mvhayes1982

A cemetery hide with 4 DNFS and no finds in the last 18 months. Throwdowns "out of respect"! Found it (2273 finds) 09/09/2017 Love this well kept cemetary! Walked in and for some reason, It felt so serene in this entire area, I thoroughly enjoyed my visit here. Cache was a different story, with no other location around GZ and a year since the last find, I made a temporary replacement out of respect and hope others can come back and enjoy this area. Thanks for bringing me here and Game On! ^.^

The one I'm referring to is in Australia, yes.

52 ish driving along county roads just southwest of Chicago. And definitely NOT what I would consider my "best" day of caching.

I noticed that several of the new Virtual Rewards have been placed as PMO caches. While certainly within the CO's rights -- I'm not really sure what to think of that. Were there existing grandfathered Virts that were PMO?

Maybe not on that lottery ticket... Although, it's crazy that he called this one.

I saw one last time I was looking with a placed date of December, 2016! Turns out, it's apparently a Christmas light cache of some sort? GS let's the CO activate and disable it every December and January, respectively. Needless to say, I was very confused by the 12/2016 placed date.

I couldn't agree more. I think they've done a fantastic thing and, imho, done it well.

I'm not saying to "second guess" GS. I have no problem with what they've done. I simply meant that the question of how certain things are weighted is certainly a valid question for a discussion forum, and certainly for a thread titled "Criteria for being a New Virtual Reward CO (sic?)". I don't intend any of this as second guessing. Simply discussion.

I'm very curious to see if any cacher in my neck of the woods received one of these awards. I can think of 2-3 CO's who, imho, would certainly be deserving of such an honor. It'll be interesting to see over the next year if any new ones pop up.

There was one set of people: "Geocachers" That set was then judged on a mathematical criteria. 4,000 of the set were chosen to receive a Virtual Reward. The "set" was on equal footing and judged by the same criteria, from which 4,000 were chosen. The remainder of us get to hunt the new Virtual caches.

Fairness to the community as a whole. Everyone was on equal footing. Everyone judged by the same criteria.

Yes, obviously human beings programmed the algorithm. Your point?

There's one like that (at least a multi-point, urban walking Virtual) in Louisville. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC9073_reflections-snoitcelfer-2002

I think the community (at least those who participate in the forums) have a solid consensus on what makes a good cache owner. I imagine that Groundspeak (and the Almighty Algorithm) have the same idea of what makes a good cache owner. The question (and a valid one) is how these factors are weighted in the algorithm. I'd assume favorite points are involved. We know that the Cache Health Score is involved.

My first instinct would be to place one in front of Freedom Hall. The former home of University of Louisville basketball, six NCAA Final Fours, many significant boxing matches, and other sporting events in its 60+ year history. It is located on the grounds of the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center, where physical caches are not allowed. Had I actually been given one of these rewards, I would have to take some time and do some serious consideration before actually placing it. It is easy to make a decision like "where would I put a Virtual cache" when there isn't an actual virtual cache to place.

I had a trackable on my previous vehicle, but didn't transfer it when I sold the truck. (the dealership removed the sticker). I'm planning on having my code turned into some neat window sticker for my new car.

The conversation in the original thread announcing the new Virtuals has spiraled in to a couple of cachers arguing that there was nothing fair at all about how these were Virtual Rewards were chosen. Clearly, a few people care about the criteria -- but I think that is mostly sour grapes on the part of those who weren't chosen.

After reading Keystone's post a few posts up, I've removed the original content of this post. I'm excited for the new Virtuals.

I never once said that I "don't want to hide" -- I have every intention of hiding a cache or two eventually. To imply that any one "never had any chance" is, simply put, false. Every participant in this hobby had the exact same "chance" to be awarded these Virtual Rewards. It did not matter who you know. Or how many caches you've found. Or how much money you've spent in the Groundspeak store. Each of us had the exact same chance to be awarded one of these. About as fair as it could be. If you have a great idea for a virtual cache, share it with someone in these forums who has already asked the community for suggestions on their Virtual cache.

I did not receive a Virtual Reward. (As I've yet to hide a cache in this hobby, it would be absurd for me to have been given one). Yet, I sure as heck don't feel like I "lost". Reading the post on this yesterday, I felt as though I had most certainly "won". The entire geocaching community wins here. You should have heard me trying to explain the history of virtuals and the decision by Groundspeak to award these Virtuals rewards yesterday -- I had to, as I had to explain my jubilation. I do not feel as though I have been put into a "second class". I commend Groundspeak for giving the entire community something that we have been clamoring for since I joined the hobby almost 6 years ago (and far longer than that, I assume). Using an objective, mathematical formula (even if it is a secret) seems certainly the best way to identify those who would receive the responsibility of placing these.

It will be interesting to see what percentage of the New Virtuals are placed at the location of archived well-loved Virts from the past.

Let me be explicitly clear - My post was tongue in cheek. Obviously, none of us could anticipate new virtual caches being published. I appreciate the work that went into mining this data for both virtual and webcam caches.

True. I hadn't thought about it in those terms either -- 4,000 seemed like a sizable number, but I forgot about the information in this thread. Doubling is SIGNIFICANT. It will be interesting to see how many of those end up in the US. ("selfish American" right here). (just curious really, I recognize that geocaching is a truly global hobby)

I'm sure they will be coming!

Well @Optimist on the run your data for August 2017 is officially incorrect, as there has been a new virtual published today.