Geocaching For Hire

[+bons]

I can see not wanted to use the talented programmers. After all, he's got to maintain this stuff. If it was my site I might let people look at the code but at the end of the day chances are their "improvements" would never see the light of day and I'd probably have to deal with that.

 

The code base is constantly changing. Changing a code base that you don't fully understand is not the most enjoyable thing in the world. The fact that it's core data is old and unmaintainable makes it even more unpleasant.

 

Really, if I had to deal with maintaining the system, I'd rather be mad at my own mistakes than mad at someone else's, especially someone who gave their time freely. That would just leave a sour taste in my mouth.

[CoyoteRed]

As far as I know, no one has even looked at the code and he's learning how to do it. I know if I were learning and had a site on this level I'd certainly let people with far more experience give me some input.

 

For instance, I was recently working on some code to return the nearest caches. With a little help I was pointed towarded a formula in which I can sort the nearest caches right within the query. This is pretty much beginner stuff. But, after a bit of study, I found that if I changed how the data is stored I can increase the speed in which query is run. It was simply a matter of reducing the number of computations per query and moving it to where speed doesn't matter.

 

I'm not saying to let other people actually do the programming, but allow others to give input. "You know, if you did it this way it'd be faster" type of stuff. I've been told privately that given the data size and the claimed number of hits the hardware should handle load no problem.

[Swagger]

I've been told privately that given the data size and the claimed number of hits the hardware should handle load no problem.

Yes, but did you take into account the fact that it all runs on Windoze? Heck, you practically need a server farm just to host the O/S!

[+JeepCachr]

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.

Your free to have an opinion and you shouldn't bash other people for having one as well. You started the discussion and asked the question but you don't want to listen to anyones answers.

 

Have you read any of the history on how this site got to where it is today? I think the bigger issue for Jeremy going to an all pay system is that some feel he has already broken his word for charging at all. From what I can tell I think he has done a good job. Maybe not what you would have done but the site is still growing so he must be doing something write. http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/

 

CoyoteRed what do you do for a living? Do you have the experience to bash how Jeremy is running things? I work with Windows server systems for a living. Switching to a different OS or database isn't going to magically solve all the problems. Windows is where many companys including mine are moving there data to. What is it these programers are offering? Ways for their own programs or sites to benefit from the data at GC?

 

I believe a lot of the problems at GC are caused by the programmers and script writers out there trying to mine data from GC.com. I think cracking down and banning IP's and people doing this would solve a lot of the traffic problems.

 

Making people pay is not going to stop pirates. Making people register to view might slow them down and I think that would be a good idea. Making everyone pay is not a good idea, making people pay for premium features is brilliant.

[CoyoteRed]

CoyoteRed what do you do for a living?

What does what I do for a living have to do with anything? Especially the platform his is using. I never mentioned anything about the platform. What I said was he has squandered many opportunities to tap the expertise of this community. People have time and again offered assistance and have been either ignored or turned down. Yes, that includes MS folks, as well.

 

That's what I'm saying. Don't read more into it that what I've said.

[+JeepCachr]

CoyoteRed what do you do for a living?

What does what I do for a living have to do with anything? Especially the platform his is using. I never mentioned anything about the platform. What I said was he has squandered many opportunities to tap the expertise of this community. People have time and again offered assistance and have been either ignored or turned down. Yes, that includes MS folks, as well.

 

That's what I'm saying. Don't read more into it that what I've said.

Your bashing Jeremy on a topic you have no expertise in. Thats what what you do for a living has to do with it. You don't know why Jeremy turned down offers to help or if he did.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Maybe a three tier system of access would benefit this site.

 

Those that have free access would only be able to see, say 30% of the caches in an area when they would do a search. Of that 30% nothing would be newer than a month old (it would make it harder to be a FTF.). Do away with weekly notices for the free portion of the site.

 

The next level would be like the premium plan now.

 

The top level would have access to all virtuals and locationless caches AND be able to hide them as well! Only this level would be able to see any NEW virtual and locationless caches.

 

Just something to mull over.

 

John

 

 

speeling agin

Edited May 3, 2004 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

[CoyoteRed]

Your bashing Jeremy on a topic you have no expertise in. Thats what what you do for a living has to do with it. You don't know why Jeremy turned down offers to help or if he did.

Sounds like I hit a sore spot with you.

 

You don't have to be an expert, or even have a lot of expertise, to know something is wrong with the way a site is run.

 

Stick around for a while. You'll get enlightened.

[+bons]

Those that have free access would only be able to see, say 30% of the caches in an area when they would do a search. Of that 30% nothing would be newer than a month old (it would make it harder to be a FTF.). Do away with weekly notices for the free portion of the site.

 

The next level would be like the premium plan now.

 

The top level would have access to all virtuals and locationless caches AND be able to hide them as well! Only this level would be able to see any NEW virtual and locationless caches.

So your idea is that when I create a cache, some people won't be able to see it unless they pay the listing service more money. And it's probably safe to assume that some of those people inspired me and were the ones who gave me a chance to enjoy this hobby.

 

So the only people who get to visit my cache are the people who pay this site more money. They're not necessarily the people who CITO every cache they visit, help other cachers, organize BBQs, run websites for local forums, or otherwise contribute to the community.

 

I'm sure this suggestion makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me.

[+cachew nut]

This is how I would change things if I could. The premium membership would remain the same. The site would remain free. Only virtuals and locationless caches would be visible without a login.

 

This might not eliminate the trouble with physical caches being tampered with, but it is possible that it might reduce the occurance. Should a tampering ever require an investigation, the list of suspects would be narrower.

 

Requiring a login would encourage registration but would remain free. Once a person registers and sees that no black helicopters are appearing in their neighborhood, they may feel at ease to post in the forums, bringing some fresh ideas and opinions. They may even feel comfortable with taking the next step towards a premium membership.

[+Logscaler and Red]

Hey people, lets try and calm down just a touch okay?

 

A lot of interesting typing going on here but until TPTB jump in, most of this is just speculation.

 

Jeremy just might have the answer everyone is looking for under his hat - does he wear a hat? - at this time and just waiting to spring it to amaze us one and all.

I hope.

 

But all this is mute, as for right now, it is his site to do with as he pleases or needs to do. No matter what he did or does, someone is going to be mad because of .............., you fill in the pause.

 

As for the programmer help turned down, how many of you all have a business that you would let complete strangers step in and look through your books and business practice's?

 

The thing I would like to see. How about a poll question showing something like the top 5 improvement request?

Put out a request for ideas, log them for 30 days, place a poll for the top 5 type of features requested. We all could vote as to what we would like to see done. Remembering all along that only a small sample of all the geocachers will be reading the forums and suggestions. Then we would ALL have to sit back and wait until those features where completed and implemented before any more bitch sessions could start.

 

And if you think throwing money at the problem will help, I will send you my address and you can send your excess money my way.

 

logscaler.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Those that have free access would only be able to see, say 30% of the caches in an area when they would do a search. Of that 30% nothing would be newer than a month old (it would make it harder to be a FTF.). Do away with weekly notices for the free portion of the site.

 

The next level would be like the premium plan now.

 

The top level would have access to all virtuals and locationless caches AND be able to hide them as well! Only this level would be able to see any NEW virtual and locationless caches.

So your idea is that when I create a cache, some people won't be able to see it unless they pay the listing service more money. And it's probably safe to assume that some of those people inspired me and were the ones who gave me a chance to enjoy this hobby.

 

So the only people who get to visit my cache are the people who pay this site more money. They're not necessarily the people who CITO every cache they visit, help other cachers, organize BBQs, run websites for local forums, or otherwise contribute to the community.

 

I'm sure this suggestion makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me.

 

Maybe those who inspired you will get lucky and your caches would be in the 30% they draw.

 

There would be nothing stopping you from sharing data with others either.

 

There's drawbacks to everything and I don't try to please everyone, it just can not be done.

 

John

[+RuffRidr]

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

 

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.

 

Edit:typo

Great post cachew! I'll add that anybody who feels that membership prices should be increased can feel free to donate extra money to the site anytime they want. They don't have to wait until it is mandatory.

 

--RuffRidr

[Jeremy]

Stick around for a while. You'll get enlightened.

Please explain who, in particular, offered assistance, and I will be happy to explain why I declined the offer.

 

The question seemed legitimate, however. If I don't know how a motorcycle engine works, I wouldn't be bold enough to criticise a mechanic how s/he does his/her job.

[+crzycrzy]

This is how I would change things if I could. The premium membership would remain the same. The site would remain free. Only virtuals and locationless caches would be visible without a login.

 

This might not eliminate the trouble with physical caches being tampered with, but it is possible that it might reduce the occurance...

Requiring a login would encourage registration but would remain free... They may even feel comfortable with taking the next step towards a premium membership.

That is a pretty cool idea actually, all things considered.

 

You are clever !

 

 

P.S. To all of the raging angry folks out there, I thought you would be.

It's okay. Just remember, use good logic, not mean words.

By the way Totemlake, good response. I have fuel for thought on that one.

True to your word, that is exactly where I gathered my statistics, so you have

me on a red herring you devil you.

 

I have actually seen some good points and ideas here.

 

oh yes, and Jeremy, sorry if you feel like I was criticizing. I'm not.

Just trying to provoke some thought.

 

For those who wonder what I do, I am the

Corporate Intelligence Manager/Strategist for the coporation at which I am employed.

(Not that this makes any difference.)

Edited May 3, 2004 by crzycrzy

[+mongoose39uk]

Should we have to pay?

 

No!

 

When I first came accross the game I woiuld not have even gone past the first page if it implied that I had to pay to play.

 

I was also against members only caches, however after a recent spate of deliberate cache clearing I feel that where a member has but a vast amount of time and effort into a caching project (MarcB's alchemy series as an example), then this is a way to provide the project some protection.

 

I pay now, through choice, for the member benefits and to support the site.

 

Jeremy seems quite clear on what he wants, the site to be free, however if you want additional benefits, then you pay a very small amount.

 

It seems to be working fine at present.

 

No criticism of anyone elses point of view is intended just my personal view.

[CoyoteRed]

Stick around for a while.  You'll get enlightened. 

Please explain who, in particular, offered assistance, and I will be happy to explain why I declined the offer.

 

The question seemed legitimate, however. If I don't know how a motorcycle engine works, I wouldn't be bold enough to criticise a mechanic how s/he does his/her job.

I've got much more couth than that to offer up names. But from your statement you're not denying that folks have made offers.

 

It's odd that you'd mention motorcycle mechanics as I've recently had experience with that. First, the shop told me they would only have my bike for a week to 10 days. It took them 3 weeks before they even looked at it. That's just for starters.

 

In short, yes I would be bold enough to criticize my mechanic if I'm not getting results.

 

A quote from logscaler, "As for the programmer help turned down, how many of you all have a business that you would let complete strangers step in and look through your books and business practice's?"

 

Dude, I ain't saying that. As a person who has worked in small shops for a long long time, I know I'd appreciate some free labor to get some jobs done. We got some very smart people in this community, it could be worked out.

[+bons]

If you're going to insult Jeremy and criticize the way he runs the site, I think he has a right to know the details behind your accusations. After reading your statements about him in this thread "couth" is probably not something you wish to hide behind.

 

I seem to recall Jeremy asking for specific help recentlt (namely around the database) so I'm willing to belive he's willing to acceot help in the right situation from the right people. But I've been coding for 2 decades now and I wouldn't want me in the code if I was him.

 

There is a BIG difference between free labor and coding. Coding is a custom job every time and just to be confusing, it's fractally custom. In short every time you're making a custom engine out of custom parts out of custom material. And it's not like you're ever done because you're constantly adding new custom things to that engine for it's entire life.

 

Free labor on a project like that is often way expensive then doing it yourself. At least when you do it yourself you know what to rip out if it's done wrong or needs to be changed later on. And changing later on is pretty much a given.

[CoyoteRed]

If you're going to insult Jeremy and criticize the way he runs the site, I think he has a right to know the details behind your accusations.

Actually, I wasn't insulting Irish. I was being critical. There is an immense difference.

 

Second, he already knows the details behind the accusations even better than I. Don't let the cluelessness that is feigned fool you. I called him on an issue a while back, he asked for proof and I provided. He ignored it. So, even if I provided proof, what good would it be?

 

Thirdly, the whole thread was to talk about going to a full pay-to-play scheme in order to better the site. My argument was money is not as much of an issue as some believe. Until the money that is generated is used more efficiently, then I can't support throwing more money at it.

 

There is a BIG difference between free labor and coding.

 

I'm not talking about manual labor. I'm talking about people just like you who are willing offer help for nothing. It could include writing code, cleaning up code, testing code, or a host of others things. Or, are you saying that Irish's code is perfect and can't be improved upon by someone with 2 decades of coding experience?

[+Nurse Dave]

I think if you use resources it's only responsible to help support your use. But if Jeremy wants to keep it free, it's his ball and he can decide the rules. I've started making my caches member only because of my feelings on this subject. I see nothing wrong with people that want to find a few to see if they like the sport before signing on. But people that continue on shouldn't rely on me to pay their way REGARDLESS of what Jeremy has promised.

 

What I keep hearing is Jeremy said it should stay free so I'm not going to pay. That doesn't mean you can't decide for yourself that you're part of a community and don't want other people to support you. Yes, hiding good caches, finding others' and being helpful in the forums is supporting, but it don't pay the bandwidth man.

[Ferreter5]

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.)

I can guarantee this is abosolutely not true.

 

Here's a comparable situation. I've played a lot of various online games over many years. On many of these games players can pay up money to help contribute to the upkeep of the game, get neat in-game things for themselves, etc. However, some of the biggest abusers and jerks on those games are the exact same people who have paid up big wads of money.

 

Paying money in no way guarantees "good behavior".

[+protocoldroid]

at least from my viewpoint... the subscription model of geocaching.com is similar to other subscription models of other sites on the web.

 

two quick examples off the top of my head:

 

deviantart.com --> anyone can join, you have to pay for faster service, and some added features.

 

livejournal.com --> anyone can join, you have to pay for faster service, and some added features.

 

at least in my opinion.... having the ability to access the site for free makes for more interested potential customers. anyone likes something for free -- and if you've attracted their attention with the services you can get for free, you've attracted people you can sell to.

 

also, i've observed that people go on the internet to -get-a-deal-, you somehow expect to pay nothing (or very little) for something on the web. if you think you're going to have to pay from the get-go of using a site... you're less likely to use it.

 

on another note... i've wanted a trails.com subscription for a while, but... they don't offer you -anything- for free, or at least without providing your payment information -- and probably billing you if you don't cancel in time. anyways, probably they have information that i'd use all the time, but... Somehow I won't just drop $50 for a year of service without seeing anything, even though I'll go and spend almost $50 on trail guides in the drop of a hat (for the listing of maybe hundreds of trails, as opposed to many thousands of trails)... at least I can finger through a book before I buy it.

[Jeremy]

Second, he already knows the details behind the accusations even better than I. Don't let the cluelessness that is feigned fool you.

I have a short attention span, and I'm often clueless. You give me way too much credit.

 

I called him on an issue a while back, he asked for proof and I provided.  He ignored it.  So, even if I provided proof, what good would it be?

 

I don't remember the specific instance, but I may have ignored it.

 

My argument was money is not as much of an issue as some believe.  Until the money that is generated is used more efficiently, then I can't support throwing more money at it.

 

I would argue that I didn't ask anyone for this thread and I have stood by all along that I will keep the basic geocaching services free. There are other ways to contribute other than money. But I do think that participants should contribute and not detract from the hobby/sport/whatever.

 

It's difficult for someone with your knowledge to understand what goes into a high-traffic web site. It would also be difficulty relaying your limited understanding of this web site to someone skilled in the industry to provide an informed opinion either.

 

So you remain alone with your thoughts.

 

I'm talking about people just like you who are willing offer help for nothing.  It could include writing code, cleaning up code, testing code, or a host of others things.  Or, are you saying that Irish's code is perfect and can't be improved upon by someone with 2 decades of coding experience?

 

My code is hardly perfect. But I doubt anyone would say they would offer help for "nothing." From my experience in the past, I accept help and the person who offers ends up wasting my time as I explain the system, send them code snippets, etc. By the end I'm farther behind than ahead. The most effective and helpful folks are the developers for things like the GPX readers out there, or programs like GPSBabel.

[CoyoteRed]

Good to know.

 

Thanks for the explaination.

[+WalruZ]

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.

 

So, let me get this straight. Someone can afford to buy a $100 GPS and the endless stream of batteries to run it, but they can't afford $12 or $30 a year to keep the site running. That is hooey. The internet is not free - that idea has been disproven by the dot-com meltdown. Deal with it.

[CoyoteRed]

Contrary to what some might think, I feel Irish's basic model is just right. I'd have a different set of benefits, but that's just me.

 

By having the core of caching free, you get more people. As they get hooked they sign up for the extras.

[Scotaku]

What Team Cacheopia said.

 

Honestly, I've just read this thread from top to bottom and that is exactly the reply I was hoping I would be repeating. If you're feeling guilty or that you get too much from gc.com for free, PayPal Jeremy already and stfu.

[+crzycrzy]

Okay. Interesting enough debate.

Good points all around.

Go back to your lives citizens. There's nothing here to see.