Virtuals VS Waymarking

[+Crystal Sound]

 

Where's the "Wow factor" in any of this? In your "New World Evidence" category, I can see a bit of it, there is none in any of these four. Zero. Waymarking has taken away the problem of "too many crappy virtuals being submitted" and replaced it with "an entire site filled with crappy virtuals" that requires you to wade through the junk to find the gem. Instead of Joe Reviewer being my filter to eliminate stuff unworthy of my time, I now have to do it myself.

 

 

I have to admit, my interest in geocaching has been dropping lately. But, I have been trying to "keep it alive". I recently went out and spent a day just geocaching. Although not a huge number, I did 14 caches in just a few hours. Basically, I picked the nearest unfound, and went from there....

 

None of those caches were interesting. None inspired me in any way. To me, the locations were basically the same as places I had been before.

 

I *could* say that the geocaching site has become "an entire site filled with crappy geocaches". That would be an unfair and untrue statement. If I were to look, I'm sure I can find some caches that DO interest me.

 

Do all waymark categories interest me? No. Do all geocaches interest me? No.

 

There are geocaches and waymarks that DO interest me. I guess one has to "dig" a bit to find the gems that interest them. Although none of those 14 caches did anything for me, there were logs from people who it did give some sort of pleasure to.

 

As I've said before, "To each their own."

[+robert]

Just trying a basic search from a cache page (the "Nearby...all nearby waymarks on Waymarking.com" link) it takes you to a rather intimidating category list. Maybe collapse this by default, with a bolder 'Search by Category' link to expand it?

 

It would certainly assist with the confusion issue noted previously.

Click the button just above that list of categories.

 

[+robert]

For what it's worth, I also think a 'list nearest' feature for Waymarking would be great.

On a cache listing, there is a link for "Nearest waymarks", and on a waymark listing there is a list for "Nearest geocaches".

 

[+SVC]

So being a fair guy and giving everything a chance, I checked out Waymarking.com and did a search. There are some cool spots in my area but one thing that I didn't like is the fact that you already know whats there So wheres the suprise? Thats like getting a Chirstmas gift and someone saying "oh by the way thats an X-Box" before you open it. I think I'd like it better if there were no pictures on the site, giving the find an element of surpise. Maybe it's me but I like the feeling of discovery. When someone takes a picture of said plauque or gravestone and posts it, I feel like "whats the point?" Since the suprise is gone, I won't go out of my way to check it out (unless its something that I REALLY am intrested in). I might stash the waymark on my GPSR and if I'm in the area, I might check it out but I wont make a special trip like I would for a cache.

[+Ambrosia]

Well, the majority of virtuals that I went to I already new before hand what I was going to. And a lot of them had pictures of what I was going to...even if they were at angles that didn't *quite* show the info that I was supposed to send...otherwise pictures were usually fair game. I don't see much difference.

[+SVC]

Well, the majority of virtuals that I went to I already new before hand what I was going to. And a lot of them had pictures of what I was going to...even if they were at angles that didn't *quite* show the info that I was supposed to send...otherwise pictures were usually fair game. I don't see much difference.

 

I think maybe 1 of the 16 or so that I've done has had a picture. Most have been a suprise.

[+Ambrosia]

Well, the majority of virtuals that I went to I already new before hand what I was going to. And a lot of them had pictures of what I was going to...even if they were at angles that didn't *quite* show the info that I was supposed to send...otherwise pictures were usually fair game. I don't see much difference.

 

I think maybe 1 of the 16 or so that I've done has had a picture. Most have been a suprise.

Hm, interesting. I've done 100, so I'm not going to go back and study them right now. But I don't remember going around being suprised all the time, nor did it really matter to me if I was. I do remember figuring it out a lot before hand and many of them I could easily find the info for before hand but didn't because it would have been cheating.

[+SVC]

I guess its really a matter of opinion of Waymarking. The site is down for me know so I cant keep looking but I did see some that looked cool. Will it ever take the place of Geocaching? I don't think so. I still love the woods and hiking way to much to ever give it up. But I might stop by one or two if I'm ever in the area.

[+Ambrosia]

I guess its really a matter of opinion of Waymarking. The site is down for me know so I cant keep looking but I did see some that looked cool. Will it ever take the place of Geocaching? I don't think so. I still love the woods and hiking way to much to ever give it up. But I might stop by one or two if I'm ever in the area.

Cool. They are different in some ways, one does not have to take the place of the other. They can easily be done at the same time. While out doing that nice walk in the woods, waymark the trail so others can enjoy it as well, or a particularly nice view that you see.

[+tozainamboku]

Not to be critical, but to be accurate, in that category (which is a pretty cool category, far better than water towers and McDonalds drive thrus,) there is one visit by another waymarker on his/her own, one additional visit by someone taken there by the waymark placer, and the rest of the visits are either not detailed (may be a bug -- the list of waymarks shows it being found, the page itself says "no logs") or visited by the person who made the mark.

Waymarks are visited not found. I suspect this was to eliminate the issue with people logging thier own waymarks or logging multiple visits to the same waymark. I think the intention is for Waymarking to be less of a competition. Still I imagine that peole will compare there visit counts. One issue it that for many waymarks there is not requirement to prove your visit. Some virtual caches you really had to look to find the answer to a verification question. In this respect, most waymarks are not virtual caches. A waymark founder can require verification if he likes. I have suggested that they be two kinds of logs for waymarks: visited for someone who just wants to visit a waymark and found for those who meet some verification requirment.

 

Here in Grand Forks, there is one, count it, one waymark. Population of 50,000 or so, 25 or so caches in the city area, and there is one waymark. Of? A water tower, which you can see from pretty much anywhere in town. To get "credit" for the "find", you are to post a photograph of it. I don't need a GPSr to find it, I don't need the coordinates, I hardly even need directions.

 

Within an hour's drive (roughly 60 miles) there are three additional waymarks, two historical markers that have no relevance to me, and the Karlstad Post Office, which is... a post office. Nothing special, just a post office. Oh, there's something in the Long Description: "Around the corner on CR 14 is a fine Swedish theme mural." That's actually the whole of the description, so it sounds like the interesting thing at this location isn't actually the post office, but the mural. When virtuals existed, I guess that he might have made the mural a virt, now it's a side note on a boring waymark.

 

Now, of these four waymarks, the oldest of which was placed about 1 1/2 years ago, none have ever been visited. Well, I'm sure that plenty of people go to the post office, and I see the water tower pretty much every day, but no one has logged any of these visits.

 

Where's the "Wow factor" in any of this? In your "New World Evidence" category, I can see a bit of it, there is none in any of these four. Zero. Waymarking has taken away the problem of "too many crappy virtuals being submitted" and replaced it with "an entire site filled with crappy virtuals" that requires you to wade through the junk to find the gem. Instead of Joe Reviewer being my filter to eliminate stuff unworthy of my time, I now have to do it myself.

 

Put it another way. Let's say that there's an absolutely cool McDonalds someplace. Three stories tall, free cheeseburgers, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, whatever. Under gc.com, it would have gone in as a virtual, and would have popped up on a PQ if I was visiting. Under wm.com, it's going in as a McDonalds, and, because 99.9% of McDonalds are crap and I'm not interested in seeking them, I ignore the whole category and I'm going to miss it. That extends through any category that I don't have some sort of OCD connection to, because I don't want to fill up my PQ, GPSr and schedule finding historical markers that are of questionable importance or value.

 

Jeremy would often ask for a definition of a virtual cache. No matter what you said, he would reply that it isn't a good definition. It was his way of pointing out that there is no good definition of "wow". We all think that it is obvious when we see something so out of the ordinary that it should be a virtual. But it turns out what you think is Wow is different from what someone else thinks is "wow". Waymarking does away with "wow". A Waymarking category is a collection of locations that some group of individuals has decided is interesting or important enough to waymark. There are some people like water towers. Sure everyone in town knows where the watertower is, but the "Water Towers Management" group feesl that the locations of these towers should be recorded. The "U.S. Post Offices" group feels that the locations of post office should be recorded. If you want to find the mural, the "Mural Managers" group has a category for you.

 

The same location can appear in more than one category. If you had a McDonald's Restaurant designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, it could be listed as a waymark in the McDonald's category and also as a waymark in the Frank Lloyd Wright category. And it would probably qualify in other categories as well. I do agree that we need some more categories for catching unexpected or unusual locations like the Best Kept Secrets category.

 

Yes, some categories will not get many visits logged. The group managing the category isn't interested in visitors that are just going there to get a smiley. They want people to be able to find the neighborhood post office or a McDonald Restaurant when the kids want a BigMac. Perhaps there are some people who like to take pictures of the watertowers in each town as they drive accross rural America. Now they have a list.

 

You are loooking at Waymarking only as a susbstitute for virtuals when it is a lot more than this. You need to pick the categories you find interesting like "New World Evidence" or "Best Kept Secrets" and concetrate on those. If there are none in your area then finds some and create those waymarks.

Along with the confusing interface and lack of connection to gc.com, that's, I think, the reason that Waymarking doesn't get the visitors, support and enthusiasm that virtuals did. And why there is a "bring back virtuals" thread here, pretty much all of the time. The decision not to do so is a business one, but, short of bannination for anyone talking about it, the discussion and dissent is never going away, because while it might make perfect sense to Groundspeak and the reviewers that had to deal with crappy virtuals, it doesn't make perfect sense to seekers.

I agree that Waymarking still does not meet the needs of the people who liked finding virtuals. I don't believe that this is an insurmountable problem. If Waymarking is hard to use, perhaps some improvements can be made in the interface. Waymakers can be very helpful in the Waymarking Forums with suggestions on how to get the most out of Waymarking and there are ongoing discussions there on ways to improve the site. By participating in Waymarking you can help to create the kinds of waymarks you find interesting and perhaps in developing categories that have what you are looking for. Or you can complain here and see Jeremy post again that virtuals are not coming back to Geocaching.com.

[Edgemaster]

Just trying a basic search from a cache page (the "Nearby...all nearby waymarks on Waymarking.com" link) it takes you to a rather intimidating category list. Maybe collapse this by default, with a bolder 'Search by Category' link to expand it?

 

It would certainly assist with the confusion issue noted previously.

 

Scroll down or hide the directory list. The waymark results are below the category list.

 

I default the directory list to close. Like you I prefer seeing the waymarks first.

 

Ah I didn't notice it set a cookie (or similar) to remember the state of it. I just hope the default behaviour for newbies to the site is to have that hidden.

 

I should also add that whilst the grandfathered virtuals are nice for a change of cache type, there seemed to be many problems with acceptance and guidelines etc (before my time). In this way it was good to move them to the separate site. The replication of profile information (Biography etc.) on both sites is a step for integration, but it may tie it a little more to have a waymarks found in the caches profile, preferably just underneath the 'Total caches found' (and of course, not including them in the total)

Edited January 9, 2007 by Edgemaster

[+TrailGators]

Not to be critical, but to be accurate, in that category (which is a pretty cool category, far better than water towers and McDonalds drive thrus,) there is one visit by another waymarker on his/her own, one additional visit by someone taken there by the waymark placer, and the rest of the visits are either not detailed (may be a bug -- the list of waymarks shows it being found, the page itself says "no logs") or visited by the person who made the mark.

Waymarks are visited not found. I suspect this was to eliminate the issue with people logging thier own waymarks or logging multiple visits to the same waymark. I think the intention is for Waymarking to be less of a competition. Still I imagine that peole will compare there visit counts. One issue it that for many waymarks there is not requirement to prove your visit. Some virtual caches you really had to look to find the answer to a verification question. In this respect, most waymarks are not virtual caches. A waymark founder can require verification if he likes. I have suggested that they be two kinds of logs for waymarks: visited for someone who just wants to visit a waymark and found for those who meet some verification requirment.

I also think a lot of people may visit waymarks but never log them. I already have been to every waymark within 20 miles of my home before they were ever waymarks. I'm not going to revisit them or log them. I think Jeremy's idea of allowing people to award the best waymarks/geocaches is a great idea! I think it will inspire people to try to get an award by making a better waymarks/geocaches. When you come across a very special one most people do say "Wow!"

[+Ambrosia]

If I have visited a waymark before it was created, a lot of times I post a visit log. The site allows logging a date back to 1999, before geocaching was even around. As long as the category or waymark doesn't specify to visit it after it was created, and I have cool pictures or a cool memory/experience, then I go ahead. It's part of my life and past and sort of a journal for me.

[+TrailGators]

If I have visited a waymark before it was created, a lot of times I post a visit log. The site allows logging a date back to 1999, before geocaching was even around. As long as the category or waymark doesn't specify to visit it after it was created, and I have cool pictures or a cool memory/experience, then I go ahead. It's part of my life and past and sort of a journal for me.

I never took any photos of me eating any those yummy Big Macs... Sorry I couldn't resist! I will log the good ones! I am almost to the point of only logging the good geocaches too...

[+Renegade Knight]

Well, the majority of virtuals that I went to I already new before hand what I was going to. And a lot of them had pictures of what I was going to...even if they were at angles that didn't *quite* show the info that I was supposed to send...otherwise pictures were usually fair game. I don't see much difference.

 

You like waymarks.

 

But here is an example. "you have walked by this statue a thousand times, to claim this find tell me what's hidden from sight?"

That you can do with a virtual but I'm not so sure it's possible with a waymark that you can visit, though I recon if they had a "hidden possem in a pipe catagory" you could. But then you would know before you got there.

[+tozainamboku]

I never took any photos of me eating any those yummy Big Macs... Sorry I couldn't resist! I will log the good ones! I am almost to the point of only logging the good geocaches too...

That's what's so cool about Waymarking. You can participate in only the categories you like

Edited January 9, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+tozainamboku]

Well, the majority of virtuals that I went to I already new before hand what I was going to. And a lot of them had pictures of what I was going to...even if they were at angles that didn't *quite* show the info that I was supposed to send...otherwise pictures were usually fair game. I don't see much difference.

 

You like waymarks.

 

But here is an example. "you have walked by this statue a thousand times, to claim this find tell me what's hidden from sight?"

That you can do with a virtual but I'm not so sure it's possible with a waymark that you can visit, though I recon if they had a "hidden possem in a pipe catagory" you could. But then you would know before you got there.

You certainly could say "to verify your visit to this waymark email me with the answer to 'What is hidden from sight?'" But you may have some waymarker complain that they visited the statue and should be able to log it without having to meet a requirement that has nothing to do with the statue. That is why I have asked for a different log type for waymarks that have challenge or verification requirement that must be met. You could log your visit by just going to the site but you get a find or task complete if you perform the extra requirement(s).

[+Renegade Knight]

....You certainly could say "to verify your visit to this waymark email me with the answer to 'What is hidden from sight?'" But you may have some waymarker complain that they visited the statue and should be able to log it without having to meet a requirement that has nothing to do with the statue. That is why I have asked for a different log type for waymarks that have challenge or verification requirement that must be met. You could log your visit by just going to the site but you get a find or task complete if you perform the extra requirement(s).

 

A point of confusion. Maybe you can clarify.

 

I thought if I submit that statue to the catagory of "statues with hidden things" that I'm creating by defualt a waymark that now anybody can visit? Given that (and if it's wrong...my question doesn't make sence) if I'm not an interested owner is there an ownerless place to visit, or if I'm interested I can make it have a differing verification from every other owner of a "statue with hidden things"?

[+Ambrosia]

If I have visited a waymark before it was created, a lot of times I post a visit log. The site allows logging a date back to 1999, before geocaching was even around. As long as the category or waymark doesn't specify to visit it after it was created, and I have cool pictures or a cool memory/experience, then I go ahead. It's part of my life and past and sort of a journal for me.

I never took any photos of me eating any those yummy Big Macs... Sorry I couldn't resist! I will log the good ones! I am almost to the point of only logging the good geocaches too...

Well, there you go!

 

And just remember from now on to take a picture of you eating a big mac. Really. We want to see it.

 

Here I am sampling a blueberry patch that I found and waymarked late last year:

 

[+Ambrosia]

Well, the majority of virtuals that I went to I already new before hand what I was going to. And a lot of them had pictures of what I was going to...even if they were at angles that didn't *quite* show the info that I was supposed to send...otherwise pictures were usually fair game. I don't see much difference.

 

You like waymarks.

 

But here is an example. "you have walked by this statue a thousand times, to claim this find tell me what's hidden from sight?"

That you can do with a virtual but I'm not so sure it's possible with a waymark that you can visit, though I recon if they had a "hidden possem in a pipe catagory" you could. But then you would know before you got there.

I like virtuals as well.

 

It is true, there were a few times that I found out something cool by going to the virtual, and enjoyed the suprise. But that can easily be done just as well at a waymark by saying, "when you get there, find out what's hidden from sight".

 

Whatever small suprise I may have gotten at a few virtuals in the past is far outweighed by the enjoyment I am gaining now in Waymarking.

[+sbell111]

I've got to believe that the bulk of the people that complain that there are no good waymarks in their area came across geocaching after it had already matured. When I first started caching, there were very few caches. Rather than complain about there not being caches, people went out and hid some. Others found those caches and hid there own. Now there are tons of caches to find.

 

Similarly, if you don't have any 'good' waymarks in your area, why don't you take a look at the different categories. Certainly, there are categories that you will find interesting. (If there are not, develop new categories.) Then, go out and create waymarks. People in your area will find them and create more waymarks for you to find.

 

Why do half the threads boil down to someone complaining that the rest of us are not amusing them sufficiently?

[+Ambrosia]

Entertain me!!!

 

[+TrailGators]

If I have visited a waymark before it was created, a lot of times I post a visit log. The site allows logging a date back to 1999, before geocaching was even around. As long as the category or waymark doesn't specify to visit it after it was created, and I have cool pictures or a cool memory/experience, then I go ahead. It's part of my life and past and sort of a journal for me.

I never took any photos of me eating any those yummy Big Macs... Sorry I couldn't resist! I will log the good ones! I am almost to the point of only logging the good geocaches too...

Well, there you go!

 

And just remember from now on to take a picture of you eating a big mac. Really. We want to see it. Here I am sampling a blueberry patch that I found and waymarked late last year:

I would like that waymark! By the way, blueberries are an excellent source of antioxidants, which are really good for improving your memory! I don't eat enough blueberries and........and.......I forgot what I was going to say....

[+Ambrosia]

What were we talking about?

 

[+TrailGators]

What were we talking about?

 

I forgot.

[+tozainamboku]

 

A point of confusion. Maybe you can clarify.

 

I thought if I submit that statue to the catagory of "statues with hidden things" that I'm creating by defualt a waymark that now anybody can visit? Given that (and if it's wrong...my question doesn't make sence) if I'm not an interested owner is there an ownerless place to visit, or if I'm interested I can make it have a differing verification from every other owner of a "statue with hidden things"?

 

When a category is created it has the requirements for creating a waymark in the category and seperate requirements for logging visits to the waymark. Often the visit requirements are left to the waymark founder/owner. Some categories provide a minimum requirement but allow the waymark founder/owner to add additional requirements. It is up to the waymark founder/owner, not the category managers, to monitor the visit logs on their waymark. This thread in in the Waymarking forums is a discussion on some issues with the different requirements that different categories have for logging visit.

 

I believe that have some more categories like Best Kept Secrets in the Waymarking Games section of the directory would go a long way in providing a place for creating waymarks that ask the visitor to find something or meet a challenge that may or may not have anything to do with the object they wanted you to see at that site.

[+TrailGators]

 

A point of confusion. Maybe you can clarify.

 

I thought if I submit that statue to the catagory of "statues with hidden things" that I'm creating by defualt a waymark that now anybody can visit? Given that (and if it's wrong...my question doesn't make sence) if I'm not an interested owner is there an ownerless place to visit, or if I'm interested I can make it have a differing verification from every other owner of a "statue with hidden things"?

 

When a category is created it has the requirements for creating a waymark in the category and seperate requirements for logging visits to the waymark. Often the visit requirements are left to the waymark founder/owner. Some categories provide a minimum requirement but allow the waymark founder/owner to add additional requirements. It is up to the waymark founder/owner, not the category managers, to monitor the visit logs on their waymark. This thread in in the Waymarking forums is a discussion on some issues with the different requirements that different categories have for logging visit.

 

I believe that have some more categories like Best Kept Secrets in the Waymarking Games section of the directory would go a long way in providing a place for creating waymarks that ask the visitor to find something or meet a challenge that may or may not have anything to do with the object they wanted you to see at that site.

Can't they just create a category called Virtual Geocaches? This would make it easier for us geocachers....

 

Anyhow, I need to go through all the categories and hide everything except the cool ones. Did they ever get the PQ working for Waymarking? Once they do that then I can download all the cool waymarks that are in my area and hit them if I happen to pass by one while out geocaching.

[+tozainamboku]

Can't they just create a category called Virtual Geocaches? This would make it easier for us geocachers....

I tried here but Jeremy shot it down.

[+TrailGators]

Can't they just create a category called Virtual Geocaches? This would make it easier for us geocachers....

I tried here but Jeremy shot it down.

I think your "Wow" requirement killed it. Jeremy said it was too vague. Since waymarks don't have to be "wow" anyhow, why did you stipulate that requirement? The Category owners can kill the poor ones during the waymark approval process. I bet if you got rid of the "wow" thing and called it simply "Virtual Geocaches," it could work. Plus all the geocachers would know exactly what that category was! Anyhow, if you ever decide to get something like that going I would be willing to be a Virtual Cache Category manager with you. Edited January 9, 2007 by TrailGators

[+adjensen]

Similarly, if you don't have any 'good' waymarks in your area, why don't you take a look at the different categories. Certainly, there are categories that you will find interesting. (If there are not, develop new categories.) Then, go out and create waymarks. People in your area will find them and create more waymarks for you to find.

 

Why do half the threads boil down to someone complaining that the rest of us are not amusing them sufficiently?

 

You guys enjoy what you're doing. You don't hear me complaining about that. If you want to keep Waymarking telephone boxes, cotton fields and Smokey the Bear signs, knock yourself out. It seems that most of the "complaining" is cachers complaining about the death of virtuals, and waymarkers complaining that cachers just don't get how boss Waymarking is.

 

I was merely pointing out what I find deficient in Waymarking, on the off chance that anyone is interested in why it's not working. Generally, when a product doesn't catch on like hopes or projections say it should, the powers that be are interested in why, in order to address those complaints and make it successful.

 

Ultimately, if Waymarking never becomes more than a place where people catalogue the Earth to no end, any resources put towards that, whether on your part or Groundspeak's, are futile. Until the day that Groundspeak starts charging a separate fee for Waymarking, I think that those of us who fund those resources, even in the $3/month sort of way, have a duty/right to comment on the issue.

[+fizzymagic]

I was merely pointing out what I find deficient in Waymarking, on the off chance that anyone is interested in why it's not working. Generally, when a product doesn't catch on like hopes or projections say it should, the powers that be are interested in why, in order to address those complaints and make it successful.

Well, there's your problem right there.

 

I think these issues have been quite adequately addressed in this thread. Several posters, including one of the moderators, have helpfully and eloquently pointed out that if you don't love Waymarking it is, in fact, entirely your fault.

 

Don't like the interface? Your fault.

Not enough waymarks? Your fault.

Don't like the politics? Your fault.

 

The main point to remember is that waymarkers are better people than your average geocacher. They are fair-minded and willing to try new things, while those who aren't enthusiastic about Waymarking are prejudiced, stuck-in-the-mud types who can't handle the horror of a different interface.

 

Another important point to grasp is that any negative feedback, no matter how mild, about Waymarking is whining. Complaining about whiners, however, is a positive contribution to the forums, so feel free to do as much of it as you would like.

 

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

Edited January 9, 2007 by fizzymagic

[+TrailGators]

I was merely pointing out what I find deficient in Waymarking, on the off chance that anyone is interested in why it's not working. Generally, when a product doesn't catch on like hopes or projections say it should, the powers that be are interested in why, in order to address those complaints and make it successful.

Well, there's your problem right there.

 

I think these issues have been quite adequately addressed in this thread. Several posters, including one of the moderators, have helpfully and eloquently pointed out that if you don't love Waymarking it is, in fact, entirely your fault.

 

Don't like the interface? Your fault.

Not enough waymarks? Your fault.

Don't like the politics? Your fault.

 

The main point to remember is that waymarkers are better people than your average geocacher. They are fair-minded and willing to try new things, while those who aren't enthusiastic about Waymarking are prejudiced, stuck-in-the-mud types who can't handle the horror of a different interface.

 

Another important point to grasp is that any negative feedback, no matter how mild, about Waymarking is whining. Complaining about whiners, however, is a positive contribution to the forums, so feel free to do as much of it as you would like.

 

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

[+Jaz666]

The main point to remember is that waymarkers are better people than your average geocacher. They are fair-minded and willing to try new things,

 

You might want to edit your post and add a few smilies before this thread descends even further into chaos!

[+TrailGators]

The main point to remember is that waymarkers are better people than your average geocacher. They are fair-minded and willing to try new things,

You might want to edit your post and add a few smilies before this thread descends even further into chaos!

Hopefully everyone realizes that it was tongue-in-cheek humor. I would have gotten a good chuckle out of it even if I was a "waymarker." Edited January 9, 2007 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

The main point to remember is that waymarkers are better people than your average geocacher. They are fair-minded and willing to try new things,

 

You might want to edit your post and add a few smilies before this thread descends even further into chaos!

 

Or he can put back his old forum title: 'designated Waymarking hater'.

 

I don't know if I agree with fizzymagic on this thread or not, but alot of times people expressing a legitimate concern about how something works either on Waymarking or geocaching get dumped on by a few regulars who come across as the problems were the fault of the complainer.

 

Some people who have tried Waymarking really like it and they are expressing what they like to those that find something lacking. Some people who began by complaining about virtuals not be allowed on geocaching or about Waymarking categories all being boring in previous threads have taken the kinds of advice that have been given here and tried Waymarking. It seems that a significant number of these former waymarker haters have changed their minds and they may even be among those posting here. I also think there are voices like mine who recogize that visiting a waymark is not the same as finding a virtual cache - despite what mtn-man says. My argument is that we can find a way within the Waymarking framework to include something close to a virtual cache. It seems that TPTB have decided and no amount of complaining on the forum will change the decision. But I believe that TPTB see Waymarking as place that can include all kinds of Waymarking games including many that will appeal to geocachers and are amenable to making changes to Waymarking to support this.

[+JimmyEv]

Featured Waymarks are featured (I'm assuming) because they have some kind of 'Wow' factor. Why couldn't featured waymarks somehow be a virtual cache at gc.com? Then it'd be like, 'Wow, this came from Waymarking.'

[Jeremy]

Featured Waymarks are featured (I'm assuming) because they have some kind of 'Wow' factor. Why couldn't featured waymarks somehow be a virtual cache at gc.com? Then it'd be like, 'Wow, this came from Waymarking.'

 

We're definitely planning to link up the sites better in the future. I'm sure we'll find ways to make this data available on geocaching.com in some fashion.

[Jeremy]

 

The main point to remember is that waymarkers are better people than your average geocacher.

 

I think better people are better people than your average person, just like tasty cakes are tastier than average cakes. Smart people are smarter than your average intelligence people, and fast runners are faster than your average runners. It works with all kinds of things.

[+TrailGators]

Featured Waymarks are featured (I'm assuming) because they have some kind of 'Wow' factor. Why couldn't featured waymarks somehow be a virtual cache at gc.com? Then it'd be like, 'Wow, this came from Waymarking.'

We're definitely planning to link up the sites better in the future. I'm sure we'll find ways to make this data available on geocaching.com in some fashion.

I had the same thoughts because you have a built in approval process and then you add the awards feature and it becomes a no-brainer. I'm glad to hear that this may happen down the road. I think it will definitely help both sites as well as maybe uniting the Hatfields and the McCoys.

[+sbell111]

... If you want to keep Waymarking telephone boxes, cotton fields and Smokey the Bear signs, knock yourself out. ...

There's a category for cotton fields? I new there was a reason that I snapped this pic:

... Generally, when a product doesn't catch on like hopes or projections say it should, the powers that be are interested in why, in order to address those complaints and make it successful.

I don't remember TPTB lamenting about the poor performance of WM.com. Can you post a link?

... Until the day that Groundspeak starts charging a separate fee for Waymarking, I think that those of us who fund those resources, even in the $3/month sort of way, have a duty/right to comment on the issue.

You sound like another big poster who insisted early on that 'his' money not be spent on WM.com. I think that it's a silly idea to try to split the fees when the resources all come out of the same bucket and create code that will support both sites, however. Also, Would you really want to pay seperate membership fees for GC.com, WM.com, Wherigo.com, LB.com, ???.com, etc? Not me, if I can avoid it.

[+TrailGators]

... If you want to keep Waymarking telephone boxes, cotton fields and Smokey the Bear signs, knock yourself out. ...

There's a category for cotton fields? I new there was a reason that I snapped this pic:

I'm probably aging myself by singing this but here goes......

 

When I was a little bitty baby

My mama would rock me in the cradle,

In them old cotton fields back home.

[+Ambrosia]

I'm probably aging myself by singing this but here goes......

 

When I was a little bitty baby

My mama would rock me in the cradle,

In them old cotton fields back home.

Oh, great. I can't stop singing this song, now.

[+adjensen]

I don't remember TPTB lamenting about the poor performance of WM.com. Can you post a link?

Of course they aren't going to publicly lament any such thing. Whether it's the truth or not, it's counter productive to say that an active project isn't working. However, by any measure that I'm able to ascertain (traffic to the site, growth, the number of people who actually visit the countless created waymarks,) it doesn't seem that way to me. If it's "meeting expectations" in these ways, those expectations must have been mighty low to start with.

 

The GSA didn't ask to have Earthcaches put back on gc.com because they were working out so well on Waymarking, they did it because traffic to their placements dropped like a rock (pun intended.) That, in itself, says a lot.

 

You sound like another big poster who insisted early on that 'his' money not be spent on WM.com. I think that it's a silly idea to try to split the fees when the resources all come out of the same bucket and create code that will support both sites, however. Also, Would you really want to pay seperate membership fees for GC.com, WM.com, Wherigo.com, LB.com, ???.com, etc? Not me, if I can avoid it.

Of course you don't, because you use them. The vast majority do not use them, but willingly underwrite them in order to have the gc.com site, and I count myself among them. As for resource and code sharing, gc.com's issues (according to posts in the forums) are largely based on scalability and stability, solutions to which are coming from an outside consultant, not from the single guy working on Waymarking.

 

It's funny how even thoughtful threads on this subject eventually work their way down to posters being told "you're stupid", "you're selfish" or "you're a child (or dancing mouse.)"

 

Never in this discussion did I say that Waymarking should be shut down. Never did I say that it doesn't work because I don't like it. Never did I say that virtuals should be brought back. Never did I say that I want funding changed.

 

Maybe Fizzymagic's "ironic" post is closer to the truth than I'd thought. I won't bother you with any further observations on the subject.

[+baloo&bd]

Can't they just create a category called Virtual Geocaches? This would make it easier for us geocachers....

 

The problem doing that is that Waymarking has little if anything in common with virtual caches. There is just no way to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

[+TrailGators]

Can't they just create a category called Virtual Geocaches? This would make it easier for us geocachers....

The problem doing that is that Waymarking has little if anything in common with virtual caches. There is just no way to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

I don't understand why it wouldn't work. All you would have to do is require that the finder either post a photo of himself in front of the object or email the waymark owner with some answers to questions about the mystery object. The category could go under Waymarking games.

[+sbell111]

I don't remember TPTB lamenting about the poor performance of WM.com. Can you post a link?

Of course they aren't going to publicly lament any such thing. Whether it's the truth or not, it's counter productive to say that an active project isn't working. However, by any measure that I'm able to ascertain (traffic to the site, growth, the number of people who actually visit the countless created waymarks,) it doesn't seem that way to me. If it's "meeting expectations" in these ways, those expectations must have been mighty low to start with.

 

The GSA didn't ask to have Earthcaches put back on gc.com because they were working out so well on Waymarking, they did it because traffic to their placements dropped like a rock (pun intended.) That, in itself, says a lot.

First, WM.com is barely out of beta. It seems to me that site usage is growning at a much greater rate than it did with GC.com. Second, could you point to where the GSA made the contention that they wanted to be back on GC.com because of low traffic from WM.com?

You sound like another big poster who insisted early on that 'his' money not be spent on WM.com. I think that it's a silly idea to try to split the fees when the resources all come out of the same bucket and create code that will support both sites, however. Also, Would you really want to pay seperate membership fees for GC.com, WM.com, Wherigo.com, LB.com, ???.com, etc? Not me, if I can avoid it.

Of course you don't, because you use them. The vast majority do not use them, but willingly underwrite them in order to have the gc.com site, and I count myself among them. As for resource and code sharing, gc.com's issues (according to posts in the forums) are largely based on scalability and stability, solutions to which are coming from an outside consultant, not from the single guy working on Waymarking.

So your position is that no features from one site will ever migrate to one of the others? I'm shocked at how out of the loop I am. i wish I was as plugged into Jeremy's thought processes as you are.

Never in this discussion did I say that Waymarking should be shut down. Never did I say that it doesn't work because I don't like it. Never did I say that virtuals should be brought back. Never did I say that I want funding changed.

Perhaps you could tell us what it is that you are trying to say, then.

[+sbell111]

Can't they just create a category called Virtual Geocaches? This would make it easier for us geocachers....

The problem doing that is that Waymarking has little if anything in common with virtual caches. There is just no way to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

I don't understand why it wouldn't work. All you would have to do is require that the finder either post a photo of himself in front of the object or email the waymark owner with some answers to questions about the mystery object. The category could go under Waymarking games.

My only concern about a virt category is that the objects would often fit nicely into other, more descriptive, categories.

[+TrailGators]

Can't they just create a category called Virtual Geocaches? This would make it easier for us geocachers....

The problem doing that is that Waymarking has little if anything in common with virtual caches. There is just no way to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

I don't understand why it wouldn't work. All you would have to do is require that the finder either post a photo of himself in front of the object or email the waymark owner with some answers to questions about the mystery object. The category could go under Waymarking games.

My only concern about a virt category is that the objects would often fit nicely into other, more descriptive, categories.

I was thinking the same thing after I posted that. Another idea would be to assign a Virtual attribute to Waymarks in other categories. So perhaps the managers of Virtual Geocaches Category could assign a Virtual Geocache attribute to other waymarks that they felt would make for good Virts or they could be submitted. Then those waymarks could reside in it's original descriptive category as well as the Virtual Geocache category.... Edited January 10, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

My only concern about a virt category is that the objects would often fit nicely into other, more descriptive, categories.

I was thinking the same thing after I posted that. Another idea would be to assign a Virtual attribute to Waymarks in other categories. So perhaps the managers of Virtual Geocaches Category could assign a Virtual Geocache attribute to other waymarks that they felt would make for good Virts or they could be submitted. Then those waymarks could reside in it's original descriptive category as well as the Virtual Geocache category....

Or the attribute could simple cause the waymarks to return in a future PQ. Edited January 10, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

My only concern about a virt category is that the objects would often fit nicely into other, more descriptive, categories.

I was thinking the same thing after I posted that. Another idea would be to assign a Virtual attribute to Waymarks in other categories. So perhaps the managers of Virtual Geocaches Category could assign a Virtual Geocache attribute to other waymarks that they felt would make for good Virts or they could be submitted. Then those waymarks could reside in it's original descriptive category as well as the Virtual Geocache category....

Or the attribute could simple cause the waymarks to return in a future PQ.

True! But it would be nice to be able view all the Virts on the Waymarking or the Geocaching site.... Edited January 10, 2007 by TrailGators