Subscriber-only caches

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
Mind Socket
Posts: 1329
Joined: 29 March 03 6:04 pm
Location: Gladesville, Sydney
Contact:

Post by Mind Socket » 27 January 05 4:04 pm

I am very anti-gc.com, no denying that. I have given my reasons, and I'm not the only one either. There is money changing hands and there are business politics in play, though they may not be obvious.

My geocaching should be nobody else's "business".

/me will zip it, sorry for hijacking the thread.

- R

Lt. Sniper
Outdoor Adventurer
Posts: 751
Joined: 12 April 04 11:27 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by Lt. Sniper » 27 January 05 4:18 pm

They do a bit of advertising on the side, you hardly ever see banner ads that arenÂ’t for Geocaching products (yes, incidentally the profits for goods sold go to GroundSpeak (aka "Jeremy's bank account) There has been Jeep, RAE outdoor and that Map thing (Yes, the advertising has worked, I remember them all).

Apart from that they donÂ’t push you into buying anything you donÂ’t want, you can be a free member, my caches donÂ’t reflect a members only system.

Yes, there forum's a place where smack-tards live and breed, I donÂ’t doubt that, you donÂ’t have to use it if you donÂ’t want.
Last edited by Lt. Sniper on 27 January 05 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Big Red Expeditions
50 or more caches found
50 or more caches found
Posts: 63
Joined: 28 September 04 2:11 pm
Location: Glenelg

Post by Big Red Expeditions » 27 January 05 5:41 pm

All I'm saying is that at the end of the day, USD$30 is very cheap for membership for the sport I love. Sure, I could cache without being a premium member, but I use the extra features.

Another sport I love is sailing. I *can* sail without being a member of any club, but I don't. I'm happy to pay $240 annually to be a member of my local sailing club, and in return I can take part in the many functions that are put on by other members. I have no idea where that money goes, and if it was a big problem, I'd maybe look for a cheaper one, but when it's not really that expensive, then why not?

I can't believe that everyone's really bitching about $30 per year. Maybe it could be done cheaper. Maybe it could be done for $15 per year. Maybe it could even be done free with wall to wall advertising. If Jeremy Irish is making a comfortable living out of it, good on him. If I'd thought of it first, then I might be, but the fact is, I didn't.

User avatar
EcoTeam
200 or more found
200 or more found
Posts: 1267
Joined: 03 April 03 7:57 pm
Twitter: EEVblog
Location: Crestwood, NSW
Contact:

Post by EcoTeam » 27 January 05 5:50 pm

Lt. Sniper wrote:They do a bit of advertising on the side, you hardly ever see banner ads that arenÂ’t for Geocaching products (yes, incidentally the profits for goods sold go to GroundSpeak (aka "Jeremy The Worm"'s bank account) There has been Jeep, RAE outdoor and that Map thing (Yes, the advertising has worked, I remember them all).

Apart from that they donÂ’t push you into buying anything you donÂ’t want, you can be a free member, my caches donÂ’t reflect a members only system.
But you said all of your caches are Members Only for about a week. This is surely supporting the finanical members only system is it not?, even if it is only for a brief period.

Have fun explaining where all the money goes, it certainly doesn't ALL go into the hosting and development of gc.com. It can't, no way does it cost that much to just run the site. Groundspeak are a commercial company that no doubt turn a profit.

IMHO by placing a members only cache (even for a brief period), you are disadvantaging the regular cachers while supporting those who choose to contribute to Groundspeaks profit.

So you are supporting a new cacher that pays their $$ to Groundspeak who may not have placed any caches, yet you disadvantage a long term player who has placed dozens or even a 100 caches yet chooses not to pay $$ to Groundspeak. Hmm...
That isn't any pie-in-the-sky example either, there are cachers who meet this criteria.

Members only caches don't make sense, that is why there are practically none of them in Australia.

EcoDave :)

Lt. Sniper
Outdoor Adventurer
Posts: 751
Joined: 12 April 04 11:27 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by Lt. Sniper » 27 January 05 6:09 pm

Your basing your comments on an "How can you possibly support GroundSpeak" ideology, I am not going to try and combat your comments, just because you have a problem with the company. I am neutral towards Geocaching.com aka GroundSpeak and am not going to join in on a personal attack against the company. ItÂ’s a sport, like Big Red Expeditions mentioned there are others sports that cost money and are worth it, you donÂ’t have to pitch in but you do. I do several activities, they all cost a lot more then Geocaching, someone somewhere is making some money out of that. My soccer is sponsored by Adidas, I wear there boots and shorts. My bushwalking club costs money, they endorse products at there meetings, the clubs sponsored by no less then 5 outdoor stores in the Brisbane CBD. Some club activities are paid for by sponsorship.

I hope you donÂ’t have a grudge against Geocaching.com just because someoneÂ’s making some money.

