Jump to content

Geocaching For Hire


Recommended Posts

Here goes nothing...

 

Should geocaching be free ?

 

(Now before you go immediately to flame mode, I ask you take time to consider my points and challenge them based on merits of logic and sense. I know that the readers of these forums are the more intelligent and eloquent variety because I frequent these forums. Let's really seriously talk about this, and not argue for the sake of arguing.)

 

I use a great many varieties of services, and there are very few that I truly love and appreciate as much as geocaching. I love it that I have gone to amazing places all over the earth and found some of the most incredible things.

 

I have been challenged to solve incredibly complex and difficult puzzles, and have been stupified by 1/1 caches.

 

But there are some inherent difficulties that lately have been more and more troublesome in using it, and because of that, I would rather pay for the service and have a better service than leave it free and have it disintegrate under it's own weight.

 

That said, I am going to make some points that I feel we as a community should discuss and seriously consider.

 

1) Rewards of entrepreneurialship.

Someone (Jeremy) took the initiative to build a better mousetrap.

If we work hard at our jobs, we expect someone will take notice and give us a raise.

However, Groundspeak as a free service simply requires more and more $ to operate but

for nothing. No-one really cares until the servers get slow or are overloaded.

Then the complaints begin.

I personally feel that GC.com should be allowed, no, even encouraged to find a reasonable

fee that will

a) Allow for a better and more efficient operation of the database and server structure.

:D Allow for the people who have worked hard at creating and maintaining the site and it's content to reap the rewards of their hard work.

 

2) Discouraging haphazard use of Geocaching

Lately, there have been many discussions centering around people abusing geocaching.

Parks are beginning to step in to regulate what we are not regulating on our own

because after all, everyone can join for free, and what do you lose if you get banned ?

Nothing.

I recommend that making paid membership mandatory, we can

a) Discourage the abuse of geocaching.com for example, piratecaching, and organized muggling.

:D Assist the parks dept. in controlling the placement of caches.

c) Improve the quality of geocaching overall. (Cachers that pay to play are more serious than those who don't. They simply care more.)

 

These are only my first two points, and there are more, but I am trying to encourage dialogue in this regard so I won't make it too long.

What are your thoughts?

 

My arguments are that less people would be willing to participate, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I personally feel that it is a crime that I haven't paid yet as much enjoyment as I have gained.

 

What are your thoughts for or against this.

 

Moderator, please feel free to pin it, it's something we should talk about.

Give your honest comments, and no flaming. Your logic should carry the day, not your attitude.

Link to comment

dadgum, when I read the title I was thinking something along the lines of.... you pay me to find caches for you.

 

Caching for hire: Too busy to get caches yourself? Not up to solving complex puzzles? Then hire me to find your caches for you. I will hunt, find, log and provide pictures of your caching experience for a modest fee (air travel extra, where required). $10 per star of difficulty, $25 puzzle cache surcharge, send check or money order to .... also payable by PayPal

 

:D:D

Edited by Gloom
Link to comment

Okay, everyone has a clever comment, it's the why I am interested in.

Read what I posted and tell me it doesn't make sense at least.

Please, I know everyone wants everything for free, I am just saying it might be a bad idea to leave it that way.

Give some serious thought please.

:D

Link to comment

Jeremy promised from day one that this site would never be pay to play. If he went back on that, there would be a firestorm in the geocaching community that would make the crackdown on virtual and vacation caches controversies look very tame and Navicache would suddenly gain thousands of new members and cache listings.

 

I think the site is doing fine the way it is. Jeremy is apparently making enough where he's not standing on a street corner with a cup (nor is he becoming fabulously wealthy as some here claim).

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Well I think he has a valid point. I dont think we shoild charge newbees just the moochers that have a bunch of cache finds and dont want to anty up the measly $3 a month. I think Groundspeak should try to make better merchindise. That way people would be contributeing money to Groundspeak and be getting something at the same time.

Link to comment

Fair enough.

What if Jeremy gets sick of it and decides to ultimately sell the company ?

Will those rules apply to the new owner ?

If not, (...and the answer I suspect would be no, after all, they never made

any promise.) then what would stop them?

I would be sad to see someone who worked so hard to build GC.com never get a

chance to profit, and have his successor rake in the dough on Jeremy's hard work.

Point well taken though Brian.

It would require that Jeremy go back on his word.

Any other thoughts on the points I made ?

Edited by crzycrzy
Link to comment
Fair enough.

What if Jeremy gets sick of it and decides to ultimately sell the company ?

 

I would be sad to see someone who worked so hard to build GC.com never get a

chance to profit, and have his successor rake in the dough on Jeremy's hard work.

I Jeremy WERE to SELL the company then his successors aren't "raking in the dough on Jeremy's hard work" because he has been paid by them for that work.

 

As far as payments go... that is why there are premium memberships.

 

Back when I was actively caching I ponied up the dough and bought the Charter Membership. Since then, I don't cache as much, and don't see any advantage to paying for membership. Currently I do maybe 2 caches a month. If geocaching.com turned to membership only I'd quit altogether. I do agree with the points of your post, in that things need to be changed, but I don't feel that making this a pay to play system is the way to do it. On the other hand, I don't have any suggestions to make it better either.

Edited by Gloom
Link to comment
1) Rewards of entrepreneurialship.

I personally feel that GC.com should be allowed, no, even encouraged to find a reasonable fee that will

a) Allow for a better and more efficient operation of the database and server structure.

B) Allow for the people who have worked hard at creating and maintaining the site and it's content to reap the rewards of their hard work.

You mean like $30 a year, the cost of a premium membership?

 

2) Discouraging haphazard use of Geocaching

I recommend that making paid membership mandatory, we can

a) Discourage the abuse of geocaching.com for example, piratecaching, and organized muggling.

B) Assist the parks dept. in controlling the placement of caches.

c) Improve the quality of geocaching overall. (Cachers that pay to play are more serious than those who don't. They simply care more.)

a) When subigo went pirate, people were offering to give him the locations of all MOCs in his area. If he wanted that list himself the cost for membership would have been less than the cost of an ammo box.

B) geocaching.com is not the only cache listing site. If they went "paid membership only", the probability of one of the other free sites becoming extremely popular goes through the roof.

c) Having a lot of money does NOT mean you care more.

 

---------------

 

I'm sorry but you appear to be under a few misconceptions, namely that geocaching.com is the only game in town and that people who have an extra $3 a month care more than those who don't. Many people who don't have the money care and contribute in their own way, but threads like this tell me that there are people who feel that those people who don't have the spare money shouldn't be allowed to have any fun.

 

---------------

 

Personally, I really like the fact that Jeremy doesn't have to answer to those people who pay him and that if you don't like it, he'll send you your money back. (At least he's offered to do that once recently.)

 

I'm pretty sure that if Jeremy answered to everyone who gave him $3 a month and obeyed his customers this site and this sport would be a hell of a lot worse off. Every time I see him type "Start your own site", I feel good about the future of this sport.

Link to comment
Improve the quality of geocaching overall. (Cachers that pay to play are more serious than those who don't. They simply care more.)

 

Becareful with that type of generalization. Just because people choose not to pay, or can't pay, doesn't mean that they care less about what goes on with geocaching.

 

But then Bons already said that.

Edited by Gloom
Link to comment

If I understand your post correct you're not a paying member? If that's true then from what I remember of your earlier posts in the forums, your wilingness to hide caches (10% of your finds to those that feel there should be a quota) & the fact you involve your children in caching then I'd have to say you're what most would consider a "pretty good ol' boy". You may have answered your own question. I'm sure that there's numerous cachers out there with your same credentials who don't pay but thankfully theres those who do & yet some of those still pose many problems.

I do see your point & I really wouldn't have a big problem with paying more to keep things as good as they are today. Hopefully Jeremy weighed out all options before he set the membership rate & all will continue as it is. I'd really hate to see it go pay all the way though.

Link to comment
NO! Everything in this world costs money, I finally found something I can do that dosent envolves spending 100.00 or more every time I want to do it! :D

Hmm...

 

Two eTrexes: $300

Gas: $2.20 per gallon

Placing an ammo can in the woods: $25 each, including contents

New truck for getting those off-road caches: $37,000

 

Now WHO said this sport was free? :D

 

On a serious note...this is a very tricky topic. It doesn't seem fair to force newbies, or the people who go out and find maybe 1-2 caches every few months, to pay to use this service. On the other hand, would ANYBODY be in favor of a pay-per-find kind of system? I can't possibly imagine that would work, either, and there are easy ways to get around that (i.e., don't log your finds!).

 

So...now what? How about a "tiered" membership system? Keep the free membership, keep the premium membership...but then add a couple additional membership types that cost a few bucks more each month? In exchange for paying $6 a month, you get additional features not available to the free or $3 a month memberships. For $10 a month, you get even more features (and maybe a free autographed glossy photo of Jeremy? :D ).

 

That way, those who want to or can only afford a few bucks a month can continue to pay their few bucks. Those who want the added features (I haven't given any thought as to what those actually might BE) can chip in a little more. GC.com can get some extra revenue, and no broken promises about keeping the website free.

 

Just my thoughts...

Link to comment

Maybe I'm cold hearted or out of touch, but it seems to me that no one should have a problem kicking in $3.00/month.

 

I could see a free 2 month trial period to see if you enjoy caching and then all access would disapear for lack of a $3.00 per month ($30/year) payment.

Link to comment

Geocaching as we know it costs money. Money for servers, money for bandwidth, and sooner or later on any site that is a success, money for staff.

 

In order for it to be a viable and long lasting activity, for our logs to endure, to maintain a cache history in archives, to have people able to answer the phone when the bomb squad calls, geocaching will never be free.

