Jump to content

Another virtual idea

Puppy Dawg

By Puppy Dawg
in Website

Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Puppy Dawg

+Puppy Dawg

Posted
Posted

OK here's an idea...

 

Each month we get to hide 1 virtual each. If we don't hide it, we get two the next month, and if we don't use them we get three the next month. Let's say we use one, then two go to the next month, plus one, and three again.

 

Would THIS work???

Link to comment
Puppy Dawg

+Puppy Dawg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Have you been watching those "rollover minutes" cellular commercials?? :D

LOL maybe. :D

 

Would THIS work???

 

I'll go out on a limb and guess the answer will be "no"

Well its worth a shot.

 

What is the point of this idea? There was never an average of one per user per month when they were allowed.

Correct me if Im wrong, but they're not allowed because too many people were trying to put lame ones. This would set a limit to how many could be set up...

Link to comment
GOF and Bacall

GOF and Bacall

Posted
Posted

What is the point of this idea? There was never an average of one per user per month when they were allowed.

Correct me if Im wrong, but they're not allowed because too many people were trying to put lame ones. This would set a limit to how many could be set up...

 

Perhaps I didn't ask that properly. How is this idea going to change things in a way that will bring back virtuals?

 

Just go over to the Waymarking site and find all the virtuals you want.

Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted

I mean as geocaches. Waymarking is just ONLY viruals.

 

Also maybe if waymarks would be cross-referenced to GC.com...

Would it be fair to say that you want to see your smiley count combined for the 2 sites??

There are many people who are not necessarily interested in find counts. They are interested in being taken to interesting places that other geocachers/waymarkers have provided coordinates for. The forums are full of people who want all physical geocaches to be be in "Wow" places or who toss aside Waymarking because it has a McDonalds category. It is clear that for some people the point of geocaching/Waymarking should be to share the coordinates of "Wow" places.

 

The problem may be that because nobody can come up with a definition of a "Wow" place neither geocaching nor Waymarking are primarily about sharing coordinates of "Wow" places. Geocaching is about hiding physical caches that others can find. These may or may not be in "Wow" places, though many people may prefer caches in "Wow" places. Unforturnately, EarthCaches and grandfathered virtuals and webcams confuse newbies because there is nothing hidden in these places to find. They are an historical relic of a time when Geocaching.com was looking for ways to expand interest and invited people who were less interested in hunting for hidden caches than in visiting "Wow" places (or seeing some evidence of a geologic process or having someone capture their picture on a webcam). Waymarking is about collecting the coordinates of places that people might be interested in. These places may or may not be "Wow" places; the only requirement is that some group is interested enough to manage that category of waymarks.

 

What is needed for those who want to visit "Wow" locations is a separate website. Perhaps someone could start wowwaypoints.com. People could submit coordinates and descriptions for "wow" locations and have a group of volunteers review these submissions and decide if they are really "wow". There could even be a place to indicate if the "wow" location has a geocache or a waymark there. Someone could go to that site and download the "wow" locations into their GPS and always have some "wow" location to visit. They will never again have to look for an LPC in a mundane parking lot or visit every Starbucks in the state. They can all be happy knowing everyplace in their GPS is "Wow". No longer will you have to hide a physical cache, write a geology dissertation, or decide which Waymarking category is appropriate, in order to share your "Wow" location. Just list it on wowwaypoints.com and let the volunteer reviewers decide if it is "Wow" or not.

 

:lol::D

Link to comment
Dinoprophet

Dinoprophet

Posted
Posted

I don't care about numbers. By cross referenced, I mean you list a waymark, it goes on the geocaching site as well. There are some great vwaymarks out there, but its a hassle to go through both GC and WM. Gave up on it pretty fast.

I agree that more integration can be done, particularly with PQs. However, every geocache page has a "Nearest Waymarks" link, and every waymark page has a "Nearest Geocaches" link. That's not so bad.

Link to comment
SgtKlaos

SgtKlaos

Posted
Posted

I mean as geocaches.

There are many people who are not necessarily interested in find counts. They are interested in being taken to interesting places that other geocachers/waymarkers have provided coordinates for. The forums are full of people who want all physical geocaches to be be in "Wow" places. It is clear that for some people the point of geocaching/Waymarking should be to share the coordinates of "Wow" places.

 

The problem may be that because nobody can come up with a definition of a "Wow" place. Geocaching is about hiding physical caches that others can find. These may or may not be in "Wow" places, though many people may prefer caches in "Wow" places.

 

What is needed for those who want to visit "Wow" locations is a separate website.

 

:lol::D

YES! and NO! For all the geocachers that are also looking for an extra-ordinary experience while they are caching, there is a simple answer: WOW Factor ratings! When a cacher logs a find, he has the option to give a 1-5 star rating (with half stars) concisely characterizing the positive feelings/experience the cache provided. The WOW Factor should be a column on the search results page and shown on the cache details page.

 

It seems like it would be relatively simple to institute and would prove useful to many users. I count the following as benefits that don't take away from any other aspect of the game. User ratings would encourage cache placers to develop their skills. And many would also enjoy the competition and recognition!

 

Please forgive the size, I got excited. I'm starting a thread about this to take a poll.

Link to comment
gof1

+gof1

Posted
Posted

I mean as geocaches.

There are many people who are not necessarily interested in find counts. They are interested in being taken to interesting places that other geocachers/waymarkers have provided coordinates for. The forums are full of people who want all physical geocaches to be be in "Wow" places. It is clear that for some people the point of geocaching/Waymarking should be to share the coordinates of "Wow" places.

 

The problem may be that because nobody can come up with a definition of a "Wow" place. Geocaching is about hiding physical caches that others can find. These may or may not be in "Wow" places, though many people may prefer caches in "Wow" places.

 

What is needed for those who want to visit "Wow" locations is a separate website.

 

:lol::D

YES! and NO! For all the geocachers that are also looking for an extra-ordinary experience while they are caching, there is a simple answer: WOW Factor ratings! When a cacher logs a find, he has the option to give a 1-5 star rating (with half stars) concisely characterizing the positive feelings/experience the cache provided. The WOW Factor should be a column on the search results page and shown on the cache details page.

 

It seems like it would be relatively simple to institute and would prove useful to many users. I count the following as benefits that don't take away from any other aspect of the game. User ratings would encourage cache placers to develop their skills. And many would also enjoy the competition and recognition!

 

Please forgive the size, I got excited. I'm starting a thread about this to take a poll.

Please do a search before you start such a thread.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...