Incresed Membership Fees.

April 27, 2004

If there was an advanced membership that had better features and that would make the server faster would you upgrade?

April 27, 2004

Sure. Wouldn't you? The amount of work and time the admin puts into this site is worth more than $30 a year. IMO.

Rich

1.8k · April 27, 2004

Better features ... maybe. Faster server ... no. I don't have an issue with the server speed.

38.2k · April 27, 2004

Don't give them any ideas

9.4k · April 27, 2004

As long as they don't institute a pay-per-find (or post) rule, we're ok

April 27, 2004

Don't give them any ideas

This site would be about cashing and not about caching.

Upinyachit

April 27, 2004

As long as they don't institute a pay-per-find (or post) rule, we're ok

Don't give them any ideas.

4.5k · April 27, 2004

Bite your tongue.

Alan

April 27, 2004

Great idea, but carry it one step more and offer a lifetime membership for like 500 bucks…….JOE

2.5k · April 27, 2004

If there was an advanced membership that had better features and that would make the server faster would you upgrade?

It's called a Premium membership, and unfortunately as long as you renew each year, the price is locked in I would rather see some cutbacks in the frozen burritos and Eazy Cheese department instead of increased fees

April 27, 2004

I'd be just about as happy not paying $6/month as I am not paying $3/month.

5.3k · April 27, 2004

Never for a faster server. As far as features, if they allowed traveling caches and eased up virtuals I might. Otherwise it is just fine the way it is now.

April 27, 2004

Great idea, but carry it one step more and offer a lifetime membership for like 500 bucks…….JOE

Wow, you'd have to cache for nearly 17 years in order for that investment to pay off! Are we really still going to be caching in 17 years?? Will this site still be around???

2.7k · April 27, 2004

As long as they don't institute a pay-per-find (or post) rule, we're ok

It's retroactive, .50 a post!

24.7k · April 27, 2004

Or 5 bucks a year but everybody pays.

April 27, 2004

I'd be just about as happy not paying $6/month as I am not paying $3/month.

How about not expecting more from the people that are already paying. Instead maybe a little more pressure on those that are power users of the site. Not the person that caches once in a while but the ones that have say 400-500 finds in a year that aren't paying anything.

Edited: Changed to a

Edited April 27, 2004 by Mastifflover

April 27, 2004

How about a $10 one time fee to log your 10th find or your first hide, whichever comes first...

Increase premium membership by $1/month or $10/year...

Let's have a well funded site that can throw hardware and maybe even staff at problems.

Team Geo-Jedi

April 27, 2004

i am all for paying more for this hobby of mine.and yes this site will be around forever!!!!you think this geocaching thing is new or something???this sport has evolved from others that have been around forever?i am sooo surprised to hear some who "love" the sport soo much feruse to pay asuch a small fee..geesh guys its just a few bux.i am sure this sport and site would profit from more buxx thrown there way.as far as features.....give me a way to block out upinya PLEASE!!!!

April 27, 2004

I think that all the proposed user fee ideas are fantastic! In addition to those, Jeremy could add more advertising from GPS and outdoor suppliers as marketing tie ins. The ultimate goal to this would be to take the site public! Yes, an IPO would solve ALL this sites problems. The vast infusion of capital could take this game to the next level. Plus I think current charter and premium members should get a chance to buy IPO shares. Surely GC.COM could hit $150/share in the first day of the IPO. (That slogan "You are the search engine" should be HUGE on wallstreet!)Ultimately, the site, along with Garmin and REI would be bought by AOL or Microsoft, as a hedge against people abandoning time in front of their PCs and going outdoors instead. At that point, Jeremy would probably retire to his multimillion dollar home, and GC.com would hire several of the current approvers to high paying executive positions!

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I was having this really vivid dream that it was the year 1999 all over again... Never mind.

7.2k · April 27, 2004

Maybe it's just too early in the morning, but I'm just not seeing the sarcasm in the above posts. I can't tell if you guy are joking or not.

Personally, I'd rather see smarter programing than just throwing money at the problem. Canned pocket queries and emailed GPX files for logging would go a long way to reduce the "on demand" server load--which is really what the problems are.

If you think about it the only times you have problems is on the weekends. Traffic increases so much the servers can't handle it. But the rest of the week, they are fine.

This is not to mention that if most people follow my pattern then they aren't on the site looking for caches. I don't need to look for a cache beause I get PQs. Which means the early morning crunches are people who don't get PQs. Logic would follow that it's the people who don't get PQs are the ones that are slowing the servers down in the mornings. In other words, we get to pay to reduce the server load. How backwards is that?

Plus, if you realize that you don't need to log in real time you can implement a GPX scheme where gc.com accepts emails and logs that way. I'm sure there will be at least two major developers who would upgrade their programs to create the GPX files in very short order.

Sure, server farms are sexy and boosts the ego, but are they really smart business? Only if you have practically no competition.

3.8k · April 27, 2004

How about not expecting more from the people that are already paying. Instead maybe a little more pressure on those that are power users of the site. Not the person that caches once in a while but the ones that have say 400-500 finds in a year that aren't paying anything.

I think you meant not

Edited April 27, 2004 by robert

1.6k · April 27, 2004

I would be willing to support the site at a higher level, but I would doubt that there are any new features that would be implemented.

Traveling caches are banned for a reason.

Virtual caches are banned for a reason.

While individual cachers may follow the rules and produce good VC's we all remember the crappy ones that clogged everyones list. Sooner or later these would begin to devolve, just like micros are doing now.

There are some aspects I would pay more for. One is enforcement of the RULES (and replacement of that word for "guidelines" on the site.) If a VC is good and meets the spirit of the concept of a good VC, then approve it. if not, then don't (or put it out as a MOC on probation) If a travel bug simply gets taken, then the system should be able to deal with this (fine tune the 14 day notice now).

The other aspect would be experimental cache areas. Lets develop 3 cache montes, cache cafe's, and other novel cache ideas. Now there is really no system for doing that. If GC is going to be THE site for geocaching, then it inherits the responsibility for growing the sport, and developing it.

I would kick in more for that.

I like the idea of a lifetime membership though might make some rules as to who qualifies for a life time membership. (Age, involvement in the sport, etc).

2.3k · April 27, 2004

You want to pay? Pay. You don't want to pay? Then don't. I don't use a PDA and I don't need any of the "Premium" features, so I have never seen the need to get a "Premium" membership.

Additionally, there are some issues that would have to be resolved before I would even consider upgrading anyhow...(Virtuals, Locationless, and my personal favorite: opting out of the numbers game by being able to hide your find count)

7.2k · April 27, 2004

How backwards is that?

Crap! How stupid can I be?

Of course it's backwards. The slow servers are the leverage to get people to pony up the $30 a year for the privilege for getting pocket queries.

dadgum, I feel slow. (No jokes, please.)

April 27, 2004

Never for a faster server.

I really have a hard time understanding the rationale behind this... I mean, you *have* to imcrease capacity as your subscriber base and traffic increases. Keep in mind that we're not talking about a faster server like getting a BMW instead of a Kia. As the amount of activity on a server increases, you're going to need:

1. More disk space - think about the hundreds of photos uploaded every day.

2. More bandwidth - nobody is going to use the site if it's slow as molasses, and people aren't going to pay for crummy service.

3. Faster servers - when hundreds of people are running the same program at the same time, you need enough CPU time and RAM to handle it.

4. Backup equipment - tape drives, disc arrays and other items needed to back up all this stuff in case of equipment failure.

5. Replacement and maintenance costs. Hardware fails and either you're paying for a maintanance contract or you're buying new parts.

All those things cost money. In fact, for a site this massive, you should be thankful every day that it's free, because running it isn't cheap.

That said, I think having a premium membership is the way to go. I think the sport should be accessable for everyone who wants to play. Nobody *needs* pocket queries, but they sure are nice, so why not pay for them?

3.1k · April 27, 2004

If there was an advanced membership that had better features and that would make the server faster would you upgrade?

nope

April 27, 2004

If there was an advanced membership that had better features and that would make the server faster would you upgrade?

Depends who is saying what "better features" means. I don't know if your idea of what is "better" would be the same as mine. And I don't know that whoever is coming up with the "better features" would be the same as mine or anybody else's. Using history as my guide to the future I doubt my idea of "better" would align with those making the decisions. So no I doubt that I would.

April 28, 2004

If there was an advanced membership that had better features and that would make the server faster would you upgrade?

No! Me paying more money Is not going to make Me have more fun. I'm good with how It Is now.

April 28, 2004

To get around the server problems, you just have to log on weekdays or at night.

April 29, 2004

I gladly pay my $3/mo. All of this hardware costs money, bandwidth cost money, and people that work here have to eat. Even if I didn't use any of the premium features I'd pay. Love the geocache and feel that $3 is a very small price to pay to show my appreciation for what they do with this site to make an activity I love to do a reality.

5.3k · April 29, 2004

I would be willing to support the site at a higher level, but I would doubt that there are any new features that would be implemented.

Traveling caches are banned for a reason.

Virtual caches are banned for a reason.

While individual cachers may follow the rules and produce good VC's we all remember the crappy ones that clogged everyones list. Sooner or later these would begin to devolve, just like micros are doing now.

There are some aspects I would pay more for. One is enforcement of the RULES (and replacement of that word for "guidelines" on the site.) If a VC is good and meets the spirit of the concept of a good VC, then approve it. if not, then don't (or put it out as a MOC on probation) If a travel bug simply gets taken, then the system should be able to deal with this (fine tune the 14 day notice now).

The other aspect would be experimental cache areas. Lets develop 3 cache montes, cache cafe's, and other novel cache ideas. Now there is really no system for doing that. If GC is going to be THE site for geocaching, then it inherits the responsibility for growing the sport, and developing it.

I would kick in more for that.

I like the idea of a lifetime membership though might make some rules as to who qualifies for a life time membership. (Age, involvement in the sport, etc).

The reasons traveling caches are banned are very poor at best, some of us like the extra challenge, You are the only person other than myself that has mentioned virtuals are baned. Though they claim they are not, I did see one post in the past few months that looks underwellming.

Hows this for an idea, make the PQs down load into National Geographic Topo. That would be a good thing.

Edited April 29, 2004 by JohnnyVegas

April 29, 2004

I think the site is fine the way it is now. I think also the membership cost is reasonable. I do think it would be possibly good to have a 30 day trial to this service and then require joining the membership. After 30 days someone should be able to determine if the service is valuable enough to join.

April 29, 2004

The reasons traveling caches are banned are very poor at best, some of us like the extra challenge, You are the only person other than myself that has mentioned virtuals are baned. Though they claim they are not, I did see one post in the past few months that looks underwellming.
Hows this for an idea, make the PQs down load into National Geographic Topo. That would be a good thing.

Or opt-in stats, or buddy lists, or new cache email notification, or seperate section for locationless/waypoints, or pre-run queries by state, or credit for multiple cache placers of a cache, etc.

At this point I would not pay extra for the promise of new features. New features have been promised in the past, and there is very little that is new here in the year and a half that I have been coming to this site. The icons have changed several times though!! :rolleyes:

Anyway, I feel the current price is just right. I don't want to pay more and I feel I am getting my money's worth for what I'm currently paying. If some really cool new features were added, I'd probably change my mind.

--RuffRidr

1.3k · April 29, 2004

Hows this for an idea, make the PQs down load into National Geographic Topo. That would be a good thing.

Erm - why not use GPSBabel? Download your PQ, run it through GPSBabel - then upload it to NG Topo (or most other major mapping programs).

I'm sure that eventually, due to inflation, the membership will go up. I don't know that it's a gaurantee that the service will be better. For every dollar you increase the cost, less people will sign up. The new owner of the Atlanta Falcons realized that his stadium was half full, he slashed prices - sold out the Georgia Dome - and is making MORE money because more people can afford the tickets. (I think it was Atlanta that I read that about).

sd

April 29, 2004

I am a geocaching virgin, so forgive me if I sound cheap. I just spent $130.00 for a GPS Unit to do this and I think that's plenty.

April 30, 2004

I am a geocaching virgin, so forgive me if I sound cheap. I just spent $130.00 for a GPS Unit to do this and I think that's plenty.

Yea, you do sound cheap. Owning a GPS doesnt give one license to geocache. Its their site so pony up a couple of bucks or dont do it. Or start your own web site pay the bandwidth and let other people us it free, no that wont work cause' of the cheap thing...uh you are in a fix eh?

Edited April 30, 2004 by Rogue&Wench

24.7k · April 30, 2004

Given the stats comments in here, it sounds like some people would pay more to be "Unlisted".

Hmm...That has potential in spite of my pro stats stance. Cache owners could see logs but nobody else for those willing to pony up the extra bucks.

2.5k · April 30, 2004

Pay no attention to the tadpole. Geocaching is free and there is no requirement to pay, it is strictly voluntary. There are however some benefits to membership, and membership helps to keep things free

7.2k · April 30, 2004

Owning a GPS doesnt give one license to geocache.

Well, in a way you're right. However, there is no need for a license to begin with.

If you don't want to pay, don't. If you want to support this site, then by all means. But don't think you must pay homage to anyone other than the cache owner in order to cache.

...and, yes, you can start you're own site for nothing. Granted, it won't be on the scale of gc.com, but caching didn't start with gc.com, nor will it end with it.

April 30, 2004

I'd pay it in a heartbeat if it would bring back locationless in its own catagory.

I have just as much fun looking for the requested subjects/images as I do looking for a regular cache.

April 30, 2004

Not a good Idea

Why? Right now the $3/mo fee doesn't provide too much value to me (I do not even use the pocket queries). It only makes me feel good by knowing I help reduce the expenses incurred by the mantainers of this hobby site. More money would make me feel like I am supporting a business instead of a hobby.

Maybe you should try to increase the subscription rate for the $3 membership.

Make people WANT to subscribe.

Ideas:

* Make travel bug maps available to travel bugs owned by paying members.

* Make the hint convert tool available to paying members (keep the hints in the encrypted way for non paying)

* Give discounted travel bug prices for members.

* Give a gift with every $30yr subscription (a TB tag?)

Incresed Membership Fees.

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

Join the conversation