Members-only Misconceptions

[+Mark 42]

Not quite Paranoia, but close enough

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/archv-hm.htm

 

http://www.tackamarks.freeservers.com/

 

My only problem with the Members Only caches is that I can access

them, but my wife can't. I can't see paying $60 per year so that both

of us can do MO caches... I figure she can accompany me on any that

I find interesting enough to go look for.

 

But to me, the fact that a cache is MO is a point against it,

and given two caches that otherwise look equally interesting,

I would go after the one open to everyone first... partly

because I like to have people read my log entries (if I find

anything humorous or interesting about a trip to a cache).

 

I live in an area where new caches appear at such a fast rate that

nobody seems able to keep up. I think I've seen an average of

4 to 7 (?) new caches per week just in the immediate area of

Tacoma. I think I see about 10 to 15 new caches per week within

the 15 mile radius I set at the autonotification website. (I had to

reduce it from 25 miles to 15 because of the overflow).

 

Just Look how many are in this area, and see how many new ones

are within a 10 mile radius. I don't think anyone will run out of caches to

look for.

Edited November 24, 2003 by Mark 42

[+Jacksons]

[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!!!)

 

QUOTE]

 

placing a cache or logging vists,etc dosent pay the bills and cost to run and program servers,or com lines which all are costly. Its just that some of us are willing to pay to support the site and some are not .

[BeDoggy]

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?

 

*****

I think I would resort to MO caches if a destructive pirate were loose. In fact, I almost made my caches MO a couple months ago due to the pirate "scare" around here. Now I think what was going on was kinda cool.....

 

I think a cache owner should have the right to make any or all of thier caches MO.

They just shouldn't complain if their caches are almost never visited.

[Jomarac5]

BeDoggy wrote:

I think I would resort to MO caches if a destructive pirate were loose.

And then it might be justified. There wasn't a *destructive* pirate loose in our area though.

 

I think a cache owner should have the right to make any or all of thier caches MO.

Absolutely. And for whatever reason they choose. But if they are going to complain about something that isn't quite what they say it is, then they should expect to be corrected.

 

*****

[BeDoggy]

Well at first, it wasn't clear what the nature of the piracy was. When it became clear that it was a positive thing, I thought it was kinda neat. that's why I didn't make my caches MO

[+javamutt]

My first impression of MO caches was that because a smaller group had spent money on the sport they would be a more hardcore group, but after reading the forums for a while, it's obvious that isn't the differentiator. The thing that makes each find unique is that it's entirely at the discression of the cache hider. I think this appies to their choice to go MO or stay public.

 

Given the earlier posts on statistics, its definitely not like MO cahces are hindering the game in any way, so I'm viewing them as just another category, but definitely not somethign to raise my hackles over.

 

I paid for a membership, like many others, because I think this site is the most enjoyable one out there (meaning no offense to alternative cahcing sites!). gc.com is a very professional layout, very functional (just got into using pocket queries), etc. There is very little that survives without money, so I view my membership as a contribution in appreciation for this site (which I used free for my first year of caching as a "try before you buy" period.

 

Thanks to Jeremy for a fantastic site and it's contributions to caching, and thanks to all the cache hiders out there for making it interesting when unplugged as well!

[trilink]

I read an article on the history of Geocaching, http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/, and it linked to what appeared to be a message from Jeremy Irish, http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/pledge.txt . If this statement is authentic, can?t see why at the time it seams to be posted it wouldn?t be, wouldn?t the Member Only Caches be a contradiction top this statement?

[+LaPaglia]

I read an article on the history of Geocaching, http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/, and it linked to what appeared to be a message from Jeremy Irish, http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/pledge.txt . If this statement is authentic, can?t see why at the time it seams to be posted it wouldn?t be, wouldn?t the Member Only Caches be a contradiction top this statement?

Not at all read the last line:

 

But the traditional game

will remain purely free.

 

The traditional game is still free.

[+Mark 42]

"...the traditional game will remain purely free"

 

I gues the MO caches are non-traditional.

[+LaPaglia]

"...the traditional game will remain purely free"

 

I gues the MO caches are non-traditional.

Since they did not exist at the time that the statement was made, I would have to agree.

[+perseid88]

Let's not forget. If a cache exists. MO or not, it can be found by anyone with a few minutes to spare at the computer first. I have not been stumped, yet. I can't log my find on the web page, but i do sign the log and trade, so I consider it a find.

[+MaxEntropy]

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!)

What sponsorships?

I don't see any advertising on the pages other than the gear from the Groundspeak store and a relatively small mention of Offroute.com on the main page.

 

If you appreciate the fact that there are no pop-ups and long banner ads here, thank the paid members and the folks who buy gear at the Groundspeak store.

Edited November 26, 2003 by MaxEntropy

[sunsetnkc]

I read an article on the history of Geocaching, http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/, and it linked to what appeared to be a message from Jeremy Irish, http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/pledge.txt . If this statement is authentic, can?t see why at the time it seams to be posted it wouldn?t be, wouldn?t the Member Only Caches be a contradiction top this statement?

Not at all read the last line:

 

But the traditional game

will remain purely free.

 

The traditional game is still free.

Exactly.... kind of interesting. If they aren't all free, it is pay to play

[+Keith Watson]

My view exactly. The last line is about a specific type of cache, gambling. The MO's are pay to play.

 

Question though. You can see MO's but just can't log them?

Edited November 26, 2003 by Keith Watson

[+Mark 42]

I was wondering about something similar...

 

If I can get the URL for a MO cache, if I bookmark it, and log

off... and then if my wife logs onto her account, what will

happen if she tries to go to the URL directly?

 

I don't really care for Members Only caches.

I can see offering other perks, like ability to store larger images,

maybe a bit of space to stor sound files and such for a cache page,

and perhaps a discount on merchandise... but I prefer caches be

open to everyone.