Future Of Virtuals

August 26, 2005

This has no doubt been answered before, but I have only started looking at the forums in the past couple of days, so if anyone can answer it or direct me to a thread, I'd be obliged. Will our cache count statistics change as a result of things moving to WM.com? I'd hate to lose our virtual and locationless caches and go back to being "those people with less than 100 caches who don't know what they're doing"! :laughing:

2.2k · August 26, 2005

Will our cache count statistics change as a result of things moving to WM.com?

No

5.3k · August 26, 2005

With some imagination I'm sure you can come up with a surprise type category and create your own subjective rules as to what should and shouldn't be listed there. I can't believe you would protest the feature of more flexibility.

First: Good point. You were right; waymarks are a superset of virtuals, so there is no virtual that could not be a waymark. My list of virts could all be waymarks.

That aside, however, the problem I am presently having is not technical; it's more sociological. But I'll post those concerns over in the Waymarking forum; they are not appropriate for this thread.

Here's the take-away point for this thread:

I was wrong. Jeremy was right. I grovel in his general direction.

2.2k · August 26, 2005

My only real concern is losing control over my only virtual cache in favor of whomever the category owner is.

2.2k · August 26, 2005

I have just proposed a category over in the Waymarking forum called Pre-Existing Virtual caches.

This category is a place where the owners of virtual caches can list them and retain all their original logging requirements.

August 26, 2005

So now instead of having to deal with only the one reviewer for my area who was selected by Groundspeak based upon his qualifications, I will have to deal with a slew of them whose only qualification is the fact they laid claim to a particular category before anyone else.

No kidding! So instead of a dedicated geocacher reviewing waymarks, you have to deal with goodness only know who!? How many geocaches become litter because someone started caching and then dumps it for another hobby. I was kind of looking forward to Waymarking, but having reviewers given power simply because they got there first is downright stupid. I don't always agree with Jeremy or his horde, but this is the first time I've flat out thought something they did was retarded. I mean we have troubles, well not me, with proven cachers reviewing our caches. What's going to happen if some jerk with the power going to his head reviewing WM's?

This is like letting the first person that gets to the CEO's desk run the company. Completely stupid. At least with the volunteer program at GC.com, we have people that know what they are doing, at WM.com, the only thing we know the "reviewers" can do is fill out a form.

9.1k · August 26, 2005

Maybe the old jerks who let power run to their head got tired of the process of judging virtuals and arguing with upset owners, decided the process was broken, and TPTB agreed with them?

It might be a fun exercise to compile a list of all the threads whinging about how "my virtual cache wasn't approved" and then extract all the quotes about the centralization of power in the hands of a small group of people who have no idea what they are doing.

5.3k · August 26, 2005

It might be a fun exercise to compile a list of all the threads whinging about how "my virtual cache wasn't approved" and then extract all the quotes about the centralization of power in the hands of a small group of people who have no idea what they are doing.

Whinging. That is a great word. I love seeing it. Thanks for using it.

I think that the piece that you may be missing, Lep, is that the set of people upset over the reviewers is a very, very small subset of geocachers. I hardly blame you for that -- you constantly have to put up with people blaming you for doing your job.

There has likely been some significant dissatisfaction with the policies on virtuals, especially during the last year. And, since the reviewers are tasked with the unpleasant job of telling people that their caches won't be listed, they end up getting a lot of the anger directed at them. The fact is, though, that the reviewers haven't had much flexibility in approving virtual caches, and therefore don't deserve the blame. I think that if you were to factor out all the misplaced anger, geocachers really are overwhelmingly pleased with the reviewers and trust their judgment and integrity.

I know that's how I feel.

3k · August 26, 2005

I was kind of looking forward to Waymarking, but having reviewers given power simply because they got there first is downright stupid.

Where was it posted that this will be the procedure used to select category managers?

August 27, 2005

This whole topic makes me sad and depressed. I DO NOT want to go to multiple sites for my geocaching fix. I've been caching since May and already it seems as though GC.com is regressing and not progressing. The sport is not old enough yet to go backward instead of forward. And when a sport that has almost 200,000 players worldwide should in no way be getting rid of cache types or features. Very sad.

August 27, 2005

This whole topic makes me sad and depressed. I DO NOT want to go to multiple sites for my geocaching fix.

That's sad, but you cannot please everybody and that's life.

