Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
CoyoteRed

Virtual Caches: Let's pretend a minute.

Recommended Posts

Without pulling the other present thread further off topic, I thought it would be fun to explore some issues with virtuals and some what-ifs.

 

There are at least a couple of issues with the old concept of "virtual cache:"

  • The problem with land stewards thinking virts are "just as good" as physical caches.
  • Virtuals caches blocking physical caches.
  • The "wow factor."

Some complaints with the present Waymarking site:

  • Hard to navigate. Not "familiar."
  • Don't get "credit."
  • More?

The goal here is to build a new website, or modify this one, so that it would "bring back" virtuals in a satisfactory way while solving the issues that made them go away in the first place. Make your suggestions and discuss others' input.

Share this post


Link to post
Without pulling the other present thread further off topic, I thought it would be fun to explore some issues with virtuals and some what-ifs.

 

There are at least a couple of issues with the old concept of "virtual cache:"

  • The problem with land stewards thinking virts are "just as good" as physical caches.
  • Virtuals caches blocking physical caches.
  • The "wow factor."

Some complaints with the present Waymarking site:

  • Hard to navigate. Not "familiar."
  • Don't get "credit."
  • More?

The goal here is to build a new website, or modify this one, so that it would "bring back" virtuals in a satisfactory way while solving the issues that made them go away in the first place. Make your suggestions and discuss others' input.

 

 

Thought provoking. :o

 

 

If there were a way to solve the virtual flood issue that I have discussed with several reviewers in person, at events, they might have a chance of coming back. Heck, Earthcaches did. Sounds like a whole lot of work for someone though. I'd almost be willing to try and help if TPTB would entertain the notion. Not that they'd actually want my help.

 

 

How about this.... 1 virtual submission per user per year. Folks would give a virt more thought before firing that bullet and then mayyyybe quality would improve.

 

 

Another thing would be to adopt something like the earthcache guidelines to ensure a virt was worthwile.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll go first. (Or not. I got side tracked with the wifey-pooh getting up...)

 

How about a site called "Virtualmarking.com" that looks and operates very similar to GC.com, the "visited" logs tie into a unified profile, and submissions don't need to adhere to any sort of quality measure?

 

Let's throw in "codeword caches" as the only difference between the two is one has "found" forms of verification and the other is "placed."

 

EDIT: Lack of coffee.

Edited by CoyoteRed

Share this post


Link to post
I'll go first.

 

How about a site called "Virtualmarking.com" that looks and operates very similar to GC.com, the "visited" logs tie into a unified profile, and submissions don't need to adhere to any sort of quality measure?

 

Let's throw in "codeword caches" as the only difference between the two is one has "found" forms of verification and the other is "placed."

 

 

I like that too and coupled with my earlier suggestion to allow 1 submission per year it might actually have some appeal to folks that generally shun virts.

 

 

Heck, make it retroactive so those prone to flood virts will be slowed further. I have 2 virts and I have been caching for 4 years. I could place 2 virts right away and wait until my anniversary in 2008 to hide another. Someone with 15 virts would have to think about their next hide for quite awhile. :P:o

Share this post


Link to post

Is there a reason to review a virt?

  • What's the percentages of virts that would run afoul of outside restrictions?
  • Hard code a variable proximity from other virts. Variable on insomuch as to be easily changed if need be. Otherwise absolute.
  • "Off Limits" category for "virtual virtuals" that really place holders for areas that don't allow even virts.
    • Techinical details may include polygonal area checks.
    • Ability to appeal rejection because of a placeholder for various reason like written permission or proof virt is actually outside the real world restriction.

    [*]No subjective guidelines. No "wow factor."

Create a simple peer review scheme so anyone can do a simple spelling and reality check. Then put a "Report This Virtual Mark" button to have a reviewer step in after the fact. Remember, for true virts there will be no geotrash to pick up. Codeword virts would have minimal impact in this respect.

 

Explore some the reasons for a review process and see if those can be eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
How about this.... 1 virtual submission per user per year. Folks would give a virt more thought before firing that bullet and then mayyyybe quality would improve.

 

If each account was limited to 1 virtual per year, the number of accounts using this site would increase drastically.

Share this post


Link to post
How about this.... 1 virtual submission per user per year. Folks would give a virt more thought before firing that bullet and then mayyyybe quality would improve.

 

If each account was limited to 1 virtual per year, the number of accounts using this site would increase drastically.