 

The only real questions are who all is going to pay, and who all is to receive those payments in perpetuity?

Link to comment
I dont think we shoild charge newbees just the moochers that have a bunch of cache finds and dont want to anty up the measly $3 a month.

So at what point do you make the cut off? 10 free caches, then you get to pay for the service? 50? 100? You'd only accomplish more people not logging their finds, or only logging on paper.

 

And calling people with many finds who are not "paying members" mooches is just plain offensive. At one point there was no such thing as premium memberships. Are the people who found most of their caches before the payment system mooches? I think not. Becareful with the name calling.

Link to comment
I could see a free 2 month trial period to see if you enjoy caching and then all access would disapear for lack of a $3.00 per month ($30/year) payment.

And I could see lots of people signing up for the free account, caching for two months, then opening another free account.

 

Seriously, I'm not trying to discourage here, I'm just pointing out the holes that I see. Other than making GC.com pay to play, there will always be around it and then we're right back to where we started. It won't help you with pirates, or bad caches or anthing like that. The only thing it will do is help pay for the servers, Jeremy's salary, etc. which you could accomplish with a donation system instead of a membership system.

Edited by Gloom
Link to comment
but it seems to me that no one should have a problem kicking in $3.00/month.

:D no, and I don't have a problem kicking in an extra $0.20 a gallon at the gas pump either!

 

(sorry everyone, it's a slow night at work)

Link to comment
2) Discouraging haphazard use of Geocaching

Lately, there have been many discussions centering around people abusing geocaching.

 

I love it when people use this. A few handful blows it for the thousands playing the game right. There's no balance to this point.

 

Parks are beginning to step in to regulate what we are not regulating on our own

because after all, everyone can join for free, and what do you lose if you get banned ?

 

That's a matter handled from location to location. There are also some agencies stepping in and allowing it as noted in a previous thread regarding a Federal memo. Also, your point is all about what this community was after in the first place... and turned it into a negative because of a few land manager's issues.

 

c) Improve the quality of geocaching overall. (Cachers that pay to play are more serious than those who don't. They simply care more.)

 

That's not entirely correct and not easily quantifiable either. Where's your statistics on this? The fact that MOC's are lasting longer only means they're being hit less. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

My arguments are that less people would be willing to participate, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I personally feel that it is a crime that I haven't paid yet as much enjoyment as I have gained.

 

And not entirely a good thing either. You would limit it down so much that 200 countries participation probably wouldn't be achievable as quickly (which is nothing short of phenomenal) and the sport wouldn't achieve the status it is now gaining with the media and government agencies. You forget, a big rock makes for a better ripple than a little rock does. That can go both good and bad, but for the most part 80k+ is a good sized rock and you are basing your personal perceptions on a few pebbles.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment
1) Rewards of entrepreneurialship.

Someone (Jeremy) took the initiative to build a better mousetrap.

If we work hard at our jobs, we expect someone will take notice and give us a raise.

However, Groundspeak as a free service simply requires more and more $ to operate but

for nothing. No-one really cares until the servers get slow or are overloaded.

Then the complaints begin.

I personally feel that GC.com should be allowed, no, even encouraged to find a reasonable

fee that will

a) Allow for a better and more efficient operation of the database and server structure.

:D Allow for the people who have worked hard at creating and maintaining the site and it's content to reap the rewards of their hard work.

 

No no no no no

 

If you are concerned about the site making money to make things better, think about how a website works for a moment. Traffic, and a high volume of it, is what generates wealth on a website. The key is getting the traffic, and keeping it.

 

GC.com definetly has the traffic, if you add an inflated membership fee, you are biting the hands that are feeding you and you risk chasing away some traffic. It also allows for competition to move right in and offer free listings.

 

There are better ways to generate $$$ then to charge your traffic. One way is what you see on the main page, there are some links to some GPS suppliers. Its possible that everytime someone clicks on one of these links, GC.com collects a lil change for allowing these suppliers to be linked to the site. If you want to generate some $$$ for the site, click on those links everytime you visit. (Please keep in mind that, the above is just an example, i have no knowledge at all if GC.com has any advertising agreements with any of those suppliers.)

 

I recommend that making paid membership mandatory, we can

a) Discourage the abuse of geocaching.com for example, piratecaching, and organized muggling.

:D Assist the parks dept. in controlling the placement of caches.

c) Improve the quality of geocaching overall. (Cachers that pay to play are more serious than those who don't. They simply care more.)

 

Again, you're chasing away traffic for the site. There is always going to be a muggle somewhere, in its own twisted way, its all part of caching.

 

I think its great for cachers to work with parks and agencies as long as they don't come across as if they are telling the parks & agencies how to do their jobs. I can't speak for other approvers, but I know Keystone Approver does a great job as a liason with the parks and agencies in PA.

 

As far as cachers that pay = cachers that care, i can't see that as logical, only perceptual, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Link to comment

I wish everyone would stop trying to make me have to pay more, You are acting like a bunch of democrats who think you know how to spend my money better than I do. :D

 

I would like to see the price lowered to reflect the value lost since I became a member (virtuals, locationless, no stats allowed, etc.)

 

Besides, everyone is worried about how much the site is making when Jeremy already is a millionaire

Link to comment
Traffic, and a high volume of it, is what generates wealth on a website.  The key is getting the traffic, and keeping it.

That is only true for web sites that have banner / popup ads that pay on a "per-view" basis. These days even those are hard to find. Most internet advertising is on a "click-through" basis, where you get paid per how many people actually click on your ads.

 

In fact the opposette of what you are saying is true. Internet hosts charge for bandwidth used. The more people who view your site, the more bandwidth it takes and therefore the more it costs to run the site. Without advertising you are left to pay for that cost out of your own pocket.

 

Last time I checked GC.com didn't have any popups and had minimal other advertisement.

Edited by Gloom
Link to comment

Someone should start a geocaching newsletter and have co-ords mailed to members each month. That's about as low cost, yet still profit-making that you could get.

It pretty much sucks that a person can't enjoy geocaching without having a connection to the internet. But I don't believe there's any other solution.

 

I kinda understand where you are going with this, crzycrzy. I've only been geocaching for a month and I can already see the problems that arise with no one addressing them or fixing them.

Link to comment
I have a solution:

 

1) Keep geocaching.com free for cache listing and finding caches.

 

2) Charge people a buck per post in these forums. Jeremy would be driving a gold plated Porsche within a week.

 

:D

Best idea I've heard yet! :D

 

Or how 'bout 10 cents to post with a $5 fine for being negative?

Link to comment

Everyone is concerned with the poor performance of the site. Jeremy already has upgrades in progress to hopefully allieviate these problems. Obviouslly he's got the money to do it or he wouldn't be. Maybe he didn't do it as fast as some people would like but at least give it a chance to make a difference before you go trying to change it.

 

Making a paid membership of even $1 for a lifetime a requirement will splinter this site. Many people will stay but many will go. If you think the problems with pirates are bad, wait untill you have a open database spread across many web sites.

Link to comment
I have a solution:

 

1) Keep geocaching.com free for cache listing and finding caches.

 

2) Charge people a buck per post in these forums.  Jeremy would be driving a gold plated Porsche within a week.

 

:D

:D

There's a down payment for ya!

Link to comment
Jeremy promised from day one that this site would never be pay to play. If he went back on that, there would be a firestorm in the geocaching community that would make the crackdown on virtual and vacation caches controversies look very tame and Navicache would suddenly gain thousands of new members and cache listings.

Well, he said he was going to make it possible to hide your "find" numbers, too...hmm....still waiting on that one (two years later)...

 

What would everyone say if he charged $1 a month to use this site?

Link to comment

Geocaching is something I would pay to do, if that's how the site operated. It's something I enjoy and we could probably afford. But there are many families who geocache who could NOT afford to pay for it. It's a wonderful activity that families can still enjoy and afford to do together. If less people were caching, less people would be finding my hides and I love it when someone hunts and finds ones that I have hidden. My vote is: No Charge!

Link to comment
...What would everyone say if he charged $1 a month to use this site?

That's more than twice what it needs to be if everyone paid.

Interesting! How many non paying users are there as opposed to paying users then? Is this number published somewhere on the site? Who don't I go and look?

Link to comment

Nah, it needs to stay free.

 

If I place a cache and the the site charges everybody for using the service, I'd expect to get royalties for contributing to the site. I'd also expect a refund on any DNFs.

 

I do think however, that more verification needs to be in place to stop the pirates, or at least slow them down. Perhaps only 20 waypoints total (cumulative, not at a time), before having to enter a verification number that was snail mailed (a $1 one time only registration fee would be ok), or perhaps using the uncharged credit card method to verify identity.

 

Perhaps they could require a drivers licence number to verify, although this would cause problems overseas on verification.

 

At the very least, a verification email from a non hotmail type ISP should be required to obtain co-ordinates.

 

Whatever it may be, something needs to be done to prevent sock puppets, that way, anybody found to be pirating can be banned from obtaining access permanently (once they've exhausted all their relatives identities)

Link to comment
I do think however, that more verification needs to be in place to stop the pirates, or at least slow them down

 

Requiring that people log in to view coordinates would be a good start. We would't be asking them to pay, only to have an account.

 

I've only been geocaching for a month and I can already see the problems that arise with no one addressing them or fixing them.

 

What problems are those? Perhaps you should let someone know.

Link to comment
I do think however, that more verification needs to be in place to stop the pirates, or at least slow them down

 

Requiring that people log in to view coordinates would be a good start. We would't be asking them to pay, only to have an account.

 

How would this stop them from raiding or stealing caches?

 

I've only been geocaching for a month and I can already see the problems that arise with no one addressing them or fixing them.

 

What problems are those?  Perhaps you should let someone know.

 

Look in some other threads.

Besides, it seems that anyone that has a problem gets bashed and accused of wanting to change the game by those that think it is fine just the way it is. It's not fine. It might be fine in your area but other people in other areas are having problems with caches. But don't dare say anything about it lest you be redirected a thousand times to a thread where its already been discussed or flamed for expressing your opinion and concern for the game.

Link to comment

Okay, but all in all, there isn't much approaching the topics I proposed.

Everyone is okay with loudly proclaiming that it should be free, but my point here is to point out some reasons why maybe it shouldn't be free.

 

Now I gave two logical reasons why it should not be, and I suppose it's fair for folks to pick at a word or two here and there and put words in my mouth, but I do find it fascinating that no one has really challenged the logic.

 

Totemlake is right that it is a shame that a few people blow it for the vast majority.

It is. But that's generally the case with most free use things.

 

As far as statistics goes, you kind of build a straw man because you immediately make another assertion, so touchet ! I have no statistics, but neither do you.

 

So we are both speaking of things as to which we do not possess actual hard facts.

But if I had the actual stats, rest assured, I would have included them in the first place. But lack of viable statistics or not does not mean that the argument is not true or incorrect. Hell, I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong, I am interested in comments.

 

Ce'Nedra, I feel your pain, but in a way, our entire community exists because of someone else's hard work and efforts and money spent.

Maybe they make money on advertising maybe not, but once again, I digress. this wan't the question being asked. Go back to the top and hash out those points. I really want to know, "right or wrong" on those points.

 

cachew nut, two things...

1) I like cashews too.

2) I am a republican, not a democrat. I believe in capitalism. I believe that everyone should pull their own weight. It's only fair. I also think that someone who builds a better mousetrap should be allowed to sell that. That's my point with this thread. So once again, what do you think of the original point of this thread?

 

lowracer That is the most ingenious idea I ever heard of. You are a true capitalist at heart.

 

JeepCachr , I hear ya. Jeremy made upgrades, but he had to pay for them and we didn't so what is fair about that? Just because someone spent money, therefore they must be doing okay, does not mean that we all have the right to use it, and that Jeremy must be doing okay. Just because Bill Gates is a billionaire does that mean we all deserve free software ? In that case, since you own a home, does that mean because you are obviously wealthy I should get to live in it?

You aptly noted and rightly too that this would splinter the site, but would the people who really love the sport of geocaching go? I have to say I doubt it.

P.S. I have a Jeep Wrangler, and I am a Jeep Nut.

 

Gizmo & Brazin - Now there is a good point. Best one I have heard yet.

Quick question though and something to think of. If they can't afford it, how do they pay for their GPS and gas ? Just a thought. But as I said, it is still the best point yet.

 

Bug & Snake - If you find it, report back to the rest of us the ratio. I am definitely interested.

 

Volvo Man You are thinking about how to fix the problems, but I believe (as everyone else so quickly pointed out) that the problems remain short of requiring users to actually step up to the plate.

 

As for me, if I were to argue my own points, I would say,

1) It is possible that Jeremy is doing just great where he is at, and has managed to sell enough accessories, etc that charging a membership fee would be ludicrous. As a business owner, he might see the threat of other cache sites gaining in popularity, but that also may be negated by their utter inability to provide as good a service. Ultimately though, as an avid geocacher, if I heard of another site that had less downtime, better caches, fewer cache thieves, etc, but it cost me $20 per year, I would personally go there. I like the concept of volunteerism, but at the same time, it introduces many issues becoming increasingly problematic. Yes, it might reduce the number of users, but that might not be such a bad thing. There are other revenue generators, example corporate sponsorhip from Garmin and Magellan. They are natural partners in geocaching and I don't doubt they have already divvied up some dough.

 

2) Making caching cost money might actually cause enough people to shift towards other sites that GC.com might diminish in size and influence. This is doubtful though because it is the biggest and the best. If the national parks starting charging a $5 forest pass to enter would people stop going ? The answer, no. They have continued even though they do it today.

The risk is that people would abandon geo-caching altogether. But I can't help but think that they would do that anyway ultimately. If it were a few dollars separating them, why not? I am certain of this though. Marginal cachers, or those intending to act in ways that make geo-caching less fun aren't going to spend money, only to be kicked out, and have to spend money again.

I keep having trouble trying to make a logical argument against number two. I have no disrepect for people that can't afford a few bucks. I really don't. It's those that cause troubles intentionally that I am troubled by. Once banned, it's unlikely that they would return. It would get really expensive for them.

