GASP

3.4k · September 16, 2010

September 16, 2010

Interesting.. It will be nice to see what they come up with...

4.2k · September 16, 2010

Well, prom my poush.

1.7k · September 16, 2010

Thank you for doing the needful!

22k · September 16, 2010

Excuse me while I go out and throw my tennis-shoes over the power wires.

3.4k · September 16, 2010

I have a strong urge to perform a happy dance.

Certainly I am waiting with bated breath to see what form it takes.

I love virts and felt I really missed the boat when I never got around to doing any, with all the history around this place. I mean, I'm stepping in it every day and everywhere I go. I'd much rather a virtual than the ubiquitous film can hidden in a very inappropriate place.

2.1k · September 16, 2010

I have a strong urge to perform a happy dance.

Certainly I am waiting with bated breath to see what form it takes.

ZOMG!!! Someone who knows and uses the correct form of this idiom! I salute you!

Oh, and I'm happy to see virtuals coming back, too.

6.5k · September 16, 2010

If someone were to sneak a quick breath mint, or squirt of freshener in anticipation of a kiss or more, than perhaps 'baited' might be OK.

7.2k · September 16, 2010

I'm thinking May.

September 16, 2010

I personally do not think Jeremy's objective is possible. For one thing if I spent lots of time participating in Waymarking because I believed that virtuals would no longer be accepted as caches, I cannot imagine how I could not be upset by a change in policy. I know lots of waymarkers are upset by the lack of consistent support and upgrades to that site and I think this policy would make it even less likely that the site would be consistently supported.

I also would not expect any implimentation of this to happen soon and would hope that there are many other projects that would take priority. After all with the current limited voting method less than 200 people have supported it.

Team Taran

4.2k · September 16, 2010

I also would not expect any implementation of this to happen soon and would hope that there are many other projects that would take priority. After all with the current limited voting method less than 200 people have supported it.

Team Taran

It's not a vote. This isn't a democracy.

4.2k · September 16, 2010

I'm thinking May.

I'm thinking I might need to start "reserving" a few spots in anticipation...

September 16, 2010

Woot! Oh this will be such a welcome change if indeed they do decide to bring then back! I never saw what all the fuss was about in the first place. There are way more lame micros than lame virtuals. Never saw a virtual I didn't like.

8.3k · September 16, 2010

Hmmmmm, does this mean waymarks will now count on totals? Bleech.

6.7k · September 16, 2010

I also would not expect any implementation of this to happen soon and would hope that there are many other projects that would take priority. After all with the current limited voting method less than 200 people have supported it.

Team Taran

It's not a vote. This isn't a democracy.

Is it possible that you missed the reference to a past, er, situation?

6.7k · September 16, 2010

I'm thinking May.

And you think this why?

September 16, 2010

This seems cool. I've never found a Virtual. The closest one to me is 67 miles. I checked it out one time but didn't have enough time to gather the necessary info. I was with a group. :anicute: I'll get it one of these days.

Do the same rules apply that Virtuals have to be at least .1 miles from another cache or can they just go anywhere they like?

7.2k · September 16, 2010

I'm thinking May.

I'm thinking I might need to start "reserving" a few spots in anticipation...

I'm thinking May.

And you think this why?

I didn't say what year.*

:anicute:

* Old joke for the old timers. Way back when, the Waymarking site was said to be coming in "May". One "May" passed and I think another one did too. Eventually, Waymarking was born.

6.7k · September 16, 2010

I'm thinking May.

I'm thinking I might need to start "reserving" a few spots in anticipation...

I'm thinking May.

And you think this why?

I didn't say what year.*

* Old joke for the old timers. Way back when, the Waymarking site was said to be coming in "May". One "May" passed and I think another one did too. Eventually, Waymarking was born.

Oops. Forgot about that.

7.2k · September 16, 2010

Oops. Forgot about that.

Gotcha'! :anicute:

2.6k · September 16, 2010

This seems cool. I've never found a Virtual. The closest one to me is 67 miles. I checked it out one time but didn't have enough time to gather the necessary info. I was with a group. I'll get it one of these days.

Do the same rules apply that Virtuals have to be at least .1 miles from another cache or can they just go anywhere they like?

No rules apply yet. We have to wait and see what they come up with. Till then, they are still not allowed.

6.7k · September 16, 2010

Oops. Forgot about that.

Gotcha'!

Yeah, but the wound is not below the water line so I should survive.

4.2k · September 16, 2010

I also would not expect any implementation of this to happen soon and would hope that there are many other projects that would take priority. After all with the current limited voting method less than 200 people have supported it.

Team Taran

It's not a vote. This isn't a democracy.

Is it possible that you missed the reference to a past, er, situation?

D'oh! Well played, Team Taran. My bad.

6.7k · September 16, 2010

I also would not expect any implementation of this to happen soon and would hope that there are many other projects that would take priority. After all with the current limited voting method less than 200 people have supported it.

Team Taran

It's not a vote. This isn't a democracy.

Is it possible that you missed the reference to a past, er, situation?

D'oh! Well played, Team Taran. My bad.

Don't feel bad. I got had to.

Edited September 16, 2010 by GOF & Bacall

2.3k · September 16, 2010

I can't wait to see the rules or how they are going to enforce something that is undoubtedly going to subjective like WOW factor. But I hope they incorporate a wow factor.

3.4k · September 16, 2010

GC2VIRT Decision Point

This is where Signal was when the decision came down to bring back Virtual Caches.

The historic spot can be identified by a small, round hole in the ceiling. To claim this

find, write to me describing where in the establishment the hole can be found.

4.2k · September 16, 2010

GC2VIRT Decision Point

This is where Signal was when the decision came down to bring back Virtual Caches.

The historic spot can be identified by a small, round hole in the ceiling. To claim this

find, write to me describing where in the establishment the hole can be found.

I give up. Is it in the Men's room or above the bar?

September 16, 2010

Hmmmmm, does this mean waymarks will now count on totals? Bleech.

Oh, that would be the best solution. You can have both sites separated, and still combine the finds. This should satisfy the number gobblers.

3.4k · September 16, 2010

GC2VIRT Decision Point

This is where Signal was when the decision came down to bring back Virtual Caches.

The historic spot can be identified by a small, round hole in the ceiling. To claim this

find, write to me describing where in the establishment the hole can be found.

I give up. Is it in the Men's room or above the bar?

I think it was in the bank next door, Signal was trying to borrow some money for a new GPSr, using some very cool swag as collateral - I believe the following words were spoken- "That's a knick-knack, Patty Wack, give the frog a loan."

September 16, 2010

Could this be tied into the idea of 'historical' caches in this thread?

New Cache Type?

4.2k · September 17, 2010

I personally do not think Jeremy's objective is possible.

Jeremy said that he hopes for a solution that will satsify both camps. That indeed does seem difficult. I can imagine a few scenarios but we will see.

As to Waymarking, it was always more of a solution to locationless and that is unlikely to change. And with the votes . . . The proposal on Get Satisfaction was one of the more popular ones, but I don't think either site intends to be a scientific poll or a popularity contest.

If virtuals return in a way that makes them part of this game, I'll be happy. If they return so that not every plaque or every McDonalds is a virtual I will be happier. If they return with an objective educational function rather than a wow factor, I will be ecstatic.

Edited September 17, 2010 by mulvaney

September 17, 2010

ONe thing that someone needs to understand, you cannot make everyone hapy just decide and get it over with. You already removed virtuals, why bother bringing it back people will get tired of things coming and going as I would.

I don't mind virtuals or no virtuals but make it one or the other, stop toying with it.

It isn't a democracy, it is Jeremy's choice (or any of the other Lackeys) if they want to solicit your vote, they don't have to FTW.

September 17, 2010

Excuse me while I go out and throw my tennis-shoes over the power wires.

One of my all time favourite things off of my 'awesome things seen while Geocaching' list is the pair of skates that I saw thrown over the hydro lines in downtown Hull :anicute:

As for the topic at hand, I propose this -

Bring back virtuals and direct those who don't like it to a tutorial on the 'ignore' feature. Those of us who genuinely enjoy virtuals win, while those who don't learn about an interesting feature of the site!

8k · September 17, 2010

The best definition I've seen for a virtual is "A place where I would hide a physical cache but can't for some reason (no permission, too many muggles, not appropriate, on vacation, etc.)." I hope if virtuals come back there will be a better definition than this.

Most of the attempts at a new defintion are along the line of we used to have - "Virtuals must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects." Trying to define a History cache, a Cultural Cache, or a Nature Cache; all have the same problem of deciding what qualifies in each category. People would submit things and either reviewers would reject them or others will start complaining there is no quality control and a pair of sneakers could be a Cultural phenomenon.

Perhaps you could use the EarthCache model and have special reviewers whose decisions as to whether something qualifies is final. The biggest issue I have is that this all sounds like Waymarking. I'd like to see a definition for virtual cache that distinguishes them from Waymarks. However, it may be what Jeremy is thinking of is a way to integrate Waymarking and Geocaching better, so that cool locations are still listed as Waymarks but you'd be able to get them in one PQ along with Geocaches (and perhaps have them show in your statistics as well).

7k · September 17, 2010

Perhaps you could use the EarthCache model and have special reviewers whose decisions as to whether something qualifies is final.

that's also the only way i can think of. but that would mean a lot of work, strict guidelines for every type of virtual possible, a review committee, etc. i don't see that happening.

I'd like to see a definition for virtual cache that distinguishes them from Waymarks.

the logging requirement. :anicute: yes, waymarks can have logging requirements too, but that's not really the point of the site. the site is a directory of coordinates (waymarks) and not a game per se. there's no "achievement" in "finding" a waymark and so nobody cares about the "score". virtuals are exactly the same thing, only that there's a logging requirement so that you can claim your point.

However, it may be what Jeremy is thinking of is a way to integrate Waymarking and Geocaching better, so that cool locations are still listed as Waymarks but you'd be able to get them in one PQ along with Geocaches (and perhaps have them show in your statistics as well).

that would be pretty cool actually!

1.1k · September 17, 2010

Excuse me while I go out and throw my tennis-shoes over the power wires.

One of my all time favourite things off of my 'awesome things seen while Geocaching' list is the pair of skates that I saw thrown over the hydro lines in downtown Hull

As for the topic at hand, I propose this -

Bring back virtuals and direct those who don't like it to a tutorial on the 'ignore' feature. Those of us who genuinely enjoy virtuals win, while those who don't learn about an interesting feature of the site!

Great proposal As someone who loved virtuals I really miss them. As far as lame virtuals, I would not do a lame virtual, a lame micro or lame traditional.

2.2k · September 17, 2010

I'll take a "wait and see" approach before I get too worked up either way.

7.4k · September 17, 2010

Great proposal As someone who loved virtuals I really miss them. As far as lame virtuals, I would not do a lame virtual, a lame micro or lame traditional.

What if you don't know the cache is lame until you've already found it?

P.S. Micro is a cache size, not a cache type.

3.3k · September 17, 2010

ONe thing that someone needs to understand, you cannot make everyone hapy just decide and get it over with. You already removed virtuals, why bother bringing it back people will get tired of things coming and going as I would.

I don't mind virtuals or no virtuals but make it one or the other, stop toying with it.

It isn't a democracy, it is Jeremy's choice (or any of the other Lackeys) if they want to solicit your vote, they don't have to FTW.

I don't understand the "toying with it" comment. Virtuals went away when? They MAY come back when? A few years have passed since virtuals went away. I will be among the happy cachers if virtuals can come back in a new and improved form.

3.3k · September 17, 2010

Excuse me while I go out and throw my tennis-shoes over the power wires.

Sounds like that has sufficient "Wow Factor"! Go for it!

September 17, 2010

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

7.4k · September 17, 2010

I wonder if a comprehensive list of acceptable types of sites and guidelines for logging tasks would help, instead of an ambiguous "WoW" factor. Reviewer discretion would still come into play, but there would be a bit more structure to help them make the call. Just a thought.

September 17, 2010

Excuse me while I go out and throw my tennis-shoes over the power wires.

Make sure you take them off first.

14k · September 17, 2010

Excuse me while I go out and throw my tennis-shoes over the power wires.

Sounds like that has sufficient "Wow Factor"! Go for it!

I've stayed in the dorms of the Maine Maritime Academy a couple of times for a sea kayaking symposium and just outside the dorms there were dozens of shoes thrown over the power wires. I assumed it was some sort of tradition. I'm not sure that's exactly a wow factor but I'd never seen that many shoes thrown over a power line before.

September 17, 2010

I've stayed in the dorms of the Maine Maritime Academy a couple of times for a sea kayaking symposium and just outside the dorms there were dozens of shoes thrown over the power wires. I assumed it was some sort of tradition. I'm not sure that's exactly a wow factor but I'd never seen that many shoes thrown over a power line before.

Ooh, sounds like a new virtual cache in the works. Funny thing is, even the wikipedia article is unsure about the shoes-on-powerlines thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_tossing

14k · September 17, 2010

I've stayed in the dorms of the Maine Maritime Academy a couple of times for a sea kayaking symposium and just outside the dorms there were dozens of shoes thrown over the power wires. I assumed it was some sort of tradition. I'm not sure that's exactly a wow factor but I'd never seen that many shoes thrown over a power line before.

Ooh, sounds like a new virtual cache in the works. Funny thing is, even the wikipedia article is unsure about the shoes-on-powerlines thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_tossing

Why make it a virtual. Put a bison tube in one of the shoes in a tree like this. Rate it a 5/5.

2.3k · September 17, 2010

I hope virtuals are not included when looking at cache saturation so that someone who comes along with an idea to actually place a cache at the cool site can still place one.

7.3k · September 17, 2010

I'm thinking May.

Yep, on a Wednesday, after lunch, flown in on the back of a Phoenix.

7k · September 17, 2010

As far as lame virtuals, I would not do a lame virtual, a lame micro or lame traditional.

the thing is that it takes at least a minimal amount of effort to put out a lame traditional. not so with virtuals, all you need to do is create the listing. if you pick the coords off google, you don't even need to leave the house.

7.2k · September 17, 2010

As far as lame virtuals, I would not do a lame virtual, a lame micro or lame traditional.

the thing is that it takes at least a minimal amount of effort to put out a lame traditional. not so with virtuals, all you need to do is create the listing. if you pick the coords off google, you don't even need to leave the house.

Not with a good verification question. One of the fun things to do when we reviewed the virtuals of old was to nail the verification question with Google. We would then tell the person submitting the virtual that it would not fly the way it was.

*GASP*

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation

GASP