Jump to content

The return of Virtuals


Al 7365

Recommended Posts

Wow. This is the most exciting project in years. What happened to Waymarking? WHat happened with Wherigo? How long till Groundspeak abandons this one?

 

Good businesses abandon unproductive products all the time. Remember Microsoft Bob? Do you think it was a "slap in the face" to those users who loved Bob when Microsoft abandoned it?

 

I know this is a little out of character for me, but I think Groundspeak is innovating in the right way. Trying new things to see what will stick and what will not. Not wasting resources on things that do not succeed (in a business sense), and instead trying new ideas seems to me to be a solid business development strategy.

 

Your complaint about Groundspeak "abandoning" Waymarking instead of forcing everyone to use to it replace virtuals has the same moralistic tone as many previous discussions on the subject. Somehow we all should like Waymarking because, in theory, it could replace virtuals. But history suggests that businesses who base their product lines on what they think their customers should like tend not to have long lives, and Groundspeak understands that.

Link to comment

I don't think that we were ever told that virtual caches were coming back. I believe what was said was they were going to try and come up with a substitute that would please both those who want virtuals again and those that didn't. Obviously bringing them back in the original form would not do that.

 

In the UserVoice updates I never said that virtuals were coming back in their previous form, but instead something would be available that should capture the interest in virtuals without the baggage (such as the subjective review process).

 

To me, this is the most exciting project that we've worked on in years, but it will take some time to iterate through the idea and I know we'll get some things wrong, but the framework is solid. We'll be investing a substantial amount of effort with this project moving forward.

 

Some points:

 

  • It will be on Geocaching.com, not a new web site. It will be a separate section in the beta, but I expect it to be integrated into a joined search at some point.
  • Currently they will not go towards your find count, but it might at some point. It won't at the beginning though.
  • It will be a visible statistic, so you will see them on the profile, on the logs, etc.
  • We'll be hopefully launching with mobile applications to compliment the activity. I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones, but we will have components (Pocket Queries, GPX file downloads, etc) for traditional GPS devices.

 

For the comments that we should involve the community more, we do. We don't have a public discussion about it, instead working with a smaller sampling of geocachers.

 

Jeremy,

If you need any beta testers let me know. I'm in your area. :)

Link to comment

I don't think that we were ever told that virtual caches were coming back. I believe what was said was they were going to try and come up with a substitute that would please both those who want virtuals again and those that didn't. Obviously bringing them back in the original form would not do that.

 

In the UserVoice updates I never said that virtuals were coming back in their previous form, but instead something would be available that should capture the interest in virtuals without the baggage (such as the subjective review process).

 

To me, this is the most exciting project that we've worked on in years, but it will take some time to iterate through the idea and I know we'll get some things wrong, but the framework is solid. We'll be investing a substantial amount of effort with this project moving forward.

 

Some points:

 

  • It will be on Geocaching.com, not a new web site. It will be a separate section in the beta, but I expect it to be integrated into a joined search at some point.
  • Currently they will not go towards your find count, but it might at some point. It won't at the beginning though.
  • It will be a visible statistic, so you will see them on the profile, on the logs, etc.
  • We'll be hopefully launching with mobile applications to compliment the activity. I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones, but we will have components (Pocket Queries, GPX file downloads, etc) for traditional GPS devices.

 

For the comments that we should involve the community more, we do. We don't have a public discussion about it, instead working with a smaller sampling of geocachers.

 

Was not expecting this, but it has piqued my interest :grin: . Can't wait to give a go at the Block Party.

Link to comment
This new "challenge" although sounds like fun, and will probably be, I have no intentions of finding any of them, if I don't get a smiley or a number there is no point IMO, just like benchmarks.

 

I find it a little sad that your desire for a number outweighs your desire to even try something that you say sounds like and probably would be fun.

 

I intend to "wait and see" what the product looks like before I pass judgement one way or the other.

 

Given that both the "bring back Virtuals" and "Virtuals aren't Geocaches" crowds both cling to their beliefs with near-religious furor, makes me think a solution that makes both sides equally angry might just mean Groundspeak got it perfectly right.

Link to comment
This new "challenge" although sounds like fun, and will probably be, I have no intentions of finding any of them, if I don't get a smiley or a number there is no point IMO, just like benchmarks.

 

I find it a little sad that your desire for a number outweighs your desire to even try something that you say sounds like and probably would be fun.

 

I intend to "wait and see" what the product looks like before I pass judgement one way or the other.

 

Given that both the "bring back Virtuals" and "Virtuals aren't Geocaches" crowds both cling to their beliefs with near-religious furor, makes me think a solution that makes both sides equally angry might just mean Groundspeak got it perfectly right.

I will also have a wait and see attitude and won't pass judgement on the new whatever they will be called until after the Beta is complete. I would love to be part of tghe Beta, but there is no way I can make the block party. :sad:

 

That being said I am a member of the Bring Back Virtuals group, however I realize that changes are necessary and that they can't be like they were. I do hope they count but I'm a geocacher for many reasons only one, very small reason, of which is the smiley.

Link to comment

I enjoy the current virtuals because they are rare. Thats the only reason, I don't want to see them return. This new "challenge" although sounds like fun, and will probably be, I have no intentions of finding any of them, if I don't get a smiley or a number there is no point IMO, just like benchmarks.

 

I think you said a mouthful there! Well put.

Link to comment

If they don't count as a :) then no one will bother doing them...

