here, if I join, that is exactly what I am going to do. "Let the newby's try out on someone elses cache," is going to become a prevailing thought.

 

One thing is for sure, time will tell. I seriously hope this thread stays open a while as I would like to see the opinions of many of the other OLD TIME CACHERS who were placing last year and before. (As opposed to the new CHARTER MEMBERS. Many who are posting fervently on this issue have never posted before. . .Humm. . . )

 

Regards,

Wesley Horton

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Drive-in:

...

How are MEMBERS ONLY caches going to stop or reduce pilfering or vandalism? It is sort of like the question:

 

How is making alcohol illegal for people under 21 going to stop underage drinking? (It has not)

....

I seriously hope this thread stays open a while as I would like to see the opinions of many of the other OLD TIME CACHERS who were placing last year and before.


 

Ok, I found my first cache Sept 2000, and placed my first cache Mar 2001, so I guess I count as an old timer. One thing, I didn't see Jeremy say that it would stop pilfering, but that some cachers had ask for a way that only registered people could see them in the HOPE that it would reduce pilfering. So Jeremy provided them a method. Also while you are correct in saying making alcohol illegal for people under 21 hasn't stop underage drinking, I think it has reduced it. I remember when I was underage, there were some who wanted alcohol, but were concerned about being caught (mainly by parents not the cops) so they just didn't get any. But some others always got some beer. The main way was to pay a less than reputable adult to buy it for them. If they could have bought it legally they would have just bought more. So in both cases the law reduced the amount of underage drinking. In the case of Member Only Caches, it is a given they will not stop pilfering, but I suspect they might reduce it, only time will tell. As for me, I have had a cache stolen/removed, but I suspect it was due to a non-cacher finding it, so if it had been Member Only cache it would still be gone. Currently I have no plans to convert any of my caches to Members only or to make my next one a members only.

Link to comment

I cannot make up my mind what to do. I feel very uncomfortable and I suppose you really couldn't care. I guess what's bothering me, Jeremy, is there seems to be disingenuousness on your part. If you would come out and say straight out, "Yes, I intend to make a profit on this - it has now become a fully commercial site. While I enjoy doing this before as a labor of love, things have changed" I could accept that. But you seem to also want to play the knight in shiney armor looking for what a great job you did for the "membership", still asking for "donations" through PayPal instead of caling them "fees" and while not willing to provide an income statement for geocaching which you imply will probably never be in the black. I feel I'm being "hoodwinked", like there's a con job going on. That you made a business decision (your right by the way) to maximize the financial benefit to you but playing us along giving us "well, it's good for the group" "espris de corps" "we gotta pay for servers" and all that stuff.

 

I smell a business plan that's going to maximize this thing to the hilt. I'm not asking you to tell us the business plan. Just acknowledge it and cut the cord to the past. Then I ca join fully concious that I'm paying your business a service charge like a golfer pays greens fees. I just don't want to feel like a sucker!

 

Alan

Link to comment

I understand your concerns and your reasoning. I just don't agree. You quoted someone saying that they will be using MOC's, but you didn't quote the several people (including myself) who stated that they would not.

 

I want all cachers to find my caches. If I place a members only cache it would be for special reasons only and would be placed privately if the MOC was not an option.

 

My caches will be open to all and I will make them a challenge and a treasure to the best of my ability.

 

More important than that, I am NOT alone. Many feel this way. Subscibers may get some extra bells and whistles. It's a common practice on the web. When it comes down to it, we are all cachers here. I make no destinction between subcriber and someone who has chosen not to. I ask only that I am treated that same way.

 

Happy Caching;

 

geosign.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ranz:

I understand your concerns and your reasoning. I just don't agree. You quoted someone saying that they will be using MOC's, but you didn't quote the several people (including myself) who stated that they would not.

...


 

Hey Ranz ... I think I'll probably use MOCaches ... at least to a level ... I've been working on one that is really kind of different with a nice first finder prize ... I've just about decided to list it ... MOCache ... oh, for a month and then kick it back to open. That way the local guys I usually correspond with have first dibs on it. Kind of elitest, naw ... not really, but on this one I do want some of the known local guys to have first shot at it. It'll serve the purpose ... then it'll be open to anyone that wants to find it. Anyway ... that's how I plan to use this new feature. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

348_1002.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Ranz:

I understand your concerns and your reasoning. I just don't agree. You quoted someone saying that they will be using MOC's, but you didn't quote the several people (including myself) who stated that they would not.

...


