Jump to content

Elitist Or Supportist?


Geo Ho

Recommended Posts

I have one MOC and several regular caches. The one MOC is in an area that is very prone to being accidentally discovered by non cachers, and ruined. The MOC status has protected it from two groups of people that I don't want finding it.

 

1. Cache pirates/thieves

2. Transient geocachers

 

We all know the first, the second is a group of increasingly irritating people who find one or two caches, then quit, taking the travel bugs, sig items, etc with them.

 

I don't include any regular cacher in these two groups, but if you are not a member, there is no good way to separate you from the goobers in these two groups. Find that process, and we can talk about getting rid of MOC's.

Link to comment
I have one MOC and several regular caches. The one MOC is in an area that is very prone to being accidentally discovered by non cachers, and ruined. The MOC status has protected it from two groups of people that I don't want finding it.

 

1. Cache pirates/thieves

2. Transient geocachers

 

We all know the first, the second is a group of increasingly irritating people who find one or two caches, then quit, taking the travel bugs, sig items, etc with them.

 

I don't include any regular cacher in these two groups, but if you are not a member, there is no good way to separate you from the goobers in these two groups. Find that process, and we can talk about getting rid of MOC's.

What I think should be done is A, throw out the MOCs idea. Then give everyone the option to B, select that only registered users get to see their page and C, the option to have the audit feature running. This can't and won't fix everything, but it seems many people would like the audit feature anyways, and having to be registered may help cut down on those 'the guy signed the logbook and took the tb but I can't find their profile and have no way of contacting them' TB problems.

Sorting people out by whether or not they've paid Groundspeak a fee is stupid, it doesn't tell you jack about the person only that they've paid Groundspeak a fee.

Link to comment

Another thing that can be done is allow owners to designate their caches in a way that is only visible to cachers who have found a few caches or has been registered for a certain length of time.

 

While it's still exclusionary, it's more of a logical mechanism for stated reasons other than rewarding those that pay.

 

Combine this with a localization of forcing all caches to this status and you can have an effective way to control maggots without forcing it on the rest of the world.

 

It would require a fine balance of the number of finds or length of time versus the amount of time it would take for someone to figure out how to circumvent the scheme or get disillusioned.

 

Just pulling numbers out my butt, but if you require 10 finds and 2 months from registration, a newbie should have learned by then how to handle themselves. This leaves the option of owners leaving their caches open to newcomers.

 

However, a problem with maggots is there is no control. If their account is banned the only way to control access is MOC. But with my scheme you limit access to new accounts locally with a simple proximity test. Say, the Charleston area is having a problem with a maggot, TPTB could elevate the status of all caches to limited by testing if the caches are within 100 miles of Charleston. (Again, pulling the numbers out of thin air.) This allows for controlling maggots here without effecting the new cacher in Arkansas.

 

I do understand this would be fairly complicated to implement, but is an idea for down the road.

Link to comment
And if somebody gets the coordinates and goes out and finds it and then wants to protest by not logging the find that's cool too.

I'd love to see a non-member who goes out and locates a Members-Only cache to be able to log in and post a find! You can't even get to the webpage! ^_^

 

--Dave, The Cow Spots

but you dont even need the webpage to find a MOC. what you can see gives you enough information to find it. But you still cant log it

Link to comment
I'm a Premium member, but more proudly, I'm a Charter member.

This may be somewhat off topic...but I have a question about the charter vs premium member thing. When I first became a paying member of gc.com (sometime in 2002) my profile said I was a charter member. Now it says I'm a premium member. But, my membership has never lapsed. What happened?

 

Same for me, I used to be a charter member and it changed. What is the difference?

I figured that the gas saved from just skipping one weekend of geocaching got me the money to pay the $30 for a year.

Link to comment
I'm a Premium member, but more proudly, I'm a Charter member.

This may be somewhat off topic...but I have a question about the charter vs premium member thing. When I first became a paying member of gc.com (sometime in 2002) my profile said I was a charter member. Now it says I'm a premium member. But, my membership has never lapsed. What happened?

 

Same for me, I used to be a charter member and it changed. What is the difference?

I figured that the gas saved from just skipping one weekend of geocaching got me the money to pay the $30 for a year.

The difference is that a charter first paid up in the first 11months that you could, while premiums joined after that date (there is no difference in featuers available). Well that or, or there was lapse of coverage, or at least the system thought there was. If you care, try emailing someone at the contact address and ask if they can look into it. Maybe they will.

Link to comment
I'm a Premium member, but more proudly, I'm a Charter member.

This may be somewhat off topic...but I have a question about the charter vs premium member thing. When I first became a paying member of gc.com (sometime in 2002) my profile said I was a charter member. Now it says I'm a premium member. But, my membership has never lapsed. What happened?

 

Same for me, I used to be a charter member and it changed. What is the difference?

I figured that the gas saved from just skipping one weekend of geocaching got me the money to pay the $30 for a year.

I had to check to see if my Charter member designation is still in place - it is. I pay by the year using Paypal and it is set up to be automatically recurring. Maybe that has something to do with mine staying in place?

Link to comment
I'm a Premium member, but more proudly, I'm a Charter member.

This may be somewhat off topic...but I have a question about the charter vs premium member thing. When I first became a paying member of gc.com (sometime in 2002) my profile said I was a charter member. Now it says I'm a premium member. But, my membership has never lapsed. What happened?

 

Same for me, I used to be a charter member and it changed. What is the difference?

I figured that the gas saved from just skipping one weekend of geocaching got me the money to pay the $30 for a year.

I had to check to see if my Charter member designation is still in place - it is. I pay by the year using Paypal and it is set up to be automatically recurring. Maybe that has something to do with mine staying in place?

I also pay yearly, automatically renewing, using paypal. That's why I know there has been no lapse. A glitch in the Matrix, perhaps. ^_^

Link to comment
Again thanks for coming out and contributing your two hundredths of a cent, it's been a blast.

See, now, commenting on my two hundredths of a cent comment, which was clearly intended as a joke just seems to be further evidence of missing the point.

 

But I digress.

Sorry I forgot to include 30 million smileys in my post so that you'd know I was joking around as well. ^_^:D:PB)

 

Thorin

Link to comment
Another thing that can be done is allow owners to designate their caches in a way that is only visible to cachers who have found a few caches or has been registered for a certain length of time.

 

While it's still exclusionary, it's more of a logical mechanism for stated reasons other than rewarding those that pay.

 

One approach may be that the local caching groups have to sign off on you. Once my group, Nebraskache figures out that eastern Nebraska neocacher X is a good guy and follows the rules, GC lets the whole panel of caches open up, rather than just a few "open caches".

 

If I remember correctly, the USGA has a set of standards for getting a handicap card and standing that is transferrable to other clubs. Once one of the local club's pros says that neogolfer X is a good guy, plays by the rules, and knows a 6 iron from a 3 wood, he gets the card and the national organization backs it up.

 

GC could do this without too much effort.

 

We want new geocachers to be committed to the sport

 

(so you have to do more than 1 or 2 caches)

 

We want new cachers to know what constitutes a good cache

 

(so you have to work with the local group to learn how to hide one, don't have to hide one yourself as not all of us can.)

 

We want new cachers that are in it for the right reasons.

 

(so we don't get a cabal of obnoxious ultracompetitive people or dishonest/thieving people in the group)

 

Not hard to get the local groups to do this. We meet about every other month already and we could set up new cacher courses pretty easily. Pass one, and do more than 10 caches (cache owners could designate caches to be included in the local "open list") and you get your ticket punched.

 

After that, if a new cacher wants to pay $30 to be a premium member, fine. Otherwise support the sport in some other way.

 

I would let a couple of my caches go open including the one that is the defacto travel bug hotel in Omaha. I would keep my current MOC private, but would change it from MOC to "sanctioned cachers only" status.

Link to comment
I have one MOC and several regular caches.  The one MOC is in an area that is very prone to being accidentally discovered by non cachers, and ruined.  The MOC status has protected it from two groups of people that I don't want finding it.

 

1.  Cache pirates/thieves

2.  Transient geocachers

 

We all know the first, the second is a group of increasingly irritating people who find one or two caches, then quit, taking the travel bugs, sig items, etc with them. 

 

I don't include any regular cacher in these two groups, but if you are not a member, there is no good way to separate you from the goobers in these two groups.  Find that process, and we can talk about getting rid of MOC's.

Just a few observations here.

-First, if it is "very prone to being accidentally discovered by non cachers, and ruined.", then it obviously not a good place for a cache. MOC status does not protect it from that in any way, since muggles find it "accidentally", not from the coordinates on this site.

-Second, Cache Pirates are often very determined in their actions, and have been known to pony up the $ for a PM (under an alias) specifically so they can target MOCs. in fact MOCs are a more satisfying target for pirates because of their exclusivity.

-Third, protecting it from "transient" geocachers is perhaps the most legitimate reason I've heard for MOCs, but I still think that that could be accomplished in better ways, i.e. better/tougher hide/area. After all, some of those "transients" may in fact become full-blown geocachers and contribute greatly to the game. Every one of us started out as a potential transient. It was the availability of caches that drew us to the next level.

 

Ultimately, I still feel that using MOCs to accomplish any of the objectives stated is skirting the real issues. Muggles? Learn to hide it better. Transients? Make the trek/hide harder so newbies a less likely to search for it. Limit traffic? Again, a tougher trek, offset, or puzzle cache. Pirates? Sorry, MOC status does little to help. Reserve FTF prize for certain cachers? So e-mail them the coords before approval/listing. Reward people who contribute? I guess my take on that is that I believe we all contribute by hiding/seeking caches, trading fair, etc.

Edited by 4x4van
Link to comment

Nicely put 4x4van.

 

That first one alsways makes me ROFL "very prone to being accidentally discovered by non cachers, and ruined". So by limiting to PMs you'll somehow make it invisible to muggles wherever it is in the world so that there can't possibly be any "accidental" finds by "non cachers".

 

Thorin

Link to comment
Transients? Make the trek/hide harder so newbies a less likely to search for it.

This one I have to disagree with. Making it harder wil get you logs like "couldn't find cache. You sure it's still there?" Or worse, "cache gone. Logging this as a virt." I'd rather it some just not be hunted by newbies.

 

Or making it a puzzle will get you emails asking for help. "Hello! It's supposed to be hard!"

 

I kind of like BMR's solution, too. Puts the onus on the local group.

Link to comment
Reward people who contribute?  I guess my take on that is that I believe we all contribute by hiding/seeking caches, trading fair, etc.

I agree with you that hidng caches, trading up/fair are valid and necessary contribuitions to geocaching as a sport. If that is the only contribuition you (or anyone else) can make that is fine with me. I have no disrespect for those that are doing all they can. My point about rewarding financial supporters of Groundspeak (in the best way I know which is hiding MOCs) is to do my part to help Groundspeak be and remain a solvent and viable business. If Groundspeak makes money, the doors (and website) stays open. Business income and profits are what funds new/more servers, bandwidth costs, etc. Those costs have to be paid. The opposite is also true, if the bills don't get paid bandwidth will have to be limited, servers can't be upgraded, and quite frankly the plug may be pulled!

 

Aside from the general reasons I have stated above, my personal opinion is that I want Jeremy to get stinking rich from geocaching. A fat paycheck is the best insurance against burnout! God knows he puts up with a tremendous amount of whining and complaining. If he isn't making money, he must be aa masochist! I understand there may be those of you who don't appreciate Jeremy as I do. Please indulge me and limit your replies to this thread to the topic at hand rather than going down rabbit trails about Jeremy's Swiss bank accounts / masochistic tendencies / numerous Ferraris / warehouses of gold ingots / etc.

 

Thanks for considering my points,

 

Jim

Link to comment
How he got the coordinates I don't know, nor do I care. 

It's only mathematics or trial and error:

 

N 41° 14.778 W073° 09.570 (no I'm not a PM and I don't have access to PM account)

LOL, :o if its a bug you can't fix it because you'd make it difficult for non PM to known how close a cache they would place is...

 

teamguzbach, very close, though you might want to wait for the cache to be checked out the last person posted a DNF.

Link to comment
LOL, :o if its a bug you can't fix it because you'd make it difficult for non PM to known how close a cache they would place is...

Actually, fixing this would be very easy.

 

Replace anything that comes up in feet with "<0.1 miles" Much harder to zero in. Not saying it would be impossible, just a lot harder.

 

The distances on the nearest page doesn't have to be accurate, only a generalization.

Link to comment
Replace anything that comes up in feet with "<0.1 miles"  Much harder to zero in.  Not saying it would be impossible, just a lot harder.

Not really - then it's only about mathematics and still no problam at all.

 

btw.: the cache is a little bit too far away for me ... I'm located at N 48° 24.691 E 011° 28.335

 

Edit:

If you make it a short offset-cache the problem is solved

Edited by teamguzbach.org
Link to comment
Replace anything that comes up in feet with "<0.1 miles"  Much harder to zero in.  Not saying it would be impossible, just a lot harder.

Not really - then it's only about mathematics and still no problam at all.

If you used your margin of error in the example you quoted then, yes, it would be harder.

 

Of course, you could always just search the whole area. It's not impossible.

 

But, hey, if it's not hard for you, go for it.

 

BTW, I figured out the trial and error method long ago, only I was able to get it dead on. :o

Link to comment
Nicely put 4x4van.

 

That first one alsways makes me ROFL "very prone to being accidentally discovered by non cachers, and ruined". So by limiting to PMs you'll somehow make it invisible to muggles wherever it is in the world so that there can't possibly be any "accidental" finds by "non cachers".

 

Thorin

The cache is well hidden, its just in an area that is heavily traveled and has been successfully hidden for a nearly a year.

 

By making it an MOC, only members can find it and this limits the number of times a cacher is trying to find it, thus limiting the number of non-cachers who watch a cacher try to find it and thus limiting the odds of it being found by accident by a non cacher and messed with or ruined.

 

So Thorin, does this explaination also make you laugh? :o

Link to comment
By making it an MOC, only members can find it and this limits the number of times a cacher is trying to find it, thus limiting the number of non-cachers who watch a cacher try to find it and thus limiting the odds of it being found by accident by a non cacher and messed with or ruined.

That's exactly why I've made a handful of my caches MOC's. I don't care if an Altoids tin goes missing at the hands of a non-cacher who watches someone retrieve/replace a cache. But some of these I have put a lot of time, effort, and money into placing, and I want to make sure they are not "over-found." To compound the problem, a couple of these caches are also fairly delicate containers that require a lot of maintenance.

 

Another cacher suggested that the caches should be hidden better or placed someplace farther from pouplated areas. That might work in some cases, but can't be applied to all caches--especially those where the hide is tailored to its specific surroundings.

Link to comment

That's exactly why I've made a handful of my caches MOC's. I don't care if an Altoids tin goes missing at the hands of a non-cacher who watches someone retrieve/replace a cache. But some of these I have put a lot of time, effort, and money into placing, and I want to make sure they are not "over-found." To compound the problem, a couple of these caches are also fairly delicate containers that require a lot of maintenance.

Some people list Altoid tin micro caches as MOCs?? :o

Link to comment

That's exactly why I've made a handful of my caches MOC's.  I don't care if an Altoids tin goes missing at the hands of a non-cacher who watches someone retrieve/replace a cache.  But some of these I have put a lot of time, effort, and money into placing, and I want to make sure they are not "over-found."  To compound the problem, a couple of these caches are also fairly delicate containers that require a lot of maintenance.

Some people list Altoid tin micro caches as MOCs?? :D

Not me, but yes I've seen those too. :o

Link to comment
LOL,  :o  if its a bug you can't fix it because you'd make it difficult for non PM to known how close a cache they would place is...

Actually, fixing this would be very easy.

 

Replace anything that comes up in feet with "<0.1 miles" Much harder to zero in. Not saying it would be impossible, just a lot harder.

 

The distances on the nearest page doesn't have to be accurate, only a generalization.

Perhaps, but i would guess you'd still see the complains because the non PM has no idea how far they would have to move to be approved.

Link to comment
Nicely put 4x4van.

 

That first one alsways makes me ROFL "very prone to being accidentally discovered by non cachers, and ruined". So by limiting to PMs you'll somehow make it invisible to muggles wherever it is in the world so that there can't possibly be any "accidental" finds by "non cachers".

 

Thorin

The cache is well hidden, its just in an area that is heavily traveled and has been successfully hidden for a nearly a year.

 

By making it an MOC, only members can find it and this limits the number of times a cacher is trying to find it, thus limiting the number of non-cachers who watch a cacher try to find it and thus limiting the odds of it being found by accident by a non cacher and messed with or ruined.

 

So Thorin, does this explaination also make you laugh? :o

Actually yes. But all the reasons have been covered by others already in this thread and you don't seem to agree or get it so it's kewl we'll just leave it. You believe it helps somehow, more power to ya.

 

Thorin

Link to comment
The cache is well hidden, its just in an area that is heavily traveled and has been successfully hidden for a nearly a year.

 

By making it an MOC, only members can find it and this limits the number of times a cacher is trying to find it, thus limiting the number of non-cachers who watch a cacher try to find it and thus limiting the odds of it being found by accident by a non cacher and messed with or ruined.

I suppose I can somewhat see your point here, but I still think that means it's not that good of a cache location (admitting the fact that I've never been there.) Moving it to a location that cachers are less visible to muggles seems like a better solution, if in fact they are a problem. Was it originally a regular cache and continually being muggled? If not, and if it's been there for a year, perhaps you're worried about a non-issue anyway?

 

Since I believe that the whole point of hiding a cache is for people to find it, doing something to discourage that just seems backwards to me. We all should be willing to accept the fact that no matter how well-planned we think one of our caches is, perhaps it's just not meant to be. I refer to the line on the cache sheet that should be placed in/on all caches: "Sometimes a good spot turns out to be a bad spot".

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...