Forum: Using The Website
Topic: what is the view on sharing caches between sites?
started by: schwim
Posted by schwim on May 10 2007,7:46 amHowdy guys,
Found out about this site last night while trolling through a GPS FAQ trying to figure out how to replace the protective screen in my Meridian.
I never figured out how to replace my screen, but I was stoked to find an "alternative" caching site. My brother an I are avid cachers, and for years we discussed starting a caching site, simply because we both feel that the GC.com site has gotten a little too large and therefore politically correct and sometimes the hoops you have to jump through to end up with a nice cache is more trouble than placing the cache itself. We both thought a smaller community would roll back the clock some. It seems that I got my wish without having to write a single line of code.... Yay, me!
My conundrum wrapped in an enigma:
Should I move some of my listings over? I know that it would help populate the listings for my area some but I don't know how helpful this would be. Who benefits? There's very few active cachers from my area on this site, so I don't think it's helping out any existing members.
Also, both sites having the same content wouldn't help Navicaching IMHO. Any new visitor is likely to end up at GC.com first, and once they see all the bells and whistles, we're unlikely to lure them away. Any guys playing both sites will eventually tire of finding dupe caches and will just stick with one site.
So what does it?
If you can't compete with features, than you have to compete with value in content. My thoughts for any Navicachers who play on both sites:
When you place a cache for one of the sites, place another cache for the other site in a nearby(but different) location. This does a couple of things:
1) When you notify your buds on one site that there's a second cache listed on this site nearby, your local member base will increase. A lot of cachers are suckers for numbers, regardless of the site.
2) Maintenance: When you're checking on one, you're close to the other.
As more people know to come to this site to grab an extra cache or two, the local participating group will grow, and the activity level will begin to increase. As it is now, I couldn't cache exclusively on this site if I wanted to. There's no caches! If I can get the same caches on this site as I can on the other, I'd use the other site to send them to my phone, and if I'm feeling especially slimy, I'll log them at both sites, which would make me a weasel.
I'm going out today to finish a multiple stager for the other site today, and I'll be placing one for Navicache while I'm at it. I'm then going to notify our buddies to let them know and to see if they want to play on the new site. I'll then see how my theory works.
I would be very interested in any thoughts you guys might have on this matter. Do you guys do it? Do you feel dirty when you do?
Posted by PC Medic on May 10 2007,3:15 pmA few points.
Even though there may not be many cachers in your area currently visiting, many give the reason that it is because there are not yet many (or any listings) for their area. We all know the 'real' solution to that, but always seems to be a 'what came first the chicken or the egg' sort of situation. I say(as do many others) cross post.
Cross-posting also ensures your cache listing is available during temporary (or permanent) down time of another site. Often herar the 'that will never happen' response to that, but I always say, Never say never! It also gives those that have decided to call someplace else home the opportunity to keep their past finds not to mention those that do not use other sites (yes we have some).
No problem with logging on both sites, it's actually encouraged as well. Like you said, a lot of cachers are all about numbers and we have long had the scoring system here.
We also offer virtual's and other cache types that some choose to ignore and are dedicated to always providing at least one interface which allows access to all caches in the database for everyone. No need to 'pay-to-play' unless you choose to do so.
Oh and by the way.... welcome
Posted by schwim on May 11 2007,6:28 am
Thanks very much for the welcome & response,
Well, I planted my first one, and I'll see how it goes. I understand your points completely. I guess some of it is dictated by your location and the available caches. When I found this site, I was bummed to find that two of the five caches within 50 miles was a cross post.
Concerning your other point, I don't think that paid memberships is bad. I do however think that disallowing content if you're not the right type of member is lame. I wasn't thrilled when Jeremy implemented that. It seemed to almost immediately create an "us vs. them" mentality. Not being able to print caches along a route is one thing to withhold, but not being able to do a cache because you didn't pay a membership fee is quite another IMHO.
Anyway, thanks very much for taking the time to do this and keeping caching from becoming a monopoly!
Posted by Scout on May 11 2007,8:03 pm
What does this mean?
Posted by schwim on May 11 2007,9:42 pmHi there scout,
On gc.com, when they introduced premium memberships, they also introduced caches that you could classify to be only for the premium members. That's what I was referencing.
Posted by Scout on May 12 2007,9:51 amThanks. That was a long time ago. It was a violation of the pledge Jeremy Irish made to never make geocaching.com a pay-to-play site. He was charging not only for his added features, but for access to the coordinates of some of the caches listed on his site. But his customers didn't mind and that's the measure that many of his customers consider the bottom line, literally.
Posted by TeamDotOne on May 12 2007,9:57 amschwim, we're behind you as far as cross-posting caches. We are doing that right now, and hope to contribute more in the future, exclusively to Navicache.
We would like to see Navicache grow
Posted by schwim on May 12 2007,10:10 pmHi guys, and thanks for your responses.
RE: ransoming caches: I don't mind one bit trying to make a business of it. It helps everyone when the developer takes a larger interest in it. IMHO however, Jeremy made a couple of decisions that hurt the community spirit. Charging for added features is A-OK in my book. Charging to play is lame. I guess some would say that the actual cache placer is making it a pay-to-play cache, but that's semantics.
RE: populating the db: If the weather holds, we'll be going out tomorrow through a popular caching area and I hope to get one planted for NC from each member of the team. The way I've been doing it is planting a GC.com cache in the area and then referencing the NC cache in the log. I think this will get some people to log their finds. Hopefully, it will be like seeding a torrent; they'll plant one and so on and so forth.