Virtual Caches: Let's pretend a minute.

[+TrailGators]

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.

 

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.

I'm from Missouri....

 

Imagine that there had never been a "wow" factor implemented and virts were still allowed. Do you think that tons people would be making lamp posts in Wal-Mart parking lots into virts? If they would have done this is there any real difference between reading some code off the lamp post or pulling a film cannister from under the lamp post skirt? Doesn't the definition of "wow" have to do with location? I still don't understand the double standard.....

[+Miragee]

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

Now you are getting it. That is my ideal of a Virtual cache also. At the location there must be something, such as a plaque off of which the cacher would get numbers to answer the required questions on the cache page.

 

Even if the new Virtual is at a scenic location in a National Park, or elsewhere, there has to be something they must notice and include in the email to the cache owner. Maybe it would be some identifiable thing to one side of the waterfall, or the number of steps down to a retaining wall. There should always be something the cache owner can include in the cache description that will ensure the person got to the correct location. I have done some Virtual caches where you had to post a picture of yourself in front of whatever it was the cache owner wanted you to see.

[+TrailGators]

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

Now you are getting it. That is my ideal of a Virtual cache also. At the location there must be something, such as a plaque off of which the cacher would get numbers to answer the required questions on the cache page.

 

Even if the new Virtual is at a scenic location in a National Park, or elsewhere, there has to be something they must notice and include in the email to the cache owner. Maybe it would be some identifiable thing to one side of the waterfall, or the number of steps down to a retaining wall. There should always be something the cache owner can include in the cache description that will ensure the person got to the correct location. I have done some Virtual caches where you had to post a picture of yourself in front of whatever it was the cache owner wanted you to see.

Both my grandfathered virts require a photo.I also enjoy the virts that make you find things like a name like the Manzanar Water Works virtual made you do.

[+EraSeek]

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.

 

My complait about Waymarking:

Ownership.

I have been looking at Waymarking and I still don't see it. Show me an owned "waymark" that is not a "find" but a creative virtual that challenges other people to find it! Catagories seem to come closest but CRIPS! they are group managed things.

What you have is a socialized group cache owned by no one, found by individuals who can't do anything but post "my Find", asking others to re-find their find. Am I wrong?

 

My proposal for Vituals on Geocaching:

Only if a box cannot be placed.

Same restrictions as any cache such as density.

Must show some WoW! factor.

No peer review but simply a review and approval/disapproval of only one approver. He gets to make a descision! Yes individual people still have the ability to do that. Wow factor is included in this.

One request for re-review with explaination, after that the decision is final. Make this clear to all.

A "Report Cache" button if people have a problem with its existence. (includes lameness)

Keep Waymarking and Geocaching seperate.

[+cache_test_dummies]

As already mentioned, there has to be a way to limit the number of containerless caches listed. Otherwise, we'd be overrun by sneakers in the woods. I think you need a set of guidelines. I don't believe it is possible to define a completely unambiguous set of guidelines, so I think the key is to create a flexible set of guidelines, not as strict as "Wow", but substantially tighter than "anything goes".

 

But you would need reviewers. Waymarking has demonstrated that a peer review system can work, so I think such a model is worth considering as a method for approving/rejecting new submittals. But rather than using the current reviewer model, in which any one of a small group of reviewers can approve or reject a submittal, I suggest a model in which a much larger group of reviewers (25? 50? 100?) can review and 'vote' on a submittal. And rather than a straight counting of yes/no votes, I'd go with a model in which approval occurs at the moment that X percent (half? one third? two-thirds?) vote yes. That way, not all of the large group of reviewers would have to participate at any one time in order for submittals to make it through.

[+TrailGators]

As already mentioned, there has to be a way to limit the number of containerless caches listed. Otherwise, we'd be overrun by sneakers in the woods. I think you need a set of guidelines. I don't believe it is possible to define a completely unambiguous set of guidelines, so I think the key is to create a flexible set of guidelines, not as strict as "Wow", but substantially tighter than "anything goes".

 

But you would need reviewers. Waymarking has demonstrated that a peer review system can work, so I think such a model is worth considering as a method for approving/rejecting new submittals. But rather than using the current reviewer model, in which any one of a small group of reviewers can approve or reject a submittal, I suggest a model in which a much larger group of reviewers (25? 50? 100?) can review and 'vote' on a submittal. And rather than a straight counting of yes/no votes, I'd go with a model in which approval occurs at the moment that X percent (half? one third? two-thirds?) vote yes. That way, not all of the large group of reviewers would have to participate at any one time in order for submittals to make it through.

Why not just vote in worthy waymarks to also be virts on GC.com? You could create a category in Waymarking to manage this...

[crtrue]

So, an ideal virtual should, at the very minimum, have a plaque or some sort of marker, not to mention explicit (or at least implicit) permission from the landholder?

[+TrailGators]

My complaint about Waymarking:

Ownership. I have been looking at Waymarking and I still don't see it. Show me an owned "waymark" that is not a "find" but a creative virtual that challenges other people to find it! Catagories seem to come closest but CRIPS! they are group managed things. What you have is a socialized group cache owned by no one, found by individuals who can't do anything but post "my Find", asking others to re-find their find. Am I wrong?

Yes, because there is no difference between owning a geocache and owning a waymark. The only difference is in the review process. There are a few very cool waymark categories that would make for good virts. So don't throw the baby out with the bath water! Edited June 3, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

So, an ideal virtual should, at the very minimum, have a plaque or some sort of marker, not to mention explicit (or at least implicit) permission from the landholder?

All caches already have to have this.

[+Miragee]

As already mentioned, there has to be a way to limit the number of containerless caches listed. Otherwise, we'd be overrun by sneakers in the woods. I think you need a set of guidelines. I don't believe it is possible to define a completely unambiguous set of guidelines, so I think the key is to create a flexible set of guidelines, not as strict as "Wow", but substantially tighter than "anything goes".

 

But you would need reviewers. Waymarking has demonstrated that a peer review system can work, so I think such a model is worth considering as a method for approving/rejecting new submittals. But rather than using the current reviewer model, in which any one of a small group of reviewers can approve or reject a submittal, I suggest a model in which a much larger group of reviewers (25? 50? 100?) can review and 'vote' on a submittal. And rather than a straight counting of yes/no votes, I'd go with a model in which approval occurs at the moment that X percent (half? one third? two-thirds?) vote yes. That way, not all of the large group of reviewers would have to participate at any one time in order for submittals to make it through.

But, don't you think a "Virtual Cache Submission Form" itself could, with "limiting" questions, cut down on the number of Virtual caches submitted in the first place?

 

When you look at how many new cache submissions say things like:

Cache and dash. Watch out for muggles.

and nothing else, do you think the person will spend 20 minutes filling out all the information that would now be required to submit a new Virtual Cache location.

[crtrue]

So, an ideal virtual should, at the very minimum, have a plaque or some sort of marker, not to mention explicit (or at least implicit) permission from the landholder?

All caches already have to have this.

 

True, but I guess what I was getting at is that even public lands might benefit from a simple "nod" from a ranger or the like. The reality is, it's almost not needed if it's publicly accessible -- the virtual would be adding nothing to the actual area, only an incentive to visit, which is usually a good thing (sensitive lands are usually closed off, anyway...and enough negative remarks about a cache messing up the land can have an impact).

[+EraSeek]

Waymarking has demonstrated that a peer review system can work, so I think such a model is worth considering as a method for approving/rejecting new submittals.

 

One of Waymarkings oldest... and is in 7th place as largest! http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...b5-8c7adb7090f2

 

So it work, huh?

[+TrailGators]

As already mentioned, there has to be a way to limit the number of containerless caches listed. Otherwise, we'd be overrun by sneakers in the woods. I think you need a set of guidelines. I don't believe it is possible to define a completely unambiguous set of guidelines, so I think the key is to create a flexible set of guidelines, not as strict as "Wow", but substantially tighter than "anything goes".

 

But you would need reviewers. Waymarking has demonstrated that a peer review system can work, so I think such a model is worth considering as a method for approving/rejecting new submittals. But rather than using the current reviewer model, in which any one of a small group of reviewers can approve or reject a submittal, I suggest a model in which a much larger group of reviewers (25? 50? 100?) can review and 'vote' on a submittal. And rather than a straight counting of yes/no votes, I'd go with a model in which approval occurs at the moment that X percent (half? one third? two-thirds?) vote yes. That way, not all of the large group of reviewers would have to participate at any one time in order for submittals to make it through.

