Subscription Only Caches-Gotta be a charter member of Geocaching.com

Posted March 10, 2002 · March 10, 2002

Okay, I just wanted everyone to know that they are now here, Charter memberships and subscription-only caches. I will leave it up to you all to decide if this is a good, bad, or indifferent thing, but here is an example of one of the caches.

(This URL) (old URL was wrong - Jeremy)

In order to get the coordinates for this cache, you have to be a Charter member of Geocaching.com, and I think right now charter membership is $30 dollars a year, I think that's what I read.

- Peanuthead

Moderator modified this post to have the correct link.

[This message was edited by Jeremy Irish on March 11, 2002 at 12:24 PM.]

Posted March 10, 2002 · March 10, 2002

Yes we know. Many of us think it’s a bad idea. I’m probably going to ***** about it a lot but I’m also going to sign up. (For other reasons)

Jeremy, maybe you could open a forum section for all of us who want to nag you on this?

Posted March 10, 2002 · March 10, 2002

I'm new to this site, but this is not unusual. I have frequented other sites that have taken to having a members only section for a fee in order to help defray the costs of maintaining the site with out littering it with thousands of anoying popup adds that hog bandwidth and slow load times. It is a good idea, and I'm probably going to join up. $30 a year for something I enjoy won't break my bank, and it is a way I can help contribute to something I like, enjoy using and want to see improve. This site looks very popular, and that kind of bandwidth and storage space costs money. I'm sure that the admin could get plenty of pop up ads poping up everywhere to pay for it, but that would be so anoying. I avoid sites with a lot of ads because they are such a pain to navigate through. Membership has it privilages, and I hope that that will also be a bonus here.

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

Posted March 10, 2002 · March 10, 2002

I knew it would go subscription and I'll sign up. But I was thinking 19.95 would of been the price and not 30.

Posted March 10, 2002 · March 10, 2002

the link posted is not really correct. That URL will bring up a "you are not a subscriber" type page, even if your are a subscriber. Here's the real cache link:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=16498

If you're a subscriber, it will just appear like any other cache page. Which brings up a question - should the MOC pages have some sort of indicator that they're MOC? It might be useful. We often post links to pages on the board. Something we've never had to consider in the past was whether or not everyone can view the page. That's changed now.

Posted March 10, 2002 · March 10, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
I knew it would go subscription and I'll sign up. But I was thinking 19.95 would of been the price and not 30.

...and for the first twenty that call, we've got durable ziplock bags to keep your GPS safe when you're out searching for caches in the rain! This is what a GPS looks like after being used in just three rainstorms - Don't let this happen to you! Call now and we'll even throw in these factory rejected travel bug tags that could make a great decoration to hang from your rear-view mirror! That's right, that's a year long charter membership to your favorite website, a ziplock bag, and a pair of reject-bugs-on-a-chain, a total of $60 value, all for $19.95! To order...

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar...

Posted March 10, 2002 · March 10, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:
Something we've never had to consider in the past was whether or not everyone can view the page. That's changed now.

It seems to me that a members-only cache should plainly be labelled so. I just signed up for a membership, but I'm not buying one right now for my wife. It would be nice to know whether or not she needs to log in as me to view a cache.

=-=-=-=-=-=

Opus P

Crathvaf Ehyr

Visit my Buddhist Reading Room.

Posted March 10, 2002 · March 10, 2002

You have *got* to be kidding me. Yes, I can more then understand the need to make parts of geocaching.com go pay. But PAY for Caches? PAY for member only caches?? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of.

I have turned SO many people onto this site.. watch my dust as I turn them away from this site, towards another where you don't have to pay to list or hunt for caches. I'd rather that my geocaching budget stay right where it's at: on park donations and cache treasures.

Jeremy Irish.. you suck!

**added: I'm the geocaching list manager for yahoo groups and the geocaching community manager for livejournal.

[This message was edited by latitude11 on March 10, 2002 at 10:57 PM.]

Posted March 10, 2002 · March 10, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by latitude11:

...watch my dust as I turn them away from this site, towards another where you don't have to pay to list or hunt for caches.

Um, you don't have to "pay to list or hunt for caches." You can continue to use the site as you always did. That hasn't changed. It's your choice if you want to pay or not. If you do, it helps to support the site and Jeremy throws in a few features for you.

If you disagree, then so be it. But, why the name calling? I hope you do a little more research on this before you get all worked up...

-exConn

What is Project Virginia?

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by exConn:

Originally posted by latitude11:

... It's your choice if you want to pay or not. If you do, it helps to support the site and Jeremy throws in a few features for you.

If you disagree, then so be it. But, why the name calling? I hope you do a little more research on this before you get all worked up...

-exConn

Well said ... and I agree with exConn, Lattitude ... drop the name calling ... we really don't need that sort of thing ...

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

Lattitude, drop the 'tude.

God forbid that Jeremy would want to pay the bills for GC.com *without* banners and pop-ups and pop-unders! God forbid that Jeremy would construct something to *encourage* people to give him money by providing something to those who pay something that costs him very little... God forbid he try to keep this site afloat.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

ENOUGH ALREADY !!!

The horse was dead long ago; why continue to beat it? I have serious doubts these whiners and complainers have even begun to tap the regular caches in their respective areas.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

I would prefer that a member-only cache be visible to everyone but that the owner have the ability to hide key information (coordinates, clues, specific instructions).

When someone views the a state map, will they see a cache? ... perhaps one of different color? ... or the same color?

I'm about to post a very difficult multi-cache in northern Viginia. It has taken at least 20 hours of preparation. I'd like everyone to be able to read it. However, I like the idea of keeping teen-age boys (or girls) from vandalizing the cache. I'd hope that when someone puts alot of effort into a cache (and hides it from the general public a la member-only) that those geocachers who haven't, will decide that my cache (and others like it) are worth the 8.2 cents a day to have access.

By the way, those new Listerine Fresh Breath Squares that disolve in your mouth cost about 10 cents each.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by exConn:
If you do, it helps to support the site and Jeremy throws in a few features for you.

Having the ability to use EasyGPS is a feature. Automatic decrypting of hints is a feature. AvantoGo synch is a feature. No pop-up ads is a feature

Access to cache information is **NOT** a feature. It is the main thing. This is like calling having an engine and four wheels on a car a feature. This is like buying a house and calling the roof and walls a "feature."

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
_ENOUGH ALREADY !!!_

The horse was dead long ago; why continue to beat it? I have serious doubts these whiners and complainers have even begun to tap the __regular__ caches in their respective areas.

The only thing that will die is Geocaching. I am willing to pay to support the website but I will not pay to cache. Contrary to your ubiquitous statement I have found all but a couple caches within 50 miles of home and have been very active until now. The vast majority of cachers have 5 or fewer finds and that catagory will not subscribe, those remaining cannot expand the sport. I started caching as something to do while hiking, at this point I am undecided about my own future in geocaching.

Rusty...

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by harrkev:

Access to cache information is **NOT** a feature. It is the main thing. This is like calling having an engine and four wheels on a car a feature. This is like buying a house and calling the roof and walls a "feature."

Think of it this way, you still have the car...complete with engine...the SAME car you had before. But you can pay to upgrade that engine from a 4-cylinder to a supercharged V-8. You still have the house...complete with roof and walls...the SAME house you had before. But you can pay to upgrade your vinyl siding and asphalt shingles to brick and slate.

Jeremy is not FORCING anyone to place members-only caches. If I want to place a cache, and only share it with those who I feel are serious enough about the sport to put their money where their mouth is, why should I be forced to share it with the entire world? It's MY cache. Shouldn't I, as the owner, have some choice in how widely I want to share it?

To use your house analogy, should I, as a homeowner, be forced to leave my front door unlocked, so the entire world has access? Or is it ok for me, as the homeowner, to only allow friends and invited guests in? Nobody is forcing us to lock our doors. But it's nice to have that right, if we want to do so.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

I think you missed the boat!

