releasethedogs
-
Posts
411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by releasethedogs
-
-
I guess I want to know why they spent so much money developing something new (and not as good) to replace virtuals (and locationless caches) when they could have just re-enabled them and spend very little making it so you could only make x amount a day. Spend the rest of the money drawing up detailed criteria of what GS defines as wow. That way it is not subjective, it fits the GS defination or not. If the cache does not fit that then the reviewer can say no. if the persona does not like it they can appeal to GS for a final no (or yes). I know many reviewers did not want to approved virtual caches but it really is not their say. The can always resign if they want, there are 100s of people more than willing to take their spot. This really could have taken like a month but instead it has dragged on for nearly a year with no input from the user base. When i voted to bring back virtual I thought id be getting a ghost icon not a man in a cape and i thought it would be for using my gps not kissing a frog.
-
The open submission system is a huge problem! This needs to be fixed, get special reveiwers if necessary.
Also the fact that no one "owns" the challange once it published is a big problem too. This makes it impossible to police bogus "fınds".
When it comes down to it, the better solution would have to allowed the original virts back for users to make and locationless back for GS only to make.
-
I am puzzled why ınstead of just lettıng old vırtals and locatıonless caches exıst they make thıs new abomanatıon that has zero safe guards from people uploadıng random cartoon photos ...
-
I have noticed that people have been loggıng challanges for places they have been already. For example one you need to be at the hollywood walk of fame and the user logged that challange and a cache ın arizona the same day. İ thınk they had been to the walk of fame previously so they just logged the challange. What do you thınk? ok or not? ı thınk no but wanted to know what the communıty thınks.
-
I went to Giza yesterday and took plenty of photos. You can not stand right next to the Sphinx but you can stand about 15 feet from it on a ledge. Got plenty of close and zoomed in photos. You do have to pay to enter the area but i think that goes with out saying. Pretty excited to do my earth cache when i get back to work
now all i have to do if find some one who speaks/translates arabic
-
I am going to Giza tomorrow and I got the idea to make an earthcache at the sphinx. In case you dont know there are theories that the sphinx is older than what is said by mainstream science because (apparently) their is water erosion on the body and not the head. Could I present the theories, ask the user to identify any erosion and then tell me if the theories are plausible or not? would this make a good earth cache? please let me know as I will be going in 36 hours! I am on vacation and if this is a stupid idea and wont get published, i dont want to spend all the time doing the leg work. i would rather you know -- do vacation things.
-
The "WoW" factor is only subjective because they have not defined what "WoW" is.
Okay, you are in charge of that. Get 100 experienced geocachers in a room and tell them they can't leave until they reach a commonly agreed upon definition of WOW. Then get a couple hundred thousand geocachers to agree to accept that definition. Rotsa ruck, GI.
Tell Jeremy to give me moneys to conduct such a operation and it is done. Seriously though, they just need to make a criteria and it will be up to the user to use their creativitty to make the virtual fit. If they submit it and it does not work they will either move on or make it work. If reveiwers dont want to do this there are pleanty of people who would love to be a virtual revewer. make special ones like EC have. If the comunity at large does not like the criteria then it will either be modified or it wont. no one is going to agree on everything and it cant please every one so they should not try too. The important thing is that there will be reason and logic that the revewers can go back and say "nope this does not work be of this rule, fix it and i will publish". The user can do it or not. It does not really matter if they think it is fair. Those are the rules and they can live with them or start a positive dialog to change it -- like in real life.
-
I think you missed my point. Whether you want to regard any waymark as a virtual or not; in past debates the final overriding factor that puts geocachers off the whole Waymarking scene is down to not getting their finds updated on their geocaching profile.
As I have pointed out ad nauseum, that statement is not true for me. And I don't think it is true for the majority of geocachers. It is true that in many threads that statement has been asserted, but it has never been proven or really supported by more than pretty questionable anecdotal evidence.
Ok then, you prove that it's not. Why do you rest the burden of proof on this cacher? If it is so reasonably true for the majority of cachers then it should be no problem for you to prove this is fact.
-
The "WoW" factor is only subjective because they have not defined what "WoW" is. It seems like (as I have said previously) that if Jeremy got all the lackeys and stuck them in the meeting room with a few 2 liter bottles of Jolt and a few boxes of twinkies and composed a list or a criteria of what is "WoW" then the reviewers could simply say "This cache does not meet groundspeaks definition of wow as defined here: "link". You are welcome to revise this cache and make it qualify but as is it is not publishable. this is not up to debate."
You know what they do with earth caches...
Seriously, spend 2-4 days and make a criteria and bring Virtual caches back the right way.
Another way to d it is just get some reviewers who only do virtual caches. (just a thought)
-
I will *always* use a hand held GPS. Id rather the money that could go toward a data plan instead goes toward a visa and international airfare.
-
Just make one... Like these I made for my wife and myself.
-
If they don't count as a
then no one will bother doing them and they just wasted all the time making them that they could have been working on other things that matter. No I am not talking about souvenirs; I am talking about the PQ redesign they have been talking about for ever, Making challenge caches their own type, releasing an API, updating Wherigo, making mystery caches appear in the right place if solved ect ect. -
As long as these count as a find i think they sound alright. If they don't count as a find then again I say why bother?
-
-
then why have half star ratings anyways, why not just go up to ten. 1-10 stars instead of 1-5 stars with halfs?
-
I am not saying they should add one, I am asking why there was not one in the first place.
-
All the speculation on this makes me wish that Groundspeak was more open about their deliberative process.
Every time a change comes to the game, it's treated like a Christmas present. "We've got a big surprise for you! We think you're going to love it! But, no peeking!"
I get that this is a company, not a democracy. But it'd be nice to have a little more transparency. "We're looking to do this, we're working out some of the details, but here's the plan so far." And then maybe give folks a chance to comment.
You know, treat me a little more like a customer.
Agreed and very elegantly said. Thanks.
I'll personally be a little annoyed if there isn't some limitation on virtuals (virtual power trail anyone?)
No matter how they come back I am sure that they would put some sort of safe guard in place so power trails are not possible.
-
We all know that D/T starts at one star and then increases half a star up till 5. I have always wondered why there is no half star D/T. Any one know?
-
... I don't know why it is taking so long, check the box* in your geocaching god control program that says "allow virtual caches". Then just write up a guideline similar to the one that the UN uses to define what a world heritage site is only you make it to define what a virtual geocache is, i.e. it needs to be cultural or natural, then define what those mean. Then basically define what kind of spots you can put it in. I mean it is not rocket science and really is only about a weeks worth of work. Had they asked me I would have drawn up the guidelines for free.
* check box may or may not exist
(My bolding above)
You reckon it's that easy? I bet there are many geocachers out there who would disagree with your assertion that "it needs to be cultural or natural" just for starters.
Let's just wait and see what is presented to us.
Then will be the time to release the dogs...
MrsB
I was just typing that as an example. But really, for the sake of argument, what other site should a virtual be if not cultural or natural. What else has that "WOW" factor that makes a good virtual?
That is all I was saying. Define what a "WOW" spot is then every ones fears about VR power trails and VR caches at mcdonalds/starbucks/ect will fall down like a house of cards.
-
Sounds like a good use of the Needs Maintenance Archive Log.
Fixed.
Around here the locals ignore maintenance logs, but a NA will get them out there so it is not archived.
Korean caches as a whole don't realize that archival is not bad -- it is a important par of a game. I give it another few year and Seoul is going to be mega saturated -- with micros/nanos which is the only size they hide (even in the mountains).
-
All my milestones are special by design. Hopefully next month i will log #900 at Petra, which is some where i have wanted to go my whole life.
-
actually if you make it a challenge cache that says you have to write a log on another cache that is 500+ words it could be allowed*. thats the difference between ALR and challenge caches. ALR is performed after you find the cache and a challenge cache is performed before you find the cache (and is related to geocaching [or Waymarking]).
*you still need to talk to your reviewer.
-
if 30 bucks a year breaks your bank you have bigger worries than geocaching.
-
So does any one no what the new virtuals will look like? Have they even told the reveiwers yet?
My reviewer claimed several months ago that they have been kept in the loop and they were given documentation about them.
I suspect that on the day that the "new virtuals" are turned on these forums will be all a buzz with the complaints of the disappointed. No matter what they do SOMEONE won't be happy.
Of course this is how it will be because Groundspeak makes the choice to not tell us anything (the people who pay for their service) until its rolled out. Just like with Souvenirs, which if memory served me correctly they rolled them out and then it was over a week before they told us anything about them. In January Jeremy claimed that "quality of the game is a major theme in 2011", yeah you can start with having an actual dialog with your users instead of having us play 58,000 questions.
So does any one no what the new virtuals will look like? Have they even told the reveiwers yet?
PathfinderMark's comments in a previous post match what I've been told.
My understanding is that the 'new virtuals' will have a different name and format and not have an icon like current ones or be counted as part of our find stats. The very first of this new entity is expected to be the Tunnel of Light (of APE cache fame) and should be released by the Aug. 21 Going APE...All Over Again (revised) event.
Then they would not be geocaches. They would by 'whymarking wannabes'? Why bother?
exactly.
There was an old saw ....if it ain't broke don't fix it. Applies to virtual caches too. No need to reinvent the wheel , just bring em back
Another exactly. I don't know why it is taking so long, check the box* in your geocaching god control program that says "allow virtual caches". Then just write up a guideline similar to the one that the UN uses to define what a world heritage site is only you make it to define what a virtual geocache is, i.e. it needs to be cultural or natural, then define what those mean. Then basically define what kind of spots you can put it in. I mean it is not rocket science and really is only about a weeks worth of work. Had they asked me I would have drawn up the guidelines for free.
* check box may or may not exist
then no one will bother doing them and they just wasted all the time making them that they could have been working on other things that matter. No I am not talking about souvenirs; I am talking about the PQ redesign they have been talking about for ever, Making challenge caches their own type, releasing an API, updating Wherigo, making mystery caches appear in the right place if solved ect ect.
Challenges Counting as Finds
in General geocaching topics
Posted · Edited by releasethedogs
In that case you copy and paste an explanation that the listing does not meet the guidelines (That GS can define how they see fit) and they need to re read the guidelines to make it work -- just like earth caches. Its a job and it does not matter if you want to do it if it is part of the job. If you don't like it then you can find a new job, you have that choice. For example: I really don't want to grade homework assignments but I do because it is part of the job and recently the school has forced the teachers to give and grade a new test in the middle of the year. Yes this is extra work but I do it because it is part of the job. If I felt strongly enough then I could find a different job.
What it comes down to is tell them once it does not meet the rules and they have the option to appeal the decision. If it wins appeal then it is published if not archived.
further more for each reviewer who would quit over this there is 100 who would feel his spot. There needs to be more reviewers anyways. I think that is the root problem. For example: I can't believe that Japan does not have a dedicated reviewer. The world should be split up into areas depending on how active the community is in that area. Counties (usa) up to whole regions like Central Aisa or West Africa.