Virtual cache?

[+tozainamboku]

I'm still not seeing any ideas from the bring back virtuals crowd on how they would address the problems that existed when virtuals could be submitted to Geoaching.com. Several have said that the "Wow" requirement would have to be applied if virtuals were allowed again, but they have not address who would decide what is "wow". Without a a clear definition that could be applied by reviewers of what a virtual cache is we'd have all the problems we had before. If you find Waymarking cluttered with too many lame waymarks you might get an idea of what used to get submitted for review.

 

With regards to some of the complaints about the Waymarking site. There are a number of good points. The lack of pocket queries and the lack of integration with geoaching to make it easier to load both geocaches and waymarks from selected categories in your gPS and do both activities together are things I agree should be addressed.

 

There are some other complaints that I don't find as compelling.

 

1. The Waymarking website is hard to navigate - I personally don't find it difficult to use at all. I like the way I can search for categories that I might find interesing and then seach for nearby waymarks in just these categories. Yes, you need to set it up the first time - not unlike setting up a PQ or instant notification on Geocaching.com I also personally like the design and overall look, though this is pretty much a matter of taste and I can understand that some people find it too cartoony.

 

2. Waymarks don't get visited as much a virtual caches - I believe there is a fairly significant group of geocacher that are motivated by the find count statistic. They will hunt any cache that gives them a smiley. Virtual caches are for the most part easy park and grabs. Even the ones not in urban areas tend to be at a road side stop with a historic maker or a memorial to view. Like other easy caches they tend to get a lot of finds. Waymarking has developed som statistic motivation as well. However the emphasis here seems to be on listing/visiting waymarks in many different categories. Waymarking has also attracted people who are just looking for pictures or other information about a waymarked object. They may not be interested in physically visiting the waymark. Even if they do physically visit, they may not feel the need to log online about it.

 

3. The same waymark can be listed in multiple categories - I see this as a strength of Waymarking. Someone interested in old churches can find the waymark under old church, someone else can find it on Registry of Historic Buildings, someone as an underground railway stop. The more categories the more people will find this spot. There could be some better linkage of these separate listing so if you find on you could check the information on logs on the others. Some geocachers get a bit upset that you can log a visit in each of the categories and that waymark listers get credit for each category they list something in. This is due the the geocaching purist idea of on smiley per GC number and with geocachers being used to the 528 foot staturation guideline. Most waymarkers are not the least bit bothered by the multiple credit for visit one place. In fact trying to list the waymark in as many categories as possible (or logging your visit in as many categories as possible) is taken as a challenge that motivates some waymarkers.

 

4. Category managers don't do as good of a job as reviewers - This may be a problem in some categories. Certainly there are times a submission sits in a review queue because none of the officers has taken a look. Usually, if a cache reviewer can't get to his review queue other reviewers will help out - this doesn't always happen with waymark review. Sometimes you get a category officer who becomes a stickeler for grammar or other issue that may or may not be covered in the category requirements and will turn down waymarks that probably should be listed, but this seem to be rare. There are appeals processes and ways to get category officers who aren't doing their job removed. These issues are routinely discussed in the Waymarking forums.

[+simpjkee]

 

A virtual located at the same location has 18 visits. Now lets subtract armchair visits to this waymark. Logs with no photos 8 (which is a requirement to log it according to the description), one from 1954? come on.......

 

 

In the case of the Waymark you linked, the location has existed for over a hundred years! People have been visiting the area and meeting the requirements of the Waymark for over a hundred years. However, a Waymark listing for the location wasn't published until 200?. Why wouldn't it be acceptable for someone, who has fulfilled the requirements, to log a visit and backdate it to when they visited? It is acceptable. It may be looked at (by some) as bad form, but it is acceptable. Personally, I kinda think it is bad form. I went on vacation to Washington D.C. in 1994. If I wanted, I'm sure I could dig up a photo of myself at the monuments to verify my visit, but I made the personal decision to only log a visit on Waymarks that I visited after I signed up on Waymarking.com.......

 

This has been debated at length elsewhere early in the Waymarking forums at the bottom of this forum.

 

Visiting prior to the creation of a waymark is fine in my opinion (though I haven't done so myself).

 

That said, I actually encourage "retro-visits" to my waymarks. Unlike geocaches which have a start point when listed on geocaching.com, a waymarks start point is not when the coordinates are published. There is a whole history of the location that occurred before the location was published as a waymark.

 

Lets say there is a waymark for some feature of the Seattle World Fair in the 1960's. The feature was waymarked in 200? but XYZ was there . If they have a story or photos of their visit I would love to see them.

 

One waymark I remember seeing but can't find features a location that has a changing of the guard. A retro-visit dating to the 90's on that waymark is from a soldier (including pictures) who actually served at that location. A great and appropriate retro-visit in my way of thinking.

 

Anyhow I don't think an artificial published date for the start of a waymark should be applied to something that has a history beyond that published date nor do I feel it is bad form for someone to post a visit if they actually visited the location.

 

Edit to add:

Oh yes. here is an item of interest. Waymarks can be visited more than once. I can post as many visits to a waymark as I want.

 

Don't worry though. The visit count doesn't go up with additional visits. It only reflects the first one in the visit count unlike the multiple finds on one cache that cause consternation here on occasion.

