Jump to content

Sov


webscouter.

Recommended Posts

...unless some level of quality is imposed.

It's my thinking the level of quality will be determined by the consumer, us, and filtered on by us. When finders log they have the option of leaving a rating. You then can filter on that rating to get only the cream of the crop. The junk will fall away into oblivion.

I fear and respect the power of entropy, so I'm not sure if "consumers" will be entirely successful in filtering out junk. This is especially true in cyberspace, where a minority of emotions can create a perception of the majority. :laughing:

 

It's been mentioned by a person of authority (The Leprechauns) that "lameness" of virtuals and LCs had to be regulated, and volunteer approvers got a lot of grief for it. If Waymarking has a new system to make the filtering process more efficient and painless, then yes, you have a valid point on why it will be better.

Link to comment

For people who have done the virtual "caches" in Yosemite National Park, I believe majority of them will vote to keep them the way they are. The owners did a tremendous job scouting locations in the park. I'd hate to see their efforts go to waste or be unnecessarily duplicated.

 

Yes, it IS about the numbers, but not about being #1 or trying to have as many find counts as possible. It's very nice to go to my GC.com profile, browse through what I did months ago, and reminisce about what I did, all centralized in one location. When I become a senior, I'm sure I'll enjoy doing that even more. :laughing:

 

I see that current virtuals are going to be grandfathered (no pun intended :laughing: ) - I am willing to accept that as a compromise. Let's hope Waymarking can sustain and exceed the quality of the awesome virtuals I was able to find in the past. In case it doesn't, we should leave the option of keeping virtuals on GC.com and not just slam the door down.

Link to comment

TB Graveyards have been superfluous since the "Mark Bug as Missing" feature was implemented in late 2003. This allows either the cache owner or the bug owner to move a travel bug to an "unknown location" without affecting its mileage.

 

No new travel bug graveyard caches will be listed.

Link to comment

As I only just saw the thread, I certainly haven't read the whole thing (so I appologize if this has already been mentioned higher up).

 

My feeling is that right now, with the introductions of Waymarking.com we have in essence 3 games going on.

 

1. The classic "geocaching" game. This involves physical caches of some for or another, and thus excludes virtuals and locationlesses.

2. The new Waymarking game. While this could include virts and locationlesses, and even have the 'cream' rising to the top so to speak, so we make eveyone happy, I just don't see it working like that. There are some neat things with Waymarking (I actually really like the McDonalds category, and so voted to bump it up, but I think it would make a crappy virtual/locationless cache.)

3. The game that was being played under the gc.com banner with locationlesses caches. This had somewhat a feeling of the car game where you're on the lookout for a few specific items, like a red car, or a yellow jeep or a funny looking mailbox. As an added challenge, you couldn't log one that someone else had already logged (so a lot of the 'easy' finds went away). What I see happening with Waymarking.com, is we're essentially looking for everything, so instead we end up looking for nothing (actually this isn't quite how I see Waymarking being used, but if it were played like the 'car game' I described, this would I think be the eventual result).

 

I'm really not sure where the really 'wow' virtuals fit in. The problem is that we're going to be judging things on different merits. I mean if you're looking at a category etc. I really don't care about every roadside stop from here to timbuktu, so that category is likely to get voted down, but then there may be on really interesting stop, some thing really cool, that might even have been approved under the old 'virtual' banner that instead no longer gets approved because someone wants to stuff it in to the more general category.

 

Again, I really like the idea of the McDonalds waymarks, but as locationless cache, I think its crap. Same thing about a general 'bridge' waymark. I really like the general idea of a bridge waymark, and think it would be really useful, but I don't think it would make a good locationless cache, but then how do the really cool bridges that really do bear a special visit fit in (and there are some really cool bridges).

 

OK I'm done ranting for now. Back to work.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...