Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Jeremy

Read Me First!

Recommended Posts

Firstly, we didn't know that virtual caches were being discouraged and but for wondering what Waymarking was all about, would only have found out after we'd done all the hard work and had it rejected

 

That is how I found out, and then spent a few weeks arguing with my "Friendly Neighbourhood Reviewer", then ultimately made it a Micro Cache.

 

We still think there are plenty of places that are extremely interesting and warrant a cache, but you can't place a box or even a micro, for environmental reasons. We don't have a problem with "proving that you can't place a micro", but we feel that the facility should still be there. There is no reason why a virtual can't appear on BOTH Waymarking and GeoCaching, with Waymarking being more flexible. We're sure there will be a lot of overlap and they ARE supposed to be separate sites at the momement aren't they?

 

Anyhow, however good Waymarking may be (or become), we see this as a loss to GeoCaching at the moment. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I understand how you feel... I really do.

 

As long as you are prepare for how it might go, then if you really want to place a Virtual Cache, then go ahead.

 

If anything, hopefully you are successful and are able to provide whatever requirements your local approver/reviewer feels are sufficient.

 

I certainly am not going to try to talk you out of it. I'm not a reviewer for Groundspeak/Geocaching, so I am not in a position to officially say anything. I was just saying what the experience is for us in Canada. Your mileage may vary.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for your support Blue Quasar. We've recently found out who our local reviewers are, so we're thinking of contacting them and asking how they'd feel given that these would be part of an extended puzzle, if there were no alternative that is...

 

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
There is no reason why a virtual can't appear on BOTH Waymarking and GeoCaching, with Waymarking being more flexible.

Yes there is. The reason is the definition of a virtual is a moving target. Can you define a virtual cache?

Share this post


Link to post
There is no reason why a virtual can't appear on BOTH  Waymarking and GeoCaching, with Waymarking being more flexible.

Yes there is. The reason is the definition of a virtual is a moving target. Can you define a virtual cache?

 

Sorry Jeremy, I don't understand.

 

I thought the difference between a traditional cache and a virtual cache was simply that instead of finding a location that holds a box with a logbook, there isn't a box with a logbook.

 

How is that a moving target?

 

:laughing:

 

Bambi

Share this post


Link to post

You're taking the term "moving target" literally. Instead, answer my request to define what a virtual cache is. "Whatever is not a physical cache" is not the answer. In fact, I don't know what it is either so help me out.

Share this post


Link to post
You're taking the term "moving target" literally. Instead, answer my request to define what a virtual cache is. "Whatever is not a physical cache" is not the answer. In fact, I don't know what it is either so help me out.

 

Nope, sorry, still don't get it. :laughing: But to answer your request...

 

I've always considered caching to be the finding of a location of interest with a box and a log associated with it. Sometimes there is more emphasis on the location which is of particular interest, and sometimes there's more emphasis on the log, where you go somewhere and the location isn't all that fascinating. We find that we prefer the ones where the location is worth a visit on it's own merits, but that's by the by.

 

By this definition, I'd simply consider a virtual cache as one where there is no emphasis on a log. Another way of looking at it could be that a virtual is smaller than a micro, so small that not only is it unable to hold swaps, but also logs.

 

The latter suggests that you can therefore make anywhere a virtual cache (and I guess this is the point of Waymarking), but then I never had a problem with limiting virtual caches to place where you can't place a micro for environmental reasons, quite the opposite.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Bambi.

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy is of course refering to how to define "Wow". Early on he saw that allowing any virtual cache wouldn't work. People would submit every historic marker, street sign, public art, etc. Geocaching would soon be overrun with virtual caches and even if you relaxed the 528 foot rule for virtual caches, people would complain about having to search through 5 pages of virtual caches to find one physical cache. So the "wow" requirement was added. Unfortunately "wow" is subjective. The volunteer approvers had a thankless job of determining wow. After a while they got tired of people complaining on the forums or in personal email that their great idea for a virtual was rejected. So Jeremy wants to get rid of virtuals and use Waymarking as an alternative. With lots of categories, he thinks that even ideas that would make lame virtual caches would get approved as waymarks.

 

But this just creates new problems.

 

1) What is a good category? Should there be a category for cracks in the sidewalk? Are some things just not a good idea to list?

 

2) Who decides if a waymark fits a category? It looks like the category manager or team will decide. But we have already seen that people will complain when their waymark is rejected on some technicality. Have we really fixed "wow"?

 

3) Virtual cache seekers enjoyed finding virtual cache because really lame ones were rejected. Most that got approved had to jump through all sort of hoops. By making it tough to get virtual caches approved you had a good chance of going "Wow' when you found one. On Waymarking, how will a cache seeker sift through all the lame waymarks to find the interesting ones. Certainly some people have a special interest in one or more categories, but some people would like a list of "wow" waymarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Jeremy is of course refering to how to define "Wow". Early on he saw that allowing any virtual cache wouldn't work. People would submit every historic marker, street sign, public art, etc. Geocaching would soon be overrun with virtual caches and even if you relaxed the 528 foot rule for virtual caches, people would complain about having to search through 5 pages of virtual caches to find one physical cache. So the "wow" requirement was added. Unfortunately "wow" is subjective. The volunteer approvers had a thankless job of determining wow. After a while they got tired of people complaining on the forums or in personal email that their great idea for a virtual was rejected. So Jeremy wants to get rid of virtuals and use Waymarking as an alternative. With lots of categories, he thinks that even ideas that would make lame virtual caches would get approved as waymarks.

 

OK, now I get it! This was something I wasn't even aware existed until I found out about Waymarking.

 

But this just creates new problems.

 

1) What is a good category? Should there be a category for cracks in the sidewalk? Are some things just not a good idea to list?

 

2) Who decides if a waymark fits a category? It looks like the category manager or team will decide. But we have already seen that people will complain when their waymark is rejected on some technicality. Have we really fixed "wow"?

 

3) Virtual cache seekers enjoyed finding virtual cache because really lame ones were rejected. Most that got approved had to jump through all sort of hoops. By making it tough to get virtual caches approved you had a good chance of going "Wow' when you found one. On Waymarking, how will a cache seeker sift through all the lame waymarks to find the interesting ones. Certainly some people have a special interest in one or more categories, but some people would like a list of "wow" waymarks.

 

OK, so this explains why we've enjoyed our virtuals and the difference between Waymarking and GeoCaching. But what is wrong with saying - no virtuals except in where there is a Wow factor and there are environmental considerations?

 

I'm not simply being difficult, I just don't get why part of our game is going.

 

Bambi.

Share this post


Link to post
OK, so this explains why we've enjoyed our virtuals and the difference between Waymarking and GeoCaching. But what is wrong with saying - no virtuals except in where there is a Wow factor and there are environmental considerations?

Because this is what we have today on GC.com, and the approvers are tired of having to explain why any given submitted virtual doesn't have enough "Wow" to qualify as a virtual. I can't blame them.

 

In any case, why split virtuals across two sites? What's wrong with having them just on the Waymarking site?

 

I've actually seen very few effective arguments for leaving virtuals in any form on the GC.com site.

Share this post


Link to post
OK, so this explains why we've enjoyed our virtuals and the difference between Waymarking and GeoCaching.  But what is wrong with saying - no virtuals except in where there is a Wow factor and there are environmental considerations?

Because this is what we have today on GC.com, and the approvers are tired of having to explain why any given submitted virtual doesn't have enough "Wow" to qualify as a virtual. I can't blame them.

 

Well, for what it's worth, I think the reason for the angst is that it's not clearly and explicitly stated that a wow factor is necessary (or at least I haven't found it yet... :laughing: ).

 

In any case, why split virtuals across two sites? What's wrong with having them just on the Waymarking site?

 

I've actually seen very few effective arguments for leaving virtuals in any form on the GC.com site.

 

Waymarking seems to me to encompass so much more than GeoCaching and in many respects I think it will cover too much. GeoCaches are generally set in places people want to visit for because they are interesting. WayMarks seem to include much more. I'm not arguing against it, but why do I want to trawl through lists of supermarkets, public toilets etc to find something when I don't even know what it is that I'm looking for!

 

The point about virtual caches is that they have something else... a certain... wow factor?!?! :laughing:

 

Bambi.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not arguing against it, but why do I want to trawl through lists of supermarkets, public toilets etc to find something when I don't even know what it is that I'm looking for!

This is the intent of the Popularity Filter. If the masses decide that supermarkets and public toilets are not categories of particular interest, these categories will be pushed down in the rankings, keeping them from dominating the listings.

 

The point about virtual caches is that they have something else... a certain... wow factor?!?! 

And the point about removing virtuals from GC.com is that we can't possibly adequately define what this "certain... wow factor" is. So why continue to try?

 

With Waymarking, we don't have to. And filtering, along with proper category creation and management, should take care of the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not arguing against it, but why do I want to trawl through lists of supermarkets, public toilets etc to find something when I don't even know what it is that I'm looking for!

This is the intent of the Popularity Filter. If the masses decide that supermarkets and public toilets are not categories of particular interest, these categories will be pushed down in the rankings, keeping them from dominating the listings.

 

OK, but sometimes I might want to look for a particular facility too.

 

The way I see it, if I want to go and find a "virtual cache" I look on GeoCaching.com, but if I want to find a supermarket/castle/garden/toilet I search on Waymarking.com.

 

The point is that I want to be able to go and find an interesting place, which may or may not have a plastic box and a logbook. Do you see what I mean? I don't distinguish between whether it has a log or not, it's still a cache to me.

 

The point about virtual caches is that they have something else... a certain... wow factor?!?! 

And the point about removing virtuals from GC.com is that we can't possibly adequately define what this "certain... wow factor" is. So why continue to try?

 

With Waymarking, we don't have to. And filtering, along with proper category creation and management, should take care of the rest.

 

I don't see that it's that difficult though, since if you can, then you place a micro. If you can't then it has to have something special about it, and if it doesn't have something special then you probably WILL be able to place a micro.

 

BTW, I'm basing all this on a particular cache which was really, really interesting, and I don't think could have been done as anything other than a virtual. I'd hate to think that other cachers could miss out... (cache in question is Behive Coke Ovens)

 

Bambi.

 

Edited by Bambi&Thumper

Share this post


Link to post
The way I see it, if I want to go and find a "virtual cache" I look on GeoCaching.com, but if I want to find a supermarket/castle/garden/toilet I search on Waymarking.com.

But what do you do if you want to find specific types of interesting things (like coke ovens for example) on GC.com? You can't, unless somebody happened to name their cache using the words 'Coke' and 'Oven', or unless you happen to stumble into a cache listing which mentions that there is a coke oven nearby.

 

With Waymarking, you can actively search for such a place, or something similar, because all the waymarks are neatly organized. The only thing WM.com won't ever give you is a smilie on your GC.com finds page for your visit to each of these interesting locations.

 

I guess I'm just not understanding your argument for keeping virtuals on GC.com. What difference does it make which site you use to find your 'interesting place'? GC.com does not own a monopoly on interesting places. WM.com will (and does) have plenty to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
I'd hate to think that other cachers could miss out... (cache in question is Behive Coke Ovens)

I don't find that location particularly interesting and it wouldn't fit my definition of an interesting "wow" location. This one listing points out the subjective nature of the virtual cache. For those people who like that sort of thing, however, they could create a category dedicated to them. For example, this waymark category for Iron Furnace Ruins.

 

I don't get the "cache so small it doesn't exist" virtual cache description you offer. I also don't get how a virtual cache can get defined at all. To me it is just a waymark without a waymark category to fit into (at this moment).

Share this post


Link to post

Oops. I gotta read closer. cache_test_dummies pointed out that waymark category already.

Share this post


Link to post

Haven't posted anything for a while (took me a bit to recover from my burns :( ). Jeremy, just for general info, any idea on when new categories might be added? As an addendum to my question, I would still suggest adding only three or four at a time (most populars in a vote to determine?), to keep things under control. Also, is there any way to determine if a "locationless cache" has been moved to Waymarking? I specifically am looking for the lighthouses. They were recommended as a Waymarking category, but then someone (I think Jeremy) noted that they were already covered by a locationless cache. I have some I would like to add as waymarks when and if the locationless cache comes over to Waymarking. If the locationless cache owner doesn't move it, will the cache me archived and a category for lighthouses established? Thanks for your help, I'm still trying to figure this out. I am a lot more positive about Waymarking, though, than I was before. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

B&T mentioned the WOW Factor and seeing things of interest.

 

To me this is easy to explain with Waymarking...

 

I will avoid Catagories that are boring, based on personal preferrence.

 

I will seek out Catagories that are interesting.

 

Everyone knows what they like, and based upon the Virtuals you've done, you know the type of things to search out in a Catagory.

 

As for the definiton of Virtuals... I am surprised that Jeremy even opened that door up, and based upon the flood of comments.... I like Virtuals that have my WOW to them.

 

Your WOW may vary

 

Seek to discover your version of WOW, and hopefully there will be lots of Waymarks just like it, across the world.

 

<_< The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

But what do you do if you want to find specific types of interesting things (like coke ovens for example) on GC.com? You can't, unless somebody happened to name their cache using the words 'Coke' and 'Oven', or unless you happen to stumble into a cache listing which mentions that there is a coke oven nearby.

 

With Waymarking, you can actively search for such a place, or something similar, because all the waymarks are neatly organized. The only thing WM.com won't ever give you is a smilie on your GC.com finds page for your visit to each of these interesting locations.

 

I guess I'm just not understanding your argument for keeping virtuals on GC.com. What difference does it make which site you use to find your 'interesting place'? GC.com does not own a monopoly on interesting places. WM.com will (and does) have plenty to offer.

 

I don't find that location particularly interesting and it wouldn't fit my definition of an interesting "wow" location. This one listing points out the subjective nature of the virtual cache. For those people who like that sort of thing, however, they could create a category dedicated to them. For example, this waymark category for Iron Furnace Ruins.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that I didn't know that I'd be interested in coke ovens, in fact if faced with a category for coke ovens, I'd probably ignore it.

 

The fact was, we went to this one because it was there as a virtual and we thought, "Why not?"

 

I'm not arguing against the idea of Waymarking, I can see that it has both a place and a purpose, and some people are really taken by it (at the moment we aren't quite as taken by it as we were when first faced with GeoCaching, but that's by the by). My argument is that whether there is a locationless cache/virtual cache equivalent should not affect whether there is a Waymarking category or WayMark, ie they should stand separate. Thus virual caches should continue on the grounds that they are there now.

 

If you feel the need to define the "WOW" factor, maybe a way round it would be to say that virtuals should be visited by another local experienced cacher prior to acceptance (who remains annonymous). Some places (like the Beehive Coke Ovens) may not sound so exciting, but it's the location that's interesting.

 

We just think that the ability to put up virtual caches should still be there, even if in practice, very few are actually listed.

 

Bambi.

 

Share this post


Link to post
I don't get the "cache so small it doesn't exist" virtual cache description you offer. I also don't get how a virtual cache can get defined at all. To me it is just a waymark without a waymark category to fit into (at this moment).

 

Given that you're developing Waymarking.com I guess that's not suprising! <_<

 

Please try to understand though, that to me (and many other cachers) a virtual is simply a cache without a box/log. I know cachers who've done caches that they've known have been muggled just for fun. Maybe that's in the spirit of Waymarking, but since it's not doing any harm, why can't we keep virtuals (and earth/webcam/etc) caches as they are? Where there is overlap, places will appear on both - that's what you've already said isn't it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe that's in the spirit of Waymarking, but since it's not doing any harm, why can't we keep virtuals (and earth/webcam/etc) caches as they are? Where there is overlap, places will appear on both - that's what you've already said isn't it?

Waymarking and Geocaching aren't capitalized in the middle. They never were.

 

What you need to realize is that the system of defining and listing virtuals is broken and no one who had to deal with them wants to do it that way anymore. What you need to realize is that the nature of a virtual is subjective and creates a lot of angst for people who attempted to make virtuals fun and interesting but continually get harassed when ones are denied that are neither fun nor interesting. You haven't been able to define what a virtual is yet and are shrugging off that request so you don't seem to have a solution for it either.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't get the "cache so small it doesn't exist" virtual cache description you offer. I also don't get how a virtual cache can get defined at all. To me it is just a waymark without a waymark category to fit into (at this moment).

 

Given that you're developing Waymarking.com I guess that's not suprising! <_<

Another example of shirking the question.

 

Please try to understand though, that to me (and many other cachers) a virtual is simply a cache without a box/log.

 

That doesn't make any sense at all. What the heck is that? A leaf on the ground could be a virtual in your definition. Not even a very good leaf at that. In fact, any place on the planet could be what you are defining here. If you want every place on the planet simply make some random coordinates and go see what is there.

 

Maybe that's in the spirit of Waymarking, but since it's not doing any harm, why can't we keep virtuals (and earth/webcam/etc) caches as they are? Where there is overlap, places will appear on both - that's what you've already said isn't it?

 

But, you see, they are doing harm. They can't be defined well and lots of people get upset over the subjective nature of virtuals and when their virtuals are denied.

Share this post


Link to post

What you need to realize is that the system of defining and listing virtuals is broken and no one who had to deal with them wants to do it that way anymore. What you need to realize is that the nature of a virtual is subjective and creates a lot of angst for people who attempted to make virtuals fun and interesting but continually get harassed when ones are denied that are neither fun nor interesting. You haven't been able to define what a virtual is yet and are shrugging off that request so you don't seem to have a solution for it either.

 

Jeremy, I have not been "shrugging off" anything, not deliberately anyhow.

 

Let me spell it out. We haven't done that many caches and only in the UK, but in our experience all the traditional caches have been placed in "interesting places". and we'd have enjoyed visiting most of them if there wasn't a box there. Therefore a virtual is simply a traditional where there isn't a box - to us!.

 

I agree that there may have been a risk that there would be too many virtuals and you had to tighten up the definition to make the places "worth visiting". I have no problem with this, but appreciate that this can be a problem when people who are less forgiving than I object to having their caches denied.

 

We (and from what I read many others too) still like the extra dimension that virtuals etc give, and I'm trying to help you to understand that in the hope that you may see a way to keeping this dimension of the game.

 

Bambi.

 

Share this post


Link to post
I don't get the "cache so small it doesn't exist" virtual cache description you offer. I also don't get how a virtual cache can get defined at all. To me it is just a waymark without a waymark category to fit into (at this moment).

 

Given that you're developing Waymarking.com I guess that's not suprising! <_<

Another example of shirking the question.

 

Please try to understand though, that to me (and many other cachers) a virtual is simply a cache without a box/log.

 

That doesn't make any sense at all. What the heck is that? A leaf on the ground could be a virtual in your definition. Not even a very good leaf at that. In fact, any place on the planet could be what you are defining here. If you want every place on the planet simply make some random coordinates and go see what is there.

 

Maybe that's in the spirit of Waymarking, but since it's not doing any harm, why can't we keep virtuals (and earth/webcam/etc) caches as they are? Where there is overlap, places will appear on both - that's what you've already said isn't it?

 

But, you see, they are doing harm. They can't be defined well and lots of people get upset over the subjective nature of virtuals and when their virtuals are denied.

 

I think I've tried to answer most of this in the post above, but I repeat THERE IS AND NEVER HAS BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO SHIRK ANY QUESTION. Saying this just feels like you are putting your fingers in your ears and going, "LA LA LA LAAAA," very loudly - I am doing my best to answer your questions.