 

Hey Ranz ... I think I'll probably use MOCaches ... at least to a level ... I've been working on one that is really kind of different with a nice first finder prize ... I've just about decided to list it ... MOCache ... oh, for a month and then kick it back to open. That way the local guys I usually correspond with have first dibs on it. Kind of elitest, naw ... not really, but on this one I do want some of the known local guys to have first shot at it. It'll serve the purpose ... then it'll be open to anyone that wants to find it. Anyway ... that's how I plan to use this new feature. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

348_1002.gif

Link to comment

I quess I must have a different view point than others. I paid my 30 bucks for the simple reason that I know it must cost a good deal of money for Jeremy to keep this going.

 

I have had more than 30.00 worth of fun out of this over the past year. I have spent time with my wife hunting and placing caches. I've made new friends. All told....I've gotten my 30 dollars worth and much more!

 

My opinion on MOC hasn't been decided yet. Fortunately for us in this area, plundering hasn't been a problem. I place caches for the simple reason that I enjoy others getting joy out of hunting for them.

 

As far as pay to play.....how many of us put in hard work and expect no compensation?

Of course I'm like Hawk-eye...just an old fart with an opinion.

 

Jerry

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

If you would come out and say straight out, "Yes, I intend to make a profit on this - it has now become a fully commercial site. While I enjoy doing this before as a labor of love, things have changed" I could accept that.


 

Alan2, I had this same type of confusion and questions a day ago:

quote:
Originally posted by Seneca (different thread):

Jeremy, if this is a business - good on you - I hope you succeed - just be up front with us. If however, your only motivation is to strengthen the GeoCommunity, then, notwithstanding that you have the generosity of a saint, you still must account for the funds you raise. Don't cross the ethical line ( that many well known television Evangelists have) by operating a profit motivated business, while pretending that it is not.


 

and Jeremy unequivocally cleared it up in my mind:

 

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (different thread):

Grounded, Inc. (Groundspeak) is a commercial entity. It always has been. I don't think I've been fooling anyone here.


 

(Grounded, Inc. is the owner of GeoCaching.com)

 

After that response, I am sure we will not be seeing any financial reports (unless the company goes public).

 

I think that Jeremy may have some genuine internal conflict (with himself) here: he genuinely wants everybody to have the best time possible using this site and will do so even if there is little or no economic reward for him... but another part of him is naturally telling him that if there is an opportunity to make a buck.. then why not.

 

I think the way he presents his motives, is to ensure that people like UtahJean don't get upset or offended (as she did when I referred to chartered members as "customers"):

 

quote:
Originally posted by UtahJean

Please, please don't refer to me as a 'customer'. I certainly don't mind contributing this nominal fee for the privilege of geocaching, but I don't want to feel that I'm purchasing something.


 

I think the Jeremy over the last few days has been quite up front where he is coming from. I think the lingering confusion may be due to the blurring of his motivations. I don't believe he is being dishonest or deliberately misleading.

Link to comment

Ok, maybe there is a confusion because of things that exist now and things that are yet to come.

 

Some past history: I've been trying to figure out ways to make geocaching.com self sufficent. After almost a year of figuring out ways that wouldn't overcommercialize the site or detract from the game, I came to the conclusion that it more than likely will never be self sufficient.

 

However, over almost the last two years I have been eating drinking and sleeping (as well as dreaming) geocaching. I wake up to it and I check on it before going to sleep every night. And as a "dreamer" I have come up with new and innovative ways to use the technology. Most, if not all of which does not fit within the realm of geocaching.

 

As a result, I created Groundspeak, and incorporated Grounded, Inc. as the company (though we will now on be called Groundspeak) to explore these technologies. Geocaching.com as an entity has been rolled into Groundspeak because, frankly, it was easier. It also will allow me to capitalize on the technology of Groundspeak to improve Geocaching.

 

We definitely intend to make Groundspeak profitable. I have no intent to deceive you about that. But Groundspeak will not be Geocaching. I suppose since I'm so close to it I understand the distinction so it's harder to explain.

 

The Charter Membership is a Groundspeak Charter Membership. I do this because I feel that folks who help fund the site of Geocaching should be thanked in the form of a membership to Groundspeak when that comes to pass. I guess it is sort of like a Magic Kingdom pass at Disney. It's just that Groundspeak proper hasn't opened yet.

 

Jeremy

 

[This message was edited by Jeremy Irish on March 09, 2002 at 05:44 PM.]

