Help me Understand

[+StarBrand]

The cache I own with the most favorite "awards" is an old virtual cache. It just keeps piling up the favorites. Within 100 miles of me - 6 of the top 10 Favorited caches are virtuals. See here

 

Why?? Is it nostalgia??

 

Seems like "just the location" is a VERY important part of favorites.

[+briansnat]

Virtuals are relatively rare these days. Add that to the fact that most of the remaining virts are the cream of the virtual crop (meaning the location is special) and I think that it's natural for people to favorite them. I think my most favorited cache is a virt.

Edited April 16, 2012 by briansnat

[+geodarts]

I probably have "favorited" more virtuals than any other type - with the possible exception of earthcaches. There are many reasons for this. Virtuals have taken me places where traditional caching is not permitted - amazing locations from the the top of Yosemite granite domes to the Toroweap Overlook (One Giant Step), 60 miles from anywhere and 3000 feet above the Grand Canyon - from Incan Salt Ponds to standing stones in Britain.

 

When I am traveling, they are the first caches that I identify, and indeed (along with earthcaches) may be the only type of caches that I will seek. They often offer an experience that is more unique than finding a container, focusing my attention about things that I would otherwise have missed. I am now planning a trip where I could find hundreds of traditionals but will instead take some side trips for a couple of virtuals that appear to be much more interesting. I can always get a traditional smiley, but virtuals are one of the few cache types that I will go out of my way to visit. Consequently, they end up on my favorites list.

 

I am not sure that I agree with Briansnat that the remaining virtuals are the "cream of the crop" - sadly, some of the ones I liked best have been archived. But because they are disappearing, and probably someday will be gone completely, the comparative rarity also is a factor. They tend to stand out because there are so few of them. And because of that, they are something to appreciate, treasure, and favorite.

 

I do not have any virtual listings, but the earthcaches I have developed have gotten a number of favorites for similar reasons.

Edited April 16, 2012 by geodarts

[+Snoogans]

Virtuals are relatively rare these days. Add that to the fact that most of the remaining virts are the cream of the virtual crop (meaning the location is special) and I think that it's natural for people to favorite them. I think my most favorited cache is a virt.

 

One of my top geocaching experiences is the Stingray City virt in Grand Caymen. It also happens to be on National Geographic's bucket list too.

 

Proximity can create a favoriting anomoly. Case in point, the Un-Original Stash. It's an Un-Remarkable cache in every way but one.... Its proximity of less than 50 feet from the Original Stash Plaque. I've seen it in other spots as well but they don't come to mind as easily as that one does.

 

I haven't checked my virt favorites. I guess I should...

[+Keelmann And Cici]

I think it goes to show you that the very best we as geocachers can craft will have a hard time competing against what good old mother nature can produce.

[+Ike 13]

1) They're old so lots of people have found them.

2) A lot of people traveling through an area do virtuals because they are quick, easy, and nearly impossible to DNF.

 

Those 2 facts mean more visitors. Most virts I have seen have lots of points but a percentage below 50%

[+addisonbr]

Proximity can create a favoriting anomoly. Case in point, the Un-Original Stash. It's an Un-Remarkable cache in every way but one.... Its proximity of less than 50 feet from the Original Stash Plaque.

There's also the rare / old placement date. Not a lot of caches left placed in 2000 or with four-digit waypoint numbers (GC92). From what I have observed, those tend to get a lot of favorites points as well.

[+Snoogans]

I think it goes to show you that the very best we as geocachers can craft will have a hard time competing against what good old mother nature can produce.

 

Wellll, it takes lots of money to compete with mother nature, but Lord British did it in style with his Necropolis of Britannia Manor III, in Austin, Texas.

 

Unlimited funds (the guy is a gazillionaire) plus a team of experts and carpenters and mother nature will have to call a draw at the very least. I would rate it equal with my Stingray City experience and that is a huge compliment.

[+StarBrand]

1) They're old so lots of people have found them.

2) A lot of people traveling through an area do virtuals because they are quick, easy, and nearly impossible to DNF.

 

Those 2 facts mean more visitors. Most virts I have seen have lots of points but a percentage below 50%

Check out the link I had in the OP - nothing really has a percentage much above 30% - yet most of them that I have found are really special caches. I think anything with 20 or more finds and at least 3 favorite points and a percentage above 12% is enough to label it a potentially nice cache. Just me.

[+bflentje]

I will always favorite a virtual so long as the virtual isn't one of those that caused them to go away in the first place.

[+StarBrand]

I will always favorite a virtual so long as the virtual isn't one of those that caused them to go away in the first place.

Interesting - why?? Just because it is a Virtual?

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

Anytime we go out of town, we always check to see if there are any virts on the way, or at our destination. Most all of the time, they're at a cool or historic spot that we would have not stopped at otherwise. This virtual is probably our favorite to date.

[+bflentje]

I will always favorite a virtual so long as the virtual isn't one of those that caused them to go away in the first place.

Interesting - why?? Just because it is a Virtual?

 

Because of their rarity. But take note of my qualifier.. I won't favorite an obvious LAME virtual. And believe me, they still exist.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I will always favorite a virtual so long as the virtual isn't one of those that caused them to go away in the first place.

Interesting - why?? Just because it is a Virtual?

 

Because of their rarity. But take note of my qualifier.. I won't favorite an obvious LAME virtual. And believe me, they still exist.

 

Wouldn't a LAME virtual be more rare than a cream of the crop virtual?

[+Snoogans]

I will always favorite a virtual so long as the virtual isn't one of those that caused them to go away in the first place.

Interesting - why?? Just because it is a Virtual?

 

Because of their rarity. But take note of my qualifier.. I won't favorite an obvious LAME virtual. And believe me, they still exist.

 

The worst one I ever saw is still alive and kicking in Kansas. Wonderful history just 15 yards from the car in that spot that could have been used, but instead it's a clean-up sign in the parking lot you don't even have to get out of your car to log. I still don't get it.

[+Don_J]

I see things everyday in the greater Los Angeles area that really don't seem very special to me. Bring a tourest to a secret spot off of Hollywood Blvd that none of the other tourest will ever see, and it becomes a favorite part of their trip.

 

When I am in a strange town and I might feel concerned of looking out of place by searching for a physical cache, I'll look for the old Virtuals. They usually point out a special feature that I would have never known about, even if it's right on Main Street. This stands out and gets a Favorite point.

[+nikcap]

I've noticed this too, basically, the data is skewed and that causes an anomaly in find counts on virtual caches.

Not to take away anything from briansnat's observation that the remaining virtuals are the cream of the crop, this is true, even though there are still some clunkers in there, many that have lasted are really that interesting. You can still find many virtuals out there that only have 1 or 2 virtuals. (I think there is a grass roots group out there that is favoriting virtuals in an attempt to bring them back)

 

Anyway, to my data skew.

 

I Love Lucy is the highest ranking virtual in NJ by favorite points. Indeed a worthy cache of favorite point, but looking at the numbers we see it has 500 finds and 30 favorite points (6% of all find logs, 9% premium find logs)

 

Manunka Chunk Tunnels is the #1 favorited cache in NJ - 273 finds 76 favorites (28% of all find logs, 45% premium find logs)

 

Both caches were placed at about the same time (summer of 2002)

 

Another example is:

The Great Falls of the Passaic (virtual, placed 2002) - 23 favs for 283 finds (8%)

 

Rock, Stock and Barrel (traditional, place 2004) - 20 favs for 149 finds (13%)

 

So, my conclusion is that virtuals, while in general are good caches, can contribute most of their accolades to the volume of finders that visit the location.

[+wimseyguy]

1) They're old so lots of people have found them.

2) A lot of people traveling through an area do virtuals because they are quick, easy, and nearly impossible to DNF.

 

Those 2 facts mean more visitors. Most virts I have seen have lots of points but a percentage below 50%

 

3) Many of them are in highly visited locations like Washington DC and Las Vegas.

Although I was shocked to discover that there weren't any in the historic parts of Boston on a recent trip there.

[+BigChiefS4]

Because of their rarity. But take note of my qualifier.. I won't favorite an obvious LAME virtual. And believe me, they still exist.

Like this one? http://coord.info/GC6557

[+StarBrand]

....

 

So, my conclusion is that virtuals, while in general are good caches, can contribute most of their accolades to the volume of finders that visit the location.

Not so true of the ones on my linked list in the OP - 2 of them have around 200 "finds" and both at 24% of premium logs. So both high total numbers and a high percentage.

[+JJnTJ]

Because of their rarity. But take note of my qualifier.. I won't favorite an obvious LAME virtual. And believe me, they still exist.

Like this one? http://coord.info/GC6557

 

That one is at least mildly interesting (I learned something in my email exchange with the owner). This one is the lamest of the virtuals I've found. The view from the area is kind of nice, but the name of the virtual and what you have to do to claim the find are completely different. It doesn't make any sense.

Edited April 18, 2012 by JJnTJ

[+Planet]

I just noticed the other day the one of my virtuals is up to 148 favorites out of 4200 finds. They must like it.

My other one has 3/91.

I myself have 111 favorite points to 'spend' but haven't sat down to 'shop' through my list of finds. If I had a better faster computer, I might do that. But mine died and I am using a very old used apple laptop my elderly uncle gave me. It's way too frustrating.

[+BigChiefS4]

Because of their rarity. But take note of my qualifier.. I won't favorite an obvious LAME virtual. And believe me, they still exist.

Like this one? http://coord.info/GC6557

 

That one is at least mildly interesting (I learned something in my email exchange with the owner). This one is the lamest of the virtuals I've found. The view from the area is kind of nice, but the name of the virtual and what you have to do to claim the find are completely different. It doesn't make any sense.

 

What did you learn?

[+Ambrosia]

I've wondered this, as well. My most favourited owned cache is also the most favourited cache in Montana. It's an ok place, but not the best place in the park (other virts in the park that I and my family own are close to the same amount of favourites, some of them at much better locations, but this one is the easiest one to get to for tourists). I guarantee if there was a physical cache there, it wouldn't be the most favourited cache in Montana.

[+DragonsWest]

The cache I own with the most favorite "awards" is an old virtual cache. It just keeps piling up the favorites. Within 100 miles of me - 6 of the top 10 Favorited caches are virtuals. See here

 

Why?? Is it nostalgia??

 

Seems like "just the location" is a VERY important part of favorites.

 

Seems to me the experience is a contributing factor in favorites. I'm heaping up the favorite points and try to remember to award them, but darn few caches these days are anything memorable.

 

Many of the old caches (my first, as an example) were placed back when most of the world was still wide open and cachers wanted to bring people to someplace they found in some way special. I toiled hard to lug that heavy ammo box out on a hot day to place on a mountain top, which has a great view. Now it has scads of neighbors, some with great views and some because there was a gap and a place to hide.

 

To some it's about the numbers, to others, perhaps like me, wandering someplace interesting and being lured to a place someone found special is more rewarding than yet-another-smiley.

 

My latest hide is along a road with a few caches on it, but none have ever brought up the reason for the road name -- I spent a couple hours researching the life and works of an author who bought a cabin along the road, for which the road is named - it was his Retreat. The container is nothing special, but it imparts a bit of knowlege to anyone who bothers to read it -- the area was treasured over 100 years ago by him.

 

Though you may not find virtuals or older caches anything special. Some of us do.

[+SwineFlew]

The lamest virtual I done was this one. http://coord.info/GC6F45

 

Serious, there is NOTHING there. Google it up, the boat is gone so the answer to the virtual is a fat zero. I dont know the point of keeping this virtual going when there is nothing to see. Anyone can armchair that virtual now, if they wanna.

 

For fav point, virtuals is just rare, that it. Of all the virutals I done. Over 60% are just lame.

Edited April 18, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+StarBrand]

...

Though you may not find virtuals or older caches anything special. Some of us do.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I still find them special....and most of the spots are very worthy locations to visit.

 

What amazes me though is that several of these have a physical cache nearby. Often in ammocans and some with more "finds" logged than the virtual - but the virtuals get more favorites and higher percentages. That I do not understand. You see the same spot.

 

Like I said in the OP - it just seems to me that "location" is still king - over all the other qualities that a cache can have.

[+DragonsWest]

...

Though you may not find virtuals or older caches anything special. Some of us do.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I still find them special....and most of the spots are very worthy locations to visit.

 

What amazes me though is that several of these have a physical cache nearby. Often in ammocans and some with more "finds" logged than the virtual - but the virtuals get more favorites and higher percentages. That I do not understand. You see the same spot.

 

Like I said in the OP - it just seems to me that "location" is still king - over all the other qualities that a cache can have.

 

Possibly type, too. When going on a 500 mile trip a few weeks back I scouted the Virtuals along the way. Picked up traditionals as I could, but if I'm traveling I like to find what people found special somewhere.

[+DanOCan]

I think the rarity of Virtuals makes them a target for Favorites. I decided to look at my numbers to see if a higher percentage of my Favorites went to Virtuals and found I must be an exception to the rule.

 

% of Found Caches Found Awarded a Favorite by DanOCan, Based On Type

 

Unknown: 17.8

Multi: 14.4

Letterbox: 11.1

Traditional: 3.8

Virtual: 1.7

Earthcache: 0.0

 

I'm personally surprised because I often comment how puzzles bug me and how I enjoy Virtuals -- yet, my numbers don't support that. It seems I like caches with containers.

 

Perhaps because I was around in the days when Virtuals were active I'm less likely to think of them as anything special...

 

EDIT: Changed "Puzzle" to "Unknown" before some takes the time to correct me for using the wrong name for that cache type.

Edited April 18, 2012 by DanOCan

[+Ambrosia]

My favs (I don't favourite archived caches):

 

100 Traditionals

 

35 Virtuals

 

9 Earthcaches

 

6 Multis

 

3 Mystery/Puzzles

 

1 Groundspeak Headquarter

[+nikcap]

....

 

So, my conclusion is that virtuals, while in general are good caches, can contribute most of their accolades to the volume of finders that visit the location.

Not so true of the ones on my linked list in the OP - 2 of them have around 200 "finds" and both at 24% of premium logs. So both high total numbers and a high percentage.

 

Yes, there are a few gems out there. Actually, there are some really good virtuals still out there and well deserved of favorite points.

 

Oddly enough, IMHO, a traditional cache is less likely to get a favorite point because of location. You're more likely to get a favorite point for a fake bolt on a guardrail.

[+GrateBear]

As others have said, it's because of the location, for the most part. There are some virts that are ok, and don't get a "favorite" from me, although they may be interesting. As for non-virts, it has to be really clever to get a "favorite". That usually means the container is something that has been made by the CO, and/or a unique way of hiding the cache.

[+Dancing_Duo]

Virtuals are relatively rare these days. Add that to the fact that most of the remaining virts are the cream of the virtual crop (meaning the location is special) and I think that it's natural for people to favorite them. I think my most favorited cache is a virt.

I agree, the ones we have visited actually took us somewhere.

We have yet to visit one asking for a photo take of us w/GPSr in front of a LPC & email measurements, etc

[+TeamTwoStar]

The cache I own with the most favorite "awards" is an old virtual cache. It just keeps piling up the favorites. Within 100 miles of me - 6 of the top 10 Favorited caches are virtuals. See here

 

Why?? Is it nostalgia??

 

Seems like "just the location" is a VERY important part of favorites.

 

I have a different explaintion for it. The virtual caches are some of the older caches. Since they are so old, they have had a greater amount of time to accumlate favorite points. If the location is good and worth putting a virtual there, then it is not a surprise that it has a lot of favorite points. One of my caches is a pretty standard micro hide. However, it is located on Mt. Penn and next to the biggest land mark in town, which is the Pagoda. (see: google search) It is increadible beatiful place and there are always people there just to lok at the view. It has gotten three favorite point, which I can't attribute to the hide, but it does make sence because of its location. I think that there are a lot of cachers that appreaciate where you take them for a cache, as much as the cache its self. To be honest, not may people do it for the swag. If people played for the swag, then there wouldn't be as may people geocaching. LOL. So yeah, it is probably getting favorite points because of the location and that it has been out longer than a lot of other caches.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Like I said in the OP - it just seems to me that "location" is still king - over all the other qualities that a cache can have.

