Jump to content

Why Do They Have To Leave?


Recommended Posts

Just an open letter/post to Jeremy and TPTB (which is pretty much Jeremy I guess :anitongue: )......

 

Why do the locationless caches, virts and any other "no-box-of-goodies-at-the-end-of-the-cache" caches HAVE to leave GC.com for WM.com? What does it hurt to leave them up on GC.com for those of us that like hunting them? You can just issue an announcement that no new virts will be allowed on GC.com and that the loctionlesses and virts that are active now will be left for our logging enjoyment and that any new virtuals/earthcaches/locationlesses will need to be submitted through WM.com. The cache owners that want to have their caches stay on GC.com could also list them at WM.com or archive their GC.com and only list it with WM.com or whatever they want to do.

 

I'm not trying to be a pain in the arse here, I just really would like to know why they cannot stay on GC.com and also be on WM.com if the cache owners choose to put them there.

 

And as to the posts I've seen on other threads about the big headache with virts was that the volunteer reviewers were getting hate mail from rejected cache submissions......well, lets get real. A part of the job when you get some authority is that there are some really stupid people out there that you'll offend. Nothing you can do about it. And if they are sending you actual hate-mail...ie, "I know where you live" kinda crap like someone posted, then you ban the offending jerk and move on with your life. I've been in management for quite some time, and there are plenty of jerks out there. If you can't let dumb stuff roll off your back like water on a duck...then maybe you should volunteer for something a bit less stressful. A bit harsh, maybe....but dumb emails like that are just a delete/ban button away. And if you just place a cap on them here at GC.com and tell people that new virts and loctionlesses will have to go through the new site, then that eliminates the source of that problem as well. And those of us that have no desire to use WM.com can still cache for virts and the few remaining locationlesses still active. Everybody wins.

 

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this solution, please.

 

Jeff

Link to post

Dear Geocaching.com,

 

We've had a great time together, you and I. Remember when we were first introduced? It was a crazy time and we did so much together until we realized we were going too fast. It's been a while now and I've been thinking that it really isn't working out. I'm afraid I'll be leaving you.

 

No, it's not really you, it's me. I just realized that we just really aren't working out as a couple. While you enjoy being logged for every find, I need my space and need my own waypoints and those waypoints need to be logged too. It was just too much being logged and logged repeatedly. It just made no sense.

 

So I'm leaving you, geocaching.com but I'll still be your friend. Just friends, you know? We'll still keep in touch and we'll still share our accounts with each other. We'll even share new features. We'll learn to grow apart as much as we grow together.

 

I love you geocaching.com but we really must separate. Take care,

 

Locationless Caches.

 

PS. I have remarried. I'm now a waymark category.

Link to post

That was funny.

 

I am on the other extreme.... I say take all of the Virtuals and Earthcaches and Web Cams, and have them off of Geocaching.com by the end of the year.

 

You wanna follow that "Dear John" letter idea... cool

 

All you non-container types, grab your gear, your notes, your logs, your finds, your pictures and get out of here!

 

Let's be honest, Geocaching said that they send messages to all of the Locationless Cache owners and invited them to move them over to Waymarking... and some have. The rest seem to have till the end of the year to do so, then they get archived. I suspect the same will be true for Virtuals... find a Catagory to fit into, or get Archived. If people don't move them over, it's because they have lost interest in the Virtuals they own.

 

There are already Catagories for EarthCaches and Web Cams.. problem solved there. Move em on over!

 

My concern is that the old finds will linger for these non-geocaches on Geocaching.com

 

I am just suggesting, and I'm hoping someone will show be solid reason why this wouldn't work, but here goes.

 

At the end of the year, move ALL of the Earth Caches to the new EarthCache Catagory in Waymarking... same goes for Web Cams. Move all of the logs over too. Remove them from Geocaching entirely. Everyone gets to keep their stats and ownership, everything is in tact.

 

As for Virtuals, the same as Locationless. Send out a note to the owners, tell them to find a suitable Waymark catagory and when they do, move all the logs and everything over to Waymarking.

 

Cut the cord!

 

Then Waymarking will be already set up with the full and current set of what was on Geocaching.com that shouldn't be anymore.

 

And everyone will still have the credits for their old finds, without having cross contamination.

 

It's a whole new ball game... why keep the old problems? They can be solutions on the new site!

 

:anitongue: The Blue Quasar

 

(edit: typos)

Edited by The Blue Quasar
Link to post
Now, that's funny, I don't care which side of this discussion you are on!

 

Thanks, Jeremy!

 

:anitongue:

I agree. As much as I hate to see the break up, THAT was some funny shiz-nit! But with any break up, a lot of friends end up picking a side and then it becomes awkward at parties. LC, we wish you luck with your future with Waymarking.com... but I don't think we'll be hanging out much.

Link to post

Dear Geocaching.com,

 

This is a hard letter to write to you. We've been friends for a long time... at least 4 years right?

 

Lately I have noticed that you have been setting me to a higher standard. I don't know whether it has been fame, or popularity, but I seem to spend less and less time with you. I've been fretting over this for a while but I realized something. We really aren't compatable, are we?

 

You may not realize this but I have been noticing that you don't really see anything in me. I know, you see the occasional statue or memorial, but when you get to that destination you don't notice anything inside. You know? It's true. I am empty.

 

If I'm going to be frank I might as well let it all out. Do you know how locationless caches always have so many logs? Well, it was me all along. I realize you probably noticed the coordinates on those logs so maybe you are just kidding yourself and thinking they're just logs. They're not.

 

I've decided that it is time that we should part, and I should go out and find myself. I know there are others out in the world that are like me and I'll see if I can join them. If not, I'll make myself known and hope that others like me will gather and share.

 

So I'm leaving you for Waymarking. Don't be sad. You know that this is the right thing to do. Maybe someday you too can find your own place at Waymarking.com.

 

We still have our memories.

 

Love,

 

Virtual Caches

Link to post
Ummm, it's Friday and my brain doesn't process anything other than direct answers. So, was I supposed to get an email about my virtual going to waypoint?

 

Grrr. Waymarking?

You wanted a dear John letter so I gave you one.

 

No there hasn't been any announcements about it. In fact this forum section or Waymarking.com site hasn't been officially announced. But you can read the FAQ pinned to the top of the forums if you have any questions. I think yours has been answered.

Link to post
Why do the locationless caches, virts and any other "no-box-of-goodies-at-the-end-of-the-cache" caches HAVE to leave GC.com for WM.com? What does it hurt to leave them up on GC.com for those of us that like hunting them? <snip>

It wouldn't make any sense to leave some virts on this site and move some virts to Waymarking. Think of how hard it would be for people to search for nearby virts with that arrangement.

Also, it doesn't make any sense to leave virts here but not allow new ones. Many of the angst-filled threads are because virts aren't approved often enough. If they were banned entirely there would be even more complaints.

 

The best solution? Submit as many virts as you want on Waymarking.com. No "WOW!" factor, no getting in the way of geocaches, etc. There's probably even a new server to run it all so the geocaching one can focus on caches only.

Link to post

I hope I have not missed this point having already been made but my view is that virtuals have a valuable function in geocaching as drawing people to places worth visiting or facts they might not otherwise spot.

I appreciate that as waymarks they can do the same BUT if, as some say they will, people only look for Geocaches they will miss the converted virtuals.

Link to post

I'm another that prefers to move virtuals to Waymarking and not leave any evidence of their previous existence on GC.com. We can even hire Mr. Wolf from "Pulp Fiction" to clean up the post-virtual mess.

Link to post

Dear Virtual Caches,

 

I understand that you are leaving but I just want you to know that I did not think you were empty. You were full of life... life that the cold metal of an ammo can in the woods couldn't always provide. I saw the beauty in you. You made me laugh. You made me think. I thought of you as more than just another notch on my log book. More than just a conquest to be forgotten in the morning. Sure there are others LIKE you... but they are not you. They don't have everything that makes you YOU! They may have some of the qualities that you have but they are not you. I hope you can stand out for the cache that you are when filed amongst so many look-a-likes... but I can't help but think that part of your uniqueness will be lost in the sea of ordinary.

 

I know I can't change your mind... and I can accept that. But I want you to know that I'll always remember you as the cache that you were... not as the waymark that you have become. I know its not your fault. You were driven to it by all those that never understood you for what you are. Just remember that I "got" you. If you ever decide to come back, I will be waiting with open arms.

 

Love always,

 

Geocacher

Link to post

Dear Virtual Caches,

 

It's hard for me to say goodbye, but it's time for me to move on now. You see, you didn't know it, but for all these years I've yearned for you. I saw the happiness in the faces of those who were closest to you - and I wanted to be like them. I wanted to have you for my own, but I never could. And now I've met someone new - someone who can give me what I need.

 

I want you to know that I'll miss the little smiley you used to give me when we'd occasionally cross paths, but I knew that I never had that certain "WOW" factor that would ever allow you to become mine.

 

Maybe I'll still bump into you from time to time, but I know that eventually I won't see you anymore. We'll always have the memories.

 

cache_test_dummies

 

P.S. Um, this is kinda awkward, but is it ok if I still hang out with your sisters Traditional, Multi and Unknown?

Link to post

I think you asked for those last two posts Jeremy? :rolleyes::P

 

What actually bothers me, is that no one has actually been asked on what they want. There is obviously a clear devide on people wanting Virtuals and the likes to go and people that also want them to stay.

 

Now if they go, all of the members that want them to stay are going to miss them and some may even decide that why should they bother carrying on.

Were as if they stay, all of the people that want them to go can just put them onto their ignore lists. Then guess what? Everyone will actually be happy :P:P

Link to post
It wouldn't make any sense to leave some virts on this site and move some virts to Waymarking. Think of how hard it would be for people to search for nearby virts with that arrangement.

 

Not hard at all, you search for nearby caches the same as always, and you go to WM.com to search for nearby waypoints.....and if the ideas of adding a link to the cache page for "nearest waymarks" is implemented, then it is even easier yet.

 

Also, it doesn't make any sense to leave virts here but not allow new ones. Many of the angst-filled threads are because virts aren't approved often enough. If they were banned entirely there would be even more complaints.

 

It makes alot of sense actually. Nearly everyday, laws are made that include "grandfather clauses". From this day on, the new law/ordinance/whatever is now this, but if you already have the old stuff, you are allowed to be "grandfathered in". The caches that are on GC.com are simply allowed to be grandfathered, and all new locationless and virts, etc will have to be submitted thru WM.com. Simple. No moritorium for years then all of a sudden yank them.....you instead announce the end of new locationlesses and virts on GC.com and also announce the opening of WM.com. Simple.

 

The best solution? Submit as many virts as you want on Waymarking.com. No "WOW!" factor, no getting in the way of geocaches, etc. There's probably even a new server to run it all so the geocaching one can focus on caches only.

 

I respect your right to an opinion, but I disagree entirely. The best solution, in my opinion, is to leave the existing locationlesses and virts, etc on GC.com and begin all new caches of that type on WM.com.

 

I hope that Jeremy has not closed his decision making on this topic. I'm offering up a solution that I believe will please alot more of the general geocaching population and create less angst/stress/bad feelings. I have discussed this with other local geocachers in my town and many are of similar feelings that they enjoy the virts/locationlesses and would like them to remain on GC.com. I hope that Jeremy will give this some additional consideration.

 

Jeff

committed "geocacher"

Link to post

For me, there is a clear distinction between locationless caches and virtuals. The latter take you to one specific spot for a clearly defined reason, often educative and historical. I am aware that there is a proliferation of virtual caches in the US, often in rural areas where a physical container could been hiddden. There are fewer virtuals in the UK (I think), and I would be very sorry if those that currently exist were removed from geocaching. I know that owners of those virtuals (myself included) would be disgruntled (at the very least) should they be removed. Perhaps one way to reduce them would be to find a way of sifting out those that aren't really being maintained properly (e.g because the owner is no longer involved in geocaching).

 

I did do locationless caches in the beginning of my geocaching career, but gave them up a while ago. I have no intention of taking up Waymarking. I put a lot of work into a virtual cache at the Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh where a physical container obviously cannot be hidden for security reasons. Please just grandfather, rather than remove, virtuals.

Edited by Firth of Forth
Link to post

"Existing maintained virtuals on geocaching.com will be grandfathered on the web site, but we do not guarantee they will remain listed forever. We'll see how Waymarking goes."

 

This quote is from the FAQs. Please say that virtuals are not leaving the GC website as of Jan1. I love virtuals (good virts, I know there are some lame ones out there) and have bookmarked several to do. Now, in the middle of August I hear (and if it was announced earlier than this, it is my own fault for not being on the forums very often) that they may be gone as of the first of the year. Many of the virts I want to do are at Mt St Helens, Mt Rainer, in other words SEASONAL locations. I now have six good weekends to try to bag these virts with this cloud of Jan 1 hanging over my head. With life intruding, this is not going to happen. With the logs from the previous cachers, I will probably visit some of these sites someday anyway. Because a fellow cacher thought it was worthwhile, and many other cachers agreed with him or her. But, darn it, I want to do it as part of this game, obsession, hobby...

 

I have actually logged a waypoint, for the old AV8R locationless, so I cannot say I am against waypointing. I just think the spirit of the hunt is represented in many of the viruals currently on GC, and they should be allowed to stay. Someone has already made the grandfathering arguement very well, so I won't repeat. My heartfelt plea is to allow virtuals to grandfather on the the GC site. If that is not going to happen long term, consider the seasonal aspect of many caches (not just virtuals, and extend the "deadline" for removal.

 

Very respectfully submitted,

 

WATreasureHunters

 

PS..The letter, BTW, was hilarous! :unsure:

Link to post

The idea seems to be to relocate the non-container items from Geocaching, to the more suitable Waymarking.

 

That does not change the enjoyment level at all.

 

Finding a Waymark is exactly the same as finding a Virtual.

 

Some people are trying to term things to suggest that Waymarking is not Geocaching..

 

That is true, but it helps to explain ideas, when there is a referrence point.

 

So, when the Virtuals are converted to Waymarks, people can list even more, and some of the really good ones that wouldn't get approved on the Geocaching site, can be listed here.

 

It really is a benefit to those that like Virtuals, to have them instead as Waymarks... more variety, easier to list, and easier to classify.

 

Who could ask for more?

 

Virtuals are rising from the flames, reborn as Waymarks. Enjoy the new game, as it will be better than before.

 

:unsure: The Blue Quasar

Link to post
The idea seems to be to relocate the non-container items from Geocaching, to the more suitable Waymarking.

 

That does not change the enjoyment level at all.

 

Yes it does for those of us with no interest in going over to the Waymarking.com website. Just because you may want to play the waymark game, does not mean there aren't others that want nothing to do with it.

 

Finding a Waymark is exactly the same as finding a Virtual.

 

Not really, different site, different categories, different "approvers", different set of rules...in a word...different.

 

Some people are trying to term things to suggest that Waymarking is not Geocaching..

 

That is true, but it helps to explain ideas, when there is a referrence point.

 

You're right there.....Waymarking is NOT geocaching...

 

So, when the Virtuals are converted to Waymarks, people can list even more, and some of the really good ones that wouldn't get approved on the Geocaching site, can be listed here.

 

chances are....if the virtuals were really good ones, then they were already approved for geocaching....hence the restrictions on virtuals the last couple years. Sure, I'll admit there are some lame virts out there, but the vast majority I've found so far (and yes I've even submitted one for approval and gotten turned down) have been very good and would not have been able to have had a physical container placed nearby.

 

It really is a benefit to those that like Virtuals, to have them instead as Waymarks... more variety, easier to list, and easier to classify.

 

Who could ask for more?

 

The problem is, those of us that want virts to stay on geocaching aren't asking for more, we're asking for those caches to remain where they are currently. It's a benefit for you and the others on Waymarking to have them moved over there, but for those of us who want them to remain on geocaching, it is anything but a benefit.

 

Virtuals are rising from the flames, reborn as Waymarks. Enjoy the new game, as it will be better than before.

 

A hopeful assumption IMHO. The request is simply if you're going to strip geocaching of the locationlesses, then please leave the current virtuals here to stay. Afterall, they do have a physical location at the end of the hunt, and a means of verification that you've been there, which is all the paper logbook in a physical cache is for.

 

Jeff

Edited by Barthonis
Link to post

With apologies to Bootron:

 

I will try an analogy: Fake Article to follow

 

February 30th, 2006 - In a daring move, President and CEO of McDonald's, Mr. R. McDonald announced today that the McDonald's corporation will be returning to its roots. 

 

"Our business has being growing too fast, and there has been too much product for our staff to learn, too much variety in food items to store and manage.  After much debate, the Executive decided to return to the vision of our founder, Ray Crok, and focus solely on the making of Big Macs, Cheeseburgers and Fries."

 

McDonald went on to say that even though the key elements, the beef products, would remain at the McDonald's Francises, that there are still many people that enjoy the alternative products, like chicken and fish.

 

"This market is a new growth area that we wish to increase exposure with, the non-beef market.  Many people enjoy the McChicken, the Chicken McNuggets and the Filet 'o Fish.  To continue to provide this product line, along with other new healthy alternatives, we are launching a new chain of DocFishken's restaurants to handle the non-beef sector of our sandwich line." the CEO was quoted.

 

It should be noted that the decision was made, and whether or not anyone feels it is a correct decision is not relevant... the decision has been made.

 

Now, go back and read the above quoted section again, while making these substitutions...

 

R. McDonald = Jeremy Irish

McDonald's = Geocaching.com

Big Mac = Traditional Cache

Cheeseburger = Multi-Cache

Filet 'o Fish = Locationless

McNuggets and McChicken = Virtual Caches

DocFishken's = Waymarking

 

That makes perfect sense to me... then again I wrote it ;)

 

However, Barthonis did bring up some good points

chances are....if the virtuals were really good ones, then they were already approved for geocaching

Then you are going to run out of Virtual Caches, since like you said most don't approved anymore. This method at Waymarking.com allows you to continue to get new Virtuals. Sure some will be lame, but you will read the description first like you do now, and you will also know what users devote a good deal of time to make sure it is worthy.

 

However this statement doesn't make sense to me.

The problem is, those of us that want virts to stay on geocaching aren't asking for more, we're asking for those caches to remain where they are currently

I know that this is not true... people are always trying to submit Virtuals and they get denied. People want more. You tried yourself. Also, you indicated that you enjoy Virtuals... what would you do if there were no more? Stop doing Virtuals? What if you knew that Waymarking had 10 times the Virtuals, and you could go there and keep enjoying these locations?

 

If McDonald's stopped making Milk Shakes and you wanted a Milk Shake... wouldn't you go to Burger King if they still made Milk Shakes? Even if it was just to get the Milk Shake?

 

We do this all the time without knowing it... one place has one thing we want, but not another.. so we get the other somewhere else.

 

I still don't see how Waymarking is different from the Virtual Caches (and I firmly believe that Virtuals, Web Cams and Earth Caches, even Locationless are all just variations of Virtuals) on Geocaching.com

 

I also don't agree with the point that Virtuals are just like Geocaches except that Geocaches have logbooks and a physical location. Locationless caches all had physical locations too, just unique ones. A Geocache is more than a logbook... it is hidden, and it is tangible. All the Virtual Variations are not hidden, there is no logbook and there is nothing tangible that any one else cannot find without doing basic research. That sounds more like a Waymark than a Geocache. Anyone can find every one of the Virtual Varations we had before without a GPS. Again... that's a Waymark... not a Geocache.

 

;) The Blue Quasar

Link to post
<snip>If McDonald's stopped making Milk Shakes and you wanted a Milk Shake... wouldn't you go to Burger King if they still made Milk Shakes? Even if it was just to get the Milk Shake?<snip>

 

TOTALLY off topic but for MANY years McDonald's did stop selling Milk Shakes. They sold Shakes instead. The lack of the word milk was because they did not contain enough dairy products to be called Milk Shakes. It has only been recently that they are again being called Milk Shakes and this is not true in all areas. Some areas are still only selling shakes.

 

Sorry but thats a tidbit I had stored in the brain for a long time and finally saw a way to use it.

 

GREAT overall analogy BTW and the milk shake part is totally true for me. McDonalds stopped selling brewed ice tea in my area several years ago. I stopped going to Mcdonalds and started going to Sonic for that reason. (yes I know in the last 6 months McDonalds is again selling brewed tea.)

Edited by LaPaglia
Link to post

I'm confused by your "article" Blue Quasar. Your post started off in support of leaving Virtuals (et al) at gc.com. If that article about McD's was real, it would be an utterly rediculous move on McD's part. Substituting in all the geocache terminology does not make the article any less rediculous. But then you go on to support the stripping of Virtuals (et al) from gc.com. Which leads me to believe that you would also support such a move by McD's. And if I really liked all the food at McD's including shakes and they stopped making shakes. I think I would skip the shake and stick with the rest of the food to avoid having to stop at two separate drive throughs just for the shake I couldn't get at the place I like to go.

 

But one thing I think we can all agree on is this: whether or not anyone feels it is a correct decision is not relevant... the decision has been made.

 

But just as irrelevant is that we all agree at all.

 

What is relevant is equal right to be happy or upset about the decision. So as long as there are people who openly praise the new Waymarking site, there will be people who openly dislike it. That's life. Deal with it. ;)

Link to post
What is relevant is equal right to be happy or upset about the decision. So as long as there are people who openly praise the new Waymarking site, there will be people who openly dislike it. That's life. Deal with it. :D

That's true. It goes both ways too.

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...