IceG8r

As the owner of a very popular Virtual, I would like to find out if there is any protection from being SPOILED by Waymarkers. There are several posts on here that actually mention my virtual in their logs, and the gallery is nothing but spoilers.

That's already in place... Found / Did Not Find

If my post bothers you so much, why don't you just not participate in it? I was asked (by GC.com) to bring it to the forum for implementation ideas.

Rejected?!?! Because you reject something, that somehow translates to Groundspeak rejecting it?! The fact that you have rejected it and they've said specifically that they are going to do it speaks volumes about where your opinion falls on the spectrum. BTW - I vote "NO", because I disagree with the implementation as outlined by the OP. It would be a disaster if implemented as a 0-5 system. If you vote no based on the OP, are you against a rating system altogether, or just that one? I'm not married to that particular idea, I just figured I should suggest something to get the ball rolling. I like the idea of a system where users can give awards to caches they like. The awards would show up on cache searches as well as show up as a search option. Show me caches that have been awarded the "Most Beatiful Hike" award Show me caches that have been awarded the "Most difficult puzzles" award Show me caches that have been awarded the "Most well hidden" award Show me caches that have been awarded the "Ingenious Container" award I think you get the drift.. The only difficulty would be determining when the award would be given to the cache. After 1 person, 2 people? 10%, 20% of visitors? I like these ideas. Agree about the difficulty though, but at least we starting to see some actual suggestions on here.

The fact of the matter is that Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals. Because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so. Waymarks are actually very similar in most respects to virtual caches and Waymarking categories are similar to locationless caches. Seriously can someone tell me how this is that much different than this, or how this is so incredibly different from this? Indeed the rules for publication are different. The community decides what categories are worthy of inclusion and the officers of each category decide whether submissions meet the criteria set for the category. That is actually better in many ways than a reviewer who is told that he has to use the very subjective "wow factor". If the community thinks its worthy and it fits the criteria the waymark gets published, whereas very few virtuals were published after the "wow factor" was introduced in 2003. The site indeed works differently than this one and I think that's a good thing. I wish there was a good way on this site to filter out the kinds of caches that don't interest me. On Waymarking it's a simple process to filter out unwanted categories. As a moderator, I would think that you would know that you can filter what types of caches come back.

Rejected?!?! Because you reject something, that somehow translates to Groundspeak rejecting it?! The fact that you have rejected it and they've said specifically that they are going to do it speaks volumes about where your opinion falls on the spectrum. BTW - I vote "NO", because I disagree with the implementation as outlined by the OP. It would be a disaster if implemented as a 0-5 system. If you vote no based on the OP, are you against a rating system altogether, or just that one? I'm not married to that particular idea, I just figured I should suggest something to get the ball rolling.

Ah, yes. The "take it to the forums" form letter. It's a classic! So do you have anything USEFUL to say?

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here. I am a little surprised to see some of the downright hostile replies I've seen so far. Just suggesting an IMPROVEMENT to the system. I didn't say I was against some sort of ratings, or "My Favorites" system. I'm pretty sure TPTB have seen all the multitude of previous threads too and if they really wanted to implement it they just would. I didn't take your post as negative. I actually found it informative in that I now know that this does have support.

Now this is good input. My original post ASKED for suggestions.

Thanks, I voted. So far it's a landslide. 100% yes (2 votes)

I thought I laid out a pretty simple criteria. I was hoping for other ideas.

Thanks for the feedback.

If Blockbuster & Amazon can figure it out why is it so difficult for cachers?

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here. I am a little surprised to see some of the downright hostile replies I've seen so far. Just suggesting an IMPROVEMENT to the system.

How is this relevant? If it's hidden, it's hidden. If somebody needs to actively HIDE something for it to qualify as a geocache, there are a heck of a lot of geocaches out there that don't qualify! The object of the virtual, how is the object hidden? As for "somebody needs to actively HIDE something for it to qualify" if a person decides that they are hiding an ammo box in the middle of a field then it is hidden in some way shape or form even if everyone that drives by can see it because hidden is the intent. If the creator of a public display decides to hide the public display then the same applies however most public displays are not hidden they are place with intention for all who come to the area to see, not find. You cant come along and take a public display and hide it, unless it is your public display to do it with, and you cant take away the owners intention if you are not the owner. The subset of people that are intended to see and pay attention to a public display are all who come and do so. This is not the same for geocaches, all who are intended to pay attention to a geocache are geocachers and those who may become. Intention to claim something is hidden is key. You've obviously never been to my virt (GCK12J) Last stop for a weary traveler. The object of this virt is something that is intentionally hidden from the masses. It is an "Easter Egg" at the WW II Memorial. At last count there were nearly 2500 log entries.

1. The fact that cacher is a transitive verb has nothing to do with intent. We use the word "caché" to refer to objects that are concealed or hidden, with or without intent. 2. Intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument with the intent to belittle them and their argument *is* insulting. It's also disingenuous, disruptive, and unnecessary. You can argue against virtual geocaches without attacking the people who like them. 3. I'm not really sure why anyone would be insulted because someone else placed a cache near theirs. As long as it's in keeping with the guidelines, being insulted by that seems like a pretty immature reaction. Most of the virtual geocaches I have visited were at sites where a traditional cache could not be placed because of rules, not because there was no PLACE to hide one. 4. I would consider taking the time to figure out the complicated labyrinth of fail that is Waymarking if Waymarks could be displayed in the same manner as benchmarks. I would be even happier to see an option to create new virtual geocaches within the existing Geocaching.com framework, even if (especially if) it meant it was rarely used and involved very strict guidelines. I wouldn't mind seeing strict guidelines for virts. When I submitted mine I was told that it was only because of the uniqueness of it that it was approved. I'd be happy if WORTHY virts could be created under/moved to the Puzzle Cache category. After all, virts usually require some sort of verification.

I'm curious what everyone thinks about having a rating system? I know I'd like to be able to filter out the stinkers. I was thinking of something like a star rating. Maybe something like this: 0 Star - Archive this pig 1 Star - I didn't hate it 2 Star - Worth the effort 3 Star - Good cache, glad I came 4 Star - Great cache 5 Star - Must see Each log could show the individual rating, and the cache page could show the average. Let me hear your thoughts and suggestions.

Virtuals don't have an additional logging requirement, they have a logging requirement since there's no logbook. In English, the word cache denotes hidden storage, but it comes from an older word that just means "to hide." The first geocache was an actual cache of stored items. It was also huge, buried, and contained items that are against Groundspeak's guidelines. If we want to get really puritanical about it, most geocaches published today bear very little resemblance to that first geocache. The game would not be what it is today if every geocache had to be like the first. Most of the virtuals I've done required more engagement than a lot of traditional caches do. A good virtual involves something hidden (or, in French, "caché") in a nice location - just like a good traditional cache does. Claiming that people who like virtuals just want extra smileys is insulting and unnecessary. Many of us like virtual caches for the experience. If you don't like them, cool - there's no need to insult others who have different tastes. You keep bringing up cache as a defense but fail to point out that virts do not qualify even under its definition. You show me an item that is listed as a virt that has been actually hidden and I'll show you caché but not a cache. Just because a word has a base in another language does not mean that the definitions are identical. You argument using caché is moot, especially when you consider that you are using the interpretation and not the definition"to cover up". Cacher as it relates to french is a transitive verb, and that means that it relates to an object. Insulting? That is choice. Make a flagrant accusation of insult, now that's insulting. I'm not insulting anyone by saying they just want an extra smilie, because if that was not the motivation behind all the posturing, they would go to Waymarking and take the time to learn and use the site, and they didn't like the site as presented try to do there what they are so insistent on doing here, ie try to get the site changed. I hear it is easier to get what you want there. If half the people that love virts and hate the Waymarking site would put as much energy into changing Waymarking to better fit their needs like they try here, it would be a better site. You want insulting? I'll argue for the creation of virts and 1 exception to the No ALR. If somebody creates a virt in a location that also allows for the placement of a cache then the cache should be allowed to say "To log a found it on this cache you can never log a find on the corresponding virtual." Heck forget all of that, can you understand how placing a cache under current guidelines at a virt location is insulting to the virt creator after considering what most people believe virts where for? Yeah saying I'm smarter than you because I could make a hide here is insulting, even if that isn't the intention. Would you be happy with virts if they where allowed but didn't gain you a smilie? It can be done, benchmarks don't figure into the count. I can be happy with that, as long as they don't interfere with my 500 cache display limit. Benchmarks don't but are tracked by GC.com. Yeah, allow Virts back but with all the site restrictions of benchmarks. Except: Alow both benchmarks and virts to have gpx downloads that includeDescription Last 5 logs [*]Icons for the marker types of benchmarks. [*]Allow both benchmarks and virts to be in PQs, with same volume restrictions and amount per day. Why is it wrong to want to track how may verts we get? Don't you track how many finds you have? What makes you think virts are easy smiles? The difficulty level of a cache has nothing to do with the inclusion of an ammo can full of junk. Why are you zelots so hung up on the fact that there are no goodies in a virt? I consider a virt a "Cache of knowledge". The word "VIRTUAL" indicates that it's not a true cache. I'd be happy if verts were only allowed in places that prohibit traditional caches. As for us going to the other site and try to change what they are doing, why should we expect them to change their site for us? We aren't trying to change this site. We are only trying to RESTORE a part of our site that we valuede. If for some reason, TPTB decided that YOUR favorite type of cache was no longer welcome, I'd support your fight to keep them. Why not give us the same respect.

Thanks, That took care of it.

Thanks. I figure my chances of getting it right the first time are nil. I'll give it a try and if I don't have any more questions I'll close this out.

I just became a premium member and want to start creating pocket queries. The info page tells me that I can't figure out how to create a pocket query on the search page. It looks the same as it did before I became a premium member.

Test