I think that you would be quite surprised at how many of us could care less about smilies and stats, and in fact quite a number of us think that doing away with their public display would be a good thing.

 

I know quite a few geocachers; I don't know any who play just for the numbers.

 

I play for all the other things AND the numbers. I don't care what anybody else derives from my numbers, but I want my numbers.

 

Then keep track of your numbers. Make a spreadsheet or a database or something to keep track of the virtuals? challenges? whatevertheyares? you've completed. If you "don't care what anybody else derives" from your numbers then there's no necessity for Groundspeak to add them to your cache finds.

 

But it's easier to complain, isn't it?

 

Just like it's easier to complain that benchmarks aren't worth doing because they don't add to your finds. Never mind the fact that the web site does tally your benchmark finds, and all you have to do if you want the grand total is to add that to your cache finds. But apparently it's unacceptable that Groundspeak doesn't add those two numbers together for us.

Link to comment

If they don't count as a :) then no one will bother doing them...

I think that you would be quite surprised at how many of us could care less about smilies and stats, and in fact quite a number of us think that doing away with their public display would be a good thing.

 

I know quite a few geocachers; I don't know any who play just for the numbers.

 

I play for all the other things AND the numbers. I don't care what anybody else derives from my numbers, but I want my numbers.

 

Then keep track of your numbers. Make a spreadsheet or a database or something to keep track of the virtuals? challenges? whatevertheyares? you've completed. If you "don't care what anybody else derives" from your numbers then there's no necessity for Groundspeak to add them to your cache finds.

 

But it's easier to complain, isn't it?

 

Just like it's easier to complain that benchmarks aren't worth doing because they don't add to your finds. Never mind the fact that the web site does tally your benchmark finds, and all you have to do if you want the grand total is to add that to your cache finds. But apparently it's unacceptable that Groundspeak doesn't add those two numbers together for us.

Benchmarks are boring. Even if each one counted for 10 geocaches, I would still ignore them.

 

By the way, complaining is NOT easy. It takes a lot of energy to complain properly. Please do not discount complaining. Much of what you enjoy in life was a result of somebody complaining.

Link to comment

My experience with many debates on Waymarking v. Virtuals is that they tend to boil down to the main problem with Waymarking; you don't get your geocaching numbers updated when you log a find on one. If the new version is to succeed, that is the first issue to address. The rest of it will be mere window dressing by comparison.

Link to comment

My experience with many debates on Waymarking v. Virtuals is that they tend to boil down to the main problem with Waymarking; you don't get your geocaching numbers updated when you log a find on one. If the new version is to succeed, that is the first issue to address. The rest of it will be mere window dressing by comparison.

 

You might want to read back through the threads for the reason waymarks, unrelated to geocaching, are not virtuals. The conclusion you have assumed is incorrect.

Link to comment

My experience with many debates on Waymarking v. Virtuals is that they tend to boil down to the main problem with Waymarking; you don't get your geocaching numbers updated when you log a find on one. If the new version is to succeed, that is the first issue to address. The rest of it will be mere window dressing by comparison.

 

You might want to read back through the threads for the reason waymarks, unrelated to geocaching, are not virtuals. The conclusion you have assumed is incorrect.

I think that's a rather premature statement. Waymarks could be (or "could have been"?) just like virtuals, they just needed to be created like them. If geocachers had an interest in Waymarking, they could have created lots of waymarks that worked just like virtuals. But they didn't. The question is why. Lack of integration might have been a reason.

Link to comment

My experience with many debates on Waymarking v. Virtuals is that they tend to boil down to the main problem with Waymarking; you don't get your geocaching numbers updated when you log a find on one. If the new version is to succeed, that is the first issue to address. The rest of it will be mere window dressing by comparison.

 

You might want to read back through the threads for the reason waymarks, unrelated to geocaching, are not virtuals. The conclusion you have assumed is incorrect.

Waymarks and Virtuals are very similar. I enjoy both. I like to upload photos of my waymark and virtual visits. It's not about the numbers to me. I have fun with my GPS. I like Garmin units best.

Link to comment

At GC2GA1J, Jeremy explained that the "new" virtuals would be implemented as "challenges". Not challenge caches (or caching challenges) obviously, but he explained that he and his team saw virtuals as a "go somewhere and do something" kinda thing, and that's what the new "challenges" will be. The first released type will be a photo challenge: go somewhere and take a picture. He also explained that there will be no review system, but rather some kind of rating system, with good challenges rising to the top and bad ones falling to the bottom and (maybe?) eventually disappearing, and that the whole system was seen as an experiment on their part.

 

Thanks for this info. Looking forward to the return of Virtuals asap

Link to comment

In the UserVoice updates I never said that virtuals were coming back in their previous form, but instead something would be available that should capture the interest in virtuals without the baggage (such as the subjective review process).

 

I guess that there are hundreds of reasons for being interested into virtual caches. I think that regardless of you will implement the new project, it will only be able to capture a relatively small segment of what you refer to the "interest into virtuals".

 

Currently they will not go towards your find count, but it might at some point.

 

I'd prefer if they never will contribute to the find count.

 

I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones,

 

I'm just curious. Why do you expect that to happen? Is it a regional issue? In my area the majority of cachers is not caching with smartphones. Or is it related to the foreseen activities?

Will they mainly photo-based (I am not interested into those at all), "game"-based or will also educative tasks be allowed (such activities would attract me), or don't you know it already?

