Members-only Misconceptions

Posted November 21, 2003 · November 21, 2003

The prior topic was closed without clearing up some things:

-----

Not being a fan of members-only caches, I wasn't going to get involved but read some weird things...

Some misconceptions from a couple different posts:

The reason I will be placing a MO cache is to have a bonus for the people who support this forum.

That's forgetting (or overlooking) that EVERYONE supports this forum through the sponsored advertising. Premium members simply choose to give additional cash directly. More active members may actually generate greater revenue than premium members.

I love seeing people trying desperately to justify NOT paying to use something they enjoy -- this site, these forums.

I don't enjoy either (site or forums) as much as I enjoy geocaching--an activity that doesn't require this site or these forums. Any site, or magazine, newletter or book could provide listings and forums can be hosted elsewhere or via newsgroup, magazine or local in person meetings!

Now my view:

The only reason there is a 'pay' option is to increase revenue for Groundspeak, Inc. Note it isn't a not-for-profit but a for profit corporation. It owns equipment and rents office space and has staff. It's also brilliant in that it's costs are relatively low, folks are willing to volunteer to take care of what would otherwise be costly expenditures.

I don't choose to pay because I'd rather 'pay' myself (never having met Jeremy or any employees) and none of the services gained are useful to me. I also contribute by putting good caches out, promoting the sport and being a good member of the community (hosted an event, took a TV crew caching...)

I won't do members only caches 'cause I believe caching should be free, aside from travel costs--I won't go there. If you charged me a surcharge for hiking, I wouldn't do that either. If you charge me a surcharge for mountain biking or white-water kayaking I wouldn't do them either.

I will, however, pay to be taken up a mountain so I can ski down even though it's free for me to walk up on my own! I will pay a fee to play badminton which covers the cost of gym rental, custodian, insurance and shuttlecocks.

Since GC.com already gets paid by my supporting advertisers and sponsors, why should I pay MORE than at competitive sites?

To earn the privilege of hunting your members-only caches? LOL! Hahaha... What arrogance..

Just my 'wordy' perspective (and own minor arrogance),

Randy

Posted November 21, 2003 · November 21, 2003

Seeing as those are MY quotes above, let me put it towards a differnt angle.

Do you pay to enter a state park where there are caches? Same basic concept. Anyone CAN pay to enter, but some choose not to do so.

Posted November 21, 2003 · November 21, 2003

Do you pay to enter a state park where there are caches?

Haha.. Nope--that's what winter is for!

{grin},

Randy

PS: The analogy doesn't entirely hold up as that's an equity issue, tax money from people who don't use the service shouldn't bear the entire cost in the case of state parks and highway tolls, etc.

PPS: I didn't realize they were both your quotes--they came from different posts and I try not to direct responses to an individual in a public forum. You succinctly voiced sentiments shared by others (and lurkers assumedly) that weren't being addressed in the prior conversation.

Posted November 21, 2003 · November 21, 2003

The analogy doesn't entirely hold up as that's an equity issue, tax money from people who don't use the service shouldn't bear the entire cost in the case of state parks and highway tolls, etc.

It's not an accurate analogy, but it's close enough for a different viewpoint of it. The "there shouldn't be MO caches" argument that the previous thread was turning into doesn't jive, either. That topic has been argued to death by some of the same people stirring up that thread, with the exact same phrases (copy paste?) as before. Here's a Markwell for you. Read away.

I like pocket queries. I like the forums. I like the features occasionally added. I chose to pay my whopping $3 so they'll continue to be here and I can continue to access them.

(sigh)

I'm also tired of arguing about it. It was just a simple blasted question to start with.

Posted November 21, 2003 · November 21, 2003

I read the previous posts on the MO caches. Seems like pole vaulting over mouseturds, but I respect everyones opinion. We all have one, and they all smell pretty much the same!

Posted November 21, 2003 · November 21, 2003

No, no, no, don't get me wrong--I fully encourage premium membership and features should drive such. It's smart business.

But let's not forget that advertising and sponsorships are generated by ALL of us (premium members included).

That's it,

Randy

(Well, now that I think about it, members-only caches inhibit non-members from viewing sponsorships on those pages!)

Posted November 21, 2003 · November 21, 2003

Joefrog, it's interesting to me that the "markwell"ed posts remained amazingly more civil that the more recent one. Different people have different opinions, and rather than argue about them, sometimes we should simply agree to disagree.

BTW, my views are pretty consistent, so I don't need to "copy/paste". I tend to remember what I say. But I respect your opinion, as well as your right to it. Hopefully there are no hard feelings. I never meant to stir up animosity, it just kind of snowballed, I think for both of us.

From now on, I promise to "reboot" my GPS and get a better "fix" before responding to what I may have wrongly interpreted as an attack. Sometimes taking an extra 30 minutes to absorb what I've read before responding works much better for all concerned. Then again, other times only a 2x4 upside my head will do the trick!

Posted November 21, 2003 · November 21, 2003

<---blindly swinging 2x4's

Posted November 21, 2003 · November 21, 2003

Since GC.com already gets paid by my supporting advertisers and sponsors, why should I pay MORE than at competitive sites?

To earn the privilege of hunting your members-only caches? LOL! Hahaha... What arrogance..

The pocket queries are kind of cool, I think, at least if you use a PDA. Whether that, and members-only caches are enough to justify the price of membership is pretty questionable - you do have a point.

Mostly I joined just because I thought the site was nice and I have gotten a lot of benefit from it - don't want to see it flame out like so many other .coms. (And truthfully, I didn't think about sponsorships - I'm so naive sometimes!)

I think they can afford a tiny little bit of arrogance here - this site seems to be about the best one I've seen for geocaching. (Meaning no disrespect to the other sites.)

Posted November 21, 2003 · November 21, 2003

Since GC.com already gets paid by my supporting advertisers and sponsors, why should I pay MORE than at competitive sites?

To earn the privilege of hunting your members-only caches? LOL! Hahaha... What arrogance..

The pocket queries are kind of cool, I think, at least if you use a PDA.

I use pocket queries extensively, even thought I don't have a PDA. I download caches into an Access database, which enables me to track the caches I've found and am planning to hunt.

The MO caches are insignificant. The reason I've paid is that I feel I'm investing in the sport I've become addicted to. We might not have a server for this forum right now if it weren't for memberships.

Posted November 21, 2003 · November 21, 2003

We might not have a server for this forum right now if it weren't for memberships.

Well said!

Posted November 22, 2003 · November 22, 2003

$3.00???

The enjoyment I've received from caching is priceless! I've been to some wonderful places I never would have visited and met interesting people I would never have met otherwise. I'm proud knowing my little membership fee is helping to support Geocaching.

I pay for other things I enjoy-movies, dinner, cable TV, etc. - I really don't see the difference (except this is WAY cheaper- Unless you add the cost of the gas and the GPSr! :D )

No- I see absolutely nothing wrong with MO caches Joe- and I hope to get down your way sometime to find yours. Thanks!!

P.S. A 12 month membership comes to just $2.50 a month.

Edited November 22, 2003 by La Paloma

Posted November 22, 2003 · November 22, 2003

Joefrog, it's interesting to me that the "markwell"ed posts remained amazingly more civil that the more recent one. Different people have different opinions, and rather than argue about them, sometimes we should simply agree to disagree.

BTW, my views are pretty consistent, so I don't need to "copy/paste". I tend to remember what I say. But I respect your opinion, as well as your right to it. Hopefully there are no hard feelings. I never meant to stir up animosity, it just kind of snowballed, I think for both of us.

From now on, I promise to "reboot" my GPS and get a better "fix" before responding to what I may have wrongly interpreted as an attack. Sometimes taking an extra 30 minutes to absorb what I've read before responding works much better for all concerned. Then again, other times only a 2x4 upside my head will do the trick!

Nope, no hard feelings at all. I was having a crappy day as well, so I clocked out and went caching before the wedding I had to attend last night.

Posted November 22, 2003 · November 22, 2003

$3.00???
The enjoyment I've received from caching is priceless! I've been to some wonderful places I never would have visited and met interesting people I would never have met otherwise. I'm proud knowing my little membership fee is helping to support Geocaching.

I pay for other things I enjoy-movies, dinner, cable TV, etc. - I really don't see the difference (except this is WAY cheaper- Unless you add the cost of the gas and the GPSr! )

No- I see absolutely nothing wrong with MO caches Joe- and I hope to get down your way sometime to find yours. Thanks!!

P.S. A 12 month membership comes to just $2.50 a month.

I seemed to recall that if you paid in monthly increments it was three bucks. Could be wrong -- my memory isn't the best in the world!

Thanks -- I echo that sentiment. I NEVER would have found some of those places on my own. Given, some of them I never would have WANTED to visit, but...

C'mon down and check them out. I had a new mystery cache approved just last night! This one should be interesting.... keep an eye on the logs for it.

Joefrog's Pin and Patch Cache

Posted November 22, 2003 · November 22, 2003

I,ve been to some great places that I would never have found without geocaching so I am happy to pay the small sum for premium membership.

As for MO caches there are very few here in the UK and I don,t intend placing one myself.That said I don,t have any objection to them as its up to the placer/owner whether to make em MO.

Posted November 22, 2003 · November 22, 2003

I'm coming in late to this discussion, so I apologize if I mention something already mentioned.

It seems to me that most everything we do, as geocachers, and as consumers (I hesitate to use term citizens) has a "free" option and a "members only" option. "Free" email from Yahoo gives the user certain benefits, while "pay" email from Yahoo gives other, some might say more complete benefits. Even going on line to use the free services of this site has free (NetZero) and pay (Comcast, DSL...) options. Doesn't it all boil down to what works best for you?

Since this seems to me to be a personal decision and not a right, I'm confused why there is an argument. Neither "side" can really assert why someone from the other side should convert. Its analogous to someone opting to buy a mini-van rather than a Z-4. Each has their place, their market, and their purpose.

My decision to join was based on a philosophy: I'll go make the money doing what I do best, to pay you to do what you do best. Its an expensive philosophy, to be sure, and does requires some balancing between cost and benefit. However, generally speaking, I have found its benefits to far outweigh its costs. In the case of gc.com, the convenience and opportunity some of the MO features offer outweighed the $30 a year. Does that mean everyone should join? No way!

The people at gc.com know and expect that not everyone will buy their product. So, they pay for its costs in other ways (the before mentioned advertising), and attempt to keep the overhead down. Its simply business. Our (democratic/commercial) societies are built on it.

Edited November 22, 2003 by CacheCreatures

Posted November 22, 2003 · November 22, 2003

Ok you two just kiss and make up cause you are spreading bad karma throughout the boards. <----that was for the NW, pacafist, folks

Fight it out with a 2x4 jk

oh and go geocaching<-----on topic.

Posted November 22, 2003 · November 22, 2003

Spreading bad Karma will get you banned from the forums.

Posted November 22, 2003 · November 22, 2003

Spreading bad Karma will get you banned from the forums.

I wouldn't doubt it.

Posted November 22, 2003 · November 22, 2003

Spreading bad Karma will get you banned from the forums.

I wouldn't doubt it.

Me either.

Posted November 22, 2003 · November 22, 2003

Spreading bad Karma will get you banned from the forums.

I wouldn't doubt it.

Me either.

Just wait for the karma counters to appear with every new post.

Posted November 22, 2003 · November 22, 2003

There are ads? Sponsors? I never noticed them. I like gc.com because there are NO pop ups and Jeremy promises not to let that ever happen. I pay my membership because I choose to support the one geocaching site I feel is the best. I have never placed an MO cache, but it doesn't mean I won't. I think I may have done an MO cache or two, I don't recall. I like my pocket queries once in a while. Someday when I get a palm device I will like them even more. Want to know another stupid reason I like being a member? I can write things under my avatar. Like "Cached in 9 states" Silly isn't it? But that was my deciding factor believe it or not!

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

I am a paying member solely for the Pocket Queries. I am pretty much a paperless cacher. I do all my caching with PDA in hand, although I do use a paper notebook for recording what I took/left as it sometimes takes me a few days to get around to logging them online. If it weren't for PQ's I probably wouldn't subscribe. As for 'giving back' to Groundspeak or the caching community as a whole, I believe that placing caches gives far more back to GC than 3 bucks/month. If nobody placed caches there wouldn't be much need for a listing site.

As for MO caches, I don't believe in them personally. I view them as elitist. I don't believe that they reduce the likelyhood of piracy or vandalism. The ability to see who has read your cache page is misleading because a lot of people only view cache pages from their Pocket Queries. If I was that paranoid about piracy or tampering then I just wouldn't place caches in the first place. Can you believe that there are actually MO caches out there whose owners are so paranoid that you actually have to email them to get the correct coords?

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

Can you believe that there are actually MO caches out there whose owners are so paranoid that you actually have to email them to get the correct coords?

Yes I can, it is sad. But then again there are paranoid people everywhere. Why should our hobby be any different?

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

Not quite Paranoia, but close enough

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

Well... I freely admit that I don't alway agree with everything that is done here. However, I chose to be a premium member. I let my membership lapse for a while, but the more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that $3/month was worth every penny for the personal enjoyment that geocaching brings to me and my children. I love my children more than anything in this world and all three of us enjoy geocaching, so I have convinced myself that premium membership only costs us $1/person per month. Cheers!

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

I am a paying member solely for the Pocket Queries. I am pretty much a paperless cacher. I do all my caching with PDA in hand, although I do use a paper notebook for recording what I took/left as it sometimes takes me a few days to get around to logging them online. If it weren't for PQ's I probably wouldn't subscribe.

Hilarious, considering your avatar and signature line.

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

I am a paying member solely for the Pocket Queries. I am pretty much a paperless cacher. I do all my caching with PDA in hand, although I do use a paper notebook for recording what I took/left as it sometimes takes me a few days to get around to logging them online. If it weren't for PQ's I probably wouldn't subscribe.

Hilarious, considering your avatar and signature line.

LOL - I was wondering if someone would bring that up. Let's just say I like my toys.

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

Can you believe that there are actually MO caches out there whose owners are so paranoid that you actually have to email them to get the correct coords?

Since you are no doubt refering to my caches, you should already know the reasons why I have had to go down this road.

Edited November 23, 2003 by CO Admin

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

Can you believe that there are actually MO caches out there whose owners are so paranoid that you actually have to email them to get the correct coords?

I have one like that. I'm not paranoid, but there was a cache pirate who was working the area immediately around my cache, so I added the coordinates upon request requirement. I'll probably remove that soon, since the pirate craze seems to have gone away.

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

I know of a cacher who had so many of their caches stolen that it seemed like they were practically targeted. They placed a members only cache which interestingly enough was left a lone for a long time. Eventually the cache was converted to a regular geocache and the first person who went looking for it after the conversion found it missing.

I definitely think Members Only caches have their place, but I also think they should be a rarity. If I remember right, that was the only members only cache I've ever found.

Bret

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

Remember, though, that there's also that Watcher program that you can use, but it's only useful with Pocket Queries. So, in order to use Watcher, you have to pay $3 a month or $30 a year, but you don't pay me, you pay Geocaching.com (not that you can't send a tip if you want to).

Anyway, if Watcher and Pocket Queries aren't enough value for you... well... whatever.

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

Actually, it's Watcher AND Geospinner that make it for me. The ability to convert all the local caches into HTML pages with indexes for my Sharp Zaurus is definately worth a couple bucks to me. Beats writing down notes for where I think I might be...

On the other hand I noticed our area has exactly 1 members only cache. It was found during the first week of June and not since then. One of these days I'll wander out and see if it's still there.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ee-992c7fcdff8e

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

I like gc.com because there are NO pop ups and Jeremy promises not to let that ever happen.

When I first started at GC.com 2 years ago, he said he would never charge for geocahing. Let's see... member only cache, isn't that charging to geocache?

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

I like gc.com because there are NO pop ups and Jeremy promises not to let that ever happen.

When I first started at GC.com 2 years ago, he said he would never charge for geocahing. Let's see... member only cache, isn't that charging to geocache?

No, If they were charging to Cache, then all caches would be Members Only

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

As for MO caches, I don't believe in them personally. I view them as elitist. I don't believe that they reduce the likelyhood of piracy or vandalism. The ability to see who has read your cache page is misleading because a lot of people only view cache pages from their Pocket Queries. If I was that paranoid about piracy or tampering then I just wouldn't place caches in the first place. Can you believe that there are actually MO caches out there whose owners are so paranoid that you actually have to email them to get the correct coords?

The exact reason that some people out there have made their cache coordinates available by 'request only', is so that the loophole of pocket queries is avoided.

There are very reasonable grounds for some cachers to go to such drastic measures to keep their caches safe.

In our area, a very popular cache was tampered with by some cachers involved in the now defunct piracy movement. The issue has been covered at length in other topics, so I won't rehash it here.

I hear the term 'elitist' once in awhile. And I wonder about it, but I can't think of any members only caches caches put out there for the 'elite'. Perhaps if someone could provide a specific example, or a more detailed reason as to why such caches are elite?

I sincerely doubt that it be better for geocachers to STOP placing caches due to threats by organized pirates. That would be letting the pirates win....

Can you believe that some people fail to see the reason why almost all geocachers disapprove of pirating caches?

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

Canadazuuk wrote:
In our area, a very popular cache was tampered with by some cachers involved in the now defunct piracy movement.

Actually, more acurately, some cachers over-reacted to this.

Can you believe that some people fail to see the reason why almost all geocachers disapprove of pirating caches?

Actually, it was only a very small minority in our neighbourhood who objected to our local pirate (as you well know).

