The Return Of Virtuals

14k · January 12, 2011

If we are going have to have them I'd like to see something that eliminated the mundane. I don't want to see a list of virtuals that is nothing more than a way to find the nearest McD's or such. And I certainly don't want to see virtual power trails. I can just see it happening. The conversion of the alien highway to a chain of virts. "Drive down the road while your passenger takes a picture of each power tower as you pass."

How do we do this without making reviewers the arbiters of the quality of the virtual? We tried that before and it was a failure.

Exactly. But I was forced by the premise in the OP to assume that we are going to get them, wanted or not. The question being how would I like to see them work, or some such. That being the case I want the wow factor. Perhaps appoint a panel to review for wow. I don't know how to make it work but that is what I want.

Let the finders determine the WOW factor. Have only the finders vote on the cache. Have [A] being very good, being average, & [F] being poor and after 10 finds or so tally the votes. If A+B is greater than F, the cache stays. If F is greater than A+B, then the cache gets archived.

There is a much simpler way to do this. Now that the favorites feature is here, if nobody has marked it as a favorite after 1 month (or 5 finds), the cache gets archived. That may be seem somewhat strict but it *does* put the wow factor determination into the hands of the finder, and if a Virtual doesn't have enough of a wow factor to get someone to burn a vote on it, it's probably not worth keeping around. Groundspeak has claimed that their mission this year is to improve the overall quality of geocaching, and while numbers hounds (no apologies forthcoming if someone finds the term offensive) may disagree, I think restricting the number of virtual caches isn't a bad thing when compared to placing a virtual geocache every 600' just be we can.

The status of the "Bring Back Virtuals" feedback topic was recently updated to "We have a basic draft of the functionality complete and are trying to schedule the development of the concept". Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a copy of the basic draft of functionality. Although I think a lot of people were pleasantly surprised by the implementation of the favorites features, there are a lot of us that might have strong opinions about how a significant feature like bringing back virtual is implement and I think we'd all benefit if Groundspeak took more of an agile approach to feature development.

1.8k · January 12, 2011

There is a much simpler way to do this. Now that the favorites feature is here, if nobody has marked it as a favorite after 1 month (or 5 finds), the cache gets archived.

I think this suggestion is coming from the right place, but I'd worry about the unintended consequences. Cache rating systems will never be perfect, but in the face of imminent archival I think it would be harder for people to resist asking their friends to Favorite their caches (and probably tougher for those people to refuse).

7.4k · January 12, 2011

The red herring about geocachers just wanting to boost their numbers is getting tired. I just don't see the need for two separate sites. Maintain the distinction between waymarks and geocaches, but put it all on one site so it's easy to find both. Wading through Waymarking.com so I download .loc files one at a time is just annoying.

14k · January 12, 2011

There is a much simpler way to do this. Now that the favorites feature is here, if nobody has marked it as a favorite after 1 month (or 5 finds), the cache gets archived.

What if I made a virtual on top of a mountain or in the middle of nowhere? Might not get found for a few months. If something like that went into play there would have to be some moderation.

In that case, if one of the first five to find it marked it as a favorite, you'd be good.

1.1k · January 12, 2011

Should Virtuals be required to be educational ala Earthcaches?

Should Virtuals have specific requirements for logging? Example: requiring questions to answered about the site in addition to photos (ala Earthcaches).

Both are good ideas!

2.1k · January 12, 2011

Should Virtuals be required to be educational ala Earthcaches?

Should Virtuals have specific requirements for logging? Example: requiring questions to answered about the site in addition to photos (ala Earthcaches).

Both are good ideas!

I rather like both of these requirements.

I do think the saturation guidelines should be enforced unless there is a specific case for exemption- examples being historic districts.

I'm not big on the photos but that is me- I can always end up with a photo of my hand holding the GPS. Of course then I'd have to learn to load photos off my phone and onto my computer (the other person to my team sat on our camera about two years ago and cracked the screen... it makes is rather difficult to take pictures of anything).