But, don't you think a "Virtual Cache Submission Form" itself could, with "limiting" questions, cut down on the number of Virtual caches submitted in the first place?

 

When you look at how many new cache submissions say things like:

Cache and dash. Watch out for muggles.

and nothing else, do you think the person will spend 20 minutes filling out all the information that would now be required to submit a new Virtual Cache location.

I think a submittal form would be too cumbersome for the reviewers. The cool categories in Waymarking don't need them.... You could submit photos that would only be visible to the reviewer(s) if you wanted the virt to be a secret....

[+TrailGators]

Waymarking has demonstrated that a peer review system can work, so I think such a model is worth considering as a method for approving/rejecting new submittals.

 

One of Waymarkings oldest... and is in 7th place as largest! http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...b5-8c7adb7090f2

 

So it work, huh?

 

We already know that not all waymarks would make good virts. Try looking at just the waymark categories that would make good virts. Also note that you can easily ignore an entire category! I can't even see that one anymore... Edited June 3, 2007 by TrailGators

[+EraSeek]

Yes, because there is no difference between owning a geocache and owning a waymark. The only difference is in the review process. There are a few very cool waymark categories that would make for good virts. So don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

 

Categories are not owned. The categories = the cache page. Waymarks are owned. Waymarks = cache find logs.

[crtrue]

Waymarking has demonstrated that a peer review system can work, so I think such a model is worth considering as a method for approving/rejecting new submittals.

 

One of Waymarkings oldest... and is in 7th place as largest! http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...b5-8c7adb7090f2

 

So it work, huh?

 

I think the advantage of Waymarking is simply that you cna obviously avoid a category like "McDonalds"

 

You can't really do that with Geocaching.

 

Frankly, our cache categorization is pitiful when compared to Waymarking.

[+TrailGators]

Yes, because there is no difference between owning a geocache and owning a waymark. The only difference is in the review process. There are a few very cool waymark categories that would make for good virts. So don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

 

Categories are not owned. The categories = the cache page. Waymarks are owned. Waymarks = cache find logs.

That's like trying to own all multis. You can own any waymark within a category...

[+TrailGators]

Waymarking has demonstrated that a peer review system can work, so I think such a model is worth considering as a method for approving/rejecting new submittals.

 

One of Waymarkings oldest... and is in 7th place as largest! http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...b5-8c7adb7090f2

 

So it work, huh?

 

I think the advantage of Waymarking is simply that you cna obviously avoid a category like "McDonalds"

 

You can't really do that with Geocaching.

 

Frankly, our cache categorization is pitiful when compared to Waymarking.

I couldn't agree more!

[+cache_test_dummies]

Why not just vote in worthy waymarks to also be virts on GC.com? You could create a category in Waymarking to manage this...

You mean make it so that one path for getting a containerless caches to our hypothetical web site is through the Waymarking site? Someone submits a waymark, gets it approved, and then a group of special reviewers (my large group reviewer idea above) would pick and choose worthy waymarks to be 'promoted' to cacheless containers?

 

That would work. As long as there was also a path to approval that didn't require going through Waymarking for the cases that no category yet exists for a potentially great containerless cache.

[+TrailGators]

Why not just vote in worthy waymarks to also be virts on GC.com? You could create a category in Waymarking to manage this...

You mean make it so that one path for getting a containerless caches to our hypothetical web site is through the Waymarking site? Someone submits a waymark, gets it approved, and then a group of special reviewers (my large group reviewer idea above) would pick and choose worthy waymarks to be 'promoted' to cacheless containers?

 

That would work. As long as there was also a path to approval that didn't require going through Waymarking for the cases that no category yet exists for a potentially great containerless cache.

 

That is exactly what I meant! The new "promoted" category could be named "Geocaching Virtuals." You could also require that a majority of peer reviewers approve these before they are allowed on GC.com. Edited June 3, 2007 by TrailGators

[+cache_test_dummies]

But, don't you think a "Virtual Cache Submission Form" itself could, with "limiting" questions, cut down on the number of Virtual caches submitted in the first place?

Sure. But you'd still need to come up with the questions (the guidelines), and (I am convinced, you may disagree) you'd still need a review process that involved human intervention.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

But, don't you think a "Virtual Cache Submission Form" itself could, with "limiting" questions, cut down on the number of Virtual caches submitted in the first place?

 

When you look at how many new cache submissions say things like:

Cache and dash. Watch out for muggles.

and nothing else, do you think the person will spend 20 minutes filling out all the information that would now be required to submit a new Virtual Cache location.

I think a submittal form would be too cumbersome for the reviewers. The cool categories in Waymarking don't need them.... You could submit photos that would only be visible to the reviewer(s) if you wanted the virt to be a secret....

Before it was changed, the WiFi Hotspot Waymarking category had "limiting" questions that were so limiting you needed an IT degree to answer the questions correctly. If you didn't know the answer, the form simply wouldn't go through.

 

That form has since been changed, but I think there could be questions on the "Virtual Cache Submission Form" that would slow down the Virtual cache submissions.

 

The Reviewer would not even see the new submission until the cache owner went through all the hoops on the page.

 

I just think it is one possibe option to prevent people from submitting stupid, lame, ignorant locations as Virtual caches. We already have enough containers in locations like those.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Waymarking has demonstrated that a peer review system can work, so I think such a model is worth considering as a method for approving/rejecting new submittals.

 

One of Waymarkings oldest... and is in 7th place as largest! http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...b5-8c7adb7090f2

 

So it work, huh?

Just because some people don't care for a particular category doesn't mean peer review doesn't work.

 

I have seen peer review work very successfully for a number of categories. By peer review, I mean both the process of getting a category approved, and group management of individual categories.

[+Miragee]

But, don't you think a "Virtual Cache Submission Form" itself could, with "limiting" questions, cut down on the number of Virtual caches submitted in the first place?

Sure. But you'd still need to come up with the questions (the guidelines), and (I am convinced, you may disagree) you'd still need a review process that involved human intervention.

I agree that a Reviewer still has to look at the submission at the end of the process, and probably should look at photos of the location and the requirement plaque, object, etc.

 

I just think the form could cut down on the submissions the Reviewer sees . . . and it could send a lot of cachers over to Waymarking with the links provided on the page. Maybe some cachers don't even know about Waymarking yet. Maybe the thing they think would be a could Virtual will, when it is rejected by the criteria on the form, fit perfectly in a Category on Waymarking!

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

But, don't you think a "Virtual Cache Submission Form" itself could, with "limiting" questions, cut down on the number of Virtual caches submitted in the first place?

 

When you look at how many new cache submissions say things like:

Cache and dash. Watch out for muggles.

and nothing else, do you think the person will spend 20 minutes filling out all the information that would now be required to submit a new Virtual Cache location.

I think a submittal form would be too cumbersome for the reviewers. The cool categories in Waymarking don't need them.... You could submit photos that would only be visible to the reviewer(s) if you wanted the virt to be a secret....

Before it was changed, the WiFi Hotspot Waymarking category had "limiting" questions that were so limiting you needed an IT degree to answer the questions correctly. If you didn't know the answer, the form simply wouldn't go through.

 

That form has since been changed, but I think there could be questions on the "Virtual Cache Submission Form" that would slow down the Virtual cache submissions.

 

The Reviewer would not even see the new submission until the cache owner went through all the hoops on the page.

 

I just think it is one possibe option to prevent people from submitting stupid, lame, ignorant locations as Virtual caches. We already have enough containers in locations like those.

People could just lie and check whatever especailly if the reviewers don't see that stuff. I think the current way marking review process would work fine. I seriously doubt that a "sneaker in the woods" would ever make it through a majority of peer reviewers for this category.

[+TrailGators]

But, don't you think a "Virtual Cache Submission Form" itself could, with "limiting" questions, cut down on the number of Virtual caches submitted in the first place?

Sure. But you'd still need to come up with the questions (the guidelines), and (I am convinced, you may disagree) you'd still need a review process that involved human intervention.

I agree that a Reviewer still has to look at the submission at the end of the process, and probably should look at photos of the location and the requirement plaque, object, etc.

 

I just think the form could cut down on the submissions the Reviewer sees . . . and it could send a lot of cachers over to Waymarking with the links provided on the page. Maybe some cachers don't even know about Waymarking yet. Maybe the thing they think would be a could Virtual will, when it is rejected by the criteria on the form, fit perfectly in a Category on Waymarking!

The category should clearly define what is required. I'm just worried that making a form will make this cumbersome for everyone. If we used the existing waymark approval system it would work as is... Edited June 3, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

<snip>

Before it was changed, the WiFi Hotspot Waymarking category had "limiting" questions that were so limiting you needed an IT degree to answer the questions correctly. If you didn't know the answer, the form simply wouldn't go through.

 

That form has since been changed, but I think there could be questions on the "Virtual Cache Submission Form" that would slow down the Virtual cache submissions.

 

The Reviewer would not even see the new submission until the cache owner went through all the hoops on the page.

 

I just think it is one possibe option to prevent people from submitting stupid, lame, ignorant locations as Virtual caches. We already have enough containers in locations like those.

People could just lie and check whatever especailly if the reviewers don't see that stuff. I think the current way marking review process would work fine. I seriously doubt that a "sneaker in the woods" would ever make it through a majority of peer reviewers for this category.

In my "Let's pretend a minute" minute, as I think about how great Virtual caches could once again be listed on this site, I would have a big statement on the "Virtual Cache Submission Form" that stated the cache would be Archived immediately, if, after Approval, a cacher reported the location to not be what it was billed to be.

 

Perhaps there could even be sanctions against the person who "lied" on the form, such as when someone misbehaves in these Forums, especially if a cacher repeatedly submits invalid descriptions for their Virtual caches.

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

Before it was changed, the WiFi Hotspot Waymarking category had "limiting" questions that were so limiting you needed an IT degree to answer the questions correctly. If you didn't know the answer, the form simply wouldn't go through.

 

That form has since been changed, but I think there could be questions on the "Virtual Cache Submission Form" that would slow down the Virtual cache submissions.

 

The Reviewer would not even see the new submission until the cache owner went through all the hoops on the page.

 

I just think it is one possibe option to prevent people from submitting stupid, lame, ignorant locations as Virtual caches. We already have enough containers in locations like those.

People could just lie and check whatever especailly if the reviewers don't see that stuff. I think the current way marking review process would work fine. I seriously doubt that a "sneaker in the woods" would ever make it through a majority of peer reviewers for this category.

In my "Let's pretend a minute" minute, as I think about how great Virtual caches could once again be listed on this site, I would have a big statement on the "Virtual Cache Submission Form" that stated the cache would be Archived immediately, if, after Approval, a cacher reported the location to not be what it was billed to be.

 

Perhaps there could even be sanctions against the person who "lied" on the form, such as when someone misbehaves in these Forums, especially if a cacher repeatedly submits invalid descriptions for their Virtual caches.

I still think the only way this is going to fly is if you keep it simple. If we wait for special forms or processes to be created it will never happen. That's why I suggested using the Waymarking peer review, It already exists! I know that the Waymarking category they we manage has some very interesting places to visit and we have not needed any special forms....

 

Another idea would be to require that at least 3 people visit the potential virt on Waymarking before it can be submitted. That way the reviewers can read the logs to help them make a better decision...

Edited June 3, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

The category should clearly define what is required. I'm just worried that making a form will make this cumbersome for everyone. If we used the existing waymark approval system it would work as is...

The thing is, there are things out there that might make great, unique, worthwhile Virtual caches that don't yet have a Category on Waymarking . . .

 

That is how I came to "own" two Categories on Waymarking I never intended to "own." There were things I wanted to list there . . . and there was no Category in which to put them . . .

 

Just yesterday I was talking to someone about something they wanted to put on Waymarking, but there was no Category for it, so they just gave up . . .

[+TrailGators]

The category should clearly define what is required. I'm just worried that making a form will make this cumbersome for everyone. If we used the existing waymark approval system it would work as is...

The thing is, there are things out there that might make great, unique, worthwhile Virtual caches that don't yet have a Category on Waymarking . . .

Then make a category! But I'm not even sure how you do it....

[+Miragee]

It is tedious . . . trust me . . .

[CoyoteRed]

There's been a lot of really good discussion, but what much of the recent discussions have completely overlooked is you don't really want to bring "virtual caches" back to geocaching.com.

 

The very real problem with land managers pointing to virtual caches as being "just as good" as a physical cache and only allowing those on his land simply for the sake of it's an easier, safer decision for him. This was really high on the list of why virts went away in the first place.

 

The solution is for hunts that are close to what we know as virtual caches have to be implemented in such a way as land managers don't see them as "just as good" as a physical geocache. If Mr. Landowner says, "what about simply placing a [name for hunt we used to call a virtual] here?" The permission seeker can simply respond, "those are not geocaches. Those don't have a container, a logbook, or trinkets to trade--it's not a treasure hunt. I'm wanting to place a geocache." That's why you don't really want to call them "virtual geocaches" as they are not really geocaches at all.

 

In short, the hunt has to be similar enough to virtuals for us, but not seen as a geocache to land managers.

 

How do we do this?

Edited June 3, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+TrailGators]

There's been a lot of really good discussion, but what much of the recent discussions have completely overlooked is you don't really want to bring "virtual caches" back to geocaching.com.

 

The very real problem with land managers pointing to virtual caches as being "just as good" as a physical cache and only allowing those on his land simply for the sake of it's an easier, safer decision for him. This was really high on the list of why virts went away in the first place.

 

The solution is for hunts that are close to what we know as virtual caches have to be implemented in such a way as land managers don't see them as "just as good" as a physical geocache. If Mr. Landowner says, "what about simply placing a [name for hunt we used to call a virtual] here?" The permission seeker can simply respond, "those are not geocaches. Those don't have a container, a logbook, or trinkets to trade--it's not a treasure hunt. I'm wanting to place a geocache." That's why you don't really want to call them "virtual geocaches" as they are not really geocaches at all.

 

In short, the hunt has to be similar enough to virtuals for us, but not seen as a geocache to land managers.

 

How do we do this?

This is a very good point. However, if the land manager says "No!" as many do, then we are dead in the water anyhow. Hmmm, I'll have to think about this.... Edited June 3, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

It is tedious . . . trust me . . .

I guess if you want it bad enough then you'll do it. It sounds a lot like your form idea. It weeds out the bad categories by making people jump through hoops before they submit a category.... Edited June 3, 2007 by TrailGators

[+riviouveur]

Maybe I can give a reviewer's point of view on this discussion. I hope what I bring to the fire will be water, or maybe even tasty BBQ, rather than gasoline.

 

Much of the above discussion contains suggestions for how any number between "only one reviewer, and we will all accept the decision without quibbling" through "25 or more reviewers", could review virtuals in various creative and democratic ways, possibly following on from a mass "peer review" voting procedure - which, presumably, like all collective discussions among geocachers, would be free of prejudice, cliques, etc .

 

Frankly, although I can only speak definitively for myself, I don't think the reviewers are queuing up for any of this. Should virtuals ever come back, I would hope that the review process would be as close as possible to that for other caches.

 

One of the good things about the current review process is that the guidelines leave us just the right amount of freedom. Among the things which we do not have, or want, the freedom to do, is to decide whether a cache should be published or not based on its perceived lameness. This is a good thing for everybody, even if it does result in lots of unsatisfying urban micros, because it also allows for some surprisingly creative ideas, and it also saves us from having to guess when the cache submitter is lying (on this aspect, anyway).

 

Once reviewers start refusing caches for quality reasons, the appeals@geocaching.com mailbox will be inundated. It's free, after all. Every cache rejected for being "lame" will end up on the desk of a Groundspeak staffer.

 

In the meantime, I think we have a fine way to bring "wow"-factor sites to the attention of geocachers. It's called Earthcaches. The Earthcache reviewer is not about to approve sneakers or dead bears, and AFAIK he is reassuringly situated beyond the appeals procedure.

[+TrailGators]

In short, the hunt has to be similar enough to virtuals for us, but not seen as a geocache to land managers.

 

How do we do this?

OK, what if we made a special category in Waymarking called 'GC Waymarks" and then showed those find counts as "Waymarks" in the stats just like they currently show "Benchmarks" in GC.com? Then they could let you include these special GC waymarks in your PQs too! Just a thought....

[+EraSeek]

One of the good things about the current review process is that the guidelines leave us just the right amount of freedom. Among the things which we do not have, or want, the freedom to do, is to decide whether a cache should be published or not based on its perceived lameness. This is a good thing for everybody, even if it does result in lots of unsatisfying urban micros, because it also allows for some surprisingly creative ideas, and it also saves us from having to guess when the cache submitter is lying (on this aspect, anyway).