 

With respect to your definition of a virtual, I mearly meant that since gc.com is older than wm.com and this is your new project, that you and the rest of TPTB are clearly really enthusiastic about it and want us to be too.

 

My definition of a virtual may be based on the fact that the caches we've done have all been really good - traditional or virtual (or maybe we just have lower standards?).

 

All I can do is repeat, "We (and from what I read many others too) still like the extra dimension that virtuals etc give, and I'm trying to help you to understand that, in the hope that you may see a way to keeping this dimension of the game."

 

I appreciate the time you are taking to answer my posts, but please bear with me on this, I am not simply making a fuss for the sake of it, I (like everyone) feel strongly about this.

 

Bambi.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds to me like Bambi likes virtuals (and geocaching in general) because this takes her to interesting places she would not have seen otherwise. The difficulty that some people have with Waymarking is how to use it to find these interesting places. When they see a McDonalds category they know this is not a place they would find interesting. When they see a landlock lighthouse or a coke oven category they don't know if it will be interesting or not. Many people would likely ignore these categories because they didn't realized that this might be something interesting. There needs to be some way to filter for interesting waymarks.

 

Interesting for me may not be interesting for you. But if I had a list of what is interesting to you I might go to a few of those places and may be suprised to find something interesting. And visa versa. Perhaps Waymarking is in need of a way to recommend waymarks even more than geocaching is in need of a way to recommend caches. I proposed a Wow!!! as a way to recommend waymarks that are special to me. I like ju66l3r's response that perhaps this category be one generated from waymarks in other categories that get voted in and out of the Wow!!! category by users.

Share this post


Link to post
I think I've tried to answer most of this in the post above, but I repeat THERE IS AND NEVER HAS BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO SHIRK ANY QUESTION. Saying this just feels like you are putting your fingers in your ears and going, "LA LA LA LAAAA," very loudly - I am doing my best to answer your questions.

If you look real closely, you may realize that you are the one with the fingers in your ears. What I've repeatedly said (and will not say further) is that if you can't determine what a virtual cache is, you have no ability to argue your point further. The nature of virtuals is they are difficult to define and angst follows when one person cannot determine what another's definition of a virtual is.

 

Enter Waymarking - the ability to take interesting locations and put them into categories. The popularity filter helps people rate interesting categories to help filter out the interesting from the mundane. The McDonalds category is an excellent example of a category which can easily be filtered out by this method.

 

As the Waymarking site evolves there will be many more features to filter out the interesting waymarks from the mundane. By sticking to the old way of a very limited number of

"wow" virtuals is limiting your access to unique and interesting locations.

 

I won't debate this point further. You have already made your point and I don't see it your way. We can agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
I proposed a Wow!!! as a way to recommend waymarks that are special to me.

when the feature is also available on Waymarking.com you can use the bookmark feature to do this. People can then decide if their definition of wow fits yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Sounds to me like Bambi likes virtuals (and geocaching in general) because this takes her to interesting places she would not have seen otherwise.

 

Spot on!!

 

Except that if I'm hungry I might want to go to McDonalds, but that is not why I go caching. I can see therefore that there is a place for wm.com, but to me this is very different to gc.com.

 

The thing that worries me about having a WOW category is that for there to be more than one place near me there will have to be hundred and hundreds the world over. Which means loads for you to deal with.

 

Bambi.

 

Share this post


Link to post
What I've repeatedly said (and will not say further) is that if you can't determine what a virtual cache is, you have no ability to argue your point further. The nature of virtuals is they are difficult to define and angst follows when one person cannot determine what another's definition of a virtual is.

 

 

I really have genuinely tried to make this point clear and ironically tozainamboku seams to have understood it and made the point - Thumper and I like virtuals (and geocaching in general) because it takes us to interesting places we would not have seen otherwise.

 

The value of virtuals is in their ability to be placed in places that caches cannot - but I don't want to miss out on these interesting places, so I don't want this facility to go.

 

I don't know what is interesting until I go there and I see Waymarking as containing so much stuff that I won't be able to find the gems that currently reside on gc.com as virtual caches.

 

I like the idea of wm.com since it allows us to search for specifics (pubs, shops, castles, etc), but it doesn't have the certainty that a place will be worth a visit, that a cache has. I have to sort through a long list of other stuff to find what I want. And if the previous visitors all thought (like you) that coke ovens were boring then the filter will put it at the bottom and I still miss it.

 

I don't see a way round this - with caches we know where we are, and without fail they seem to be places Thumper and I want to go to.

 

I'm sorry you feel that this discussion is not worth your time any longer and I appreciate the time you have given it thus far. Contrary to what you say, I appreciate that virtuals are hard to define and the ensuing angst is a problem, I just don't want to lose this aspect of the game.

 

I am happy to agree to differ, but the reason I've persued this for so long is that I've read many other posts that indicate that we're not the only ones who feel this way .

 

Bambi.

 

Share this post


Link to post
I really have genuinely tried to make this point clear and ironically tozainamboku seams to have understood it and made the point - Thumper and I like virtuals (and geocaching in general) because it takes us to interesting places we would not have seen otherwise.

 

No he doesn't make the point. If anything he suggests that he needs to create his own "wow" category that defines what he thinks of as "wow" which may not match yours, which helps support the fact that virtuals are, in fact, broken.

 

I don't know what is interesting until I go there and I see Waymarking as containing so much stuff that I won't be able to find the gems that currently reside on gc.com as virtual caches.

 

I think you need to take into consideration that we have thought through that point thoroughly, and as indicated in previous posts we are going to create features to pull out those gems. The popularity filter is just on example which easily defeats the whole "McDonalds are boring so Waymarking is broken" reasoning which is a pretty shallow argument.

 

I'm sorry you feel that this discussion is not worth your time any longer and I appreciate the time you have given it thus far. Contrary to what you say, I appreciate that virtuals are hard to define and the ensuing angst is a problem, I just don't want to lose this aspect of the game.

 

It is not that it is "worth my time" or not, it is the fact that there isn't anything new to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post

If anything he suggests that he needs to create his own "wow" category that defines what he thinks of as "wow" which may not match yours, which helps support the fact that virtuals are, in fact, broken.

 

I think my point is that since all the cashes that I've been to have been good, my idea of WOW seems to match most other cachers'.

 

I don't know what is interesting until I go there and I see Waymarking as containing so much stuff that I won't be able to find the gems that currently reside on gc.com as virtual caches.

 

I think you need to take into consideration that we have thought through that point thoroughly, and as indicated in previous posts we are going to create features to pull out those gems. The popularity filter is just on example which easily defeats the whole "McDonalds are boring so Waymarking is broken" reasoning which is a pretty shallow argument.

 

I never said Waymarking is broken, mearly that I see it as very different to caching. Are you telling me that finding that "interesting gem" is simply going to be a case of entering a postcode and looking at the list to see which caches are new and which don't have a nice red tick by them?

 

I'm sorry you feel that this discussion is not worth your time any longer and I appreciate the time you have given it thus far. Contrary to what you say, I appreciate that virtuals are hard to define and the ensuing angst is a problem, I just don't want to lose this aspect of the game.

 

It is not that it is "worth my time" or not, it is the fact that there isn't anything new to discuss.

 

Either way, sorry if you feel this hasn't been productive. Although I often read message boards, I rarely post (yes, I'm a lurker), but in this case I feel I don't want this to happen so strongly that I started this. I think I'll go back to lurking... <_<

 

Thus far I've really enjoyed caching and seen the website as an excellent site that's developed and grown to incorporate new ideas, which is why I paid for the premium membership in the first place. I still see this as a loss to gc.com but I see why you are doing it even if I don't agree with it. The problem is that I think a lot of other cachers will feel the same as us.

 

Bambi.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Gotta chime in on a few of these.

 

When they see a landlock lighthouse or a coke oven category they don't know if it will be interesting or not. Many people would likely ignore these categories because they didn't realized that this might be something interesting. There needs to be some way to filter for interesting waymarks.

 

Totally untrue in my opinion. To define a Catagory as interesting or not based solely on the name (judging a bok by the cover) doesn't hold water. Virtual Caches are often named vaguely, or as what they are... and there is nothing in there to indicate the nature of the Virtual. At least with Waymarks, they are Catagorized.

 

How can someone decide that they are intersted in a Virtual based upon the name? You cannot say that the logic is different for Catagories. People will lok to see what is near them, and read the descriptions and decide THEN if it is interesting or not.

 

As for the WOW thing.. I'm gonna use "TV Stars" as an example.... TV Stars represents Virtual... gotta be big names, really really big to make the listing requirements.

 

So someone submits Johnny Carson, or Oprah Winfreid... all fine... then someone says Craig Charles... all the Americans go "Who the heck is that?" Meanwhile all the Brit's go "Right on!", then I submit Rick Mercer, and neither US or UK knows who that is.

 

That's when it becomes trouble to decide what caliber is needed. Thus Virtuals are hard to determine... and God forbid someone suggests the local news anchor..

 

<_< Theb Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Gotta chime in on a few of these.

 

When they see a landlock lighthouse or a coke oven category they don't know if it will be interesting or not. Many people would likely ignore these categories because they didn't realized that this might be something interesting. There needs to be some way to filter for interesting waymarks.

 

Totally untrue in my opinion. To define a Catagory as interesting or not based solely on the name (judging a book by the cover) doesn't hold water.

 

But I think there will be so much info that people will have to make decisions like this. I mean, you don't have a problem with people deciding whether they want to go to McDonalds or not based on the category do you?

 

I think people will apply the same rule to other categories because they have to deal with the numbers somehow - I hope I'm wrong, because I'd hate to see wm.com killed by its own success :laughing:

 

My point is, in my experience, all our caches (virtual or otherwise) have been in really good places. I don't know the back story, but maybe the problem with virtuals has been created by a few idiots who tried to make caches out of silly things or places.

 

Bambi.

 

Share this post


Link to post

You know, Waymarking is taking me to something interesting that I never would have known about.

 

The category of Eagle Scout Projects. I looked in my area for one of those projects, and discovered a multiscout project in conjunction with a school district and some wildlife group where an unnamed park was made featuring various aspects of the area in which I live. This weekend, we will be checking that out. This is something I never would have known about otherwise. There are no caches in that park and no reason I ever would have gone there otherwise.

 

Waymarking can give you the wow factor, all tailored to you, if you choose to look for it.

Share this post


Link to post
The problem is that I think a lot of other cachers will feel the same as us.

Ahhh but you're assuming geocachers are the only "customers" for Waymarking. They are only the first. Once this goes live, I have a feeling it will be marketed to several other segments of the population, many of them not geocachers.

Share this post


Link to post

Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:

 

Thanks for the link to the lighthouse category at wm.com. That must have gotten broght over from the locationless at gc.com since last time I looked. I have added it to my favorites.

Share this post


Link to post

You are not seeing that all of the Virtuals are exciting or interesting that you have found are that way because the reviewers have waded through the sea of really lame VC submissions.

 

After all the lame Virts suggested, the argueing, the debating, the barage of emails... knowing that only maybe 0.05% are going to qualify for Virtuals... it becomes a waste of time.

 

Everyone gets frustrated and no one wins.

 

I love Virtuals too... but I know how hard it is to get one listed. That's what made them great. But, even looking at the ones I've done... most were interesting, but could have been better suited to being info stages in a Multi.

 

Of the 29 Virtuals I have found... only 3 were so good that I would say they were listed correctly.

 

One is for blind people (and that is the only thing that makes it work, otherwise it could be a Multi)

One is the statue of Walt Disney in the center of the Magic Kingdom (I know it's commercial)

One is a totally visual location, and is a unique item that is a challenge in itself to see.

 

The rest.. yup... should have been made an off-set Multi.

 

Why were the rest made as Virtuals??? Because they are old and VC were approved much easier... and it shows, as they lack the WOW.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
You know, Waymarking is taking me to something interesting that I never would have known about.

 

The category of Eagle Scout Projects. I looked in my area for one of those projects, and discovered a multiscout project in conjunction with a school district and some wildlife group where an unnamed park was made featuring various aspects of the area in which I live. This weekend, we will be checking that out. This is something I never would have known about otherwise. There are no caches in that park and no reason I ever would have gone there otherwise.

 

Waymarking can give you the wow factor, all tailored to you, if you choose to look for it.

 

Yeah, I found that category too and it does look interesting.

 

I'm not objecting to Waymarking, I just think that the facility to place geocaches (and those that already exist) should remain, for those occasions when there really is no other option (like Blue Quasar's blind person cache or where you can't place a box for environmental reasons).

 

Bambi.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Or maybe we can have a potpouri category, for those that dont quite fit anywhere. It would probably be the most interesting category. Standards would have to be there, not a sneaker abandoned in the desert, but something unique to it. (I know this was category suggestion of Wow...but since we wont define wow, maybe this would work?)

Share this post


Link to post

If I was coming into the Waymarking forums for the first time, and I started with the "Read Me First" thread, I don't think I'd want to go through 140 some-odd posts covering three pages ... :laughing:

 

Would it make sense to close this topic for now, or somehow split off the general discussions into a different thread so that this one reflects more of a real "Read Me First" focus for people who are just getting started?

 

There has been some good discussion here, but the most critical Read Me First info is really pretty much covered in Jeremy's first post. Many of the other posts overlap with discussions going on elsewhere in the Waymarking forum.

 

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
If I was coming into the Waymarking forums for the first time, and I started with the "Read Me First" thread, I don't think I'd want to go through 140 some-odd posts covering three pages ...  :rolleyes:

 

Would it make sense to close this topic for now, or somehow split off the general discussions into a different thread so that this one reflects more of a real "Read Me First" focus for people who are just getting started?

I totally agree as that is what I have just done - read through a lot of detail when I really wanted to see where Waymarking has got to! :o

I might add that I rather agree with Bambi and will miss virtuals on GC as I still think there is a place for them in spite of Jeremy's arguments.

Edited by John Stead

Share this post


Link to post

As virtuals often bring you to a very interesting place that could not otherwise accommodate a physical cache, I will also miss virtuals on Geocaching.com. But, as long as the same types of locations are available in gpx pocket queries at Waymarking.com, I don't really see a problem. As long as I can download waymarks to GSAK and then merge them to my Cachemate databases, I will be able to include them in our geocaching adventures.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I will jump in with something I've heard LOTS of cachers talk about lately.

Everyone I've talked to wants the virtuals to be grandfathered in to GC. If you are on a business trip you are usually pressed for time, but you can usually squeeze in a couple of virtuals wherever you are. Lots of them are in downtown areas and within easy walking distance of downtown hotels.

No car rental necessary.

And the MAIN reason people want them to be grandfathered is because they will continue to add to your stats page on GC.

The Waymarking stats page is separate from the GC stats page and nobody wants to start over again.

Can a new icon called Waymarks be added to the stats page? I think that would give everyone more of an incentive to visit them.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Jana

Share this post


Link to post
cybercat Posted on Oct 11 2005, 01:11 PM

And the MAIN reason people want them to be grandfathered is because they will continue to add to your stats page on GC.

The Waymarking stats page is separate from the GC stats page and nobody wants to start over again.

Can a new icon called Waymarks be added to the stats page? I think that would give everyone more of an incentive to visit them.

 

Totally agree with that.

 

Which also falls in line with many people's request to have a "One-Stop Stats Area" to get a snap shot of everything they have done... found, hidden, visited, placed, whatever.

 

One of my caching buddies pointed out... all Geocache pages (the ones for the caches themselves) are GREEN borders, all the Stats and Forums and Profiles are BLUE borders. If Waymarks were another colour... let's say YELLOW... then it would be even easier to make the shift to a tiered Multi-Site Groundspeak game.

 

I really wish they would consider making the change now, to divide everything up front, so people can easily look for what they want, and bypass what they don't yet still be able to merge everything together.

 

What I've posted before, edited and cleaned up

 

On a Universal Stats Page or Groundspeak Portal

I think the best of both worlds could be had, and was implied by others in this thread.

 

This is probably a lot of work, but here goes.

 

Groundspeak.com 'could' be the 'portal' to see all of your Stats. It could have direct links to "My Geocaching" and "My Waymarks"

 

People would sign in to Groundspeak and get an overall picture of all the games they play that are affliated with Groundspeak. This also allows future additions in the way of new games. On this page you would also be able to search for elements of ALL games, by proximity or whatever.

 

There then would be subpages for Geocaching and Waymarking and whatever else comes along. People that only want to play one specific game, or some of them could 'click the link' that takes them to the Game they interested in at that time.

 

On each of those subpages, you could see the stats that specific to that game only. From there you could also search for game elements that are specific to that game.

 

What I am suggesting could be better explained by using Amazon as an example... on the main page they have tabs for Movies, Books, Music etc. When you search there, you get items that fit all catagories. But if you did the same search in Music, you should only get music and no books or movies.

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy, Hello.

Maria and I can no longer do many of the Traditional style caches. So doing virtual caches still allow us to geocache without the walking through the woods aspect.

 

We downoad (via the pocket queries) all of the virtuals with-in 150 miles of our home. So when we travel, we just pick a virtual shown along the way and drive to it. No pre-analysis needed. A large part of the fun of Virtual caching is that you never really know what the "cache" is until you get there (Of course unless you want to look at the write-up or clues before you get there).

 

By forcing everthing into catagorized compartments, it sounds like you would need pre-select a sub-catagory which would remove the suprise factor. I cetainly wouldn't know to go looking for "Iron Furnaces" as a sub-catagory of waymaking. But I would find it fasinating if one of the virtuals that we selected on the GPS turned out to be an Iron Furnace.

 

So while virtual caches are not everybody's idea of geocaching. For some they have become the ONLY idea of geocaching.

 

Thanks for your time,

Tim

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy,

 

You have stated that PQ's will be made available for Waymarking. I was just wondering if this is going to be available in the near future. The reason I am asking is 2-fold: I have limitations (physical) that restrict my ability to get out at times, hence my few and scattered finds, and I am planning a long trip and enjoy finding interesting sites when traveling.

 

Thanks,

Ernie

Share this post


Link to post

Three things;

 

When we go on vacation, we mainly do Virtuals. Hubby isn't into caching but we both like the Virtuals. These allow us to learn about the areas we are driving thru. Taking away the virtuals takes away that learning ability. We are quite upset about this.

 

I don't understand how finding places on a route work on the Waypoint site, since, when you call up a location, you get the location for the heading (submitter) & not for the waypoints within. So confusing!

 

I'd like to print out the six pages of waymarks to take with me/us when we go out & about. Is there some way to do a continuous printout, instead of the 12 full sheets & 6 partial sheets?

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe that's in the spirit of Waymarking, but since it's not doing any harm, why can't we keep virtuals (and earth/webcam/etc) caches as they are? Where there is overlap, places will appear on both - that's what you've already said isn't it?

 

But, you see, they are doing harm. They can't be defined well and lots of people get upset over the subjective nature of virtuals and when their virtuals are denied.

You keep avoiding the subject of why webcams couldn't stay. You keep going back to your virtual argument!

Share this post


Link to post

You keep avoiding the subject of why webcams couldn't stay. You keep going back to your virtual argument!

No I haven't. Let me repeat it again.

 

They aren't caches.

 

That was easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×
×
  • Create New...