EDIT: Did I forget to mention the GC.com forums are filled with Sand Monkeys... :)

User avatar
EcoTeam
200 or more found
200 or more found
Posts: 1267
Joined: 03 April 03 7:57 pm
Twitter: EEVblog
Location: Crestwood, NSW
Contact:

Post by EcoTeam » 27 January 05 6:29 pm

Lt. Sniper wrote:Your basing your comments on an "How can you possibly support GroundSpeak" ideology, I am not going to try and combat your comments, just because you have a problem with the company. I am neutral towards Geocaching.com aka GroundSpeak and am not going to join in on a personal attack against the company. ItÂ’s a sport, like Big Red Expeditions mentioned there are others sports that cost money and are worth it, you donÂ’t have to pitch in but you do. I do several activities, they all cost a lot more then Geocaching, someone somewhere is making some money out of that. My soccer is sponsored by Adidas, I wear there boots and shorts. My bushwalking club costs money, they endorse products at there meetings, the clubs sponsored by no less then 5 outdoor stores in the Brisbane CBD. Some club activities are paid for by sponsorship.

I hope you donÂ’t have a grudge against Geocaching.com just because someoneÂ’s making some money.

EDIT: Did I forget to mention the GC.com forums are filled with Sand Monkeys... :)
You have mistaken what I was getting at.
I have nothing against GC.com, I am a premium member (because I want the pocket queries), I couldn't care less if Groundspeak make money, and whats more I actually like gc.com (mostly, nothings perfect).
I am trying to play devils advocate here.
By placing members only caches you ARE disadvantaging those who choose not to be a premium member.

You said how could anyone refute your reason for placing members only caches. Well, I refute it, and have given an example of where placing such caches disadvantage those who REALLY support the sport.

I bettcha if you start a poll which said "Who do you think really supports the sport of geocaching? 1)Those who are a member of GC.com, or 2)Those who place caches"
#2 would win hands down. Want to try it?

I don't believe you can draw parallels with other sports, Geocaching is unique in many respects which can make comparisons all but meaningless.
If members only caches were a good idea and people liked them then there would be a lot more of them. But how many are there? - Practically none. That says something...

EcoDave :)

Lt. Sniper
Outdoor Adventurer
Posts: 751
Joined: 12 April 04 11:27 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by Lt. Sniper » 27 January 05 6:39 pm

I'm tired, you win

The Garner Family
1100 or more caches found
1100 or more caches found
Posts: 953
Joined: 05 September 04 7:21 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by The Garner Family » 27 January 05 6:40 pm

By placing members only caches you ARE disadvantaging those who choose not to be a premium member.

You said how could anyone refute your reason for placing members only caches. Well, I refute it, and have given an example of where placing such caches disadvantage those who REALLY support the sport.
I hear what you're saying, but: so what? If someone doesn't want to pay $3/month then they should be grateful that gc.com gives them anything. And yes, gc.com does give them something above and beyond what the cacher who hid the cache gives to the sport... gc.com provide the easy means for those caches & there associated logs to be accessed by a worldwide community... that wouldn't have happened over usenet, it wouldn't have happened with a bunch of independent geocachers or geocaching communities, it wouldn't have happened with just a bunch of software tools like GSAK.

It required someone to build the infrastructure to store, index, and retrieve all this information. While Groundspeak may be making money out of it they have certainly done more than anyone else or any other entity for the sport of geocaching.

So again, why wouldn't you pay them $3 per month UNLESS you have some idealogical issue with them? And why would not support those who do pay this money having access to some additional features?

User avatar
dcr
100 or more tracks walked
100 or more tracks walked
Posts: 319
Joined: 06 July 03 2:37 pm
Location: Eltham, Victoria
Contact:

Post by dcr » 27 January 05 7:17 pm

The Garner Family wrote:... that wouldn't have happened over usenet, it wouldn't have happened with a bunch of independent geocachers or geocaching communities, it wouldn't have happened with just a bunch of software tools like GSAK.
I am not sure that this is correct, take letterboxing for example as it is more closely aligned to the geocaching model.
Although there are a few players in the letterbox database arena, the vast majority of letterboxes are hosted from personal sites in a distributed model.

Yes it changes the demographics, but some (many?) say it has enhanced the "sport".

cheers Darren :)

User avatar
EcoTeam
200 or more found
200 or more found
Posts: 1267
Joined: 03 April 03 7:57 pm
Twitter: EEVblog
Location: Crestwood, NSW
Contact:

Post by EcoTeam » 27 January 05 9:31 pm

The Garner Family wrote: I hear what you're saying, but: so what? If someone doesn't want to pay $3/month then they should be grateful that gc.com gives them anything. And yes, gc.com does give them something above and beyond what the cacher who hid the cache gives to the sport... gc.com provide the easy means for those caches & there associated logs to be accessed by a worldwide community... that wouldn't have happened over usenet, it wouldn't have happened with a bunch of independent geocachers or geocaching communities, it wouldn't have happened with just a bunch of software tools like GSAK.
Yes, I have always said that GC.com made geocaching what it is today. Having one global site for listing all caching is one of the key reasons for the popularity of the sport.
It required someone to build the infrastructure to store, index, and retrieve all this information. While Groundspeak may be making money out of it they have certainly done more than anyone else or any other entity for the sport of geocaching.
Yes they have, but only because they were the first to do it. This would have happened anyway, it was the only natural progression. If Jeremy and GC.com didn't do it then there were dozens of others with the same idea and the motivation, just read the early Usenet posts. Jeremy and GC.com was first and offered a useful site, that's all. The first person to offer a useful site would have won.
Now, imagine what it would have been like if one of the others had done geocaching.ORG, someone who wasn't commercially oriented from the start - a hobbyist who did it for the pure joy of it. The site would most likely still be completely free and allow free access to the database.
It does not cost a lot of money to run a basic version of Geocaching.com, it could probably be hosted and funded by one keen hobbyist with maybe a tiny bit of sponsorship.

Jeremy was commerical oriented from day one, the day he registered the domain name, he has said so publically.
BTW, guess who owns geocaching.org?, you guessed it...
Now, why would Groundspeak need to register a non-profit organisation domain name if they admit to being 100% commercially oriented?
So again, why wouldn't you pay them $3 per month UNLESS you have some idealogical issue with them?
I do pay my $3/month for the pocket queries.
But I no longer do it because I also think I'm "supporting the sport". I have come to realise that the true value in the sport are those who place the caches and play the game, it is not GC.com.
And why would not support those who do pay this money having access to some additional features?
See the last paragraph and my initial argument.

EcoDave :)

The Garner Family
1100 or more caches found
1100 or more caches found
Posts: 953
Joined: 05 September 04 7:21 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by The Garner Family » 28 January 05 10:35 am

Now, imagine what it would have been like if one of the others had done geocaching.ORG, someone who wasn't commercially oriented from the start - a hobbyist who did it for the pure joy of it. The site would most likely still be completely free and allow free access to the database.
I doubt it. It might have worked until the first 72 hour outage (because they were away) or the first database corruption & the backup tapes weren't being checked & therefore they lost the last 2 weeks data. Who would've paid the bandwidth bills? They'd be pretty big on a site like gc.com. Who would pay for the exponentially increasing disk utilisation due to image storage? etc

The Garner Family
1100 or more caches found
1100 or more caches found
Posts: 953
Joined: 05 September 04 7:21 pm
Location: Brisbane

Post by The Garner Family » 28 January 05 10:39 am

I should add:

As a case in point, did anyone play the online game 'Planetarion'. Planetarion was a great game... free... players from all around the world... a great community & non-commercial. But as their userbase got bigger (over 100,000 players) they just couldn't keep up with the demands and the cost. In the end they folded & reopened a while later under a commercial banner, charging a nominal fee to play. The still exist under that commercial banner today. Point is: it just wasn't sustainable to keep the thing running without some money coming in.

I'm sure if ideology gets the users he wants on this site, it also will eventually become too large to support under a free model too.

User avatar
Aushiker
350 ? I am the lizard queen
350 ? I am the lizard queen
Posts: 1397
Joined: 30 July 04 2:35 pm
Twitter: Aushiker
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Post by Aushiker » 28 January 05 11:34 am

Another point that seems to get over looked ... labour cost and time. If they are not working full time for gc.com, they have to earn a living elsewhere which just adds hugely to the time load/stress of running a site such as gc.com.

I think some realism is needed in respect of the $30.00.

Andrew

Team Red Devil
50 or more caches found
50 or more caches found
Posts: 437
Joined: 10 December 04 4:24 pm
Location: West Oz
Contact:

Post by Team Red Devil » 28 January 05 3:33 pm

I thought it was $30 USD? And for the amount of premium members- thats a whole lotta $$, considering. One point you're all saying is bandwidth this, webspace that. But it has gone from just sustaining the webspace & bandwidth, to becoming a lucrative business venture. And I'll even go where no one else has and say that it appears to be a bit of a monopoly on the geocaching scene. Yes there are other sites, but none of them are like gc.com. I'm also confused why 'Jeremy' has the domain name geocaching.org I was under the impression that this could only be used by non-profit organisations and the like. Something his organisation certainly isn't. <br>
<br>
I'm just stating what appears to me, I haven't been in the sport long, and this is what I've seen so far.<br>
<br>
Marie

User avatar
Aushiker
350 ? I am the lizard queen
350 ? I am the lizard queen
Posts: 1397
Joined: 30 July 04 2:35 pm
Twitter: Aushiker
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Post by Aushiker » 28 January 05 3:50 pm

Hi

Yes it is $30.00 US or about $39.00 AUD, apparently about $250,000 US per year income. Assuming full time paid staff of say three or four, that would eat into that $250,000 pretty damn quickly.

It takes a lot of work to run a website like this IMO.

Andrew

Post Reply