 

I see. Thanks for that perspective. Never thought about some retro visits like the ones you describe.

 

I think though that the start point for a geocache would be the moment it was placed by the owner, not when it was published on gc.com. Of course 99% of the time, the geocache is placed and then published within hours or days.

[+simpjkee]

I'm still not seeing any ideas from the bring back virtuals crowd on how they would address the problems that existed when virtuals could be submitted to Geoaching.com.

 

Thats because there are no ideas.

 

Let them spout "bring back virtuals, Waymarking sucks", till they are blue in the face if thats what they want to do. The simple fact is that virtuals are gone and they're never coming back. NEVER. The "virtual crowd" would be much better off realizing this and instead, putting forth ideas on how to make Waymarking better, which I think they are doing.

[+simpjkee]

The only reason I'm even remotely interested in Waymarking is because Groundspeak insists it's the "replacement" for a cache type I like. As long as the user interface remains horrible and it's not integrated with Geocaching.com and doesn't have PQs, they can stuff it. I'm not wasting my time wading through that mess. If it's really a replacement, it should have been designed to reflect that.

 

Yeah!!!! Stuff it Groundspeak!!!

[+narcissa]

I'm still not seeing any ideas from the bring back virtuals crowd on how they would address the problems that existed when virtuals could be submitted to Geoaching.com.

 

***cut wall of text***

 

This is a very long thread, so it's understandable that you might have missed the several very clear suggestions on ways that Waymarking.com could be improved and integrated with Geocaching.com in a manner that would likely please most virtual geocache fans without bringing virtual geocaches and the problems that go with them back to Geocaching.com.

 

Unfortunately, threads like this tend to attract trolls intent on derailing productive discussion, which is too bad. I've seen some very good ideas from Waymarkers and virtual geocache fans here and it's unfortunate that the thread is doomed to disintegrate into nonsense because some users are so intent on creating chaos.

[+cx1]

 

 

2. Waymarks don't get visited as much a virtual caches - I believe there is a fairly significant group of geocacher that are motivated by the find count statistic. They will hunt any cache that gives them a smiley. Virtual caches are for the most part easy park and grabs. Even the ones not in urban areas tend to be at a road side stop with a historic maker or a memorial to view. Like other easy caches they tend to get a lot of finds. Waymarking has developed som statistic motivation as well. However the emphasis here seems to be on listing/visiting waymarks in many different categories. Waymarking has also attracted people who are just looking for pictures or other information about a waymarked object. They may not be interested in physically visiting the waymark. Even if they do physically visit, they may not feel the need to log online about it.

 

3. The same waymark can be listed in multiple categories - I see this as a strength of Waymarking.

 

I see this as a major flaw. You end up with a person posting the same place in several different categories just to get their listing numbers up. So you get tons of waypoints in an area but all going to the same place.

 

Not directed at quoted poster necessarily but people fret over arm-chair caching on Virtual caches, but can't you pretty much log all Waypoints without going to the place? I logged one today just to see.

 

Give up on the argument that eliminating Virtual caches can open areas up to Traditional ones. As long as Earthcaches are an option that argument is full of fail.

 

Ideas for bringing Virtual caches back....

 

Make them for Premium Members only, doesn't hurt to add another perk to get people to pay.

 

Only allow 1 Virtual cache placement per account per year. That would pretty much eliminate the possible Virtual power-trail possibility.

 

Give up on the Wow factor. If someone wants to use their Virtual to get people to go see something lame (to you) so what? Someone else may find it neat or at least a nice change from the typical LPC or ammo box under the sticks full of junk. I would hunt for a boot in the forest to see if it was the left or right and have more fun doing it then hunting the micro in the bush in the forest. Plus with only getting one per year most people wouldn't 'waste' their Virtual on a lame place.

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

 

Not directed at quoted poster necessarily but people fret over arm-chair caching on Virtual caches, but can't you pretty much log all Waypoints without going to the place? I logged one today just to see.

 

 

In general we frown on armchair visits as much at Waymarking.com as we do here on geocaching.com. When someone has a pattern of fake logs, eventually someone will report it and that user will have finds deleted.

 

the visit requirements are set by the people who created the category to start with. It is up to the waymark owner to police his own listings. Some are rigid some not. I know of one waymarker that creates additional requirements for each of their waymarks that go beyond the category requirements. That user is very strict about visits to their waymarks and will delete visits quickly. I am more lenient. As long as a visitor doesn't leave the equivalent to a TNLN type log I lean toward just leaving it alone, but I have deleted visits.

 

Edit to add:

 

I just checked out the visit you made. That category doesn't list any additional visit requirements. If I got your visit on one of my waymarks I would let it stand as you wrote it. Since you said you visited it I would take you at your word. Are you saying here that you didn't actually ever visit it?

Edited April 9, 2010 by TheBeanTeam

[+Vater_Araignee]

I'm still not seeing any ideas from the bring back virtuals crowd on how they would address the problems that existed when virtuals could be submitted to Geoaching.com.

 

***cut wall of text***

 

This is a very long thread, so it's understandable that you might have missed the several very clear suggestions on ways that Waymarking.com could be improved and integrated with Geocaching.com in a manner that would likely please most virtual geocache fans without bringing virtual geocaches and the problems that go with them back to Geocaching.com.

