Virtual Caches

September 9, 2007

As for sites with historic significance, I am greatly enjoying my work as a category manager for Pennsylvania Historic Markers. It's a subject in which I have a personal interest, and I'm very happy to see that more than 1,000 historic signs have been waymarked. That is 1,000 virtual cache submissions that I would have been compelled to archive under the virtual cache listing guidelines. I far prefer listing them as waymarks to archiving them as geocaches.

EDIT: for bad grammar, onaccountabecause it's late.

You would not be required to archive them as virtual geocaches, since virtual geocaches which were already approved are not archived. They are perfectly "active". Which is the inconsistency I am pointing out - keep the ones we have because they were good enough then, but not allow any new ones (which are just like the old ones) because... Jeremy said so. That's not good enough for me, and I don't believe it is good enough for most people who support virtuals.

21.9k · September 9, 2007

As for sites with historic significance, I am greatly enjoying my work as a category manager for Pennsylvania Historic Markers. It's a subject in which I have a personal interest, and I'm very happy to see that more than 1,000 historic signs have been waymarked. That is 1,000 virtual cache submissions that I would have been compelled to archive under the virtual cache listing guidelines. I far prefer listing them as waymarks to archiving them as geocaches.

EDIT: for bad grammar, onaccountabecause it's late.

You would not be required to archive them as virtual geocaches, since virtual geocaches which were already approved are not archived. They are perfectly "active". Which is the inconsistency I am pointing out - keep the ones we have because they were good enough then, but not allow any new ones (which are just like the old ones) because... Jeremy said so. That's not good enough for me, and I don't believe it is good enough for most people who support virtuals.

You are incorrect. Under the review standards we were obligated to follow, historic markers were explicitly mentioned as one of the types of objects that were "too common" to qualify as virtual caches. I archived each and every submission of a historic marker as a virtual cache. Please don't tell me that the rules were otherwise, as I remember them quite well. Those historic markers that were virtual caches were published prior to when I became a reviewer in 2003, right about at the time when Groundspeak asked the reviewers to stop listing common items as virtual caches.

September 9, 2007

I am telling you, based on all the land managers I deal with, month in and month out, that I have never heard any of them mention Waymarking as an alternative to geocaches. Nor do I recall any other cache reviewer saying that this happened to them. So my statement was based on empirical observation of change from the 2002-2005 era vs. 2005 to the present. It is different. Has your experience with land manager discussions been otherwise? If so, please share.

Hmmm, wouldn't have expected sarcasm from a moderator but I suppose that I may have backed you into a corner.

As you would well expect I have no experience with land managers beyond the nine or ten caches I have placed so I suppose I will just have to accept your learned experience in the matter and assume that land managers believe that only a few people use Waymarking.com and that they will just have to continue to allow physical caches until more do. I have no doubt that you will keep an eye on the numbers for us.

You would need to ask the GSA, or the Earthcache reviewer, or Groundspeak. Since I have no official responsibility for earthcaches it would be inappropriate for me to comment or speculate about a decision in which I was not involved.

Again, Probably the best answer I am going to get.

As for sites with historic significance, I am greatly enjoying my work as a category manager for Pennsylvania Historic Markers. It's a subject in which I have a personal interest, and I'm very happy to see that more than 1,000 historic signs have been waymarked. That is 1,000 virtual cache submissions that I would have been compelled to archive under the virtual cache listing guidelines. I far prefer listing them as waymarks to archiving them as geocaches.

Nice plug, I suppose. Thanx for your guidance.

I find that these 'virtual' threads mostly amount to turning 0's into 1's... :lol:

8k · September 9, 2007

Simply saying "Waymarking.com was created for these "not-so-real" caches, so go do them over there if you want them so bad" isn't a legitimate argument, since they didn't move the old ones over there. Again, I raise the point of inconsistency.

I think I responded that Jeremy did consider moving all existing virtual cache to Waymarking. This is what he did with locationless caches. All locationless cache owners were given the opportunity to create a Waymarking category equivalent to their locationless cache. Not everyone did this but they were given the option. I suspect that if there was a way to move all the virtual caches something similar would have been done. Of course, Jeremy could've just created a Waymarking category for existing virtual cache and put them there. But there was some discussion in the Waymarking forums if this was really what was needed. The idea is that new virtual caches would have to belong to one of the existing Waymarking categories and making an artificial category just to move caches off of geocaching.com did not seem like a good option. Perhaps a future time, there will be categories in Waymarking that will handle all the existing virtual caches. In the meantime they are grandfathered on geocaching.com. I just don't see how this is inconsistent with what Geocaching.com had done in the past with other changes to the guidelines. When new moving caches were banned, existing moving cache were archived. When the "wow" requirement was added to virtuals, existing virtuals that were not wow were not archived. You really don't have much of an argument in saying that because caches placed before the guidelines were changed were grandfathered, the guidelines shouldn't be changed.

September 9, 2007

Simply saying "Waymarking.com was created for these "not-so-real" caches, so go do them over there if you want them so bad" isn't a legitimate argument, since they didn't move the old ones over there. Again, I raise the point of inconsistency.

I think I responded that Jeremy did consider moving all existing virtual cache to Waymarking. This is what he did with locationless caches. All locationless cache owners were given the opportunity to create a Waymarking category equivalent to their locationless cache. Not everyone did this but they were given the option. I suspect that if there was a way to move all the virtual caches something similar would have been done. Of course, Jeremy could've just created a Waymarking category for existing virtual cache and put them there. But there was some discussion in the Waymarking forums if this was really what was needed. The idea is that new virtual caches would have to belong to one of the existing Waymarking categories and making an artificial category just to move caches off of geocaching.com did not seem like a good option. Perhaps a future time, there will be categories in Waymarking that will handle all the existing virtual caches. In the meantime they are grandfathered on geocaching.com. I just don't see how this is inconsistent with what Geocaching.com had done in the past with other changes to the guidelines. When new moving caches were banned, existing moving cache were archived. When the "wow" requirement was added to virtuals, existing virtuals that were not wow were not archived. You really don't have much of an argument in saying that because caches placed before the guidelines were changed were grandfathered, the guidelines shouldn't be changed.

Yes, I do. Locationless caches were locked, and "moved" to WM.com. Virtuals were "grandfathered", not moved, but no new ones were allowed to be created. A choice was made to handle the two differently, setting up a double standard.

Also, in response to what Keystone said a few lines back - I'm confused. Were you asked to archive all existing historical marker virtuals, or just not approve any more? The way you wrote it, I can't tell which. If the guidelines changed, and you were told not to approve any more, that's another of the inconsistencies I'm talking about. If it was good enough to be ok then, but the rules changed, why would it still be ok now?

Some things get archived, some things get locked, some things get moved, some things get ok'd under some circumstances, some things get grandfathered. I think that is more than clear enough that these things are inconsistent. Inconsistency is what gets people in trouble in the real world. It is what creates angst in the forums when rules and guidelines and suspensions are administered inconsistently. It is what gets players upset in games. How would you like to play a sport where the officials use a different rulebook for every game? I am an official - you need to be as consistent as possible. When you make up rules, you get in trouble - both in the game, and with your supervisors.

If these virtuals were so bad - if they were such a terrible thing that they had to go and create a whole new website for them - they should have been moved and archived/locked like the locationless caches were. But wait - they didn't quite fit in WM.com as it was (or even is now). So ... hmmm - sounds to me like they fit better here, thereby supporting my argument for allowing new ones. WM.com fits locationless caches perfectly, the way the structure of it is set up. It doesn't fit virtuals as well - well, doesn't fit them really at all with the structure the way it is set up. They also don't have any set logging requirements, as there are ones for GC.com's virtuals.

