Jump to content

Why No More Virtual Caches?


jbhall
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I started caching about a year ago and have let it slide. I recently got back into with my family on a trip to NJ and NY.

 

I actually prefer the virtual caches, because I usually learn something. I understand that the VC's have been grandfathered, but why no new ones?

 

I am sure this has been addressed before. I looked a bit, but then gave up and decided to post a new thread.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment

"Because the trend of the last year for gc.com has basically been to get geocaching back to finding boxes hidden somewhere.

Tighten virtuals to those that really WOW and can't have a container there. Then with Waymarking going up, kicking locationless out, and stopping new virutals, earthcaches, webcams (anything without a physical component) from being geocaches*."

 

*You can still submit new virts etc you just have to do it at Waymarking.com

Link to comment

"Because the trend of the last year for gc.com has basically been to get geocaching back to finding boxes hidden somewhere.

Tighten virtuals to those that really WOW and can't have a container there. Then with Waymarking going up, kicking locationless out, and stopping new virutals, earthcaches, webcams (anything without a physical component) from being geocaches*."

 

*You can still submit new virts etc you just have to do it at Waymarking.com

 

Yeah, check out Waymarking.com. I think that you'll agree that it really is a great alternative. Let us know what you think. :ph34r:

Link to comment

"Because the trend of the last year for gc.com has basically been to get geocaching back to finding boxes hidden somewhere.

Tighten virtuals to those that really WOW and can't have a container there. Then with Waymarking going up, kicking locationless out, and stopping new virutals, earthcaches, webcams (anything without a physical component) from being geocaches*."

 

*You can still submit new virts etc you just have to do it at Waymarking.com

 

Yeah, check out Waymarking.com. I think that you'll agree that it really is a great alternative. Let us know what you think. :huh:

 

Somehow, I'm convinced that's sarcasm :ph34r: Yes, it seems that simply referring people over there without mentioning the lack of interest in the website, or the fact that many don't consider it a viable alternative for those type of caches, can be quite controversial.

Link to comment

Somehow, I'm convinced that's sarcasm :ph34r: Yes, it seems that simply referring people over there without mentioning the lack of interest in the website, or the fact that many don't consider it a viable alternative for those type of caches, can be quite controversial.

 

Strange. Lots of interest over there. Mr T even came up with a WoW group for creating a WoW waymark (which is a virtual). Unfortunately there hasn't been much interest in creating a new virtual category I guess. Maybe there isn't much interest after all. You're not even in the group, TheWhiteUrkel, but open enrollment is on so have fun.

Link to comment

Strange. Lots of interest over there. Mr T even came up with a WoW group for creating a WoW waymark (which is a virtual). Unfortunately there hasn't been much interest in creating a new virtual category I guess. Maybe there isn't much interest after all. You're not even in the group, TheWhiteUrkel, but open enrollment is on so have fun.

 

Just making an observation. Weren't "get over it and go Waymarking" type responses to similiar questions in this forum the reason This thread was started in the Waymarking forums?

Link to comment

Strange. Lots of interest over there. Mr T even came up with a WoW group for creating a WoW waymark (which is a virtual). Unfortunately there hasn't been much interest in creating a new virtual category I guess. Maybe there isn't much interest after all. You're not even in the group, TheWhiteUrkel, but open enrollment is on so have fun.

 

Just making an observation. Weren't "get over it and go Waymarking" type responses to similiar questions in this forum the reason This thread was started in the Waymarking forums?

 

No. That thread was started because someone wanted to bash Waymarking based on a feeling, and no concrete complaints which, when addressed, might actually help make the site better.

Link to comment

I understand that the VC's have been grandfathered, but why no new ones?

Thanks.

Because of the high mortality rate associated with virts. People were dying of boredom.

 

We had a regular cache at our "World's Biggest Calumet" GCB5F6, replacing it twice but the neighborhood kids would pilfer it! So we had to make it into a virtual and it still does well! :ph34r: Because of the nature of the location and the topic of the site we felt it was important to keep in the geocaching realm!

We prefere actual caches but sometimes the physical container does not work as in our "Paul Bunyan's Slingshot" GCKAZF. It is at a crossroads and is a site where a physical container would not work out as the site is so public and hiding areas are sparse.

 

Happy Caching! P&B

Link to comment

Strange. Lots of interest over there. Mr T even came up with a WoW group for creating a WoW waymark (which is a virtual). Unfortunately there hasn't been much interest in creating a new virtual category I guess. Maybe there isn't much interest after all. You're not even in the group, TheWhiteUrkel, but open enrollment is on so have fun.

 

Just making an observation.

 

Yes. A poor and lazy one at that.

Link to comment
Just making an observation. Weren't "get over it and go Waymarking" type responses to similiar questions in this forum the reason This thread was started in the Waymarking forums?

No. That thread was started because someone wanted to bash Waymarking based on a feeling, and no concrete complaints which, when addressed, might actually help make the site better.

The first poster is correct; that thread was a direct response to the constant "get over it and use Waymarking" responses to any question about the various cache types that were sent there. I tried to start an honest discussion of why Waymarking is not an acceptable replacement for those types.

 

You can see how well my feedback was received. It's interesting and illuminating that the constructive suggestions I made were entirely ignored in favor of officially-sanctioned personal attacks against me for being presumptuous enough to have an opinion. Indeed, these attacks continue with the breathtakingly mendacious claim that I only wanted to "bash Waymarking."

 

Apparently I hit a nerve.

Link to comment

Strange. Lots of interest over there. Mr T even came up with a WoW group for creating a WoW waymark (which is a virtual). Unfortunately there hasn't been much interest in creating a new virtual category I guess. Maybe there isn't much interest after all. You're not even in the group, TheWhiteUrkel, but open enrollment is on so have fun.

 

Just making an observation. Weren't "get over it and go Waymarking" type responses to similiar questions in this forum the reason This thread was started in the Waymarking forums?

 

No. That thread was started because someone wanted to bash Waymarking based on a feeling, and no concrete complaints which, when addressed, might actually help make the site better.

 

That's a little unfair to fizzymagic. When he called it "Lame Marking" in another thread, Jeremy asked him to start a thread in the Waymarking forums to explain his objections to Waymarking. I give fizzymagic credit for basically admitting that his objection to Waymarking was based more on a feeling than on any concrete problems. But this is exactly what the problem is, and the problem of virtuals as well. Either you liked virtuals because you learned something by visiting a place you would never had been to, or you didn't like virtuals because there wasn't a box to find. There is no rationale for feeling one way or the other; it depends on the person. Defining "Wow" depends on the person as well, which is probably why my Wow Waymarkers group is getting little traction. I'm still hoping that we can find a definition for "places you didn't know existed but think others would like to learn about" ;)

Link to comment
Just making an observation. Weren't "get over it and go Waymarking" type responses to similiar questions in this forum the reason This thread was started in the Waymarking forums?

No. That thread was started because someone wanted to bash Waymarking based on a feeling, and no concrete complaints which, when addressed, might actually help make the site better.

The first poster is correct; that thread was a direct response to the constant "get over it and use Waymarking" responses to any question about the various cache types that were sent there. I tried to start an honest discussion of why Waymarking is not an acceptable replacement for those types.

 

You can see how well my feedback was received. It's interesting and illuminating that the constructive suggestions I made were entirely ignored in favor of officially-sanctioned personal attacks against me for being presumptuous enough to have an opinion. Indeed, these attacks continue with the breathtakingly mendacious claim that I only wanted to "bash Waymarking."

 

Apparently I hit a nerve.

 

There were no personal attacks in the topic that I could see. Differing opinions, yes. Attacks, no.

 

This was the only personal attack I could see:

 

If you're not able to grasp the difference, it might be best not to respond.

 

which was your own post. Your "bashing Waymarking" was apt considering your snipes around other topics like this one. Look at me! I have a snarky post about Waymarking.

 

However, being that based on the OP this is neither here nor there, and the OP question was answered, perhaps it would be time to close the thread.

Link to comment

I think that they should come up with a different name then WoW. World of Warcraft is currently the most popular multi-player online game and I figured you were talking about that.

 

The nice thing about the Waymarking.com site, relating to virtuals, is if you want to come up with the category and post it through the peer review process, you can! Just build a group around the idea, define it, and put it through the peer review.

 

Mr T's Wow category has not yet gone through the category creation process because they can't figure out how to define Wow. Maybe you can come up with a good definition. Although I have to warn you - the entire volunteer reviewer group couldn't come up with a good definition for it. That's kind of the point.

Link to comment

To answer the OP, I really don't know why virtuals are dead. The theory is that all new ones will be done on Waymarking. Waymarking is Waymarking and not Caching. While the target may have been locationless and virtual cachers the actual people interested are different. Sort of like Benchmarking. It's not caching though there are similarities.

 

Time will tell what's what.

Link to comment

"Because the trend of the last year for gc.com has basically been to get geocaching back to finding boxes hidden somewhere.

Tighten virtuals to those that really WOW and can't have a container there. Then with Waymarking going up, kicking locationless out, and stopping new virutals, earthcaches, webcams (anything without a physical component) from being geocaches*."

 

*You can still submit new virts etc you just have to do it at Waymarking.com

 

Yeah, check out Waymarking.com. I think that you'll agree that it really is a great alternative. Let us know what you think. ;)

 

Somehow, I'm convinced that's sarcasm :wacko: Yes, it seems that simply referring people over there without mentioning the lack of interest in the website, or the fact that many don't consider it a viable alternative for those type of caches, can be quite controversial.

 

Actually its just a quote of what I said a few weeks ago when someone asked Earth Caches, why were they shut down?. I couldn't think of a better explaintion for it.

Yes it leaves out a lot of things (why did the trend happen and what lead to it? what did people think of this? and of course page after page about Waymarking), but it isn't meant to be detailed. If you can see why its an vauge... or maybe even incomplete answer, then you probably weren't the one asking the question :wacko: .

Link to comment

I think that they should come up with a different name then WoW. World of Warcraft is currently the most popular multi-player online game and I figured you were talking about that.

 

The nice thing about the Waymarking.com site, relating to virtuals, is if you want to come up with the category and post it through the peer review process, you can! Just build a group around the idea, define it, and put it through the peer review.

 

Mr T's Wow category has not yet gone through the category creation process because they can't figure out how to define Wow. Maybe you can come up with a good definition. Although I have to warn you - the entire volunteer reviewer group couldn't come up with a good definition for it. That's kind of the point.

 

I took your suggestion and joined the group. I sent a message to the group leader with my definition and alternative names.

Link to comment

I started caching about a year ago and have let it slide. I recently got back into with my family on a trip to NJ and NY.

 

I actually prefer the virtual caches, because I usually learn something. I understand that the VC's have been grandfathered, but why no new ones?

 

I am sure this has been addressed before. I looked a bit, but then gave up and decided to post a new thread.

 

Thanks.

 

I enjoy good Virtual Caches for many reasons, but mostly for the surprise. Some of them were good due to the location, and didn't need the "WOW" factor to impress. There are still plenty of them to be found in my area, so I don't miss them yet.

 

Waymarking is a good substitute for Locationless, since there's still the excitement for "staking a claim" at a location first. Due to the use of categories, it's not so exciting as a substitute for Virtuals, unless the subject happened to be one's hobby or obsession.

 

People who are allegedly sniping at fizzymagic is totally missing the point about the reason why he objected to Waymarking based on a feeling unless they are bunch of droids. ;)

Link to comment

I think that they should come up with a different name then WoW. World of Warcraft is currently the most popular multi-player online game and I figured you were talking about that.

 

The nice thing about the Waymarking.com site, relating to virtuals, is if you want to come up with the category and post it through the peer review process, you can! Just build a group around the idea, define it, and put it through the peer review.

 

Mr T's Wow category has not yet gone through the category creation process because they can't figure out how to define Wow. Maybe you can come up with a good definition. Although I have to warn you - the entire volunteer reviewer group couldn't come up with a good definition for it. That's kind of the point.

 

I took your suggestion and joined the group. I sent a message to the group leader with my definition and alternative names.

 

That's probably never going to happen. The name "WOW" and the "WOW factor" go way back to when a de-facto moratorium was orignally put on virtual caches on this website. The name sort of has history and meaning when applied to them.

Link to comment
Just making an observation. Weren't "get over it and go Waymarking" type responses to similiar questions in this forum the reason This thread was started in the Waymarking forums?

No. That thread was started because someone wanted to bash Waymarking based on a feeling, and no concrete complaints which, when addressed, might actually help make the site better.

The first poster is correct; that thread was a direct response to the constant "get over it and use Waymarking" responses to any question about the various cache types that were sent there.

 

Well, at least I know my observation wasn't poor and lazy. I think ;)

Link to comment

"Because the trend of the last year for gc.com has basically been to get geocaching back to finding boxes hidden somewhere.

Tighten virtuals to those that really WOW and can't have a container there. Then with Waymarking going up, kicking locationless out, and stopping new virutals, earthcaches, webcams (anything without a physical component) from being geocaches*."

 

*You can still submit new virts etc you just have to do it at Waymarking.com

 

Yeah, check out Waymarking.com. I think that you'll agree that it really is a great alternative. Let us know what you think. :wacko:

 

Somehow, I'm convinced that's sarcasm ;) Yes, it seems that simply referring people over there without mentioning the lack of interest in the website, or the fact that many don't consider it a viable alternative for those type of caches, can be quite controversial.

 

Actually its just a quote of what I said a few weeks ago when someone asked Earth Caches, why were they shut down?. I couldn't think of a better explaintion for it.

Yes it leaves out a lot of things (why did the trend happen and what lead to it? what did people think of this? and of course page after page about Waymarking), but it isn't meant to be detailed. If you can see why its an vauge... or maybe even incomplete answer, then you probably weren't the one asking the question :wacko: .

 

True. And yours wasn't a "go Waymarking and get over it response" in any way, shape or form. I should have just steered clear of this thread from the get go. :wacko:

Link to comment

Strange. Lots of interest over there. Mr T even came up with a WoW group for creating a WoW waymark (which is a virtual). Unfortunately there hasn't been much interest in creating a new virtual category I guess. Maybe there isn't much interest after all. You're not even in the group, TheWhiteUrkel, but open enrollment is on so have fun.

 

Just making an observation. Weren't "get over it and go Waymarking" type responses to similiar questions in this forum the reason This thread was started in the Waymarking forums?

 

No. That thread was started because someone wanted to bash Waymarking based on a feeling, and no concrete complaints which, when addressed, might actually help make the site better.

 

I would beg to differ that the complaints are infact concrete. That "basher" has been a paying member since 2001, and a customer. It is his right to voice his opinion and expect to atleast get some positive feedback. Geocaching.com and Groundspeak is a business that relies on its paying customers, and if it wasn't for the "Charter Members" then the site would not be what it is today.

 

To make the assumption that the idea that making finding a McDonald's off of a highway and scaling Mt. Everest equal endeavors is not right, I'm certain is a concrete complaint. You cannot compare apples and oranges.

 

Too often do I see the bashing of people who try to better the site, instead of taking heed to their ideas and possibly trying to mold them and move the ideas towards the bettering of the site for everyone.

Link to comment

 

I would beg to differ that the complaints are infact concrete. That "basher" has been a paying member since 2001, and a customer. It is his right to voice his opinion and expect to atleast get some positive feedback. Geocaching.com and Groundspeak is a business that relies on its paying customers, and if it wasn't for the "Charter Members" then the site would not be what it is today.

 

And yet other charter members disagree with that opinion. So now what?

 

To make the assumption that the idea that making finding a McDonald's off of a highway and scaling Mt. Everest equal endeavors is not right, I'm certain is a concrete complaint. You cannot compare apples and oranges.

 

When geocaching.com tried to list virtuals that were 'scaling Mt. Everest' good while rejecting ones that were 'finding a McDonald's' lame, there was nothing but complaints. No one could agree as to what was 'good enough', and there were weekly, no, daily threads on 'Why isn't my virtual cache good enough?'

 

So now you have a place where folks can list almost anything. The current complaints about the noise to signal ratio was what the folks running Groundspeak were trying to prevent with the 'Wow' guideline, and people hated that. Now that there's a site where you can set your own level of 'Wow' people still aren't happy. Leaving aside the issue of lame waymarks, the other concern that seems to come up regularly is that they have their own stats, and are not listed on geocaching.com.

 

So can someone tell me, in detail, just what sort of 'virtual cache' guidelines would be acceptable to the vast majority of Groundspeak customers, charter members or not?

 

No? I didn't think so.

Link to comment

To answer the OP, I really don't know why virtuals are dead.

 

I find this hard to believe. You're the most voracious reader here and should know by now why it was decided to retire the virtual cache type.

 

I read quite a bit and I'm not positive either.

 

My take was that it just got to be too much of a hassle for a variety of reasons (the validity and veracity of those reasons being a main point of contention) to keep certain cache types alive so a new site was developed for them. Is that pretty accurate?

 

I still don't like it but do accept it. I'm trying to get fired up about Waymarking. It'll happen eventually...

Link to comment
So can someone tell me, in detail, just what sort of 'virtual cache' guidelines would be acceptable to the vast majority of Groundspeak customers, charter members or not?

 

No? I didn't think so.

 

There were many, many alternative guidelines proposed. TPTB were pretty set against them all as I remember it, possibly due to the Waymarking site being in developement. Therefore they were only academic discussions, at best, here in the forums, where most cachers probably never enter. Unfortunate, since some of them could have been acceptable to the "vast majority of Groundspeak customers, charter members or not". As usual things went from one extreme (WOW virts only) to another (any Waymark you want) without a middle ground being found. I will say that it seems like some of the discussions did help as I see bits of ideas being used here & there in Waymarking. I think TPTB were listening.

Link to comment
I still don't like it but do accept it. I'm trying to get fired up about Waymarking. It'll happen eventually...

 

I got a head start, and wouldn't think of posting my list of spots. I got the impression early on, first hand why this is a great idea. Before the ""get over it and go Waymarking" " I remeber a different common reply.

Yup, I do.

Link to comment

I like virtuals, bring them back! Eliminate the Mickey d's kind of categories from Waymarking and I might enjoy it more and participate in it. But as long as it is that cheesy, I'm not interested. don't say that I can choose to ignore the cheesy categories or categories I don't think belong, I did that with virtual and locationless caches. The premise of Waymarking seems lacking in substance.........

 

Dan

Link to comment

I like virtuals, bring them back! Eliminate the Mickey d's kind of categories from Waymarking and I might enjoy it more and participate in it. But as long as it is that cheesy, I'm not interested. don't say that I can choose to ignore the cheesy categories or categories I don't think belong, I did that with virtual and locationless caches. The premise of Waymarking seems lacking in substance.........

 

Dan

 

The Mickey d's argument is perpetuated by the Waymarking bashers who don't want to try anything new <_<

 

Using your logic - as long as there are cheesy grandfathered virtuals on geocaching.com (or lame urban micros, or puzzles or whatever else it is that I don't like) I'm not interested. The internet has too many websites, including many for things I'm not the least bit interested in, perhaps I should ignore the whole internet for that reason. Waymarking's power is that is allows commmunities (groups) to form around any interest. If a group is interested in Waymarking McDonald's that's fine. If they want to waymark funny mailboxes or statues of dead poets that's fine as well. You don't exactly ignore cheesy categories as much as concentrate on those categories you are interested in. I already do that on geocaching.com by looking at caches with higher terrain or puzzles with a high difficulty. If the problem is that you really liked virtuals, then I invite to join the Wow Waymarkers group. Perhaps we can define what made virtuals interesting to you and create a Waymarking category.

Link to comment
I tried to start an honest discussion of why Waymarking is not an acceptable replacement for those types.

 

We know why. Its about the smileys. Through Waymarking, you still get to use your GPS to find interesting places and some not so interesting places. Through Waymarking.com you can discover, learn, blah blah blah - all the things that were so "great" about virutals. Nothing has changed as far as that's concerned. What has changed is that you don't get a smiley for finding a waymark.

 

The day (if it ever happens) that GC.COM starts counting waymark finds as cache finds is the day that Waymarking.com becomes as popular as a shopping mall micro.

 

Its not about the learning, the hunt, the history, the discovery or the fun, its about the numbers. End of story.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
We know why. Its about the smileys.

 

The day (if it ever happens) that GC.COM starts counting waymark finds as cache finds is the day that Waymarking.com becomes as popular as a shopping mall micro.

While it may be all about the numbers for you, Brian, it's not for me. In fact, I would consider myself one of the most anti-numbers geocachers.

 

You should try caching just for the interest and challenge sometime -- once you quit going for the smileys, I think you will find caching much more enjoyable.

Link to comment
While it may be all about the numbers for you, Brian, it's not for me.
Yet you develop programs that crunch geocaching numbers like no one else ...

Wow.

 

Attacked for building a free application intended to try to get people away from just looking at their smiley count.

 

For spending my time trying to make geocaching better.

 

For giving something to the community with no recompense at all.

 

There really is no limit to how low you will hit, is there?

Link to comment
I tried to start an honest discussion of why Waymarking is not an acceptable replacement for those types.

 

Its not about the learning, the hunt, the history, the discovery or the fun, its about the numbers. End of story.

 

Let me fix this for you.

 

"It IS about the learning, the hunt, the history, the discovery AND the fun AND its about the numbers."

 

The numbers are just part of the fun, a big part to many to be sure, but only a part.

Link to comment
While it may be all about the numbers for you, Brian, it's not for me.
Yet you develop programs that crunch geocaching numbers like no one else ...

Wow.

 

Attacked for building a free application intended to try to get people away from just looking at their smiley count.

 

For spending my time trying to make geocaching better.

 

For giving something to the community with no recompense at all.

 

There really is no limit to how low you will hit, is there?

:D:mad::mad: Oh, I'd try to hit you lower but I'm too busy using your free number crunching program. You have not convinced me that 'its not about the numbers'. Me thinks you are in denial ... :(

Link to comment
You have not convinced me that 'its not about the numbers'. Me thinks you are in denial ...

Me thinks you have made a personal attack that is beneath contempt.

 

This should serve as a good warning to anyone else who would say anything less then glowingly positive about Waymarking.

 

Once again, I am really amazed that anyone would be willing to take such a cheap shot. This is the nastiest, most mean-spirited personal attack I have ever received in the forums. Makes me wonder why I even bother.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

 

There were many, many alternative guidelines proposed. TPTB were pretty set against them all as I remember it, possibly due to the Waymarking site being in developement. Therefore they were only academic discussions, at best, here in the forums, where most cachers probably never enter. Unfortunate, since some of them could have been acceptable to the "vast majority of Groundspeak customers, charter members or not". As usual things went from one extreme (WOW virts only) to another (any Waymark you want) without a middle ground being found. I will say that it seems like some of the discussions did help as I see bits of ideas being used here & there in Waymarking. I think TPTB were listening.

 

I have not seen clear, unambigous 'middle ground' guidelines regarding virtuals, only folks wanting the bar lowered just far enough so that their submission could be listed. Could you point me the posts with ones that would meet my request for a widely accepted alternative proposal?

 

That should be easy, given that there were so many of them...

Link to comment
You have not convinced me that 'its not about the numbers'. Me thinks you are in denial ...

Me thinks you have made a personal attack that is beneath contempt.

 

This should serve as a good warning to anyone else who would say anything less then glowingly positive about Waymarking.

 

Once again, I am really amazed that anyone would be willing to take such a cheap shot. This is the nastiest, most mean-spirited personal attack I have ever received in the forums. Makes me wonder why I even bother.

I have to believe that you merely forgot how to put smileys in your post. :mad:

 

I, too, found it odd that you could say that you are not about the numbers. This is because my perception of you is of one who is very analytical. I could not imagine that you would be able to ignore your interest in the numbers. I imagined that you were slicing and dicing your numbers before you created the app that made it simple or started the thread that disected the hobby's growth.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I like virtuals, bring them back! Eliminate the Mickey d's kind of categories from Waymarking and I might enjoy it more and participate in it. But as long as it is that cheesy, I'm not interested. don't say that I can choose to ignore the cheesy categories or categories I don't think belong, I did that with virtual and locationless caches. The premise of Waymarking seems lacking in substance.........

 

Dan

Why can you not be happy if you know that someone else is enjoying an aspect of the game that you can easily ignore? How is that any different than those that insisted that virts (or multis, or LCs, or puzzles, or micros, or letterboxes) go away because they don't like them?

 

In my mind, Waymarking is a better way to go for virtuals because you can concentrate on those that interest you and ignore the ones that you think are lame. If you like history? Go for it. Statues? There they are. Whatever it is, you're covered.

 

Myself, I like virts when I am traveling because they kind of show me around an unfamiliar city. The features being developed for WM.com will allow me to concentrate on the 'virts' that interest me, rather than waste my time on ones that don't.

Link to comment

In defense of fizzymagic, he's rather infamous for mocking people for achieving numerical milestones in our area. I've passed him months ago on "find counts" and I've been caching only about half as long as he has (he can always provide the exact figures, if he so desires) :mad:

 

He has removed his LC finds on principle (that I disagree with) because for him, it's not about the numbers.

 

That being said, having Waymarking stats tracked in Geocaching profile will likely get more cachers to pay attention to the game. Integrating Pocket Queries for both sites will do that also. That's how us cachers have been conditioned to enjoy the game, via find counts. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out. (Note: I didn't say NUMBERS)

 

If Groundspeak is looking for an audience outside of Geocachers for Waymarking, then my point is all moot, of course.

Link to comment

 

I have not seen clear, unambigous 'middle ground' guidelines regarding virtuals, only folks wanting the bar lowered just far enough so that their submission could be listed.

 

This is, by far, the most succinct and informative post I have seen in a long time. It is true that there has yet to be a decent definition of virtuals today other than "not geocaches." And that isn't a definition at all.

 

I welcome the attempt however. There's a space under Waymarking Games for someone who can achive this lofty goal.

Link to comment
You have not convinced me that 'its not about the numbers'. Me thinks you are in denial ...

Me thinks you have made a personal attack that is beneath contempt.

 

This should serve as a good warning to anyone else who would say anything less then glowingly positive about Waymarking.

 

Once again, I am really amazed that anyone would be willing to take such a cheap shot. This is the nastiest, most mean-spirited personal attack I have ever received in the forums. Makes me wonder why I even bother.

 

While I have never agreed with fizzy on the virtuals/Waymarking topic, and earlier wondered how long it would take him to weigh in, I do agree with him here.......

Link to comment

...I have not seen clear, unambigous 'middle ground' guidelines regarding virtuals, only folks wanting the bar lowered just far enough so that their submission could be listed. Could you point me the posts with ones that would meet my request for a widely accepted alternative proposal?

 

I have never seen clear, unambigous guidelines regarding virtuals at any point, by any party, either in place and being enforced, or proposed. Except perhaps those who said "approve them all and let the finders figure it out". That seems to be the Waymarking method. That matched my own theory on virtuals.

 

Oddly enough now that I can see the lower bars result in Waymarking I'm not sure my theory was the right one. But at least it's not ambigious.

Link to comment

 

There were many, many alternative guidelines proposed. TPTB were pretty set against them all as I remember it, possibly due to the Waymarking site being in developement. Therefore they were only academic discussions, at best, here in the forums, where most cachers probably never enter. Unfortunate, since some of them could have been acceptable to the "vast majority of Groundspeak customers, charter members or not". As usual things went from one extreme (WOW virts only) to another (any Waymark you want) without a middle ground being found. I will say that it seems like some of the discussions did help as I see bits of ideas being used here & there in Waymarking. I think TPTB were listening.

 

I have not seen clear, unambigous 'middle ground' guidelines regarding virtuals, only folks wanting the bar lowered just far enough so that their submission could be listed. Could you point me the posts with ones that would meet my request for a widely accepted alternative proposal?

 

That should be easy, given that there were so many of them...

 

You did read my post before replying, right? It is unknowable if any suggested alternative guideline would meet your criteria based upon the fact that most cachers don't even come into the forums and that no alternative guidelines were ever implemented to see if they would have worked. Anything else rests upon arbitrary judgement, which is what was wrong with the WOW standard itself. In my opinion the best thing would to have just let them be. Can you imagine the uproar if WOW standards were to be implemented on all cache types? So why only virts? Arbitrary. What is WOW? Arbitrary.

 

FYI: one of the alternative guidelines I remember had to do with peer review. Sound familiar?

Link to comment

 

FYI: one of the alternative guidelines I remember had to do with peer review. Sound familiar?

 

No. Sorry. And "let them be" was unacceptable for people who couldn't let them be. Maybe for those on the sidelines it was ok but not the folks who tried to apply an arbitrary set of guidelines for virtuals.

 

The devil is in the details, and no one as of yet has decided to step up and actually try to determine what they are. Are you stepping up?

Link to comment

 

FYI: one of the alternative guidelines I remember had to do with peer review. Sound familiar?

 

No. Sorry. And "let them be" was unacceptable for people who couldn't let them be. Maybe for those on the sidelines it was ok but not the folks who tried to apply an arbitrary set of guidelines for virtuals.

 

The devil is in the details

 

Hey! Keep me out of this. :mad:

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

 

FYI: one of the alternative guidelines I remember had to do with peer review. Sound familiar?

 

No. Sorry. And "let them be" was unacceptable for people who couldn't let them be. Maybe for those on the sidelines it was ok but not the folks who tried to apply an arbitrary set of guidelines for virtuals.

 

The devil is in the details, and no one as of yet has decided to step up and actually try to determine what they are. Are you stepping up?

Isn't peer review similar to what Waymarking is doing by having other Waymarkers vote on whether a category should exist?

 

And WOW was unacceptable for those who wanted to let them be. It was the imposition of the arbitrary rules themselves that were the problem. Why impose them?

 

Trying to define WOW is like trying to define pornography. Can't tell you what it is, but I know what it is when I see it. That standard is different for each and every person. I can tell what it might be for me, but have no idea what it is for you.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...