 

Unfortunately, threads like this tend to attract trolls intent on derailing productive discussion, which is too bad. I've seen some very good ideas from Waymarkers and virtual geocache fans here and it's unfortunate that the thread is doomed to disintegrate into nonsense because some users are so intent on creating chaos.

I've seen some good ideas from fans of neither

 

[+tozainamboku]

Unfortunately, threads like this tend to attract trolls intent on derailing productive discussion, which is too bad. I've seen some very good ideas from Waymarkers and virtual geocache fans here and it's unfortunate that the thread is doomed to disintegrate into nonsense because some users are so intent on creating chaos.

I'm not sure who you are calling a troll. In my "wall of text" I agreed with some of you comments on Waymarking. I then pointed out where I disagree with some of the yours and other's complaints as I see those features as benefiting Waymarking. I've always agreed that a generic waymark is not the same as a virtual cache. I see virtual caches as having some specific attributes that make them more cache-like that a generic waymark. I've pointed to my efforts to develop categories within Waymarking to support these concepts. I've not see any realistic suggestions for bringing back virtuals on geoaching.com that address the issues that lead TPTB to move them in the first place.

 

Good day. I'm crawling back under my bridge.

[+narcissa]

 

I'm not sure who you are calling a troll.

 

I wasn't referring to you.

[+BruceS]

 

 

2. Waymarks don't get visited as much a virtual caches - I believe there is a fairly significant group of geocacher that are motivated by the find count statistic. They will hunt any cache that gives them a smiley. Virtual caches are for the most part easy park and grabs. Even the ones not in urban areas tend to be at a road side stop with a historic maker or a memorial to view. Like other easy caches they tend to get a lot of finds. Waymarking has developed som statistic motivation as well. However the emphasis here seems to be on listing/visiting waymarks in many different categories. Waymarking has also attracted people who are just looking for pictures or other information about a waymarked object. They may not be interested in physically visiting the waymark. Even if they do physically visit, they may not feel the need to log online about it.

 

3. The same waymark can be listed in multiple categories - I see this as a strength of Waymarking.

 

I see this as a major flaw. You end up with a person posting the same place in several different categories just to get their listing numbers up. So you get tons of waypoints in an area but all going to the same place.

 

 

I think you are not understanding what was being said in the bold text. The submitting in many different categories has to do with filling the grid. This is more scavenger hunt side of Waymarking.

 

Cross-posting of a location is also part of Waymarking and I also see this as a strength of Waymarking just as tozainamboku, it really has little to do with the numbers. I do considerable cross-posting however if I was interested in numbers I would post waymarks in the "easy" categories, it sure would not be in the National Register, American Guide and other history and architecture categories which often require more research to post.

[+simpjkee]

I'm still not seeing any ideas from the bring back virtuals crowd on how they would address the problems that existed when virtuals could be submitted to Geoaching.com.

 

***cut wall of text***

Unfortunately, threads like this tend to attract trolls intent on derailing productive discussion, which is too bad. I've seen some very good ideas from Waymarkers and virtual geocache fans here and it's unfortunate that the thread is doomed to disintegrate into nonsense because some users are so intent on creating chaos.

 

Seriously!

 

I want to engage in productive discussion like: 'The interface sucks', 'Community moderation is tyrannical', and 'Groundspeak can shove it'!

[+simpjkee]

Unfortunately, threads like this tend to attract trolls intent on derailing productive discussion, which is too bad. I've seen some very good ideas from Waymarkers and virtual geocache fans here and it's unfortunate that the thread is doomed to disintegrate into nonsense because some users are so intent on creating chaos.

I'm not sure who you are calling a troll.

 

I'm pretty sure she's referring to me Toz.

[+simpjkee]

So, I took a look at some of the links you provided. Now they are more comparable to the original virtual I posted. Unfortunately most have been found by the same people. So the war memorial has fallen into multiple categories and people who visited once racked up a bunch of waymarks for one location. I am on vacation so I have taken time to compile the data;

 

WM3XR9

 

Visites - 16 (not even going to bother not counting non-photographed / logging before the waymark was published)

 

WM6GJX

 

Visits - 4 # duplicate visits ie visited other war memorial waymarks - 2 (50%)

 

WM332

 

Visits - 28 # duplicate visits - 10 (35%)

 

WM1B0K

 

Visits - 34 # duplicate visits - 17 (%50)

 

4 waymarks total aggravated visits 54 (not including those that didn't meet requirements) now a lot of the logs date back as far as when the virtual was created. So 2300+ geocache visits to 54 unique visits. Now I understand that lots of logs doesn't mean quality as seen here a great cache that me and my friend are the only ones to visit in 3 years 10 months and 17 days as of post. Thats why these waymark/cache is a good example people are visiting here anyway at least 2300+ but cant be bother to log the waymark of the same location.

 

Not providing a photo/logging before the waymark was submitted could be argued to death but it comes down to two things;

 

Does the waymark owner care? If they see it as legit then its their call.

 

People will play the game how they feel like.

 

Now all that being said - One two things I like about the Waymarking links I looked at are;

 

Page views, which allows one to see how many people actual manage to navigate to your page.

