Members Only Caches...

[+SilverMarc]

I wonder if the site would generate more "conversions" to "Premium Members" if instead of only seeing the "Members Only Cache" logo (and the "not allowed..." page) for those caches, we all could see the full page of information and logs with only the true critical information missing: the coordinates and the map. (And quite possibly not have the ability to decrypt the clues or add logs).

 

Many visitors would probably read over some of the caches that are "off limits" to them, and be interested enough to sign up and make payment so they could see the full info.

 

Just a thought.

 

--Marc

February 16, 2005 @ 12:19 AM

N40° 46.565' W073° 58.756'

Edited February 16, 2005 by SilverMarc

[+planetrobert]

i really like that idea

[CoyoteRed]

Many visitors would probably read over some of the caches that are "off limits" to them, and be interested enough to sign up and make payment so they could see the full info.

Or not, considering some MOC aren't that interesting.

 

That's not to mention you'd force a bunch of the MOC owners to have to modify the page because the hide is based on non-members not being able to read the description.

 

No, not really a good idea.

 

I always thought teaser PQs would be a much better tact.

[+sbell111]

I like the idea, but CR brings up a good point. If this idea was implemented, how would it affect member-only puzzle caches?

[+BigHank]

I think it would be a big letdown... I know that's the way it was for me. I thought that the MOC's were really something "special"....and when I finally broke down and decided to pony up the money for premium membership, I couldn't wait to see some of them. What a disappointment. I'm sure glad they weren't the main reason for paying up....the PQ's were. I too think the idea of "teaser" PQ's would be much more of an enticement to join.

[+ShadowAce]

MOC caches are as good or as lame as any other cache hidden.

 

I have found MOC caches where I just had to cry when we finished and I have found some that were amazing. I created a few MOC caches myself because it allows a member to get the FTF honors, after it has been found, I remove the MOC option.

 

I also used it as an MOC because an owner can see who has looked at a cache page via an audit log with an MOC cache. This let me know how many members were actually interested in a puzzle I designed. After a couple of weeks and two finders, I removed the MOC status.

 

Using MOC as a way to entice people to pay is not a great idea in my humble opinion as Groundspeak has no say in what type of cache it is. Another breath strip shoved under a bush used for dogs to pee on is not something I would really want to use as a reason to get people to start paying for membership.

[+snake1411]

I don't think seeing the cache page would help all that much for this one: NUMB3R5 - H1GHL1GH75 1N H1S70RY. But I'm biased. Course if you solve it then you know where to go of course, but it's mighty hard to solve.

[+Jeep_Dog]

How many members-only caches are really out there? I haven't seen any yet in any of my searches. I'm certainly not disgruntled about this fact, I'm just curious as to the numbers...

 

I'm trying to stay objective in reading this "history" of geocaching. I'm finding this both interesting and irritating. I put history in quotation marks, since the writing is obviously slanted, almost to the point of obsurdity, to slam Jeremy. In reading actual postings and emails, I realize Jeremy isn't perfect, but heck, who is? Computer and tech geeks are not exactly renowned for their social skills... At any rate, I was considering the "evil move of GC.COM to make the sport a pay-to-play sport" concept, and my experience thus far as a premium member trigger my instincts that this concept is certainly as ludicrous as some of the other assertions made in the "history."

[CoyoteRed]

How many members-only caches are really out there? I haven't seen any yet in any of my searches.

Considering you're a paying member, you can create a non-running PQ to find out.

 

I did a search for MOC for 500 mile radius. I came up with a mere 464. If you compare this to a PQ of only 1/1 micro traditionals which bumps the 500 cache limit at 260 miles, that should tell you something.

 

In SC, permanent MOCs run less than 2 percent. Most of the ones I familiar with are MOCs for reasons other than rewarding members or trying to convert non-paying members.

 

On a whole, I'm not a fan of the MOC concept.

[+The Leprechauns]

I'm with CR here. I have a non-running PQ for MOC's also, just for when this issue comes up in the forums! I have to go 80 miles away to locate the nearest MOC from my house (ignoring one famous "joke" cache). To get a list of 100, I have to stretch 240 miles, gathering MOC's in Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio and eastern Pennsylvania. Many of the MOC's are in an area that has had a cache maggot problem. Fortunately that has never been an issue in my home area, which is why there are no MOC's here.

 

I appreciate JeepDog's objective question and objective reading of the "history" of the use of MOC's as part of an evil plot for world domination through subversive religion masquerading as science.

 

I see little practical benefit from the programming resource expenditure that would be needed to offer a preview of MOC cache pages while obscuring the coordinates and the map links (which would also give away the coordinates).

[+flask]

i simply ignore MOC's. i don't like them.

[+Team Perks]

There are plenty of caches where you really wouldn't even need the coordinates, or even a map, to find the cache anyway.

 

If the cache page tells me "Take a walk through scenic Westside Park and find a cache" and the clue tells me it's in the bushes behind the park bench...well, all I need to do is go to Westside Park and look behind every bench that's near a hedge.

 

I've never seen a MOC that was so spectacular it was worth joining for that purpose alone. Even my own MOC's haven't been particularly exceptional hides (they're MOC's for practical reasons, i.e. the containers are delicate and I want to minimize how often they're found). Seems more trouble than it's worth to me.

[+Jeep_Dog]

Considering you're a paying member, you can create a non-running PQ to find out.

Oh, golly. Thanks for the suggestion! I didn't even consider the PQs. I'm a newbie premium member, and still figuring out all the nifty capabilities available to those of us "paying to play."

 

Well, I ran the query, with some interesting results.

 

Less than 100 miles: 3 MOCs

Less than 200 miles: 29 additional MOCs.

Less than 300 miles: 6 additional MOCs.

Less than 400 miles: 5 additional MOCs.

Less than 500 miles: 4 addtional MOCs.

 

Total within 500 miles is a "staggering" 47 member-only caches. Wow, hardly an incentive to joing the "pay to play" club. Objective lens shows that portion of the "history" is bogus.

 

Oh, I'll hardly go out of my way to hit those 4 MOCs 400 miles or more away.

[Jeremy]

I wonder if the site would generate more "conversions" to "Premium Members" if instead of only seeing the "Members Only Cache" logo (and the "not allowed..." page) for those caches, we all could see the full page of information and logs with only the true critical information missing: the coordinates and the map. (And quite possibly not have the ability to decrypt the clues or add logs).

Contrary to what some say, the intent of Member only caches was not to encourage people to become Premium Members. I don't plan to offer this capability to entice people to upgrade their membership. Instead, I'd rather provide new features like ignore lists.

 

Thanks for the suggestion, however. Separate from my reasons above, creating this feature would upset a lot of geocachers who want their entire listing hidden from view.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Jeremy

[+planetrobert]

Ok, i take back my previous statement... this isn't the greatest idea.

 

maybe something different would be better. like a sample week where regular users could get 1 pq each day for a week

Edited February 17, 2005 by ralann