A thought would be a multi tiered system where there was an initial fee, but the more someone participated, the less the next fee would be. Example, $20 per year to start, then after participating in over 50 caches, reduce the next by 10 and so on and so forth. Even making the fee nothing after 500 cache finds per year, and participating in 10 CITO events, or organizing one. Volunteers of course would be compensated accordingly by not having to pay a fee and perhaps even being paid for their services. (That would be a nice touch.)

Okay, I am sure to be flamed for this post, but once again, use your noodle. Don't flame for flaming's sake, talk logic with me. I am enjoying this thread immensely.

Now off on a 300 mile caching trek... (That I did not pay a penny for except for the GPS incidentally. Oh yes, and batteries and gas and all that...)

Link to comment

I don't think you can assume that since a person pays for a service, they will have more respect than those that get the service for free. There are those that will have the attitude, "since I am paying for this, I can do as I please. No one will tell me what to do." Abiding by the rules of geocaching and having respect for the sport comes from a person's character. Money, or the ability to pay, does not equate to respect.

Link to comment

I truly appreciate that such a fine hobby is free to participate in. Equipment costs are obviously real, but actually participating is free. I am a premium member, partly because of the benefits, partly to support something I truly enjoy. Would I pay a fee to geocache. It would depend on the details on the fee. If I felt they were acceptable, then I would. I would not be one of the people to ditch this site, or geocaching all together, if I had to pay to play.

Link to comment
I do find it fascinating that no one has really challenged the logic.

 

If you're going to be that way about it, what logic?

 

As for me, if I were to argue my own points, I would say,

1) Ultimately though, as an avid geocacher, if I heard of another site that had less downtime (a), better caches(B), fewer cache thieves[C), etc, but it cost me $20 per year, I would personally go there. I like the concept of volunteerism, but at the same time, it introduces many issues becoming increasingly problematic. Yes, it might reduce the number of users, but that might not be such a bad thing. There are other revenue generators, example corporate sponsorhip from Garmin and Magellan. They are natural partners in geocaching and I don't doubt they have already divvied up some dough.

Throwing money at a problem does NOT make it go away.

 

(a)The downtime is due to an increase in usage. The demand is growing faster than the site is. I seriously doubted that Jeremy expected the project that ran on his old 486 to need a server farm in just a few short years.

 

(b)Better caches is a local issue. No matter how much money jeremy gets, it's not going to get to Omaha in any reasonable fashion. In Nebraska, when we want better caches we know what to do. We give away ammo boxes at local meeting and profusely thank those people who plant great caches. We may not have a lot of them, but I'll put up one Jim-Eye, any Jim-Eye, cache against anyone elses. No amount of money can buy a Jim-Eye. All it can buy is a copy.

 

[C]Cache theives can pay membership too. Rich kids have temper tantrums too and they're not famous for respecting other people's stuff. Membership is not a security measure.

 

2) Making caching cost money might actually cause enough people to shift towards other sites that GC.com might diminish in size and influence. This is doubtful though because it is the biggest and the best. (a)

 

Once banned, it's unlikely that they would return. It would get really expensive for them. (B)

 

Even making the fee nothing after 500 cache finds per year, and participating in 10 CITO events, or organizing one.[c)

 

Okay, I am sure to be flamed for this post, but once again, use your noodle. Don't flame for flaming's sake, talk logic with me.(d)

 

(a) It's the biggest and the best because they don't charge people to place a cache. Geocaching needs caches and there are some great caches placed by non members. If they did charge people to list their caches, then those caches would be listed on a free site. Heck, If geocaching.com wasn't free I'd host a local site just out of gratitude for the local hiders who make my days so much fun.

 

(B) Cost of membership could be made back by selling the swag and the ammo boxes you already stole. Besides, jerks don't tend to mind paying for revenge. And to them that's often what it is, just revenge. But charging money does NOT make problems go away. Any owner of any golf course (or any tournament organizer) will tell you that one.

 

[c) It's not about the numbers. Besides encouraging people to falsify finds for a price break doesn't strike me as a way of improving the site.

 

(d) Why? You aren't using your noodle or listening to the logic. You're fixating on your own ideas and refusing to recognize any other ideas as valid. Worse than that, you're getting insulting and trying to act superior in an effort to cover up for the fact that your ideas are more full of holes than a pasta strainer.

 

Let's put this into perspective. This site is wonderfully sucessful. Now you sound like you're saying: "But you're doing it all wrong. This is how you should be doing it." I'm sorry, but if the way the site is run is so wrong, then why is it wonderfully sucessful. Could it be because it's being run the right way after all?

 

---------------

 

Edit. Learning note. A "c" between parens becomes a ©

Edited by bons
Link to comment
cachew nut, two things...

1) I like cashews too.

2) I am a republican, not a democrat. I believe in capitalism. I believe that everyone should pull their own weight. It's only fair. I also think that someone who builds a better mousetrap should be allowed to sell that. That's my point with this thread. So once again, what do you think of the original point of this thread?

I don't know, you kind of lost me after "Now before you go immediately to flame mode", perhaps you could trim it down a bit.

 

I'm guessing that you are looking for support to raise prices or impose mandatory membership fees for everyone. I'm against this idea, so I can't provide you with the ammunition you are looking for. If this is not the point of your original thread then I apologize for misunderstanding it, and you can ignore what appears below. :D

 

If Jeremy wanted to run his business differently, he would have already done so. Frankly I don't think he knows what he wants to do sometimes. Like Briansnat mentioned, requiring a login to view coordinates would help solve some problems. A long time ago this was debated. Jeremy posted in the forums that it probably wouldn't happen, while he wrote me an email saying he would implement this. This was over a year ago. One thing I've learned in life is that business owners do not want to be told how to run their business.

 

Trying to raise the prices of a business you have no business interest in is going to affect lots of people in ways you can't even think of yet or imagine. I was exchanging PM's with another geocacher about gas prices. His idea was that he would like to see gas prices get so high, that people would stop driving their cars and more hybrids would be built. Today I read that truckers blocked traffic in LA during rush hour to protest high prices. I'll bet my penpal never thought of something like that happening. The people who were affected were already upset about gas prices too. It's idiocy to want higher prices while people toil and break their backs to put food on their tables and clothes on their children's backs.

 

Where I work, business conditions improved by cutting waste, working smarter, and being more productive. If the site needs improvements then I would suggest that it is paid closer attention to and worked on a bit harder. Higher prices will not add value, the value needs to be added to the product beforehand to make it marketable. I'm anxiously awaiting to see all of the improvements that are upcoming in the near future, hopefully before renewal time :D

 

If you have extra money to burn, why not ask to have your property taxes doubled instead, and hope that the quality of life in your area will double as well. Maybe they can hire more people to replace streetlamps before they burn out. Or demand a larger tax on food, water, air etc. Crap, just give all your money away to someone else who can spend it better than you can. In the mean time, keep your hands out of my wallet. :D

 

Edit:typo

Edited by cachew nut
Link to comment

Bare with me as this is kinda long. And the spelling might suk as we as the grammer. So be it.

 

1) Rewards of entrepreneurialship.

Someone (Jeremy) took the initiative to build a better mousetrap.

If we work hard at our jobs, we expect someone will take notice and give us a raise.

However, Groundspeak as a free service simply requires more and more $ to operate but  for nothing. No-one really cares until the servers get slow or are overloaded.

Then the complaints begin.

I personally feel that GC.com should be allowed, no, even encouraged to find a reasonable fee that will

a) Allow for a better and more efficient operation of the database and server structure.

Allow for the people who have worked hard at creating and maintaining the site and it's content to reap the rewards of their hard work.

 

Well my take on it is that we all started out using the "basic" service and we have for the most part all requested and suggested improvements. Which I have no problem with paying for.

I think there are more people willing to jump to a "paid membership" after they have been in the game a while and learned how those "extras" might enhance the game for them. It is up to each cacher whether they want the "Plain Jane" rig or the rig with all the "Whistles and bells".

As for the price, that should be dictated by how much time and effort it takes to write more code to implement the requested features, projected over a time frame to recover the cost verses expected use. Plus how much servers space, bandwidth, etc upgrades needed.

And by efficient operation, what are you looking for?

It seems to me that Jeremy is keeping level with the basic information needed to hunt geocaches with. And it is the "requested" extras that need to take a backseat to keeping that basic information to the forefront. I enjoy the whistles and bells, I am willing to pay for them. But if push comes to shove, just K.I.S.S. it.

 

2) Discouraging haphazard use of Geocaching

Lately, there have been many discussions centering around people abusing geocaching.

Parks are beginning to step in to regulate what we are not regulating on our own

because after all, everyone can join for free, and what do you lose if you get banned ?

Nothing.

I recommend that making paid membership mandatory, we can

a) Discourage the abuse of geocaching.com for example, piratecaching, and organized muggling.

Assist the parks dept. in controlling the placement of caches.

c) Improve the quality of geocaching overall. (Cachers that pay to play are more serious than those who don't. They simply care more.)

 

That first line disturbs me a lot. What do you consider to be "haphazard use"?

What about people that just drop in and out a few times a year?

Parks regulating caches are still going to get cache's planted by people not willing to follow the guidelines. Pure and simple fact and the nature of the beast. How would you regulate things differently? Free or not. What controls can you come up with that people without personal honor and entegrity would be willing to follow?

 

I recommend that making paid membership mandatory,

Would you have a sliding payscale for people? Someone might only hunt a dozen caches a year yet people like myself might do 50-100 caches a weekend. Would I have to pay more? Are you wanting to charge by the cache download, month, year? What about a rebate for placeing caches? Would I get a discount for every cache I planted pro-rated by the levels of said caches? After all, if you are going to require me to have to PAY to hunt, I should get PAID to plant.

 

a) Discourage the abuse of geocaching.com for example, piratecaching, and organized muggling.

Assist the parks dept. in controlling the placement of caches.

c) Improve the quality of geocaching overall. (Cachers that pay to play are more serious than those who don't. They simply care more.)

 

How would makeing this a strictly paysite prevent any of this?

Simple. If you went to a strictly pay sight, no one would come to this site. Or not enough people to make this site a viable place to come to. Geocaching.com dies. Problem solved I guess. And what is the reason behind controlling the cache placement by any department other then local cachers? It seems to me each and everyone of us in this game for the longhaul is responsible for cache placement by ourselves or anyone else. Self policeing works best in my book. If we start to find a "problem child" cacher, it is up to us to try and help out to bring that cacher into line with the accepted policies of our game. If said cacher fails to fall into line, we all can either not hunt those caches or report them to TPTB to archive the cache for breaking "our" rules/guidelines. I would rather have someone quite the game due to rules then have the USFS - BLM - Local parks board place a ban on cacheing due to one problem child.

 

And that line about "Cacher that pay to play are more serious then those who don't. They simply care more." is one big pile of road apples.

 

How did you come up with that idea?

How is a newbie supposed to start in the game? Have a seasoned "guide" to follow around? Have a "trial period"? Have a "probation period"? And this brings up again the subject of getting paid to plant caches.

 

To sum it up, Keep the two levels of this site as they are.

I think we who request new features should be willing to pay for and wait for those features until enough people request it to make it worth Jeremy's time and effort to bring it online. Those cache pirates can get the information one way or the next so why should we have to curb the life style of 10,000 plus cache hunters to deal with some simple minded mean people?

 

Just my bucks worth.

 

logscaler.

Link to comment

Totemlake is right that it is a shame that a few people blow it for the vast majority.

It is. But that's generally the case with most free use things.

 

As far as statistics goes, you kind of build a straw man because you immediately make another assertion, so touchet ! I have no statistics, but neither do you.

 

So we are both speaking of things as to which we do not possess actual hard facts.

But if I had the actual stats, rest assured, I would have included them in the first place.

 

Not quite true. With due respect and based on your statements, I know you made your observations based on the complaints here in these forums and maybe other forums as well, but the truth is this is a very small number of complaints to base your observation on in comparison to the large number of hides in place.

 

The problem resides in the fact the complaints are quite vociferous thereby making it seem bigger than it really is. If there were more, we would hear about it. It is a problem that was recognized early on as one to live with regardless of paid membership or not. You can't stop a small group of people determined enough to wreck the game for others.

 

Straw man or not, if actual cache statistics were to be polled and compiled, it would be easier for me to prove it is a small problem than for you to prove it is a large problem. You have to keep the numbers in perspective. These forums are not even close to the right ratio to base these issues on. It only shows there is a small percentage of folks that are willing to be very chatty about it.

 

A requirement of Pay to Play merely makes it inconvenient to a larger number of people who do respect and play right. Your generalization merely acted as a form of profiling and slights all that don't pay with little regard or respect. In essence, the point you made didn't balance the aspects and it still doesn't.

 

But lack of viable statistics or not does not mean that the argument is not true or incorrect. Hell, I am not saying that anyone is right or wrong, I am interested in comments.

Agreed. Is this not what I provided? But my inquiry on statistics was merely rhetorical only because I knew the observations were based on this forum. On the chance you did have them to back your statement, I would have stood corrected. :D

Link to comment

We were "freebie users" of the site for less than a month. In that time we figured we had already gotten $30 worth of enjoyment from the site so we ponied up. If you can afford a 2 hondo for a GPSr you can afford 30 bucks for membership! Keep it free but have more advantages for members. I would like to see more "members only caches" and the like. I know more changes are on the way for members (can't wait!). I do feel that if you have to pay you would be less likely to "McToy" a cache. Just my two cents, not trying to offend anybody.

Link to comment
Everyone is okay with loudly proclaiming that it should be free, but my point here is to point out some reasons why maybe it shouldn't be free.

 

No offense, but you're not Jeremy.

 

If the guy who runs it does it for free, that says enough to me. If Jeremy came on explaining why he felt it shouldn't be free anymore, it'd be time to sit down and talk about it... but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

And if you personally feel it shouldn't be free, ante up.

 

I pay because I think it's a great service and I've had so much fun that it's worth my money to pay. To be honest, though, I probably never would have started up if I had to pay to begin with.

 

Cybertooth's 2 cents

Edited by Team Cacheopeia
Link to comment

There is no guarantee that service would be any better with a pay structure.

 

Right now, Irish has a good number of talented programmers at his disposal, but he refuses to use them. Programming skills squandered.

 

Right now, Irish could make minor changes that would help power users and thus reduce bandwidth and server loads. Opportunities squandered.

 

Throwing money at it will not improve things, site wise.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...