 

I guarantee if there was a physical cache there, it wouldn't be the most favourited cache in Montana.

 

What amazes me though is that several of these have a physical cache nearby. Often in ammocans and some with more "finds" logged than the virtual - but the virtuals get more favorites and higher percentages. That I do not understand. You see the same spot.

 

A lot of people ....do virtuals because they are quick, easy, and nearly impossible to DNF.

 

It's not that "location" is king, it's that people adore the 100% find rate on a virt, and the rarity of the type.

 

It's an odd conundrum, among more recent caches, you'll see the highest percentages on caches with high difficulty or terrain, or both (Toz predicted this); because those hides are memorable, and though not so much found, are found by people who really enjoy the challenge. i see some 5/5s around with 100% favorites.

 

Conversely the high numbers of favorites are on virts and earthcaches. Lots of finds, and easy (mostly)(yes there are some tougher virts and earthcaches).

 

In Florida, the old virts at Disney and the other amusement parks dominate the favorite points. None of them take you any place special, just major intersections within the park. They're a "free smiley" on a fun day, people remember them fondly, and award a point.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Isonzo Karst

[+power69]

The cache I own with the most favorite "awards" is an old virtual cache. It just keeps piling up the favorites. Within 100 miles of me - 6 of the top 10 Favorited caches are virtuals. See here

 

Why?? Is it nostalgia??

 

Seems like "just the location" is a VERY important part of favorites.

neither. the fact you can't have new virts anymore is why.

[+briansnat]

I think it goes to show you that the very best we as geocachers can craft will have a hard time competing against what good old mother nature can produce.

 

Yet most virtuals are NOT natural features.

[+briansnat]

Because of their rarity. But take note of my qualifier.. I won't favorite an obvious LAME virtual. And believe me, they still exist.

Like this one? http://coord.info/GC6557

 

That one is at least mildly interesting (I learned something in my email exchange with the owner). This one is the lamest of the virtuals I've found. The view from the area is kind of nice, but the name of the virtual and what you have to do to claim the find are completely different. It doesn't make any sense.

 

I admit to keeping a lame virtual alive. It was a great blue heron rookery, so was only really interesting when the herons were on their nests. But the herons killed the trees and moved on. The only thing that remains is the kiosk nearby that I used for verification. Quite uninteresting, so uninteresting that despite its status as a virtual it only has 2 favorites.

 

I don't keep it active because its a virtual, I keep it active because it is an a national wildlife refuge, where geocaches are no longer allowed.

Edited April 19, 2012 by briansnat

[+JJnTJ]

What did you learn?

I'm reluctant to post details in public. Let's just say I'm kind of nerdy about infrastructure, and I was happy to learn something that I hadn't known before. In a similar way, I'm glad that geocaching opened my eyes about Benchmarks.

[+Don_J]

I've wondered this, as well. My most favourited owned cache is also the most favourited cache in Montana. It's an ok place, but not the best place in the park (other virts in the park that I and my family own are close to the same amount of favourites, some of them at much better locations, but this one is the easiest one to get to for tourists). I guarantee if there was a physical cache there, it wouldn't be the most favourited cache in Montana.

 

I think I favorited all of your family's caches in that park. Without looking, I'm certain that I know which one that you are talking about. Just driving to the top of the road is an adventure which is why it probably gets the most favorites. How does it rank in percentages compared to the other caches? Pretty much every tourest is going to stop at that location while a lot may not even be able to hike to Sun Point or to the falls.

[+ohmelli]

LOL... oh my I'm laughing! As a newby here, I guess I have not come to know that virtuals are RARE. But for those of you who LOVE them and find them to be RARE in your area... COME TO WASHINGTON D.C.!!! VIRTUAL capitol of the WORLD!!! I actually live in Maryland, but was in DC for the day one day this week -- it's CRAZY there! Just plug in 20001, 02, 03, 04 or 20019, 20, 24... you will see little ghosties EVERYWHERE!!! :laughing:

[+threenow24]

What did you learn?

