Jump to content

Cache Incentives?


Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis (in this thread):

I have spent many hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars putting together, hiding, and maintaining my 30 or so caches. Is that not contribution enough to the sport? Maybe I should get a free year of subscription


 

I think Nemesis was just kidding, but actually, I think that's a great idea!

 

Jeremy, what do you think of the idea of offering everyone who places (and continues to maintain) a minimum of 12 new (non-MOC) caches over the course of a year (that's averaging one per month) a free membership for the following year?

 

I think it would be great incentive to get people out there adding new caches. And think of the additional exposure your site is likely to get. icon_biggrin.gif Plus, it might ease the concerns many people seem to have that the new mocache feature is going to kill the public cache stats.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrownMule:

Why should jeremy take the hit for this. The sport is building and there is no need for incetives to hide at this point.


 

My thought was that the incentive will lead to more caches...and more caches will lead to more seekers...and more seekers will translate into more people who'll likely sign up (and pay for) memberships. So I doubt he'd be taking a hit.

 

Plus, how many out there, thinking they will hide 12, will only end up hiding 10? That'll be a bunch more caches at no cost to Jeremy. (Besides, he wouldn't be actually be 'paying' for those memberships...he'd simply be allowing extra people to use the premium services for a year at no charge. Chances are they'll not want to lose them, and they'll pay to re-enlist...another bonus to Jeremy.) icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

 

_Jeremy, what do you think of the idea of offering everyone who places (and continues to maintain) a minimum of 12 new (non-MOC) caches over the course of a year _(_that's averaging one per month_)_ a free membership for the following year?_

 


 

My fear is that all this will lead to is a bunch of low quality "sneaker caches", virtual caches or micro-cache film canisters being scattered about urban parks in order to meet the threshold. Not a positive contribution to the sport at all.

 

Those who wish to place caches still will - no extra incentive needed.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

...I think Nemesis was just kidding...it would be great incentive to get people out there adding new caches...


 

Yeah, I was kidding. But, it would be nice... icon_smile.gif

 

In reality, it might simply encorage users to place more low quality caches, simply to get the free membership.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

Link to comment

Hmm...I hadn't thought about the fact that it might encourage a bunch of poorly thought out caches. Point well taken.

 

Maybe there could be standards set for what qualified, i.e., no virtual caches, micro-caches only if they are part of a multi-cache that ends with a regular 'trading' cache, etc. The thing is, whenever you try to put qualifiers on something, it often gets subjective, and leads to arguments.

 

It might be trickier to implement than I was originally thinking, but I still think the idea merits some thought. Personally, I'd like to see more caches in my area...and in rural/small town areas in general. Big cities seem to have huge concentrations, but us country folk often have to drive a long way to find new caches.

Link to comment

Since different ideas are being thrown about what would you think of an in-house discount system such as a credit against next years membership fee based on purchases of Geocaching merchandise during the preceding year. Say for every $10 spent on goods a $1 credit is applied.

Food for thought!

 

Happy Caching, Olar

 

"if you come to a fork in the trail, take it!"

Link to comment

I'm in the middle of putting together my first cache that's going to cost me around $100.00. I can't see doing 12 to save $30. I don't like the play money and the Micky D toys as cache prizes so I may do two or three a year and still send in my subscription as I just did.

Bob:)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

...It might be trickier to implement than I was originally thinking, but I still think the idea merits some thought. Personally, I'd like to see more caches in my area...and in rural/small town areas in general. Big cities seem to have huge concentrations, but us country folk often have to drive a long way to find new caches.


 

Yeah, we have discussed cache spacing to death in the past (search through the old forum). I agree that we should try to place our caches in rural areas too and not simply confine them to big cities.

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis:

Check out these threads:


 

Thank you for the links. It sounds to me like the general rule of thumb varies depending on the variance of the terrain and quantity of nearby caches, etc. Really, all it takes is a little common sense and curtesy. (Not so easy for some, I realize.)

 

I suppose it only makes sense that in urban areas, just by sheer numbers of population, there will be more geocachers...and thus more geocaches than in less populated areas.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Thank you for the links...all it takes is a little common sense and curtesy...


You are welcome!

 

In those original threads, I was also trying to encorage others to place caches out in the countryside. This is happening in New Zealand and it makes the journey to find those caches really interesting. icon_smile.gif

 

Cheers,

Donovan.

Link to comment

That's like saying we should be paid for finding/hiding caches. Frankly, I enjoy hiding probably more than finding. The whole idea is that funding is needed at this point because of the growth of geocaching, not that we need more growth. So those who wish to, lets help fund it. Personally I hope Jeremy will be able to make a decent living just by devoting himself to this great site.

 

2573_200.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis:

I suppose that hiding and placing are both fun in different ways.


 

Hmmm...here's an idea that I bet no one has posted on the Unusual forum before: What if someone buried themself alive (with an airtube, of course icon_wink.gif), and posted the coordinates for geocachers to find them.

 

Maybe they could turn it into a blind date kind of thing, with a "Finders, Keepers!" theme. icon_biggrin.gif

____________

 

(Note: FTR: Just in case anyone is tempted to flame me for this outrageous suggestion...it's just humor. I'm not seriously suggesting it. It's just what popped into my mind when I read Nemesis' comment.)

Link to comment

I can appreciate the spirit of this suggestion - anything to increase the number of caches must be good, right?

 

Well, not exactly. Utah has enjoyed probably the fastest growth of any area in the world, and I have witnessed every bit of it first hand. It has not been "all good."

 

Last summer, a friend of mine approached me for my thoughts on implementing a full-scale Utah caching campaign to try and catch California in the total number of caches. The idea was that if everyone who had a cache in Utah hid two or three more, we would catch California and be the undisputes cache capital of the world.

 

Of course, my immediate response was a BIG thumbs down, for all the obvious reasons. First, odds are, many, if not most of those caches would have SUCKED. Second, it would be nothing more than Geotrashing, and it would only increase the risk that more caches would be abandoned, and draw the attention of an already hostile environmental extremist faction in our state. And so on.

 

I can appreciate the sentiment in many parts of the country where there are not a lot of caches - yet. I notice the OP is from MI. I do not know off the top of my head how MI is doing cache-wise, but let's assume this is an effort to jump-start the caching in your area. My advice: give it time. Eventually "it" will happen, and you will have all the caches you can stand. And all the frustrations that go with them.

 

Happy caching.

 

bunkerdave

6327_1600.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by bunkerdave:

Of course, my immediate response was a BIG thumbs down, for all the obvious reasons. First, odds are, many, if not most of those caches would have SUCKED. Second, it would be nothing more than Geotrashing, and it would only increase the risk that more caches would be abandoned, and draw the attention of an already hostile environmental extremist faction in our state. And so on.


 

These are excellent points. I would rather have a few GOOD caches, and approval of the NPS and similar organizations, than to have a bunch of poorly planned/implemented caches, and a poor reputation with the people we don't want to get on the wrong side of.

 

quote:
Originally posted by bunkerdave:

I notice the OP is from MI. I do not know off the top of my head how MI is doing cache-wise, but let's assume this is an effort to jump-start the caching in your area.


 

Areas like Detroit (and its suburbs) are doing great. I just happen to live in a little 'one-traffic-light' town, where caches are few and far between.

 

But I wouldn't trade my daily (and ongoing) breath of fresh air for all the caches in the world. I enjoy being out in nature, and don't really need an excuse to do so...it's just that the caching adds an element of fun.

 

I can be patient. Here it is, still middle of dead winter, and new caches are popping up here and there. I'm sure it'll only get better once nice weather gets here to stay. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I already notice a proliferation of "trash caches" placed in uninteresting areas with apparently little forethought.


 

One thing this poll has made me become more aware of is the huge differences of cache availability in various areas of the country.

 

As an exercize, I compared the number of caches within 15, 30, and 60 miles of my zipcode vs. yours. For mine it was 2 (the two I myself placed, actually), 13, and 50, respectively. For yours it was 84, 233, and 433. A huge difference! icon_eek.gif

 

No wonder so many people are saying that there are too many low quality caches out there. In my neck of the woods, beggers can't be choosers...and any cache is a treat! (Of course, there are definitely some that are much better than others.)

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...