Jump to content

Change Moc Suggestion


welch
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

As requested.

 

I'd change the system to allow Premium members to elect to 'hide' their cache page from anyone not logged in the site. Then track these viewers like is done with the current audit feature.

Since getting an account is free, you can't be blamed for promoting 'elitists'. You provide the interesting tracking feature to those want to see who visits the cache page, and the almost the same* 'only the good guys will see my cache info, so its less likely to be raided' feeling some seem to like from MOCs. No one has to answer the repeating questions like, now that im a PM how do I find the MOC listings? and Are the the MOCs worth it?

(*Groundspeak afaik does not screen those purchasing premium memberships. Being a premium member does not ensure one is a any better or any worse than a regular member, only that they've managed to get payment sent in.

 

No im not saying PM are just people with spare cash, but who someone is doesn't change by calling them a Premium and giving them PQ if they want.)

 

I'm also sure you will point out, if someone already hasn't, that just making them viewable for anyone with an account will let anyone get a throw away account and view the pages. Thats true, but how is this different than getting a throwaway and getting it PM? Yes, GC.com can ban sock puppets, people that say they will damage caches, and I would assume anyone that has pretty cleary stolen a cache, but thats rare isn't it? Most caches that get pludered are are mystery about who done it.

 

The better suggestion doesn't fix that. What it does do is attempt to get rid of these frequent are MOC related debates. Replacing a ineffective (if its effective, show me how, please) system, with a little simpler one. Its much harder to have a problem with being logged as visiting a page when almost everyone wants the visits logged online, and you need an account to do that.

 

ok shoot holes in it.

Link to comment

Let me don my black hat...

 

1. Visit hotmail.com

2. Create a free email account.

3. Register a new membership on geocaching.com with said email account.

4. Search and plunder.

5. After a long investigation it is determined that you are the viewer of the cache page and plunderer. Your account is banned.

6. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Link to comment

Re: your idea, however, I would say that it is something we have considered as an additional option for cache owners for their caches, but not a replacement. Other options are using a permission based system or a system of vouching for a user. All of these can still be accused of being elitist, however, and can be just as controversial.

Link to comment

And if the cache is a MOC today?

1. Visit hotmail.com

2. Create a free email account.

3. Register a new membership on geocaching.com with said email account.

4. Send in payment for PM.

5. Search and plunder.

6. After a long investigation it is determined that you are the viewer of the cache page and plunderer. Your account is banned.

7. Try again, but get blocked because geocaching.com compares every name and email thats been banned with all new incoming subscriptions? :D

Link to comment

I don't have a black hat...but I do have one of those cool IGO caps, so I'll put it on.

 

1. go to hotmail.com and get a free email address.

2. register at GC.com

3. Send a paypal for a $3.00 PM..wait..paypal is traceable.

3. send a check to gc.com for a $3.00 pm. wait...my name and address is on that check.

3. Get a money order for 3 bucks and send it in for a PM. Uhh...I gotta sign money orders?

3. mail $3.00 cash to GC.com for a PM.

4. search and plunder

5. get caught and banned

repeat

 

I doubt many maggots are going to go to those lengths. There are always non MOC's to pillage.

 

edit speiling

Edited by BadAndy
Link to comment
Try again, but get blocked because geocaching.com compares every name and email thats been banned with all new incoming subscriptions? :D

Well 2+ years of implementation has shown that by losing your anonymity by paying for a premium membership (other than hiding behind throwaway accounts) has been very effective at combatting muggled caches. 4+ years of geocaching has shown that throwaway anonymous accounts can create idiot sockpuppet accounts.

 

If you want to thwart cache maggots you must either:

 

1. Ban them completely (impossible online in most cases).

2. Make it so insanely difficult that they will not bother jumping through hurdles.

Link to comment
I doubt many maggots are going to go to those lengths. There are always non MOC's to pillage.

I never thought of it that way. Kind of like having a steering wheel lock. Not worth the effort.

 

Creating accounts is easy (and has been designed that way for the good folks). And mostly untracable.

 

BTW, we only accept 1 year payments through the mail or $30 payments via CC (not including Paypal). And PayPal is probably the absolutely worst way to pay since you can get banned indefinitely from them. $30 is far too much for a cache maggot to pay in order to steal a rubbermaid container.

Link to comment

One more point. I liked the suggestion by someone that the proper term for this is a Subscriber Only Cache (SOC), not a Member Only Cache. MOC would be what you're suggesting, not the current implementation. If we ever created a new MOC feature we should change the naming conventions for the current SOC.

Link to comment
I don't have a black hat...but I do have one of those cool IGO caps, so I'll put it on.

 

1. go to hotmail.com and get a free email address.

2. register at GC.com

3. Send a paypal for a $3.00 PM..wait..paypal is traceable.

3. send a check to gc.com for a $3.00 pm. wait...my name and address is on that check.

3. Get a money order for 3 bucks and send it in for a PM. Uhh...I gotta sign money orders?

3. mail $3.00 cash to GC.com for a PM.

4. search and plunder

5. get caught and banned

repeat

 

I doubt many maggots are going to go to those lengths. There are always non MOC's to pillage.

 

edit speiling

I don't think they would accept three bucks in check MO or cash.

Even if they did, traceable to what?

"sir did you view this cache?"

"yes"

"are you the one that stole the boxes and ripped up the logg book?"

"nope"

"well we think you did, so we're banning you"

:D is that what happens? if not, what does happen?

Are likely suspects watched for weeks/months till enough of the caches they've viewed (do TPTB check whos getting them on PQs?) get plundered?

 

I figure if someones going around targeting caches on purpose they'll go after whatever they want.

B) yes, the lazy might be lured away by the easy to view ones, good for your cache, bad for everyone else. B)

Link to comment

Just a quick thought. How about suppressing display of all or part of the coords on cache pages without a login? That way, non-members can still see the pages and get an idea of what this is about, but the plunderers don't get a completely free and open road. Of course, it has nothing to do with the sock-puppet thing.

Link to comment
If you want to thwart cache maggots you must either:

 

1. Ban them completely (impossible online in most cases).

2. Make it so insanely difficult that they will not bother jumping through hurdles.

Then I guess my problem is I fail to see what is so difficult about sending in payment. The money? the 'they can get my name and address so might ban me from something I only care about enough to try and mess it up'?

 

If a person (please remind me of the defination of a maggot :D ) wants to steal caches, why couldn't they sign up for PM, suck down a bunch of PQs and then go on a stealing spree for a few months. Can you track whos getting PQs with the cache in it? at that point they already have the data they need, until they get tired, eventually run out of data, or cachers in the targe area go and remove the caches.

How could this be stopped? Or do most thieves just running about snapping up a few till they someone notices the connection and they get banned?

Link to comment
If you want to thwart cache maggots you must either:

 

1. Ban them completely (impossible online in most cases).

2. Make it so insanely difficult that they will not bother jumping through hurdles.

Then I guess my problem is I fail to see what is so difficult about sending in payment. The money? the 'they can get my name and address so might ban me from something I only care about enough to try and mess it up'?

 

If a person (please remind me of the defination of a maggot :D ) wants to steal caches, why couldn't they sign up for PM, suck down a bunch of PQs and then go on a stealing spree for a few months. Can you track whos getting PQs with the cache in it? at that point they already have the data they need, until they get tired, eventually run out of data, or cachers in the targe area go and remove the caches.

How could this be stopped? Or do most thieves just running about snapping up a few till they someone notices the connection and they get banned?

I think they don't like the idea of giving up their anonimity. All I know for sure is...MOC's worked very well for me.

Link to comment
Just a quick thought. How about suppressing display of all or part of the coords on cache pages without a login?

Too many hoops to jump through. It's nice that you don't have to create an account to play. I actually like that even the least technology inclined could go geocaching without jumping through hoops.

Link to comment
If a person (please remind me of the defination of a maggot  :D ) wants to steal caches, why couldn't they sign up for PM, suck down a bunch of PQs and then go on a stealing spree for a few months.

I think RK coined the term for folks who have no redeeming qualities. It's an alternative to cache pirates (some think the name is cool). Nothing cool about being a maggot.

 

Can you track whos getting PQs with the cache in it? at that point they already have the data they need, until they get tired, eventually run out of data, or cachers in the targe area go and remove the caches.

 

Cache maggots don't because they're lazy and often stupid. They're only goal is to be jerks and to get a kick out of being jerks. But they also want instant gratification and enjoy being anonymous.

 

It works. It's hard to debate the results.

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment

A long time ago I suggested a mandatory login to see the coordinates, and still think it's a good idea.

 

I don't care about receiving an audit trail, but it might be nice for the site to have one in case it is needed by law enforcement. I would think that it would be rather embarrassing to admit that one wasn't kept even though the resources to do it is there. I think it would be the responsible thing to do.

 

As far as cache maggots go, I believe that one of two things may happen:

1- they will just go away, or

2- they will register to get the coordinates.

 

Maybe I'm missing the big picture but I don't understand the throwaway account excuse for not implementing this, for a couple of reasons:

 

Firstly, I get the feeling that the cache maggots are afraid of registering anyway, so it is doubtful they will be registering more than once, the experience of doing it once will be enough for them. Heck, what if it the experience emboldens them to get a premium membership?

 

Secondly, who cares if a throwaway email account is used, probably most members on this site use a throwaway account anyway.

 

Will doing this reduce plundering? I don't know for sure, but I think it might. It seems that a few people think it might as well. You'll never find out by just thinking about it. I'm not seeing any other ideas, so what is the harm?

Link to comment

I keep hearing these terms, pirates, stealing caches, etc. It seems to me that the best solution these kind of problems is to chanage OUR point of view. When you leave a container of any kind unattended it is abondoned property. Therefore you have NO control of what happens after that. If somebody takes it, is it stealing? I don't think the courts would uphold that position. It's like a lot of other things that attempts are made to control, it becomes a game to get around. If we all just accept that there will be some loss of containers, contents, and other distruction we can maintain a lower level of blood pressure. OR we can spend lots of energy and programming time trying to stop the impossible. I think I'll just not worry about what happens to any cache I place.

 

Abandonded property doesn't meant that it's shouldnt't be maintained. However that can't be controlled either.

 

No matter what is done in an attempt to control the actions of others it won't work.

Link to comment
I actually like that even the least technology inclined could go geocaching without jumping through hoops.

Hello? They are using a GPS. That is technology, and if they can figure out how to enter coordinates, have the right datum, etc., they are not as fragile as you imagine they are.

Link to comment
A long time ago I suggested a mandatory login to see the coordinates, and still think it's a good idea....

A long time ago in forum years I posted a thread or two on mandatory membership to discuss the variations it could have and if it might work in cache maggot prevention. The concept was met with mixed results in about every variation. The mix was skewed toward running the idea out on a rail.

 

Terracaching.com however uses the model where you have to be a member to see the caches. Like GC.com it's free at a basic level. Right now it's hard to draw any comparison to the GC.com model or their model due to a massive differnece in scale and a lack of history to work with. But it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

Edit: On topic. I like Welch's idea. It's a compromise of sorts. You end up with the option of requiring at least a minimal membership to view your caches, with the option of MOC's as they are now implemented.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I don't ever expect it to be implemented here. If I did it would have happened years ago. However if it were implemented, this is what I would predict would happen.

 

The website might see a sudden increase in membership.

The website might see an increase in premium membership, though after some time.

 

How much of an increase? Who really knows, since we don't know how many there are. It could be as low as 1 or maybe 50 (perhaps one per state) or some larger number. I don't know if there ever was an attempt to find out how many there are. How would you find out? By requiring registration. At least you could get an estimate of the number.

 

If they truly like geocaching they may register, or they may send mail, hold protests, or they may create that throwaway account. Or they will go away. No harm to the website, the website does not have proof of their existence anyway. Blind faith that they are out there, perhaps.

Edited by cachew nut
Link to comment
Hello? They are using a GPS. That is technology, and if they can figure out how to enter coordinates, have the right datum, etc., they are not as fragile as you imagine they are.

Sit on the end of far too many phone calls into the Groundspeak office (or emails) and you will reverse that statement. You naive, naive nut.

 

(that was a friendly barb. Don't take it as an insult)

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment
I keep hearing these terms, pirates, stealing caches, etc. It seems to me that the best solution these kind of problems is to chanage OUR point of view.

A permissive view is not where I'd like to go. Why compromise? You can accept that it will happen but it doesn't mean you have to sit there and get repeatedly hit in the crotch.

Link to comment
Firstly, I get the feeling that the cache maggots are afraid of registering anyway, so it is doubtful they will be registering more than once, the experience of doing it once will be enough for them.

It isn't enough for them. It happens several times a week. Just because we don't announce every cache maggot - you may come to the wrong conclusion - but it happens all the time.

 

Several are even annoying enough to heckle geocachers through the email feature of the site, and in the odd case they get a response through the user's email address, continue to do so offline. Others keep creating accounts until we have to report them to the ISP (which ends there often enough), or block every IP they have access to. I'd go into other stuff but I don't want to give the dumb ones any other outlets for their stupidity.

 

Heck, what if it the experience emboldens them to get a premium membership?

 

I'm missing the point of that statement, but I suppose we ban them like we would if they had a throwaway account and violated the TOU. I will say from experience that the number of cache maggots who are PMs are statistically too insignificant to even come up with a %.

 

Secondly, who cares if a throwaway email account is used, probably most members on this site use a throwaway account anyway.

 

Well I certainly care. But not so much if people are good citizens in the geocaching community. Most are. Your point 2 is neither here nor there.

 

Will doing this reduce plundering? I don't know for sure, but I think it might. It seems that a few people think it might as well. You'll never find out by just thinking about it. I'm not seeing any other ideas, so what is the harm?

 

I didn't say there was any harm. I actually have written several times in this thread that we have both considered it in the past and think that it may be a good tool to add in addition to the SOC feature. However I don't think it is an effective replacement. Perhaps I need to cut and paste this paragraph after every response in this topic.

 

You stand on the outside looking in and don't have all the information to come to realistic conclusions. That is by no fault of your own, so don't take it personally.

Link to comment
I don't ever expect it to be implemented here. If I did it would have happened years ago. However if it were implemented, this is what I would predict would happen.

Cache attributes will be implemented next week. There are feature suggestions that were brought up long ago that can still be implemented today. There's no reason why one feature can't be implemented in the future. But thanks for the cynical barb.

 

Ok, let's see your prediction:

 

The website might see a sudden increase in membership.

The website might see an increase in premium membership, though after some time.

 

Again, I understand that you think me naive that I expect people don't want to jump through hoops to go geocaching, but there are other reasons why I don't want this to happen, and it doesn't have anything to do with technology-inept individuals. What I don't want is one of those silly teaser sites where all the content is hidden behind a registry page - much like how lots of news sites exist. The response to this is sites dedicated to creating sockpuppet accounts to share among as many users as you want, like http://www.bugmenot.com

 

Many people want a taste and establish some trust with a site before registering. This is an absolute truth.

 

Additionally, as I repeated before, I do not want to take away features of the site, I want to add them. Adding blanket requirements on all cache pages may make you feel better but it solves nothing.

 

Bottom line is I do not really care if we get an increase in memberships. I have no board of directors or venture capital firm where I have to put together meaninless membership numbers to. I consider the site successful if people go outside and go geocaching. If they register I know I have at least a better qualified throwaway account.

Link to comment

Correct me if I'm wrong I don't have much experience in being a non-premium member. I think that some of the angst is caused by non-premium members doing a search for local caches and seeing these MOC's showing up in thier search. If the intent of the hider of the MOC is for their cache to to be viewable by Premium members only why do they need to show up on a search by non-premium members?

Link to comment

Okay, to echo my other post here's a kind of a solution:

 

Stepped membership and stepped accessibility set by the cache owner.

 

Right now you've got open access where no one needs even to be logged in to the see the caches. You've got logged in, but not PM, and get the same viewable content. Then you have PM.

 

For caches you have either fully open or MOC.

 

I propose a "member in good standing" membership level--maybe multiples. This could be defined as a member who has been with the site for x amount of time, found x number of caches, and has placed x number of found caches. These numbers could be 3 months, 10 caches, and 1 placement, respectively.

 

Next you add the ability for a cache owner to selectively hide his data from those not signed in or hide it from folks who are not a "member in good standing" (MIGS). Of course, you could still have MOC if you really wanted, but I'd do away with them because of contention issues just like moving caches and the clamp-down on locationless and virts. Also, you could still leave your cache fully open.

 

Speaking from vandalism perspective alone, I think it would be just as effective as a MOC to require someone to wait 3 months, log 10 caches, and the hardest part, get a cache approved. Not only do they have to get a cache approved it needs to be found by another MIGS.

 

This would be a good value for every user. Not expose non-PMs' caches to maggots. All while leaving most of the caches open to new cachers. It would not adversely affect the vast majority of all cachers.

 

A secondary mechanism could be put in place that could raise all of the caches in a certain area in case of maggots. A call comes in that someone is stealing caches, of course, the caches that are fully open or at "must be signed in" are targets because someone just signed up with a throwaway account and are targeting them. You could select a pair of coords and temporarily raise all caches within 25, 50, or 100 mile radius to MIGS-only until they got bored and went back to their video games. In essence, fighting maggots locally without affecting the rest of the world. Put up a splash screen explaining the emergency and apologize for the inconvenience, here's a link to what is going on, yada, yada, yada.

 

I think you'd probably have to block non-MIGS access to the nearest list at this time because at present you can find traditional-type caches that are MOC through trial and error.

 

So if you do have to go to DEFCON5 you are only adversely affecting non-MIGS. When you do find and ban a user it will take them a while to get back to MIGS status.

 

I've got to cut this short and get ready for work, but think this is a win-win solution with some minutiae to hammer out. (Well, except for the programmer that has to implement it.)

 

Oh, real quick, I do see applications for this other than for cache protection. I know of a local who makes many of his cache MOC to reduce the number of questions asked on his puzzle caches. I figures being MOC reduces the number of queries from rank newbies. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons to make a cache MIGSOC

Link to comment

The more I think about it the more I think the basics can be implemented rather simply.

 

MIGS status and PM status would function very similarly. But have different purposes. Most of the infrastructure is already there. A function to test in pseudo code:

 

IF (MIGS_status = 0) then

IF (

Does user have more than 9 finds?

AND

Does user have an approved cache?

Does cache have a find from a MIGS?

AND

Has member been a member for 3 months?

) then MIGS-Status == 1

 

Check at each time the person logs in and it would be transparent.

 

Checking to see if you can display a cache page to said user would again be similar to PM checking.

 

For raising the DEFCON status, an additional varible could be added to raise the normal level. Normally it would be zero and an open cache level could be zero. A MIGSOC could be 2. So by selectively increase this DEFCON variable to 2, all cache would be elevated to MIGS-only and above. (Note earlier I said there could be multiple MIGS level? You could have another step at 1 year, 100 caches and 10 placements or even a user selected level. It's an option.)

 

Also, I said earlier that you could raise the DEFCON based on coords within a certain radius. An additional option could be do it simply by state, if the state is small enough. If you had both, then it would give you enough flexibility to do it however it is most appropriate for that location.

 

There are other possible ways of doing this, but I don't want to muddy the concept with too many tangents.

Link to comment
No matter what is done in an attempt to control the actions of others it won't work.

Um. It does work. It works quite well.

There's no way you can control peoples actions. Attempting to by putting silly controls and limits on who, what, and where will only slow them down a bit and make you all look rather foolish.

Link to comment
I keep hearing these terms, pirates, stealing caches, etc.  It seems to me that the best solution these kind of problems is to chanage OUR point of view.

A permissive view is not where I'd like to go. Why compromise? You can accept that it will happen but it doesn't mean you have to sit there and get repeatedly hit in the crotch.

You'll only getting "Kicked in the crotch" because you want to feel that. Relax and it won't hurt.

Link to comment

You naive, naive nut.

(that was a friendly barb. Don't take it as an insult)

You stand on the outside looking in and don't have all the information to come to realistic conclusions.

That is by no fault of your own, so don't take it personally.

My skin is pretty thick. But thanks for the warnings, I won't take it personally. :rolleyes:

But thanks for the cynical barb.

Likewise, I'm sure :D

Again, I understand that you think me naive that I expect people don't want to jump through hoops to go geocaching, but there are other reasons why I don't want this to happen, and it doesn't have anything to do with technology-inept individuals. What I don't want is one of those silly teaser sites where all the content is hidden behind a registry page - much like how lots of news sites exist.

Actually, for as long as this has been an unresolved topic, I think this is the first time you gave a clue into what your real thoughts about this are. Not that you owed anybody an explanation, but it does open my eyes a bit, so thanks. I didn't think of you as naive, just thought you didn't care or didn't want to be bothered. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this, it seems you may have given it even more thought than I did. I feel comfortable that you know what you are doing.

Link to comment
You'll only getting "Kicked in the crotch" because you want to feel that. Relax and it won't hurt.

It's a double edged sword. If you feel this way you shouldn't feel bad if you couldn't get access to a cache that is only available to a premium member.

 

I don't think the best message to put forward is to be permissive. You set social rules and have consequences to those actions. There are quite a few people who disagree with your attitude on such things.

Link to comment
Stepped membership and stepped accessibility set by the cache owner.

I thing generally it is a Fine Idea. Creating tools for cache owners to better manage cache listings is what should happen. It does have to be tempered a bit by overall issues of CPU resources and database resources to make this functionality exist, and you want to make sure you keep the system from becoming too complex.

 

It's definitely not a replacement for SOC, but a good alternative. However it is fortunate that for the most part people can just get along, so ultimately you have to balance the benefits with the time involved to implement the solution. Not just the database, but the overall UI to make it easy to understand. And of course dealing with the backlash that follows.

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this, it seems you may have given it even more thought than I did. I feel comfortable that you know what you are doing.

Well, don't stop kicking the tires. And don't feel comfortable I know what I'm doing. :rolleyes:

I was just trying to be nice, like you were. :D

Link to comment
However it is fortunate that for the most part people can just get along, so ultimately you have to balance the benefits with the time involved to implement the solution.

I most definitely agree. I'd much rather see some other features that we've talked about implemented first. Buddy lists, attributes, "any log" check box in the PQs, and PQ of all of our finds to mention just a few that I think would be more useful.

 

Of course, unless your area is the one being plundered then it would priority number one, I'm sure.

Link to comment
I keep hearing these terms, pirates, stealing caches, etc.  It seems to me that the best solution these kind of problems is to chanage OUR point of view.

A permissive view is not where I'd like to go. Why compromise? You can accept that it will happen but it doesn't mean you have to sit there and get repeatedly hit in the crotch.

You'll only getting "Kicked in the crotch" because you want to feel that. Relax and it won't hurt.

We lost well over 100 caches in my area. About 40% of my finds are missing, gone or archived. Almost everyhing I have that's urban and was remotly easy is gone. I don't lose sleep over the caches that have been stolen. Nor do I feel a need to bend over and grease up becasue I know it's coming. While I don't lose sleep over a missing cache I would not lose sleep if the cache maggot served hard time and got one of those three strikes over something so silly as stealing my altoids tin.

Link to comment

Jeremy,

 

I may be way off base here, and if so, just tell me and I will shut up. But, what if the "MOC" caches were based on Quality of the cache? For instance, for a cache to be what I would term a "Premium Cache" (as opposed to MOC, I really don't care for that term), it would have to be above a certain difficulty level, say above a 2. It would also have to be looked at in terms of uniqueness, overall quality, location or some other criteria that would make the cache a cut above most. Then, when someone finds it, it would count as a "double find", and they get to add two smileys (that will make number chasers happy).....that might make for more of an incentive for folks to become Premium members...they would have access to high quality caches of a certain difficulty that would get them some extra rewards.

 

Also, just to add my thoughts on the whole thing: I didn't realize there was that much of a problem with people stealing caches....I have not run into it, nor have I heard it from any of the folks I know personally who cache (none of whom frequent the forums at all).... I am not a PM, but do not have a problem with the current set up of MOC's (other than the name, and I can live with that, it is way low on the scale of things that I am concerned about). I think there should be some sort of special caches available to those willing to pay for them. Heck, I'd probably pay the money myself if I knew that the special caches were of good quality and not just your every day toss on the side of the road micro or something like that. Actually, as I've been reading the threads on this, I may just end up paying so I can get the PQ's....that seems to me to be a worthwhile thing, I just need to learn more about them so I can see if it is something I would really use.

 

I do appreciate your efforts in working on these things to make the site, adn the game, better. Thanks.

 

Hank

Link to comment
Jeremy,

 

I may be way off base here, and if so, just tell me and I will shut up. But, what if the "MOC" caches were based on Quality of the cache? For instance, for a cache to be what I would term a "Premium Cache" (as opposed to MOC, I really don't care for that term), it would have to be above a certain difficulty level, say above a 2. It would also have to be looked at in terms of uniqueness, overall quality, location or some other criteria that would make the cache a cut above most. Then, when someone finds it, it would count as a "double find", and they get to add two smileys (that will make number chasers happy).....that might make for more of an incentive for folks to become Premium members...they would have access to high quality caches of a certain difficulty that would get them some extra rewards.

 

Also, just to add my thoughts on the whole thing: I didn't realize there was that much of a problem with people stealing caches....I have not run into it, nor have I heard it from any of the folks I know personally who cache (none of whom frequent the forums at all).... I am not a PM, but do not have a problem with the current set up of MOC's (other than the name, and I can live with that, it is way low on the scale of things that I am concerned about). I think there should be some sort of special caches available to those willing to pay for them. Heck, I'd probably pay the money myself if I knew that the special caches were of good quality and not just your every day toss on the side of the road micro or something like that. Actually, as I've been reading the threads on this, I may just end up paying so I can get the PQ's....that seems to me to be a worthwhile thing, I just need to learn more about them so I can see if it is something I would really use.

 

I do appreciate your efforts in working on these things to make the site, adn the game, better. Thanks.

 

Hank

LOL

Link to comment

Earlier today I cleaned out my cookies as often happens, and I visited a cache page without being logged in.

 

Holy carp! I couldn't believe what I saw! Coordinates are now hidden from view unless you are logged in!

 

I first brought this up back in 2002 in this post as others have also wanted this besides me.

 

I was called naive, of course in a friendly way, and was finally convinced that no matter how much I pushed for this, no matter how I argued and begged, that it would never happen.

 

And now this!

 

What happened? What changed things?

 

Why wasn't I notified?

 

 

 

Oh, yeah...

 

And thanks Jeremy, I should have given up long ago. :blink:

Link to comment
Earlier today I cleaned out my cookies as often happens, and I visited a cache page without being logged in.

 

Holy carp! I couldn't believe what I saw! Coordinates are now hidden from view unless you are logged in!

 

I first brought this up back in 2002 in this post as others have also wanted this besides me.

 

I was called naive, of course in a friendly way, and was finally convinced that no matter how much I pushed for this, no matter how I argued and begged, that it would never happen.

 

And now this!

 

What happened? What changed things?

 

Why wasn't I notified?

 

 

 

Oh, yeah...

 

And thanks Jeremy, I should have given up long ago. <_<

If you spent more time reading current threads, instead of ones from last January, you might have known about this. :anicute:

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...