An Interesting Thought

[ju66l3r]

he simply has the best that anyone can offer.

 

Good that you agree with me.

[+as77]

It sounds like you are stating your opinion as fact. I don't think the current situation is bad. I might well say "Of course it is good."

Read back, I gave arguments why it is bad. I didn't just state it.

 

I disagree that a community is more stable, I have seen two "hobby" sites go belly up and nearly vanish in the past few months.

I'm not talking about a website here. I'm talking about a community, an organization. Surely a national or international geocaching organization would be big enough not to vanish.

 

And how will the comunity run the site? Witness the diversity of opinions expressed in these forums.  How well would the sport/hobby/activity/whatever fare when the "I hate micros" start a war with the "micros are great lobby"?

Again, we are not talking about a "site". The rules of geocaching should be set up in a democratic way, preferably by voting.

 

A business in concerned with profit, if the principal(s) want('s) to give up and move on the assets will be liquidated. That would be the time to buy. 

Sure. But I guess we could buy the database any time. It's just a matter of money

[+rusty_tlc]

It sounds like you are stating your opinion as fact. I don't think the current situation is bad. I might well say "Of course it is good."

Read back, I gave arguments why it is bad. I didn't just state it.

 

I disagree that a community is more stable, I have seen two "hobby" sites go belly up and nearly vanish in the past few months.

I'm not talking about a website here. I'm talking about a community, an organization. Surely a national or international geocaching organization would be big enough not to vanish.

 

And how will the comunity run the site? Witness the diversity of opinions expressed in these forums.  How well would the sport/hobby/activity/whatever fare when the "I hate micros" start a war with the "micros are great lobby"?

Again, we are not talking about a "site". The rules of geocaching should be set up in a democratic way, preferably by voting.

 

A business in concerned with profit, if the principal(s) want('s) to give up and move on the assets will be liquidated. That would be the time to buy. 

Sure. But I guess we could buy the database any time. It's just a matter of money

With enough funding a competing site could be started, which is where I got into this.

 

So it makes a good point to leave, until tomorrow then.

[+Kai Team]

Geocaching is a hobby and the cache data and logs are the product of the participants. To put this database in the hands of one person or company and give up all the rights to it is not a wise thing to do. We, the geocachers lose all control over it and become entirely dependent on that one person/company. Geocachers should become a self-governing community instead and they should own the cache data. Then they can give licenses to commercial companies to use the data on the terms that the geocachers determine.

If enough people supported this business model, they would support the transition to an "open data" model, even if it means manually transferring their existing cache listings to the open database (after all, cache listings are the only data that have to be transferred to continue to play the game, and there's no need to double log once the open data base is available).

 

Henceforth, everyone would log their finds and new caches to the open database and you'd have sufficient data in the open database for competitive sites to flourish (assuming, of course, that someone is willing to create and maintain the open database)!

 

Although many of your points are well taken, the bottom line is that most geocachers do not care (enough) about the warts of gc.com or the risks of a proprietary database to make even a minimal effort to support an alternative, which is another way of saying that there is no market for an alternative.

 

I count myself among that majority - there are things I don't like about gc.com, but it's good enough for my purposes. It's only a game!

[+as77]

most geocachers do not care (enough) about the warts of gc.com or the risks of a proprietary database to make even a minimal effort to support an alternative, which is another way of saying that there is no market for an alternative.

I don't think you can say that. Most geocachers have not even considered this possibility (they never even heard anyone mention it) and there was no poll or survey to find out what they would think about it.

[+Kai Team]

I actually started my post with "why don't you do a poll on this business model" but then edited it out (it sounded provocative, which I didn't want to be).

 

Edit: Why don't you do a poll, and if there's a lot of support, create an open database and see what happens?

Edited September 22, 2004 by Kai Team

[+Robespierre]

QUOTE (Robespierre @ Sep 21 2004, 07:06 PM)

Or, you have the ultimate control...

 

No, because you have no choice and no one can offer an alternative as long as the database is practically owned by Jeremy.

 

No, you just don't LIKE your choice. There ARE (worthless) alternatives. That's the point: Look what you have been included in - you just CAN'T take it over.

[+as77]

I actually started my post with "why don't you do a poll on this business model" but then edited it out (it sounded provocative, which I didn't want to be).

 

Edit: Why don't you do a poll, and if there's a lot of support, create an open database and see what happens?

Yes, that would be worth doing.

 

But you see, this is what should have been done when the hobby was started. Now that Groundspeak has an extensive cache database that most of us rely on, we have a huge obstacle in front of us: we have to buy the database for God knows how much money if we really want to do this. If we start a new database with zero caches, no one will be interested. Even if the majority of people agreed that in principle an open database is desirable, another question is how much they would be willing to pay for the purchase of the database from Groundspeak. We are kinda trapped.

 

I'm not too optimistic about it. Chances are we have to wait until Groundspeak goes out of business by itself.

[+Beta Test]

Can we kinda chill out here a little? Judging from the lenghts of the quotes it is apparent that things may be getting a bit nasty and I would hate to call in a mod or just close the thread myself.

Edited September 22, 2004 by Beta Test

[+Leapin' Lizards]

Wow. Lizards never really understood more than fundamental economics ("If you want to eat, earn some money.") but theorize the following:

 

* One movie outing for Slymed, Slyther and Gulp: $21 plus soda and popcorn.

* One year of geocaching for all of the above, plus the dog: $30, including many hours of forum amusement (we love Auntie Weasel!) and loads of new friends.

 

The dog, obviously, votes for geocaching. We love it! Jeremy earns his $30 (and we suspect he's not keeping it all for himself - such a guy) in our book. The first year, geocaching paid for the experience of all of us, 15-yr old son included, accidentally marching into the middle of a male nudist retreat. Don't even try to tell me that watching the kid's reaction to that wasn't worth $30.....

[ju66l3r]

Can we kinda chill out here a little? Judging from the lenghts of the quotes it is apparent that things may be getting a bit nasty and I would hate to call in a mod or just close the thread myself.

 

That's a poor measuring stick for whether the discussion is heated or not. I think if you read through the thread you'd see that it's been a very civil discussion.

[+rusty_tlc]

...there is no market for an alternative.

 

I count myself among that majority - there are things I don't like about gc.com, but it's good enough for my purposes. It's only a game!

Thats what I'm saying.

[Jeremy]

"Who is John Galt?"

[+rusty_tlc]

As I mention when ju66l3r pointed to an informal poll they did, not that big a cross section of cachers frequent this site (also pointed out by ju66l3r). So any poll done here probably wouldn't have much value.

[+O Crew]

I have to go with Rusty on this one. We live in a free market society. If someone can provide the service better or cheaper let them do it. I am having a hard time understanding why Jeremy has some obligation to provide hours and hours of time, equipment, bandwidth, etc. and not be compensated. Do the rest of us work for free?

 

An example: I am an attorney and I do estate planning services. I have spent years creating forms for wills, trusts, etc. If a new guy just out of law school comes into town and sets out his shingle am I obligated to give him a set of forms for the greater good? Is it wrong for me to profit because I am better equipped to provide the service?

 

Another example: In the world of litigation lawyers often like to refer to reports of jury verdicts and settlements to evaluate a case. This information is not kept in any readily accessable form like statutes and appellate decisions. The leading publisher of such information is www.JVR.com who has gathered the data for years. The data is gathered mainly by lawyers submitting it to them. JVR turns around and charges significant fees of access to their information. What is to stop a competitor from entering the field? Nothing, except for sufficient resources or data. I have set up a site in an effort to combat the high price of JVR at www.verdictexchange.com. Will JVR hand over their data they have gathered for 100 years? Probably not, nor should they. So I will have to gather data the same way they did, by offering incentives to list with my site. If I can make it viable, do I intend to profit? Darn straight.

 

The moral is, I wish Jeremy every success in this venture. If the market will bear it, I have no problem with him becoming stinking, filthy, rich. If someone else wants to spend the same amount of money and time that Jeremy has, and offer it for free for the greater good, let them. It would be a noble gesture. I just hope they are able to make their living elsewhere. OUT.

[+as77]

I have to go with Rusty on this one. We live in a free market society. If someone can provide the service better or cheaper let them do it. I am having a hard time understanding why Jeremy has some obligation to provide hours and hours of time, equipment, bandwidth, etc. and not be compensated. Do the rest of us work for free?

But that is absolutely not what the debate has been about.

[+rusty_tlc]

I have to go with Rusty on this one.  We live in a free market society.  If someone can provide the service better or cheaper let them do it.  I am having a hard time understanding why Jeremy has some obligation to provide hours and hours of time, equipment, bandwidth, etc. and not be compensated.  Do the rest of us work for free?

But that is absolutely not what the debate has been about.

I think it was when ju66l3r and I were going at it, it kind of changed direction when you showed up. At any rate it's not even close to what I think the OP had in mind.

[+O Crew]

But that is absolutely not what the debate has been about.

What are you talking about? This is exactly what this thread is about.

[+as77]

No, it is not. The debate has been about the monopolistic practices of Groundspeak and especially the monopolistic control over the cache database. Nobody cares how much money Jeremy makes. That is a moot point. Still, some people seem to misunderstand and come up with the usual "let him get filthy rich" type arguments.

[Keystone]

Ok I just had an interesting thought. Lots of us have "bought" stuff from the GC.com store. But are we really buying products? Wouldn't it count more as investing than buying? The money just comes back to you through GC.com service, and you get your stuff!

I am repeating the original post for purposes of contrast. Nowhere did the Original Poster speak of "the monopolistic practices of Groundspeak and especially the monopolistic control over the cache database." These issues were raised by way of a response to a topic whose point, I believe, was to say that purchasing merchandise was another way to support Groundspeak and its efforts. Put in your terms, the topic was about "the usual 'let him get filthy rich' type arguments." It is entirely within the OP's prerogative to state his opinion about supporting the website, just as it is your right to make your points about how the website is run. But all posters must be respectful of the opposing viewpoints. The OP didn't "misunderstand", he just disagrees. Posters must be respectful of that. They must also be respectful of Groundspeak and its officers and employees. Thanks.

[+as77]

I said that the debate was about what I said, not that the original post was about that. I never said that the original poster misunderstood something.

 

We haven't really discussed the original post and the original poster has not contributed anything to the original subject other than the original post.

 

Is there a rule that a thread should be strictly about the original post?

[+rusty_tlc]

No, it is not. The debate has been about the monopolistic practices of Groundspeak and especially the monopolistic control over the cache database. Nobody cares how much money Jeremy makes. That is a moot point. Still, some people seem to misunderstand and come up with the usual "let him get filthy rich" type arguments.

Actually ju66l3r and I were debating weather or not there was a sufficient market to support a competitor.

I thought you were promoting a global geocaching society that controlled it's own destiny? When did "monopolistic practices" come into it?

 

BTW the typiclal critisism of monoploies is that the controling parties get filthy rich at the expense of the consumer. My understanding is that monopolies are un-lawfull if the controling parties take un-fair measures to exclude competition. I don't think GC.com falls into that catagory. Anybody is free to compete with them.

 

"Who is John Galt?"

Subtle. Ask Ayn Rand.

[Keystone]

I said that the debate was about what I said, not that the original post was about that. I never said that the original poster misunderstood something.

 

We haven't really discussed the original post and the original poster has not contributed anything to the original subject other than the original post.

 

Is there a rule that a thread should be strictly about the original post?

There is a rule to stay on topic, and the original poster has expressed concern about the direction which the thread had taken. Some would say it's been hijacked. Your post fairly admits to that.

 

The original poster remains free, at any time, to close the topic that he started.

[+Julie]

I have to go with Rusty on this one. We live in a free market society. If someone can provide the service better or cheaper let them do it. I am having a hard time understanding why Jeremy has some obligation to provide hours and hours of time, equipment, bandwidth, etc. and not be compensated. Do the rest of us work for free?

I don't think anyone is saying that Groundspeak has to give away their services for free. That being said...lets talk about what their "services" are

 

Bandwidth, hosting of geocaching data and community forums, specialized web page design for entering and showing Geocache content.

 

What they do not provide for the most part is the content. That is what everyone else brings to the table. And unless someone takes that data and makes a rival hosting service, what is the infringement on Groundspeak's business plan?

 

I believe they should be duly compensated for their services and for a while I did pay them for that. I was a charter member and subscribed for a couple of years. But when I realized that instead of working with people from the community to enhance the geocaching experience by letting them use a subset of the data for other data realization schemes, that they was blocking them, and threatening to sue them, I discontinued giving them money.

 

Taking a subset of the data that *we all provided* and realizing the data differently should not be a crime.

[+as77]

OK, so let's stay on topic. The original post somehow seems to imply that we get more from Groundspeak than what we pay for. Now that is impossible. Groundspeak is a business, not a charity. But maybe I misunderstood the thought, it's not very clear to me.

[Pantalaimon]

"Who is John Galt?"

I see no reason for hopelessness or despair.

 

Some might view portions of this conversation as very relevant discussion about the future of geocaching (with a lowercase "g").

 

 

Edit: Typo

Edited September 22, 2004 by Pantalaimon

[Keystone]

OK, so let's stay on topic. The original post somehow seems to imply that we get more from Groundspeak than what we pay for. Now that is impossible. Groundspeak is a business, not a charity. But maybe I misunderstood the thought, it's not very clear to me.

Yesterday someone stated in another thread that it was "not possible" for someone to have taken an action for a particular reason. Great offense was taken, and the person apologized for the statement. You might learn from this.

 

Since it is clearly possible for someone to feel that they get more from Groundspeak than what they pay for, they are entitled to that opinion, and you ought to be discussing *why* they feel that way rather than arguing in absolute terms about what is "possible." Once again, please respect contrary opinions.

Edited September 22, 2004 by Keystone Approver

[+as77]

OK, so let's stay on topic. The original post somehow seems to imply that we get more from Groundspeak than what we pay for. Now that is impossible. Groundspeak is a business, not a charity. But maybe I misunderstood the thought, it's not very clear to me.

Yesterday someone stated in another thread that it was "not possible" for someone to have taken an action for a particular reason. Great offense was taken, and the person apologized for the statement. You might learn from this.

 

Since it is clearly possible for someone to feel that they get more from Groundspeak than what they pay for, they are entitled to that opinion, and you ought to be discussing *why* they feel that way rather than arguing in absolute terms about what is "possible." Once again, please respect contrary opinions.

Would you please stop lecturing me? I take offense at your trying to prevent me from freely expressing myself. Looks like whatever I say you always have some negative comment on it. I don't appreciate this. It's you who should practice respect in the first place. Besides, please stay on topic.

Edited September 22, 2004 by as77

[Keystone]

I have discharged my moderator duties in this topic with what I believe to be fairness and respect for opinions from all sides. It is my duty as a moderator to enforce the forum guidelines and to introduce them into the discussion when I believe they are not being followed.

 

If at any time, however, someone believes that I have not fairly enforced the forum guidelines, please feel free to report this to the special address established for that purpose: approvers at geocaching dot com. Thanks.

[+Sputnik 57]

"Who is John Galt?"

I see no reason for hopelessness or despair.

 

Some might view portions of this conversation as very relevant discussion about the future of geocaching (with a lowercase "g").

 

Edit: Typo

I think Jeremy's point is about the power of capitalism. To him that takes the risk and does the work goes the spoils. You don't "owe" society at large.

 

John Galt talked other major capitalists into picking up their toys and going home (or going to a valley in Colorado) and society just fell apart.

 

Or as Paul Simon would have it,

I been Ayn Randed, nearly branded

Communist, 'cause I'm left-handed.

That's the hand I use, well, never mind!

[+NoLemon]

The original post somehow seems to imply that we get more from Groundspeak than what we pay for. Now that is impossible. Groundspeak is a business, not a charity.

How's that? You say it is impossible for someone to get more out of Groundspeak than what that person pays for?

 

I disagree. I do feel that I get more from Groundspeak than what I pay for. I pay $30/year for the 'premium benefits'. I'd pay more than that for the convenience of PQs, etc. Plus, I get all the stimulating conversation in the OT forums.

 

By your logic, the non-paying members must be getting no value from the site because they didn't pay anything to use it. Why would they be using the free services if they don't get value from it?

 

What does the fact that Groundspeak being a business and not a charity have to do with the valuation of the service the users receive? In fact, for the non-paying users, is Groundspeak not a charity provider?

[Captain Chaoss]

The debate has been about the monopolistic practices of Groundspeak and especially the monopolistic control over the cache database. Nobody cares how much money Jeremy makes. That is a moot point.

OK, against my better judgement, I am going to step from my quiet corner and spout my own worthless drivel.

 

I have to ask, as a premium member, are you upset over the money you spent or what ? "monopolistic practices of Groundspeak and especially the monopolistic control over the cache database" ?

 

They were given the info by members who joined of their own free will. They have used the info ONLY to further the sport. They ensured our privacy, and have done a fabulous job of protecting it in my personal opinion. I have never recieved SPAM due to being a member of this site. No ad-ware, spyware, viruses, etc. THATS the kind of "monopolistic control" of a database I'd like to see more often.

 

I didn't list my caches with "the other" site, because I like this one. I'm not interested in the info being given out on a free market. Why ? No reason, and I thank Groundspeak for not even asking me. You seem to think this monopoly is so evil it needs broken, so why stay ? I'm not trying to make you leave, but to think about what is it you dis-like so bad as to want a rival, or even for Groundspeak to "go out of business on its own."

 

I apologize for the furthering of this thread from its original topic. I liked the OP's view of our money being spent on merchandise as an investment. Very positive way of looking at it. I have yet to be a paying member, but my wife and I have made our investments in merchandise to Groundspeak over time, and will continue to do so. Eventually, we wish to add our monetary resources to the monopolistic dictatorship to further its crusade to enslave the poor inhabitants of cyberspace in the future. Viva la Dictators !!! Signal the Frog for nsupreme Oppressor !!!

[Pto]

Why would they be using the free services if they don't get value from it?

 

IM sure you realize this is really the only game in town? If a person wants to cache, they pretty much have to come here, or not cache.

 

What does the fact that Groundspeak being a business and not a charity have to do with the valuation of the service the users receive? In fact, for the non-paying users, is Groundspeak not a charity provider?

 

For non paying members, this is a Listing Service.

[Pantalaimon]

I think Jeremy's point is about the power of capitalism. To him that takes the risk and does the work goes the spoils. You don't "owe" society at large.

I wouldn't ever even begin to guess what Jeremy's (or anyone else's) point is on any given topic.

 

My post was due to the fact that my understanding is that the phrase "Who is John Galt?" is typically used to express hopelessness or despair over a particular issue.

 

Again, while it was unclear to me exactly what Jeremy was expressing hopelessness or despair over (if indeed that was his intent), it appeared to me at the time that he was applying it to the post in general, and thus my reply.

[ju66l3r]

Actually ju66l3r and I were debating weather...

 

Looks like rain...

 

 

/back to your regularly scheduled socio-political discussion

[+rusty_tlc]

I think Jeremy's point is about the power of capitalism.  To him that takes the risk and does the work goes the spoils.  You don't "owe" society at large.

I wouldn't ever even begin to guess what Jeremy's (or anyone else's) point is on any given topic.

 

My post was due to the fact that my understanding is that the phrase "Who is John Galt?" is typically used to express hopelessness or despair over a particular issue.

 

Again, while it was unclear to me exactly what Jeremy was expressing hopelessness or despair over (if indeed that was his intent), it appeared to me at the time that he was applying it to the post in general, and thus my reply.

Or he could have been refering to the quote below and really wanted to know who John Galt was.

My thoughts on the matter from a topic I posted to earlier in the summer:

 

A bit off topic but... I've never really understood why people get riled up over Jeremy/Groundspeak making money off of geocaching. As far as I'm concerned they bend over backwards to ensure that the bulk of the functionality is available for free. You can opt in to be a premium member but you don't have to.

 

Frankly, I hope Jeremy gets rich beyond his wildest dreams as a result of his hard work on geocaching.com (that may not happen but any money he makes is more than fine by me). Why shouldn't he? It's a business that offers more for free than most businesses do. I'm a paying premium member not for the extra features but because I want to support the site for all that I get out of it. Whatever that value amounts to it's a lot higher than $30/year.

 

Hmm, apologies for being more than a bit off topic and being a bit ranty but I'm always amazed at the making-money-off-of-gc.com is bad talk.. Thanks for making it happen and I hope the dough keeps rolling in.

 

(John Galt would be proud)

[+NoLemon]

Why would they be using the free services if they don't get value from it?

 

IM sure you realize this is really the only game in town? If a person wants to cache, they pretty much have to come here, or not cache.

 

It is the only game in town because people have made it the only game in town. The only way the 'other site' will grow and become a viable alternative to GC.com is by people using it.

 

Personally, I don't use the other site either to list or to get listings. To me, GC.com is a superior site.

 

What does the fact that Groundspeak being a business and not a charity have to do with the valuation of the service the users receive? In fact, for the non-paying users, is Groundspeak not a charity provider?

 

For non paying members, this is a Listing Service.

 

Huh? Did I miss something? When did a person have to become a paid member to log finds, search for hides and use the forums?

[+rusty_tlc]

Actually ju66l3r and I were debating weather...

 

Looks like rain...

 

 

/back to your regularly scheduled socio-political discussion

Snow!

 

dadgum spell check her.

[Pantalaimon]

Or he could have been refering to the quote below and really wanted to know who John Galt was.

Possible.

 

However, from some of the posts I've seen him make, Jeremy seems particularly well read to me to not know who John Galt is.

 

Also, I doubt he would have put his question in quotes, were he not eluding to the more obscure meaning of the question.

 

 

Edit: Wait, I take that back. I no longer think your premise is possible, that quote isn't even in this thread. Surely you must be joking. - P

 

Edit II, the Return of Edit: Your reply should be, "No, I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley."

Edited September 22, 2004 by Pantalaimon

[+rusty_tlc]

Or he could have been refering to the quote below and really wanted to know who John Galt was.

Possible.

 

However, from some of the posts I've seen him make, Jeremy seems particularly well read to me to not know who John Galt is.

 

Also, I doubt he would have put his question in quotes, were he not eluding to the more obscure meaning of the question.

 

 

Edit: Wait, I take that back. I no longer think your premise is possible, that quote isn't even in this thread. Surely you must be joking. - P

 

Edit II, the Return of Edit: Your reply should be, "No, I'm not joking, and don't call me Shirley."

Here.

 

And don't call me Shirley.

[Pto]

It is the only game in town because people have made it the only game in town. The only way the 'other site' will grow and become a viable alternative to GC.com is by people using it.

 

Yes, and with the Free database they have, maybe some will now that this whole data issues has arisen?

 

In fact, for the non-paying users, is Groundspeak not a charity provider?

 

Pto wrote: For non paying members, this is a Listing Service.

 

Huh? Did I miss something? When did a person have to become a paid member to log finds, search for hides and use the forums?

 

You dont need to become a member to use the site- but you also dont need to use the site any more than to get cache coords. Many people don't log online, right?

I think a majority of cachers dont use the forums either, right?

Edited September 22, 2004 by Pto

[Jeremy]

My post was due to the fact that my understanding is that the phrase "Who is John Galt?" is typically used to express hopelessness or despair over a particular issue.

That's the first I've heard of this interpretation. Doing a search for Atlas Shrugged in the forums brings out several references.

 

Since many topics eventually duplicate older discussions, here are a couple of my older responses. There are others as well.

 

Cliff notes are a poor substitute for reading books yourself and coming to your own conclusions.

[Pantalaimon]

Cliff notes are a poor substitute for reading books yourself and coming to your own conclusions.

Is this a thinly veiled insult?

 

It couldn't be. I must be misinterpreting.

 

To be clear, are you saying that the question referenced above is not an expression of the characters' anxiety over the state of the world? Since its the first you've heard of this interpretation, it must be a "cliff note conclusion," right?

 

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, Jeremy. We were simply discussion theories on why you might reply with the simple cryptic question, in quotes. When your answers are so brief (and obscure) people are bound to have different interpretations of their meaning. Perhaps it would have been more civil to simply expound on your meaning, rather than take a shot across the bow.

 

Regardless, I suppose this discussion should be moved to the OT Book Club forum.

[+Kai Team]

...there is no market for an alternative.

 

I count myself among that majority - there are things I don't like about gc.com, but it's good enough for my purposes. It's only a game! 

 

  Thats what I'm saying. 

 

"Who is John Galt?"

 

Boy, this is getting testy. I guess I'll take a turn at trying to mediate:

 

I interpreted Jeremy's quote, because of where it occurred (following a post by rusty agreeing with my Randian sentiments) as support for the perspective I put forth, or perhaps disdain for the more socialistic view, and smiled at Jeremy's use of it (I read Atlas Shrugged nearly 35 years ago).

 

However, since "Who is John Galt" was, in my recollection of Rand's book, the graffiti use to express despair when society began to fall apart in the absence of the capitalists, I can see where that interpretation came from.

 

As for being on topic, I think this whole discussion is on topic - the economics of gc.com, but that's for the OP to decide. Peace!

[koz]

don't forget how marx weighed in on this topic: "caching is the opiate of the posters"