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones,

 

I'm just curious. Why do you expect that to happen? Is it a regional issue? In my area the majority of cachers is not caching with smartphones...

You don't build for the technology in use today, you build for what will be used in the future. I don't know that this will be cell phones, but I can tell you with some certainty that it won't be hand-held dedicated GPS receivers. With every iteration of technological advancement there are some who say "I will never use that" but inevitably, they do.

 

My Motorola Atrix 4G 'superphone' is already quite capable of replacing my laptop and my GPS. Like them or not they are the next step into the future.

Link to comment

I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones,

 

I'm just curious. Why do you expect that to happen? Is it a regional issue? In my area the majority of cachers is not caching with smartphones...

You don't build for the technology in use today, you build for what will be used in the future.

 

I was not questioning any design decision. The statement I cited did not refer to the future. So I understood it with respect to the present.

 

 

My Motorola Atrix 4G 'superphone' is already quite capable of replacing my laptop and my GPS. Like them or not they are the next step into the future.

 

That gets a bit off-topic now, but let me comment nevertheless. I think it depends on one's expectations and general philosophy.

I would not want to rely just on one device in the mountains (I have no need for a laptop there either) and the same is true for many fellow cachers. Many of them own smartphones, but prefer to use dedicated GPS-devices for geocaching and hiking. Phones are typically not designed to be handled in the way I handle my GPS-r while geocaching. I know many cases where GPS-s devices get dropped, forgetten at some place etc - it is good to have a phone available nevertheless. Typically, I have my mobile phone at a safer place than my GPSr. That's possible as I do not need it during my hike/bike trip.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones,

 

I'm just curious. Why do you expect that to happen? Is it a regional issue? In my area the majority of cachers is not caching with smartphones...

You don't build for the technology in use today, you build for what will be used in the future.

 

I was not questioning any design decision. The statement I cited did not refer to the future. So I understood it with respect to the present.

 

 

My Motorola Atrix 4G 'superphone' is already quite capable of replacing my laptop and my GPS. Like them or not they are the next step into the future.

 

That gets a bit off-topic now, but let me comment nevertheless. I think it depends on one's expectations and general philosophy.

I would not want to rely just on one device in the mountains (I have no need for a laptop there either) and the same is true for many fellow cachers. Many of them own smartphones, but prefer to use dedicated GPS-devices for geocaching and hiking. Phones are typically not designed to be handled in the way I handle my GPS-r while geocaching. I know many cases where GPS-s devices get dropped, forgetten at some place etc - it is good to have a phone available nevertheless. Typically, I have my mobile phone at a safer place than my GPSr. That's possible as I do not need it during my hike/bike trip.

 

Cezanne

That's true today. I still use my Magellan Meridian Gold and recently ordered a Garmin GPSMap 62ST. Today I prefer a rugged dedicated GPS. In a few years as 'superphones' or devices like them evolve I suspect that will not be the case.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

In the UserVoice updates I never said that virtuals were coming back in their previous form, but instead something would be available that should capture the interest in virtuals without the baggage (such as the subjective review process).

 

To me, this is the most exciting project that we've worked on in years, but it will take some time to iterate through the idea and I know we'll get some things wrong, but the framework is solid. We'll be investing a substantial amount of effort with this project moving forward.

 

Some points:

 

  • It will be on Geocaching.com, not a new web site. It will be a separate section in the beta, but I expect it to be integrated into a joined search at some point.
  • Currently they will not go towards your find count, but it might at some point. It won't at the beginning though.
  • It will be a visible statistic, so you will see them on the profile, on the logs, etc.
  • We'll be hopefully launching with mobile applications to compliment the activity. I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones, but we will have components (Pocket Queries, GPX file downloads, etc) for traditional GPS devices.

 

For the comments that we should involve the community more, we do. We don't have a public discussion about it, instead working with a smaller sampling of geocachers.

 

So, for now, the plan is to treat them basically like benchmarks?

 

I honestly don't see why so many limiting factors are being put into this in an effort to placate those opposed to the return of virtuals. Power trails are now allowed, to the dissatisfaction of many a cacher, yet these count as cache finds. Plenty of folks hate lampskirt hides and guardrail caches, yet these count as cache finds.

 

Don't try to please everyone, because in the end you will please few. The virtual haters will still be displeased even if a weaker version of virtuals is brought back. And I'm willing to give the benefit of a doubt for now, but if this diluted...thing...is what we end up going with, I don't think I'm going to be satisfied with it, either.

 

My vote is, just bring 'em back. Make the guidelines tougher, make the review process more stringent if you must. But just bring 'em back. And when I say bring 'em back, I don't mean come up with some half-donkeyed compromise, I mean bring 'em back.

Link to comment

I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones,

 

I'm just curious. Why do you expect that to happen? Is it a regional issue? In my area the majority of cachers is not caching with smartphones. Or is it related to the foreseen activities?

Will they mainly photo-based (I am not interested into those at all), "game"-based or will also educative tasks be allowed (such activities would attract me), or don't you know it already?

 

Because they want to go where the money is. There is a far broader group of people with GPS enabled phones than there are people with dedicated units. Why cater to the smaller fish in the bucket when there's potential to snag some fish in the much larger pond?

 

There's not anything intrinsically wrong with this, a company’s got to make money to survive, but it still makes me uneasy.