Subscriptions are optional!

Nothing else has changed, you have the same access to the site as before.

I signed up the first day I saw the option to do so. After spending lots of $$$$ to buy a gpsr, gas, boxs, items, travel, etc., the $30 was a BARGAIN to support the site. I also have spent $$$ on t-shirts, bugs, hats, etc to help support this site. I was glad to offer up the $30 annually. If I dont like what happens during the next year, I will simply drop my subscription.

last of the rants from me.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

The cache that was listed at the top of this forum is mine. I don't see anything wrong with MOC. There is still plenty of caches in the area that all for everyone. Whats the big deal? I do plan to make both type of caches. The MOC caches will be opened up to all after about 2 weeks as MOC.

You dont have to pay to play, everyone can still play just as it has always been.

Quad

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

I see nothing wrong with the subscriptions. I personally have put more $ in the caches around here than the subscription price for 1 year. I was going to wait to subscribe, but read this post and the attitudes and decided now is the time!

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

Sorry to “beat the dead horse” but one final comment from me on the subject. Geocaching has always been a casual activity for me. I found it by browsing the internet and became involved because I did a search and found several caches near me. If I were new and was looking at the map and getting enthused about going for a search only to find after clicking on the icon that I have to pay money for the details, it would really turn me off. I’d be shrugging my shoulders and thinking “man, here we go again”. I just think it’s bad public relations.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised at how much thought I’ve put into this whole change. Guess Geocaching means more to me than I suspected.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by rusty:

The only thing that will die is Geocaching. I am willing to pay to support the website but I will not pay to cache. Contrary to your ubiquitous statement I have found all but a couple caches within 50 miles of home and have been very active until now.

Well, I'm baffled as to what was "ubiquitous" about my statement, but I believe yours was an egregious exaggeration. But ultimately, time will tell if you're right. I plan on keeping my subscription current and continuing to geocache. I see we began geocaching for much the same reason, and regardless of whether you decide to subscribe, I hope you too will continue to enjoy geocaching.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Robereno:
Sorry to “beat the dead horse” but one final comment from me on the subject. Geocaching has always been a casual activity for me. I found it by browsing the internet and became involved because I did a search and found several caches near me. If I were new and was looking at the map and getting enthused about going for a search only to find after clicking on the icon that I have to pay money for the details, it would really turn me off.

Maybe it's different in your area, but a quick check of my area turned up one "paying" (member's only) cache within 50 miles of home. So there are approximately 350 "free" caches and 1 "paying." For someone to decide not to try,or continue, geocaching based on that would be plain silly . . . But if a time arrives when we begin seeing a high percentage of "MOCs," or if it appears the only "good" caches are "MOCs," then I would agree that geocaching has a major problem.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

Looking for my shovel to re-bury that horse.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

First I want to say that I totally support what Jeremy has done with the charter memberships and the new options for cache placement. My husband already has his charter membership and I'll be getting one soon.

That being said, I have to say I agree with this point.

quote:
Originally posted by Robereno:
If I were new and was looking at the map and getting enthused about going for a search only to find after clicking on the icon that I have to pay money for the details, it would really turn me off.

I'd be nice if there were a way to hide the MOC from the general viewing public so they wouldn't even see them listed. After they have visited the site a few times, gone on a couple of hunts and gotten hooked my guess is they will look into getting a Charter Membership.

'Nuff said.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by KF Quad Explorer:
The MOC caches will be opened up to all after about 2 weeks as MOC.

I hadn't thought about it before now, but for those who want to place MOCs, that's a great idea. It could even be built into the GeoCache system. You could set up a cache as full time MOC, or have it automatically revert to a standard cache after X number of days, and/or after X number of people have logged it as a find.

Having a timed MOC give extra incentive to join for who like to find virgin caches, but doesn't limit the number of caches available to non-subscribers.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

I agree that a timed feature would be cool. I'd probably use is on all of my caches (2-4 weeks MOC, then available to all).