1k · January 12, 2011

I am not going to agree or disagree with anyone I am just stating my opinion. I would love to see virtual come back. I am the owner of two so you can tell I have been around awhile. Both of my caches are in historical areas and you have two read signs and answer questions. I LOVE virtual they have brought me to so many interesting areas that I wouldn't have found without geocaching. There are lots of place that a cache just isn't possible due to one reason or another. When we cache we always look for virtuals to make the trip more interesting.

The Fossillady

7.4k · January 12, 2011

Should Virtuals have specific requirements for logging? Example: requiring questions to answered about the site in addition to photos (ala Earthcaches).

A minor point of clarification - Earthcache guidelines no longer permit photo requirements.

Not true! Under some circumstances, photos are allowed! Please see revised guidelines and the ensuing discussion via the earthcache forum.

The sort of photo requirement suggested in the comment here is not permitted on Earthcaches.

January 12, 2011

I think that they should only be allowed if there is no legal way to put a physical cache in for example an aircraft museum that is located on MCAS Miramar property (a active military base) I would love to have people go and visit the location and see the history there but obviosly I can't put a physical cache there.

2.8k · January 12, 2011

I'm not saying that GS is considering this but they could theoretically update the official geocaching app to support virtual caches in that manner but it would mean that someone that only had a handheld GPS unit would not be able to log virtual caches.

I would also ask they not use some sort of smartphone application for virtuals.

8k · January 12, 2011

Voting on Wowness

For the Best Kept Secrets category on Waymarking, after an officer has checked the submission for complying with other requirements (most often the verification method is missing), the waymark is submitted for vote of the officers to decide if this is really a Best Kept Secret (really just a definition we use for "wowness"). If a majority of the response are positive the waymark is approve. Often there is only one vote. Perhaps if we increase the number of officers who could vote there were always be several that look at the cache. Also the vote nominally last for three days. That mean that these waymarks take significantly longer. On top of this there is a problem with the Waymarking voting system so the waymark doesn't actually get published until an officer checks after the three days. Since we don't get all that many submissions, sometimes a waymark sits for weeks before being published. It often takes an email from the submitter for me to check. Because we don't get many submissions, and most often there is at least one other category where the waymark might be accepted, we haven't gotten too many complaints when a submission is turned down. I wonder however how many threads will be in the forums when someone doesn't like the results of the vote to approve their waymark.

As far as approving the virtuals and then having the finders decide wow - I don't like the idea. We will certainly get threads discussing how people will get a find for a cache they voted as not being wow. It also would not be hard to manipulate the vote by getting all your friends to vote for your virtual. There will certainly places some people may find particularly interesting. But others may vote against it simply because they had a bad day the day they visited or perhaps they don't like any virtuals.

Preventing Couch Potato Logs

Just as someone will want to log a find on a physical cache if they couldn't sign the log because it was wet or some other reason, you will have people who truly visited the virtual but they got the wrong answer or they were unable to take the picture. Just like a pen can stop working, a digital camera could run out of battery power, or the picture could have been deleted accidentally before it was uploaded. While virtual owners would no doubt be able to delete find logs that don't meet the stated requirements, just as physical cache owners can delete logs where the physical log wasn't signed, that isn't always the right thing to do. The idea is to delete logs that are bogus for both physical and virtual caches since people look to the logs to see that the cache is still there and findable. Sitting at home logging caches you have never been is seen by Groundspeak as abuse of the logging capability on the website.

Armchair logging of virtuals began as a side game. The armchair loggers are not really geocaching; it became a game for them to see which verification questions could be answered by research on the Internet. They used the found log to record those caches they could find the answer for. IMO, TPTB should have just left it to cache owners to decide whether to delete these logs or not. Some cache owners however complained that these logs were effecting their enjoyment as cache owners and some owners even archived their caches because they were being armchair logged. That was too bad, it just showed that there were some virtual owners who just didn't want to do the maintenance that is required of even virtual cache owners. TPTB response though was strange. They basically told the cache owners that if they didn't delete the couch potato logs, they would have the cache archived for them. Strange that we don't see physical caches archived and lock when cache owners don't delete bogus logs on them.

