Why No More Virtual Caches?

[Jeremy]

 

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

 

 

I'll call this point A. That's not a guideline for a virtual.

 

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?

 

And round and round we go. You obviously want this discussion to go around in circles. We had a rotting bird carcass as a proposed virtual cache. You could take a picture of the bird at different times as your reward for going to the spot.

 

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.

 

So going back to point A, there's no reason for peer review because the definition of virtuals is so arbitrary. You aren't providing any solutions. But guess what! Get involved in a category proposal that can. You can do it. I'm rooting for you.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

 

Isn't Waymarking cool. The Wow Waymarkers group may or may not reach a consensus on what constitutes a Wow Waymark (or whatever name we come up with). It may or may not make it through peer review (I hope we can convince the waymarkers that there is some interest in having these waymarks grouped this way). If we get there, we will have an arbitrary definition we agreed to as a group (though I suspect we will lose some members along the way). It doesn't have to satisfy everyone. If we turn down your waymark, you can propose another category that will fit. We will try to write guidelines that are clear, but undoubtly there will be disagreements. This will not be the first category where the guidelines for creating a waymark are subject to interpretation. You would think that landlocked lighthouses would be straight forward. Or perhaps everyone agrees on what graffiti is artistic and appropriately located. The biggest problem with the "wow" requirement for virtuals is that the interpretation kept changing as TPTB saw a need to restrict the numbers of virtuals.

[+ibycus]

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?

 

I for one didn't read it as a low blow, but then again I'm probably not familiar enough with the back story here.

 

I think what fizzy is getting at is that its not about the smiley count, nor is his personal enjoyment of the hobby predicated on numbers.

 

Numbers are however an interesting aside to the game, but the smiley count is a pretty useless number for comparison, other numbers might however be much more...interesting.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

 

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

 

 

I'll call this point A. That's not a guideline for a virtual.

No it was proposed as a way to meet some kind of level of WOW. A guideline for their review.

 

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?

 

And round and round we go. You obviously want this discussion to go around in circles. We had a rotting bird carcass as a proposed virtual cache. You could take a picture of the bird at different times as your reward for going to the spot.

I don't want it to go around in circles. The reason I see that it is going around and round is that people keep trying to ask others to define what is basically undefinable. That one (dead animal) is often used as an example of why WOW was imposed. It could/should have been denied on the basis of failing to qualify as a permanent as opposed to a temporary cache.

 

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.

 

So going back to point A, there's no reason for peer review because the definition of virtuals is so arbitrary. You aren't providing any solutions. But guess what! Get involved in a category proposal that can. You can do it. I'm rooting for you.

It's not the definition of a virtual that is arbitrary but the definition of a certain standard of quality for virtual (WOW or not). Maybe we are talking about two different things here. I am addressing the WOW standard imposed for virtuals, not what a virtual is. To me they are not the same.

 

If you want the definition of a virtual, how's this- Virtual cache: a set of coordinates that brings you to a certain spot on the surface of the earth that another cacher has deemed worthy of your attention. No logbook is involved but you may need to take a photograph, answer a question or provide other proof you were there.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

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.

 

Isn't Waymarking cool. The Wow Waymarkers group may or may not reach a consensus on what constitutes a Wow Waymark (or whatever name we come up with). It may or may not make it through peer review (I hope we can convince the waymarkers that there is some interest in having these waymarks grouped this way). If we get there, we will have an arbitrary definition we agreed to as a group (though I suspect we will lose some members along the way). It doesn't have to satisfy everyone. If we turn down your waymark, you can propose another category that will fit. We will try to write guidelines that are clear, but undoubtly there will be disagreements. This will not be the first category where the guidelines for creating a waymark are subject to interpretation. You would think that landlocked lighthouses would be straight forward. Or perhaps everyone agrees on what graffiti is artistic and appropriately located. The biggest problem with the "wow" requirement for virtuals is that the interpretation kept changing as TPTB saw a need to restrict the numbers of virtuals.

 

In all honesty I don't see how a WOW Waymark category could work. I think that anything that can be put in that category would have another category it could be listed under. Unless of course the spot/object is truly unique, absolutely nothing like it anywhere else in the world.

[Jeremy]

If you want the definition of a virtual, how's this- Virtual cache: a set of coordinates that brings you to a certain spot on the surface of the earth that another cacher has deemed worthy of your attention. No logbook is involved but you may need to take a photograph, answer a question or provide other proof you were there.

 

We're getting somewhere now. What would be worthy of your attention? Is there a good standard for attention-worthy items? Is this something you could turn into a waymark category? If it was well defined (in your case, something worth visiting) then it should be a valid waymark category.

 

You shouldn't be stuck on WoW. Mr T was creating a starting point and is encouraging you and others to discuss possible changes to such a category. Maybe your definition of worth will be the right thing to kick this off. That is, of course, once you define the parameters of worth.

[+mikeylou]

Oooh, whatever it was i was trying to say didn't read well, so nvm.

Edited April 26, 2006 by mikeylou

[+sbell111]

Does anyone remember what this thread's topic was?

[+Packanack]

Does anyone remember what this thread's topic was?

 

I loved virtuals, but the fact that they are gone forever hasn't diminished the enjoyment of a good hike to a fantastic viewpoint or pretty waterfall. Why do we have an either/ or mentality. It is a big beautiful world. I personally think the chaos on the Waymarking scene is the hang up, it does not have the familiar orderliness of the geocaching site.

[+sbell111]

I loved virtuals, but the fact that they are gone forever hasn't diminished the enjoyment of a good hike to a fantastic viewpoint or pretty waterfall. Why do we have an either/ or mentality. It is a big beautiful world. I personally think the chaos on the Waymarking scene is the hang up, it does not have the familiar orderliness of the geocaching site.

I suspect that this will resolve itself as we become more familiar with it and improvements are made by TPTB.

 

I also enjoyed virts and LCs (don't judge me!). I'll enjoy them just as much at WM.com, I think. I just need to get more active again and adopt processes that will allow ease of use of both sites.

[+Packanack]

Just took a quick view of Waymarking site, it is still chaotic imo, did a quick zip code search for locals and quickly saw a waymark for a current virtual (one that remains active on geocache site) also saw a waymark for a place where there is a traditional geocache present and active. But I do not think that these things are mutually exclusive, it is a matter of personal choice, if you don't like it don't do it. It is like hitting yourself in the head with a ball pein hammer because you like it when it stops, well just choose not to do it to begin with and save yourself the pain.

[+sbell111]

Just took a quick view of Waymarking site, it is still chaotic imo, did a quick zip code search for locals and quickly saw a waymark for a current virtual (one that remains active on geocache site) also saw a waymark for a place where there is a traditional geocache present and active. But I do not think that these things are mutually exclusive, it is a matter of personal choice, if you don't like it don't do it. It is like hitting yourself in the head with a ball pein hammer because you like it when it stops, well just choose not to do it to begin with and save yourself the pain.

On the other hand, what's the big deal?

 

There are cachers who won't become waymarkers. Therefore, neither of the caches on GC.com should be archived. There will also be Waymarkers who will not be interested in geocaching. Therefore, it is appropriate for the waymarks to remain.

 

As for the 'chaos', I think that it is just different and we'll get used to it. I thought that this was the point of your previous post, but I guess not.

[+Packanack]

That was my point exactly--the other point was that you can have choice and fun either way, they are not mutually exclusive, you don't have to be exclusively one or the other and for that reason why get so uptight about it. Have some fun, it is a hobby , something done for enjoyment.

[+clearpath]

something done for enjoyment.

like <text removed> without the guilt ...

Edited April 26, 2006 by Moose Mob

[+Packanack]

something done for enjoyment.

like <text removed> without the guilt ...

 

Well I think that officially closes this thread.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Moose Mob

[+sbell111]

That was my point exactly--the other point was that you can have choice and fun either way, they are not mutually exclusive, you don't have to be exclusively one or the other and for that reason why get so uptight about it. Have some fun, it is a hobby , something done for enjoyment.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your post. I interpreted your comment regarding the hammer to meen that one would be better off skipping WM.com. This conflicted with my belief that if one really liked virts and LCs, it would be in his/her best interest to give WM.com an honest shot.

[+SnappyTurtles]

I really enjoy virtuals and was disappointed when they were discontinued on gc.com, I have noticed though that you can still create some what of a virtual that has a log book, using the offset multicache. Which in a sense would be fine, but it would be viewed as a multi-cache symbol. And those of us looking for a virtual type of cache would miss out on a lot of great history. What would be great is if gc.com would create a multi-ghost icon (virtual symbol) so that those that enjoy virtuals can still enjoy them in a gc.com format with log book and all.

[+tozainamboku]

I really enjoy virtuals and was disappointed when they were discontinued on gc.com, I have noticed though that you can still create some what of a virtual that has a log book, using the offset multicache. Which in a sense would be fine, but it would be viewed as a multi-cache symbol. And those of us looking for a virtual type of cache would miss out on a lot of great history. What would be great is if gc.com would create a multi-ghost icon (virtual symbol) so that those that enjoy virtuals can still enjoy them in a gc.com format with log book and all.

 

You may want to look at this thread discussing a historical interest attribute to help you find caches that take you to a historic place or get information from a historic marker.

[+Deweyz]

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

 

No...I disagree, for the following reasons.

1 -- I like everything in one place. I'm going to go looking for the virtuals, the real things, the earth caches from the same GPSr & the same car...I'd like them in the same place on-line too.

2 -- I don't like Waymarking.com searches. Granted, I haven't figured out the site yet...but I put in my zip code on geocaching.com, it spits out the nearest caches & miles from me that they are. Why does Waymarking spit out one blog about rock climbing and tell me there's nothing in my area where there's a park 30 or 40 miles down the road that I found on the site (with a lot more effort).

3 -- Separation into "groups" or whatever. Again...I haven't figured out the site yet, but...looking for the bridges, graves, earthcached etc. etc. from the same GPSr & the same car...why can't I see all of everything within 100 miles of point A easily? I may not have figured out Waymarking's site yet, but in this amount of time I could do it on geocaching.com...so it needs to work on user friendliness a little.

[Keystone]

I am going to close this bumped thread because there was a new version started last week. Feel free to carry on the conversation there. It's less confusing if there's one thread open per topic.