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:
Having a timed MOC give extra incentive to join for who like to find virgin caches, but doesn't limit the number of caches available to non-subscribers.

An excellent idea, actually. I'll be adding other tools as well for subscribers:

1. Time release geocache: a member/nonmember cache can be released at a specific time in the future. It will be listed with no coordinates. People can subscribe to it (like a watch list) and an email reminder will be queued to be sent when the cache is released. They can then click on the link in the email which will have the cache.

2. Password protected logs (both member/nonmember caches) - You can leave a password in the cache (or for virtual caches, an answer to a question). Only those with the password can log the cache.

And, as an aside (I like hinting to things in weird places), there's a new game coming. It will be a unique variation of an existing idea with it's own subsite. Both members and nonmembers will be able to play.

Jeremy

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Wander Lost:

I'd be nice if there were a way to hide the MOC from the general viewing public so they wouldn't even see them listed. After they have visited the site a few times, gone on a couple of hunts and gotten hooked my guess is they will look into getting a Charter Membership.

Just thought I'd mention I ran across my first "member only" cache this morning. Actually, I'm not sure it was a MOC when I printed it out this morning, but it was by the time I returned home.

In my opinion, it was a below-average cache for our area: it is a two-element multi-microcache placed in a park that has some very nice lakes and a few terrific scenic overlooks. Unfortunately, the cache elements aren't anywhere near these spots; they're placed in non-descript woods. There goes the "all the good caches will be MOCs" theory.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Maybe it's different in your area, but a quick check of my area turned up one "paying" (member's only) cache within 50 miles of home. So there are approximately 350 "free" caches and 1 "paying." For someone to decide not to try,or continue, geocaching based on that would be plain silly . . . But if a time arrives when we begin seeing a high percentage of "MOCs," or if it appears the only "good" caches are "MOCs," then I would agree that geocaching has a major problem.

You are lucky, here in Michigan I don't think we have 350 caches in the entire state and half of those are 150 miles away in Detroit.

The number of members only caches in your area now has NO relationship to the total caches. How long have MOC's been around? A week? Check the ratio mid-summer and it will have meaning.

I may subscribe or I may not, I have enjoyed caching for about a year now but $30 is alot. Especially when I cannot see a scenario where I would either hunt or hide a MOC, they sound elitist and that is a big turn-off. I guess the timed MOC might be an alternative.

Rusty...

Rusty & Libby's Geocache page

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

We all griped about this last week until I thought the issue was over.

Pay to Play? I'd like to hear from Jeremy

Nobody's business but mine.

Should we be paying a membership fee?

Anybody still interessted in Caching?

Anything else I'm missing?

Members Only caches are set up for those who wish to subscribe by those who subscribe. Regular caches are still set up by regular and subscribing geocachers. If you choose to subscribe you can. But it is NOT mandatory.

Get the facts before blowing up. If you're still hacked after having all the facts, then blow up in a way that will make a positive change.

Markwell

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:
We all griped about this last week until I thought the issue was over. ... Anything else I'm missing?

How elitist. Not kidding. If the dismissive and condescending attitude you displayed in that post were the norm of subscribing members, I'd change sides pretty quickly.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

"Where were you last week Peanuthead, latitude11, harrkev?"

Absolutely 'A'cing my my midterms.. is there a time limit on discussion topics? Perhaps it's behind member walls that us 'non-elite' must only

wonder about or dig deeper into our pockets so that we may participate.

My language was strong, and name-calling was uncalled for.. for that I am very sorry. The issue still remains, in that the direction Geocaching.com is taking is sad. It's turning into a an 'elitist' group based on $$. There are many many other ways for the site to make money to cover bandwidth costs. Having member only caches is a selfish answer.

I am an active geocacher, so BassoonPilot needent worry about me not tapping cache's in the area.