I was agreeing with Snoog but Briansnat makes a better point. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Is there a reason to review a virt?
  • What's the percentages of virts that would run afoul of outside restrictions?
  • Hard code a variable proximity from other virts. Variable on insomuch as to be easily changed if need be. Otherwise absolute.
  • "Off Limits" category for "virtual virtuals" that really place holders for areas that don't allow even virts.
    • Techinical details may include polygonal area checks.
    • Ability to appeal rejection because of a placeholder for various reason like written permission or proof virt is actually outside the real world restriction.

    [*]No subjective guidelines. No "wow factor."

Create a simple peer review scheme so anyone can do a simple spelling and reality check. Then put a "Report This Virtual Mark" button to have a reviewer step in after the fact. Remember, for true virts there will be no geotrash to pick up. Codeword virts would have minimal impact in this respect.

 

Explore some the reasons for a review process and see if those can be eliminated.

Why not use the same peer review system that Waymarking uses. You could have a new category in Waymarking that would allow the best virtuals to exist on both sites....

Share this post


Link to post

I guess where I live, there wasn't an explosion of truly terrible "Virtual" caches like some I have read about here. So, my idea of a Virtual cache is like those I found while on three trips to Colorado last year.

 

Harry and Mike's Place

 

Canyon de Chelly - Spider Rock Overlook

 

Four Corners Monument

 

What Time Is It?

 

Memories of Mary

 

A Truly Great Human Being

 

Therefore, my idea of what would be allowed as a GC Virtual cache is very narrow. As I have already stated, I think the "Virtual Cache Submission Form" could present very limiting questions that are explained in detail so there could be no arguing with a Reviewer.

 

If the location is closed to other types of caches, such as in a National Park (like the "Spider Rock" virtual listed above), National Wildlife Refuge, along the Appalachian Trail, or in a Cemetery, then the Virtual might not be subject to some of the other limiting questions. This question could be at the very top of the page, and when the person answered "Yes", the page would reload to offer different questions.

 

If the site is "Historical," a date range would ensure the site is truly historical, like prior to 1970 (or whenever).

 

If the virtual location does not offer something to be found, like the plaque for the Lincoln Memorial that gives names or dates required for logging the find, the person cannot submit it.

 

If someone answers all the limiting questions and their Virtual Cache can be submitted, perhaps they also have to attach images of the building, statue, headstone, waterfall, or whatever it is the location offers.

 

As I have said before, the limiting questions could be very limiting as they used to be for the WiFi Hotspot Waymark. These could be explained in such a way that the cacher could not argue with the results. There would be a link to Waymarking if their site doesn't qualify as a Virtual on GC.com. idea.gif

 

I own several Waymarks and do not think a single one of them is worthy of being a GC Virtual cache. I think the Virtuals on this site should have true value, like those EraSeek saw in Washington, DC and which prompted this thread, but which might not necessarily have a "Wow" factor, because not everyone is wowed by "hidden history" like that found at our local "SD Historical 1890." :o

 

If "limiting" questions can be coded into certain categories on Waymarking, I don't know why that couldn't be done on this site to greatly reduce the number of submissions that qualify. idea.gif

Edited by Miragee

Share this post


Link to post
Explore some the reasons for a review process and see if those can be eliminated.

 

I don't think it's possible to eliminate read through prior to publication, unless you agree that virtual caches CAN have an agenda, CAN be commercial and CAN contain suggestive or sexually graphic text. Those are things that reviewers read for, often having nothing to do with cache placement.

Share this post


Link to post
Explore some the reasons for a review process and see if those can be eliminated.

I don't think it's possible to eliminate read through prior to publication, unless you agree that virtual caches CAN have an agenda, CAN be commercial and CAN contain suggestive or sexually graphic text. Those are things that reviewers read for, often having nothing to do with cache placement.

True, but instead of reading each and every submission, wouldn't it be better to review only those reported by the masses? Kind of like allowing anyone and everyone to say what they please here on the forums until they start getting out of line.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll go first. (Or not. I got side tracked with the wifey-pooh getting up...)

 

How about a site called "Virtualmarking.com" that looks and operates very similar to GC.com, the "visited" logs tie into a unified profile, and submissions don't need to adhere to any sort of quality measure?

 

Let's throw in "codeword caches" as the only difference between the two is one has "found" forms of verification and the other is "placed."

 

EDIT: Lack of coffee.

I think this is caled Waymarking.com

Share this post


Link to post

I'm staying out of the "wow factor" debate.

 

I suggest requiring explicit permission for new virtual listings. Permission granter's contact info must be provided to the reviewer, and must be listed on the cache page.. I hid one Earthcache, and it took me three trips, just to get the land steward to give me the ok. This requires some effort, and it would most certainly weed out a bunch of haphazard virtual placements.

Edited by Kit Fox

Share this post


Link to post
I'm staying out of the "wow factor" debate.

 

I suggest requiring explicit permission for new virtual listings. Permission granters contact info must be provided to the reviewerr, and must be listed on the cache page.. I hid one Earthcache, and it took me three trips, just to get the land steward to give me the ok. This requires some effort, and it would most certainly weed out a bunch of haphazard virtual placements.

 

Just curious... :blink: But why is it that virtuals must have a much higher standard than many micros?

Share this post


Link to post
I'm staying out of the "wow factor" debate.

 

I suggest requiring explicit permission for new virtual listings. Permission granters contact info must be provided to the reviewerr, and must be listed on the cache page.. I hid one Earthcache, and it took me three trips, just to get the land steward to give me the ok. This requires some effort, and it would most certainly weed out a bunch of haphazard virtual placements.

 

Just curious... :) But why is it that virtuals must have a much higher standard than many micros?

 

I was relating my experience of placing my first earthcache. The hassle of getting permission for a "non-existant cache," nearly turned me off on Earthcaches. The same could be said about Virtuals.

 

Coyote Red,

 

As If understand correctly, GC policy changed and allowed physical caches to be placed less than .1 from the nearest Virtuals.

 

(Off Topic)

Trailgators,

 

You and I both know that over 90% of micros hidden on private property would have never been published, nor filled this website, if explicit permission was required. The website would even work faster too. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I'm staying out of the "wow factor" debate.

 

I suggest requiring explicit permission for new virtual listings. Permission granter's contact info must be provided to the reviewer, and must be listed on the cache page.. I hid one Earthcache, and it took me three trips, just to get the land steward to give me the ok. This requires some effort, and it would most certainly weed out a bunch of haphazard virtual placements.

I think the number of Virtual submissions can be limited greatly by the "Virtual Cache Submission Form" and the "limiting" questions there. idea.gif

 

If a person is walking across a public plaza to take a picture of a fantastic, contemporary sculpture, and make a note of the artist's name and the date of installation to fulfill the requirement for the Virtual Cache -- when that area is open to everyone -- I don't understand why permission would be a requirement. :blink:

 

Same thing if someone is hiking down a trail in Yellowstone National Park to view a waterfall, and make a note of whatever the Virtual cache requirement is, why would permission be necessary, when no one else needs explicit permission to hike that trail and admire the scene. :)

 

I can understand why a person should get permission if they were hiding a physical cache in either location, however.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm staying out of the "wow factor" debate.

 

I suggest requiring explicit permission for new virtual listings. Permission granter's contact info must be provided to the reviewer, and must be listed on the cache page.. I hid one Earthcache, and it took me three trips, just to get the land steward to give me the ok. This requires some effort, and it would most certainly weed out a bunch of haphazard virtual placements.

I think the number of Virtual submissions can be limited greatly by the "Virtual Cache Submission Form" and the "limiting" questions there. idea.gif

 

If a person is walking across a public plaza to take a picture of a fantastic, contemporary sculpture, and make a note of the artist's name and the date of installation to fulfill the requirement for the Virtual Cache -- when that area is open to everyone -- I don't understand why permission would be a requirement. :blink:

 

Same thing if someone is hiking down a trail in Yellowstone National Park to view a waterfall, and make a note of whatever the Virtual cache requirement is, why would permission be necessary, when no one else needs explicit permission to hike that trail and admire the scene. :)

 

I can understand why a person should get permission if they were hiding a physical cache in either location, however.

 

You still need explicit permission with a contact number for Earthcaches, which could be nothing more than sand on a public beach.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm staying out of the "wow factor" debate. I suggest requiring explicit permission for new virtual listings. Permission granters contact info must be provided to the reviewerr, and must be listed on the cache page.. I hid one Earthcache, and it took me three trips, just to get the land steward to give me the ok. This requires some effort, and it would most certainly weed out a bunch of haphazard virtual placements.
Just curious... :) But why is it that virtuals must have a much higher standard than many micros?
Trailgators,

You and I both know that over 90% of micros hidden on private property would have never been published, nor filled this website, if explicit permission was required. The website would even work faster too. :blink:

I agree but I am still curious why the mindset always seems to be that virtuals must have a much higher standard than many micros?

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I would love to see virtual caches because I joined after the age of virtuals. How about www.virtualcaches.com ? I would volunteer to review part time for my area.

Share this post


Link to post

If you really feel strongly about this we should start our own website. I'm sure you could get enough people to support the 15$+ monthly domain fees. I am also sure that you could find virtual enthusiasts with enough computer know how to build the website. lemme give you guys a good start.

<html>

<head>

<title>

</title>

</head>

<body>

</body>

</html>

There :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Personally I would love to see virtual caches because I joined after the age of virtuals. How about www.virtualcaches.com ? I would volunteer to review part time for my area.

They already exist. It's called Waymarking.com and Terracaching.com. They both also have Locationless caches, which I was never a big fan of but I didn't have a problem with others finding those.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I would love to see virtual caches because I joined after the age of virtuals. How about www.virtualcaches.com ? I would volunteer to review part time for my area.

The problem is that people don't want to have to go to a different site to find other cool places to see. If TPTB on this site would only look at Virtual Caches in a different way than the way they were when they deteriorated near the end of their "life" on this site, I think it could be a feasible, and wonderful addition. :blink:

 

I would like to get a single PQ of interesting places I might be driving by when I am traveling, as well as the Geocaches that are in the area. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I would love to see virtual caches because I joined after the age of virtuals. How about www.virtualcaches.com ? I would volunteer to review part time for my area.

The problem is that people don't want to have to go to a different site to find other cool places to see. If TPTB on this site would only look at Virtual Caches in a different way than the way they were when they deteriorated near the end of their "life" on this site, I think it could be a feasible, and wonderful addition. :blink:

 

I would like to get a single PQ of interesting places I might be driving by when I am traveling, as well as the Geocaches that are in the area. B)

I would too! :)

Share this post


Link to post

I think the biggest problem here is that none of these alternatives like Waymarking, terracaching or creating another virtual cache site is that it isn't on www.geocaching.com and you don't get a smiley and add to your numbers, quite frankly the only reason I would embark on a cache that doesn't even has a container or a logbook is because it will add to my numbers, otherwise what is the point of going somewhere to find somethat that give you no physical staisfation. If you want to bring back Virtuals they should be brought back on geocaching.com end of story, and as for a suggestion on making it possible I like the 1 per account idea but I would also add that you have to write say... 250 words on why the virtual location is significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Personally I would love to see virtual caches because I joined after the age of virtuals. How about www.virtualcaches.com ? I would volunteer to review part time for my area.

They already exist. It's called Waymarking.com and Terracaching.com. They both also have Locationless caches, which I was never a big fan of but I didn't have a problem with others finding those.

Waymarking.com and TC.com both fail to fit the bill. The former is not as familiar or easy to use. Neither allow folks to "get credit."

 

If you want to bring back Virtuals they should be brought back on geocaching.com end of story...
Groundspeak operates WM.com and GC.com, and even Wherigo, from a consolidated profile database. It would (should) be trivial to pull finds, visits, and games played from each of the sites into one profile so all activities are shown at once. If they did, you'd get credit for each waymark visited as if it were a virtual.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the biggest problem here is that none of these alternatives like Waymarking, terracaching or creating another virtual cache site is that it isn't on www.geocaching.com and you don't get a smiley and add to your numbers, quite frankly the only reason I would embark on a cache that doesn't even has a container or a logbook is because it will add to my numbers, otherwise what is the point of going somewhere to find somethat that give you no physical staisfation. If you want to bring back Virtuals they should be brought back on geocaching.com end of story, and as for a suggestion on making it possible I like the 1 per account idea but I would also add that you have to write say... 250 words on why the virtual location is significant.

Uh . . . there is a current thread about how few people read the cache pages, and, although Virtual Caches are different, I don't think a requirement like that is going to be useful at all. :o

 

And, as for "physical satisfaction" :blink:, I have had more fun, and have learned a lot, from many of the Virtual caches I have found than hundreds of actual Geocaches I have found, and signed the logs for. :)

 

As for Terracaching, I have really enjoyed finding the caches I have found that are listed on that site. I don't care that they don't add to my count on GC.com. B)

Share this post


Link to post

Without pulling the other present thread further off topic, I thought it would be fun to explore some issues with virtuals and some what-ifs.

 

There are at least a couple of issues with the old concept of "virtual cache:"

  • The problem with land stewards thinking virts are "just as good" as physical caches.
  • Virtuals caches blocking physical caches.
  • The "wow factor."

Some complaints with the present Waymarking site:

  • Hard to navigate. Not "familiar."
  • Don't get "credit."
  • More?

The goal here is to build a new website, or modify this one, so that it would "bring back" virtuals in a satisfactory way while solving the issues that made them go away in the first place. Make your suggestions and discuss others' input.

ok, the last time i checked, this was not true, so you can scrtch that one of the list. and besides that, virts can be just as good and better than physical caches. i'm not sure what you mean by the "wow" factor, wether you are dissing this or saying that this is good. if your dissing this than i think you are very wrong, virts can bring you to places that real caches cant, and sometimes the view is AMAZING, or the thing at the location is really cool and you would not have otherwise seen.

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to get a single PQ of interesting places I might be driving by when I am traveling, as well as the Geocaches that are in the area. :)

I doubt you'd ever be able to actually get a single PQ. We can't do that now with just geocaches.

 

However, a compatible PQ of waymarks would work in that you could import them into your favorite program. GSAK, for instance, already imports data from multiple sources to consolidate into one database.

 

If Waymarking had a similar PQ system where you could pick and choose the different categories and level of satisfaction (or whatever it's called) you could download custom sets similar to the way you can download custom sets of geocaches.

Share this post


Link to post
ok, the last time i checked, this was not true, so you can scrtch that one of the list. and besides that, virts can be just as good and better than physical caches. i'm not sure what you mean by the "wow" factor, wether you are dissing this or saying that this is good. if your dissing this than i think you are very wrong, virts can bring you to places that real caches cant, and sometimes the view is AMAZING, or the thing at the location is really cool and you would not have otherwise seen.

You might want to go back to do some research before piping up. For instance, virts were included in the proximity consideraton. It was one of my pet peeves.

 

The Wow Factor was a sore point for many folks trying to place virtuals. Many very good virts were denied because they weren't unique enough. Of course, the end result was that after the WF was implemented most, if not all, virts were very good. Still, the contention remained of the subjective review process of virts.

Share this post


Link to post
<snip>

 

If you want to bring back Virtuals they should be brought back on geocaching.com end of story...
Groundspeak operates WM.com and GC.com, and even Wherigo, from a consolidated profile database. It would (should) be trivial to pull finds, visits, and games played from each of the sites into one profile so all activities are shown at once. If they did, you'd get credit for each waymark visited as if it were a virtual.

The last part I highlighted is what I am afraid of. :)

 

Many of the grandfathered Virtuals on this site have real "class." That is what I would like to see brought back to this site. B) I dread the day whan people can add to their GC.com numbers by logging every Burger King and McDonalds they come across. :)

 

And, Waymarking is about "Visits." If I understand it correctly, you can (or should be able to soon) log different "Visits" to the same Waymark. That makes sense to me because each "Visit" can be a whole new story. One of the Waymark categories I own lends itself to that. I can see how someone could write a cool log for each different "Visit" they make to the Waymarks in that Category. :)

 

"Finding" a Geocache, or a Virtual Cache, is a completely different thing to me. You can only "Find" something one time. You can only complete the requirements for a Virtual Cache once. :(

Share this post


Link to post
If Waymarking had a similar PQ system where you could pick and choose the different categories and level of satisfaction (or whatever it's called) you could download custom sets similar to the way you can download custom sets of geocaches.

 

And if pigs had wings...

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to get a single PQ of interesting places I might be driving by when I am traveling, as well as the Geocaches that are in the area. :(

I doubt you'd ever be able to actually get a single PQ. We can't do that now with just geocaches.

 

However, a compatible PQ of waymarks would work in that you could import them into your favorite program. GSAK, for instance, already imports data from multiple sources to consolidate into one database.

 

If Waymarking had a similar PQ system where you could pick and choose the different categories and level of satisfaction (or whatever it's called) you could download custom sets similar to the way you can download custom sets of geocaches.

I agree. If you could pull two PQs that would be fine. :)

Share this post


Link to post
The last part I highlighted is what I am afraid of.

My point wasn't that they could be counted as finds, but more for "getting credit."

 

The present way finds are counted is really screwed up. Attend an event and it counts the same as finding a cache. Additionally, a new site that listed only non-physical "caches"--hopefully to be called something other than a "cache"--the visits would be listed separately from visits to physical caches. Waymarks could have there own category. The different sites would be broken out, but all on the same page of your profile.

 

Besides, who cares if finds, discoveries, visits, or what have you are all combined into one "score?" It's not as if it's remotely accurate anyway except for the logs written on Groundspeak sites. None of full letterboxes are included, only the hybrids. None of the unique caches, virts, and locationlesses on other sites are included either.

 

The count would mean the number of Groundpeak...

  • Physical caches logged...
  • Non-physical hunts completed...
  • Waymarks visited...
  • Where I Go modules played.

The point of this little exercise is to explore some other possibilities. We need to break paradigms and kick the walls out on this box.

Share this post


Link to post
If Waymarking had a similar PQ system where you could pick and choose the different categories and level of satisfaction (or whatever it's called) you could download custom sets similar to the way you can download custom sets of geocaches.

 

And if pigs had wings...

Isn't that in a Pink Floyd song.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
The last part I highlighted is what I am afraid of.

My point wasn't that they could be counted as finds, but more for "getting credit."

 

The present way finds are counted is really screwed up. Attend an event and it counts the same as finding a cache. Additionally, a new site that listed only non-physical "caches"--hopefully to be called something other than a "cache"--the visits would be listed separately from visits to physical caches. Waymarks could have there own category. The different sites would be broken out, but all on the same page of your profile.

 

Besides, who cares if finds, discoveries, visits, or what have you are all combined into one "score?" It's not as if it's remotely accurate anyway except for the logs written on Groundspeak sites. None of full letterboxes are included, only the hybrids. None of the unique caches, virts, and locationlesses on other sites are included either.

 

The count would mean the number of Groundpeak...

  • Physical caches logged...
  • Non-physical hunts completed...
  • Waymarks visited...
  • Where I Go modules played.

The point of this little exercise is to explore some other possibilities. We need to break paradigms and kick the walls out on this box.

It is not about getting credit for me. It is being able to get things that I've already found out of my future PQs. It is also about logging my adventures/showing appreciation for the ones that I have found. :) Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
The last part I highlighted is what I am afraid of.

My point wasn't that they could be counted as finds, but more for "getting credit."

 

The present way finds are counted is really screwed up. Attend an event and it counts the same as finding a cache. Additionally, a new site that listed only non-physical "caches"--hopefully to be called something other than a "cache"--the visits would be listed separately from visits to physical caches. Waymarks could have there own category. The different sites would be broken out, but all on the same page of your profile.

 

Besides, who cares if finds, discoveries, visits, or what have you are all combined into one "score?" It's not as if it's remotely accurate anyway except for the logs written on Groundspeak sites. None of full letterboxes are included, only the hybrids. None of the unique caches, virts, and locationlesses on other sites are included either.

 

The count would mean the number of Groundpeak...

  • Physical caches logged...
  • Non-physical hunts completed...
  • Waymarks visited...
  • Where I Go modules played.

The point of this little exercise is to explore some other possibilities. We need to break paradigms and kick the walls out on this box.

 

But then wouldn't the logbook get wet?

 

Seriously, though, I've absolutely loving this, and I do feel that, after going to a Virtual a few months ago and falling in love, that they deserve a presence.

 

I don't understand the double standard that says it is alright to blanket a city in micros, but that Virtuals will somehow be a detriment to the sport.

 

Why is this? Are people honestly all that worried about number runners that much? We already have a huge glut of physical caches in this sport -- I don't see why Virtuals would have to be held to some higher standard for each approval.

 

Fine. If you're worried about number runners, don't count them towards the total number of finds. Divide the number of finds into three categories:

 

Physical | Virtual | Event

Share this post


Link to post
I don't understand the double standard that says it is alright to blanket a city in micros, but that Virtuals will somehow be a detriment to the sport.

 

Why is this? Are people honestly all that worried about number runners that much? We already have a huge glut of physical caches in this sport -- I don't see why Virtuals would have to be held to some higher standard for each approval.

I've been asking the same thing and yet nobody has provided a good answer....

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand the double standard that says it is alright to blanket a city in micros, but that Virtuals will somehow be a detriment to the sport.

 

Correction -- I understand that Virtuals need a higher standard because they are easier to submit. I'm making the point that a physical container alone is in no means a guarantee of a quality hide.

 

In thinking about it, what if we approached this differently? What if a virtual had an element of a "hide" to it, requiring a real search for it? Maybe require that all virtuals have to have a physical object to be found, except as opposed to a cache, the item can be, say, a gravesite or a monument. The point here is, you're actually hunting for something, not just "taking in the air" and logging a find after doing a little research in a nearby visitor center.

 

Of course, without a logbook, there is always the issue of proving a find. One idea I had, probably too hard to implement, is having an off-site logbook, signed to prove that you were, at least, in the area. Maybe a micro in the nearest parking lot, with the express point that it isn't a regular cache, but simply a logbook for a nearby virt'.

Share this post


Link to post
Correction -- I understand that Virtuals need a higher standard because they are easier to submit. I'm making the point that a physical container alone is in no means a guarantee of a quality hide.
I'm not sure what you mean. Why would submitting a virtual be easier than driving to Wal-Mart and tossing a film cannister under a lamp post shirt and submitting that? Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
<snip>

 

Seriously, though, I've absolutely loving this, and I do feel that, after going to a Virtual a few months ago and falling in love, that they deserve a presence.

 

I don't understand the double standard that says it is alright to blanket a city in micros, but that Virtuals will somehow be a detriment to the sport.

 

Why is this? Are people honestly all that worried about number runners that much? We already have a huge glut of physical caches in this sport -- I don't see why Virtuals would have to be held to some higher standard for each approval.

 

Fine. If you're worried about number runners, don't count them towards the total number of finds. Divide the number of finds into three categories:

 

Physical | Virtual | Event

I bolded the part that I would like to address. Before the Virtuals came to an end on GC.com, the priviledge was being terribly abused. People were submitting a Virtual cache for a dead bear carcass in the woods (certainly a container could have been put there. B) ) and other equally stupid things. :)

 

Virtuals should have always been about unique, historic, cultural, or scenic locations B) , where it was not possible to put a container and a logbook.

 

Waymarking has all the attributes of the way Virtual caches were on this site before they were removed. There are excellent Waymark Categories listing Waymarks that are worthy of a Visit. thumbsup.gif Then there are other things listed that are on my GPSr as a POI, like the nearest McDonalds or Burger King. For me, there is way too much stuff over there to wade through. :( I can see how it works great for someone who has a specific hobby or interest, like relocated structures or waterfalls, or National Registry of Historic Places sites.

 

GC.com is already cluttered up with pointless, lame caches placed in uninspired locations.:) I don't want to also have to figure out how to filter out pointless, lame Virtual locations. :) If I do, I'll just stick to Terracaching, as some other cachers I know are doing now.

Edited by Miragee

Share this post


Link to post
Before the Virtuals came to an end on GC.com, the priviledge was being terribly abused. People were submitting a Virtual cache for a dead bear carcass in the woods (certainly a container could have been put there. :) ) and other equally stupid things. :(
I hear this all the time in these threads and yet I've never found a virt like that. Are some making the rare exception the rule by claiming this? Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

Why would a reviewer even approve a virtual at a dead bear? I mean, the only big reason I could see the addition of virtuals becoming such a problem is when reviewers just cannot keep up with the workload -- again why I think there needs to be a physical marker or monument, one with the same kind of permanence of a cache, only sans the logbook.

Share this post


Link to post
GC.com is already cluttered up with pointless, lame caches placed in uninspired locations. :) I don't want to also have to figure out how to filter out pointless, lame Virtual locations. :( If I do, I'll just stick to Terracaching, as some other cachers I know are doing now.
I agree with this. I'm just trying to understand the double-standard. Why are only virts getting the cold shoulder?

Share this post


Link to post
Why would a reviewer even approve a virtual at a dead bear? I mean, the only big reason I could see the addition of virtuals becoming such a problem is when reviewers just cannot keep up with the workload -- again why I think there needs to be a physical marker or monument, one with the same kind of permanence of a cache, only sans the logbook.
I agree. There are some great categories in Waymarking that would make for good virts. Why not let people vote the cool ones in as new virtuals in geocaching? It would probably help generate some more interest in Waymarking as well.... :)

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand the double standard that says it is alright to blanket a city in micros, but that Virtuals will somehow be a detriment to the sport.

Correction -- I understand that Virtuals need a higher standard because they are easier to submit. I'm making the point that a physical container alone is in no means a guarantee of a quality hide.

 

In thinking about it, what if we approached this differently? What if a virtual had an element of a "hide" to it, requiring a real search for it? Maybe require that all virtuals have to have a physical object to be found, except as opposed to a cache, the item can be, say, a gravesite or a monument. The point here is, you're actually hunting for something, not just "taking in the air" and logging a find after doing a little research in a nearby visitor center.

 

Of course, without a logbook, there is always the issue of proving a find. One idea I had, probably too hard to implement, is having an off-site logbook, signed to prove that you were, at least, in the area. Maybe a micro in the nearest parking lot, with the express point that it isn't a regular cache, but simply a logbook for a nearby virt'.

