Jump to content

The First "no Members" Cache


Recommended Posts

Did I commit a crime by paying 30US$ to Groundspeak? Yesterday the first "no members" cache was hidden in Europe. The owner states that he will delete any log from a premium member and says, that he will hide a new "no members" cache for every new MOC. Your opinion?

Link to post

See -- that cache makes a lot of sense. Maybe it will encourage even more folks to become non-members. This will allow the website to be less "commercial". Maybe if we are lucky enough, it will become so non-commercial that it won't be able to pay it's bills or upgrade equipment as the hobby grows. Then, the site will collapse completely -- and we can all ......

 

oh oh....

 

(note: for those of you that missed it -- the sarcasm was intended to be venomous)

Link to post

Great idea! Just give him a one month membership for free and look what happens.

 

Caches with silly logging requierements seem to become a problem. What comes up next? To get permission to log the cache you have to color your hair green and take a foto of yourself together with the cache?

 

Is there a way to stop "no members" cache? MOCs are a way to say "thank you" to those who support geocaching.com. "no member" caches can decrease the number of paying members.

Link to post
"no member" caches can decrease the number of paying members.

Are you saying that people will stop paying (or not start paying) because they want to log one cache?

 

Really? Is that your argument?

 

Or is it about a concern for a precedent being set? The landmark non-member cache that spawned an epidemic.

Link to post
Is there a way to stop "no members" cache? MOCs are a way to say "thank you" to those who support geocaching.com. "no member" caches can decrease the number of paying members.

 

Let the guy make his own bed. If he wants to expend effort to make his point, what do we care. (and yes, I wouldn't care if it was a local cache to me.) I'd still go sign the logbook.

 

Oh, and start up a bunch of MOCs

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to post

Basically same thing as with WH's cache the other day. I'd find it. The coords are on the website, the box is in the woods, I'm going for it. I'm going to sign the log. I'm gonna take lots of pics, including pics of my log. He can't take away the fact that I found it, all he can deprive me of is a smiley. No big deal to me, personally. If the locals like it that way, no big deal, if peer pressure kicks in hard and he relents, then I'll log my find, no big deal either.

 

PS. As a matter of personal preference, I don't really care for logging restrictions on a cache, but I enjoy a nice hike, and I enjoy a well placed cache, so those 2 factors can overcome my general dislike for a logging restriction.

Link to post
What happens if I upgrade their account to a membership. Are they allowed to retrieve their own cache?

Good one, dude! :o

 

Then again... that could start a trend. If he gets a free membership this way, I can go "Hmmmm... so that's how I can get a free..." ;)

Link to post
Of course its more about a concern for a precedent being set. Not only regarding "no members" caches but all the other silly logging requirements.

I guess I just don't understand how non-member caches (or any other logging requirements) will "decrease the number of paying members."

 

But, then again, I prescribe to the if-you-don't-like-it-don't-log-it theory of caching.

Link to post
But you don't delete "found it" logs!?

In the first iteration I did. It was a strict notes only cache. I deleted find logs. I have since updated the cache description to what you now see.

 

*edited for typos

Edited by WH
Link to post

radioscout, you made this here very biased and I'm very disapointed about it. You should have offered further informations about the situation in Germany and should have given a translation of the description, IMO.

 

The german comunity is in wide parts against MOCs, there have been several threads about this issue in the german subforum. Only a very small part of german cachers support them, some have no opinion and the big majority is against them.

 

So, one MOC popped out of the nowhere in Berlin some days ago. The No-Member-Cache (I'll call it Anti-MOC) is the reaction to this one and you can find in the description that the cache will be open to everybody as soon as the MOC is open to everybody. That means that Berlin will have two instead of one new cache as soon as the MOC isn't MO anymore. As long as it's a MOC, PMs will have one cache and non-PMs will have one. The description describes it as to keep in balance and I agree with that.

 

The description also says that there will be placed a Anti-MOC for each MOC in the area of Berlin. I would like to add that I will place an Anti-MOC too if a MOC pop up in "my" area as I don't like the GC community to be sepoerated into diffrent groups. I see us as a great comunity and we shouldn't draw any lines. I don't like requirements to log, but as soon as there are no requirments to log a former-MOC, there will be no requirements to log the Anti-MOC. I think it's a win-win situation right now for all the cachers: As soon as "MO" is lifted on the one cache, the non-MO will be lifted and everybody has two caches to hunt for.

 

And to answer your question: No, you haven't commited a crime but neither has anybody who hasn't paid.

 

And my I add in general regarding requirements to log a cache: I neither like that you have to place a Travelbug nor that you have to have a certain amount of finds nor that you have to pay for.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Link to post

You have to be a member to log your finds online. So is this a no Premium mebers cache?

 

What if your log was deleted then you stop being a premium member, can we have them put our log back for us?

 

The cache is a logistical nightmare. WH's cache was better in it's original incarnation.

Link to post
The description also says that there will be placed a Anti-MOC for each MOC in the area of Berlin. I would like to add that I will place an Anti-MOC too if a MOC pop up in "my" area as I don't like the GC community to be sepoerated into diffrent groups.

Placing a "no members" cache for every MOC is a way to seperate the community into two parts. Is this the beginning of a "geo-war"?

Link to post

how about this for a cache? i lost a crown on one of my teeth today. that means a week of dental h*ll.

 

i'm going to start a cache for dentally challanged people. you must have proof of extensive dental work performed on yourself or i will delete your log. give me a break. :o

Link to post

Well, he did say "please".

 

I think I'm with whoever said to find it, take copious pictures of yourself with it (preferably in silly and mocking poses), post them someplace, then not even try to log it. On the other hand, it looks like an urban micro...not exactly my cup of schnapps.

Link to post

I've got an idea. I see in this thread some people have donated 4 months of premium membership to one lucky person (not yet chosen). Perhaps instead they can break it back down into 4 seperate one month memberships and give them to the first for finders of this cache. Hey, for $3 a person, I bet we could upgrade the first 10-20 finders for a month. Just long enough for their logs to be deleted. Hehehehe.

Link to post
I've got an idea. I see in this thread some people have donated 4 months of premium membership to one lucky person (not yet chosen). Perhaps instead they can break it back down into 4 seperate one month memberships and give them to the first for finders of this cache. Hey, for $3 a person, I bet we could upgrade the first 10-20 finders for a month. Just long enough for their logs to be deleted. Hehehehe.

Good one! I like it.

 

Not enought to pay though

Link to post
The description also says that there will be placed a Anti-MOC for each MOC in the area of Berlin. I would like to add that I will place an Anti-MOC too if a MOC pop up in "my" area as I don't like the GC community to be sepoerated into diffrent groups.

Placing a "no members" cache for every MOC is a way to seperate the community into two parts. Is this the beginning of a "geo-war"?

Are you serious? The beginning was the MOC. Don't try to mix cause and reaction.

 

However, it's no "war" at all IMO. It's only the attemp to keep caches in an area in balance for everyone, not just increasing the number for the paying people. So I must ask: Why do you try to seperate people? Why do you want to have more caches to hunt for? Why do you want to try to build classes?

There are so many ways to support Groundspeak (or any other listing), you really don't need to make a cache MO, esp. if there are a lot of arguments why a MOC isn't increasing the number of paying members. (And IMO it's ridiculous to think that any paying memeber will become non-paying to log a cache he can log as soon as the MOC isn't MO anymore.)

 

However, I will not continue the discussion here which we already had in the german subforum.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Link to post

Get rid of the MOCs and go back to hiding caches anyone can find? :o

 

That or just ignore the caches that are requesting weird and unusual things. Its too bad that people want to exclude other people from their caches, but it happens.

Link to post

Placing a "no members" cache for every MOC is a way to seperate the community into two parts. Is this the beginning of a "geo-war"?

Are you serious? The beginning was the MOC. Don't try to mix cause and reaction.

Hmmm... this seems to me to be a fair point.

 

How are non-MO caches any different from MO caches, with regard to the fact that they exclude certain cachers?

 

But, with that said, isn't this "pushing an agenda" like WH was accused of doing before he was required to alter his cache?

Link to post

I just hope it doesn't suck. To have such an odd logging requirement and have it suck sends the wrong message. It should be hemorrhaging gold coins or something.

 

Oh, right. You can still go out and find it. Your log will just be deleted.

Link to post
How are non-MO caches any different from MO caches, with regard to the fact that they exclude certain cachers?

The difference is that MOC's are a feature that the website owner has implemented. Placing this cache says that "I am going to use your website to list a cache that excludes your customers, people who have decided with their own free will to help contribute financially to your website." :o

Link to post
Get rid of the MOCs and go back to hiding caches anyone can find?  ;)

 

That or just ignore the caches that are requesting weird and unusual things. Its too bad that people want to exclude other people from their caches, but it happens.

Members only caches are one of the selling points to become a member here. No one likes to be excluded. You will never get GC.com to give up that feature. Would you, if it was your site and it was helping to put money in your pocket?

 

I think this Non members only cache idea is a good one, since I'm a non member. If I joined, I would feel it was still a good idea. Fair is fair, isn't it? Or is it? :o

Edited by madratdan
Link to post
Would you, if it was your site and it was helping to put money in your pocket?

You give MO caches far too much credit. There were more practical reasons for the creation of MO caches than filling the coffers of Groundspeak.

Link to post
Placing this cache says that "I am going to use your website to list a cache that excludes your customers, people who have decided with their own free will to help contribute financially to your website."

If I remember correctly (and I haven't yet researched this) there are approved caches that "excludes [gc.com] customers" by placing restrictions on logging.

 

Although admittedly, I can see how the form of the requirement in this case could be troubling to TPTB.

 

OTOH, I could see how they might feel that they could not care less.

Link to post

There's no specific guideline to exclude a listing (or logging requirement), so for now we'll take a wait and see approach, just like with the "no smiley face" approach for logging on the other listing.

 

Not every "issue" has to have a swift decision. My thought is they'll just PO a bunch of geocachers and they'll get an earful. The point was probably to get a post in the forums to raise folks hackles. I just think its dumb.

Link to post

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...