It's wonderful that all of you are very willing to fork over even more money, resolving that you already spend so much on stickers, hats, shirts, travelbugs, and prizes.. what's another $30? Well, not everyone is in a position to do that, nor do I see the logic. I spend over $500 a semester on books, tuition, and do freelance graphic design to pay for that and my rent.. it's not in the budget to spend any more towards geocaching. I bought my Garmin Venture, ExpertGPS, numerious travel bugs that I don't even use (I carry the tags on my backpacks), and I hand make gifts for the caches, I always carry bags to trash out along with the supplies I've replenished for other caches.. pens, bags, cameras.. etc. Furthermore, I run a geocaching community with over 100 members .. I give more then $30/a year worth to the sport, but apparently, it's not enough? Convince me otherwise.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by latitude11:
Convince me otherwise.

I can't. You're an idealistic student.

'

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
I can't. You're an idealistic student.

Sorry.. ::shrugs:: I'm feeling upset about the members only caches.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by latitude11:
...but apparently, it's not enough? Convince me otherwise.

I wouldn't mind seeing the attempts to convince you - and I haven't qualified as an idealistic student for a very long time!

quote:
Sorry.. ::shrugs:: I'm feeling upset about the members only caches.

Not to worry Latitude, you're not the only one.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

I have not - nor do I ever intend to be - an "elitist". My comments were directed to the fact that this topic as everyone above had said, was beaten to death last week. The comment "Did I miss anything?" was a direct statement asking if I posted all of the threads dealing with this subject.

Did I subscribe? Yes (still waiting for the check to make it to Washington and for me to get my approval).

Am I going to place Members Only caches? No. I want as many people as possible to find my caches. Plundering has never been a serious problem in my area.

Am I going to change my title to Geocacher instead of Charter Member? Yes.

I subscribed because I wanted to support the site and get the little perks that Jeremy has promised, not because I want to be considered a first-class citizen instead of a second-class citizen.

If my frustration at the reposting of an inflammatory issue overflowed in to my typing and offended anyone, I'm sorry. It was not my intention to sound elitist.

Markwell

Non omnes vagi perditi sunt

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:
I have not - nor do I ever intend to be - an "elitist". My comments were directed to the fact that this topic as everyone above had said, was beaten to death last week. The comment "Did I miss anything?" was a direct statement asking if I posted all of the threads dealing with this subject.

Markwell I respect your opinions and follow the forums almost daily. Last week I was busy and didn't have a lot of time. I know you like to point out old threads but personally I am still getting used to the new forum format and find it a bit less straight-forward.

You have to realize though that this topic will not disappear in a week. It cuts to the very core of geocaching philosophy and will be beaten way beyond dead. I think Member Only Caches sound elitist, that is my opinion as of now. I will keep an open mind and continue following and commenting on the discusions.

Rusty...

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Wander Lost:

quote:
Originally posted by Robereno:
If I were new and was looking at the map and getting enthused about going for a search only to find after clicking on the icon that I have to pay money for the details, it would really turn me off.

I'd be nice if there were a way to hide the MOC from the general viewing public so they wouldn't even see them listed. After they have visited the site a few times, gone on a couple of hunts and gotten hooked my guess is they will look into getting a Charter Membership.

'Nuff said.

You're a genius Wander lost! You just figured out Jeremy's business plan or advising him. You see Charter Membership and Member's Only cache's are the only ways to create a pay for cache service. It's the only way to make the pay structure work and get people willing to go along. MOCahches are a smoke screen. Don't you guys get it? It's not about preventing vandalism. It's about getting "free" software and then having to pay $29.95 for the upgrade for the "real" goodies. Sure the "freebies" will always be around to pull in new addicts, but you'll have to pay for the "pure" stuff. Once the trap's been set, and there's no place else to go, geocaching will be only a pay for cache sport. Lessen the chance for this by not falling for and posting MO caches.

Otherwise follow the remaining scenario. Others will jump into the fray marketing their own web site and fees. Hey a person has to make a buck! Frankly, that's going to reduce the number of geocachers. If it's not kept free, less people will get involved and less people will buy GPS equipment. So, the manufacturers might start their own "free" sites to keep interest higher and subsequent equipment sales greater. Of cource, the whole thing could become so lucrative, then true commercialization might occur - with companies having high stakes geocaches, with TV syndication a la "Survivor" with alligators along the waypoints, jungles and hidden videocams watching people do "bee dances".

Jeremy are you listening? Sure you are. I've probably missed some other great money making ideas you're contemplating.

Alan

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

The point that should be emphasized here is that it is the Players of the game that plant the caches. And it is the Players of the game that deside what will be a Mocache and what will be public. So the players are in control of this. (sorry jeremy if this spoils your evil plans)

...and some of players of the game that have requested the additional protection for their caches. There are people out there that may have considered leaving the sport because they have had a cache vandalized. So what jeremy has done...add a feature that would allow for these geocachers to stay with the game, continue to play the game and be happy.

Thanks Jeremy!!!!

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

I just did a search of every cache within 300 miles of my ZIP code. 669 caches, ZERO Member only caches. I had to temporarily change one of mine to a MO cache, just to see what one looked like...

I just don't think it's ever going to be a real issue.

Web-ling

[This message was edited by Web-ling on March 11, 2002 at 08:35 PM.]

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

I've just made all my caches members only because I want to encourage other cachers to become members. Since geocaching is so peculiarly dependent on the efforts of a small group of individuals I have no problems supporting their efforts financially while the price remains this low. In fact I would have no problem with Jeremy making a good living off of the website because for that to happen, it would have to continue to cater to the needs of the geocaching community while remaining competitive. And if a better alternative comes along I'll consider it and switch if it's to my advantage. For now, I'm more concerned that this site remains a going concern and continues to improve.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by joedohn:

I've just made all my caches members only because I want to encourage other cachers to become members.

I don't agree with this move. You've hidden a lot of caches that were previously available to the general caching public. All of the sudden they all turn into MO Caches so that they will become members themselves? I think it's great that you donated your $30. But by changing all of your caches to MO caches to entice others to become members makes you sound a bit "elitist" as many are accusing Charter Members of being. Can't people play without paying? Sure they can. That's why Jeremy has set it up the way he has. And now you go and essentially say, "You can't play unless you're a member." Correct me if I'm wrong, this is one man's opinion, but I'm afraid many others will share it.

I think you have made a noble attempt at trying to pull support for Jeremy and his efforts to pay for the site and even make some money, as you suggested. I have nothing against that. I just think it should be everyone's own decision, not something that they feel they have to do just so they can find your caches.

Edited the signature link on 03/12/02. I'm always using HTML instead of UBB. OOPS!

Tyler Slack's Geocaching in Utah

[This message was edited by tslack2000 on March 12, 2002 at 12:49 PM.]

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

Well, I posted my first, and Utah's first, MOC on Saturday, and I can't tell you how thrilled I am with the reception. Today I had two of my caching buddies go for it, one successfully, and if the number of hits to the page are any indication, it will have plenty of action as the weather warms up.

I like the added security of the MOCs, but I have concluded that security is not really worth all that much. Even if I know who stole a cache, I really can't do anything about it. No, the designation of MOCs is really more about getting more feedback on caches than ever before, and I am definitely getting that, by seeing who visits the page and when, and how many times. I like that. I wish I could get that with all my caches. I might switch all of mine, just so I can get that info on all of them, too. There are so many members in Utah anyway, I think I would still get plenty of action. Time will tell.

bunkerdave

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

ARGH! ARGH! ARGH!

It's like the old saying goes. Same **** Different Day.

This lizard is running around in circles, and if he could reach his hair (if lizards had hair) it most certainly would have been pulled out by now.

Lizard say:

To Cache or Mo-Cache

The lizard wonders aloud...

Oh Look! It's Tokyo!

Godzirra (roar)

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

i have no idea what its like to have a cache plundered. i'm in miami and none of my urban caches have ever been plundered.

i can see kicking something to help support the site but $30 is too steep and creating these "members only" caches IS an elitist solution in my opinion.

my solution to plundering.. a system similar to ebay's rating system.

we keep the "caches found" scoring system except we add the capability for a cache keeper to filter out newbies from their caches by allowing only logged in members with a user defined "caches found" score to be able to view the cache. this way it stays open to the public but still gives folks that are worried about vandalism a way of protecting your caches. sure you could get around it and go find a few and then plunder like crazy but most "joyriders" want something easy.

URBO

in miami

home of the worlds first internet connected mobile geocache!

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by joedohn:
I've just made all my caches members only because I want to encourage other cachers to become members.

This was part of my issue, when I said I was concerned with the direction this was going in. Moving all of your caches to members only, will not generate $$ to support the site. If this became common, I'd have to rely on other cache sites (navicache) or drop the sport all together. Then, everyone looses.. me with the activity, others with enjoying my participation of their caches.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by urbo:

i can see kicking something to help support the site but $30 is too steep

So pay $3.00 instead. Everyone seems to be ignoring that option. I guess the $30 has more shock value.

quote:
sure you could get around it and go find a few and then plunder like crazy

Or you could just log it whether you went or not. Logging caches, in case you hadn't noticed, is entirely on the honor system. The plunderer has no honor, therefore nothing to stop him or her from logging a cache they never went anywhere near.

=-=-=-=-=-=

Opus P

Crathvaf Ehyr

Visit my Buddhist Reading Room.

Posted March 11, 2002 · March 11, 2002

Geez, if I'd known gaining elite status only cost $30 bucks I'd have paid long ago....

Seriously Tslack, I appreciate your opinion but I just don't get the concern over 'elitism'. As a concept it seems too big for this issue.

At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, I think I place pretty good caches (by and large) and if a person is going to pay $30 for the pleasure of seeking MOC's then there should be some good ones available. This will cut down on the number of visits to my caches, which I don't like, but on the other hand almost all of the regulars who visit my caches and who's logs I enjoy reading are already Charter Members.

As a rule we pay for many of our pleasures. Especially those dependent on the efforts of others. So I have no problem saying "to play, you must pay". After all, we pay for the theater, pro-sports, museums, National Parks, etc. etc.

It's more important to me that geocaching.com gets supported than people visit my caches. I would like to have both happen equally but for now the time seems right to make a clear statement of support for the MOC concept.

Posted March 12, 2002 · March 12, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by joedohn:

...but on the other hand almost all of the regulars who visit my caches and who's logs I enjoy reading are already Charter Members.

So you're content with who you're playing with now and don't need anymore "free-loading newbies" getting into this game? It's the ol' "Games locked" rule? (Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, which I certainly am doing, but I want you, and others who have your opinion, to see how you are sounding to the rest of us.)

I don't care if people hide MOC's or not. I found one already and thoroughly enjoyed it! What I'm concerned about is the people who share your opinion, since it really does add an "Us vs. Them" mentality, which I don't believe is good for helping others to enjoy this sport, especially if they are new to it. Let the MOC's exist, just not the attitude that seems to go along with them. Let's just all drop the attitude and get back to geocaching. There are some who will pay, there are some who will not. Do we have to categorize, discrimenate, etc? That's all I'm against.

Are you paying the money to help Jeremy out? Or are you paying because you're a Sneetch who wants to be a Star Belly Sneetch? Aren't we all just here because we like/love Geocaching? Let's get back to that! Can you see my point, or am I just so far off my rocker that you think I'm funny?

Tyler Slack's Geocaching in Utah

Edited signature link: 03/12/02

[This message was edited by tslack2000 on March 12, 2002 at 12:50 PM.]

Posted March 12, 2002 · March 12, 2002

Tslack, You're blowing this way out of proportion. Your concerns are more appropriate to civil rights issues. I think your energy is misplaced.

By making my caches MOC's I'm doing no more than expressing my support of the idea. Any added interpretation is yours.

Subscription Only Caches-Gotta be a charter member of Geocaching.com

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment