Jump to content

This is why virtuals need to come back to GC.com


HaLiJuSaPa

Recommended Posts

If the wow factor is all there is to it, or the main argument at least, then it seems simple... it needs to be enforced across the board - ban LPC's, guardrail caches, and any other cache which is nothing more than taking you to a boring place to sign a log. Or bring back virtuals. Double standards are very difficult to support - unless you take the "This is what I'm doing and you have to live with it" approach, and I have never accepted this in my life, nor when I have children do I plan to use it - there's a reason for everything. What are we missing here?

The wow factor was an attempt to limit the number of virtuals. The issue was that before the Wow guideline, it was just too easy to hide virtual caches. All it took was for the hider to claim that the location was not suitable for a physical cache: too many muggles, unable to obtain permission for a physical cache, tried hiding physical cache but it keep going missing, etc. People seem to take the path of least resistance. Hiding a virtual was easier than hiding a physical, just as hiding a micro in a lamppost or guardrail is easier than hiding an ammo can (or even creating a camouflaged micro that can be hidden in plain sight). The "Wow" guideline was suggested as a way to make virtuals a little harder to hide and to promote physical caches as the primary type of cache for Geocaching.

 

Now it may be that microSpew will lead eventually to guidelines to make it harder to hide caches in lamppost and guardrails. A reviewer once told me that he would like to be able to ask for explicit permission for caches that appear to be in parking lots. But I think TPTB learnt from virtual caches that double standards are indeed hard to justify. Reviewers do not like them and they end up taking the heat when they approve one cache and have to reject a similar cache for not meeting the guidelines.

 

The biggest problem with virtual caches was actually exacerbated by the "Wow" requirement. It was that people were not using the virtual cache as a substitute for a physical cache in a location where a physical cache could not be placed. It was being used instead to share locations that someone felt was interesting or wow. Sure some people would place a cache at such a location to attract people. But many people had no interest in placing a physical cache they would have to maintain. Instead they placed virtuals even in locations that could support a physical cache or that could be waypoints in a multi-cache. TPTB developed Waymarking as a solution to sharing the GPS coordinates for interesting locations. Now if you have an interesting place you want to share with others you can: place a physical cache there, use the location as a waypoint in a multi, or list it as a waymark.

 

And yet after all of that, the experiment has failed.

Link to post

And yet after all of that, the experiment has failed.

One way to look at that comment is that the experiment with virtual caches on Geocaching.com failed. If Waymarking is also a failure it may be that the whole idea of sharing GPS coordinates of "interesting" locations is not all that compelling anyhow. Geocachers at least have something they can find at the places they go to, whether or not these locations are interesting in and of themselves.

 

I personally feel that within the Waymarking games department (now called multifarious) there is room for developing Waymarking categories that will feel more like virtual caches and could attract more visitors. But so long as geocachers let their prejudices against categories like McDonald's or Starbucks cloud their view of Waymarking, these categories are not getting developed. So, yes, Waymarking is a failure from the view of someone who wants more virtual caches; but the blame falls on the geocachers for not taking the opportunity to develop that site with games that do appeal to them.

Link to post

And yet after all of that, the experiment has failed.

One way to look at that comment is that the experiment with virtual caches on Geocaching.com failed. If Waymarking is also a failure it may be that the whole idea of sharing GPS coordinates of "interesting" locations is not all that compelling anyhow. Geocachers at least have something they can find at the places they go to, whether or not these locations are interesting in and of themselves.

 

I personally feel that within the Waymarking games department (now called multifarious) there is room for developing Waymarking categories that will feel more like virtual caches and could attract more visitors. But so long as geocachers let their prejudices against categories like McDonald's or Starbucks cloud their view of Waymarking, these categories are not getting developed. So, yes, Waymarking is a failure from the view of someone who wants more virtual caches; but the blame falls on the geocachers for not taking the opportunity to develop that site with games that do appeal to them.

 

True to form, it is always the user(messenger), always.

Link to post

Hmm, what is the problem set there an offset multicache with virtual stage at this spot and a box in some distance?? There will be virtual point for virtual-lovers, a box for orthodox geocachers, and everybody should be happy. What's the problem??? :anibad:

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...