I personally like this idea that every cache which doesn't have a container have their own site. Now I can focus on caching and then I want find something else on my trips I can go to Waymarking and found much much more that previously.

2.2k · August 27, 2005

As I mentioned above, I have proposes a new Waymarking categorywhich will be a place where the owner's of exixsting virtuals can list their caches. The cache owners will be able to keep all the same logging requirements as they has previously thus preserving the cache integrity.

August 27, 2005

I personally like this idea that every cache which doesn't have a container have their own site. Now I can focus on caching and then I want find something else on my trips I can go to Waymarking and found much much more that previously.

That's what I don't like. I love to do Virtuals and Locationless. But I also love regular caches. Say I plan a trip. I don't just download regular caches. I like to mix it up and add as many virtuals as I can. It shows me some interesting places that might not be able to have a reg cache. The new way would mean I would have to use multiple sites for 1 sport.

24.7k · August 27, 2005

Maybe the old jerks who let power run to their head got tired of the process of judging virtuals and arguing with upset owners, decided the process was broken, and TPTB agreed with them?...

For virtuals the process was broken the moment the subjective wow was introduced. It put reviewers in a bad position. However that was a guideline that could have been changed at any time and was not programmed into the site. The only balancing point would have been external factors. Locationless... those had issues, and likely they now have different issues.

The other day I realized that I have a virtual, and that this virtual is seasonal. I don't know enough about the new site to know if I can have a seasonal virtual or not. Because of the nature of the cache I do watch it in the off season and police logs.

7.2k · August 27, 2005

For virtuals the process was broken the moment the subjective wow was introduced.

Part of the reason the process was implemented was because of lazy cachers.

While not all virts were placed because of lazy cachers, plenty of virts were from physicals that were not maintained and instead of fixing the physical cache it was turned into a virt. This, I believe, is also part of, if not the sole, reason the cache categories were locked down.

Another issue was folks were placing virts where physicals could go but simply didn't want the hassle of maintaining a physical cache. Then add to this the proximity rule and now you have a lazy cacher placing a lame virt and blocking someone who did have the drive to research, create, place, and maintain a physical cache.

Personally, I will be glad to see all virtual caches go away. I think only about a 10% or a quarter of the ones that exist today are worth a side trip. I do include them in our PQs on the off chance they will show us something that makes us go "cool!" Can you imagine the lame junk that would be out there if there were no controls--if there were no subjective guidelines?

WM.com is the site that will have those controls. With the ability to rank the spots, the truly interesting will rise to the top. Hopefully, the PQs from WM.com will give us the ability to filter on rank.

WM.com rankings will still be subjective, but it will be our fellow hunters that make the call, not someone from Groundspeak.

Personally, I think WM.com is a great addition to world of GPS hobbies.

3.8k · August 28, 2005

This whole topic makes me sad and depressed. I DO NOT want to go to multiple sites for my geocaching fix.

You don't have to.

geocaching.com -> geocaching fix

Waymarking.com -> Waymarking fix

:laughing:

I'm all for the changes. The Waymarking site seems to add a lot of "options" to virts and locationless, which can only expand on what geocaching.com was able to offer within the confines of the game.

September 1, 2005

Well, a note went out yesterday from the guy who does Earthcaches that said the following:

Please note that from the 1 September all Earthcaches will be submitted as Waymarks on www.Waymarking.com.

Sad but true.

I just an approval notification from earthcache.org and it looks like there is a one month extension for earthcaches. They won't be listed on Waymarking until October.

People like me wouldn't be able to access thier own earthcaches if they were listed on Waymarking right now.

September 2, 2005

Are people who haven't read about Waymarking yet still trying to submit virtuals? How long until "virtual" is no longer an option on the drop-down menu on the cache submission form?

1.2k · September 2, 2005

Are people who haven't read about Waymarking yet still trying to submit virtuals? How long until "virtual" is no longer an option on the drop-down menu on the cache submission form?

Yes they are and if the submitted Virt meets the guidelines it will be listed.

Not sure about an answer to your second question, Sorry.

September 2, 2005

What about caches that get approved that do not have an actual container that you are searching for? It would seem that these should not be approved as they are really virtuals but somehow managed to get approved as either a regular or multi where there is no physical cache to find but rather just like a virtual you have to answer a question in order to claim a find.

9.1k · September 2, 2005

What about caches that get approved that do not have an actual container that you are searching for? It would seem that these should not be approved as they are really virtuals but somehow managed to get approved as either a regular or multi where there is no physical cache to find but rather just like a virtual you have to answer a question in order to claim a find.

Ummmm, if it doesn't have a container then it isn't listable as a traditional, multicache, puzzle, etc. It's a virtual cache. Probably a few of these slip through the cracks because the nature of the cache isn't disclosed on the cache page, or it's edited after being reviewed and publishes.

September 3, 2005

I just checked out Waymarking.com for the first time.

Two words- Bad Idea.

Mike :laughing:

September 3, 2005

I just checked out Waymarking.com for the first time.
Two words- Bad Idea.

Mike

Probably better to discuss the pros and cons of it over in the Waymarking forums for now, since most people won't understand what you are really trying to say...but

I will say that was warming to the idea until I started reading about the possibility of having "guilds" of managers for categories.

September 8, 2005

I would hate to see the loss of the ability to enter a location, and get a list of all caches in that area, including virtual. A great part of geocaching to me is visiting somewhere I havn't been before, and exploring by visiting caches. Virtuals have lead me to some fascinating places before, and shown me history and sights I could not have found by myself, or with a guide book.

There are also 'combi' multi caches, which have one or more virtual clues, leading to one or more 'real' caches - what will become of these?

On the other hand, I also really like the idea of 'collecting catagories' so I want to visit old rail sites, or mines? - a catagory search is just what I need here.

In summary, will there be integration between to two sites by the search engine? The loss of virtuals would be a major one.

9.2k · September 8, 2005

There are also 'combi' multi caches, which have one or more virtual clues, leading to one or more 'real' caches - what will become of these?

If it has a real cache, then it's not a virtual, and has no relation to this discussion.

September 8, 2005

Ummmm, if it doesn't have a container then it isn't listable as a traditional, multicache, puzzle, etc. It's a virtual cache.

Technically, if it doesn't have a log sheet. I've found a regular cache that was a magnetic blank business card - being used as a log sheet.

9.1k · September 8, 2005

Yep, I've found caches like that too, and I have a variation on that in my arsenal of caches that I could hide if the local community were a bit more tolerant.

"The log IS the container" is different from a codeword cache or an "answer the question" virtual.

5.3k · September 8, 2005

Yes they are and if the submitted Virt meets the guidelines it will be listed.

One virtual has been approved in the US in the last month. I am unable to discern any WOW factor, but maybe that's just me.

2.3k · September 8, 2005

Yes they are and if the submitted Virt meets the guidelines it will be listed.

One virtual has been approved in the US in the last month. I am unable to discern any WOW factor, but maybe that's just me.

Since its not my area I haven't seen it. I cant say how much wow it has. You would have to ask the reviewer that listed it.

September 8, 2005

I am unable to discern any WOW factor, but maybe that's just me.

Reading the page, it sounds alot like one of the infamous "roadside plaque" virts, and the proof needed to claim a find looks Google-able......

WOW is right!

9.4k · September 8, 2005

Yes they are and if the submitted Virt meets the guidelines it will be listed.

One virtual has been approved in the US in the last month. I am unable to discern any WOW factor, but maybe that's just me.

That supports the subjective nature of the "Wow" factor of virtuals. If only there was some kind of solution that could remove the subjective nature of virtuals...

9.1k · September 8, 2005

Gosh, maybe people who were interested in historic markers and border markers could take matters into their own hands. If only!

5.3k · September 8, 2005

I brought up the one approved virt in the last month in order to suggest that maybe it would be easier if they just weren't being approved, period.

1.2k · September 8, 2005

I brought up the one approved virt in the last month in order to suggest that maybe it would be easier if they just weren't being approved, period.

IMO they are still in the guidelines and still a part of the site. So they can still be listed if they meet the guidelines. I dont see it being a problem for me as a reviewer.

9.4k · September 8, 2005

I brought up the one approved virt in the last month in order to suggest that maybe it would be easier if they just weren't being approved, period.

My fault. My issue is that stopping them completely with no where to go would be a bad idea, and since the Waymarking.com site is not yet available to everyone it would be unfair to do so now. The "wow" requirements however they are now seems better than an outright ban. But we can disagree on that point.

September 8, 2005

Gosh, maybe people who were interested in historic markers and border markers could take matters into their own hands. If only!

you assume that people who might hunt this virtual are interested in historical markers as a whole and would then benifit from a list of 87 different markers world wide... 86 of which they may never be in a position to see anyway. Maybe I'm the freak of nature because 99% of my time is spent within 30 miles of my house. I have little interest in seeing a list of even the coolest most WOW super-duper anything if there is a slim to no chance that I'll ever be with in eye-shot of it. I visited a great local totem pole virtual that I had driven by for years and never stopped to see what it was. But I would never have done so if I had to drill down into a list of totem poles throughout the world... its just not a general subject I am interested in. What interested me was this object and how it related to my local area.

One solution that could remove the subjective nature of virtuals is to provide a better criteria than simply WOW. Maybe a short (or as long as needed) list of things that make appropriate virtuals and things that don't. Historic Markers do. Dead carcus in woods does not. But that horse has been flogged for too long. Only the TPTB can know what type of atempt was made at fixing the guidelines for virtuals before dumping them completely

8k · September 8, 2005

Gosh, maybe people who were interested in historic markers and border markers could take matters into their own hands. If only!

you assume that people who might hunt this virtual are interested in historical markers as a whole and would then benifit from a list of 87 different markers world wide... 86 of which they may never be in a position to see anyway. Maybe I'm the freak of nature because 99% of my time is spent within 30 miles of my house. I have little interest in seeing a list of even the coolest most WOW super-duper anything if there is a slim to no chance that I'll ever be with in eye-shot of it. I visited a great local totem pole virtual that I had driven by for years and never stopped to see what it was. But I would never have done so if I had to drill down into a list of totem poles throughout the world... its just not a general subject I am interested in. What interested me was this object and how it related to my local area.

I don't think the problem is searching through the 87 historical markers worldwide to find the ones near you. The problem is deciding if you want to find historical markers, or totem poles, or anything that someone else has decided is might be interesting enough for you to go "Wow" when you see it.

Waymarking has a location filter. Turn it on and it will show only waymarks that are with 10 miles (or whatever distance) from your home coordinates. The problem is that you will see historic markers, totem poles, and McDonald's restaurants. I suspect that as the database grows, searching options will improve so you can select which categories you want to list along with the distance.

Now the problem is that you may not think of looking for totem poles. If its not something you are interested or its something you never expected in your neighborhood, why would you even look? You may have even liked the virtuals where you went with no idea of what you were going to find and were suprised where you got there. This is why I think there will be categories like Wow!!! that will let you have that experience as well. (How many times have I linked to my category suggestion in just this thread alone?)

Suppose somebody knows of that totem pole in your neighborhood. It could be listed in three categories: Totem Poles, Local Historic Sites, and Wow! (if the Wow! manager was convinced that it was unique enough ) Depending on your interests you would find about it in different ways (or not find it at all, but that's ok, because there will eventually be plenty of waymarks that you could find that are more interesting to you)

1.4k · September 8, 2005

I don't think the problem is searching through the 87 historical markers worldwide to find the ones near you. The problem is deciding if you want to find historical markers, or totem poles, or anything that someone else has decided is might be interesting enough for you to go "Wow" when you see it.

Waymarking has a location filter. Turn it on and it will show only waymarks that are with 10 miles (or whatever distance) from your home coordinates. The problem is that you will see historic markers, totem poles, and McDonald's restaurants. I suspect that as the database grows, searching options will improve so you can select which categories you want to list along with the distance.

Now the problem is that you may not think of looking for totem poles. If its not something you are interested or its something you never expected in your neighborhood, why would you even look? You may have even liked the virtuals where you went with no idea of what you were going to find and were suprised where you got there. This is why I think there will be categories like Wow!!! that will let you have that experience as well. (How many times have I linked to my category suggestion in just this thread alone?)

Suppose somebody knows of that totem pole in your neighborhood. It could be listed in three categories: Totem Poles, Local Historic Sites, and Wow! (if the Wow! manager was convinced that it was unique enough ) Depending on your interests you would find about it in different ways (or not find it at all, but that's ok, because there will eventually be plenty of waymarks that you could find that are more interesting to you)

I don't see why "WOW!" waymarks and Virtual caches have to be mutually exclusive.

Having a category of "WOW!" is like reading the hints and/or knowing who hid the cache ahead of time. It sets expectations which for me would already take away some of the WOW factor. A well placed virtual cache (like the surprise Totem Pole mini cacher gave as an example) would conceal the location's neatness until you actually get there.

In fact, if you think about it, having a category conflicts with the element of surprise.

There are some locations that would be a WOW no matter what (nature's wonders, awesome views, etc.), and yes, having those in the "WOW!" category would be quite appropriate.

September 8, 2005

I wish logging criteria was insisted upon on the site. without it, waymarks don't make much sense. I go there, I go home, I say "I was there". I would object to a virtual without a clear logging requirement, and so I object to most waymarks I've seen as well.

10.1k · September 9, 2005

To me, the virtuals have been a great complement to regular caches. They have taken me to places where regular caches could not be placed -- and the way that they have been integrated into the maps on geocaching.com has made it easy when traveling. That would be missed.

But then again, two of the favorite caches I have done have been locationless. It took a lot of work to research and find a California site for the underground railroad or to track down hidden Lime Kilns through a path surrounded by poison oak. I doubt that I will use Waymarking.com in the same way that I have used this site.

There are lots of virtuals "placed" where a regular cache could go. That's one of their biggest problems, they keep regular caches out.

Of course, I feel like the destitute relative who gets invited to the party as an afterthought. I have no idea what's going on at Waymarking.com. I can't afford the price of admission, so I can only try to look through the gauze curtain.

I have expounded on my feelings in other areas of the fora. At the risk of beating a dead horse, [well, a dead horse that's already been carted off to the dog-food fatory...], one of the things that attracted me to geocaching.com was the variety of experiences available. Yes, I've done some punk virtuals and locationlesses, but a lot of the 'real' caches are equally as bad. None of that is the fault of the category into which it falls. I have also done locationless and virtual caches that are far more challenging and rewarding than most of the 'real' caches that I've logged.

The death knell has sounded for Locationless Caches. To my viewpoint, more's the pity. Geocaching has/will be impoverished. More so when Virtual and Earth Caches join the list of the disenfranchised. Will Webcams follow?

From what I've heard (dribs and drabs gleaned from the fora), waypointing will hold less interest for me than terracaching. I do all my shopping at one store. A parallel thought process might be the proliferation of (money-making?) geocoins. A new icon! I need one of those! I have, in my possession, a few very handsome geocoins. Alas, they are not trackable here at geocaching. (My goodness, that would have cost $1.50 extra per coin!) Someday, I shall drop them off somewhere, but I will not go into wa.geocaching.coin.com {or whatever the site is} to log them. Nor will I ever go to waypointing.com.

TPTB, of course, own this site, and can do whatever they want to do with it. I wonder if they're making the right decision.

Virtuals do not seem to have the computer storage/retrieval problems that Locationless Caches have/had. That might be the deciding factor.

I, for one, miss the Locationless Caches already. Perhaps I should bypass 'real' caches, and concentrate on LC whilst they're still available?

I will reiterate: INMO GC is impoverished by the decisions made.

8k · September 9, 2005

You sound like you're upset because they stopped putting the strawberry in the neopolitan so you only have chocolate and vanilla left and you won't go to another store where you can get not only strawberrry but also butter pecan and peppermint stick

September 9, 2005

<snip>...geocaching.com was able to offer within the confines of the game.

Gc.com didnt create geocaching, did they? No. I personally think the problem is this site is forming the "game" around what they can handle as an organization. "Oh, we cant allow that, it takes to much work, servers, time, etc. (which is most often true, but . . .) Set up a new server, write off the costs of a "new" organization and *Poof* The game is on, so to speak.

Obviously, ALL the help they receive is based on Volunteer Help, and I do NOT in any way mean to dismiss that aspect. Everyone who donates their time to gc.com Deserves a HUGE THANK YOU from the entire geocaching community

(that is to say, those who geocache, And use This site)

But remember, when the whole Buxley issue came up, it was All based on the "who ""Owns"" the coordinates (data)you have now listed on This site? gc.com= and DONT YOU FORGET IT. Do a search, posts will provide this point, whether I stated it well or not. Now, it seems that it might be a problem for terraserver images, as MS takes over........ What next?

Waymarking, even tho I cant access the site (Put up or Shut up,(search on my recent posts to see it, in so many words from He himself) will most likely have the same restrictions on the data YOU submit. It’s theirs isn’t it? (Please prove me wrong, and show me a Workable link to show it to me, a lowly non-premium member)

Don’t like it? Don’t play. That is, the interpretation I get anyway.

This whole topic shows that people aren't really happy with the progression of the sport, err..... Wait- that should be stated as "Gc.com's progression of the sport"

For the long timers, an example of this kind of idea that was completely shot down, in the past. Actually Many times, I believe. One comes to mind- Swissperptual.

No, don’t bother going there, and looking for a huge database of already located spots. They have been removed from that site long ago- Put where the people who care about them can get them - back in THIER possession.

WE, the "hiders" OWN them, as if anyone can really own a location, or an xx.xxx xxx.xxx version of it - but they do(gc.com hired lawyers)

I've also heard "if you don’t like it, start your own site and do it there"

Well, Swiss didn’t take off, but was never really meant to be a national site.

Others have grown as time goes by, filled with people like "the rest of us"

I Know there are many other options out there now to list caches, so its becoming an easier choice to be "on the outside, looking in - when I reality - We here are doing just that - by playing a game arranged to meet "our" needs. Yup - politics and BS - thats why I started caching.

September 9, 2005

Yes they are and if the submitted Virt meets the guidelines it will be listed.

One virtual has been approved in the US in the last month. I am unable to discern any WOW factor, but maybe that's just me.

That supports the subjective nature of the "Wow" factor of virtuals. If only there was some kind of solution that could remove the subjective nature of virtuals...

That supports the subjective nature of the "Wow" factor of virtuals. If only there was some kind of solution that could remove the subjective nature of virtuals...

Actually, that truly supports the completely subjective nature of the volunteer approvers, which are completely ruled by TPTB in the discretion. Also, it provided for a completely personal interetation by that volunteer of those rules imposed by the site operators.

In the meantime, states such as MN couldnt get thier own approver, even after attemptting to do so (so Ive been told my our TPTB) No go. Why?

Didnt meet/pass the "approval process" of an arbitrary group of volunteers.

Again, subjective selection. Wouldnt it make the Most sense to have someone in a neighboring state approve for MN, such as WI? NO, apparently is the answer.

Put the master in control of it.

I really Love the bandwagon jumping going on in this topic, and elsewhere. I really wish tptb would create an a** kissing emoticon, so it was More obvious..........

Alternate sites. . . . . . . . yeah, I know - its like leaving your wife - but in the end, its the same. Dont like it? Leave, and find what you really wanted in the first place.

NO, this isnt geocide, taking a parting shot and closing a subject and locking it or otherwise. Its how I feel, and I think I stated it without breaking any rules -

which Ill find out soon enough. . . .

But, that doesnt stop me from enjoying the world around me, no matter who is trying to run it for me.

9.1k · September 9, 2005

Dude, the new site takes away the "Wow factor" test and all your opportunities to rant about the centralization of power in the hands of a small group of volunteers who robotically do whatever Groundspeak tells them to. It's exactly what you're asking for. So either pay $3 to peek at it, or wait a few more weeks as it rolls out like clockwork... first to owners of existing locationless caches, then to charter members, and this week to all premium members. You're up next.

And y'know what? I'm sure that most volunteers are very much looking forward to not having to listen to rants like yours regarding virtual cache decisions. If this is the last one, I'll print it out and frame it.

September 9, 2005

Yeah, I KNEW you'd be first to chime in with nothing really worthwhile to say-

where is the emoticon anyways?

Im not asking for anything.

So either pay $3 to peek at it, or wait a few more weeks as it rolls out like clockwork..

Yup, pay up, or shut up - the mantra of the . . . . .

BTW- I dont own any virts, never submitted one, and never planned on placing one here because of the nature of the approval, etc. I searched a few, and Liked them.

But hey- who needs virts when I have over 700 rusty tin cans to look for ?

Go figure. <insert new emoticon here>

1.4k · September 9, 2005

Dude, the new site takes away the "Wow factor" test ....

Actually the new site removes the Wow factor completly.

9.4k · September 9, 2005

But hey- who needs virts when I have over 700 rusty tin cans to look for ?

Good question. Why go caching at all if you hate it so much?

9.4k · September 9, 2005

Dude, the new site takes away the "Wow factor" test ....

Actually the new site removes the Wow factor completly.

That's right. It is now more of a community rating system and you can decide what kinds of categories are wow and what aren't.

September 9, 2005

But hey- who needs virts when I have over 700 rusty tin cans to look for ?

Good question. Why go caching at all if you hate it so much?

I dont hate the game, its the . . . . .aw, forget it.

Ill just shut up now thanks

1.2k · September 10, 2005

Edited September 10, 2005 by LaPaglia

Future Of Virtuals

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment