Jump to content

BRING VIRTUAL CACHES BACK

Whitelaw's

By Whitelaw's
in Website

Followers 3

Recommended Posts

The Leprechauns

+The Leprechauns

Posted
Posted

- Virtuals were relatively popular, Waymarking has to this point not worked. Mostly because it is really nothing more than a "look where I've been site" of POI's similar to many other such sites, with only a very few POI's having repeat visits.

The same could be said of the earliest geocaches. Compare the growth of geocaching from 2000 to 2002 against the growth of Waymarking from 2006 to 2008. My waymarks are starting to get visits, slowly but surely.

 

- Virtuals need proof of the visit. While the proof of the visit was different, that is the same as caches.

*That* worked real well, didn't it? From armchair googlecachers to absent owners who never reply to verification e-mails, that system was nothing but a bother. With Waymarking, the most common verification method is uploading images. The image capabilities at Waymarking are superior to those at Geocaching.com and I look forward to seeing Groundspeak make even better use of the gallery of images collected on its sites.

 

Nothing prevents a Waymarking category or individual waymark from having a verification requirement. Generally, however, the culture that's developed on that site is more laid back than on the geocaching site.

 

- Virtuals had at least some element of surprise as to what is found. True, not all. Yes, there were some lame ones. But they were generally the exception and not the rule. Sometimes you don't know it is a "mountain" you'll be climbing.

I disagree. Only a handful of the 150 or so virtuals I've personally visited held any element of "surprise." For many that did, the surprise was a letdown. ("Oh. A miniature golf course. How nice.") I'd rather know what I'm visiting, and with the Waymarking categories I can visit only those types of locations that appeal to my personal interests.

 

If there are so many "element of surprise" locations, then the "Wow" Waymarking category would have more than its handful of entries. I wish it had more, because it's well conceived and well managed, but its limited success is a testimony to the proposition that most locations aren't incredible secrets. There are more historical markers listed on Waymarking than any other item.

 

The fact that Waymarking is struggling and require the vocal few to evangelize it is most likely one of the main reasons for incorporating it into GC in v2.0.

Respectfully, what you're passing off as "facts" are merely your opinion. My opinion is that your view is bass ackwards. Waymarking has showed steady growth and a responsive development team has implemented several rounds of site design improvements. Waymarking is not being "incorporated into GC." Rather, you should start thinking of geocaches as nothing more than a waymark category. "Here is a location that is distinctive because there is a hidden container there."

Link to comment
Renegade Knight

+Renegade Knight

Posted
Posted (edited)

..."Waymarking has nothing to do with virtuals." - I think that you have to explain the significant difference between climbing a mountain based on a waymark description and coordinates and climbing a mountain based on a virtual cache description and coordinates....

 

First. Climbing a mountain is it's own draw. People do it without waymarks or virtuals.

That said some mountains have peak registers and climbers have been signing those long before caching, waymarks, letterboxing, and virtuals were invented. (I'm not sure about letterboxing but what the heck).

 

Take away peak registers and people will still climb mountains but some of the tradition or ritual if you will is now gone. The icing on the cake is reading the logs of others who came before. There are some people out there taking the peak registers and it's creating a lot of controversy.

 

The draw of a waymark ignoring the draw of the mountain is to say "I was there and have recorded it in a log". The draw of a virtual is to say "I was there, and when I got there I met the test". You can DNF a virtual even when you find the spot. Can you DNF a waymark visit once you find the spot?

 

If a person climbs a mountain expecting to find a peak register and finds none would they be a bit dissapointed? Yes. They lose some of the experience. If a person who likes virtuals visits a site will they be dissapointed at the missing challenge simple as it may be? Of course. If it was entirly about the location waypoint.org would suffice. There needs to be 'more'. Waymark gives the more in a different way than a virtual. Maybe it's subtle but it's enough to where some who like Virtuals don't really like Waymarks. Also because it's a subtle difference there are some who like both.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Renegade Knight

+Renegade Knight

Posted
Posted

...

- Virtuals need proof of the visit. While the proof of the visit was different, that is the same as caches.

*That* worked real well, didn't it? From armchair googlecachers to absent owners who never reply to verification e-mails, that system was nothing but a bother....

 

You can use that argument against traditional cache logs as well. Logging and verification will be unique to each variation of location based activities. Each variation will have it's own problems.

Link to comment
The Leprechauns

+The Leprechauns

Posted
Posted

If it was entirly about the location waypoint.org would suffice. There needs to be 'more'. Waymark gives the more in a different way than a virtual. Maybe it's subtle but it's enough to where some who like Virtuals don't really like Waymarks. Also because it's a subtle difference there are some who like both.

Particularly perspicacious post phrasing. Plaudits!

Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted

virtuals do not have a place in Waymarking.

Why not?

 

Don't know, but they're not there.

If you don't think Best Kept Secrets does a good job of providing the functionality of virtual caches, I would like to know why so that I can improve the category description or propose a different category that does provide for something like virtual caches.

Link to comment
Happy Humphrey

+Happy Humphrey

Posted
Posted

The example you give of climbing a mountain actually illustrates the difference between virtuals and waymarks. It almost makes me want to switch sides :)

Did you look at the links to the examples (What's the difference between a waymark and a virtual?)? All I was saying was that there are virtual caches which have a direct equivalent on Waymarking. This was so that someone could point out the significant difference between real-world examples. Nobody did. I'm sure you realise that there are hundreds of other examples, many of which do perhaps have the "wow" factor too.

There are many Waymarking categories that would never have made a virtual cache. And that is the problem that people see. Virtuals were places that were "Wow".

The "wow" factor was an attempt to get reviewers to stem the flow of new virtuals, which were threatening to overwhelm physical caches in some areas. I saw it as a stop-gap measure until Waymarking was ready to go. Until that rule was brought in, anything was being submitted as a virtual, without any requirement to even explain what the point was. So it was a way of setting a "cache" which didn't have any maintenance/permission effort attached. You can't do this with waymarks, as you have to choose a category for it, and the category owner has to check that it qualifies - so before someone sets out to find it, they know that it's not going to be just some random spot that isn't likely to have any interest.

Link to comment
vtmtnman

vtmtnman

Posted
Posted

I realize there's a certain futility in asking a serious question here, but I'm genuinely curious.

 

Exactly why were virtuals discontinued? They were already gone before I started, so I don't know the full story.

 

I do know that I've enjoyed all the grandfathered virtuals I've logged.

 

I'll give the extremely short version, and others may be able to elaborate, provide links, etc.. . The "wow factor" started in the summer of 2003. Virtuals were still technically allowed, but were rarely approved. I believe virtuals went bye-bye forever on the same day the locationless and webcam caches did, if I'm not mistaken. This was Jan. 3rd, 2006.

 

Exactly why were they discontinued? I'd have to say to keep them from taking over the game, and some of them were becoming quite lame in some people's eyes. Ultimately, virts, webcams and locationless went away because TPTB determined that a geocache consists of a container and a logbook. I still have never figured out if that was just a convenient excuse though. :)

I'm amazed no one (In two pages)posted the link for the infamous sneaker virtual. :)

Link to comment
Happy Humphrey

+Happy Humphrey

Posted
Posted

The draw of a waymark ignoring the draw of the mountain is to say "I was there and have recorded it in a log". The draw of a virtual is to say "I was there, and when I got there I met the test". You can DNF a virtual even when you find the spot. Can you DNF a waymark visit once you find the spot?

You can specify a test with a waymark, so people can log the waymark with a "note" instead of a "visit" if they didn't succeed with the test. If you want to set it up like that.

In fact I have a waymark where you wander around a village picking up numbers, and you can e-mail me the results. But I often find that being forced to verify your visit to a virtual is a PIA, and I make it clear that it's optional (just as I would with a virtual). So there's no significant difference there.

Link to comment
Happy Humphrey

+Happy Humphrey

Posted
Posted

If you don't think Best Kept Secrets does a good job of providing the functionality of virtual caches, I would like to know why so that I can improve the category description or propose a different category that does provide for something like virtual caches.

I know that this isn't what you're fishing for, but I believe that category does provide a home for the type of virtual cache that people keep on requesting. I'd set one up myself, but haven't (yet) found a suitable candidate.

 

From the detractors, I would also like to hear how a waymark in that category bears no relation whatsoever to any virtual cache. I would have thought that there was a passing resemblance at least.

Link to comment
mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted

For what it is worth, Jeremy has spoken about virtual caches. Here is a quote of mine from four years ago...

Welcome to the forums LeapFrog & Ms. LadyBug.

 

People asked you to search the forums for good reason. I would like to point out something you would have found.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...st&p=584849

Jeremy,Aug 12 2003, 02:46 PM

Re: Virtual Caches

 

If you really want to enter the murky realm of virtual caches, ask first and post second. Consider that your virtual cache will most likely not get listed. That way you are prepared for disappointment.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...st&p=584852

Originally posted by solohiker:

Jeremy, is a wild cannon.

 

Originally posted by Jeremy

I'm wildly sober about this. Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessability of caching in areas that discourage it. If you must create a virtual cache its best to bring the idea up before doing the research. Expect a no first and a yes in extraordinary situations. I hate it has to be blunt but that's the fact, Jack.

 

Cache reviewers don't set policy, we follow it.

We are only doing what the owner of the site has asked us to do. We are asked to follow the guidelines. As Harrald said, "Now if you go out, spend some time making sure the virtual cache is within the virtual cache guidelines and you have a %95 chance of getting it approved."

Link to comment
Renegade Knight

+Renegade Knight

Posted
Posted

The draw of a waymark ignoring the draw of the mountain is to say "I was there and have recorded it in a log". The draw of a virtual is to say "I was there, and when I got there I met the test". You can DNF a virtual even when you find the spot. Can you DNF a waymark visit once you find the spot?

You can specify a test with a waymark, so people can log the waymark with a "note" instead of a "visit" if they didn't succeed with the test. If you want to set it up like that.

In fact I have a waymark where you wander around a village picking up numbers, and you can e-mail me the results. But I often find that being forced to verify your visit to a virtual is a PIA, and I make it clear that it's optional (just as I would with a virtual). So there's no significant difference there.

Interesting. That was not something that I was aware of.

 

Verification as an owner is a PITA. I agree. If it could be automated that would be nice. As a finder, it's some of the fun. It's the finders who just like to visit and call it good that made it a PITA for me.

Link to comment
El Diablo

+El Diablo

Posted
Posted

I actually checked out Waymarking.com for the first time today. I was never a fan of virtuals, but I'm quite impressed with Waymarking. I really don't see much of a difference between them and virtuals besides the fact that Waymarking is better organized and offers something for everyone.

 

Is the problem that you don't get your coveted smiley on your main account for finding one?

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Happy Humphrey

+Happy Humphrey

Posted
Posted

Verification as an owner is a PITA. I agree. If it could be automated that would be nice. As a finder, it's some of the fun. It's the finders who just like to visit and call it good that made it a PITA for me.

I was actually thinking from the finder's point of view. I always find it annoying that you're supposed to remember to e-mail the cache owner (often several days after you made the find, and after checking the description to see how the owner likes it to be done), wait until they reply "yes, you're correct, there are three buttons on his jacket" (as if you'd get that wrong), and then add your log. A bit drawn-out, just to have a note that you visited some nice sculpture or something.

 

Or do you just log it in anticipation of a reply, with the chance of a log deletion if you DO make a mistake. Then receive an e-mail a month later saying "Thanks, you were correct" (about what?).

 

Is the problem that you don't get your coveted smiley on your main account for finding one?

I do believe that you've spotted the main problem there! :)

Link to comment
TexasGringo

+TexasGringo

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm in Dallas and because of the city and few parks where you can hide an Ammo Can...there is a MICRO on every corner, in every tree and bush and under every lamp-skirt at every wallmart and other shopping centers.

 

If there were Virtuals, I could at least use the Donkey at the Owens Sausage factory in Richardson....oh wait...there are 2 lampskirt micros within .1 miles........DANG.

Edited by Drooling_Mongoloid
Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted (edited)

I agree with those who want Virtuals back. The spots I have found and the information I have gleaned from searching virtuals often creates much more WOW! factor than a wet, musty cache full of water and rusty or old trash!

You are not alone. There are many people who find there is much more "Wow" in finding a interesting place to share with others or in visiting such place than there is finding some leaky Tupperware with a moldy log and broken toys. These people have their own website, which by the way is also run by Groundspeak. Your Geocaching premium membership already gives you the premium features on that site as well. There people have created categories for listing locations they find interesting. You probably won't find all the categories interesting, after all if you've seen one Tim Horton's you've probably don't need to see another. But there are also probably categories for things you are interested in. And since you are premium member, you can even recommend new categories if something you're interested in isn't already represented. Some come on, take a look and see the world of never having to find another soaked log sheet or lift another lamp post skirt. While everything there may not be your definition of "wow", I think you will find a few categories that will fulfill your desire to find interesting places and glean cool information when you visit them.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
mrcanoehead224

+mrcanoehead224

Posted
Posted
Oh no! Not again. :P

I say they allow locationless caches back for one day, so that I can log 1 :P

(joking... joking... :D )

They did!! Yesterday!!! <chuckle><chuckle>

:P

There's a sundial one that I saw the other day, and I wish that I could have logged Colonel By's sundial on Parliament Hill - Oh well, I'm not too torn up about it though - This is the price of only hearing about caching in 2007

I had only six months as a casual cacher to get a locationless but then I had never heard of them at the time. It would be nice to be able to log one though for the icon...
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...