Changing The Status Of Caches

[+CuplaKiwis]

wow, I go out for a climb and a couple of beers, and this happens. Shame when these things start getting personal.

 

If I may, I'd like to summarise some views to put things in perspective...

 

1. It is a geocacher's right to be a member or not

2. If not a member, there are plenty of ways to help pay for the site that we all use, even if this is only though the mimimal advertising on site.

3. It is *always* the owners right to do what they want with a cache (within the guidelines), including making it MO. It may not however always be popular...

 

Geocaching started out Public Domain; it would be great to keep it that way.

[+stu_and_sarah]

As for trashed caches. That is another subject that I would ask. Why do caches get trashed? I do not believe that Geocachers would do this. Maybe unintentionaly they do not hide the cache enough.

We had an episode where several caches near us were trashed. One was our 5/5. There is NO WAY that was accidentally found. Especially by the same person as cleared a bunch of other caches.

 

We knew it was the same person because they left their calling card.

 

Of course - this is probably irrelevant to this discussion, because that's the sort of person who'd pay 16 quid a year to ruin everyone's fun.

 

Ho hum.

 

Proudly a premium member. 247 finds, and never even seen a members-only cache on a search or pocket query, let alone found one!

 

Stu

[+mongoose39uk]

wow, I go out for a climb and a couple of beers, and this happens. Shame when these things start getting personal.

 

If I may, I'd like to summarise some views to put things in perspective...

 

1. It is a geocacher's right to be a member or not

2. If not a member, there are plenty of ways to help pay for the site that we all use, even if this is only though the mimimal advertising on site.

3. It is *always* the owners right to do what they want with a cache (within the guidelines), including making it MO. It may not however always be popular...

 

Geocaching started out Public Domain; it would be great to keep it that way.

This started out as an healthy debate which got heated on a couple of occassions.

 

I think a couple of things got taken personaly which I dont think were intended that way.

 

It's fine to get heated we are not without opinions or the forums would not exist.

 

Tend to agree with the summary.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

[+Pieman]

I think we have to accept a few things:

 

People who vandalise caches don't do this having found the coords at gc.com

Members only caches are IMHO odd but perfectly acceptable within the rules

Changing a cache from open to MO is very odd but perfectly acceptable within the rules

The gc.com site costs money to run and anyone who enjoys geocaching and can afford the sum should pay up- for goodness sake if JI makes money from the site I would say good luck to him as what he and the team have done is pretty inventive

 

P

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Being guilty of getting worked up, when trying to give a constructive answer, I'd like to appolagise, at the same time as writing the post, we received a phone call, from friends who are also cachers, telling us that a relative of theirs is in a serious condition, worry for these friends, got me carried away with my post. Rutson I realised at the time that you were not being personal, so once again I appolagise, as having reread the post, I realise how heated it was! Mate I owe you a pint, but if you can find a quart glass, and can drink it on your own I'll fill that (if your not old enough to remember the add, ask some one who is )

 

Dave

[+third-degree-witch]

it seems the person who came running into the forum and started this thread has run out of things to say.things have got heated true,but im not scared of a good debate where its needed.none of my comments directed in the authors direction have been countered or answered,i would have been more than happy to sort this out between us via emails but as the author saw fit to air their grievances in here then so be it.i take exception to being snivelled about without the instigator having the courtesy to reply within the forum in which he snivelled.dont start something youre not prepared to complete or back up,i may be a newbie in here m8y but dont make the mistake of taking me for a fool or somebody you can talk down to.eithier back up your grievance or do the wisest thing and say nothing more.

[+rutson]

That's the trouble with the pure written word in such a direct form as online forums; things can be interpretted in many ways.

 

Will have to ask me Dad about the quart glass Dave, I obviously am too young

 

I think this has run it's course. Normal sevice will resume.....

[+º]

..., so we were not able to log it.

Just log it.

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Will have to ask me Dad about the quart glass Dave, I obviously am too young

 

To put you and anyone else out of your misery , it's a referance to a very old beer commercial, were the following was sung, "Pint that thinks its a quart", along with a pint glass of it changing to a quart glass (quart=4 pints or 2.25 litres ), if you can find a proper pint glass which has been super sized , and you can drink it on your own I'll fill it

 

Dave

[+rutson]

Think I understand, but when I went to school a quart was two pints

[SlytherinAlex]

To put you and anyone else out of your misery , it's a referance to a very old beer commercial, were the following was sung, "Pint that thinks its a quart", along with a pint glass of it changing to a quart glass (quart=4 pints or 2.25 litres )

Whitbread big head, Trophy bitter. The pint that thinks it's a quart.

 

-

[+rutson]

Trust YOU to know that!

[+Cryptik Souls Crew]

Think I understand, but when I went to school a quart was two pints

That's government cutbacks for you...

[+mongoose39uk]

To put you and anyone else out of your misery  , it's a referance to a very old    beer commercial, were the following was sung, "Pint that thinks its a quart", along with a pint glass of it changing to a quart glass (quart=4 pints or 2.25 litres  )

Whitbread big head, Trophy bitter. The pint that thinks it's a quart.

 

-

Tasted it one of the letters needs changing to "s" though

[+rutson]

And what does a Manc know about bitter ?

 

/me ducks for cover

 

 

[+mongoose39uk]

And of course there are some really good beers in Leigh?

 

Sorry, forgot your presently in the beer capital of the world, 5 miles from the nearest pub;)

 

And I aint a manc

 

[+mongoose39uk]

What was the topic again?

[+rutson]

There was:

 

 

Seems there's a shiny new brewery too:

 

First brew Dec 04

[+mongoose39uk]

Hmm county,

 

seems to make you a manc

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Have a guess were the best bitter in the world (my old man's description ) is moving too? From it's Manchester home. Were are all the screws going to go for a decent pint now? And what's even worse! Were are all the life members of the electricians union going to go for their annual tour of a brewery, with free pints at the end! But to add injury to insult, "I can't stand Boddingtons"

 

Dave

[+Stuey]

Proudly a premium member. 247 finds, and never even seen a members-only cache on a search or pocket query, let alone found one!

I initially joined because my nearest cache was a Members ONly one, and I wanted to knock it off the top of my list. Since then, I discovered all the other benefits. I've done a few Members Only caches, and used to own one, which I changed to a regular one once half a dozen other locals had become members so they could log it too

 

I also found several of Stu and Sarah's caches a few days after the Dark Cache Clearer had emptied them and left his/her calling card (including "Cut Down Cache"). I had to use the calling card to write my log

[+The White Family]

The MOC discussion comes up time and time again, and usually becomes heated and personal. This is obviously a shame, and it seems to me that there are two simple options for preventing this.

 

1. There should be no MOCs. There are in any case very few - especially in the UK - and IMO the value of them of them is limited. The real value in membership is PQs and the satisfaction of knowing one is contributing (and is able to do so).

 

or

 

2. It should not be possible to change the status of a cache. It's either MOC or public from the start.

 

Discuss....

 

Alan

[+John Stead]

Discuss....

 

This HAS been discussed for long enough! Whether we like MO caches or not, the privilege of choice is with the owner of the cache.

I have only seen one yet and that was MO initially for a very good reason.

[+-Phoenix-]

On option 2, Id modify that so its still possible to make MOCs Public, but not make publics MOCs

 

actually Id support number 1, or, 3 (and this will be very controversial, but worth discussing) give MOCs a time limit, such that they can only be an MOC for a month or whatever, to give members a better chance at FTF.

[+The White Family]

This HAS been discussed for long enough!  Whether we like MO caches or not, the privilege of choice is with the owner of the cache.

OK, it has been discussed, but not resolved. The rights of cache owners must be considered in the wider context of the effects on the sport.

 

MOCs are clearly divisive and for the good of the hobby measures must be taken to prevent this.

[+rutson]

White family: Tend to agree this needs discussing, but here is not the place. We can debate it till the cows come home, and nothing will happen.

 

I fyou feel strongly enough that change should be made, then I suggest a post in an appropriate global forum.

[+The White Family]

On option 2, Id modify that so its still possible to make MOCs Public, but not make publics MOCs

 

actually Id support number 1, or, 3 (and this will be very controversial, but worth discussing) give MOCs a time limit, such that they can only be an MOC for a month or whatever, to give members a better chance at FTF.

I'm happy with those.

 

There's a fourth, probably even more controversial option, to make all caches MOCs. Some sites already do this. Not an option I'd support, but it is a way of avoiding the unpleasantness every time this issue comes up.

[+The White Family]

I fyou feel strongly enough that change should be made, then I suggest a post in an appropriate global forum.

There's no reason why we can't discuss this in the UK forum. It's more likely to be seen here by those who would place MOCs in the UK, and may even cause them to consider their position.

 

Also, one of the moderators is quite high up in Groundspeak, and is probably best placed to want to avoid the unpleasantness and damage to the hobby that this issue causes.

 

Personally, as a premium member I have few concerns about MOCs themselves. What upsets me is the consequent bickering that results from their existence.

[+QDman]

Are there really people who have a problem with the fact that there are a few (a very few) little boxes of near-worthless items out there that they can't get credit for finding?

[+davy boy]

I myself have an moc cache and is a week old now,after a couple of months i will open it to everyone to find.i cannot see a prob with this!!!

Cannot see what all the fuss is about,seems to me if there is,nt any arguments going on no one is happy!!!!!

If you support the site you get to see first!!!

[+Nellies Knackers]

Surely whether MOC or Public, anyone who has found it and signed the logbook in the cache itself cannot be prevented from logging it! Would I be right in saying that MOC's don't show to non members? in which case where's the problem?(since looked and I'm wrong!)

The bottom line is the critical log is in the cache itself not on the website, so a find is a find!

If a muggle finds it by accident they should be just as able to log it or it's just not encouraging people to join in the fun.

Just my views...

 

(Added) I do have to add that I find it quite strange when I can't view a cache that I have already logged but I can view my log I think the status change should be MOC to Public only and not the other way round.

I'm still not paying the premium bit due to the attitude of the T word charity cache attempt that was ruled out by TPTB, I was about to upgrade when it all kicked off and changed my mind, maybe I'll get round to it sometime but thats my choice!

I'm also a tight sod

Edited March 13, 2005 by Nellies Knackers

[+The Northumbrian]

i have to say .....as it was my cache referred to.....i can do exactly what i wish with my caches...i didnt feel there was a need to come running in here like a scalded cat to tell everyone..i decided to change ALL of my caches to subscriber only....the reason????? are are a few but here are the main ones...1=the cost to keep the site running is paid for thru the paltry sum we pay each year,surely 15 quid isnt a lot to pay for a years enjoyment ???? 2=it stops the casual muggler seeing my listings 3=why should some of us who are kind enough to pay the yearly contribution provide caches for people who dont ???????.

i tried to do my 'bit' in my area providing caches for you all to find,if you have a problem with what ive decided to do then the answers simple..DONT look for my caches...OR pay the 15 quid a year,also very simple.

I agree with everything you say. I myself no longer go caching. but the amount of enjoyment I got from it was well worth the small amount I pay per year. I intend to keep my subs upto date as I may come back into it one day . I have no Member only caches, but I do have a Choice to make 1 or all of mine member caches at any time I like. but for now I will keep them open to all. and hope that the site will go on forever.

[frevrod]

It would appear that not only have some of the caches I've recently found changed to members only, but these have now been removed from my successful finds list on the UK site (although my account on the .com site still includes them). Is this normal ?

[+The White Family]

Is this normal ?

Yes. If G:UK showed you the link to the cache page then a non-member would be able to view the cache because G:UK is a member.

 

Be (kind of) thankful. Until recently the MOCs weren't included in the stats on G:UK. I only noticed when our stats went down because the owner of some of our finds made them MOC.

 

All of which is why I don't like MOCs. Or, at least, don't like the way they're currently managed.

 

Alan