My dream for the return of Virtuals to this site would require the finding of something at the location. The Virtual cache owner would have to require an email with the answer to the question before the cache could be logged. If a cacher did not do that, the cache owner should delete the log. There would have to be responsibilty on the part of the cache owner.

 

Also, I think new Virtual caches should be harder to submit, much harder!

 

Having a log nearby is simply not possible. In other threads on this subject, I posted examples of Virtuals that were many, many miles away from public land. You cannot put a container on National Park land, or on an Indian Reservation. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I think this would be much easier if we came up with a good definition of the "ideal virtual". I think it would be something permanent and notable, must not overlap with an Earthcache or an existing cache, and should only be placed at locations that would be bad locations for physical caches, such as historic markers or landmarks.

 

I don't think the "wow factor" should even factor in, because it's obviously subjective, and each person brings something different away from a site. I think the fact that it is being nominated for a virtual alone should signify that it has some significance, and once given the run through by a reviewer and fits into the above definition, I think they would prove to be a valuable addition to gc.com :)

Share this post


Link to post

I'd love to help you guys out with this, but I'm really busy working on a multi-million dollar contract for Jennifer Anniston just in case NBC decides to start making new episodes of Friends again and they want my help. :(:)

Share this post


Link to post
Before the Virtuals came to an end on GC.com, the priviledge was being terribly abused. People were submitting a Virtual cache for a dead bear carcass in the woods (certainly a container could have been put there. :) ) and other equally stupid things. :)
I hear this all the time in these threads and yet I've never found a virt like that. Are some making the rare exception the rule by claiming this?

I don't think we had the problem in this area, but in other areas this was happening all the time. That is when they decided new Virtuals had to have "Wow!" factor. B)

 

Well . . . that didn't work because everyone thought their Virtual location had enough "Wow!" factor and the poor Reviewers were subject to a lot of abuse. :(

 

That is why I think a "Virtual Cache Submission Form," different from the other "Report a New Cache" form, could have enough "limiting" questions on it, and hoops for the cache owner to jump through, that the Virtual caches that would actually get through to a Reviewer would be few in number.

 

There would be no arguing with the Form. At each limiting question, there would be a link to Waymarking so the cache owner would still have an option for listing their "mispelled" sign or "moldy sneaker in the woods." :)

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand the double standard that says it is alright to blanket a city in micros, but that Virtuals will somehow be a detriment to the sport.

Correction -- I understand that Virtuals need a higher standard because they are easier to submit. I'm making the point that a physical container alone is in no means a guarantee of a quality hide.

 

In thinking about it, what if we approached this differently? What if a virtual had an element of a "hide" to it, requiring a real search for it? Maybe require that all virtuals have to have a physical object to be found, except as opposed to a cache, the item can be, say, a gravesite or a monument. The point here is, you're actually hunting for something, not just "taking in the air" and logging a find after doing a little research in a nearby visitor center.

 

Of course, without a logbook, there is always the issue of proving a find. One idea I had, probably too hard to implement, is having an off-site logbook, signed to prove that you were, at least, in the area. Maybe a micro in the nearest parking lot, with the express point that it isn't a regular cache, but simply a logbook for a nearby virt'.

My dream for the return of Virtuals to this site would require the finding of something at the location. The Virtual cache owner would have to require an email with the answer to the question before the cache could be logged. If a cacher did not do that, the cache owner should delete the log. There would have to be responsibilty on the part of the cache owner.

 

Also, I think new Virtual caches should be harder to submit, much harder!

 

Having a log nearby is simply not possible. In other threads on this subject, I posted examples of Virtuals that were many, many miles away from public land. You cannot put a container on National Park land, or on an Indian Reservation. :(

 

But you also have to leave said places, usually traveling along a road or something similar. I don't think the logbook would be required for a find, but I think it could be used as almost a passive "crtrue was here" kind of device. Not signing it signifies nothing, but signing it could give a bit of weight if your find is, say, challenged by a zealous virtual owner :)

Share this post


Link to post

I'd love to help you guys out with this, but I'm really busy working on a multi-million dollar contract for Jennifer Anniston just in case NBC decides to start making new episodes of Friends again and they want my help. :(:)

 

There's nothing wrong with valid discussion. Groundspeak removed virtuals due to a problem with them. We're trying to address the problem as best as we can, since we miss virtuals and would rather see them return than migrate to Waymarking.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...