Link to comment

Well, I gotta tell you, after having a MOC posted for ONE day, I am more convinced than ever that there is no way to know for sure who plundered a cache. Darn it. Here is the visitor log for my cache, at the present:

 

3/9/2002 4:44:55 PM bunkerdave (32 times)

3/9/2002 4:38:55 PM Gromit (10 times)

3/9/2002 3:50:16 PM Utahbill

3/9/2002 1:11:43 PM Paul Morrison WaylandersMA (2 times)

3/9/2002 11:31:41 AM rdwatson78

3/9/2002 10:38:22 AM jimmonty

3/9/2002 6:13:45 AM Harrald (2 times)

3/9/2002 4:54:08 AM fractal (7 times)

3/9/2002 12:39:06 AM tslack2000 (2 times)

3/9/2002 12:00:34 AM mikemtn (2 times)

3/8/2002 11:58:22 PM cbx2

3/8/2002 11:51:17 PM Kimrobin

3/8/2002 11:25:47 PM CacheCows

3/8/2002 10:42:36 PM mark71mark

3/8/2002 9:11:12 PM keithpilot

3/8/2002 8:21:33 PM DLiming (7 times)

3/8/2002 8:15:53 PM Kevin & Susan (9 times)

3/8/2002 8:14:50 PM ladybuggers (6 times)

3/8/2002 7:50:26 PM Web-ling

3/8/2002 7:44:00 PM DutchBoy

3/8/2002 5:56:28 PM clatmandu

3/8/2002 5:35:28 PM Prime Suspect

3/8/2002 5:30:32 PM erik88l-r (2 times)

3/8/2002 5:05:54 PM ttepee

 

Fact is, there are SO many visitors to a cache page, that it is simply impossible to tell. Now, most of these folks live nowhere near me, but look at all the visits!

 

Given that, I would very much like to see this function extended to ALL caches, not just the MOCs.

 

How about it, Jeremy? (just add this to my ever-growing wish list.) icon_biggrin.gif

 

bunkerdave

6327_1600.gif

Link to comment

Well, I gotta tell you, after having a MOC posted for ONE day, I am more convinced than ever that there is no way to know for sure who plundered a cache. Darn it. Here is the visitor log for my cache, at the present:

 

3/9/2002 4:44:55 PM bunkerdave (32 times)

3/9/2002 4:38:55 PM Gromit (10 times)

3/9/2002 3:50:16 PM Utahbill

3/9/2002 1:11:43 PM Paul Morrison WaylandersMA (2 times)

3/9/2002 11:31:41 AM rdwatson78

3/9/2002 10:38:22 AM jimmonty

3/9/2002 6:13:45 AM Harrald (2 times)

3/9/2002 4:54:08 AM fractal (7 times)

3/9/2002 12:39:06 AM tslack2000 (2 times)

3/9/2002 12:00:34 AM mikemtn (2 times)

3/8/2002 11:58:22 PM cbx2

3/8/2002 11:51:17 PM Kimrobin

3/8/2002 11:25:47 PM CacheCows

3/8/2002 10:42:36 PM mark71mark

3/8/2002 9:11:12 PM keithpilot

3/8/2002 8:21:33 PM DLiming (7 times)

3/8/2002 8:15:53 PM Kevin & Susan (9 times)

3/8/2002 8:14:50 PM ladybuggers (6 times)

3/8/2002 7:50:26 PM Web-ling

3/8/2002 7:44:00 PM DutchBoy

3/8/2002 5:56:28 PM clatmandu

3/8/2002 5:35:28 PM Prime Suspect

3/8/2002 5:30:32 PM erik88l-r (2 times)

3/8/2002 5:05:54 PM ttepee

 

Fact is, there are SO many visitors to a cache page, that it is simply impossible to tell. Now, most of these folks live nowhere near me, but look at all the visits!

 

Given that, I would very much like to see this function extended to ALL caches, not just the MOCs.

 

How about it, Jeremy? (just add this to my ever-growing wish list.) icon_biggrin.gif

 

bunkerdave

6327_1600.gif

Link to comment

A MOCache will do nothing to limit plundering by people who just happen upon a cache. However, it could help reduce loses due to junior high kids wanting to "mess with people" and who have access to their dad's GPS (or mom's - don't want to be sexist). They're not going to shell out money, just to have access to a very small subset of the total number of caches available.

 

PS_sig.gif

Link to comment

Prime, you're right, that is a great description of the type of cache vandalism that will be cut down on. It won't cut down on the truly vindictive vandal who will pay the fee to be an a-hole. A few months experience will tell if it does any good.

 

BDave. In the beginning frenzy I think a MOcache is going to get thrashed with hits like yours. My curiosity made me go hunting and stumbled on your cache and fractals beautiful graphic. Again, only the experience of a few months will tell whether the log is going to be worth anything.

 

1.jpg

Link to comment

First of all, the term "charter member" is somewhat offensive (and a big misnomer). Even though I have not been caching for long, I know there are some who have been caching for over a year and could be considered a "charter member" of the sport but may not be able to pay...its like paying someone off to become mayor or something, some of these people may not be fitting of the title "charter member" even though they paid for it.

 

While I am not sure if I agree with Drive-In that the Subscription service will lead to all the caches moving over to "paying customers only" I am not sure that it is a good idea. I applaud Jeremy for his work on the site, and hope also that the Groundspeak stuff does well, however, if Jeremy is the one that made up the slogan on the front page which says, "A GPS device and a hunger for adventure are all you need for high tech treasure hunting." Then maybe we should change that to "A GPS device and a hunger for adventure AND $30 are all you need for high tech treasure hunting." I have been interested in checking out donating to the site and I do think that contributing patrons should have SOME benefits, but don't destroy the sport for others who are JUST as avid geocachers by making these "private caches". Just because someone can pay $30 a year does not make them the UBER Geocacher. Basically I guess I am just saying that I hope that Jeremy reconsiders that particular section of the subscription service and that he can possibly make a page that will explain better how much bandwidth the site uses (because some of us are sensitive to that information and how much bandwidth costs, plus I think its interesting to see how the sport grows) and will emphasize how donations (or subscription memberships) can help.

 

-HipsterDo0fus

Edmond, OK

Link to comment

We had quite a spirited discussion of this entire topic at the Oklahoma Geocachers meeting tonight. Good points were made on several fronts which in many ways, mirrored the comments here.

 

There is a reasonable question about the number of caches that will be public vs. private in the upcoming months. One good point was that as a geocacher, if I place a cache, I want people to visit my cache. As many as possible. I guess we will see. . .

 

Which raises another point, will we have access to the numbers of "MEMBERS ONLY" caches vs. public caches?

 

Jeremy mentioned that he wants the endevor to become profitable. OK, reasonable. Would Jeremy mind too much giving us a timeline about what we can expect in the future? Will you need to be a member to view the forums in six months? Will the membership cost suddenly jump to $50.00 in six months? What if more caches are private than public? Will it become a costed item to place a cache?

 

Regards,

Wesley Horto

Link to comment

If this whole membership thing is really that offensive to you, don't do it! It's that simple!

 

When you open a site like this of your own, make your own rules. Until then, realize and understand that this is Jeremy's place, Jeremy's version of the game, and he will run his site as he sees fit.

 

None of you (of which I know) contributed server space, bandwidth, coding assistance, merchandise development/creation/distribution, or donated the same amount of money Jeremy is going to offer *additional-only* features to those who choose to pay. If you don't pay, you still play. You'll be playing the same game, some of us will have the *option* of playing the same game, just a little differently.

 

Get over it.

Link to comment

Jake,

 

Unfortuntely, it is responses such as yours, essentially telling people to 'Shut the *** up!" that continues to fan the flames of dissent and animosity as much as anyone complaining about the Membership issue. This is exactly the attitude some people believe will be fostered under the new system.

 

Jeremy created a very public system and therefore the Geocaching public feel they should be able to say something about that system in an effort to make their voice heard.

 

Participating in Geocaching as a sport and a community adds value to both. People have donated their time, if not their money, to do right by Geocaching and geocaching.com. People have placed caches, managed caches, developed new and interesting alternatives to the standard "box" cache, assisted newcomers in learning about the sport and a host of other valuable things beyond donating cold hard cash. I believe they should have an opportunity to make their views known.

 

Do I agree with everyone all the time? Of course not. I do, though, believe they should have an opportunity to state their views.

 

Geocaching is a public sport and geocaching.com is a publically available web site. Therefore, it is open to the the praise and criticism of the public. The possibilty of dissent and criticism is soemthing that any web site operator has to face, especially when it is a site so dedicated to building a community.

 

The only way for Geocaching.com to avoid facing these views is to be an entirely closed system with members eligible only by invitation. Even then there is bound to be differing opinions amongst the membership.

 

The community is what makes Geocaching.com and Geocaching.com facilitates the community. They are inseparable. One without the other is damaging to both.

 

I make computing clear!

Link to comment

Sorry. Subscription only caches are here to stay, for the reasons I have already expressed. It is a tool that geocachers can use. I do not force people to create them.

 

Don't be daft. As I've said too many times to count, there will continue to be plenty caches to find that are non-subscriber only. I promised that there will always be free geocaching.

 

The topic for this thread is pretty inappropriate for where it went. I won't shut down another topic beating this horse, but the horse has been officially beaten to death. I doubt anything fruitful will come out of furthering this discussion.

 

Jeremy

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...