Many couch potato caches were ones where cache owners used "certificates of achivements" that you opened with a password that was the answer to the verification question. This way the cache owner never had to look at the email with the answers. If you knew the answer and could open the certificate of achivement, then you found the cache. I believe that most couch potato logs could be eliminated if cache owners were required to approve find logs before they counted. Perhaps a system where the find log contains a note to cache owner section where you put the answers (and perhaps other spoiler information that would demonstrate you were actually at the cache location). The cache owner would have to approve the log before it counted and was displayed on the cache page. If the cache owner did not approve or deny the log within a reasonable time (7 days?) the cache would automatically be disabled to indicate the cache owner was not processing logs. A cache owner who knew that he would not be able to process logs for a period of time (e.g., on vaction) could disable the cache with note explaining the circumstance and when he would be able to resume verifying logs. If the cache remains disabled for more that a reasonable amount of time (a few weeks?), a reviewer could archive the cache.

8k · January 12, 2011

I think that they should only be allowed if there is no legal way to put a physical cache in for example an aircraft museum that is located on MCAS Miramar property (a active military base) I would love to have people go and visit the location and see the history there but obviosly I can't put a physical cache there.

But you could list it as a waymark.

You could also create a multi cache that starts at the museum and uses information from the exhibits to to compute the location of a final physical cache that is not on the base. One of my favorite caches took me to the Submariners Memorial at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. After seeing the memorial, I used information from some of the plaques to compute the coordinates of a cache hidden at a nearby park.

3.8k · January 12, 2011

Terrible idea to bring them back. They exist just fine on Waymarking, and that site allows others to submit similar items in the spirit of the old locationless type.

Virtuals go something like this: "I'm too lazy to maintain a geocache here, so visit the statue at these coordinates and tell me how many arms it has to claim a find."

Adding in the locationless concept, it's: "Know of any other statues? Post them in this category. When someone visits it, they can claim their find as if it was a virtual."

It would be far better to make the Waymarking site better than to shoehorn non-geocaches onto geocaching.com.

Off topic on post #2.

4.2k · January 12, 2011

Off topic on post #2.

...and #15.

:rolleyes:

Edited January 12, 2011 by Castle Mischief

20.7k · January 12, 2011

Should Virtuals be required to be educational ala Earthcaches?

Should Virtuals have specific requirements for logging? Example: requiring questions to answered about the site in addition to photos (ala Earthcaches).

Both are good ideas!

I rather like both of these requirements.

I do think the saturation guidelines should be enforced unless there is a specific case for exemption- examples being historic districts.

I'm not big on the photos but that is me- I can always end up with a photo of my hand holding the GPS. Of course then I'd have to learn to load photos off my phone and onto my computer (the other person to my team sat on our camera about two years ago and cracked the screen... it makes is rather difficult to take pictures of anything).

20.7k · January 12, 2011

I think that they should only be allowed if there is no legal way to put a physical cache in for example an aircraft museum that is located on MCAS Miramar property (a active military base) I would love to have people go and visit the location and see the history there but obviosly I can't put a physical cache there.

But you could list it as a waymark.

You could also create a multi cache that starts at the museum and uses information from the exhibits to to compute the location of a final physical cache that is not on the base. One of my favorite caches took me to the Submariners Memorial at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. After seeing the memorial, I used information from some of the plaques to compute the coordinates of a cache hidden at a nearby park.

You hit on the reason why I hope 'physical cache can't be hidden there' doesn't become a requirement. If a person doesn't wish to hide a multi (or offset), he shouldn't be forced to.

Come to think of it, now that the fave list has been introduced, I don't think that 'wow' should have anything to do with listing a virt. If a cache, any cache, doesn't have any faves, let the buyer beware.

5.7k · January 12, 2011

Should Virtuals be required to be educational ala Earthcaches?

Should Virtuals have specific requirements for logging? Example: requiring questions to answered about the site in addition to photos (ala Earthcaches).

Both are good ideas!

I agree, they are both good ideas. But also just like Waymarking or any other type of geocache, I will only seek the ones that interest me. This is one of the things that I don't understand is why some users are against virtual caches, they are not forced to seek them and they don't interfere with traditionals, Earthcaches, or waymarks.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

7.3k · January 12, 2011

I don't want to see the return of Virtuals, and I'm a Virt owner (my family owns 9). I can still remember how much the Virtual issue stirred up these forums way back when, and I'm glad that Jeremy wanted to create a solution for the problem. It's too bad that some people don't like the solution, but I don't think that means that Groundspeak should go back on that now.

The only way that I could see this working out in a good way, is if Groundspeak decides to integrate Geocaching and Waymarking like they hinted that they would in the past.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Ambrosia

1.4k · January 12, 2011

I saw this thread and had to comment wish they wouldn't come back there is a local cacher that all he does is sit home and log Virtual all across the country filling up his GSAK map with new states from his Computer. He only targts the ones where the owners have not been online for a very long time, and ones tht do not require a photo at the site.

Scubasonic

Edited January 12, 2011 by Scubasonic

January 12, 2011

Something that's been said a few times here is making sense to me:

I would definitely try Waymarking, and probably do a lot more of it and with it, if the stats were combined with my geocaching.com stats.

3.8k · January 12, 2011

I saw this thread and had to comment wish they wouldn't come back there is a local cacher that all he does is sit home and log Virtual all across the country filling up his GSAK map with new states from his Computer. He only targts the ones where the owners have not been online for a very long time, and ones tht do not require a photo at the site.

Scubasonic

I understand that it happens but for the life of me, I don't get the point.

6.7k · January 12, 2011

Something that's been said a few times here is making sense to me:

I would definitely try Waymarking, and probably do a lot more of it and with it, if the stats were combined with my geocaching.com stats.

Why do the numbers mean so much? Is the journey or the location or the adventure better because your find count goes up by one?

January 12, 2011

I saw this thread and had to comment wish they wouldn't come back there is a local cacher that all he does is sit home and log Virtual all across the country filling up his GSAK map with new states from his Computer. He only targts the ones where the owners have not been online for a very long time, and ones tht do not require a photo at the site.

Scubasonic

I think this is a big reason not to bring them back. We had a VC with a 5/5 rating that was archived because a previous finder contested a guys find due to the guy logging caches in different states the same day. The contester emailed the armchair cacher and he went to TPTB crying about his find. The VC owner is no longer active so they archived it. Was a really cool place. So if they do bring them back I think they should require pictures as proof.

22k · January 12, 2011

Something that's been said a few times here is making sense to me:

I would definitely try Waymarking, and probably do a lot more of it and with it, if the stats were combined with my geocaching.com stats.

Why do the numbers mean so much? Is the journey or the location or the adventure better because your find count goes up by one?

Yep. gc.com even recently added expanded stats right on your profile page.

January 12, 2011

Something that's been said a few times here is making sense to me:

I would definitely try Waymarking, and probably do a lot more of it and with it, if the stats were combined with my geocaching.com stats.

Why do the numbers mean so much? Is the journey or the location or the adventure better because your find count goes up by one?

I get a kick out of people talking about numbers and adventures with a whole whopping 51 finds in 5 years and over 4000 posts. Some people like stats. I would probably Waymark also if it was tied to GCing stats.

7.4k · January 13, 2011

I get a kick out of people talking about numbers and adventures with a whole whopping 51 finds in 5 years and over 4000 posts.

Why on earth is this relevant?

January 13, 2011

I get a kick out of people talking about numbers and adventures with a whole whopping 51 finds in 5 years and over 4000 posts.

Why on earth is this relevant?

That's kinda how I felt about his post. :lol:

21.9k · January 13, 2011

Hello,

The unfortunate tangent created by the4dirtydogs is now over and done with. I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

7.4k · January 13, 2011

Something that's been said a few times here is making sense to me:

I would definitely try Waymarking, and probably do a lot more of it and with it, if the stats were combined with my geocaching.com stats.

I think a lot of people would, and I really don't see what is wrong with that. Some people like accruing finds, and if that's what motivates people to visit geocaches or waymarks, fine!

For me, it's not so much about the stats, I just prefer the way Geocaching.com works, and I don't understand why Waymarking has to be a completely different site. Using two different sites to obtain coordinates is tedious, particularly when the two sites are so completely different.

January 13, 2011

Even if Waypoints don't count toward total caches found, what if they (and Benchmarks) became its own tab under the geocaching profile? Or there was some integration that didn't involve upping your count? As an icon addict, I think I'd be more likely to Waymark.

22k · January 13, 2011

I wouldn't mind a comprehensive profile page of all Groundspeak products. (With a pick and choose opt-out selection)

7.3k · January 13, 2011

I wouldn't mind a comprehensive profile page of all Groundspeak products. (With a pick and choose opt-out selection)

Groundspeak

2.3k · January 13, 2011

I'd be interested in knowing if the icon will be the same as the already existing one and if the moratorium on adopting them will be lifted when they return.

5.7k · January 13, 2011

Something that's been said a few times here is making sense to me:

I would definitely try Waymarking, and probably do a lot more of it and with it, if the stats were combined with my geocaching.com stats.

I really enjoy the Waymarking site, and I would not like to see the two sites combined. I'm not a numbers cacher, they are meaningless to me. I seek caches and waymarks that are of interest to me, and ignore the rest. I am not even sure if I will like virtual caches, but the Waymarking site is almost unused in my area. My view is that virtual caches are the only types allowed in some of my favorite places, and Earthcaches are hard to develope, but the more that I understand them, the easier they seem to be?

I think that one of the main issues is the numbers Guns & Cockpits.

9.3k · January 13, 2011

HOW would you bring them back?

I wouldn't. Too much angst for too little gain. That being said, if I suddenly found myself working at Groundspeak, and Jeremy directed me to come up with a way to make it happen, I would first find a set of folks who loved virtuals, probably through stalking profile pages. I would recruit these folks as a volunteer virtual reviewer staff, and ask for their opinions.

There are a few ideas I would bounce off the staff, which, if they agreed, would become part of the guidelines.

First, I would remove all virtuals, new and old, from the total find count. While locating a plaque on the side of the road can be pretty kewl, a plaque is not, by my own, inner, biased definition, a geocache. In this, they would show up like benchmarks. I know this would cause the numbers cachers to squawk, but it's how I feel. I would further suggest to Jeremy that all Earth Caches, events, CITOs, locationless, mega-events, 10-10-10 events and webcam caches, (basically anything without a container and logbook), be removed from the total cache find count. The site would still tally them, it just wouldn't up your find count.

I would suggest not placing any rigid proximity rules, other than one dictating that the same object/building/etc could not get more than one GC number. If BillyBobNosePicker can articulate why one way kewl spot, which happens to be close to an existing virtual, should be listed, it will be listed.

The burden of proof would be on the submitter to show why a spot deserved to be a virtual. This would be made clear in the guidelines, in the hopes of reducing the amount of angst heaped upon the reviewers when BillyBob's favorite McDonalds got rejected.

Once a virtual was submitted, it would enter a queue established specifically for the virtual reviewers, so they would not clog up the primary reviewer queue. Once in the queue, it would undergo scrutiny. At least three reviewers would need to check off on the virtual, acknowledging that it does meet the guidelines.

The types of locations that could qualify as a virtual cache would likely be the greatest source of angst. To qualify as a virtual location, a spot must have substantial historical significance. While that definition sounds like it could be highly subjective, I think if three reviewers, who are all on the same sheet of music, can agree on a spot, that would be good enough for me. If a spot is so questionable that three reviewers can't be found who are willing to sign off on it, that also is good enough for me.

The owners of existing virtuals would be notified, and given the opportunity to demonstrate why their virtual should remain active. Any virtual not demonstrably in compliance with the new guideline would be archived eventually. In an exception to the current status quo, if a virtual owner has left the game, and as such, does not respond to the aforementioned notification, their virtual would not automatically be archived. Instead, it would go under further scrutiny, to see if it could be brought into compliance. The reviewer staff would be given the opportunity to adopt it or kill it, according to how they felt about it. That way, really kewl virtuals with long histories, could survive.

Finally, I would suggest that Jeremy fully support the decisions of the virtual reviewer staff. If a virtual was denied by the group, it would stay denied.

Just one ole fat crippled guys thoughts on the matter. I seriously doubt any of them will be implemented.

5.7k · January 13, 2011

I don't want to see the return of Virtuals, and I'm a Virt owner (my family owns 9). I can still remember how much the Virtual issue stirred up these forums way back when, and I'm glad that Jeremy wanted to create a solution for the problem. It's too bad that some people don't like the solution, but I don't think that means that Groundspeak should go back on that now.

The only way that I could see this working out in a good way, is if Groundspeak decides to integrate Geocaching and Waymarking like they hinted that they would in the past.

I think that if there were more users making use of the Waymarking site, virtuals would not be an issue and they would not be reinstated. The more I read on the subject, the more the numbers seem to be the issue. I have very little experience with virtuals other than waymarks and EC's.

22k · January 13, 2011

There are a few ideas I would bounce off the staff, which, if they agreed, would become part of the guidelines.

Wouldn't it be easier and just as productive to have one guy/gal with a modicum of caching sense decide what qualifies as a virtual?

bd

Edited January 13, 2011 by BlueDeuce

1.3k · January 13, 2011

Something that's been said a few times here is making sense to me:

I would definitely try Waymarking, and probably do a lot more of it and with it, if the stats were combined with my geocaching.com stats.

Stats would be nice, but I'd really like to be able to include Waymarks into a PQ along with geocaches so that I am aware of them when I'm out and about. No doubt I've driven by some that would interest me because I didn't realize they were there. No doubt I'll keep driving by them until they are integrated with my pocket queries. It's not that I detest the Waymarking website, but I rarely hunt and peck the geocaching site for caches, so I don't see myself doing that for waymarks. Give me an option to put it in a PQ and I'll filter waymarks just like I filter geocaches.

January 13, 2011

HOW would you bring them back?

I wouldn't. Too much angst for too little gain. That being said, if I suddenly found myself working at Groundspeak, and Jeremy directed me to come up with a way to make it happen, I would first find a set of folks who loved virtuals, probably through stalking profile pages. I would recruit these folks as a volunteer virtual reviewer staff, and ask for their opinions.

There are a few ideas I would bounce off the staff, which, if they agreed, would become part of the guidelines.

First, I would remove all virtuals, new and old, from the total find count. While locating a plaque on the side of the road can be pretty kewl, a plaque is not, by my own, inner, biased definition, a geocache. In this, they would show up like benchmarks. I know this would cause the numbers cachers to squawk, but it's how I feel. I would further suggest to Jeremy that all Earth Caches, events, CITOs, locationless, mega-events, 10-10-10 events and webcam caches, (basically anything without a container and logbook), be removed from the total cache find count. The site would still tally them, it just wouldn't up your find count.

I would suggest not placing any rigid proximity rules, other than one dictating that the same object/building/etc could not get more than one GC number. If BillyBobNosePicker can articulate why one way kewl spot, which happens to be close to an existing virtual, should be listed, it will be listed.

The burden of proof would be on the submitter to show why a spot deserved to be a virtual. This would be made clear in the guidelines, in the hopes of reducing the amount of angst heaped upon the reviewers when BillyBob's favorite McDonalds got rejected.

Once a virtual was submitted, it would enter a queue established specifically for the virtual reviewers, so they would not clog up the primary reviewer queue. Once in the queue, it would undergo scrutiny. At least three reviewers would need to check off on the virtual, acknowledging that it does meet the guidelines.

The types of locations that could qualify as a virtual cache would likely be the greatest source of angst. To qualify as a virtual location, a spot must have substantial historical significance. While that definition sounds like it could be highly subjective, I think if three reviewers, who are all on the same sheet of music, can agree on a spot, that would be good enough for me. If a spot is so questionable that three reviewers can't be found who are willing to sign off on it, that also is good enough for me.

The owners of existing virtuals would be notified, and given the opportunity to demonstrate why their virtual should remain active. Any virtual not demonstrably in compliance with the new guideline would be archived eventually. In an exception to the current status quo, if a virtual owner has left the game, and as such, does not respond to the aforementioned notification, their virtual would not automatically be archived. Instead, it would go under further scrutiny, to see if it could be brought into compliance. The reviewer staff would be given the opportunity to adopt it or kill it, according to how they felt about it. That way, really kewl virtuals with long histories, could survive.

Finally, I would suggest that Jeremy fully support the decisions of the virtual reviewer staff. If a virtual was denied by the group, it would stay denied.

Just one ole fat crippled guys thoughts on the matter. I seriously doubt any of them will be implemented.

i agree completely

4.1k · January 13, 2011

I'm all for bringing back virtuals and to lighten the load on the servers I think we should eliminate power trails and micros.

John

5.7k · January 13, 2011

There are a few ideas I would bounce off the staff, which, if they agreed, would become part of the guidelines.

Wouldn't it be easier and just as productive to have one guy/gal with a modicum of caching sense decide what qualifies as a virtual?

bd

I really don't agree that one person should have that much power. I think a team would better serve the community.

January 13, 2011

I'm going to put out there what people really want... Only Premium Members can create Virtuals.

1. Most premium members know how to put out a proper cache so there is less chance of bad virtuals (and who wants to pay to put out bad virtuals?)

2. Less newbies and lazy people throwing up random virtuals every where

3. More money for Groundspeak

Also if Virtuals aren't going to be counted towards Find Totals then don't bother bringing them back at all. If I find a cache (Virtual Caches are caches, just like Earthcaches) then I want it added to my total.

Finally, let's stop pretending that Virtuals are going to be the next scourge of geocaching. Most virtuals are not going to be a McDonalds, just like how every geocache isn't a micro or LPC.

5.7k · January 13, 2011

I'm going to put out there what people really want... Only Premium Members can create Virtuals.

1. Most premium members know how to put out a proper cache so there is less chance of bad virtuals (and who wants to pay to put out bad virtuals?)

2. Less newbies and lazy people throwing up random virtuals every where

3. More money for Groundspeak

Also if Virtuals aren't going to be counted towards Find Totals then don't bother bringing them back at all. If I find a cache (Virtual Caches are caches, just like Earthcaches) then I want it added to my total.

Finally, let's stop pretending that Virtuals are going to be the next scourge of geocaching. Most virtuals are not going to be a McDonalds, just like how every geocache isn't a micro or LPC.

I won't go along with that, but I do agree with some of your points. I like the idea of only PM's being able to place them. But here is my issue. Many places that only allow virtual caches are Parks and other public places. I support land managers that will not allow PMO caches of any type on public land.

January 13, 2011

Something that's been said a few times here is making sense to me:

I would definitely try Waymarking, and probably do a lot more of it and with it, if the stats were combined with my geocaching.com stats.

Why do the numbers mean so much? Is the journey or the location or the adventure better because your find count goes up by one?

You know, it's not really about the numbers. I'm so much more about quality than I am quantity, numbers are just numbers. It's more about the fact that I wouldn't have to be bouncing around from site to site to download stuff, PQs would include all of it, and it would all be so much more readily available to me. That's why combining the two of them would make me more likely to do it.

Right now, there's about a 2% chance that I'll find time to figure it out on the Waymarking website and actually go try Waymarking. Combine the site with GC.com, and there's a 100% chance that I'd try it out of simplicity alone.

5.7k · January 13, 2011

Right now, there's about a 2% chance that I'll find time to figure it out on the Waymarking website and actually go try Waymarking. Combine the site with GC.com, and there's a 100% chance that I'd try it out of simplicity alone.

I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not any more G&C. I enjoy Waymarking, but the site is unused in my area. Combining the sites would attract more users, that does sound good. But what kind of users would it attract? I fear that only those interested in gaining numbers to their stats with their copy and paste logs, and not users that really want to visit a site and leave some input of their visit and a upload. Maybe virtuals should not be reinstated if they are going to be moved to the Waymarking site.

January 13, 2011

Maybe virtuals should not be reinstated if they are going to be moved to the Waymarking site.

Is that the plan? I didn't read that anywhere...

9.3k · January 13, 2011

There are a few ideas I would bounce off the staff, which, if they agreed, would become part of the guidelines.

Wouldn't it be easier and just as productive to have one guy/gal with a modicum of caching sense decide what qualifies as a virtual?

Personally, I don't think so. Imagine this scenario: Groundspeak follows your advice, opting for only one person's input regarding virtual caches. By some twist of the space/time continuum, that person is me. Since I have no use for virtuals, they would cease to exist entirely. Not just archived, but completely removed from the website as if they'd never existed. Such a radical resolution is much less likely with a committee. At the other end of the hyperbole spectrum is the guy who is bonkers about virtuals, and hates restrictions of any kind. Left up to him, the entire planet would be saturated with virtual power trails, allowing 50,000 finds a day. Again, an unlikely resolution with a group consciousness aiding in the decision making process.

If we eliminate from the debate any thoughts that focus on silliness, (such as the two examples I cited), I still think that a collection of minds would be more productive in developing a sustainable product than any single person, if for no other reason than more minds equal more ideas. The group is likely to think of things that my feeble ole grey matter would miss.

5.7k · January 13, 2011

Is that the plan? I didn't read that anywhere...

We all know that the Waymarking site is almost unsued and not very popular, neither are virtual caches. Some want to see the Waymarking site improved and used my more cachers, some cachers want virtuals reinstated, but only if they add numbers to their geocaching stats. It is all about the numbers, remove the numbers, lose the support of the virtual cachers. Most waymarkers are PM's. We have to be to PM's to vote in the peer review and manage our waymark categorys. Of course you did not read it any place, and what you have read that has been posted by TPTB is extreamly vauge. Wonder why? Because they know that Waymarking and virtuals are not popular with geocachers. It is all about the numbers for most geocachers, if they can't get a smiley, it's not worth their time to log.

20.7k · January 13, 2011

I saw this thread and had to comment wish they wouldn't come back there is a local cacher that all he does is sit home and log Virtual all across the country filling up his GSAK map with new states from his Computer. He only targts the ones where the owners have not been online for a very long time, and ones tht do not require a photo at the site.

Scubasonic

I think this is a big reason not to bring them back. We had a VC with a 5/5 rating that was archived because a previous finder contested a guys find due to the guy logging caches in different states the same day. The contester emailed the armchair cacher and he went to TPTB crying about his find. The VC owner is no longer active so they archived it. Was a really cool place. So if they do bring them back I think they should require pictures as proof.

It seems like both your and scubasonic's issues would be resolved if they brought them back. Virts that weren't maintained by their owners would be archived, but someone else would be free to create a new virt at the location.

I agree that allowing a virt owner to require a pic seems like a good idea.

20.7k · January 13, 2011

Is that the plan? I didn't read that anywhere...

We all know that the Waymarking site is almost unsued and not very popular, neither are virtual caches. Some want to see the Waymarking site improved and used my more cachers, some cachers want virtuals reinstated, but only if they add numbers to their geocaching stats. It is all about the numbers, remove the numbers, lose the support of the virtual cachers. Most waymarkers are PM's. We have to be to PM's to vote in the peer review and manage our waymark categorys. Of course you did not read it any place, and what you have read that has been posted by TPTB is extreamly vauge. Wonder why? Because they know that Waymarking and virtuals are not popular with geocachers. It is all about the numbers for most geocachers, if they can't get a smiley, it's not worth their time to log.

I'm pretty sure that the bolded bit is incorrect.

The Return Of Virtuals

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment