Make your cache "Members Only"?

Posted June 16, 2003 · June 16, 2003

OK, question: How many cache hiders have used the "Members Only" option when deciding who can see it and who can't? We dropped our first one out for the world on Saturday, and I choose the Members Only option thinking that meant you had to at least have the free user login from Geocaching to see it. I forget: Do you have to have the login to see cache details? Now I believe that you have to be a paying subscriber of Geocaching.com to see Members Only caches. Is that correct? I have a mixed feeling on this. I strongly support being a paying member of Geocaching. You get a lot for the little $30/year. I had hoped to 'protect' the cache by not allowing the non-cacher to just pull it up with a search and then going out to do "heaven only knows" to it.

I also hoped to get frequent visitors. Does making it Members Only significantly reduce visitor count? Is there some "moral" reason to change it from Members Only to a free-for-all? What do other cachers do? Thanks

Geosaur :: Geocaching Lizard

Posted June 16, 2003 · June 16, 2003

It's only for paying members. Some people have an issue with the idea, but I really don't care. I've seen where some people initially place it as a MOC then open it up to everyone later on.

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

Posted June 16, 2003 · June 16, 2003

I thought about making one of mine "Members Only" but ended up not doing so because some of the biggest hiders around here are not members and I wanted to reciprocate.

Insert pretentious quote or saying here.

Posted June 16, 2003 · June 16, 2003

I did it for one cache and now I can't even recall which one. It's for the paying members.

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

Posted June 16, 2003 · June 16, 2003

i love the idea of paid memberships; i want to support the site. i also love the basic philosophy that everyone gets to play, regardless of paid status.

so with that in mind, none of my caches are member only. and my friends and i don't like any cache that started public and went MO. we think it's just dandy to start it MO or leave it MO.

you get more visitors if it's public. and it's more inclusive.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

Posted June 16, 2003 · June 16, 2003

I have one MOC out of 40+ caches hidden. I made it a MOC because another cache in the area was stolen. It had to be targeted because it was not something that would have been found by accident. I figured that cache thieves aren't that likely to shell out the money to join GC.COM.

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

Posted June 16, 2003 · June 16, 2003

I like the idea of starting out a cache as a MOC and then after a couple of weeks changing it to a non MOC. This gives members a little advantage. I may do this with the next cache that I hide.

Making a cache a MOC to keep noncachers from steeling it brings up something that has been discussed before in these forums. Should anyone be able to search for caches on GC.com or should there be a requirement to register before searching? I think that requiring a free registration would be a good idea. People are less likely to search for and steel caches if they have to register to find them.

BTW: I was the first finder of the cache that Geosaur is talking about.

Rocket Man

Posted June 17, 2003 · June 17, 2003

Both of the caches I recently set up for our cache bash are MOC's. Primarily to set up some caches and have serious cachers find them first so I could debug them before the event.

I can see the need for them in areas of saturation. I can also see the need for them in areas where there are alot of people who go find one cache, and quit, but in the process leave your cache exposed.

MOC's also have a role in doing "proof of concept" caches like my Signature cache which was set up for signature items only. Again, serious players with experience tend to be paying members, they will be more likely to take the cache and the concept seriously and provide better feedback.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nebraskache/

Posted June 17, 2003 · June 17, 2003

The latest trend here in Northern Michigan is start the caches as MO's for a month, and then change them to general public caches. The pro's are that as a member, I can usually hit it while it is new, and the con being it doesn't get tallied on the stats page. I believe for my next hide I will follow this policy.

My father is against this, and will not buy a membership. I have told him $2.50 a month (assuming annual membership) is very reasonable.

Make a sanity check.

Posted June 17, 2003 · June 17, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TMAN264:
...the con being it doesn't get tallied on the stats page...

Actually, it WILL be counted on the stats page if the owner will momentarily uncheck the MOC box on the cache page and then do an update request on the stats page while the box is unchecked. He can then go back and make it a MOC again. Only takes a minute, but the owner needs to repeat the process for subsequent finders to also get credit.

I recently did that for one of my MOCs so the finders would get credit for it.

Worldtraveler

Posted June 18, 2003 · June 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by worldtraveler:
Actually, it WILL be counted on the stats page if the owner will momentarily uncheck the MOC box on the cache page and then do an update request on the stats page while the box is unchecked.

I decided to go MOC based on the suggestions of this thread. I did have one visitor show up before I made that change. Where is the "update request on the stats page"? I didn't see it in my interface, but I suppose I could be missing it. Thanks!

Geosaur :: Geocaching Lizard

Posted June 18, 2003 · June 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Geosaur:
Where is the "update request on the stats page"? I didn't see it in my interface, but I suppose I could be missing it. Thanks!

http://www.insidecorner.com/geocaching/stats/fixcache.cgi

"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."

Posted June 18, 2003 · June 18, 2003

Will never use that for one of my caches. I think it goes against what geocaching was all about, free access for all. I do, however, understand situations like Briansnat's where the risk of theft is high.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

Posted June 18, 2003 · June 18, 2003

We need non-member only caches.

After all who wants a bunch of elitest snobs nosing around their cache?

Posted June 18, 2003 · June 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
Will never use that for one of my caches. I think it goes against what geocaching _was_ all about, free access for all.

Well, that's a cool mantra, and I'm for that on the surface, but bills gotta get paid. None of us get to participate when the servers go dark, or no one can log on from server overload.

Geosaur :: Geocaching Lizard

Posted June 18, 2003 · June 18, 2003

Exactly Geosaur. I have several caching friends who do not believe in paying for the site. That is their right not to.

But on the same note, I believe they should not get a say in how the site is run, or complain about changes then.

I agree with Solohiker that there should be non-member caches, otherwise we would see the number of new members dwindling. But I also believe in MO caches as well, as a reward for those of us who support the site for a game we love.

Make a sanity check.

Posted June 18, 2003 · June 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Geosaur:

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
Will never use that for one of my caches. I think it goes against what geocaching _was_ all about, free access for all.

Well, that's a cool mantra, and I'm for that on the surface, but bills gotta get paid. None of us get to participate when the servers go dark, or no one can log on from server overload.

And your placing MOCs will get the bills paid?

Posted June 18, 2003 · June 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by welch:
And your placing MOCs will get the bills paid?

No, of course not. However, if I was a non-member and found that many caches in my area were MOC I would probably be that much more encouraged to sign up, which collectively would probably help get the bills paid. Just a hypothesis without any numbers to back it up. As I noted though, I've changed my cache from MOC to non-MOC.

Not that you (Welch) fall into this category, but I think the resistance to paying for this service is pretty funny. As though everything on the Internet should be "free", even though someone has to pay for the hardware, connection, supporting it, etc.. If they were charging something that I thought was 'outrageous' I would be more resistant to paying for it it, but jeesh: I can't think of anything else we blow $30 a year that provides more family entertainment. It's a major bargain. To each their own I suppose. I think geocaching.com keeping it as "free" as they are is pretty magnanimous of them.

Geosaur :: Geocaching Lizard

Posted June 18, 2003 · June 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Geosaur:

I think geocaching.com keeping it as "free" as they are is pretty magnanimous of them.

I second that!

Please don't misunderstand me, I really do not care if you sign up or not. That is your business. But when I tell my fellow caching buddies about a cool cache I did, that they do not have access to, I shrug my shoulders when they complain.

Make a sanity check.

Posted June 18, 2003 · June 18, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Geosaur:

quote:
Originally posted by welch:
And your placing MOCs will get the bills paid?

No, of course not. However, if I was a non-member and found that many caches in my area were MOC I would probably be that much more encouraged to sign up, which collectively would probably help get the bills paid. Just a hypothesis without any numbers to back it up. As I noted though, I've changed my cache from MOC to non-MOC.

See, people say that "I'd be encouraged" bit quite often, but I personally would not be. If I started caching in some area that many of the caches required me to pay a fee (perhaps on top of the others ive already paid) just to get to look at the information, I would probly just consider them snobs and stop caching. Or at least avoid them, which shouldn't be too hard if they are trying to 'cut me out'. (Of course I think many could be the exact same number, but make up a larger percentage of the total caches in a area with fewer total caches.)

I would rather get more people interested in caching, who will in turn bring in more people, and so on. And I assume that a certain percentage of all cachers would 'pay back' their favorite site(s) in monetary contributions. (Sort of a its easier to get a penny from 100people then a dime from 10 people thing.)

quote:
Not that you (Welch) fall into this category, but I think the resistance to paying for this service is pretty funny. As though everything on the Internet should be "free", even though someone has to pay for the hardware, connection, supporting it, etc.. If they were charging something that I thought was 'outrageous' I would be more resistant to paying for it it, but jeesh: I can't think of anything else we blow $30 a year that provides more family entertainment. It's a major bargain. To each their own I suppose. I think geocaching.com keeping it as "free" as they are is pretty magnanimous of them.

I find the idea of having to pay somewhat amusing, its just so alien... Having to pay for something that has always been *free*. To me, and I think others (yourself even?), one of the big draws of the activity we know as geocaching, is that its *free*. If you have the most expensive gps (or anything you might use for caching)or not one at you all you can partipate, there are *no* must buy things (a lot of optional things yes, but none required). Not that Groundspeak/GC.com shouldn't be allowed to support themselves, this site is Great. Getting commission from links and selling 'gear', and even PQ (as they use up server space er whatever) is fine. But I really find the whole, 'pay us some money to get to find special Member Only Caches' thing misleading. There are no extra rules or requirements for the 'special' caches, it just seems like... a bunch of hype. I mean (and no offense Geosaur) but does checking that box, rather than not, somehow make the cache a better cache?

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

I have four out of about 100 caches that I have placed and for whatever reason they seem not to turn in to trash caches. It’s like paying members are more caring about what they trade, they don’t turn into Mctoys either , but I still place regular caches to replay all the non membership cachers that hide but in this area most of the cachers that hide are members ( go figure ). The non members seem to just want to hunt which is OK to.

I do plan in the future do hide more MOC for the same reason, its all about other folks playing and caring about the same sport I do.

JOE

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TMAN264:
I agree with Solohiker that there should be non-member caches, ...

Actually, no, solohiker said, "We need non-member only caches." For whatever reason solohiker, as far as I remember, has always had a problem with becoming a member and those that are a member. To each their own, but I doubt very seriously there will ever be a time that there will be a type of cache that paying members can't access simply because they are paying members.

I don't have any MOCs, but I do reserve the privilege to do so whenever I choose. Have a problem with me wanting to make a cache of mine a MOC? Tough.

Am I being elitist? Hardly. If I were to be elitist I'd post them on a private site and email a close circle of friends. Now, that would be elitist!

CR

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

quote:
Originally posted by TMAN264:
I agree with Solohiker that there should be non-member caches, ...

Actually, no, solohiker said, "We need non-member _only_ caches." For whatever reason solohiker, as far as I remember, has always had a problem with becoming a member and those that are a member. To each their own, but I doubt very seriously there will ever be a time that there will be a type of cache that paying members can't access simply because they are paying members.

I don't have any MOCs, but I do reserve the privilege to do so whenever I choose. Have a problem with me wanting to make a cache of mine a MOC? Tough.

Am I being elitist? Hardly. If I were to be elitist I'd post them on a private site and email a close circle of friends. Now, _that_ would be elitist!

CR

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif

I think Solohiker was just trying to add a little humor to the thread. He likely knows that there will never be a non member only cache.

--CoronaKid

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

Maybe I am superior in some way. It has been said in this thread that MOCs encourage non-members to ante up and become members. That the prospect of access to certain caches will somehow create a camaraderie of sorts and cause the standard “geocacher” to become a paying “charter member” (or throbbing member or whatever). But nobody had to do that to me! I didn’t have to be lured in to paying member status by the promise of a few extra caches. Look at me I’m so superior!

This is of course, hyperbole, I’m trying to point out how condescending that stance appears (to me anyway). Most of us “charter members” paid up to support the site and allow Jeremy to buy those expensive lift tickets for snowboarding. To say, “I’m going to make my cache “members only” solely to punish a non payer or create in that player the desire to part with $30 is patronizing IMHO. Reward? No, not for me. I’ve paid ever since it was an option, not because of the extra caches or the pocket queers, and not to be the “throbbing member”. I paid because I wanted to, nobody had to entice me. I hide my caches for everyone, paid or not. I like to read the cache logs of people who’ve enjoyed my efforts, paid or not.

If a non-member asked you to print out the cache page of a MOC, would you? (I know they couldn’t log it until the owner rescinded the MO status.)

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

I like the opinions in the last thread. I also chose to become a member on my own free will, so I could support something that I love to do.

To answer your question, no, I would not print out a MOC page for a non-member, mainly for the reason you stated, but to also honor the wishes of the cache hider as well.

As I stated before, my future hides will be MOC's for a month, and then available for all after that. That is my personal choice, with no ill will or bad intentions behind it.

Make a sanity check.

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

Members only caches present a few inconveniences to non-members beside just not being able to search for these caches.

While I would have likely become a member eventually, the reason I joined was because there was a members only cache on the same trail as where I wanted to place a cache (based on the cache name and the approximate location from the maps). I could have place my cache and risked it not being approved because it was to close to the existing members only cache. Instead I joined so I could get the location of the members only cache and placed my cache more that .1 miles away.

After becoming a member, I moved a travel bug to a members only cache. Later it occured to me that if a non-member was following this bug and wanted to retrieve it, they could not get the location of the cache. Also, since members caches get less traffic, the bug languished in the cache for about three months. It was finally retrieve just a few days ago

東西南北

-- I found it in the last place I looked.

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by CoronaKid:

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

quote:
Originally posted by TMAN264:
I agree with Solohiker that there should be non-member caches, ...

Actually, no, solohiker said, "We need non-member _only_ caches." For whatever reason solohiker, as far as I remember, has always had a problem with becoming a member and those that are a member. To each their own, but I doubt very seriously there will ever be a time that there will be a type of cache that paying members can't access simply because they are paying members.

I don't have any MOCs, but I do reserve the privilege to do so whenever I choose. Have a problem with me wanting to make a cache of mine a MOC? Tough.

Am I being elitist? Hardly. If I were to be elitist I'd post them on a private site and email a close circle of friends. Now, _that_ would be elitist!

CR

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif

I think Solohiker was just trying to add a little humor to the thread. He likely knows that there will never be a non member only cache.

--CoronaKid

You both get partial credit.

I was making a joke, but I would not want people like Sissy-n-Cr hanging around me.

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

I've never placed a MOC but I can see the need for them. I signed up as a member simply to get access to the pocket query.

I don't really pay much attention if a cache is a MOC or not. If it's near me I'm gonna log it.

I've noticed a few local cachers have openly boycotted MOCS and refuse to log them (even though they could do so). I don't see the problem really.

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

"Never declare war on a man who buys his ink by the gallon."

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
This is of course, hyperbole, I’m trying to point out how condescending that stance appears (to me anyway). Most of us “charter members” paid up to support the site and allow Jeremy to buy those expensive lift tickets for snowboarding. To say, “I’m going to make my cache “members only” solely to punish a non payer or create in that player the desire to part with $30

I have to agree with Criminal. I think it's also condescending and elitist to answer non-(premium,charter)members with statements like "you can do that with pocket queries". If they were able to get pocket queries, they probably wouldn't be asking the question in the first place.

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

My bad Solohiker, I misread your post.

Make a sanity check.

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:
(I know they couldn’t log it until the owner rescinded the MO status.)

I know this to be false. I've seen non-members log members only caches. I believe it's just a little URL manipulation of the 'log a find' page that allows you to do this. This is also how you would log a cache that hasn't been approved yet.

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:
I have to agree with Criminal. I think it's also condescending and elitist to answer non-(premium,charter)members with statements like <snip>

I never realized that $30 could make me elitist. That's a bargain. I thought you needed a lot of dough to reach that level.

I have to say I never expected to be called anything while questioning about choosing to reward members (not punish non-members) for being such; certainly not 'elitist' or 'condescending' for Heaven's sake. Of course, I disagree with the take on what MOCs mean by both Criminal and Caschew Nut.

Geosaur :: Geocaching Lizard

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

quote:
I have to say I never expected to be called anything while questioning about choosing to reward members (not punish non-members) for being such; certainly not 'elitist' or 'condescending' for Heaven's sake.

NO no no, that's not what I mean! I'm saying that if you are hiding MOCs as a way of compelling someone to join, then that can be viewed as condescending. I didn't need such a compulsion to join. It’s all about the motive, and I’m not accusing anyone in particular. This has come up before and I’m glomming all those threads/posts with this one. I think that if I could decide on my own to join, so can everyone else. They don’t need any special education to be convinced. If they do, great, if they don’t, great too. And yes, I would give a printout to a non-paying member. The first paid member would still get the “first find” unless the non-payer knows how to manipulate URL.

EDIT: Bolded the important part.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

Posted June 19, 2003 · June 19, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by solohiker:
...I would not want people like Sissy-n-Cr hanging around me.

Hey, something we can agree on!

CR

Make your cache "Members Only"?

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

Join the conversation