Subscriber-only caches

Lt. Sniper · Post by **Lt. Sniper** » 25 January 05 8:00 pm

agsmky,

I didnÃ‚â€™t mention you in particular, there are others who donÃ‚â€™t visit this board. I am glad you brought the subject up. Its good to see what peopleÃ‚â€™s opinions are and get a bit of a discussion going.

Citria · Post by **Citria** » 25 January 05 9:20 pm

I suppose the merits of PMO caches depends somewhat on how you view being FTF. I'll admit that I'd like to be FTF on particularly challenging caches

(cryptics, or heavy duty terrain), but otherwise I'm not too worried. I guess if you're someone who likes being FTF (and you're a Premium Member), then PMO caches would definitely be a "benefit" of membership. I can live with PMO's that are released to everyone else after a set time.

Note to Lt Sniper - I'm not suggesting that you're caches aren't challenging ... I haven't done one so I can't comment.

Team Red Devil · Post by **Team Red Devil** » 25 January 05 10:27 pm

PMO. It took a minute for me to work out what you meant by that little abbreviation. 
 
Peeve Me Off maybe? LOL! 
 
Marie *giggle*

Citria · Post by **Citria** » 25 January 05 10:35 pm

Ha!

PMO's PMO!!! (joking!)
I stole the lingo off Sniper!

Lt. Sniper · Post by **Lt. Sniper** » 25 January 05 10:49 pm

LOL, I always called it PMO since its used with 'Premium Members Only' caches.

Setting the standard for caching lingo

On another note, Citria, are you going to the Picnic this weekend?

Citria · Post by **Citria** » 25 January 05 10:55 pm

No, I have to work

Which reminds me ... I guess it would be polite of me to submit a "can't attend" note to the event page wouldn't it?

EcoTeam · Post by **EcoTeam** » 26 January 05 9:51 pm

Lt. Sniper wrote:Well, your singling out MY caches since I am the only one that does PMO caches

My reasoning behind making caches PMO is that I believe it gives something back to the people who support the sport. All caches I release are PMO for the first 4-7 days and then are released to the public. This gives members a chance to get a FTF. While a cache is in PMO mode my mobile number is listed as a cache log so if people run into problems they can call me while at the location for clues/help.

I donÃ‚â€™t know how anyone could argue with my reasons for doing so and I wonÃ‚â€™t be changing the practice anytime soon

I'll argue that one

What if you have a cacher that has placed a hundred caches but is not a premium member (for whatever reason)?
Surely this cacher (or cachers) support the sport 100 times more than a premium member who has paid their $$ to GC.com but has not placed a single cache?

Paying your $$ to GC.com does not mean that you are supporting the sport. As Mindsocket said, a lot of people pay because they want the extra functionality provided, not to support gc.com. Placing caches and being an active member in the community is what supporting the sport is all about.

Geocaching can survive without gc.com, and gc.com can survive without financial support from it's users. But Geocaching would not exist if people didn't place caches and played the game.

A MUCH better way to "give back to those who support the sport" would be to have something like "participants only" caches available only to those who are active cache places. Now there is an idea for gc.com.au perhaps?
I think all caches should be available to everyone, but if you are going to have special caches, this is a much better system.

EcoDave

Big Red Expeditions · Post by **Big Red Expeditions** » 27 January 05 12:46 pm

Ahh, but does that follow with GSAK too? Clyde has written it for the caching community and it was such a great program that we all use it, and even though he only charges a meagre $20 for it, surely registering the product IS giving back to the sport because that enables him to work on it full time, which I'm sure you'll agree is a very good thing for the community and the game as a whole. If we all used unregistered versions, then he would have had to keep his day job, and it may have taken him months to make the changes necessary for the GC.au .gpx compatibility, something I'm sure everyone will agree gives back to the sport. Yes, you can use GSAK for free with limited functionality and you can use GC.com for free with limited functionality too, but without our contributions they would simply not be able to cope with the community's demands for updates, bandwidth, features, etc. Paying the providers, whoever they are, for what they do for the community is indeed giving to the game as a whole.

EcoTeam · Post by **EcoTeam** » 27 January 05 1:05 pm

Big Red Expeditions wrote:Ahh, but does that follow with GSAK too? Clyde has written it for the caching community and it was such a great program that we all use it, and even though he only charges a meagre $20 for it, surely registering the product IS giving back to the sport because that enables him to work on it full time, which I'm sure you'll agree is a very good thing for the community and the game as a whole. If we all used unregistered versions, then he would have had to keep his day job, and it may have taken him months to make the changes necessary for the GC.au .gpx compatibility, something I'm sure everyone will agree gives back to the sport. Yes, you can use GSAK for free with limited functionality and you can use GC.com for free with limited functionality too, but without our contributions they would simply not be able to cope with the community's demands for updates, bandwidth, features, etc. Paying the providers, whoever they are, for what they do for the community is indeed giving to the game as a whole.

Geocaching can survive without GSAK too. It's just a useful tool. In fact it's a very small tool compared to the main listing site GC.com.
"Everyone" does not use GSAK, there are MANY cachers out there who don't need to or don't want to use tools like these.
Yes, supporting the providers of these tools is helping the community as a whole, but people who place caches are BY FAR the #1 reason why the sport continues.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we shouldn't support gc.com or GSAK.

Geocaching needs two things, and only two things to survive and flourish:
1) People to place caches
2) A listing site

A listing site can cost very little to set up and maintain. It certainly does not need US$30 per year from tens of thousands of members, that's hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

In the particular case of GC.com though I am sure that they could survive without the financial support from premium members, they do get revenue from other areas like advertising. Bandwidth and server space costs money, but it's not THAT expensive.
This is why a lot of cachers choose not to pay GC.com to "support" the game. They choose to support the game by placing caches.

EcoDave

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 27 January 05 1:59 pm

EcoTeam wrote:Geocaching needs two things, and only two things to survive and flourish:
1) People to place caches
2) A listing site

And some multi-million dollar satellites. Lucky we don't have to pay for them, eh!

A listing site can cost very little to set up and maintain. It certainly does not need US$30 per year from tens of thousands of members, that's hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Indeed, and I know I'm not the only one who wonders what happens to over a quarter million US bucks of membership fees each year when next to bugger all development goes on (ooh looky, new icons!). Bandwidth and hardware costs are a drop in the ocean compared to the sorts of dollars that I can only assume are lining the pockets of Groundspeak Inc.

- Rog

The Garner Family · Post by **The Garner Family** » 27 January 05 2:58 pm

Indeed, and I know I'm not the only one who wonders what happens to over a quarter million US bucks of membership fees each year when next to bugger all development goes on

Don't underestimate the cost of infrastructure, bandwidth and support personnel. US$250,000 doesn't go that far on those sorts of items. And I'm sure both members and non-members would complain if gc.com was down for an extended period of time.

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 27 January 05 3:07 pm

It is expensive if you do it yourself. A handful of telehoused servers with oodles of bandwidth is quite cheap now, especially in the US. Their operation is a black box, so who knows what they're actually spending money on operationally.

- R

The Garner Family · Post by **The Garner Family** » 27 January 05 3:26 pm

A handful of telehoused servers with oodles of bandwidth is quite cheap now

Server hosting and server management is relatively cheap, but application house and application management, especially a custom written app (as is the gc.com site) is still expensive. If you want a third-party to guarantee availability of an app that they didn't write, they will charge $$$'s to provide those sorts of guarantees. If you don't want to outsource this then, unfortunately, you need to provide these resources inhouse yourself.

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 27 January 05 3:38 pm

Yep, my point exactly. If geo.com invested in someone to write the applications properly, they'd have a site that is fresh, reliable and evolvutionary, but they don't. They do it themselves, and not very well. -- rest of rant removed --

- R

Lt. Sniper · Post by **Lt. Sniper** » 27 January 05 3:46 pm

Your seem very anti-GC.com minded imo. This isnt about the money...