Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
radioscout

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?

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion is that stupid logging requirements are.. well... stupid.

 

If the cache was near me, and I found it, I would log it. If he deleted it, I would relog it.

 

southdeltan

Share this post


Link to post

Oh man, this is going to be a FUN discussion.

 

I see no problem with a no-members cache... but what if I find it, log it, THEN become a member?

 

Anyone got a link to it?

 

Pan

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

If their account is upgraded to a premium member they might have some self-loathing issues.

 

Sounds fun.

 

Maybe they'd go insane and change the cache to an MO that only non-members can log.

 

The Catch 22 Cache.

Share this post


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)

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
... and says, that he will hide a new "no members" cache for every new MOC...

For EVERY MOC cache, ANYWHERE?

 

It seems like he'd have a lot to do. What is the average amount of MOCs released in the world on any given week? Is that information available?

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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..." ;)

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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"?

Share this post


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

So when my membership runs out do I place a non members cache and get a free upgrade :o

 

Appologies, just my English sense of humour.

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post

I've heard it's possible for a non premium member to log a MOC by using a little finesse.

 

Does that mean we have to delete those logs now?

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Does that mean we have to delete those logs now?

No? Why? Everyone who found the cache and signed the logbook should be allowed to log the cache. And no one should be allowed to deleted it until it does not contain anything illegal.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Great idea!! I'll send you the $3 to do it. :o

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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?

Share this post


Link to post
So when my membership runs out do I place a non members cache and get a free upgrade :o

Unfortunately you didn't think of it first.

 

Appologies, just my English sense of humour.

 

I enjoy British humour.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
I enjoy British humour.

For heaven's sake, don't spell it with a "u". It only encourages them to use up more of the earth's dwindling supply of precious vowels.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Weeding out the riffraff?

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post

All of my caches start out as MO. I want to give the paying supporters of the website the FTF. After that, I remove the MO restriction.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×