Jump to content

The Return Of Virtuals


JL_HSTRE
Followers 8

Recommended Posts

How many virtual caches are within 25 miles of your home? We have 4, and 2 of them do not have owners.

 

There are 3 virtuals within 25 miles, one of them at 24 miles. There are also 12 earth caches withing 25 miles but I live in a pretty geologically rich area. One of them (at .8 of a mile from home) requires you to find a fossil and submit a photo. It took me about 3 minutes to find one when I did it.

Link to comment

There's 2 virtuals within 25 miles with a cache owner that maintains them. They're not my most favorite virtuals because the sites weren't that special to me but that's ok. Sometimes, even with virtuals, I pass them up because the implied wow factor didn't do much for me. I usually look at the pictures and comments and what not before committing to do a virtual.

Link to comment

YEAH! I LOVE VIRTUALS! They take me to lots of wonderful places that don't allow physical caches. Yesterday we were at the Vietnam Wall in Pensacola. That is the kind of places we want to visit, and get credit for it, since we had to follow our co-ords and find it. No, we don't go looking for virtual McDs, but we have looked for boring McD's and Wally's physical caches. Don't see the big deal difference! We all just pick what we want to hunt for. I'm in the camp that would ban those darn micros! Like Virtuals, there is basically "nothing there." We like Travel Bugs, and they sure aren't found in Micros. So we might better go look for a Virtual instead, where we will likely learn something. Just put them out there, and let us pick which ones we want to hunt.

Link to comment

If you can tell me how you "sign a logsheet" on a virtual cache, I will lobby for the return of them.

 

Until then, get over it. They aren't now, nor never were, CACHEs. They were landmarks.

 

Why don't you first define "virtual" for me, then we'll talk.

 

It IS a signable logsheet in a cache. A VIRTUAL signable logsheet in a cache!

Link to comment

If you can tell me how you "sign a logsheet" on a virtual cache, I will lobby for the return of them.

 

Until then, get over it. They aren't now, nor never were, CACHEs. They were landmarks.

 

Why don't you first define "virtual" for me, then we'll talk.

 

It IS a signable logsheet in a cache. A VIRTUAL signable logsheet in a cache!

I did not vote to have virtuals reinstated. I am happy with Waymarking, and that is what a virtual is, a waymark that you have to email the waymark owner the answers to their question that you got from the site for your find to count. People will abuse the new ones just like they are doing the old ones now. The company did not seem really happy about reinstaing them, but they got enough votes in the feedback to consider reinstating them. Where are the virtual supporters now? I think it is an attempt to get more people to use the Waymarking site, where the new virtuals will be listed.

Link to comment

If you can tell me how you "sign a logsheet" on a virtual cache, I will lobby for the return of them.

 

Until then, get over it. They aren't now, nor never were, CACHEs. They were landmarks.

 

If they're listed on this site and they count toward my total finds, they're geocaches. They're not traditional caches, but they're Groundspeak geocaches. The rest is semantics.

Link to comment
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.

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.

 

This takes the reviewer out of the hot water determining what is good enough and let the actual finders say, Yea or Nay. If the votes were shown on the cache page it would also allow people a chance to decide if they want to even bother with finding it.

 

John

 

 

Wow, a self-regulated rating system! Good idea!

 

I think that I would start each virtual with a certain balance so that the active or archive status would be the result of a good sampling size. If the first cachers to visit a newly published virtual were a large group and every member of that group gave it a bad rating....because they hate 'statues' or whatever...... then you would have a large skew introduced due to a single event. However, with a reasonable starting balance a Virtual's rating would have to reflect a continued history of low value votes before falling into removal status.

 

I love the concept though! It would allow Virtuals to live or die based upon their own merits....as judged by cachers themselves. Slick.

Link to comment
Why don't you first define "virtual" for me, then we'll talk.

 

It IS a signable logsheet in a cache. A VIRTUAL signable logsheet in a cache!

 

Let me take a stab at it G&C. Laws are written to serve all people, they are not virtuals. Virtuals are like rules, they can be made-up and changed to suit the needs of some just whenever.

 

Remember the Golden Rule: Who has the most gold, makes the rules.

Link to comment

Ten virtuals within twenty-five miles of the Dolphinarium. Two owned by a cacher who has not signed on in two years.

I think that GC needs a bell that rings if the cache owner has not signed on in six months. The cache is probably not being maintained. But that is only if GC actually brings back Virtuals. That would let another cacher hide a virtual at that location.

Link to comment

Ten virtuals within twenty-five miles of the Dolphinarium. Two owned by a cacher who has not signed on in two years.

I think that GC needs a bell that rings if the cache owner has not signed on in six months. The cache is probably not being maintained. But that is only if GC actually brings back Virtuals. That would let another cacher hide a virtual at that location.

I would agree. The 2 in my area without owners, I would have no interest in developing new ones there. Most of the finds are legit, excet for a very few that have been armchaired from Germany. When we seeked them we had no idea that they did not have owners. Truthfully I enjoyed them. I really enjoy history, my geocache placements and waymarks reflect that. I may even like virtuals, I have viewed some of the old ones on this site and most are cool. I have viewed some on other listing sites that did not interest me, like ones that you have to go inside a museaum for information to log the find. I don't like caches of any kind that I have to pay to log, some EC's in my area involve cave tours. That looks like a prohibited commercial cache listing to me. I may like to list some historic virtual caches on this site, I was all for them at first, but things are too scetchy in defining them, and just which site will list them. I enjoy Waymarking, but the site is used very little. If waymarks, EC's, and virtuals, which are all types of virtual caches are combined on the Waymarking site, it may bring more users to the site. I know that the feedback site got enough votes in a yes only vote system, but where are the supporters now? I think that it is just a way to attract more users to the Waymarking site.

Link to comment

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l) KEY

 

ADJECTIVE:

 

Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name:

Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.

Computer Science Created, simulated

 

In other words...

 

NOT REAL!!

 

"Virtual" caches are NOT real caches.

Link to comment

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l) KEY

 

ADJECTIVE:

 

Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name:

Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.

Computer Science Created, simulated

 

In other words...

 

NOT REAL!!

 

"Virtual" caches are NOT real caches.

 

So, the Events that you attended... Are those "real" caches?

Link to comment

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l) KEY

 

ADJECTIVE:

 

Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name:

Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.

Computer Science Created, simulated

 

In other words...

 

NOT REAL!!

 

"Virtual" caches are NOT real caches.

 

I would have truly loved to have been able to vote "NO" on the reintroduction of these not real caches. Where were all you virtual haters when the voting was going on the last few months? It was only the top 3 vote. Maybe Groundspeak will reinstate Hampster Caching also, that ain't real either. If these not real caches will help the Waymarking site, I can ignore them like I do most waymark categorys. It's all about the numbers folks, be it your cache stats, or Groundspeaks bank account. Get ready for these not real caches, I know that I am. Will their icons still be a ghost?

Link to comment

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l) KEY

 

ADJECTIVE:

 

Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name:

Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.

Computer Science Created, simulated

 

In other words...

 

NOT REAL!!

 

"Virtual" caches are NOT real caches.

 

I would have truly loved to have been able to vote "NO" on the reintroduction of these not real caches. Where were all you virtual haters when the voting was going on the last few months? It was only the top 3 vote. Maybe Groundspeak will reinstate Hampster Caching also, that ain't real either. If these not real caches will help the Waymarking site, I can ignore them like I do most waymark categorys. It's all about the numbers folks, be it your cache stats, or Groundspeaks bank account. Get ready for these not real caches, I know that I am. Will their icons still be a ghost?

 

The feedback site does not allow for a "no" vote. There was a separate submission to not bring them back. Perhaps Bittsen voted in that one, but I don't know. Either way, quite a few people did express an interest and it is coming back.

 

I can't help but notice:

 

Traditional Cache 422

Multi-cache 10

Virtual Cache 6

Letterbox Hybrid 2

Event Cache 10

Unknown Cache 1

Earthcache 45

 

Looks like sometimes, it is about the numbers. There's nothing inherently wrong about that.

Link to comment

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l) KEY

 

ADJECTIVE:

 

Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name:

Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.

Computer Science Created, simulated

 

In other words...

 

NOT REAL!!

 

"Virtual" caches are NOT real caches.

 

I would have truly loved to have been able to vote "NO" on the reintroduction of these not real caches. Where were all you virtual haters when the voting was going on the last few months? It was only the top 3 vote. Maybe Groundspeak will reinstate Hampster Caching also, that ain't real either. If these not real caches will help the Waymarking site, I can ignore them like I do most waymark categorys. It's all about the numbers folks, be it your cache stats, or Groundspeaks bank account. Get ready for these not real caches, I know that I am. Will their icons still be a ghost?

 

The feedback site does not allow for a "no" vote. There was a separate submission to not bring them back. Perhaps Bittsen voted in that one, but I don't know. Either way, quite a few people did express an interest and it is coming back.

 

I can't help but notice:

 

Traditional Cache 422

Multi-cache 10

Virtual Cache 6

Letterbox Hybrid 2

Event Cache 10

Unknown Cache 1

Earthcache 45

 

Looks like sometimes, it is about the numbers. There's nothing inherently wrong about that.

You forgot to list my 95 hides.

Less than 500 finds in 2.5 years of geocaching. I only seek caches that interest me. I'm not a numbers cacher.

Edited by Manville Possum Hunters
Link to comment

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l) KEY

 

ADJECTIVE:

 

Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name:

Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.

Computer Science Created, simulated

 

In other words...

 

NOT REAL!!

 

"Virtual" caches are NOT real caches.

 

I would have truly loved to have been able to vote "NO" on the reintroduction of these not real caches. Where were all you virtual haters when the voting was going on the last few months? It was only the top 3 vote. Maybe Groundspeak will reinstate Hampster Caching also, that ain't real either. If these not real caches will help the Waymarking site, I can ignore them like I do most waymark categorys. It's all about the numbers folks, be it your cache stats, or Groundspeaks bank account. Get ready for these not real caches, I know that I am. Will their icons still be a ghost?

 

The feedback site does not allow for a "no" vote. There was a separate submission to not bring them back. Perhaps Bittsen voted in that one, but I don't know. Either way, quite a few people did express an interest and it is coming back.

 

I can't help but notice:

 

Traditional Cache 422

Multi-cache 10

Virtual Cache 6

Letterbox Hybrid 2

Event Cache 10

Unknown Cache 1

Earthcache 45

 

Looks like sometimes, it is about the numbers. There's nothing inherently wrong about that.

 

I really don't see how bringing someone's personal find count into question advances the discussion in any way.

Link to comment

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l) KEY

 

ADJECTIVE:

 

Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name:

Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.

Computer Science Created, simulated

 

In other words...

 

NOT REAL!!

 

"Virtual" caches are NOT real caches.

 

I would have truly loved to have been able to vote "NO" on the reintroduction of these not real caches. Where were all you virtual haters when the voting was going on the last few months? It was only the top 3 vote. Maybe Groundspeak will reinstate Hampster Caching also, that ain't real either. If these not real caches will help the Waymarking site, I can ignore them like I do most waymark categorys. It's all about the numbers folks, be it your cache stats, or Groundspeaks bank account. Get ready for these not real caches, I know that I am. Will their icons still be a ghost?

 

The feedback site does not allow for a "no" vote. There was a separate submission to not bring them back. Perhaps Bittsen voted in that one, but I don't know. Either way, quite a few people did express an interest and it is coming back.

 

I can't help but notice:

 

Traditional Cache 422

Multi-cache 10

Virtual Cache 6

Letterbox Hybrid 2

Event Cache 10

Unknown Cache 1

Earthcache 45

 

Looks like sometimes, it is about the numbers. There's nothing inherently wrong about that.

 

I really don't see how bringing someone's personal find count into question advances the discussion in any way.

I did not understand it either. I do view other users finds, but I would not post what is theirs in a forum. I do like the new feature that allowes me to not let other users view my stats. Whatever their point was, it completely missed me. I think that I have a very low number of geocache finds. Maybe they think that makes me less of a geocacher than them?

Link to comment

Better yet how is this relevant to HOW Virtuals should be brought back?

 

On topic:

OpenCachingUS opt has an option verification system for Virtuals: a code word you enter on the site itself instead of emailing the CO. The code word is something to do with the Virtual, such as "what is the first word on the third line of the plaque?"

 

Not sure Groundspeak would be willing to automate Virtual verification in any way though given they declined to integrate a GeoChecker-like feature into the site for Puzzle caches.

Edited by joshism
Link to comment

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l) KEY

 

ADJECTIVE:

 

Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name:

Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.

Computer Science Created, simulated

 

In other words...

 

NOT REAL!!

 

"Virtual" caches are NOT real caches.

 

I would have truly loved to have been able to vote "NO" on the reintroduction of these not real caches. Where were all you virtual haters when the voting was going on the last few months? It was only the top 3 vote. Maybe Groundspeak will reinstate Hampster Caching also, that ain't real either. If these not real caches will help the Waymarking site, I can ignore them like I do most waymark categorys. It's all about the numbers folks, be it your cache stats, or Groundspeaks bank account. Get ready for these not real caches, I know that I am. Will their icons still be a ghost?

 

The feedback site does not allow for a "no" vote. There was a separate submission to not bring them back. Perhaps Bittsen voted in that one, but I don't know. Either way, quite a few people did express an interest and it is coming back.

 

I can't help but notice:

 

Traditional Cache 422

Multi-cache 10

Virtual Cache 6

Letterbox Hybrid 2

Event Cache 10

Unknown Cache 1

Earthcache 45

 

Looks like sometimes, it is about the numbers. There's nothing inherently wrong about that.

 

I really don't see how bringing someone's personal find count into question advances the discussion in any way.

 

I find irony in the classification of Virtuals as "not real caches" by some posters only to find that there are plenty of "not real caches" in their finds. Apparently they were "real" enough that you logged a find. They are just as real as Earthcaches at the very least.

 

It comes down to this, Manville Possum Hunters has a burr in his saddle about the re-introduction of Virtuals. None of us have any idea how Virtuals will be re-introduced or how the review process will work. I've been trying to figure out the reason for the burr but I've come to the conclusion that it's not really about the reasons, it's all about the burr itself. All hail the burr, long live the angst.

Link to comment

I think that I have a very low number of geocache finds. Maybe they think that makes me less of a geocacher than them?

 

I never said or implied that. If you'd look at my finds I'm not that far ahead of you and it's taken me longer. I have no opinions as to your rank, skill, or quality as a geocacher, I am a little tired of you dragging out the "for some people it's all about the numbers" as some sort of blanket reason that somehow explains everything about your reasons for not wanting Virtuals to come back.

 

If anybody is hung up on the numbers, it's you.

Link to comment

I do think this "it's about the numbers" canard is getting tired. The fact is, the geocaching model for publishing, finding, and logging any kind of interesting waypoint - whether there's a container there or not - is far simpler and more appealing than Waymarking. I love visiting virtuals, but I can't be bothered fussing with an entirely different site that doesn't even have pocket queries. If I could include selected waymark categories in my pocket queries and get them all in GPX format, I would visit waymarks quite happily.

 

And if people do want to see their finds added up in one place, what is wrong with that? I'm not a numbers hound by any stretch of the imagination, but I think showing waymarks in my list of found/visited things would be just dandy.

Link to comment

Better yet how is this relevant to HOW Virtuals should be brought back?

 

On topic:

OpenCachingUS opt has an option verification system for Virtuals: a code word you enter on the site itself instead of emailing the CO. The code word is something to do with the Virtual, such as "what is the first word on the third line of the plaque?"

 

Not sure Groundspeak would be willing to automate Virtual verification in any way though given they declined to integrate a GeoChecker-like feature into the site for Puzzle caches.

This is not a good idea. It encourages absentee virtual owners and couch potato loggers.

 

Many virtual owners put a "certificate of achievement" on their cache page. This was a password encrypted file that could be opened if you entered the code word which you had found at the the virtual site. A certificate of achievement because a sure fire method to be sure couch potato loggers would log your cache. If the password couldn't be found on the internet, the couch potato loggers could use a password cracking program to get the file open. Then they post there found logs with an image of the certificate to "prove" they had found the cache.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l) KEY

 

ADJECTIVE:

 

Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name:

Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.

Computer Science Created, simulated

 

In other words...

 

NOT REAL!!

 

"Virtual" caches are NOT real caches.

 

I would have truly loved to have been able to vote "NO" on the reintroduction of these not real caches. Where were all you virtual haters when the voting was going on the last few months? It was only the top 3 vote. Maybe Groundspeak will reinstate Hampster Caching also, that ain't real either. If these not real caches will help the Waymarking site, I can ignore them like I do most waymark categorys. It's all about the numbers folks, be it your cache stats, or Groundspeaks bank account. Get ready for these not real caches, I know that I am. Will their icons still be a ghost?

 

The feedback site does not allow for a "no" vote. There was a separate submission to not bring them back. Perhaps Bittsen voted in that one, but I don't know. Either way, quite a few people did express an interest and it is coming back.

 

I can't help but notice:

 

Traditional Cache 422

Multi-cache 10

Virtual Cache 6

Letterbox Hybrid 2

Event Cache 10

Unknown Cache 1

Earthcache 45

 

Looks like sometimes, it is about the numbers. There's nothing inherently wrong about that.

 

I really don't see how bringing someone's personal find count into question advances the discussion in any way.

 

I find irony in the classification of Virtuals as "not real caches" by some posters only to find that there are plenty of "not real caches" in their finds. Apparently they were "real" enough that you logged a find. They are just as real as Earthcaches at the very least.

 

It comes down to this, Manville Possum Hunters has a burr in his saddle about the re-introduction of Virtuals. None of us have any idea how Virtuals will be re-introduced or how the review process will work. I've been trying to figure out the reason for the burr but I've come to the conclusion that it's not really about the reasons, it's all about the burr itself. All hail the burr, long live the angst.

If you take time to read my posts, you will see that I am a waymarker and I am curranty working on listing these new virtuals as soon as we are allowed to list them. I think that they will help the Waymarking site if allowed to be listed there. You better be glad that the moderators in these forums dislike me or your finger pionting and personal attack on me would not be tolerated. I really don't see much support for the new virtuals in this forum, but yes, I have many of them ready to launch.

Link to comment

Better yet how is this relevant to HOW Virtuals should be brought back?

 

On topic:

OpenCachingUS opt has an option verification system for Virtuals: a code word you enter on the site itself instead of emailing the CO. The code word is something to do with the Virtual, such as "what is the first word on the third line of the plaque?"

 

Not sure Groundspeak would be willing to automate Virtual verification in any way though given they declined to integrate a GeoChecker-like feature into the site for Puzzle caches.

Sorry, but if I can't use that competive geocaching sites name in these forums, why are you allowed to? I used that sites name in comparing virtuals also, and it was removed my a moderator.

Link to comment

Better yet how is this relevant to HOW Virtuals should be brought back?

 

On topic:

OpenCachingUS opt has an option verification system for Virtuals: a code word you enter on the site itself instead of emailing the CO. The code word is something to do with the Virtual, such as "what is the first word on the third line of the plaque?"

 

Not sure Groundspeak would be willing to automate Virtual verification in any way though given they declined to integrate a GeoChecker-like feature into the site for Puzzle caches.

Sorry, but if I can't use that competive geocaching sites name in these forums, why are you allowed to? I used that sites name in comparing virtuals also, and it was removed my a moderator.

 

There's a difference between saying "this is how Site X does things" and "hey everybody, check out Site X."

Link to comment

As I said at the beginning, this is about discussing how the change (already planned) should be implemented. For those wanting to chime in for or against, please visit the appropriate topic on the Feedback Forums:

Bring Back Virtuals

Don't Bring Back Virtuals

I am quoting this excerpt from the Opening Post to remind everyone to keep on topic. We've wandered quite a bit.

 

Comments on how to re-implement something like virtuals would be quite welcome. Tangents like "How many virtuals are near you?" are off topic. Further off topic posts can earn a ticket on a virtual train that's virtually ready to leave this thread about virtuals.

Link to comment

How would you go about developing a new virtual? I like the old ones on this site that require a photo and the answer to a question about the virtual. I have looked at the ones listed on the other site, but some you have to go inside of a muesum for the answers. I would really like to visit the NRA mueseum, but this is just not my idea of a virtual cache is you have to pay to go inside for the answers. We have a Earthcache in the area that involves paying and going on a cave tour to log the find.

Do you think that the Waymarking site is the proper place to list the new virtuals, or the geocaching site. I would like to see more users on the Waymarking site, and listing the new virtuals there may help the site, maybe not. Any input on how YOU would develope a virtual?

Edited by Manville Possum Hunters
Link to comment
I find irony in the classification of Virtuals as "not real caches" by some posters only to find that there are plenty of "not real caches" in their finds.

It's not as contradictory as it appears. If you look at my stats, you'll find several in the Caches Found column that I don't consider to be caches. I have a highly biased view regarding what is, and what is not, a "cache". To me, when I close my eyes and envision a "cache", I see a container with a logbook. I do not envision a bunch of geeks eating hotwings, a digital camera broadcasting to the Internet, more geeks picking up litter, a plaque on the side of a road or a sinkhole. While these are all great places to visit, and/or great activities to participate in, none of them feel like caches to me. Yet, I've logged them as such, because that's how the website is set up.

 

Where I see a contradiction is in how Groundspeak defines a cache.

According to TPTB, a benchmark is not a cache, but an event, a webcam, a CITO, a virtual and an earthcache are.

I would love to see all of these removed from my Total Caches Found count, while retaining a record of how many I've done.

But I ain't holding my breath. :lol:

Link to comment

I would integrate Geocaching.com and Waymarking.com with each other, so it's just as easy for geocachers to obtain non-container waypoints as it is for them to obtain geocaching waypoints. This would eliminate the need for virtual geocaches, because those could fit under Waymarking categories, but would be easy to create and access both. The current system, using two separate sites with vastly different functions, isn't working.

 

The rules for creating Waymarks and Geocaches could be kept the same, and there would be an easy way to completely disable Waymarks or Geocaches for those who want to stick to one or the other.

Link to comment

As I said at the beginning, this is about discussing how the change (already planned) should be implemented. For those wanting to chime in for or against, please visit the appropriate topic on the Feedback Forums:

Bring Back Virtuals

Don't Bring Back Virtuals

I am quoting this excerpt from the Opening Post to remind everyone to keep on topic. We've wandered quite a bit.

 

Comments on how to re-implement something like virtuals would be quite welcome. Tangents like "How many virtuals are near you?" are off topic. Further off topic posts can earn a ticket on a virtual train that's virtually ready to leave this thread about virtuals.

I'm sorry, I contributed. :(

Link to comment

1) Differentiate new 'virtuals' from the old virtuals.

2) I don't see anyway they're going to require photo verification after removing it from the Earthcaches.

3) Most everyone agrees there needs to be verification questions. Just like Earthcaches these questions should make you think and learn rather than just find a word or spot something.

 

Now what makes a virtual. This is where GS has to be wracking their brains. Nothing was successful with the classic virtuals and this led to their demise. The WOW factor led to way too much drama.

 

1) Law out strict guidelines similar to Earthcaches. A large majority of virtuals are at places of historic interest. So take this and make it the foundation of the guidelines. The places that new virtuals are placed at should be very relevant to the history of the region.

2) The hider must lay out specifics about the importance of this location. The cache page must educate cachers on the importance and push them to learn about the history of the area.

3) Again like Earthcaches there should be a review board comprised mainly of regional members. It's easy to complain about one person denying your cache, but not so much when a group agrees.

4) Previously there was no saturation guideline for virts. They should be a minimum of .1 miles (I would be in favor of a larger distance) away from any physical waypoint AND any virtual (question to answer) waypoint to a multi/puzzle.

5) If the owner has not signed into Geocaching.com for x number of months the virtual is a)Put up for adoption (b ) archived

 

One more crazy idea...

If GS is worried about quality and the number of virtuals they can create an additional area of the feedback site. Each state/region gets 1 virtual per month(time can be extended/shortened). The top rated virtual is sent to the reviewer so (s)he can double check that it meets all guidelines before it is published.

Edited by IkeHurley13
Link to comment

As I said at the beginning, this is about discussing how the change (already planned) should be implemented. For those wanting to chime in for or against, please visit the appropriate topic on the Feedback Forums:

Bring Back Virtuals

Don't Bring Back Virtuals

I am quoting this excerpt from the Opening Post to remind everyone to keep on topic. We've wandered quite a bit.

 

Comments on how to re-implement something like virtuals would be quite welcome. Tangents like "How many virtuals are near you?" are off topic. Further off topic posts can earn a ticket on a virtual train that's virtually ready to leave this thread about virtuals.

I'm sorry, I contributed. :(

I am not sorry, I just did not know what I was asking. I want to know more about virtual caches. I also don't know how to use the multi-quotes, but I agree with Narcrissa. I think we need the new virtuals on the Waymarking site. I love Waymarking, but no one uses the site in my area. I have some very nice waymarks in historic districts. Geocaches are not allowed there. I was a waymark hater at one time, it was the phone booths that formed my opinion. One user flooded our area with anything that there was a waymark category for. I have a new friend that I tryed to introduce to Waymarking, they like mine. But they waymarked a never found phone booth just to have their log deleted because the did not check to see if the phone was still in operation. I don't use a GPS unit when seeking waymarks, I don't need one to find them while walking around in a public area. So far there has not been but one issue, because I failed to discribe a waymark and only entered my input. I corrected my mistake and discribed the waymark.

As others have stated, it is early in the stages of virtuals. 1372 votes for them and 397 against them. Looks like I just bought a one way ticket on a virtual train because I have questions about virtual caches and how they should be implemented. Can I just require a number to a phone booth as proof of a visit?

Link to comment

FWIW the votes against has dropped since they announced the return of virtuals. With only 10 votes there's no point letting them sit on something that is not going to happen.

 

I do like the Waymarking site now that there's actual waymarks around me. But I still haven't bothered to log anything.

Link to comment
FWIW the votes against has dropped since they announced the return of virtuals. With only 10 votes there's no point letting them sit on something that is not going to happen.

Yes. While both Feedback topics were active, they were running about neck-and-neck ("Pro" started with about a 50-100 vote lead before "Con" was listed). After Groundspeak announced that virtuals were coming back, the "Con" voting ground to a halt.

Link to comment
FWIW the votes against has dropped since they announced the return of virtuals. With only 10 votes there's no point letting them sit on something that is not going to happen.

Yes. While both Feedback topics were active, they were running about neck-and-neck ("Pro" started with about a 50-100 vote lead before "Con" was listed). After Groundspeak announced that virtuals were coming back, the "Con" voting ground to a halt.

 

Don't worry. Waymarkers like myself are active marking places of interest that could be used as new virtuals. I don't leave anything not listed in my waymarks that are not required answers to Earthcaches, virtuals, or waymarks. I do not see any problems with the new virtuals. Looks like the new virtuals already have a home on the Waymarking site.

Link to comment
FWIW the votes against has dropped since they announced the return of virtuals. With only 10 votes there's no point letting them sit on something that is not going to happen.

Yes. While both Feedback topics were active, they were running about neck-and-neck ("Pro" started with about a 50-100 vote lead before "Con" was listed). After Groundspeak announced that virtuals were coming back, the "Con" voting ground to a halt.

 

Don't worry. Waymarkers like myself are active marking places of interest that could be used as new virtuals. I don't leave anything not listed in my waymarks that are not required answers to Earthcaches, virtuals, or waymarks. I do not see any problems with the new virtuals. Looks like the new virtuals already have a home on the Waymarking site.

 

Where are you getting this idea that Groundspeak is going to put virtual geocaches over at Waymarking, and why do you think anybody would be more inclined to use that mess of a site simply because there are Waymarks labelled "virtual geocaches" over there? The whole point of asking for virtual geocaches to come back to Geocaching.com is that going to an entirely separate site is a gigantic nuisance.

Link to comment
The whole point of asking for virtual geocaches to come back to Geocaching.com is that going to an entirely separate site is a gigantic nuisance.

Agreed. If virtuals come back, I think the whole Waymarking nuisance should go away.

 

Well, if they want to keep the site alive for the 5 people who use it to painstakingly record the coordinates for everything in their neighbourhood, okay. I just want them to stop expecting geocachers to use it.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment
The whole point of asking for virtual geocaches to come back to Geocaching.com is that going to an entirely separate site is a gigantic nuisance.

Agreed. If virtuals come back, I think the whole Waymarking nuisance should go away.

 

Well, if they want to keep the site alive for the 5 people who use it to painstakingly record the coordinates for everything in their neighbourhood, okay. I just want them to stop expecting geocachers to use it.

 

I would love to see a separate thread discussing all the ways Waymarking could be better as it is a long list. It doesn't seem Groundspeak cares a great deal about improving the site at this point since the Feedback Forums have sections for the 3 Groundspeak apps, improvements for geocaching.com, bug reports for geocaching.com, and Souvenirs but nothing for Waymarking.

Link to comment

 

I would love to see a separate thread discussing all the ways Waymarking could be better as it is a long list. It doesn't seem Groundspeak cares a great deal about improving the site at this point since the Feedback Forums have sections for the 3 Groundspeak apps, improvements for geocaching.com, bug reports for geocaching.com, and Souvenirs but nothing for Waymarking.

 

It's come up many, many times, but ultimately, Waymarking is an irretrievable fail and it's not worth talking about improving it.

Link to comment
The whole point of asking for virtual geocaches to come back to Geocaching.com is that going to an entirely separate site is a gigantic nuisance.

Agreed. If virtuals come back, I think the whole Waymarking nuisance should go away.

 

Well, if they want to keep the site alive for the 5 people who use it to painstakingly record the coordinates for everything in their neighbourhood, okay. I just want them to stop expecting geocachers to use it.

Well, actually we only have one user such as you discribe. If Waymarking has a category for it, they have a listing published in it. Many times the same virtual is listed in 3-4 different categorys. I really love the Waymarking site, but I ignore most of the categorys. I am hoping that the new Virtual caches will be listed on the Waymarking site. The site is more widely used in Countrys other than the US, where the site seems used the least. I manage a category that has listings in 5-6 US States and in 4-5 different Countrys. I enjoy Waymarking more than searching for a Altoids tin with a wet log in it, and listing the new Virtuals along with the waymarks only makes sense to me. I think that the new virtuals should count toward a geocachers stats, it would give users interested in their numbers more reason to seek them. But don't think that the Waymarking site is going away because it is used little in the US and Canada.

Link to comment

I enjoy Waymarking more than searching for a Altoids tin with a wet log in it, and listing the new Virtuals along with the waymarks only makes sense to me. I think that the new virtuals should count toward a geocachers stats, it would give users interested in their numbers more reason to seek them. But don't think that the Waymarking site is going away because it is used little in the US and Canada.

 

Ignoring the fact that not all Geocaches are Altoids tins with wet logs... how would you differentiate between a Virtual listed on the Waymarking site and a Waymark listed on the Waymarking site. I don't think that all the Waymarks would qualify for listings as Virtuals (fast food locations, as an example) and wouldn't it be redundant to have a Virtual listed on Waymarking that might reside in the same place as a Waymark listed on Waymarking?

 

Seems like it would make sense just to put what you're going to call a "Virtual Cache" on the geocaching site and be done with it, hypothetical new listing requirements and all.

 

I'm not trying to be critical, I just don't understand where you're going with this.

Link to comment

 

I would love to see a separate thread discussing all the ways Waymarking could be better as it is a long list. It doesn't seem Groundspeak cares a great deal about improving the site at this point since the Feedback Forums have sections for the 3 Groundspeak apps, improvements for geocaching.com, bug reports for geocaching.com, and Souvenirs but nothing for Waymarking.

 

It's come up many, many times, but ultimately, Waymarking is an irretrievable fail and it's not worth talking about improving it.

Funny. Last night I was looking in the Waymarking forums, which I usually avoid because they use different BB software which I personally find nearly as hard to use as the feedback site. Anyhow, there seemed to be several threads there questioning whether or not Groundspeak was making a full commitment to improving the Waymarking site. There were some people who took narcissa's attitude that Waymarking was a failure and Grounspeak wasn't likely to spend more to fix it up, and others who admitted that geocaching gets all the attention, but that they were still optimistic that improvements could be made.

 

Another theme in these threads was that there is a fundamental difference in philosphy between waymarkers and geocachers. Geocachers it seems want to get taken to cool places where they can log a "find" and get credit for visiting that place. Most waymarkers are more interested in creating waymarks, listing places in the categories they find interesting (and some do find the commercial categories interesting), reaserching the location to fill in the category specific variables, writing up a good description, and taking photos. Many don't care if anyone ever visits (unlike most geocache owners who want visits). Many waymarkers are happiest when their waymark comes up high in a Google search or when they get an email from someone who was able to use the information and the photos. In this respect Waymarking is more like Wikipedia than Geocaching.

 

I enjoy Waymarking more than searching for a Altoids tin with a wet log in it, and listing the new Virtuals along with the waymarks only makes sense to me. I think that the new virtuals should count toward a geocachers stats, it would give users interested in their numbers more reason to seek them. But don't think that the Waymarking site is going away because it is used little in the US and Canada.

 

Ignoring the fact that not all Geocaches are Altoids tins with wet logs... how would you differentiate between a Virtual listed on the Waymarking site and a Waymark listed on the Waymarking site. I don't think that all the Waymarks would qualify for listings as Virtuals (fast food locations, as an example) and wouldn't it be redundant to have a Virtual listed on Waymarking that might reside in the same place as a Waymark listed on Waymarking?

 

Seems like it would make sense just to put what you're going to call a "Virtual Cache" on the geocaching site and be done with it, hypothetical new listing requirements and all.

 

I'm not trying to be critical, I just don't understand where you're going with this.

This is a good question. Clearly not all Waymarking categories would make good virtual caches. Some are clearly not intended for visting, some are too mundane. Many categories would be hard pressed to find a way to verify a visit that geocachers would accept (especially if virtuals were to count in the find count). I think we first need a definition of virtuals that we can have some agreement on. (People who say caches must be a physical container might object to any definition if virtuals are listed on geocaching.com or count as finds). With some sort of definition, I could see one or more Waymarking categories being created for housing these virtuals. Then it would not be hard for Geocaching.com to access these categories and display them as virtual caches. It could be that geocachers like narcissa would never have to access Waymarking to find these virtuals (and perhaps even to submit new virtual caches). They would be on Waymarking and waymarkers like MPH could use the Waymarking site for them, but those who want to just use the geocaching site would see everything as if these were virtual caches on geoaching.com

 

I would like to propose that Groundspeak takes a few Waymarking categories that they think cover some worthy definitions of "wowness". They then work with the category owners to make sure that waymarks in these categories have some sort of verification of visits that would keep the geocachers happy. (Existing waymarks in these categories may be grandfathered in). Then announce that waymarks in these categories could be found on Geocaching.com as the new virtual caches. Virtual cache waymarks would be reviewed the Waymarking groups that manage these categories. Initially, at least, you might have to go to Waymarking.com to submit a new virtual cache waymark.

 

When Waymarking was first started, I felt that it was missing some of the what made virtual caches popular. One was the idea that there was something to find at the location. It wasn't just a visit. Second, there need to be a way to verify that you actually found it - answering a question that you had to find the answer to at the location, or a photo of the object with your GPSr in it. Finally, was tthe subjective idea that the place was "wow" enough to deserve to be a virtual cache.

 

It is this "Wow" requirement that makes defining a virtual cache so difficult. It means different things to different people. I started the Wow Waymarkers Waymarking group to come up with ideas for a definition of virtual caches. We finally decided on Best Kept Secrets. The idea is that these are places that you would otherwise not know existed. You would say "Wow, I didn't know this was here". There was also some input that by not revealing everything in the description, people would be curious and want to visit the location in order to solve the mystery. While not a requirement for a Best Kept Secret waymark it is strongly encouraged to leave your writeup a little mysterious.

 

I fully expected other ideas as to what would make a location "wow" and thought there would be other Waymarking categories to explore these other definitions. Perhaps "Wow" ment you learned something - a little history or something about geology. Perhaps "Wow" was seeing some superlative - the biggest of something or the oldest of something. There are some categories that list locations like these but most were not setup as alternatives for virtual caches. With a little work however, I think these categories could be turned into the basis for a new type of virtual geocache.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 8
×
×
  • Create New...