Glad to see that your MO caches are getting lot's of traffic, Zuuky.

*****

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

Sunsetnkc wrote:
When I first started at GC.com 2 years ago, he said he would never charge for geocahing. Let's see... member only cache, isn't that charging to geocache?

CyBret wrote:
I definitely think Members Only caches have their place, but I also think they should be a rarity.

The vast majority of geocaches remain available for all geocachers to find. Members-only caches are a tiny sideline. It's remained that way even as the ranks of premium members have grown. Let's look at some statistics:

This latest discussion resulted from an innocent question from Joefrog, who was placing a Members-only cache. In fact, it was the first MOC in the State of Alabama. There are 443 total caches, meaning that 0.22% of caches in Alabama are MOC's.

In the other thread, a geocacher from California was a vocal opponent of MOC's. In California, there are 138 Members-only caches.... 76 of them placed by one prolific hider who also makes many of his caches available to everyone. As of Friday, California had 8293 caches, meaning that the 138 MOC's represent just 1.66% of all caches.

In my home state of Pennsylvania, there are three MOC's out of a total of 1,784 caches (as of Friday), for a percentage of 0.17%.

If we started seeing percentages like 10 or 20 percent of all caches being MOC's, there might be something to worry about. In the meantime, go find the other 98% of the geocaches!

Posted November 23, 2003 · November 23, 2003

As for MO caches, I don't believe in them personally. I view them as elitist. I don't believe that they reduce the likelyhood of piracy or vandalism. The ability to see who has read your cache page is misleading because a lot of people only view cache pages from their Pocket Queries. If I was that paranoid about piracy or tampering then I just wouldn't place caches in the first place. Can you believe that there are actually MO caches out there whose owners are so paranoid that you actually have to email them to get the correct coords?

The exact reason that some people out there have made their cache coordinates available by 'request only', is so that the loophole of pocket queries is avoided.

There are very reasonable grounds for some cachers to go to such drastic measures to keep their caches safe.

In our area, a very popular cache was tampered with by some cachers involved in the now defunct piracy movement. The issue has been covered at length in other topics, so I won't rehash it here.

I hear the term 'elitist' once in awhile. And I wonder about it, but I can't think of any members only caches caches put out there for the 'elite'. Perhaps if someone could provide a specific example, or a more detailed reason as to why such caches are elite?

I sincerely doubt that it be better for geocachers to STOP placing caches due to threats by organized pirates. That would be letting the pirates win....

Can you believe that some people fail to see the reason why almost all geocachers disapprove of pirating caches?

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. It just a game.

Posted November 24, 2003 · November 24, 2003

Zuuky wrote:
I sincerely doubt that it be better for geocachers to STOP placing caches due to threats by organized pirates. That would be letting the pirates win....

As far as I know, other than Vancouver Transit, there were no other caches effected in an adverse way by our local pirate. Since the local pirates said that they would not bother with anyone's caches that did not want to participate (and indeed did not), I don't see why you felt the need to make your caches MO.

Perhaps in light of this, you'd like to reconsider your stance on the MO caches?

*****

Posted November 24, 2003 · November 24, 2003

This latest discussion resulted from an innocent question from Joefrog, who was placing a Members-only cache. In fact, it was the first MOC in the State of Alabama. There are 443 total caches, meaning that 0.22% of caches in Alabama are MOC's.

Nope, sorry.... they weren't the first MO caches. That distinction belongs to AlabamaPink, about 30 miles north of me. Her caches were very well received, were well-hidden, and had excellent goodies in them.

Edited November 24, 2003 by joefrog

Posted November 24, 2003 · November 24, 2003

Face it, making a cache MO is elitist. Pure and simple. You have to be a paying member of the gc.com club in order to hunt them.

Is this wrong? Maybe. I'm not saying it is.

However, I'm a paying member and at one time thought about making all of our new caches MO to "reward" paying members, but thought better of it. Why? Because we wanted to give to the geocaching community as a whole, not just to those who paid the $30 a year.

Today, if I wanted to be elitist, I'd place the cache, not even submit it to gc.com, and email my friends the data.

CR

Posted November 24, 2003 · November 24, 2003

Here's another way to look at it.

In order to view a MO cache you haven't had to pass any test, applied for any permission, or done anything to win the privilege of viewing this set of caches other than paying the "Jeremy tax."

That's kind of an odd test to pass to gain the privilege to view a few caches.

CR

Posted November 24, 2003 · November 24, 2003

Think of it this way:

In order to view the cache, you have to meet the requirements set by the cache owner.

Some caches will not be found by the handicapped. Some will not be found by people who suck at math. Some will not be found by people too smart to stick their hand into a deep hole. Some will not be found by those lacking 4*4 vehicles or rent-a-cars. And some will not be found by people who refuse to pay $3 a month for a good time.

But it's for the person who buys the stuff, gets permission from the land owners, plans it all out, and agrees to maintain it to decide what the rules are. Jeremy and GC.com make it possible for MO cache's to exist, but they're not the ones making them. The person who made the cache made that decision and if you don't like their decision than boycott their caches.

Personally, for those who are really against MO caches, I reccomend boycotting. It's extremely easy to do, especially if you're not a member.

Posted November 24, 2003 · November 24, 2003

No, If they were charging to Cache, then all caches would be Members Only

What!? What kind of logic is that? If you don't pay you don't get to find or log a subset of caches. Period. That's pay to play. No way of getting around that.

No, the reason Jeremy hasn't gone to a full pay-to-play site is because he knows people will bolt to whatever site will give it up for free. When that happens he looses his God Of Geocaching status. He will do practically anything to keep it.

CR

Posted November 24, 2003 · November 24, 2003

That's lame. Why attack Jeremy in a personal way for the 1% of caches that are MO? It's not like Jeremy 'made them do it'.

Posted November 24, 2003 · November 24, 2003

That's lame. Why attack Jeremy in a personal way for the 1% of caches that are MO? It's not like Jeremy 'made them do it'.

I guess that could be viewed as a dig.

I was only playing. It's a reference to an old post on the original talk list. The post can be found HERE. (Have to be a member of Yahoo! and join the group to view, but that isn't so bad to be able to read the original geocaching talk list, is it?)

CR

Posted November 24, 2003 · November 24, 2003

Think of it this way:

In order to view the cache, you have to meet the requirements set by the cache owner.

Some caches will not be found by the handicapped. Some will not be found by people who suck at math. Some will not be found by people too smart to stick their hand into a deep hole. Some will not be found by those lacking 4*4 vehicles or rent-a-cars. And some will not be found by people who refuse to pay $3 a month for a good time.

But it's for the person who buys the stuff, gets permission from the land owners, plans it all out, and agrees to maintain it to decide what the rules are. Jeremy and GC.com make it possible for MO cache's to exist, but they're not the ones making them. The person who made the cache made that decision

Wow, a response that actually makes me "rethink" my stance on MOCs. Some very good points.

The thing about MOCs, is the fact that non-paying members can't even "see" what they're missing. With regular caches, I can at least see the cache page, read the logs and description, and make my own decision as to wether or not the cache is "do-able" for me based on my abilities, vehicle, equipment, etc. With an MOC, I can't do any of that without paying a fee.

I understand that it would be difficult to let out "part" of a cache's info while keeping it's location/coordinates hidden for viewing by members only, but not impossible.

They still leave a bad taste in my mouth, but the taste isn't as bad as it used to be.

Posted November 24, 2003 · November 24, 2003

Wow, a response that actually makes me "rethink" my stance on MOCs. Some very good points.

The thing about MOCs, is the fact that non-paying members can't even "see" what they're missing. With regular caches, I can at least see the cache page, read the logs and description, and make my own decision as to wether or not the cache is "do-able" for me based on my abilities, vehicle, equipment, etc. With an MOC, I can't do any of that without paying a fee.

I understand that it would be difficult to let out "part" of a cache's info while keeping it's location/coordinates hidden for viewing by members only, but not impossible.

They still leave a bad taste in my mouth, but the taste isn't as bad as it used to be.

There is a problem with publishing the text of the MO caches so that non-members can help decide what they are missing. To truly protect a MO cache, it needs to be either a virtual, an offset, a puzzle cache, or a combination-locked cache, and those details must be contained in the text of the cache description. As has been suggested elsewhere, MO status does not completely protect cache coordinates from non-members.

Posted November 24, 2003 · November 24, 2003

Haha.. For the non-member movement, if some are so motivated, become members, then put the coords to MO cache's in all the nearby caches without logging the MO cache!

{evil grin}

Heh,

Randy

PS: Let's not forget that EVERYONE contributes by supporting sponsors, placing caches, logging their visits, maintaining caches they visit, etc. Premium membership is simply another manner. (Hmm, ::thinks to himself::, perhaps those are the folks who trade down! Haha! LOL!!!)

PPS: Oh, I'm making myself laugh today...

Members-only Misconceptions

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