 

Once reviewers start refusing caches for quality reasons, the appeals@geocaching.com mailbox will be inundated. It's free, after all. Every cache rejected for being "lame" will end up on the desk of a Groundspeak staffer.

 

In the meantime, I think we have a fine way to bring "wow"-factor sites to the attention of geocachers. It's called Earthcaches. The Earthcache reviewer is not about to approve sneakers or dead bears, and AFAIK he is reassuringly situated beyond the appeals procedure.

 

Actually I agree here with the first paragraph. Whatever we need to do to allow the maximum amount of creative ideas for caches, I am 100% for. I had even thought of posting a thread "In praise of the lame cache", just to point out this concept.

 

Although I can live with lame, I think a limit to one appeal on Wow could work. I guess ask a reviewer on that.

 

Earthcaches are fine but not all great virtuals are geologically based.

 

I am serious, can someone post for me a creative "Waymark" that fits the vrtual cache concept? I'd like to view one. I am not talking about Categories. Thanks.

[+TrailGators]

I am serious, can someone post for me a creative "Waymark" that fits the virtual cache concept? I'd like to view one. I am not talking about Categories. Thanks.

There are 12 potential candidates listed in this category.... Edited June 3, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

Earthcaches are fine but not all great virtuals are geologically based.

 

I am serious, can someone post for me a creative "Waymark" that fits the vrtual cache concept? I'd like to view one. I am not talking about Categories. Thanks.

Is a Waymark like this one what you are thinking of?

 

El Cid on Horseback

 

I have a few Waymarks, but only a few of them qualify to be Virtual "caches" on GC.com the way I envision the new Virtuals.

[+TrailGators]

There are 36 potential candidates listed in this category...

[+EraSeek]

All good. Yes, thank you. Something that makes some sense. The saving grace of these is that logging proof must be provided. I especially like the ones where the surprise is kept until you reach the site and not revealed on the waypoint page before you get there.

 

Much better than what I had seen before. Thank you.

[+Ambrosia]

In Waymarking, when you go to a waymark, it's called a "visit". It's not the same as caching, where you "find" a cache. I don't believe that waymarks should ever have logging proof. Why do you need to have proof? You visited the place. You didn't go to a cache. Then you go to a website and talk about your "visit" like a sort of blog. Need to make a shift in thinking.

[+TrailGators]

In Waymarking, when you go to a waymark, it's called a "visit". It's not the same as caching, where you "find" a cache. I don't believe that waymarks should ever have logging proof. Why do you need to have proof? You visited the place. You didn't go to a cache. Then you go to a website and talk about your "visit" like a sort of blog. Need to make a shift in thinking.

There are waymarks where you can "find" something special like a virtual cache. So these are the ones that could have been/could be virtuals on GC.com. I think most realize that most waymarks would not make good virtuals. Edited June 3, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Ambrosia]

In Waymarking, when you go to a waymark, it's called a "visit". It's not the same as caching, where you "find" a cache. I don't believe that waymarks should ever have logging proof. Why do you need to have proof? You visited the place. You didn't go to a cache. Then you go to a website and talk about your "visit" like a sort of blog. Need to make a shift in thinking.

There are waymarks where you can "find" something special like a virtual cache. So these are the ones that could have been/could be virtuals on GC.com. I think most realize that most waymarks would not make good virtuals.

The "WOW" category. That's an exception.

[+TrailGators]

In Waymarking, when you go to a waymark, it's called a "visit". It's not the same as caching, where you "find" a cache. I don't believe that waymarks should ever have logging proof. Why do you need to have proof? You visited the place. You didn't go to a cache. Then you go to a website and talk about your "visit" like a sort of blog. Need to make a shift in thinking.

There are waymarks where you can "find" something special like a virtual cache. So these are the ones that could have been/could be virtuals on GC.com. I think most realize that most waymarks would not make good virtuals.

The "WOW" category. That's an exception.

"Wow!" is what I say when I don't find an LPC!

[+Ambrosia]

In Waymarking, when you go to a waymark, it's called a "visit". It's not the same as caching, where you "find" a cache. I don't believe that waymarks should ever have logging proof. Why do you need to have proof? You visited the place. You didn't go to a cache. Then you go to a website and talk about your "visit" like a sort of blog. Need to make a shift in thinking.

There are waymarks where you can "find" something special like a virtual cache. So these are the ones that could have been/could be virtuals on GC.com. I think most realize that most waymarks would not make good virtuals.

The "WOW" category. That's an exception.

"Wow!" is what I say when I don't find an LPC!

Which reminds me, we were out caching a few weekends ago, and dnf'd a super easy LPC, even after looking for it forever. Everyone's logs kept saying how it took them seconds to find, but nope. We didn't want to give up, we didn't want the humiliation of being the only ones who couldn't find it. We logged DNF's, and afterwards the owner said that they went and checked it and it was right there. Yeah, whatever. I still say they sneeked in a new cache and just said it was there all along.

 

Sorry. Off topic again. I'm having problems with that lately.

[+TrailGators]

In Waymarking, when you go to a waymark, it's called a "visit". It's not the same as caching, where you "find" a cache. I don't believe that waymarks should ever have logging proof. Why do you need to have proof? You visited the place. You didn't go to a cache. Then you go to a website and talk about your "visit" like a sort of blog. Need to make a shift in thinking.

There are waymarks where you can "find" something special like a virtual cache. So these are the ones that could have been/could be virtuals on GC.com. I think most realize that most waymarks would not make good virtuals.

The "WOW" category. That's an exception.

"Wow!" is what I say when I don't find an LPC!

Which reminds me, we were out caching a few weekends ago, and dnf'd a super easy LPC, even after looking for it forever. Everyone's logs kept saying how it took them seconds to find, but nope. We didn't want to give up, we didn't want the humiliation of being the only ones who couldn't find it. We logged DNF's, and afterwards the owner said that they went and checked it and it was right there. Yeah, whatever. I still say they sneeked in a new cache and just said it was there all along.

 

Sorry. Off topic again. I'm having problems with that lately.

No wonder you like Waymarking so much! Back on topic. It seems like waymarks just don't get visited very often. There are some very good waymarks. So I think that if Groundspeak wanted to spark more interest in Waymarking that they could let the better virtual like waymarks that you actually "find," reside on both sites.

[+Ambrosia]

In Waymarking, when you go to a waymark, it's called a "visit". It's not the same as caching, where you "find" a cache. I don't believe that waymarks should ever have logging proof. Why do you need to have proof? You visited the place. You didn't go to a cache. Then you go to a website and talk about your "visit" like a sort of blog. Need to make a shift in thinking.

There are waymarks where you can "find" something special like a virtual cache. So these are the ones that could have been/could be virtuals on GC.com. I think most realize that most waymarks would not make good virtuals.

The "WOW" category. That's an exception.

"Wow!" is what I say when I don't find an LPC!

Which reminds me, we were out caching a few weekends ago, and dnf'd a super easy LPC, even after looking for it forever. Everyone's logs kept saying how it took them seconds to find, but nope. We didn't want to give up, we didn't want the humiliation of being the only ones who couldn't find it. We logged DNF's, and afterwards the owner said that they went and checked it and it was right there. Yeah, whatever. I still say they sneeked in a new cache and just said it was there all along.

 

Sorry. Off topic again. I'm having problems with that lately.

No wonder you like Waymarking so much! Back on topic. It seems like waymarks just don't get visited very often. There are some very good waymarks. So I think that if Groundspeak wanted to spark more interest in Waymarking that they could let the better virtual like waymarks that you actually "find," reside on both sites.

 

There are several reasons why waymarks don't get visited very often. From the sounds of it, a lot of those reasons will be taken care of by Groundspeak when they finish the plans that they have for Waymarking.

[+Ambrosia]

The funny thing is, between the two of us we had found 3500 caches. You'd think we could find an LPC in the middle of a Home Depot parking lot.

 

Hey, it's possible to DNF virts and waymarks.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

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?

Exactly!

 

I have asked this over and over!

 

I found 30+ caches yesterday south of Nashville, of those maybe 4 were in interesting locations, but a virt would have to be an extraordinary location?

 

Zero sense in that.

 

From Wikipedia: Arbitrary - Choices and actions are considered to be arbitrary when they are done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula.

Edited June 3, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler