Subscriber Only Caches

[swampgecko]

Here's something to ponder and stir everyone up.

Subscriber only caches.

Riverside by a wagga team, is also listed on the GCA Pages.

Now why is this an issue, you may ask? Well I am not against subscriber only caches, but the fact is that a team has taken the time to set up a cache that only fully paid up members of geocaching.com can see, and now anyone can access the co-ords via the GCA pages, even thou they cannot get the cache description. That really relegates this caches back to the level of normal caches in my opinion.

This raises a moral question. Should then, the cache in question, and any other subscriber cache, continue to be listed on the GCA site? This might be a question to be posed to the cache owners, They may not even be aware that this has occured.

My view is that the subscriber only caches be either removed (which will screw up the stats)or dealt with in another manner, maybe just replace the cache co-ords with.. "this is a subscriber only cache listed on geocaching.com"

Thoughts and opinions please.

I will remind you that it is not an arguement about subscriber caches and their pros and cons, just whether or not the details of them be listed on GCA.

[ideology]

it is not our intention to distribute details of groundspeak subscriber-only caches. personally, we think that subscriber only caches are quite rude to cachers who contribute a lot to the game but choose not to pay groundspeak's geocaching tax. however, we respect the cachers' decision and will attempt to plug the hole so the coordinates are not visible.

[Richary]

I don't agree with subscriber only ones. I wouldn't do that. Though the argument has been run before, maybe make it a high value cache that after it has been plundered then revert to normal.

I am in 2 minds whether I would attempt a member's only as a virgin, luckily it hasn't comeup in SA. Though I am sure these comments will inspire someone.

[riblit]

A quick check showed 2 subscriber caches in oz. It seems to be a lot of noise over very little.

[Devar]

Shhhhhhhhh. How else am I going to log these caches. I'm never going to pay for a subscription and I've been caching for years. Please don't spoil my fun.

[Lt. Sniper]

The point is you canÂ’t log the find on GC anyway since you cannot view the page without the PM status to your name.

I argued tooth and nail last time this crap came up to support PMO caches, It took Manta, another Queensland cacher to show me how it was wreaking the fun of the chase for him. In the end it was nothing to do with supporting Geocaching or Jeremy (which most of you argued for) but wreaking the fun he had by claiming FTF's.

Its all water under the bridge now, no one will keep a cache permanently PMO because too many people will speak up against it, which is a good thing in my books.

[The Rats]

A quick check showed 2 subscriber caches in oz. It seems to be a lot of noise over very little.

<p>I know of 2 in NSW, I guess that means theres none in the other states

[swampgecko]

There has ben a few at various times, they seem to appear then disappear, mainly disappear only to reappear as normal caches, something to do with a outpouring of critisim that someone would dare place a subscribers only cache.

[Papa Bear_Left]

There's been a couple that I've noticed that start out as subscriber-only until they've been found a couple of times, then revert to the cheapskate-available access.

[Lyn Pat and Nathan]

We know of a couple of teams that use the subscriber only for the first couple of finds as a debugging tool. That way they dont have 20 cranky teams emailing them about the faults.
It sounds like one of the good uses of that setup. We still cant see many others advantages to us (in a personal manner but each team makes that choice) that help us out...maybe if we used a PDA it would be different.

[swampgecko]

I will remind you that it is not an arguement about subscriber caches and their pros and cons, just whether or not the details of them be listed on GCA.

[Lyn Pat and Nathan]

The end result is still the same when you boil it down to basics. What is a good thing for one isnt for others. Personal preference.
We could see that some people (2 caches in OZ from what we hear) would consider that they wanted to keep their cache listed as exclusive and so they would not want them on GCA. we would say... Respect their wishs and try to block it on GCA
We wouldnt know why someone would'nt want everyone to find their cache though...it just seems odd to us to place a cache and only want certain type of people (read elitist) to find it.
With a couple of thousand caches to be found in Australia who would care about 2 they cant access....let them have their fun their way.
For the record we arnt paying for premium membership as we use the funds to place caches instead, just think of how many more caches there would be if everyone thought the same way.

[roostaman]

I just so happen to have made permanent camp in this fair city where the PM cache has surfaced. And yes I did gggggrrrrrrrr at the owner (in private) for a while that he would do that to others, who may not want to send an annual feee to GC.com. I can see why not many are done this way.

However, I then had a quick look at GCA to see what it showed in the download, & as you know I see the Co-ords are there - so most of the fun is still available to them - finding it. Not loggging it is just a little negative. (Its not about the numbers....)

Wagga is really taking off lately, so I think this one may return to a cheapy in due course too. I think I won't go for it until then either.

So, hiding the co-ords on GCA would be a better option in this case.

Roostaman

[Damo.]

I voted to leave them off all together having had the misfortune of finding a PMO cache without knowing that it was one until I went to log it on GC.com. Block them from GCA altogether. The owners are paying to keep them exclusive and the data shouldn't be presented on other sites.

[riblit]

The major issue at this time is that there is nothing in the data feed to indicate a cache is a members only cache. This makes blocking them a touch difficult. Options are being examined..