Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
sacred6

Virtual Cache Comback

Recommended Posts

If the two games were combined it would make more sense to fold Geocaching in to the Waymarking site. Geocaching would fit very nicely as a Waymarking category with sub categories for each cache type.

Now *THAT* is something I hope is in the future from Groundspeak. I really like many aspects of the user interface in WM.com ... having used it, it makes GC.com seem inconsistent, clunky and outdated.

 

[Warning: Unfair sweeping generalizations ahead.]

 

There really do seem to be four categories of findable things out there, differentiated by the manner in which you can verify that you've really found what the thing owner wants you to look for: caches, virtuals, visited waymarks, and reported waymarks.

 

The thing that makes finding a cache (real or virtual) and reporting a waymark fun is reaping the reward of the find after a search. When you finally find the container, you reap the reward. When you figure out the answers to the trivia question posed by the owner of a virtual, you know you've met the goal. When you report a waymark that gets approved by the category manager, you've accomplished something.

 

But just visiting a waymark seems kind of lame, to me. I mean, with all of the details of a waymark contained on the waymark page, there's no challenge to be met, nothing to really overcome in the way that there is with cache seeking. There is so much information on waymark pages that you can use them to be an armchair tourist, exploring the world without ever leaving home.

 

Waymarks really seem to be more like locationless caches than virtuals. From the number of waymarks vs. visits, it seems to be overwhelmingly a waymark reporter's game more so than a visitor's game. Visiting a waymark just doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for people to want to write a visitation log - if it was, the number of visits would outweigh the number of waymarks. Of the 101 waymarks within 100 miles of my home coords, most have never been visited (and the ones with visit logs typically have only been visited by the people who reported them).

 

As such, Waymarking content seems to be evolving into a quirky version of the Yellow Pages. Visiting a waymark is about as exciting as looking something up in the phone book, going to that address, and saying "Yup, the thing I read about really is at that address. And the picture on the waymark page looks just like the object that I'm now standing near."

 

The visitation requirements of waymarks also seem "uncompelling". I just picked a few categories at random from the set of 30-40 waymarks categories near my home coords, and pretty much all of them say "Post a picture of the location." Well, why should I bother posting a picture of the boat ramp or the bridge or the birdhouse when there is already a perfectly adequate picture of it on the waymark page?

 

I've reported two waymarks, both of which were published. They were a lot of fun to research, to photograph, to write, and to see approved. Nobody has logged a visit to either one, although one of them gets a great number of accidental visitors every day. Writing up waymarks is fun ... but what's the fun if nobody bothers to read what you wrote or to visit the place you want them to see?

 

But enough about waymarks. I don't really like the idea of virtuals ... the "email me and I'll tell you if you're right" thing seems kinda lame. What would make waymarks more compelling is if their descriptions didn't contain complete and outright spoilers for what you'd find at that location.

 

[/generalizations]

Share this post


Link to post

<whistle> Two point by point replies back to back...</whistle>

 

I guess my point is - GC.com is a well designed, easy to use interface that's very functional and gets the job done whereas WM.com is - well clunky and awkward to use and takes a lot of figuring out to know how the thing works. Again, 4 months in and I'm just beginning to grasp it. Maybe down the line it'll make more sense.

 

regarding Wow factor, I don't see the point in emphasizing wow factor when LPC's abound. Maybe it's laziness, or whatever...

 

I do this thing for thre hunt, not for the locations, etc. although they are nice, don't get6 me wrong. I don't have all the answers, and really nodoby else does either...what we have are opinions and mine happens to be that I'd rather get a root canal w/o novacaine than visit the WM.com site or God forbid have GC.com integrated into that garbage.

 

Aside from the laziness factor and the "low quality Virts" according to who posts when, Virtual caches, webcam caches, etc seemed to work here long enough to get thier own category and now they've been moved to a site which, in my opinion, falls short in many significant areas.

 

For the record i did bleep the "potty mouth referneces" but apparently not enough. n there were @#$%@#'s involved. those are meant to indicate random symbols, not another potty mouth word mr moderator...

 

The moral of the story is, Virts are gone, and it seems there are enough happy about that that they're not coming back, but enough of us rooting for their return to make an interesting conversation in the forums every once in a while.

 

--MGb

Share this post


Link to post

I just came back from a skiing vacation in Austria, about 1500 km from my home location. While in the mountains I visited every peak that could be reached and noted the location as a waypoint. I have constructed a multicache that will result in the coords of the highest peak (Valluga) at 2800 m. At the peak there is a station where I didn't want to place any kind of physical cache, but nevertheless the place is stunning with an astounding view of the arouding mountains.

 

The big problem is, that i cannot publish it in Geocaching.com as there is no physical cache, and neither in Waymarking.com as it is a kind of multi.

 

Im new to this hobby, so can anyone come up with a solution??

 

Greetings

Jan

Share this post


Link to post

I just came back from a skiing vacation in Austria, about 1500 km from my home location. While in the mountains I visited every peak that could be reached and noted the location as a waypoint. I have constructed a multicache that will result in the coords of the highest peak (Valluga) at 2800 m. At the peak there is a station where I didn't want to place any kind of physical cache, but nevertheless the place is stunning with an astounding view of the arouding mountains.

 

The big problem is, that i cannot publish it in Geocaching.com as there is no physical cache, and neither in Waymarking.com as it is a kind of multi.

 

Im new to this hobby, so can anyone come up with a solution??

 

Greetings

Jan

You may want to post this in the Waymarking forums here. It has been suggested that we have a Waymarking category for multi-cache like waymarks. These could either be a self-guiding tour with several waypoints listed or it could involve calculation of final coordinates using data you find at other related waypoints. This currently does not exist in Waymarking but I think it would make a good category.

Share this post


Link to post

The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. B)

 

I'm all for bringing back the virtual cache!!! B)B) I went to place my 1st one the other day and now I find out that you have to go thru an act of congress to do it on the Waymarking site which I can't find anything about it on there. :D I strongly as well as other of my fellow cachers from here, WANT IT BACK ON HERE!!! :D Why did it leave? B) What do we do to get it back to the way it was? :D

Share this post


Link to post

I'm all for bringing back the virtual cache!!! B)B) I went to place my 1st one the other day and now I find out that you have to go thru an act of congress to do it on the Waymarking site which I can't find anything about it on there. :D I strongly as well as other of my fellow cachers from here, WANT IT BACK ON HERE!!! :D Why did it leave? B) What do we do to get it back to the way it was? :D

You were not around back then, so you don't know what it was like.

I'll help you out and show you what went on almost daily.

 

GONEPOSTAL35: I have an idea for a vitual. What do you think?

 

Mr. Reviewer: Archived!

 

GONEPOSTAL35: But I haven't even told you yet! B)

 

Mr. Reviewer: Your appeal has also been denied. Try asking the forums what they think.

 

GONEPOSTAL35: Hello forums, I have an idea for a virt...............

 

Forums: You freakin idiot! There's no "wow"! We googled you answer in 3.87 seconds. Read the guidelines. Hide a real cache there.

 

GONEPOSTAL35: Goecaching sucks! I quit!

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care, I just want them back. I was all ready to place a virtual to in a nice snorkeling area where I wouldn't be able to put a submerged container because I am sure a seal would eat it, so now I am screwed. Wish we had virtuals still.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't care, I just want them back. I was all ready to place a virtual to in a nice snorkeling area where I wouldn't be able to put a submerged container because I am sure a seal would eat it, so now I am screwed. Wish we had virtuals still.

 

So, why not report it as a waymark? Here's the category ...

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...d8-d40b19fd3914

 

There is nothing in the category within 200 miles of San Diego ... why not be the first to report one?

 

-eP

Share this post


Link to post
The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. :D

I'm all for bringing back the virtual cache!!! :grin::grin: I went to place my 1st one the other day and now I find out that you have to go thru an act of congress to do it on the Waymarking site which I can't find anything about it on there. :rolleyes: I strongly as well as other of my fellow cachers from here, WANT IT BACK ON HERE!!! :lol: Why did it leave? :sad: What do we do to get it back to the way it was? :lol:

No worries. I answered your email with some options. Virtuals are not coming back, but I have given you some options on getting your cache going. You got a great start, but it just did not quite make it to the container somewhere close to your virtual location (cemetery). I'm betting we can get your cache going.

Share this post


Link to post

I support the return of virtual caches, web cam caches, and any other cache type varieties.

geocaching.com and other supporting websites support, encourage, and allow cachers to collect all sorts of things like trackable items, unique icons, statistics, etc. Heck I bet most geocachers also collect the same sorta things within caches like pins, keychains, etc.

 

Many cachers would agree that geocaching has become a HUGE hobby. So, why do we allow beurocracy (sp?) to put restrictions and limitations on our good healthy fun?

 

An other thing, rules....why are there so many? But thats another forum.....

 

p.s. if a cacher does not want to visit a particular cache, they do not have to! All the info on a cache is availible.

 

wade13

Share this post


Link to post

Please don't bring them back to geocaching.com.

They have a good place at Waymarking.com.

 

Geocaching means searching for hidden containers.

Share this post


Link to post
Many cachers would agree that geocaching has become a HUGE hobby. So, why do we allow beurocracy (sp?) to put restrictions and limitations on our good healthy fun?

 

An other thing, rules....why are there so many? But thats another forum.....

Boy, I hope you don't look at my web site. Are you going to tell me what I can put on my web site too?

Share this post


Link to post

Now that you mention it, your website is really biased in favor of dogs. Why not more pictures of hamsters?

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, and Ponies!!!! we need more hamster riding ponies on his site.

Share this post


Link to post
Please don't bring them back to geocaching.com. They have a good place at Waymarking.com.

 

Geocaching means searching for hidden containers.

The object of Waymarking seems to be creating waymarks. Hardly anyone ever finds them... <_<

 

I still think virtuals is parks make sense. Rumor has it that we may lose a huge park out here to geocaching because of uncontrolled growth of geocaches. So that park will may have to use waymarks.... :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

The same thing is happening near me. Rather than complain about virtual caches that won't be coming back, we are forming an action plan to negotiate with them. We are gathering data on frequency of visits of geocachers at past geocaches in that park and are comparing them to other uses. You can either be proactive or you can just sit by and wait. It is your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
The same thing is happening near me. Rather than complain about virtual caches that won't be coming back, we are forming an action plan to negotiate with them. We are gathering data on frequency of visits of geocachers at past geocaches in that park and are comparing them to other uses. You can either be proactive or you can just sit by and wait. It is your choice.
Right now we are trying to validate the rumor. I'm sure a negotiation will be attempted if it is true. But as long as caches meet the guidelines they will be approved. So I think that being proactive should involve looking at guidelines for cache densities in parks before there this happens in more parks. Maybe we need a larger separation distance in certain types of parks or maybe virtuals should be allowed in certain parks....

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe we need a larger separation distance in certain types of parks or maybe virtuals should be allowed in certain parks....

Half of your statement is workable. It works in many areas. If you negotiate in something that is not an option, then you have only hurt yourself.

 

I will edit in two examples. A park near us only allows 7 caches. They like geocaching, but want to limit density. Here is another example in Minnesota: http://www.mngca.org/carver.php

Edited by mtn-man

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe we need a larger separation distance in certain types of parks or maybe virtuals should be allowed in certain parks....

Half of your statement is workable. It works in many areas. If you negotiate in something that is not an option, then you have only hurt yourself.

 

I will edit in two examples. A park near us only allows 7 caches. They like geocaching, but want to limit density. Here is another example in Minnesota: http://www.mngca.org/carver.php

We would never negotiate for virtuals. If they ever did come back there would be nothing to negotiate with those. We have had success stories here as well. Basically the rangers have to pre-approve everything, but that's better than nothing... :laughing: Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

Yep, I know what you mean. The lack of ability to submit virtual caches may have helped us with the Forest Service actually. We were starting to negotiate with them just as virtuals were being moved to Waymarking. The were only going to allow virtuals, but when we told them that would be an effective ban, they reconsidered. Our presentation regarding geocaching showed them that we can be an acceptable use of the forest and we got a blanket permit for GA (not wilderness areas, of course, but that is fine).

Share this post


Link to post

We recently adopted some virtual caches in our "team" account to "keep grandfather alive", so to speak. I encourage others to do the same if you learn of a local cache owner who is considering archiving a virtual. Let's keep the current ones alive, at least, so those who think they would enjoy trying them can do just that.

 

Hey, you don't suppose one of the reasons the virtual has gone away is because Groundspeak can't sell any write in the rain logbooks, micro cache containers or geocaching game piece stickers for them, do you?

Share this post


Link to post

geo5599bb.jpg

 

They're $1.50 a pop. There's even a Waymarking category centered on finding someone else's personal sticker. So, they're flying off the shelves, and Jeremy's interviewing for a new butler.

 

Thanks for asking!

Share this post


Link to post

Shouldn't you be sticking to the topic of virtuals and not hawking Waymarking stuff for the company? :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Waymarks are really the only on-topic discussion of virtual waypoints, except for discussion of grandfathered virtual caches. Waymarking and Geocaching are operated by the same company. Geocaching stickers and Waymarking stickers are sold in the same online store.

 

If I was promoting one of Waymarking's competitors, I'm quite certain that Signal would put such a hurt on me that it would make the plague of frogs in the Book of Exodus look like a bad PowerPuff Girls cartoon.

 

Since you brought up the issue of commercial motivation, I responded on topic to that point. Groundspeak certainly hopes that Waymarking's growing popularity will contribute to the company's financial success.

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post

The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. ;)

I would much rather have virtuals then the useless micros, at least with the virtuals I have been taken to new places that I had not been to before, and in some cases I didn't even know existed. The only thing I can see the micros are good for is for the people that like the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post

:huh:

The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. :sad:

I would much rather have virtuals then the useless micros, at least with the virtuals I have been taken to new places that I had not been to before, and in some cases I didn't even know existed. The only thing I can see the micros are good for is for the people that like the numbers.

 

;) I will have to concur with DWBur..........my self I have 2 old verts here in the Yuma area, one has had 262 visits, the other 226 visits...........I could have at least a dozen more good virts here in the Yuma Area, all of historical value.........at least they would have Redeeming Social Value, not just more Numbers........ ;)

Share this post


Link to post
:huh:
The virtual cache is grandfathered as most know and I want to bring it back. I would like to petition for it. Just say what you want here. :sad:
I would much rather have virtuals then the useless micros, at least with the virtuals I have been taken to new places that I had not been to before, and in some cases I didn't even know existed. The only thing I can see the micros are good for is for the people that like the numbers.
;) I will have to concur with DWBur..........my self I have 2 old verts here in the Yuma area, one has had 262 visits, the other 226 visits...........I could have at least a dozen more good virts here in the Yuma Area, all of historical value.........at least they would have Redeeming Social Value, not just more Numbers........ ;)
I think that both of you may be remembering 'wow' virts, rather than just virts. Without the 'wow', many virts were just as boring as the micros you compare them to. I don't think that the 'wow' process was tenable, so that leaves us without virts.

Share this post


Link to post
Hey, you don't suppose one of the reasons the virtual has gone away is because Groundspeak can't sell any write in the rain logbooks, micro cache containers or geocaching game piece stickers for them, do you?
You ask a question, don't like the answer, then slam the person nice enough to give you the answer to your question? ;):sad: Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post

The object of Waymarking seems to be creating waymarks. Hardly anyone ever finds them... ;)

Creating waymarks IS finding them - but at the category level rather than the waymark level. A great strength of the concept, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Hey, you don't suppose one of the reasons the virtual has gone away is because Groundspeak can't sell any write in the rain logbooks, micro cache containers or geocaching game piece stickers for them, do you?
You ask a question, don't like the answer, then slam the person nice enough to give you the answer to your question? ;):sad: Sheesh.

Not if the poster had remained on topic, like a moderator should. I notice in many different threads how the moderators jump right on it if someone posts off topic of the thread. As such, one expects these moderators to set an example and not jump into the very same thing they admonish others for doing. ;) Stick to the OPs original topic of virtuals. Don't continue to introduce information from another website and try to pass it off as being on topic when it isn't. I asked the question as semi-serious. Groundspeak stands to make NO money selling things that can be used for virtuals, so I wondered if that was why "they" are so against them.

 

Don't join the "pack" mentality as another moderator trying to come to the defense of a moderator who hasn't followed the very rules they are charged with enforcing.

Share this post


Link to post

Disclaimer: I'm not a mod in this forum.

 

Virtuals on Geocaching.com aren't coming back. Jeremy has said so numerous times.

 

here's a link

Really, there is only one opinion that matters I guess:

There's no plan to return virtual caches to geocaching.com. Thanks for your feedback.

I'm done with the issue.

My personal thought is that Waymarking is the appropriate place for virtual caches, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a look at what is or is not working with Waymarking. Many geocachers enjoy finding virtuals for a variety of reasons and Waymarking lacks some features in this regard.

Perhaps the most important is the ability to find interesting virtuals to find in an area where you happen to be geocaching. You could download all the waymarks near one of the geocaches, but you may get a list of McDonald's Restaurants (perhaps useful if you are looking for a place to eat lunch while out geocaching) and a few historical markers where they may be nothing to see other than the plaque.

 

We've been putting together a specification on ways that the Waymarking community can really "bubble up" the more interesting locations on Waymarking. It actually fits well within the area of community awards that has been discussed for geocaching. Users can give personal awards to geocachers whose geocaches are really good, or waymarks, etc. By aggregating these rewards we can find the caches and waymarks that are the best of the best and make them filterable through the site.

 

As much as the nay sayers opinions are about Waymarking it is a qualified success. It's definitely accelerated over the past year far faster than geocaching ever has, and once we finally announce it officially to the rest of the geocaching community we'll definitely see some more growth.

 

I'm especially impressed with the way peer review has worked for new categories, and the huge success we've seen in categories like Historical Markers and Covered Bridges - both categories that were common virtual submissions.

 

Keep the cool categories coming!

 

So - no matter how much someone wants virtuals - virtuals aren't coming back to Geocaching.com. Groundspeak spent TONS of man-hours and development in the Waymarking website - more money than they'll EVER recoup out of selling logbooks and stickers.

 

In the end, it's no more a different website than this board is, which is run on Groundspeak.com. The look and feel is different, but ALL THREE are both owned and operated by Groundspeak.

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post

Waymarking is presented as the replacement for virtuals. Unfortunately that is not quite true.

 

The Waymarking concept began as a replacement for locationless (reverse) caches. Because the locationless concept didn't fit in with the geocaching design of entering a location to find the nearest caches, they were hard to deal with on the geocaching site. They needed their own site (or at least their own separate area like benchmarking). Waymarking categories are a nice substitute for locationless caches. They're even a bit of an enhancement in that the categories can be grouped in a directory making it easier find categories and to concentrate on the waymarks that interest you. The second enhancement was that once someone had established a waymark in a category, others could go visit it. TPTB decided that this could solve the problem they had with virtual caches.

 

People would submit anything, no matter how trivial, as a virtual cache even when a physical cache could be placed in the same spot. Since there was no need to prepare and hide a physical container, virtual caches were a lazy, cheap way to place a cache. Geocaching instituted the "wow" rule to provide the reviewers with a way to reject most virtuals. But "wow" being subjective, this caused a lot of work for the reviewers as virtual cachers would argue over their cache's rejection and appeal on the forums for their virtual to be accepted. At the same time, many geocachers complained that virtual caches were preventing the placement of "better" real caches in the area.

 

By claiming that waymarks are substitutes for virtual caches, TPTB have eliminated the need for reviewers to enforce the "wow" rule. Instead, the category managers decide if a waymark meets the rules for their category. These rules are usually less subjective than the "wow" rule so there are fewer disputes. In addition, since waymarks are on a different site, they can be established without interference with the placement of geocaches. A waymark and a geocache can coexist.

 

But there are real differences between waymarks and virtual caches. The better virtual caches required that you find something at the site in order to answer a verification question or post a picture. In some cases, the description on the cache page left off details so you would be suprised when you got to the site. Even when the virtual cache page described the area in detail, the exact details of what you would find were not known until you visited the cache. Most Waymarking categories encourage or require the waymark page to have as much detail as possible about the waymark, including photos. Visitors might be asked to post a picture or describe what they found but rarely is the verification by question that can only be answered by visiting the site used. In addition, in some areas, where the reviewers did a good job of enforcing the "wow" rule, people found a substantial number of virtual caches were "interesting". In order to find "interesting" waymarks, you have to search the categories to find the ones that interest you. There is a certain amount of work involved in searching for categories that you find interesting and that have waymarks nearby. It was much easier to rely on the reviewers to list just the interesting virtual caches.

 

I had high hopes that the virtual caching community would find a home on Waymarking.com. I thought that there would be several categories tailored to address the issues of virtual caching and that these categories would coexists with the standard kinds of Waymarking categories. So far, only my Best Kept Secrets category has been created in this vein. There are many categories that take you to unique and interesting places which might be fun to visit, but I don't see any that really want to make you search for something. A Waymarking community has formed that seems more interested in cataloging locations in the various categories - some mundane and some interesting. They've even established a game of sorts in trying to see who can have waymarks in the most categories. People looking for a virtual experience see this and are turned off by Waymarking.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post
Hey, you don't suppose one of the reasons the virtual has gone away is because Groundspeak can't sell any write in the rain logbooks, micro cache containers or geocaching game piece stickers for them, do you?
You ask a question, don't like the answer, then slam the person nice enough to give you the answer to your question? ;):sad: Sheesh.
Not if the poster had remained on topic, like a moderator should. I notice in many different threads how the moderators jump right on it if someone posts off topic of the thread. As such, one expects these moderators to set an example and not jump into the very same thing they admonish others for doing. ;) Stick to the OPs original topic of virtuals. Don't continue to introduce information from another website and try to pass it off as being on topic when it isn't. I asked the question as semi-serious. Groundspeak stands to make NO money selling things that can be used for virtuals, so I wondered if that was why "they" are so against them. ...
First, let me say that I think it is a little too hard to believe your hypothesis that the only reason that virts went away is because they don't sell stickers and logs for them. That being said, you should check out the Groundspeak store. Many things could still be sold even if there were nothing but virts.

 

All but one thing on this page.

Everything on this page.

Most things on this page.

Everything on this page.

Everything on this page.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post
Hey, you don't suppose one of the reasons the virtual has gone away is because Groundspeak can't sell any write in the rain logbooks, micro cache containers or geocaching game piece stickers for them, do you?
You ask a question, don't like the answer, then slam the person nice enough to give you the answer to your question? ;);) Sheesh.
Not if the poster had remained on topic, like a moderator should. I notice in many different threads how the moderators jump right on it if someone posts off topic of the thread. As such, one expects these moderators to set an example and not jump into the very same thing they admonish others for doing. :sad: Stick to the OPs original topic of virtuals. Don't continue to introduce information from another website and try to pass it off as being on topic when it isn't. I asked the question as semi-serious. Groundspeak stands to make NO money selling things that can be used for virtuals, so I wondered if that was why "they" are so against them. ...
First, let me say that I think it is a little too hard to believe your hypothesis that the only reason that virts went away is because they don't sell stickers and logs for them. That being said, you should check out the Groundspeak store. Many things could still be sold even if there were nothing but virts.

 

<multiple links snipped>

Whoa, dude. I never hypothesized that the ONLY reason virts went away is because of the lack of profit to be made in supporting them. (Critical reading skills, man. Or is it falacy inducing skills?) I merely suggested that there could be a possibility that ONE of the reasons might be profit motivated. And yes, I know that there are many other things that Groundspeak sells. I pointed out specific items that are useless with virts.

 

And anyway, I suggested it in the form of a question, again, as ONE of the possibilities.

 

Markwell... I know, I know, virtuals aren't coming back no matter how much anybody wants them to. <sigh> Some people's sacred calves, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
geo5599bb.jpg

 

They're $1.50 a pop. There's even a Waymarking category centered on finding someone else's personal sticker. So, they're flying off the shelves, and Jeremy's interviewing for a new butler.

 

Thanks for asking!

New butler..... ;) What would be really cool is if you could enter a six-digit code on this sticker that the finder would have to enter to get the find.

Share this post


Link to post
Hey, you don't suppose one of the reasons the virtual has gone away is because Groundspeak can't sell any write in the rain logbooks, micro cache containers or geocaching game piece stickers for them, do you?
You ask a question, don't like the answer, then slam the person nice enough to give you the answer to your question? ;);) Sheesh.
Not if the poster had remained on topic, like a moderator should. I notice in many different threads how the moderators jump right on it if someone posts off topic of the thread. As such, one expects these moderators to set an example and not jump into the very same thing they admonish others for doing. :sad: Stick to the OPs original topic of virtuals. Don't continue to introduce information from another website and try to pass it off as being on topic when it isn't. I asked the question as semi-serious. Groundspeak stands to make NO money selling things that can be used for virtuals, so I wondered if that was why "they" are so against them. ...
First, let me say that I think it is a little too hard to believe your hypothesis that the only reason that virts went away is because they don't sell stickers and logs for them. That being said, you should check out the Groundspeak store. Many things could still be sold even if there were nothing but virts.

 

<multiple links snipped>

Whoa, dude. I never hypothesized that the ONLY reason virts went away is because of the lack of profit to be made in supporting them. (Critical reading skills, man. Or is it falacy inducing skills?) I merely suggested that there could be a possibility that ONE of the reasons might be profit motivated. And yes, I know that there are many other things that Groundspeak sells. I pointed out specific items that are useless with virts.

 

And anyway, I suggested it in the form of a question, again, as ONE of the possibilities.

 

Markwell... I know, I know, virtuals aren't coming back no matter how much anybody wants them to. <sigh> Some people's sacred calves, huh?

If the Groundspeak store was the major profit generator for Groundspeak, I might buy your thesis, even with your rudeness.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you Markwell.

 

Topic closed since the wheels are off.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...