Subscriber-only caches

[Mind Socket]

* Memberships are just one revenue stream. There's also advertising and merchandise (travel bugs, DVDs, clothing).

* geocaching.org is probably registered to prevent dilution of geocaching.com's branding by a competitor with a similar URL. Standard business practice. There are no restrictions on who can register .com, .org or .net domains. (*.au is another matter).

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.

Possibly, but that event is a looong way off, it at all. I also expect that any change from a free model won't be towards a purely commercial one (besides, you can take all your data at any given time and go somewhere else). I'd quite happily donate (not pay) $200/year for GCA right now, no extra features, no special treatment, simply because the philosophy of the site is not commercial and it already provides an incredible feature set. I know that i! don't want to play that way, and that's already explained elsewhere.

disk utilisation due to image storage

A 200Gb disk costs around AU$180 and holds over 800 million 50kb images. Logs would take up an order of magnitude more, which still isn't much.

So, if we establish that the membership fees covers costs including salaries, the question then becomes what the heck are they doing with their time? The site's feature set is almost identical to what it was when I started over 2 years ago. There are sites with far bigger user bases surviving and, more importantly, evolving (because competition demands that they do) on advertising alone (I'm not suggesting that's a good way to cover costs).

As for the members only disadvantage argument, I agree with The Garner Family, it's a moot point if it's only that way for a week, no harm done to the sport.

Ok, that's enough random speculation from me for today. Don't forget to find some caches on the weekend.

- R

[The Garner Family]

Ok, that's enough random speculation from me for today. Don't forget to find some caches on the weekend.

Oh that's right... sometimes I forget that this sport is about actually going out and finding things.

[Big Red Expeditions]

I'll second that agreement with the Garner Family: If it's a member only cache for only the first week, and then public it's a moot point. I'm quite surprised at the level of dis-satisfaction towards GC.com. For AU$39 per year they deliver exactly what they promise, and I'm happy to pay it. Actually I'd pay more if I had to. I've read here that it adds up to US$250,000 per year, but let's put it into context. That's turnover, NOT profit. My small business of 3 employees turns over more than that and I'm in no immediate danger of running out and buying a yacht. My partner and I both have never owned a new car. It's not that much money. I'd imagine if he had someone writing 1 email a day to every approver in every country that alone would amount to two full time jobs right there, so I just can't see massive income from $250,000 annually. Bottom line is, if you like what you get from GC.com then pay, if not, take what you want for free, and shut the hell up.

[EcoTeam]

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

You'd be a fool if you did it yourself. There are literally thousands of high and low end hosting companies out there that care of all this for you. multiple redundent UPS systems, fire proof rooms, daily offsite backups, guaranteed uptime, server maintenance etc.
Disk storage is cheap these days too, no problem there, like Mindsocket said.

Heck, if you wrote a good database then the thing would practically take care of itself would it not? You wouldn't need to touch it unless something terrible happened.
I know of large database driven web sites that require practically zero maintenance to keep running for years on end. As long as you keep paying your bills, the system keeps running.
There would be no shortage of technically capable volunteers to help out maintaing the system either, just like the reviewers do now.

I really do think that something like GC.com could be run by one geek in their bedroom. I know similar sites that are. Professional high end web hosting services run around the hundreds of dollars per month figure I believe. Even at 10 times that figuree at say $2000/month, that's still only $24000/year. That's only 800 members at $30 a pop

It's a shame that gc.com went commercial from day one, but that's the way it is. I'm not complaining, I like and happily use gc.com, I'm just dreaming about what could have been...

EcoDave

[Aushiker]

I really do think that something like GC.com could be run by one geek in their bedroom. I know similar sites that are.

mmm, you don't know much about geek's then or you don't get a lot of email. Oh, BTW to me a lot of email is around 200+ a day which requires proper answers. It is going to take more than one "geek" (assuming the communication skills ) to deal with all the correspondence etc that goes on, plus the forums, plus the approvers. There is more to gc.com than a web server.

Andrew

[dcr]

BTW to me a lot of email is around 200+ a day

I wish I only got 200 emails a day Then again, if I only ended up with 200 emails in a day something would have been broken and I'd have to be fixing that ....

That said, when you are dealing with very large amounts of email you have multiple systems to control how they are coming to you. You redirect some of the incomming avalanche via web interfaces (as with gc.com) so that you have control over the format allowing you to use agents to manage keywords etc. GC.com did start off as a sever in a bedroom run by a geek, and this is where many of the initial gc.com subscribers were recruited from.

[as an aside, some of the unspoken angst against gc.com is probably due to them going M$ rather than opensource, also due to the types of sites that GC.com was initially advertised through eg. usefreindly. So some of it can be ignored as the continuing closed-source(evil) vs open-source(good) battle and not having a lot to do with the "sport per se *chuckle* ]

cheers Darren

[swampgecko]

I really do think that something like GC.com could be run by one geek in their bedroom. I know similar sites that are.

mmm, you don't know much about geek's then or you don't get a lot of email. Oh, BTW to me a lot of email is around 200+ a day which requires proper answers. It is going to take more than one "geek" (assuming the communication skills ) to deal with all the correspondence etc that goes on, plus the forums, plus the approvers. There is more to gc.com than a web server.

Andrew

EcoDave is the Original GEEK...

[Aushiker]

BTW to me a lot of email is around 200+ a day

I wish I only got 200 emails a day Then again, if I only ended up with 200 emails in a day something would have been broken and I'd have to be fixing that ....

So do I, however, the emails I get require human intervention by me, can't be handled using web forms etc, so in those circumstances, whilst filters help, they don't answer the emails. In this context anything over 200 is time consuming, even assuming one minute per email.

Andrew

[dcr]

So do I, however, the emails I get require human intervention by me, can't be handled using web forms etc, so in those circumstances, whilst filters help, they don't answer the emails. In this context anything over 200 is time consuming, even assuming one minute per email.

Ok, so as the geek with the server in the bedroom. You don't use a web based mail front end; and you decide that you don't want to use agents to idetify the gold in the chaff ... your next step is that you set up a forum and you say that you site is 'self help'.

Hmmm ... that is starting to sound familiar.

[Aushiker]

Ok, so as the geek with the server in the bedroom. You don't use a web based mail front end; and you decide that you don't want to use agents to idetify the gold in the chaff ... your next step is that you set up a forum and you say that you site is 'self help'.

Hmmm ... that is starting to sound familiar.

I am sorry, you have lost me. If you are referring to me personally, you have it so wrong you are off the planet. My emails are related to managing a business in the UK, work and various non-profit organisations which I am involved (USA) and being involved in various "non-work" groups in roles from moderator to just members, dealing with press matters etc. That is excluding the "personal emails."

To suggest that this should be all web-based is just, ummm rubbish.

Cheers
Andrew

[dcr]

I really do think that something like GC.com could be run by one geek in their bedroom.

Sorry, I was commenting on our hypothetical geek running a geocaching site from their bedroom. They would need to streamline their admin email or outsource it.

cheers Darren

[EcoTeam]

I really do think that something like GC.com could be run by one geek in their bedroom. I know similar sites that are.

mmm, you don't know much about geek's then or you don't get a lot of email. Oh, BTW to me a lot of email is around 200+ a day which requires proper answers. It is going to take more than one "geek" (assuming the communication skills ) to deal with all the correspondence etc that goes on, plus the forums, plus the approvers. There is more to gc.com than a web server.

Andrew

1) That is why you have volunteers to help out, with the technical access to be able to fix and do stuff.

2) That is why you set up a system that just works and needs little maintenance. For any queries you can direct people to a forum were one of the kind volunteers will help out.

Saying "for all queries contact admin@geocaching.org" is asking for having no life.

Dave

[Aushiker]

I really do think that something like GC.com could be run by one geek in their bedroom.

Sorry, I was commenting on our hypothetical geek running a geocaching site from their bedroom. They would need to streamline their admin email or outsource it.

cheers Darren

Hi Darren

My apologies. You caught me at a bad time. Had a day of heading bashing with IT Divn yet again at work over amongst other things poor communication with their clients, net alone part of systems being down yet again. The later is really not their fault, underfunded, but the poor communication is. So "geeks" are flavour of the month at present

Ohh btw turn on the computer this afternoon ... only just over 600 emails overnight, of which about 20% was spam, 10% can be or was dealt with by others. Not a bad end to the week. Thankfully Mondays are slow so it balances out

Regards
Andrew

[ideology]

My reasoning behind making caches PMO is that I believe it gives something back to the people who support the sport

we understand your desire to give back to those who support the sport, however as others have said:
(a) we think you are trying to support the wrong people. the true supporters of geocaching are the ones who place caches. the effort going into making and placing a cache is _far_ higher than the effort to list it.
(b) you are disadvantaging the true supporters by not sharing your caches with them, however briefly
(c) you're already supporting groundspeak by being a premium member

if you'd like to support groundspeak or gsak etc, that's your right, please feel free to support them directly by paying the appopriate fee. we just hope you could support your providers without disadvantaging people who have hidden the many caches that you have enjoyed.

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.

that's what we are trying to do here, albeit slowly!