Link to comment

I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones,

 

I'm just curious. Why do you expect that to happen? Is it a regional issue? In my area the majority of cachers is not caching with smartphones. Or is it related to the foreseen activities?

Will they mainly photo-based (I am not interested into those at all), "game"-based or will also educative tasks be allowed (such activities would attract me), or don't you know it already?

 

Because they want to go where the money is. There is a far broader group of people with GPS enabled phones than there are people with dedicated units.

 

Your last statement is definitely true, but I am not convinced at all that these new concept of virtuals will really attract the masses.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

Your last statement is definitely true, but I am not convinced at all that these new concept of virtuals will really attract the masses.

 

I agree that it won't probably attract long-term, stick with it for years, find thousands/hide hundreds cachers. I don't think that's the point. I think that new "try an app with mommy's money" smart phone users are being born every day.

Link to comment

I knew they wouldn't quite be Virtual Caches, but this seems like a very cautious approach.

 

While I don't see caching as all about the numbers, I do find my stats / milestones interesting. I'll be interested to see what happens if they are eventually retroactively counted toward people's find counts. I imagine there'd be a bit of outcry.

 

I enjoy virtuals and never saw Waymarks as quite the same thing, though I dabbled in them for a while. Will be interesting to see how these will actually work. What will make them different from virtuals, aside the name and how they're counted (or not) toward you finds.

 

How will the creation process work? What will the constraints be? How will you need to "prove" you've completed the challenge?

 

And, finally, will the they be completed using the official GC.com app? Will there be a separate app? Will it cost $9.95?

Link to comment

In the UserVoice updates I never said that virtuals were coming back in their previous form, but instead something would be available that should capture the interest in virtuals without the baggage (such as the subjective review process).

 

To me, this is the most exciting project that we've worked on in years, but it will take some time to iterate through the idea and I know we'll get some things wrong, but the framework is solid. We'll be investing a substantial amount of effort with this project moving forward.

 

Some points:

 

  • It will be on Geocaching.com, not a new web site. It will be a separate section in the beta, but I expect it to be integrated into a joined search at some point.
  • Currently they will not go towards your find count, but it might at some point. It won't at the beginning though.
  • It will be a visible statistic, so you will see them on the profile, on the logs, etc.
  • We'll be hopefully launching with mobile applications to compliment the activity. I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones, but we will have components (Pocket Queries, GPX file downloads, etc) for traditional GPS devices.

 

For the comments that we should involve the community more, we do. We don't have a public discussion about it, instead working with a smaller sampling of geocachers.

 

So, for now, the plan is to treat them basically like benchmarks?

 

I honestly don't see why so many limiting factors are being put into this in an effort to placate those opposed to the return of virtuals. Power trails are now allowed, to the dissatisfaction of many a cacher, yet these count as cache finds. Plenty of folks hate lampskirt hides and guardrail caches, yet these count as cache finds.

 

Don't try to please everyone, because in the end you will please few. The virtual haters will still be displeased even if a weaker version of virtuals is brought back. And I'm willing to give the benefit of a doubt for now, but if this diluted...thing...is what we end up going with, I don't think I'm going to be satisfied with it, either.

 

My vote is, just bring 'em back. Make the guidelines tougher, make the review process more stringent if you must. But just bring 'em back. And when I say bring 'em back, I don't mean come up with some half-donkeyed compromise, I mean bring 'em back.

 

It sounds to me like the single biggest problem of the old virtuals was exactly that... the review process had apparently become a nightmare for the reviewers with seemingly arbitrary decsions and endless back and forth email discussions regarding the elusive "WOW Factor". That part of it had never occurred to me until this thread, but I can see how quickly that could get out of hand.

Link to comment
My vote is, just bring 'em back. Make the guidelines tougher, make the review process more stringent if you must. But just bring 'em back. And when I say bring 'em back, I don't mean come up with some half-donkeyed compromise, I mean bring 'em back.

 

It sounds to me like the single biggest problem of the old virtuals was exactly that... the review process had apparently become a nightmare for the reviewers with seemingly arbitrary decsions and endless back and forth email discussions regarding the elusive "WOW Factor". That part of it had never occurred to me until this thread, but I can see how quickly that could get out of hand.

 

Yup. In all the discussions about pro and contra virtuals and what the problems with them were, nobody could ever come up with a workable, usable, decent solution about which rules to apply and how. Even when you only have a subset of special case virtuals, with the review process and rules management outsourced to a 3rd party (earthcaches, anyone?) you still get people complaining and bickering left and right.

Link to comment

[

 

My vote is, just bring 'em back. Make the guidelines tougher, make the review process more stringent if you must. But just bring 'em back. And when I say bring 'em back, I don't mean come up with some half-donkeyed compromise, I mean bring 'em back.

 

It sounds to me like the single biggest problem of the old virtuals was exactly that... the review process had apparently become a nightmare for the reviewers with seemingly arbitrary decsions and endless back and forth email discussions regarding the elusive "WOW Factor". That part of it had never occurred to me until this thread, but I can see how quickly that could get out of hand.

 

I agree. The review burden certainly has been the biggest problem with the old virtuals. This does not mean however that removing the review process will produce a result that will be welcomed by fans of old virtual caches. I rather would guess that this will not happen.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

My experience with many debates on Waymarking v. Virtuals is that they tend to boil down to the main problem with Waymarking; you don't get your geocaching numbers updated when you log a find on one. If the new version is to succeed, that is the first issue to address. The rest of it will be mere window dressing by comparison.

 

You might want to read back through the threads for the reason waymarks, unrelated to geocaching, are not virtuals. The conclusion you have assumed is incorrect.

I think you missed my point. Whether you want to regard any waymark as a virtual or not; in past debates the final overriding factor that puts geocachers off the whole Waymarking scene is down to not getting their finds updated on their geocaching profile. Any new "Virtual" replacement must have that as a top priority, otherwise it will be regarded with the same disdain by a large number of cachers.

 

Obviously, something like "Victorian Phone Boxes" is not a virtual, because it's a category. So I wouldn't argue that waymarks are virtuals - however, some are the same.

Apart from not updating your geocaching stats, of course.

Link to comment

Yup. In all the discussions about pro and contra virtuas and what the problems with them were, nobody could ever come up with a workable, usable, decent solution about which rules to apply and how.

 

I do not think that the old approach for virtuals was that bad from the point of the view of the outcome. The only problem was the work burden for the reviewers and the fact that with an ever increasing number of geocachers, they are already much too busy with the many submissions for physical geocachers by cachers who do not even have read the guidelines.

 

It is not that surprising that no automatic system exists that can replace the work of human beings.

 

Even when you only have a subset of special case virtuals, with the review process and rules management outsourced to a 3rd party (earthcaches, anyone?) you still get people complaining and bickering left and right.

 

As Earthcaches are regarded, I do not think that the main reason for the debates is that is not possible to come up with a workable set of rules that are agreed upon by most cachers.

In my opinion, the key issue for Earthcaches is that for many they serve as replacement for virtual caches at geological sites - they are not happy with the educational focus, regardless of whether as visitor or as developper. A second reason from my point of view is that rules have been added to the EC guidelines which reflect the geocaching philosophy of the EC team and are not related to Earthcaching itself and which are not needed for any legal, security or quality reasons.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
My vote is, just bring 'em back. Make the guidelines tougher, make the review process more stringent if you must. But just bring 'em back. And when I say bring 'em back, I don't mean come up with some half-donkeyed compromise, I mean bring 'em back.

 

It sounds to me like the single biggest problem of the old virtuals was exactly that... the review process had apparently become a nightmare for the reviewers with seemingly arbitrary decsions and endless back and forth email discussions regarding the elusive "WOW Factor". That part of it had never occurred to me until this thread, but I can see how quickly that could get out of hand.

 

Yup. In all the discussions about pro and contra virtuals and what the problems with them were, nobody could ever come up with a workable, usable, decent solution about which rules to apply and how. Even when you only have a subset of special case virtuals, with the review process and rules management outsourced to a 3rd party (earthcaches, anyone?) you still get people complaining and bickering left and right.

Exactly. I've been a proponent of Waymarking because the concept of Waymarking groups allow for many groups to form and each have their own definition of "wow". I expected that Best Kept Secrets would be the first of many groups like this. That didn't happen. Instead most Waymarking groups wanted to manage simple straight forward categories. The work of defining what "wow" is and then trying to enforce that standard is terribly difficult.

 

It sounds like the new "challenges" will use a voting system to determine which of these new caches get to remain and which will be archived. I'll wait till I see the mechanism before passing judgment, though I can already imagine the threads in the forum appealing the vote or even just campaigning for support.

Link to comment

 

CAT OUT OF THE BAG. CAN OPEN WORMS EVERYWHERE.

 

 

LargeSmall but Noisy Portion of Users: Bring back bananas!

 

A significant protion of users have said they like things the way they are. A LARGE Portion of Users have said nothing at all.

I'm in that group. I read these discussions but usually don't get drawn into them until someone says something (oops, self-editing).

For the record:

I like geocaching, I like it a lot.

I don't know if I've ever asked Groundspeak for anything.

I've liked some of the things they've introduced without anyone asking, the things I haven't liked I've ignored.

I'm happy to see Jeremy personally posting to the forums again, even if he seems a little steamed! :laughing:

Bananas. Are. Not. Coming. Back.

Edited by hukilaulau
Link to comment

 

CAT OUT OF THE BAG. CAN OPEN WORMS EVERYWHERE.

 

 

LargeSmall but Noisy Portion of Users: Bring back bananas!

 

A significant protion of users have said they like things the way they are. A LARGE Portion of Users have said nothing at all.

I'm in that group. I read these discussions but usually don't get drawn into them until someone says something (oops, self-editing).

For the record:

I like geocaching, I like it a lot.

I don't know if I've ever asked Groundspeak for anything.

I've liked some of the things they've introduced without anyone asking, the things I haven't liked I've ignored.

I'm happy to see Jeremy personally posting to the forums again, even if he seems a little steamed! :laughing:

Bananas. Are. Not. Coming. Back.

 

You make it sound like you're taking the moral high-ground or something because you've never "asked" for something.

 

Okay, more accurately... based on two threads in the Feedback site, a larger quantity of users have expressed the desire for the return of virtuals in some form than have requested virtuals not be brought back based raw numbers of votes on those two items. So of the people that care to express their opinion and have used the Feedback site to express that opinion, it appears that the votes are in favor of a return of virtuals.

 

Sure, a much larger portion of people that are considered to be or consider themselves cachers have not said anything. If they don't care either way or are not active in the voting on the Feedback site, then for all intents and purposes because they choose not to vote, whatever their opinion might or might not be is irrelevant to the discussion because none of us are mind-readers.