 

User rating, I dont know how well it would work for geocaches, but I do like fact that you can voice your opinion about the waymark. This is a good idea since we are a user policed community.

 

I should have clarified more to what I wanted for intergeneration in geocaching; when I do a search I want to be able to select geocache, waymark or both. Wherigo, Earthcaches each have separate websites, but are integrated into geocaches searches. Now I also don't want 900 different icons to show up on my google map when I search. Just a WM logo would do. Then I could hover over the icon and see a brief description. You would also need pre-search filter (located under my account) so you could deselct any catergoy you wan to ignore *cough* McDonalds */cough*

 

As far a counting stats just make a separate tab on your profile to keep track of waymarks and the different icons.

 

The only issue that I see with complete integration is that since we can only see 500 geocaches on a map it could drastically narrow the area you could search unless they up the limit.

 

Well that enough for now. Awaiting a reply. Until then back to the shadows

 

I'm thinking that the argument that there are more geocache virtual finds than Waymarking visits only shows that Waymarking is not as popular as geocaching. I don't think anyone can debate that fact. I don't think that the argument suggests that Waymarking is fail.

 

I really like the page views as well. I'm not sure why that have that in Waymarking and not in Geocaching, but it is a feature I like. Maybe the more experienced Waymarkers here can shed some light on that.

 

I like the rating system as well. Another thing Waymarking has that geocaching doesn't. Maybe some of the more experienced Waymarkers can shed some light on why that is. Personally, I think there is one inherent flaw with it though. The ratings are public. Whenever looking at a rating, I would knock one star off just because the rater is probably gunna overrate the waymark so as not to look like a jerk or whatever by giving a low rating. I think the rating system should be a system where raters can rate the waymark and then on the waymark page it shows am average rating. Hover over the rating to see how many votes per star. Like 4 people voted 2 stars, 2 people voted 3 stars, etc. When you put the rating right next to peoples names, the ratings are bound to be skewed.

 

I like where you're going with the integration idea. I kinda see it the same way you do. I would have a centralized GS website/profile. The profile would have a tab for geocaches, a tab for benchmarks, a tab for trackables, a tab for waymarks, and a tab for gallery images. Maybe the user could even set up their profile to be primarily for geocaching, primarily for Waymarking, or both. Then some way you could search a map for waymarks, geocaches, etc. Then if you wanted to filter out one or the other you should be able to do that. However, I think some seperation is good so that geocacher wouldn't have to deal with Waymarks if they don't want and vice versa. I don't know the mechanics of it, but I really really hope that Groundspeak is considering and/or working on something like this.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...I believe there is a fairly significant group of geocacher that are motivated by the find count statistic. They will hunt any cache that gives them a smiley.

Name some. One, even, who will admit that they cache for the smileys and don't care about the cache, who will admit they'll do most anything to drive up their stats.

 

I don't think you can. I am absolutely convinced that you can't identify enough to be statistically significant.

I am so sick of hearing this false allegation, that cachers are motivated by smileys.

 

I ask you folks who make these assertions to prove it or quit saying it.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Give up on the Wow factor. If someone wants to use their Virtual to get people to go see something lame (to you) so what?

 

I find it pretty hypocritical of Groundspeak to eliminate Virtuals because they couldn't quantify "Wow", yet every hide-a-key in a guardrail gets published if it meets the guidelines. If (and it's a big if) Groundspeak were to entertain the idea of bringing back Virtuals, I would rather see the Wow factor applied to all cache types over giving up on it. Of course, that would never happen.

 

I'm not against Waymarks or pro Virtuals. If Groundspeak wants Waymarking.com to be the place to go for our virtual cache needs, then put the tools into the site to make it so. Not having a PQ system in place is a big drawback. If I could filter out the gas station waymarks and Walmart waymarks and focus on things that appeal to me, such as historic sites or churches or waterfalls or rivers, etc...that would go a long way towards making Waymarking.com appealing to me. I'm not going to sift through pages of waymarks that I'll never visit to find the one or two that I might.

[+BruceS]

 

I'm not against Waymarks or pro Virtuals. If Groundspeak wants Waymarking.com to be the place to go for our virtual cache needs, then put the tools into the site to make it so. Not having a PQ system in place is a big drawback. If I could filter out the gas station waymarks and Walmart waymarks and focus on things that appeal to me, such as historic sites or churches or waterfalls or rivers, etc...that would go a long way towards making Waymarking.com appealing to me. I'm not going to sift through pages of waymarks that I'll never visit to find the one or two that I might.

 

It is quite easy to filter out all those type of waymarks you are not interested in. You can ignore (click the thumbs down icon) on individual categories or on whole departments of categories. The other way is do a search from a location and then click the category + and the pick the departments/categories you want to display. The links below are filtered lists of waymarks centered on your first placed cache.

 

History and Buildings

Edited April 10, 2010 by BruceS

[Dinoprophet]

...I believe there is a fairly significant group of geocacher that are motivated by the find count statistic. They will hunt any cache that gives them a smiley.

Name some. One, even, who will admit that they cache for the smileys and don't care about the cache, who will admit they'll do most anything to drive up their stats.

