Geocaching Australia

Hi all,

In order to keep the signal to noise level at a reasonable point, we have decided to implement an automated system whereby users who have a significant number of posts on the forum compared to their number of finds will have restricted posting access.

For those that would like to post without restriction, a subscription based service will be made available.

We are still fleshing out the specifics of how this will be done and what a reasonable cutoff is, but if you have any comments or concerns, now is the time to raise them here.

Cheers,
- Rog

edit :: the game's up. Gotcha!

I Really think we need a poll tO decide this....Put me down as the First YES, most definiteLy.

Agsmky

Gees, are Bronze and I really that painful?

But this would be a fair and equitable arrangement.

Maybe we could allow 1.3789 daily posts per find and 3.3625 per hide, except on every third Wednesday of the month, when the ratios would rise to 1.9563 and 4.9646.

Yes, we need a poll on this - probably three.

A pretty realistic idea. Lets find out over lunch soon.

Maybe the system should be all subsciption based. i.e. provide your credit card up front and it will entitle you to a number of letters. eg: 1c per letter, vowels might be 2c or something like that.

But then, the more caches you find or hide, the lower the subscription cost. AND If you cancel your gc.com account, you should get it at half price.

What do people think?

I think the Garners are onto something here....not unlike some WAP services who charge 2c/1k. A subscription service would at least derive income for the GA crew and could offset any upgrade requirements eg. oversea servers. Maybe service standards would pick up then

As for posting restrictions, IMHO the cutoff shoud be around 3:1 (postings to finds). We could possibly increase this if the cacher has submitted 10 recommendations (not including their own caches). This would compensate the cacher for the time taken to select your best 10.

Let's go for it.....

Agsmky

Are You going to implement a weight to the caches found /hidden depending on the listing site to allocate the points?<br />
I suggest a weighting in inverse proportion to the number of caches listed in the site. <br />
Now, should the the world figures for gc.com be used in the calculation, or just the Australian/NZ numbers?

Sorry,

I disagree with the concept. That strikes me as a form of censorship, and not in the spirit in which this forum was originally set up.

If the boys want funding for the site, then impliment a user pays system for sure, I for one have voulenteered to pay, but the benefits would have to be better than what is being offered now, and by the competing sites.

Swampgecko

You could work it that a new member with no finds has 10 posts to ask questions about the local caches and which GPS to buy and show their enthusiasm after finding their first cache and then after they have found 5 caches only allow them 1 post per cache found until they reach 100 finds then they can get unrestricted posts.

Then people who find 50 caches in a day can have a 24 hour posting marathon where they brag for 50 posts.

- R

swampgecko wrote:Sorry,

I disagree with the concept. That strikes me as a form of censorship, and not in the spirit in which this forum was originally set up.

If the boys want funding for the site, then impliment a user pays system for sure, I for one have voulenteered to pay, but the benefits would have to be better than what is being offered now, and by the competing sites.

Swampgecko

No swampgecko,

This system would be different...It would be truely user pays where you only pay for what you use, or say.

In this day and age, everyones doing it, why shouldn't GA go down this path? At least then, when you have something you want implemented, at least then it would be done. "They" would be in fact working for us

Imagine that if you will...Mindsocket doing something that we ask

Agsmky

Heheh, getting what you want costs extra, and I don't think there's collectively enough cash to make me quit my job and ignore you all on a full time basis.

- R

Maybe we could allow 1.3789 daily posts per find and 3.3625 per hide, except on every third Wednesday of the month, when the ratios would rise to 1.9563 and 4.9646.

If you coupled this with garners suggested 1c per consonant and 2c per vowel and gave an allowance of 1193 characters per day per person which can only be used inside the total number of posts as detailed above then you might have a very workable solution that could work for everybody and is so simple and straightforward that even my dog (who has not yet been introduced to the forum) could follow it. Speaking of which, maybe we need a forum for those dogs who seems to do all the geocaching because if they can master a GPS then a keyboard should be little effort. Of course dog posting rates would depend entirely on their personal finds, so the ones their owners didn't find with them wouldn't count. Otherwise I would expect the dogs could have a ratio of 1.092 per find and 2.7653 per hide. To keep bandwidth down, dogs can multiply their posts by a factor of 1.7643 on every second tuesday so as not to cause to much traffic on the third wednesday of the month when the people get increased posting availability.

I'd also suggest that to pay for all of this stuff, we use mindsockets visa card.

Based of the current information provided i find this idea absurd.
<br><br>
Why do you want to restrict access to certain users? You should include some information on why this idea has been put forward so we can understand the motivation behind it. As i read it people who don't play can't say.
<br><br>
Correct me if i'm wrong?

I just paid off my Visa, Cached, so that would be fine, at least for about 30 mins worth of forum ranting.

1 th1nk 1ll h4v3 2 lrn 2 wr1t3 wth n0 v0w3ls 2 s4v3 m0n3y

- Rog