 

Go team bananas.

 

Pluots. More. Like. Plums. Than. Bananas.

 

(But, hey if they can be pulled up on a PQ then I'm 500x more interested in them than Waymarks. In fact, I'm really kind of curious to see how this plays out. Heck, just this one thing, the PQ inclusion, restores/justifies my faith that at the end of the day somebody is listening and not all the feedback from those outside the Inner Lilly Pad is for naught.)

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

 

CAT OUT OF THE BAG. CAN OPEN WORMS EVERYWHERE.

 

 

LargeSmall but Noisy Portion of Users: Bring back bananas!

 

A significant protion of users have said they like things the way they are. A LARGE Portion of Users have said nothing at all.

I'm in that group. I read these discussions but usually don't get drawn into them until someone says something (oops, self-editing).

For the record:

I like geocaching, I like it a lot.

I don't know if I've ever asked Groundspeak for anything.

I've liked some of the things they've introduced without anyone asking, the things I haven't liked I've ignored.

I'm happy to see Jeremy personally posting to the forums again, even if he seems a little steamed! :laughing:

Bananas. Are. Not. Coming. Back.

 

You make it sound like you're taking the moral high-ground or something because you've never "asked" for something.

 

 

Well, I never meant to sound moral about anything!

Simply trying to dispute the idea that you are speaking for the majority of geocachers in your sarcastic post. (OK, you never really said that.)

I should have simply said I disagree with nearly everything in your post, and don't want to be included in your hypothetical group.

Link to comment

Wow. Thanks Groundspeak for not once, but twice giving us something that we didn't ask for but a whole new thing that isn't what anybody asked for but is somehow supposed to appease the people that want the thing.

 

Thanks also for not discussing with the user base the concept and allowing us the opportunity to, while in the planning stages, to tell you "this isn't what we want" but again putting the effort and resources into what sounds like, on the surface, another attempt at Waymarking.

 

Large Portion of Users: Bring back bananas!

Groundspeak: We have something coming up that will make the banana lovers happy while not interfering with the apple lovers activities!

Large Portion of Users: What is it?

Groundspeak: It's top secret and we can't tell you!

Large Portion of Users: Okay, but it had better not be plums, because last time we got plums and we don't like plums.

 

Months later...

 

Large Portion of Users: So how is this banana-replacement thing coming?

Groundspeak: It's top secret and we can't tell you!

hydnsek: Here let me give you a trickle of information: it's not bananas. It's not apples. It's a pluot.

 

I know look forward the months of threads and Feedback entries where we tell you that we didn't really want pluots and how pluots are really a lot like plums and Groundspeak assures us that pluots are not plums.

 

 

ARGH, Groundspeak. ARGH and double ARGH. I love you and yet sometimes you seem so determined to just ignore us and do what you want and what will result in less Reviewer fatigue without deputizing more Reviewers.

 

:lol::lol:Loving it.:lol::lol:

Link to comment

...(But, hey if they can be pulled up on a PQ then I'm 500x more interested in them than Waymarks. In fact, I'm really kind of curious to see how this plays out. Heck, just this one thing, the PQ inclusion, restores/justifies my faith that at the end of the day somebody is listening and not all the feedback from those outside the Inner Lilly Pad is for naught.)

Exactly! It is my opinion that Waymarks would have been MUCH more popular if we had been given the choice to include them in PQs. Whatever the new virts turn out to be if they can be listed in my PQ and loaded to my GPS/cell phone I will hunt them.

Link to comment

There are probably three criteria by which any substitute will be compared to virtual caches

  1. Can be downloaded along with physical caches. Probably it's not enough for them to be in a PQ; they need to be in the PQ with other caches. Many people found virtuals because they were geocaching in an area and there was a virtual nearby.
  2. Can be logged along with physical cache on the GC.com website. Counting them as a geocaching find count is secondary, but it would seem odd for some to log a find log and not have this count. I've no doubt that some people searched for virtuals just to get another smiley but I have no idea what percentage of virtual loggers this was.
  3. There is some "wow" factor. Something to make them stand out as an enjoyable cache experience. If they go to boring, then certainly the only reason to do them would be to get the smiley. Many people who claim a smiley is not necessary are depending on there being some "wow" experience.

 

Now looking at the different "substitutes" that have been offered:

 

Waymarking

1. No,

2. No,

3. Usually no - though by selecting categories that interest you may find some waymarks interesting to visit.

 

Challenges

1. Probably, will have to see.

2. Probably, though it appears they won't count as a find.

3. Possibly - peer review will supposedly get rid of the "bad" ones, and the challenge itself may enhance the experience to make finding these stand out. Not clear what other restriction will limit these to the point they won't become so ordinary as to interfere with what Jeremy calls the core geocaching experience.

Link to comment

Read this whole thread. I've been around for a while (over 7 years) and if you look at our profile you will know that it's not about the numbers. This past Geowoodstock gave us 1000 caches. Okay, that being said, when we travel we cache. The first type of cache we look for is virtual followed by earthcaches. Then a regular cache that takes us somewhere interesting, historic or unusal. Yeah, we've found the lightpost caches and guardrail but they definitely aren't our favorites. And if you look you may notice that we have found a few benchmarks. This new thing that's coming out will probably be treated like a benchmark unless pictures are involved. Then, they will probably be totally ignored. I'm not good at remembering to upload pictures but I love learning things which is what a virtual and earthcache normally lets me do.

 

So, I'd be thrilled if virtuals were returned with more structure. As for using a smart phone.....that is so not happening. I have one and usually end up yelling at it. Don't use it for much of anything except making phone calls.

 

terri

Link to comment

There are probably three criteria by which any substitute will be compared to virtual caches

  1. Can be downloaded along with physical caches. Probably it's not enough for them to be in a PQ; they need to be in the PQ with other caches. Many people found virtuals because they were geocaching in an area and there was a virtual nearby.
  2. Can be logged along with physical cache on the GC.com website. Counting them as a geocaching find count is secondary, but it would seem odd for some to log a find log and not have this count. I've no doubt that some people searched for virtuals just to get another smiley but I have no idea what percentage of virtual loggers this was.
  3. There is some "wow" factor. Something to make them stand out as an enjoyable cache experience. If they go to boring, then certainly the only reason to do them would be to get the smiley. Many people who claim a smiley is not necessary are depending on there being some "wow" experience.

 

Now looking at the different "substitutes" that have been offered:

 

Waymarking

1. No,

2. No,

3. Usually no - though by selecting categories that interest you may find some waymarks interesting to visit.

 

Challenges

1. Probably, will have to see.

2. Probably, though it appears they won't count as a find.

3. Possibly - peer review will supposedly get rid of the "bad" ones, and the challenge itself may enhance the experience to make finding these stand out. Not clear what other restriction will limit these to the point they won't become so ordinary as to interfere with what Jeremy calls the core geocaching experience.

 

I agree with #s 1 and 2.

 

#3 was the problem, why try to re-create it? Why should a virt be evaluated any differently than a micro? Or an ammo can for that matter. So long as physical caches are not evaluated for some silly 'wow' factor virts shouldn't be either.

 

This whole rigamarole about virts being held to a different standard has to be driven by folks who don't like them and don't really want them.

 

What little I understand about this new peer review (rating system) makes it sound very much like what they're doing over at OpenCaching. :huh:

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

The "WoW" factor is only subjective because they have not defined what "WoW" is. It seems like (as I have said previously) that if Jeremy got all the lackeys and stuck them in the meeting room with a few 2 liter bottles of Jolt and a few boxes of twinkies and composed a list or a criteria of what is "WoW" then the reviewers could simply say "This cache does not meet groundspeaks definition of wow as defined here: "link". You are welcome to revise this cache and make it qualify but as is it is not publishable. this is not up to debate."

 

You know what they do with earth caches...

 

Seriously, spend 2-4 days and make a criteria and bring Virtual caches back the right way.

 

Another way to d it is just get some reviewers who only do virtual caches. (just a thought)

Link to comment

There are probably three criteria by which any substitute will be compared to virtual caches

  1. Can be downloaded along with physical caches. Probably it's not enough for them to be in a PQ; they need to be in the PQ with other caches. Many people found virtuals because they were geocaching in an area and there was a virtual nearby.
  2. Can be logged along with physical cache on the GC.com website. Counting them as a geocaching find count is secondary, but it would seem odd for some to log a find log and not have this count. I've no doubt that some people searched for virtuals just to get another smiley but I have no idea what percentage of virtual loggers this was.
  3. There is some "wow" factor. Something to make them stand out as an enjoyable cache experience. If they go to boring, then certainly the only reason to do them would be to get the smiley. Many people who claim a smiley is not necessary are depending on there being some "wow" experience.

 

Now looking at the different "substitutes" that have been offered:

 

Waymarking

1. No,

2. No,

3. Usually no - though by selecting categories that interest you may find some waymarks interesting to visit.

 

Challenges

1. Probably, will have to see.

2. Probably, though it appears they won't count as a find.

3. Possibly - peer review will supposedly get rid of the "bad" ones, and the challenge itself may enhance the experience to make finding these stand out. Not clear what other restriction will limit these to the point they won't become so ordinary as to interfere with what Jeremy calls the core geocaching experience.

 

Ah. Hmm... I'm one of those strange people who enjoy benchmarks! I find them interesting and challenging. It doesn't bother me that they are not included on my find count. They are not geocaches, but I thank Groundspeak for making them available to me. (And I wish they'd undate the pages, and let me run a GPX for them.) On the other fin, I find Whymarking to be incredibly dumb and boring. Nothing challenging nor interesting. Why would I want to log the church down the street three times? Or the statue in the park four times?? If GS wants to put a score on my profile, below benchmarks, fine. They're not geocaches either. If they want to include them in GPX files, okay with me, as long as I can ignore them! Be that as it may.

These 'challenges' (bad name choice, since there are already 'challenges')... No one seems to know what they are/will be. It sounds like it may be an attempt to resuscitate Whymarking. AS long as they dont' count as 'cache finds' (as benchmarks don't), and as long as I can ignore them (they sound almost as boring as Whymarks) (Okay, I dont know that, yet...), then I don't give a good gosh darn.

I like what remains of Virtuals. But they are dead. Many have no maintenance. Many can be Googled. They will not be returning. Too bad, but, Oh, well. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the frogs are cooking up.

Link to comment
This new "challenge" although sounds like fun, and will probably be, I have no intentions of finding any of them, if I don't get a smiley or a number there is no point IMO, just like benchmarks.

 

I find it a little sad that your desire for a number outweighs your desire to even try something that you say sounds like and probably would be fun.

 

I intend to "wait and see" what the product looks like before I pass judgement one way or the other.

 

Given that both the "bring back Virtuals" and "Virtuals aren't Geocaches" crowds both cling to their beliefs with near-religious furor, makes me think a solution that makes both sides equally angry might just mean Groundspeak got it perfectly right.

 

One of the coolest things is to log into the site and pull up your local map and see all those containers turn into smilies. I am not competing against anyone, I enjoy watching my numbers increase, and seeing all the smilies on the map. If the new thing doesn't show that, again I don't see the point. It's hardly sad, it's just a game and we all play it our own way.

Link to comment

I enjoy the current virtuals because they are rare. Thats the only reason, I don't want to see them return. This new "challenge" although sounds like fun, and will probably be, I have no intentions of finding any of them, if I don't get a smiley or a number there is no point IMO, just like benchmarks.

 

I think you said a mouthful there! Well put.

 

Thanks knowschad

Link to comment

The "WoW" factor is only subjective because they have not defined what "WoW" is. It seems like (as I have said previously) that if Jeremy got all the lackeys and stuck them in the meeting room with a few 2 liter bottles of Jolt and a few boxes of twinkies and composed a list or a criteria of what is "WoW" then the reviewers could simply say "This cache does not meet groundspeaks definition of wow as defined here: "link". You are welcome to revise this cache and make it qualify but as is it is not publishable. this is not up to debate."

 

You know what they do with earth caches...

 

 

The earthcache people already have a hard time coming up with a usable set of rules, while trying to maintain quality and at the same time making everybody (?) happy. And people are still complaining. And that's just for one tiny subset of possible virtuals.

Link to comment

These 'challenges' (bad name choice, since there are already 'challenges')... No one seems to know what they are/will be. It sounds like it may be an attempt to resuscitate Whymarking. AS long as they dont' count as 'cache finds' (as benchmarks don't), and as long as I can ignore them (they sound almost as boring as Whymarks) (Okay, I dont know that, yet...), then I don't give a good gosh darn.

I like what remains of Virtuals. But they are dead. Many have no maintenance. Many can be Googled. They will not be returning. Too bad, but, Oh, well. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the frogs are cooking up.

 

Could it be they will be called 'challenges' because it will be a real 'challenge' to get one approved?

 

John

Link to comment
The "WoW" factor is only subjective because they have not defined what "WoW" is. It seems like (as I have said previously) that if Jeremy got all the lackeys and stuck them in the meeting room with a few 2 liter bottles of Jolt and a few boxes of twinkies and composed a list or a criteria of what is "WoW" then the reviewers could simply say "This cache does not meet groundspeaks definition of wow as defined here: "link". You are welcome to revise this cache and make it qualify but as is it is not publishable. this is not up to debate."
My guess is that they'd come out of the room, toss the empty bottles in the recycling bin, toss the empty wrappers in the trash, and declare that no new virtual caches would be allowed. Isn't that basically what happened in 2005?

 

You know what they do with earth caches...
That has been suggested before, and I think the simplest way un-grandfather virtual caches would be to expand EarthCaches to include other types of knowledge besides earth science (e.g., history, art, literature). We'll see soon enough what Groundspeak decided to do.
Link to comment

#3 was the problem, why try to re-create it? Why should a virt be evaluated any differently than a micro? Or an ammo can for that matter. So long as physical caches are not evaluated for some silly 'wow' factor virts shouldn't be either.

 

This whole rigamarole about virts being held to a different standard has to be driven by folks who don't like them and don't really want them.

 

What little I understand about this new peer review (rating system) makes it sound very much like what they're doing over at OpenCaching. :huh:

 

The way "Wow" was defined (a virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects) was the problem. It left it up to each reviewer to determine what that meant. What I meant by #3 is that people who claim virtuals are so fantastic that they need to be brought back found that finding a virtual had something made it stand out as better than just any old physical cache. IMO, if people didn't enjoy virtuals any more than a physical cache then the only reason to hunt them was to get another smiley. I think most people would skip them except that they thought they would be taken to a special place. I believe that part of Waymarking's problem is that it requires some effort to select Waymarking categories that are interesting to you. If you just go to the nearest waymark it's likely to be a McDonalds or something else you don't care about.

 

The "WoW" factor is only subjective because they have not defined what "WoW" is. It seems like (as I have said previously) that if Jeremy got all the lackeys and stuck them in the meeting room with a few 2 liter bottles of Jolt and a few boxes of twinkies and composed a list or a criteria of what is "WoW" then the reviewers could simply say "This cache does not meet groundspeaks definition of wow as defined here: "link". You are welcome to revise this cache and make it qualify but as is it is not publishable. this is not up to debate."

 

You know what they do with earth caches...

 

Seriously, spend 2-4 days and make a criteria and bring Virtual caches back the right way.

 

Another way to d it is just get some reviewers who only do virtual caches. (just a thought)

It ain't that easy. Jeremy used to come on the forums and solicit ideas from people as to what "wow" meant. Nothing was satisfactory and most were quite subjective. When I created the Wow waymarkers group I asked many geocachers what made the best virtuals. I got lots of answers. We picked the idea of a best kept secret for our Waymarking category. Even that is too subjective just looking at the submission we have gotten (and rejected). I truly felt that with Waymarking there could be multiple categories with different definitions of "wow". If your waymark got reject by one group you could always try another.

Edited by tozainamboku
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...
×
×
  • Create New...