So back to the inconsistencies.

And back to the original question, which hasn't been answered by anyone in authority - What do we need to do to get it changed to allow new virtuals?

Edited September 9, 2007 by FireRef

7.3k · September 9, 2007

Simply saying "Waymarking.com was created for these "not-so-real" caches, so go do them over there if you want them so bad" isn't a legitimate argument, since they didn't move the old ones over there. Again, I raise the point of inconsistency.

I think I responded that Jeremy did consider moving all existing virtual cache to Waymarking. This is what he did with locationless caches. All locationless cache owners were given the opportunity to create a Waymarking category equivalent to their locationless cache. Not everyone did this but they were given the option. I suspect that if there was a way to move all the virtual caches something similar would have been done. Of course, Jeremy could've just created a Waymarking category for existing virtual cache and put them there. But there was some discussion in the Waymarking forums if this was really what was needed. The idea is that new virtual caches would have to belong to one of the existing Waymarking categories and making an artificial category just to move caches off of geocaching.com did not seem like a good option. Perhaps a future time, there will be categories in Waymarking that will handle all the existing virtual caches. In the meantime they are grandfathered on geocaching.com. I just don't see how this is inconsistent with what Geocaching.com had done in the past with other changes to the guidelines. When new moving caches were banned, existing moving cache were archived. When the "wow" requirement was added to virtuals, existing virtuals that were not wow were not archived. You really don't have much of an argument in saying that because caches placed before the guidelines were changed were grandfathered, the guidelines shouldn't be changed.

Yes, I do. Locationless caches were locked, and "moved" to WM.com. Virtuals were "grandfathered", not moved, but no new ones were allowed to be created. A choice was made to handle the two differently, setting up a double standard.

Also, in response to what Keystone said a few lines back - I'm confused. Were you asked to archive all existing historical marker virtuals, or just not approve any more? The way you wrote it, I can't tell which.

Keystone wasn't saying that he archived existing historical marker virts. For a while they were still listing virts, but under much stricter scrutiny. He was saying that was the time that he denied any historical marker virts.

7.2k · September 9, 2007

And back to the original question, which hasn't been answered by anyone in authority - What do we need to do to get it changed to allow new virtuals?

Go start your own web site.

I don't understand why you just don't get "no" as the answer to bringing back new virtual cache submissions on this site. Jeremy has been pretty clear. He said no. Some of the slams against the site and against the volunteers just keep driving that nail home. I like them, but I have enjoyed not having to argue with people about unacceptable submissions much more.

I need to go back to "being lazy". See ya.

September 9, 2007

And back to the original question, which hasn't been answered by anyone in authority - What do we need to do to get it changed to allow new virtuals?

Go start your own web site.

I don't understand why you just don't get "no" as the answer to bringing back new virtual cache submissions on this site. Jeremy has been pretty clear. He said no. Some of the slams against the site and against the volunteers just keep driving that nail home. I like them, but I have enjoyed not having to argue with people about unacceptable submissions much more.

I need to go back to "being lazy". See ya.

It is clear a decision was made, which may or may not have been in the best interest of the game as it is played through this website. Simply because someone made a decision doesn't mean anyone has to accept it. I don't accept things just because "someone said so", and don't feel anyone should. Being a teacher, I have reasons for what I do. If a kid doesn't accept it, they (or their parents) can appeal to a higher authority. Assistant principal, principal, superintendant, school board. Then there's the courts. Short of the Federal Supreme Court (at least in the US), there is always someone you can appeal to, and it is almost always a group of people.

In the business model, there is usually a board running things. Or stockholders. In this case, we have someone who made a decision that, even if the players disagree, doesn't appear to be willing to reconsider the issue, and no one other than the players to appeal to.

There is nothing here that has been made as a "slam" against the site. Everything I have stated has been a factual, logical argument that, in most cases, have been either ignored or a single point has been picked and addressed, while ignoring the rest. The main argument that always seems to be made is that it was too difficult to decide what was a good virtual and what wasn't. Simply because something is difficult shouldn't close an entire section of the game. I wish I had the ability in my job to say "That's too difficult for me to do easily and takes way too much time - I shouldn't have to teach (insert topic)." and then not do it. No Child Left Behind is a perfect example. Good idea, but stupid law in the way it is written.

Simply acting as a parent with a 2 year old, saying "No, because I said so" is a bad way to make a decision. And that is what this comes across as, at least to me.

September 9, 2007

Keystone wasn't saying that he archived existing historical marker virts. For a while they were still listing virts, but under much stricter scrutiny. He was saying that was the time that he denied any historical marker virts.

That makes more sense then.

But how can some be ok (old ones) and others not (new ones) - that's the inconsistency that isn't being addressed. If they're so bad they can't accept new ones, how can old ones be ok to get by with?

2.2k · September 9, 2007

It is clear a decision was made, which may or may not have been in the best interest of the game as it is played through this website. Simply because someone made a decision doesn't mean anyone has to accept it. I don't accept things just because "someone said so", and don't feel anyone should. Being a teacher, I have reasons for what I do. If a kid doesn't accept it, they (or their parents) can appeal to a higher authority. Assistant principal, principal, superintendant, school board. Then there's the courts. Short of the Federal Supreme Court (at least in the US), there is always someone you can appeal to, and it is almost always a group of people.

In this case, the highest authority possible has already said "No". You can appeal your fictional case all the way to the supreme court, and when they rule against you, what happens then? You accept it. That's the case here--the supreme court has ruled against you, so accept it.

In the business model, there is usually a board running things. Or stockholders. In this case, we have someone who made a decision that, even if the players disagree, doesn't appear to be willing to reconsider the issue, and no one other than the players to appeal to.

Right. So accept it and move on. You're just peeing into the wind at this point.

There is nothing here that has been made as a "slam" against the site. Everything I have stated has been a factual, logical argument that, in most cases, have been either ignored or a single point has been picked and addressed, while ignoring the rest.

Not true. Link to the post and the (in)appropriate quote is below.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3057174

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers.

Simply acting as a parent with a 2 year old, saying "No, because I said so" is a bad way to make a decision. And that is what this comes across as, at least to me.

As the parent of a 2 year old, isn't it annoying when you do tell them they can't have a cookie, and explain the various reason they can't have it, yet they continue to ask anyway?

As has been pointed out to you before, it's not going to change. If you still want to create virtual caches, feel free to join one of the other sites that offers them.

Have fun!

:lol:

Edited September 9, 2007 by Quiggle

September 9, 2007

It is clear a decision was made, which may or may not have been in the best interest of the game as it is played through this website. Simply because someone made a decision doesn't mean anyone has to accept it. I don't accept things just because "someone said so", and don't feel anyone should. Being a teacher, I have reasons for what I do. If a kid doesn't accept it, they (or their parents) can appeal to a higher authority. Assistant principal, principal, superintendant, school board. Then there's the courts. Short of the Federal Supreme Court (at least in the US), there is always someone you can appeal to, and it is almost always a group of people.

In this case, the highest authority possible has already said "No". You can appeal your fictional case all the way to the supreme court, and when they rule against you, what happens then? You accept it. That's the case here--the supreme court has ruled against you, so accept it.

In the business model, there is usually a board running things. Or stockholders. In this case, we have someone who made a decision that, even if the players disagree, doesn't appear to be willing to reconsider the issue, and no one other than the players to appeal to.

Right. So accept it and move on. You're just peeing into the wind at this point.

There is nothing here that has been made as a "slam" against the site. Everything I have stated has been a factual, logical argument that, in most cases, have been either ignored or a single point has been picked and addressed, while ignoring the rest.

Not true. Link to the post and the (in)appropriate quote is below.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3057174

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers.

Simply acting as a parent with a 2 year old, saying "No, because I said so" is a bad way to make a decision. And that is what this comes across as, at least to me.

As the parent of a 2 year old, isn't it annoying when you do tell them they can't have a cookie, and explain the various reason they can't have it, yet they continue to ask anyway?

As has been pointed out to you before, it's not going to change. If you still want to create virtual caches, feel free to join one of the other sites that offers them.

Have fun!

1) Jeremy does not define the game, only this website. I would hope that he would choose to listen to the people who choose to use this website to play the game, and certainly to those who choose to fork over money to support this site. If he chooses not to, this is, in any business model, a bad decision.

2) Your link took me to a post I made where I stated that I feel that the reviewers have, sometimes, too much latitude in the way that they make decisions. This is not an inappropriate post - it is my opinion, and I am entitled to express it. I always feel that anyone who chooses to exercise judgement in a way I disagree with, and has the authority to back it up, and the higher powers refuse to consider arguments or simply back the people below them without regard for what was done, is wrong. It was not intended as a slam - it was intended as a statement of fact as I see it. If it is inappropriate for us to disagree with what you guys choose to do and which rules you choose to enforce under varying circumstances in an inconsistent manner, then we better close the forums, or simply make them a 2 step process. Someone expresses an opinion or asks a question, one of you answers it (for once and for all), and that's the end of it.

The quote that was posted was part of the basis of the explanation which was given. It is not inappropriate - it was what was stated earlier in the thread - that it generated an excessive amount of work to filter through all the virtual cache submissions to weed out the bad ones. Being in support of removing something because it is easier, to me, is being lazy. I'm not saying you guys don't do a lot of work. Without you, the game wouldn't work, at least in terms of this website. And as I understand it, it is a decent amount of work. But being in support of removing certain kinds of caches because they generate extra work isn't fair to the players who want them.

3) The thing is - we're not 2-year-olds. We are intelligent, rational people who feel we are entitled to a reasonable explanation of a decision which we disagree with, and also to challenge that decision if we feel it was made incorrectly. Treating us as such, rather than just saying "No - live with it or go somewhere else", isn't a good way to address an issue under any circumstances. I have no intention of creating my own website. Obviously, others have, and that is why we have several other sites we can go to. At this time, this seems to be the most popular, probably because of the way it is set up. This doesn't mean that every decision made by Jeremy is the right one - only that he is able to do it because he owns the site, and everyone else has to live with it.

Obviously I'm not the only one who feels they should return. Why not consider the will and interest of the people who play the game, maybe start a poll, and act on the results of that poll, rather than treating us like 2 year olds by saying "No, so live with it" (which is the first several responses to this thread, if you go back to the beginning)? What is the harm in that?

September 9, 2007

Can I have a cookie?

11.3k · September 9, 2007

<snip>

Obviously I'm not the only one who feels they should return. Why not consider the will and interest of the people who play the game, maybe start a poll, and act on the results of that poll, rather than treating us like 2 year olds by saying "No, so live with it" (which is the first several responses to this thread, if you go back to the beginning)? What is the harm in that?

I agree. I believe I already posted in this long thread, or in another one, how Virtuals could be brought back to this site without so much involvement with the Reviewers, which is probably the biggest reason they were discontinued.

On the Waymarking Site, to submit some Waymarks to certain categories, you are required to answer several questions correctly or the submission will not go through.

I think some great Virtual caches, with "WOW" factor, could be added to those grandfathered Virtuals already on this site, if a different "Tool for reporting and editing cache listings" page would come up when "Virtual" was the choice of cache type.

On that new cache submission page, the questions could be so tight, and so limiting, as they were on the WiFi Waymark submission form before it was changed, that only those Virtual locations with a "Wow" factor would make it through to the Reviewers queue.

It could be done . . . too bad TPTB don't want to do it.

I own several Waymarks, and have the coordinates and photographs to place many, many more . . . but what is the point when they never get visited, even when they are located in popular city parks . . . :lol:

8k · September 9, 2007

So back to the inconsistencies.

I think I gave a good explaination back in post #14 of this thread 2862557[/snapback] of why existing virtuals were grandfathered and not archived. If you look there you will see that I agree that Groundspeak is inconsistent since existing webcams were also grandfathered even though these could have easily be moved to the Web Cameras category in Waymarking. There is no inconsistency with a decision to not allow new virtuals while keeping the old ones a grandfathered. Jeremy and others have made a decision that virtual caches are better represented as waymarks. If there was an easy way to move the existing virtual caches to Waymarking they would be.

Waymarks are simply locations with coordinates, name, and description that are assigned to a category. Additional category specific information may also be required. Geocaches are for all intents and purposes a category of waymark. I suspect that in Geocaching.com version 2 you may find that geocaches are waymarks that simply have there own portal. Jeremy would like to define this category as places where someone has hidden a container of some sort and a log. Webcams, earthcaches, and virtuals would probably be better served with their own categories of waymarks because of additional requirements need to log these in lieu of signing a physical log. In fact virtuals would be better served by having many Waymarking categories so we don't have to fight over the meaning of the "wow" requirement. We could have several competing "wow" requirements categories or we could have concrete categories like historical markers, famous person's graves, statues, and funny signs that virtual cache can be in.

And back to the original question, which hasn't been answered by anyone in authority - What do we need to do to get it changed to allow new virtuals?

Perhaps Jeremy could repeat the same answer he gave on this thread.

September 9, 2007

And back to the original question, which hasn't been answered by anyone in authority - What do we need to do to get it changed to allow new virtuals?

Perhaps Jeremy could repeat the same answer he gave on this thread.

And from reading that thread, it is obvious that it falls under my 2-year-old example... "This is the way it's going to be... and you can't talk about it anymore" (since he closed the thread).

I, and I am sure others as well, feel it more important that he listen to the people that play the game, rather than just make decisions because he can.

Obviously it is an issue that concerns a number of players, at least ones frequeting the forums (which isn't all players), since it is an issue that pops up every now and then. This should be more than enough of an impetus to reexamine the idea of virtuals. Otherwise, why even have the forums? So all of us can sit around and complain about things which we don't like, with no one actually ever having any interest in improving things?

If it was one random person and no one agreed, that would be one thing. It is a topic brought up by many people at many different times. The only people who seem to be completely opposed to it are Jeremy and the reviewers. There aren't that many players that seem to chime in with these discussions (and I have gone back and read a few) to say they don't want them. Most seem in support of it, at least the ones who post.

Why not consider the will of the players?

Also, a quick point - you agree that the website is inconsistent. This is not a good thing. It never is. Why do they not become more consistent?If virtuals would be better served as waymarks, but there is no "easy" way to move them over, so what? Do the work and move them over. It speaks to the same point I made earler - do it the easiest way, rather than the best way, which was mentioned earlier in this thread in regards to approving/disapproving virtuals.

Edited September 9, 2007 by FireRef

3.9k · September 9, 2007

I, and I am sure others as well, feel it more important that he listen to the people that play the game, rather than just make decisions because he can.

Why not consider the will of the players?

He's listening to some of us. I'm glad virtuals are gone and I hope they don't come back.

I guess if they did put it to a vote, mine would cancel yours out.

5.3k · September 9, 2007

Perhaps people don't want to post that they disagree with you because they don't want to be insulted or called lazy or stupid or whatever you deem necessary at the time.

You've proven that you have no respect for others when you continue to insult the reviewers even after the inappropriate nature of your post was specifically pointed out. Why would regular members think that you weren't going to subject them to the same disrespect?

Why is it so hard to understand that a decision has been made by the owner and that the decision isn't going to change? Most people can accept that a private site can be run in whatever manner the owner wishes. Surely we can request changes, however, at some point when we, as adults, are told that a decision has been made and that things aren't going to change, we have accept it and move on.

September 9, 2007

Perhaps people don't want to post that they disagree with you because they don't want to be insulted or called lazy or stupid or whatever you deem necessary at the time.

You've proven that you have no respect for others when you continue to insult the reviewers even after the inappropriate nature of your post was specifically pointed out. Why would regular members think that you weren't going to subject them to the same disrespect?

Why is it so hard to understand that a decision has been made by the owner and that the decision isn't going to change? Most people can accept that a private site can be run in whatever manner the owner wishes. Surely we can request changes, however, at some point when we, as adults, are told that a decision has been made and that things aren't going to change, we have accept it and move on.

I have not insulted anyone. There was nothing inappropriate about that post. One of the posts indicated, and someone else in another post backed it up, that one of the main reasons for stopping virtuals was because of the extra work they were for reviewers. Pointing out that as what I would consider to not be a legitimate reason for stopping them is not inappropriate. It is a statement of my opinion, backed by facts stated by other people. And unless you can find a quote to back it, I don't believe I called anyone "stupid". I did state that based on statements previously mentioned, if virtuals were shut down because they were too much work for reviewers, in my opinion, this is a lazy approach - don't make them better, just shut them off to make it easier. An example of this would be NCLB - states which didn't want to improve their students learning just lowered the standards. That is a lazy approach - don't fix the problem in the best way, fix it in the easiest way, with negative consequences.

I have no respect for authority for authority's sake. I respect people who earn it, and maintain respect for those people as they continue to earn or deserve it. Simply respecting someone because they are in authority is bad... we have many historical examples of that.

Why not put it to a vote? That would at least show the general consensus. If the general consensus was to not have them, I would accept that. I don't believe this is what a vote would show. Jeremy doesn't have to act on it - he can do whatever he wants. This doesn't mean the decision is correct to do so... only that he has the power to do so. But at least the opinion of the players would be generally known, rather than me standing up and taking a stand, and getting 4-5 reviewers and a few other people to just tell me I'm wrong. If you read back through this, I probably have been the most vocal in support, but several others have been also, and at least one came up with a solution similar to earthcaches, which, in my opinion, is very good. And if you read back through other threads, I am NOT the only one who is in support of returning them. In most cases, someone wants them back, a reviewer says "not gonna happen", and that's the end of it... This has happened enough times that someone in charge should take notice that obviously there is more than a passing interest in reviving them.

Edited September 9, 2007 by FireRef

September 9, 2007

I, and I am sure others as well, feel it more important that he listen to the people that play the game, rather than just make decisions because he can.

Why not consider the will of the players?

He's listening to some of us. I'm glad virtuals are gone and I hope they don't come back.

I guess if they did put it to a vote, mine would cancel yours out.

He's listening to those who agree with him.

And yes, but there would be hundreds or thousands of other votes. (and yes, I did read the thread where someone pointed out that only one vote, Jeremy's, matters... I feel that is wrong - anyone running anything that people interact with should listen to the people that are involved.)

11.3k · September 9, 2007

I, and I am sure others as well, feel it more important that he listen to the people that play the game, rather than just make decisions because he can.

Why not consider the will of the players?

He's listening to some of us. I'm glad virtuals are gone and I hope they don't come back.

I guess if they did put it to a vote, mine would cancel yours out.

But mine would cancel yours out . . . :lol:

8k · September 9, 2007

It speaks to the same point I made earler - do it the easiest way, rather than the best way ...

Virtuals were added to the game to provide an option for when a physical cache couldn't be placed. They were added quickly, without much thought of the downside, using the easiest way rather than the best way. People could just create a virtual cache saying "I tried to put a physical cache here but there just wasn't anywhere to hide it" or "I found this neat spot on vacation. I can't maintain a cache here but I can hide a virtual cache". Because they were so easy to place and there was no cost involved, virtuals were placed far more often than anticipated. They were really meant only for when you couldn't really hide a physical container but instead became the first type of cache that had cachers complaining of spew.

The easiest way (not the best way) to control the runaway virtual cache placement was to add more guidelines. The earliest versions of the "wow" requirement were simply that the cache must have some special historic, community, or geocaching interest. It should make a good subject for a coffee table book. Well historic markers obviously fit this and there are tons of them. People stopped making virtuals out of abandon cars or remains of dead animals and started to make a virtual cache of every historic mark or tombstone of a famous person. The wow requirement got rewritten. It eventually was word so that reviewers couldn't approve any virtual unless it was a something total unique. Not the best way to handle it and in this case, for the reviewers at least, not the easiest. The reviewers now had to deny nearly every virtual cache submitted. They forums were full of people appealing the decision to deny their virtuals. The number of people who post "bring back virtuals" is tiny compared to those who posted "why was my virtual denied?".

Waymarking may not be the best way for handling virtuals either. But many people do think it is a better way than what we had. It is certainly not the easiest way. It required a whole new website with new code to be developed. And in spite of the fact that is itself a fairly easy concept to grasp, it is different enough from what we were used to in geocaching that some people can't seem to understand that virtuals can be created and searched for using this system. Would it be easier for you to understand if the grandfathered virtuals were archived? If so I would be willing to archive my virtual cache even though there still isn't a Waymarking category that it would go in. (I could try Best Kept Secrets but I'm not sure the group would approve it.)

14.3k · September 9, 2007

It speaks to the same point I made earler - do it the easiest way, rather than the best way ...

Virtuals were added to the game to provide an option for when a physical cache couldn't be placed. They were added quickly, without much thought of the downside, using the easiest way rather than the best way. People could just create a virtual cache saying "I tried to put a physical cache here but there just wasn't anywhere to hide it" or "I found this neat spot on vacation. I can't maintain a cache here but I can hide a virtual cache". Because they were so easy to place and there was no cost involved, virtuals were placed far more often than anticipated. They were really meant only for when you couldn't really hide a physical container but instead became the first type of cache that had cachers complaining of spew.

The easiest way (not the best way) to control the runaway virtual cache placement was to add more guidelines. The earliest versions of the "wow" requirement were simply that the cache must have some special historic, community, or geocaching interest. It should make a good subject for a coffee table book. Well historic markers obviously fit this and there are tons of them. People stopped making virtuals out of abandon cars or remains of dead animals and started to make a virtual cache of every historic mark or tombstone of a famous person. The wow requirement got rewritten. It eventually was word so that reviewers couldn't approve any virtual unless it was a something total unique. Not the best way to handle it and in this case, for the reviewers at least, not the easiest. The reviewers now had to deny nearly every virtual cache submitted. They forums were full of people appealing the decision to deny their virtuals. The number of people who post "bring back virtuals" is tiny compared to those who posted "why was my virtual denied?".

Waymarking may not be the best way for handling virtuals either. But many people do think it is a better way than what we had. It is certainly not the easiest way. It required a whole new website with new code to be developed. And in spite of the fact that is itself a fairly easy concept to grasp, it is different enough from what we were used to in geocaching that some people can't seem to understand that virtuals can be created and searched for using this system. Would it be easier for you to understand if the grandfathered virtuals were archived? If so I would be willing to archive my virtual cache even though there still isn't a Waymarking category that it would go in. (I could try Best Kept Secrets but I'm not sure the group would approve it.)

I was a skeptic at first but I think Waymarking could provide a home for virtuals if:

1) There was a way to include those categories of waymarks that were deemed as acceptable virtuals in your PQs

2) There were some enhancements made to allow people to enter a log verification code.

3) There was a way to get a smiley/waymark smiley for each visit for the categories of waymarks that were deemed as acceptable virtuals.

Edited September 9, 2007 by TrailGators

September 9, 2007

It speaks to the same point I made earler - do it the easiest way, rather than the best way ...

Virtuals were added to the game to provide an option for when a physical cache couldn't be placed. They were added quickly, without much thought of the downside, using the easiest way rather than the best way. People could just create a virtual cache saying "I tried to put a physical cache here but there just wasn't anywhere to hide it" or "I found this neat spot on vacation. I can't maintain a cache here but I can hide a virtual cache". Because they were so easy to place and there was no cost involved, virtuals were placed far more often than anticipated. They were really meant only for when you couldn't really hide a physical container but instead became the first type of cache that had cachers complaining of spew.

The easiest way (not the best way) to control the runaway virtual cache placement was to add more guidelines. The earliest versions of the "wow" requirement were simply that the cache must have some special historic, community, or geocaching interest. It should make a good subject for a coffee table book. Well historic markers obviously fit this and there are tons of them. People stopped making virtuals out of abandon cars or remains of dead animals and started to make a virtual cache of every historic mark or tombstone of a famous person. The wow requirement got rewritten. It eventually was word so that reviewers couldn't approve any virtual unless it was a something total unique. Not the best way to handle it and in this case, for the reviewers at least, not the easiest. The reviewers now had to deny nearly every virtual cache submitted. They forums were full of people appealing the decision to deny their virtuals. The number of people who post "bring back virtuals" is tiny compared to those who posted "why was my virtual denied?".

Waymarking may not be the best way for handling virtuals either. But many people do think it is a better way than what we had. It is certainly not the easiest way. It required a whole new website with new code to be developed. And in spite of the fact that is itself a fairly easy concept to grasp, it is different enough from what we were used to in geocaching that some people can't seem to understand that virtuals can be created and searched for using this system. Would it be easier for you to understand if the grandfathered virtuals were archived? If so I would be willing to archive my virtual cache even though there still isn't a Waymarking category that it would go in. (I could try Best Kept Secrets but I'm not sure the group would approve it.)

In a sense, yes. That speaks to the inconsistency. If they are so bad we can't have them anymore, how can we have some, but not others. I'm not saying I want them archived. I want them brought back. But, at least if they were all archived/locked as locationless ones were, there would be some sense of consistency.

What is wrong, by the way, with having a ton of historical markers as virtual caches? Other than possible system load, I don't honestly see a problem with this. If you don't like them, you filter them out. That is exactly the same issue as micros, except for not being as easy to filter since virtuals are their own cache type, but micros are a size label.

Also, many people may be more interested in Waymarking when PQ's are created over there. I know it is a major deterrent to me using the site - downloading GPX files or LOC files in small batches makes it difficult.

You speak as if you are a reviewer - are you?

Edited September 9, 2007 by FireRef

2.2k · September 9, 2007

From the Forum Guidelines at the top of every forum page:

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Thanks,

Quiggle

24.7k · September 9, 2007

Keystone wasn't saying that he archived existing historical marker virts. For a while they were still listing virts, but under much stricter scrutiny. He was saying that was the time that he denied any historical marker virts.

That makes more sense then.

But how can some be ok (old ones) and others not (new ones) - that's the inconsistency that isn't being addressed. If they're so bad they can't accept new ones, how can old ones be ok to get by with?

They were never broken to begin with. However this site made a decision that a virtual should be something uncommon that was well worth visiting. The WOW factor. Since the old virts were not broken there was no need to archive them. However the new WOW standard proved to be a bit PITA for both cachers and reviewers.

24.7k · September 9, 2007

Can I have a cookie?

No, this site doesn't list cookies. The decision to stop listing cookies was made a long time ago. All cookie appelals have already been through the supreme court and the answer is "No".

If you want a cookie, start your own website, or waymark one.

1.4k · September 9, 2007

Other than possible system load, I don't honestly see a problem with this.

I have said this time and time again (including I believe earlier in this now long-running thread), but that may be the real issue. It is very strange that Locationless got completely wiped out, but Virts, Earthcaches, and Webcams got "grandfathered" (with Earthcaches coming back) on GC.com and that is my main issue.

To some extent, there are people out there who see these kinds of caches as "free smileys". It is true that for the most part (but not completely), they are easier than most "traditional" caches to do. For example, we went to our first event a couple of weeks ago with the kids and it was unusually hot out, so we mostly did virtual finds at the event since they required less effort. And in recent years, it has been somewhat easy to "cheat" on Virts (and even some Earthcaches) with Google research, Google Earth, etc.

In the year or two leading up to the Waymarking change, the Geocaching.com site would go down often toward the middle/end of each weekend as people put in their logs and flooded the system.

Eliminating Locationless completely and changing it in a way where it eliminates the "free smiley" solved this problem somewhat (NOTE: unlike the other cache types, I actually agree in this sense that Locationless should've been eliminated and turned into a site like Waymarking; you are not really being directed to a location with these but are simply giving others one). But I think TPTB knew that the other cache types would cause more of a "rift" with the caching public and felt a reasonable compromise that met this need was to grandfather the existing ones but not allow new ones.

But the society that sponsors "Earthcaching" probably got miffed that new earthcaches on Waymarking were getting almost no visits, and realizing that the "smiley factor" of GC.com gave them more popularity, pressured to bring them back. But to not get them "overloaded", some new guidelines were put in to make them so they couldn't be easily flooded with Google cheating, etc.

I don't believe the issue really is (as TPTB say) that only "physical" caches should count. If this were so, you wouldn't have all these inconsistencies, and honestly, if you take that to the limit, then attending "Event" caches would not result in a smiley (but that is the ultimate "Third Rail" of GC.com politics, they want events to happen to promote the sport and know that if they did this that event attendance would probably go down dramatically).

It would be nice if TPTB found some way to actually poll the caching public on this and if the result is bring back virts, they do so. In a truly 100% "free" market, the real solution would be for someone to create a rival site, but there are too many "barriers to entry" (some being the sheer costs and time of running something on the scope of GC.com, but there were also things like past lawsuits that make it hard too, etc.). Maybe a better solution than Waymarking will be at hand one day.....

Edited September 9, 2007 by HaLiJuSaPa

September 9, 2007

Perhaps Jeremy could repeat the same answer he gave on this thread.

While we are at it lets look at this one which sums up his thoughts on virtuals and probably gets to the real reason we do not have them (and I dare say will stay that way so long as he has final say)!

September 9, 2007

I, and I am sure others as well, feel it more important that he listen to the people that play the game, rather than just make decisions because he can.

Why not consider the will of the players?

He's listening to some of us. I'm glad virtuals are gone and I hope they don't come back.

I guess if they did put it to a vote, mine would cancel yours out.

But mine would cancel yours out . . .

And mine makes it 2 in favor!

September 10, 2007

And back to the original question, which hasn't been answered by anyone in authority - What do we need to do to get it changed to allow new virtuals?

Go start your own web site.

I don't understand why you just don't get "no" as the answer to bringing back new virtual cache submissions on this site. Jeremy has been pretty clear. He said no. Some of the slams against the site and against the volunteers just keep driving that nail home. I like them, but I have enjoyed not having to argue with people about unacceptable submissions much more.

I need to go back to "being lazy". See ya.

It is clear a decision was made, which may or may not have been in the best interest of the game as it is played through this website. Simply because someone made a decision doesn't mean anyone has to accept it. I don't accept things just because "someone said so", and don't feel anyone should. Being a teacher, I have reasons for what I do. If a kid doesn't accept it, they (or their parents) can appeal to a higher authority. Assistant principal, principal, superintendant, school board. Then there's the courts. Short of the Federal Supreme Court (at least in the US), there is always someone you can appeal to, and it is almost always a group of people.

In this case, the highest authority possible has already said "No". You can appeal your fictional case all the way to the supreme court, and when they rule against you, what happens then? You accept it. That's the case here--the supreme court has ruled against you, so accept it.

In the business model, there is usually a board running things. Or stockholders. In this case, we have someone who made a decision that, even if the players disagree, doesn't appear to be willing to reconsider the issue, and no one other than the players to appeal to.

Right. So accept it and move on. You're just peeing into the wind at this point.

There is nothing here that has been made as a "slam" against the site. Everything I have stated has been a factual, logical argument that, in most cases, have been either ignored or a single point has been picked and addressed, while ignoring the rest.

Not true. Link to the post and the (in)appropriate quote is below.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3057174

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers.

Simply acting as a parent with a 2 year old, saying "No, because I said so" is a bad way to make a decision. And that is what this comes across as, at least to me.

As the parent of a 2 year old, isn't it annoying when you do tell them they can't have a cookie, and explain the various reason they can't have it, yet they continue to ask anyway?

As has been pointed out to you before, it's not going to change. If you still want to create virtual caches, feel free to join one of the other sites that offers them.

Have fun!

You can imagine my confusion. I went to the dictionary to refresh my memory...

1: moderator - one who arbitrates:MEDIATOR

2: a substance (as graphite) used for slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor.

I suppose we've been spoiled, living in a democracy and all, expecting that maybe our voices are heard. And, as Motorcycle-Mama pointed out, this is a private site. But it relies upon a very public activity whose support is needed for it's continuing success.

My premium membership is up for renewal. I've decided that my hard-earned $$ are archived.

Have fun!

:huh:

7.3k · September 10, 2007

And back to the original question, which hasn't been answered by anyone in authority - What do we need to do to get it changed to allow new virtuals?

Go start your own web site.

I don't understand why you just don't get "no" as the answer to bringing back new virtual cache submissions on this site. Jeremy has been pretty clear. He said no. Some of the slams against the site and against the volunteers just keep driving that nail home. I like them, but I have enjoyed not having to argue with people about unacceptable submissions much more.

I need to go back to "being lazy". See ya.

It is clear a decision was made, which may or may not have been in the best interest of the game as it is played through this website. Simply because someone made a decision doesn't mean anyone has to accept it. I don't accept things just because "someone said so", and don't feel anyone should. Being a teacher, I have reasons for what I do. If a kid doesn't accept it, they (or their parents) can appeal to a higher authority. Assistant principal, principal, superintendant, school board. Then there's the courts. Short of the Federal Supreme Court (at least in the US), there is always someone you can appeal to, and it is almost always a group of people.

In this case, the highest authority possible has already said "No". You can appeal your fictional case all the way to the supreme court, and when they rule against you, what happens then? You accept it. That's the case here--the supreme court has ruled against you, so accept it.

In the business model, there is usually a board running things. Or stockholders. In this case, we have someone who made a decision that, even if the players disagree, doesn't appear to be willing to reconsider the issue, and no one other than the players to appeal to.

Right. So accept it and move on. You're just peeing into the wind at this point.

There is nothing here that has been made as a "slam" against the site. Everything I have stated has been a factual, logical argument that, in most cases, have been either ignored or a single point has been picked and addressed, while ignoring the rest.

Not true. Link to the post and the (in)appropriate quote is below.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3057174

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers.

Simply acting as a parent with a 2 year old, saying "No, because I said so" is a bad way to make a decision. And that is what this comes across as, at least to me.

As the parent of a 2 year old, isn't it annoying when you do tell them they can't have a cookie, and explain the various reason they can't have it, yet they continue to ask anyway?

As has been pointed out to you before, it's not going to change. If you still want to create virtual caches, feel free to join one of the other sites that offers them.

Have fun!

You can imagine my confusion. I went to the dictionary to refresh my memory...

1: moderator - one who arbitrates:MEDIATOR

2: a substance (as graphite) used for slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor.

I suppose we've been spoiled, living in a democracy and all, expecting that maybe our voices are heard. And, as Motorcycle-Mama pointed out, this is a private site. But it relies upon a very public activity whose support is needed for it's continuing success.

My premium membership is up for renewal. I've decided that my hard-earned $$ are archived.

Have fun!

I seriously doubt that the few people who would not have premium memberships over this issue would even make a blip on the radar of Groundspeak, financially or mentally.

Remember, Jeremy didn't get into this website to become a huge successful multi-millionaire. The site grew beyond his expectations, and he's using the money he gets from it to hire people to keep it running at the comparative level and better than it was before. He's not here to make a bunch of money. This is his hobby as well as all of ours. I don't think that it affects him much when a few people dislike a decision that he's made.

September 10, 2007

And back to the original question, which hasn't been answered by anyone in authority - What do we need to do to get it changed to allow new virtuals?

Go start your own web site.

I don't understand why you just don't get "no" as the answer to bringing back new virtual cache submissions on this site. Jeremy has been pretty clear. He said no. Some of the slams against the site and against the volunteers just keep driving that nail home. I like them, but I have enjoyed not having to argue with people about unacceptable submissions much more.

I need to go back to "being lazy". See ya.

It is clear a decision was made, which may or may not have been in the best interest of the game as it is played through this website. Simply because someone made a decision doesn't mean anyone has to accept it. I don't accept things just because "someone said so", and don't feel anyone should. Being a teacher, I have reasons for what I do. If a kid doesn't accept it, they (or their parents) can appeal to a higher authority. Assistant principal, principal, superintendant, school board. Then there's the courts. Short of the Federal Supreme Court (at least in the US), there is always someone you can appeal to, and it is almost always a group of people.

In this case, the highest authority possible has already said "No". You can appeal your fictional case all the way to the supreme court, and when they rule against you, what happens then? You accept it. That's the case here--the supreme court has ruled against you, so accept it.

In the business model, there is usually a board running things. Or stockholders. In this case, we have someone who made a decision that, even if the players disagree, doesn't appear to be willing to reconsider the issue, and no one other than the players to appeal to.

Right. So accept it and move on. You're just peeing into the wind at this point.

There is nothing here that has been made as a "slam" against the site. Everything I have stated has been a factual, logical argument that, in most cases, have been either ignored or a single point has been picked and addressed, while ignoring the rest.

Not true. Link to the post and the (in)appropriate quote is below.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3057174

Throwing out the entire category in terms of new additions is rather extreme. It seems to me like a case of being lazy and not being willing to deal with a part of the job the volunteers accepted by becoming reviewers.

Simply acting as a parent with a 2 year old, saying "No, because I said so" is a bad way to make a decision. And that is what this comes across as, at least to me.

As the parent of a 2 year old, isn't it annoying when you do tell them they can't have a cookie, and explain the various reason they can't have it, yet they continue to ask anyway?

As has been pointed out to you before, it's not going to change. If you still want to create virtual caches, feel free to join one of the other sites that offers them.

Have fun!

You can imagine my confusion. I went to the dictionary to refresh my memory...

1: moderator - one who arbitrates:MEDIATOR

2: a substance (as graphite) used for slowing down neutrons in a nuclear reactor.

I suppose we've been spoiled, living in a democracy and all, expecting that maybe our voices are heard. And, as Motorcycle-Mama pointed out, this is a private site. But it relies upon a very public activity whose support is needed for it's continuing success.

My premium membership is up for renewal. I've decided that my hard-earned $$ are archived.

Have fun!

I seriously doubt that the few people who would not have premium memberships over this issue would even make a blip on the radar of Groundspeak, financially or mentally.

Remember, Jeremy didn't get into this website to become a huge successful multi-millionaire. The site grew beyond his expectations, and he's using the money he gets from it to hire people to keep it running at the comparative level and better than it was before. He's not here to make a bunch of money. This is his hobby as well as all of ours. I don't think that it affects him much when a few people dislike a decision that he's made.

At least I tried!

38.2k · September 10, 2007

<snip long post>

While most Waymarking categories are basically trying to create inventory lists of places, some of which some people might want to visit, there is nothing about the structure of Waymarking that prevents having categories where you need to find something already at the location in order to confirm that you were at the waymark. I attempted to create such a category with Best Kept Secrets. I really hoped that other people who feel that the generic Waymarking categories miss the essence of virtual caches to create other categories like Best Kept Secrets so that virtual caches could find a place to live. But instead all I ever heard was people whining that they no longer can create virtuals on geocaching.com and that Waymarking wasn't the same thing. At the same time, many waymarkers have decided it is a game about inventorying places and have made it harder to get creative kinds of categories approved. With no support from people who want something that resemble virtuals, Waymarking has become what it has become. I'd like to thank everyone for their support You missed your opportunity to create an environment were both virtual and other "games" could be played.

By George I think you've done it! These look amazingly like a VC, even with the confirmation and puzzles. Good work, I may be submitting some Waymarks soon.

Here are some more "virtual caches" on Waymarking

2.5k · September 10, 2007

I am telling you, based on all the land managers I deal with, month in and month out, that I have never heard any of them mention Waymarking as an alternative to geocaches. Nor do I recall any other cache reviewer saying that this happened to them. So my statement was based on empirical observation of change from the 2002-2005 era vs. 2005 to the present. It is different. Has your experience with land manager discussions been otherwise? If so, please share.

Hmmm, wouldn't have expected sarcasm from a moderator but I suppose that I may have backed you into a corner.

Umm... I'm usually pretty good at picking up on sarcasm, but I don't see what you're talking about...

7.2k · September 10, 2007

Can I have a cookie?

No, this site doesn't list cookies. The decision to stop listing cookies was made a long time ago. All cookie appelals have already been through the supreme court and the answer is "No".

If you want a cookie, start your own website, or waymark one.

No no, not correct. We have cookies. You can touch them and hold them and everything. Virtual cookies we don't have. It was decided that the real thing was better than something that isn't there. While some people might like virtual cookies, it appears that most people actually like physical cookies. I know I do.

Kind of a good comparison actually, ironically.

I will give you a virtual cookie for a thank you.

I am sure you will agree it isn't as nice as a physical one.

(By the way, if you think virtual cookies are not out there, just do a Google search. Be sure to have a glass of virtual milk to go with them.)

Edited September 10, 2007 by mtn-man

September 10, 2007

Virtual cookies we don't have. It was decided that the real thing was better than something that isn't there. While some people might like virtual cookies, it appears that most people actually like physical cookies.

I just looked and saw that geocaching.com had placed 5 cookies on my pc. Since I can't hold them in my hands I consider them virtual. This has nothing to do with virtual geocaches, but you did bring it up.

2.6k · September 10, 2007

I, and I am sure others as well, feel it more important that he listen to the people that play the game, rather than just make decisions because he can.

Why not consider the will of the players?

He's listening to some of us. I'm glad virtuals are gone and I hope they don't come back.

I guess if they did put it to a vote, mine would cancel yours out.

But mine would cancel yours out . . .

And mine makes it 2 in favor!

Make that 3.

7.2k · September 10, 2007

Virtual cookies we don't have. It was decided that the real thing was better than something that isn't there. While some people might like virtual cookies, it appears that most people actually like physical cookies.

I just looked and saw that geocaching.com had placed 5 cookies on my pc. Since I can't hold them in my hands I consider them virtual. This has nothing to do with virtual geocaches, but you did bring it up.

Sorry, but I was not talking about "internet" cookies ("4. Computers. a message, or segment of data, containing information about a user, sent by a Web server to a browser and sent back to the server each time the browser requests a Web page."). I was using cookies as defined in the first definition, as was Renegade Knight was, to illustrate a point. My post was right on topic and right on target.

7.2k · September 10, 2007

I guess that is four votes in favor of bringing them back?

Four out of 1,250,000+ user accounts.

I know there will be more, but I don't see a huge outcry. Do you really think 625,000 cachers are so concerned about this to vote to bring them back? While this does come up from time to time, in the two years or so since they have not been accepted for submission, there never has been an overwhelming outcry. The facts speak for themselves.

18.9k · September 10, 2007

re-wrap your thinking.

A Geocache is a physical object placed somewhere to be found.

A Waymark (Virtual) is just somewhere.

3.9k · September 10, 2007

I guess that is four votes in favor of bringing them back?

Four out of 1,250,000+ user accounts.

I know there will be more, but I don't see a huge outcry. Do you really think 625,000 cachers are so concerned about this to vote to bring them back? While this does come up from time to time, in the two years or so since they have not been accepted for submission, there never has been an overwhelming outcry. The facts speak for themselves.

I've just reviewed the west coast results now that the polls are closed, and the final count of all the votes for or against virtuals returning is:

For - 0

Against - 1

Wow, it makes a difference when you only count the registered voters, doesn't it?

September 10, 2007

I guess that is four votes in favor of bringing them back?

Four out of 1,250,000+ user accounts.

I know there will be more, but I don't see a huge outcry. Do you really think 625,000 cachers are so concerned about this to vote to bring them back? While this does come up from time to time, in the two years or so since they have not been accepted for submission, there never has been an overwhelming outcry. The facts speak for themselves.

Make that five votes in favor of bringing them back, yep some on them are pretty cool places, with a lot of history or maybe start a new one called History Virtual cache like an earthcache

Joe

8.9k · September 10, 2007

Nope...hopping mad! You are all lazy bums who'd just rather sit there and talk on the forums. REAL jobs...I doubt it! Probably a bunch of bums sitting around in robes and pajamas sipping coffeee and laughing at us pions!

I think the dog is the laziest of all though!!

just kidding...I LOVE our volunteer group of reviewers and had to poke a bit of fun!! You guys do a GREAT job and should be paid 5x as much as you get now!! :rolleyes: Keep up the good work!!

I too enjoyed the virts, but when I'm told they are no more, I tend to move on!! Life is far too short!

Cute little puppy...no no, good puppy...GOOD PUPPY!!

2.6k · September 10, 2007

I guess that is four votes in favor of bringing them back?

Four out of 1,250,000+ user accounts.

I know there will be more, but I don't see a huge outcry. Do you really think 625,000 cachers are so concerned about this to vote to bring them back? While this does come up from time to time, in the two years or so since they have not been accepted for submission, there never has been an overwhelming outcry. The facts speak for themselves.

I don't see this as "facts speak for themselves", especially when a majority of cachers don't post here. For all we know, they hardly, if ever, even look here.

I think it is safer to say that unless an active effort is made to ask the caching community what they want, most folks will just sit back, say "oh well" and move one without saying their preference one way or the other. Heck, as apathetic as most people are these days, I'd be surprised if very many spoke up no matter how much their opinion was solicited. Point being, just because folks don't take up torches and pitchforks and storm the bastion does not mean they like what they've been given...or that they don't.

The bottom line is that there will never be any way to tell by this forum what the majority of cachers want and you'll never see any kind of "huge outcry" either way. I don't recall seeing a "huge outcry" from the community to do away with virutals either, but it happened nonetheless.

But, in any event, this is Groundspeak's sand box and if they don't want to list virtuals, it's their call. I'd prefer they brought them back in a controlled fashion, but it won't stop me from playing if they don't. The only thing that will stop me from playing is if I get burned out on it, I run out of caches to go after, or if Geocaching.com gets redesigned to look and work like Waymarking.com.

7.2k · September 10, 2007

Yes, but if cachers *have* an issue, this is the first place they come.

Case in point... the Mobipocket issue. We saw lots of folks posting for the first time in that topic. It was an issue for them, so they came to express their concern and to gather information.

As I have said, there have been topics about virtual caches. Right after they were removed from submission, there was no mass flood of posts regarding it in the forums though. Over time, I think maybe a couple of hundred people in total have express their disappointment. I don't think a lot of people care either way either frankly. That is where I am at. My feelings are that the owners of the site should be allowed to run it as they want. SQ, you pointed that out too. I am just like you. As long as I am still having fun, it isn't that big of a deal. It certainly isn't worth calling people names over. Most of the great virtual targets were already put in as caches, so there are lots of great ones to visit.

8k · September 10, 2007

I don't see this as "facts speak for themselves", especially when a majority of cachers don't post here. For all we know, they hardly, if ever, even look here.

These threads usually get started when some newbie does a few of the grandfathered virtual caches and thought that it would be nice to create their own virtual to share the historic marker or other interesting place they know about with the geocaching community. For most of these individual, a suggestion to hide a physical cache at the site or make an offset using information from the site to get to the final cache is good enough for them to accomplish what they wanted to do. Surprisingly many will even go look at Waymarking when it is suggested and find that as the best way to share the location - especially if there is a popular category for this location to go in. By placing the location in a category you have highlighted it for people who are already interested in that sort of thing. This is something you couldn't do this with virtuals.

Sometimes, the person found that looking for virtuals a enjoyable change from searching in the bushes for some tupperware. Especially when on vacation, looking for a virtual cache is more likely to take you an interesting place than just picking a nearby traditional cache - and you're less likely to get dirty finding the answers for the virt. If your motivation in seeking virtuals is that they will highlight interesting places and that you don't need to look for tupperware in a bush to get a smilie, then perhaps Waymarking might be a better choice for you anyhow. As stated above, you can review the categories to see what kinds of things you are interested and ignore other categories. You don't have to go and visit McDonald restaurants. If you like battlefields you can select those, if you like historic markers then select those. Some people like the surprise aspect of some virtuals. You may not know what you will find till you get there. Or there may be a virtual in some category you care nothing about but because of the "Wow" requirement, this particular location would be exceptionaly interesting - an unexpected statue of a famous person or the grave of someone named Jeremy Irish. Waymarking has room for categories like Best Kept Secrets that could be used to list these kinds of locations.

Granted, Waymarking does need some work to encourage visits to waymarks. Most importantly would be to have PQs to get all waymarks that meet your selection criteria in an area. Even better would be a way to combine these with geocaching PQs so you could load up your GPS with both geocaches and waymarks you want to visit. In addition, for those that like having to search around a virtual cache to find the answers to the verification question, there should be some way to identify the waymarks that have some kind of verification requirements. Most waymarks don't have these requirements since the idea has been to inventory the location and for the vistors to have a less structured visits.

Even with it shortcomings, many people find Waymarking a satisfactory way to share interesting locations - which is the primary reason for placing a virtual cache. Others find that a visit to a site to get information and then hiding a physical cache offset from the site is a more than statisfactory way to accomplish what they wanted to do. The number of locations that can't be handle by a waymark or an offset cache is miniscule - perhaps even zero. Perhaps that is why there is no real clamor to bring back virtuals except for a vocal few.

September 10, 2007

It would be nice if they gave credit for the waymarks on geocaching.com. I have created several waymarks to go along with my geocaches on the same site. They are never logged by anyone uless it is a friend that I asked to do it while they grabbed the caches.

Some of the most satisfying caches we have visited have been of the Virtual Cache type. where people introduce us to local history or happenings or points of interest without disturbing the site with a traditional cache. Please raise your voices and mail, to have Virtual Caches reinstated.

14.3k · September 10, 2007

Granted, Waymarking does need some work to encourage visits to waymarks. Most importantly would be to have PQs to get all waymarks that meet your selection criteria in an area. Even better would be a way to combine these with geocaching PQs so you could load up your GPS with both geocaches and waymarks you want to visit. In addition, for those that like having to search around a virtual cache to find the answers to the verification question, there should be some way to identify the waymarks that have some kind of verification requirements. Most waymarks don't have these requirements since the idea has been to inventory the location and for the vistors to have a less structured visits.

The PQs would help a lot. Less structured visits means that hardly anybody logs them. Perhaps you could log one as "visited" if you don't want to bother with answering questions or you could log it as "found" (and get a smiley) if you did. That would give people the freedom to play the game one of two ways.

By the way, does anybody know what new things are in store for Waymarking?

11.3k · September 10, 2007

It would be nice if they gave credit for the waymarks on geocaching.com. I have created several waymarks to go along with my geocaches on the same site. They are never logged by anyone uless it is a friend that I asked to do it while they grabbed the caches.

Some of the most satisfying caches we have visited have been of the Virtual Cache type. where people introduce us to local history or happenings or points of interest without disturbing the site with a traditional cache. Please raise your voices and mail, to have Virtual Caches reinstated.

I wouldn't really want Waymark visits to a McDonald's to count towards "Found it" totals on GC.com . . . but it would be nice if people would visit Waymarks. :huh: I have several in Balboa Park in San Diego. The many,many caches in that large, beautiful park get found all the time.

My Waymarks have never been visited, except by myself, and by a friend who was with me on our last trip there.

If some of the "WOW" or "Historical" Categories on Waymarking could be moved back to GC.com, like the Earthcaches were, then people could get PQs of those interesting or informative locations and could find them while they are out caching.

I have more Waymarks to place, but as I have already stated, since no one visits them -- and since I'm not into upping my stats for "Waymark Placed" for that reason alone -- what's the point? Why should I go to all the work of creating new Waymarks for no reason whatsoever . . . :rolleyes:

2k · September 10, 2007

It would be nice if they gave credit for the waymarks on geocaching.com. I have created several waymarks to go along with my geocaches on the same site. They are never logged by anyone uless it is a friend that I asked to do it while they grabbed the caches.

The day (if) Groundspeak integrates the stats of the two sites together, is the day Waymarking will become as popular with the numbers crew as guardrails.

Virtual Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment