Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mvhayes1982

  1. A cemetery hide with 4 DNFS and no finds in the last 18 months. Throwdowns "out of respect"! 
    Found it Found it (2273 finds)

    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! ^.^

  2. On 11/28/2012 at 4:03 PM, Mr.Yuck said:

    For the record, I was totally joking when I said they would come back by 2017. Pretty much Groundspeak has publicly said they are not coming back. Is there a knowledge books article on why they got rid of them? I know Toz, if he ever see's this, has an old (long) post of his explaining the situation.

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

  3. 2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

    It would be easy enough to create on by searching for Virtual caches and sorting by placed date.  I just did that and there are quite a few.  It would be easier if the Search Form had a date range selector like on the PQ search criteria page.  Because the results aren't paged anymore but more results appended as one scrolls down the page, it's difficult to select the first "n" caches on the list.  

    I also noticed something odd.  There are a couple of virtual caches with a placed date in 2008 and one in 2010.   How did that happen?

    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. 

  4. 8 minutes ago, niraD said:

    Apparently Groundspeak put themselves in a no-win situation here. Too bad. It seems they were attempting to reward some of geocaching’s great contributors, while making new virtual caches available to the community.

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

    • Upvote 5
  5. 1 minute ago, dprovan said:

    No, I do not agree that that's a valid question for the forums. GS made some decisions. Those decisions are somewhat arbitrary by their very nature, so there are always going to be people who disagree with many of them. We already know that, so there's no reason to second guess what GS did.

    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. 

  6. 1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

    There were two sets of people. 

    Set one included around 4000 cachers.

    Set two included everyone else.

    Only one of those sets has received a Virtual Reward.

    That's not equal footing / everyone judged by same criteria.

    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.

    • Upvote 2
  7. 35 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

    As far as I could see there was only one cacher suggesting that the selection criteria were unfair.

    That question of fairness though begs another - fair to whom?

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

  8. 11 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

    I'm in the planning stages for my Reward Virtual, and the current plan is for multiple stages, with each location sharing a common theme.  All of the locations are within walking distance and could be completed in an afternoon by a visitor to the city (who is also finding other caches along the way), or on several separate trips by a local geocacher.  I think that's important to a good design, as compared to random unconnected locations that are far apart.

    I am focusing on an urban downtown area (Pittsburgh) where muggles are plentiful and good hiding spots are scarce.  Having to find a container and sign a log at the end of the walking tour could actually detract from the experience.  I think that's another test of a good virtual.

    I don't want to share any more specifics until after my cache is published. 

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

  9. 1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

     But I don't think curiosity about the algorithm results is a bad thing.

    If anything, it could help us determine better what GS is prioritizing as qualities of a "good cache owner" :)

    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. 

  10. 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. 

  11. 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.

    • Upvote 3
  12. 21 minutes ago, marcelteun said:

    Since you don't want to hide, I understand that you don't feel you lost anything. But someone who has a great idea for a vritual cache, and lives in an area that isn't suited for (m)any other type of caches, never had any chance. That is unfair.

    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.

    • Upvote 1
  13. 39 minutes ago, marcelteun said:

    Though I am positive about allowing some virtual caches to be published, I am disappointed about the way the community is divided into two classes this way. Suddenly, out of the blue HQ decides: you are the top class, you are not.  . . .   Apparently one percent of the geocache hiders won, and according to HQ the other 99% of the cache hiders cannot do this properly and and are second class geocache hiders. 

    . . .

    Once again: I will be happy that a virtual cache might show up in my neighbourhood, but I am disappointed in how this was decided and how this was implemented, by suddenly dividing the community into two classes. Most of the second class geocache hiders didn't have any chance.

    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. 

    • Upvote 4
  14. 13 minutes ago, Optimist on the run said:

    I should have added a disclaimer that the data for this month was correct to when I calculated the statistics. I hadn't anticipated more Virtuals being published, but there's always the possibility of some existing ones being archived. If someone reminds me at the end of the year, I'll run the statistics again.

    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. 

  15. 1 minute ago, dprovan said:

    Good point. It will be interesting to see the graph again at the end of next year. It hadn't occurred to me until just now how many new virtuals they're hoping for: nearly doubling the number.

    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)

  16. On 8/20/2017 at 3:46 AM, Optimist on the run said:

    Following my analysis of the number of world wide active webcam caches (see separate thread), I've done the same analysis for virtual caches. The results are similar, but there are more of them, and the rate of decline is lower.

    The number of caches at the end of each months since April 2000 is as follows:

    Jul 2017: 4586; Aug 2017: 4586;



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

    • Upvote 1
  • Create New...