 

I don't think you can. I am absolutely convinced that you can't identify enough to be statistically significant.

I am so sick of hearing this false allegation, that cachers are motivated by smileys.

 

I ask you folks who make these assertions to prove it or quit saying it.

While I agree the number is insignificant, I know I've seen people admit it here in the forums. If I'd cared enough to remember their names, I'd dig those posts up for you.

 

I see this as a major flaw. You end up with a person posting the same place in several different categories just to get their listing numbers up. So you get tons of waypoints in an area but all going to the same place.

 

Not directed at quoted poster necessarily but people fret over arm-chair caching on Virtual caches, but can't you pretty much log all Waypoints without going to the place? I logged one today just to see.

You're making the very same assumption that TAR is denouncing above. You've decided waymarkers are motivated by their counts. In my experience, that's even less true of Waymarking than it is of geocaching. For most waymarkers, the motivation is sharing information, and as much of it as possible. There's no reason to get all skeeved out by someone visiting their own waymark, or someone visiting more than once, or postdating a visit from before GPS existed. It all adds to the information collected there, and that's the collective goal of the site.

 

There's also the fact that category owners like to see their category expanded. So posting to as many valid categories as you can is helping out other people. I love getting complimentary notes on my approvals because I know the category owner enjoyed my contribution.

 

By the way, despite my avid defense of the activity of Waymarking, I don't claim it is exactly the same as virtuals. (I do claim is vastly superior to locationless caches, but that's not the subject here). I fully acknowledge that they are quite a bit different in execution.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+wildflower60]

I agree with a previous post that suggests that the weekly newsletter should ask the question if virtuals should return or not and to vote yes or no. I enjoy finding all the kinds of caches, even virtuals. I like the communication between the "owner" of the virtual cache and the cacher trying to figure out the answer to a question or whatever. I've had some nice conversations via e-mail with other cachers in my area that I wouldn't have had if it weren't for a virtual cache. I would love for virtuals to be allowed again.

[+narcissa]

I'm still not seeing any ideas from the bring back virtuals crowd on how they would address the problems that existed when virtuals could be submitted to Geoaching.com.

 

***cut wall of text***

Unfortunately, threads like this tend to attract trolls intent on derailing productive discussion, which is too bad. I've seen some very good ideas from Waymarkers and virtual geocache fans here and it's unfortunate that the thread is doomed to disintegrate into nonsense because some users are so intent on creating chaos.

 

Seriously!

 

I want to engage in productive discussion like: 'The interface sucks', 'Community moderation is tyrannical', and 'Groundspeak can shove it'!

 

There's a big difference between actively derailing the thread with personal jabs, and speaking vehemently about the subject at hand. The Waymarking interface does suck. It's cluttered, hard to read, not intuitive, and lacks many of the features that Geocaching.com does. Groundspeak insists that it's a "replacement" for some cache types, but it's too different and not integrated enough with Geocaching.com to support that claim. I've seen several people claim that the moderation at Waymarking.com is needlessly strict, which is a major deterrent for new users trying to get involved. It is extremely frustrating that Groundspeak continues to insist that we use Waymarking for something that we used to be able to do on GC.com, when the site simply doesn't do what it needs to.

 

If you like Waymarking or whatever, fine, but it's ridiculous to interpret complaints about a website as an attack on you and then respond in kind by attacking me instead of my arguments. Clearly, people still have things to say about this issue or it wouldn't keep coming up.

[+Ambrosia]

I know that it's not exactly the same as having an integrated profile with different tabs, etc. as has been discussed here. But technically, Geocaching and Waymarking are just links off of one main site.

 

The main site is www.Groundspeak.com. From there, you can click on links to Geocaching, Waymarking, Wherigo, and CITO. Also, there are multiple links to things like the Geocaching forums, Groundspeak store, the Knowlege Books, About Groundspeak, etc.

 

It's a shift from the thinking that Geocaching is the main site, to Geocaching being just parts of a whole, ie "Groundspeak".

[Clan Riffster]

Let them spout "bring back virtuals, Waymarking sucks"

What about those of us wanting to shout, "Keep Virts Dead. P.s; Waymarking Also Sucks!"?

[+simpjkee]

I'm still not seeing any ideas from the bring back virtuals crowd on how they would address the problems that existed when virtuals could be submitted to Geoaching.com.

 

***cut wall of text***

Unfortunately, threads like this tend to attract trolls intent on derailing productive discussion, which is too bad. I've seen some very good ideas from Waymarkers and virtual geocache fans here and it's unfortunate that the thread is doomed to disintegrate into nonsense because some users are so intent on creating chaos.

 

Seriously!

 

I want to engage in productive discussion like: 'The interface sucks', 'Community moderation is tyrannical', and 'Groundspeak can shove it'!

 

There's a big difference between actively derailing the thread with personal jabs, and speaking vehemently about the subject at hand. The Waymarking interface does suck. It's cluttered, hard to read, not intuitive, and lacks many of the features that Geocaching.com does. Groundspeak insists that it's a "replacement" for some cache types, but it's too different and not integrated enough with Geocaching.com to support that claim. I've seen several people claim that the moderation at Waymarking.com is needlessly strict, which is a major deterrent for new users trying to get involved. It is extremely frustrating that Groundspeak continues to insist that we use Waymarking for something that we used to be able to do on GC.com, when the site simply doesn't do what it needs to.

 

If you like Waymarking or whatever, fine, but it's ridiculous to interpret complaints about a website as an attack on you and then respond in kind by attacking me instead of my arguments. Clearly, people still have things to say about this issue or it wouldn't keep coming up.

 

I don't feel attacked. I jab you because you're posts are funny.

 

So, uh, your comment about community moderators being tyrannical is based on what you've "seen several people claim". Can you elaborate on that for me? Are any of your opinions based on your own experience or do you just regurgitate the claims of other people?

 

....and please respond vehemently. Your posts are funnier that way.

[+simpjkee]

I know that it's not exactly the same as having an integrated profile with different tabs, etc. as has been discussed here. But technically, Geocaching and Waymarking are just links off of one main site.

 

The main site is www.Groundspeak.com. From there, you can click on links to Geocaching, Waymarking, Wherigo, and CITO. Also, there are multiple links to things like the Geocaching forums, Groundspeak store, the Knowlege Books, About Groundspeak, etc.

 

It's a shift from the thinking that Geocaching is the main site, to Geocaching being just parts of a whole, ie "Groundspeak".

 

Exactly!

 

I'm not sure how I'd prove it, TAR, but I'm sure there are people who like the concept, but refuse Waymarking and campaign for bringing back virtuals to geocaching, because they want the smiley. They want some sort of recognition or 'credit' for being at the location. The reality is that right now Waymarking 'credit' doesn't hold a lot of value, while geocaching 'credit' holds a ton. It would be interesting if people shifted their thinking and realized that you do get credit for visiting the location. It's not geocaching credit, it's Waymarking credit. But it's ALL Groundspeak credit. I think a centralized profile with info from all GS sites would accomplish that.

[+narcissa]

It's not geocaching credit, it's Waymarking credit. But it's ALL Groundspeak credit. I think a centralized profile with info from all GS sites would accomplish that.

 

This, plus integrated pocket queries. And a cleaner, easier-to-navigate site.

 

I like virtuals because they take me to cool things. Theoretically then, I should also like Waymarking. A few smart changes to it, and I probably would.

[+Ambrosia]

I'm pretty sure I remember a while ago, Groundspeak saying that they planned on making pocket queries available for Waymarking. Not sure when, though, hopefully soon.

[+simpjkee]

Theres no chance. Virts died like 5 years ago. Live in the now.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Theres no chance. Virts died like 5 years ago. Live in the now.

I do. Living in the now is why something decided 5 years ago may not be relevant today.

 

You can't effect change if you don't ask for it, and you can't credibly ask for it unless you have some facts to work with, thus the poll.

[+simpjkee]

Theres no chance. Virts died like 5 years ago. Live in the now.

I do. Living in the now is why something decided 5 years ago may not be relevant today.

 

You can't effect change if you don't ask for it, and you can't credibly ask for it unless you have some facts to work with, thus the poll.

 

you should start a new thread based on the poll and reset the poll to see the results now that ya got the one vote per user checker on it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Theres no chance. Virts died like 5 years ago. Live in the now.

I do. Living in the now is why something decided 5 years ago may not be relevant today.

 

You can't effect change if you don't ask for it, and you can't credibly ask for it unless you have some facts to work with, thus the poll.

 

you should start a new thread based on the poll and reset the poll to see the results now that ya got the one vote per user checker on it.

Probably, but I have two issues...

 

First, If we can't get a positive majority vote in a thread dedicated to bringing back virts I don't think we would fare any better in another thread.

 

and

 

I doubt the Mods are interested in having yet another thread about virts! Since polls are not allowed I'm actually kind of surprised that this one hasn't been shut down.

 

Oh, and thirdly, I figure anyone who cares one way or another about virts is reading this thread.

Edited April 12, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+BruceS]

 

First, If we can't get a positive majority vote in a thread dedicated to bringing back virts I don't think we would fare any better in another thread.

 

 

If you have lines like your above it further corrupts the results of the poll anyway. You have already admitted your results are skewed and which way you don't know. Why try to skew them in the direction you want when the vote doesn't look like its going your way?

[Dinoprophet]

Theres no chance. Virts died like 5 years ago. Live in the now.

I do. Living in the now is why something decided 5 years ago may not be relevant today.

 

You can't effect change if you don't ask for it, and you can't credibly ask for it unless you have some facts to work with, thus the poll.

 

you should start a new thread based on the poll and reset the poll to see the results now that ya got the one vote per user checker on it.

Probably, but I have two issues...

 

First, If we can't get a positive majority vote in a thread dedicated to bringing back virts I don't think we would fare any better in another thread.

 

and

 

I doubt the Mods are interested in having yet another thread about virts! Since polls are not allowed I'm actually kind of surprised that this one hasn't been shut down.

 

Oh, and thirdly, I figure anyone who cares one way or another about virts is reading this thread.

But right now you're only getting the opinion of people who are masochistic enough to read enough of yet another a five page thread on virtuals that they happen to catch the one post somewhere in the middle that links to the poll.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Otay, I will try starting a new thread, we'll see what happens.

[+TheBeanTeam]

I'm pretty sure I remember a while ago, Groundspeak saying that they planned on making pocket queries available for Waymarking. Not sure when, though, hopefully soon.

 

Personally I don't think PQ integration will help much. In fact I foresee complaints about them.

 

Why? because there are so many waymarks that just won't appeal to geocachers in general that will show up in the PQ and clutter their results. Rather than take the time to filter what they are interested in, I think most will give up on a Waymarking PQ because it will be inconvenient to include. I hope I am wrong.

[Clan Riffster]

I have to preface this by explaining I am a computer idiot:

If TPTB could come up with a PQ that was category specific, I think it would work.

I could set my PQ to limit results to only those categories that appeal to me.

I don't know if this is even possible, but it sure sounds good in theory.

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm pretty sure I remember a while ago, Groundspeak saying that they planned on making pocket queries available for Waymarking. Not sure when, though, hopefully soon.

 

Personally I don't think PQ integration will help much. In fact I foresee complaints about them.

 

Why? because there are so many waymarks that just won't appeal to geocachers in general that will show up in the PQ and clutter their results. Rather than take the time to filter what they are interested in, I think most will give up on a Waymarking PQ because it will be inconvenient to include. I hope I am wrong.

 

Give me the PQ and let me worry about the sorting. It took me a while, but I settled on a sort criteria for caches. I'm sure I could do the same for Waymarks.

[+TheBeanTeam]

I'm pretty sure I remember a while ago, Groundspeak saying that they planned on making pocket queries available for Waymarking. Not sure when, though, hopefully soon.

 

Personally I don't think PQ integration will help much. In fact I foresee complaints about them.

 

Why? because there are so many waymarks that just won't appeal to geocachers in general that will show up in the PQ and clutter their results. Rather than take the time to filter what they are interested in, I think most will give up on a Waymarking PQ because it will be inconvenient to include. I hope I am wrong.

 

Give me the PQ and let me worry about the sorting. It took me a while, but I settled on a sort criteria for caches. I'm sure I could do the same for Waymarks.

 

I have no problems sorting either but I don't think that just by adding PQ's to Waymarking there will be a sudden acceptance of them. Integration of the profiles would go much further to foster acceptance than PQ's I think.

 

Don't get me wrong. I would love a PQ feature because what we currently have is nearly useless. Loc. file downloads and the GPX lite files are better than nothing but on a trip south I found out that without the information of a true GPX file, the downloads are shall I say.....lacking.

[+narcissa]

If TPTB could come up with a PQ that was category specific, I think it would work.

I could set my PQ to limit results to only those categories that appeal to me.

I don't know if this is even possible, but it sure sounds good in theory.

 

IAWTC.

[+Taoiseach]

Theres no chance. Virts died like 5 years ago. Live in the now.

I do. Living in the now is why something decided 5 years ago may not be relevant today.

 

You can't effect change if you don't ask for it, and you can't credibly ask for it unless you have some facts to work with, thus the poll.

 

you should start a new thread based on the poll and reset the poll to see the results now that ya got the one vote per user checker on it.

 

!

 

Add an extra 'Yes' in for me, as Narcissa and I count as one if it's based on IP address!

[+TheBeanTeam]

If TPTB could come up with a PQ that was category specific, I think it would work.

I could set my PQ to limit results to only those categories that appeal to me.

I don't know if this is even possible, but it sure sounds good in theory.

 

IAWTC.

 

In theory yes. With the filters already set in place using the search engine it should be able to return the PQ results you want. How many are willing to sort through the 900+ categories to find what they want. That remains to be seen and why I think it has the potential for further complaints.

 

I hope I am wrong, but I don't see the PQ as being the big fix that many seem to envision.

 

Up until recently the focus appeared to be the creation categories and waymarks to build a visitable database. Waymark creation has seen many updates over the past years/months that has focused on improving that experience. Since that is my primary interest in Waymarking I am thankful for that.

The many calls for PQ's here and at the Groundspeak Portal seems to indicate that the tide is turning and people are now calling for a valid and easy way to visit the locations.

[+Semper Questio]

If TPTB could come up with a PQ that was category specific, I think it would work.

I could set my PQ to limit results to only those categories that appeal to me.

I don't know if this is even possible, but it sure sounds good in theory.

 

IAWTC.

 

In theory yes. With the filters already set in place using the search engine it should be able to return the PQ results you want. How many are willing to sort through the 900+ categories to find what they want. That remains to be seen and why I think it has the potential for further complaints.

 

{snip}

 

 

Perhaps they could implement a waymark selection by category keyword.

 

Instead of fighting through 900+ categories trying to decide what to include or ignore, just have a block where folks could enter keywords such as "cemetery", "historic marker", "statue", etc. that would be used to search against category names.

 

When we are out and about we like to visit cemeteries so I'd look for all waymarks within nn miles of specified coords in any category with the words "cemetery" or "cemeteries" in the title.

[+chaosmanor]

And as always the conversation devolves into petty bickering, assuring that we'll never be able to make a concerted case.

Which is one reason why I so rarely visit the fora, anymore. A thread such as this, with four pages of mostly repetitious arguments doesn't accomplish much. The original topic has been lost in a sea of ramblings.

 

Having said that...

 

We love virtuals, and we also set up waymarks in a few categories, although we have to agree that the site leaves a tremendous amount to be desired, as far as ease of use and the search function are concerned. We prefer caches on hikes but will not generally turn up our noses at an LPC if we can get it without drawing attention to ourselves. We also love puzzle caches, and multis and hybrids. And we'd love to see the locationless cache category brought back; like *that* will ever happen

[+swizzle]

I would like to see virtuals come back myself for a rather simple reason. I went through the time and effort to hunt down and waymark over 250 items of interest. Most of which I did some fairly extensive research on. On the other hand I have about 37 or 38 active geocaches at this point in time. Every weekend I get several nice logs from my geocaches and I've received a total of 2 visits on my waymarks. There's just not many people involved in Waymarking and to set up these waymarks to bring people to something interesting seems like a big waste of time to me. I can get more hits on a good cache on a weekend then my most visited waymark all year long. The only good thing about a waymark is the fact that you can place them in more places and practically on top of one another. They just don't get visited much because the real audience is here on the geocaching site. Out of all the waymarks I've created I've only visited 1. Why you might ask? Geocaching is more fun and more interactive. You have a container for trackables that you can send on missions. If your a numbers hunter then you love to see your smiley count pile up. You can track all the coins and trackables that you've ever found and a waymark is well its there. You drive up and 9 times out of 10 its right there. No thrill of the hunt, nothing telling you to do this and that as an extra logging requirement so that you learn about a place. You find the waymark, take a pic and post it on the site. TFTW woohoo!! So in my honest opinion Vituals should come back or to make them more visitable then create a special icon that transcends the 2 sites and allows you to get an extra smiley for each waymark visited. It will still never be as popular as geocaching but that little digit for each one would boost a lot more interest in Waymarking. Swiz

[Clan Riffster]

I hope I am wrong, but I don't see the PQ as being the big fix that many seem to envision.

I don't think you're wrong. I believe that, if TPTB were to create a PQ feature for WMs, that would be a start to improving their popularity, but they shouldn't stop there. Other steps have been proposed, which I also agree with, such as directly linking your GC find count with your WM visit count, so all your eggs are in one basket, so to speak, as well as tidying up the stodgy website.

 

Those three things, combined, might work to bring a significant customer base to WM.

 

Maybe.

[+edscott]

TPTB have reversed decisions in the past when there was an overwhelming outcry from the community. Other than the monthly thread on this subject, usually posted by a newbie cache hider who didn't read the guidelines, I don't see an overwhelming outcry to bring back virtuals.

As far as I know the question was never asked, so we do not know if there is a large percentage of geocachers who would like to see virts listed again.

 

I belong to a lot of forums, and polls work in the vast majority, but not here. That makes me wonder if Groundspeak wants a mechanism for members to vote on topics such as this. I think not... it's much easier to make and enforce a decision when no one really knows how the membership overall thinks on this!

 

It's not a subject that comes up at events or when I'm out on group hunts. In fact I know a lot of geocchers who don't care for virtuals.

I'm quite sure there a lot of gerocachers who didn't like virts and were glad to see them go, but for a reasonable conversation we have to define "a lot". A poll would be a good way to do that.

 

I can tell you this... if I saw by member poll vote that the majority of geocachers want virts to remain waymarks then I would never say another word about them. However, I believe that the opposite is true and that a membership poll would reveal that most geocachers want them listed here.

 

As to it coming up outside of this forum, the desire to bring back virts is one of the very few forum topics that I DO hear regularly expressed in groups and at events.

 

What I would like to see is for Groundspeak to include two links in the weekly newsletter... for a sixty-day period ask the simple yes/no question:

 

Do you want virtual caches listed on geocaching.com?

Click here for yes, click here for no.

 

Each registered account gets one vote.

 

That way you get a straight-forward up or down vote from the membership and settle the question once and for all.

 

Shareholders get a vote.. customers don't.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

My thread Virtual Cache Redux which linked to an off-site poll has apparently just totally disappeared.

 

No warning, no note, no closed thread, nothing.

 

I guess that's about as definitive an answer as we we could want as to how Groundspeak feels about virts (and customers!)

[+sseegars]

deleted

Edited April 15, 2010 by Freekacher

[Keystone]

Hi TAR,

 

Please check your email, where I gave you instructions on how to have your thread restored once permission is received, as explained in the posted forum guidelines. Thanks!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Hi TAR,

 

Please check your email, where I gave you instructions on how to have your thread restored once permission is received, as explained in the posted forum guidelines. Thanks!

Thank you!

 

I couldn't figure it just disappearing. Nothing in email and no PM, so no telling where your note went, but I can imagine what it said; I was afraid from the get-go that it wouldn't be allowed even if the poll was off-site.

 

I will contact the Frog Palace and see if they will allow it to be reinstated.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

My thread Virtual Cache Redux which linked to an off-site poll has apparently just totally disappeared.

 

No warning, no note, no closed thread, nothing.

 

I guess that's about as definitive an answer as we we could want as to how Groundspeak feels about virts (and customers!)

My apologies to the Frog and his Lackeys, that was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Groundspeak et al has never treated me as a customer with anything less than respect.