I'm reluctant to post details in public. Let's just say I'm kind of nerdy about infrastructure, and I was happy to learn something that I hadn't known before. In a similar way, I'm glad that geocaching opened my eyes about Benchmarks.

I understand BigChiefS4's sentiment about that cache, but I also agree with JJnTJ about learning something from visiting it, and the CO is one of the few who've ever contacted me regarding their virtual.

I've only done about 45 virts so far, of those maybe 10 were what I'd consider something special, the rest not so much. I will always go out of my way a little if there is one nearby, just because they are so few and far between (I'd like to visit DC for all the little ghosties, there's only 48 left in my whole state).

[+JesandTodd]

What everybody else said.....

 

I love virts.!They are my favs. When I travel they are the firt type of cache I seek. Usually, they are interesting, fun, and historic. I haven't checked, but I bet they have received most of my fav points.

 

 

Anytime we go out of town, we always check to see if there are any virts on the way, or at our destination. Most all of the time, they're at a cool or historic spot that we would have not stopped at otherwise. This virtual is probably our favorite to date.

 

I loved that virt too and also gave it a fav point!

[+nikcap]

...

 

I love virts.!They are my favs. When I travel they are the firt type of cache I seek. Usually, they are interesting, fun, and historic. I haven't checked, but I bet they have received most of my fav points.

 

Anytime we go out of town, we always check to see if there are any virts on the way, or at our destination. Most all of the time, they're at a cool or historic spot that we would have not stopped at otherwise. ...

 

I'm also doing this now with the new location based Geocaching Challenges!

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

 

But to get back on topic, is the take away from this that virtuals aren't inherently better but it's the shear volume of finds that can be attributed to the number of favorite points?

 

Somewhat on a tangent, but I believe also related; I'm under the impression that the micro in a parking lot craze started after the rule change regarding placing new virtuals. How does this play into the pierced quality of virtual caches?

 

I'm sure that a nano cache placed in the same location as a virtual with 40-50 favorite points wouldn't score as high.

[+redsox_mark]

I'm sure that a nano cache placed in the same location as a virtual with 40-50 favorite points wouldn't score as high.

 

I think that is probably true.

 

I agree with most all of the previous comments. The rarity of Virtuals I’m sure adds to the amount of their selection as a favourite. And if it is a cool place, probably a Virtual would score higher than a “lame” cache. Put a nano there, and people may think “great place, but why a nano”? and not give it a FP. I don’t think people question “why a virtual” so much.

 

I looked at my 100 mile query. By number of FPs, 3 of the top 10 are Virtuals; and a 4th is a Webcam.

The 3 Virtuals are obvious tourist places. The highest (#2) is Stonehenge; followed by a 16th century London Pub, then the Paddington Bear statue at Paddington Station (London). The webcam is Abbey Road. The 3 virtuals have Premium Fav percentages of 13%, 16%, and 9% - so not very high.

The #1 in my 100 mile radius is a traditional. It has 291 FP, but also 48%. It is also in London. Must try and find this one next time I’m there.

 

If I look closer to home – the 1000 closest caches (radius of approx 9 miles): The #1 by FP is an Earth Cache, and #5 is a Virtual. They are located at tourist places - BUT – they have only 9% and 5%. In this same local list; 7 of the top 10 are puzzle caches; 5 of which are 5/5. These puzzle ones have around 70% Premium Favourites. #10 on the list is a Trad with 38%.

 

I’m sure there are Virtuals around with very high percentage FP, but not local to me.

[+Planet]

LOL... oh my I'm laughing! As a newby here, I guess I have not come to know that virtuals are RARE. But for those of you who LOVE them and find them to be RARE in your area... COME TO WASHINGTON D.C.!!! VIRTUAL capitol of the WORLD!!! I actually live in Maryland, but was in DC for the day one day this week -- it's CRAZY there! Just plug in 20001, 02, 03, 04 or 20019, 20, 24... you will see little ghosties EVERYWHERE!!! :laughing:

 

That's because you can hardly find a place in DC where a physical cache is allowed because of security reasons. It's always been like that in DC.