Why No More Virtual Caches

[+SaltyPirate]

well thought out challenges do everything that a virtual did, short of earning a smiley.

Nope. They don't show up on the unified map which currently shows gobs of different types of caches (traditional, meetups, etc).

 

I think almost all concerns about virtuals would go away if one thing happened--they appeared on the geocaching.com map (and if the found ones had little smiley faces, all the better). Granted, there would need to be a few more map filtering options (like how you can turn off those pesky events and multi-stage and mystery caches), so that each category of 'waymark cache' could also be turned off.

 

But if the map were unified, I think there would be no more whining about the lack of virtuals. (Unless, of course, existing virtuals got thrown into the 'waymark cache' icons.)

 

Hmmmm, someone is listening to what is being said, Thank you !!!!

[cezanne]

 

Have you looked at the Scavenger Hunt feature on the Waymarking website. Except for the requirement to email answers to someone it sounds like what you are describing. Groundspeak has denied every request to implement a system where a geocacher can enter a code to prove that they visited a cache but there are some other geocaching sites have this feature.

 

Yes, I am familiar with the scavenger hunt concept, but as far as I understand it the coordinates for the intermediary points have to be given and photos have to be taken at each one. What I described with the example of the bicycle tour is set up like a conventional cache with x question to answer stages (that are not given in advance except the starting point - thereafter each step is computed from the data already obtained as a kind of offset to the previous stage(s)) and one container at the end except for that the container is not there and the data collected at the stages are used for the requirement step.

 

In this manner any sort of surprise is lost and it again ends up with being a photographing activity which is what I do not enjoy at all.

 

I am also familiar with the code system of some geocaching sites. I think geocaching.hu was the first one from the historical point of view. I would prefer a flexible system which both allows for codes and for free text answers sent to the person having set up the cache, like in Earthcaches and like it was possible in the old virtuals.

 

Cezanne

[+DonB]

I am the owner of a virtual. GC22E5 It was first listed 16th October 2001. It has had 896 visits and last visited a few days ago.

It is in what I believed an interesting part of London that not many visitors to London would have on the normal tour.

As many of the 'finders' have stated that they would not have known of of this place if not as a cache.

I have experienced the same thing while traveling around the USA. Many of the great virtuals we visited weren't in any of the tourist literature we had.

[+Markwell]

Everyone that sees the existing virtuals and says "See! They are great" keeps missing the fact that there was a "wow" component imposed. What they are NOT seeing are the submissions for a virtual of a sneaker in the forest (tell me the brand and left/right), a dead animal carcass, someone's favorite coffee house, a sign in front of a school (tell me the mascot), a flag pole, etc., etc. These were actual submissions for virtuals.

[+Volvo Man]

Everyone that sees the existing virtuals and says "See! They are great" keeps missing the fact that there was a "wow" component imposed. What they are NOT seeing are the submissions for a virtual of a sneaker in the forest (tell me the brand and left/right), a dead animal carcass, someone's favorite coffee house, a sign in front of a school (tell me the mascot), a flag pole, etc., etc. These were actual submissions for virtuals.

 

I shall take the risk of being "Markwelled" and disagree with you. As a cacher since 2003, (ok so i've been inactive a bit through that time) long before the "wow" factor rule, I found many virtuals which were awesome, and none which took me to a dumpster behind Wal-mart. I do agree with the can you place a physical cache requirement, although I did find that with most of the early virtuals I visited which could have accomodated a physical cache, it would have been purely for the sake if it and not the point of going there, they would also have been subject to disappearance and DNFs, even though you'd accomplished the whole point of the hunt anyway (the location/object etc).

 

On the point of reviewers difficulties, it has always been fairly easy for anyone with internet access to determine if if a location is in a national park or some such place where physical caches may not be allowed or appropriate, this is even easier now with Google maps & Satellite view

 

As for the wow factor, why not leave that up to us? thanks to the wonders of logging, and rating, there's nothing stopping TPTB from releasing a thumbs up or down voting ability (kinda like yahoo answers) then the first 20 or so visitors could decide if its a worthy cache or not. (OOPS, I think I've opened a can of worms)

 

As for COs getting their "feathers ruffled", sorry, that's just a fact of life, its going to happen no matter what you are doing or where you're doing it, someone somewhere ain't gonna like it. Basically if you can't handle your ideas being criticised to death, don't tell anyone about them, and sure as all hell, don't put them online. So, to me, TPTB commenting about the hurt feelings of rejected COs being a factor in the end of virtuals is just plainly ridiculous for anyone that does anything even remotely connected with the internet. (This whole part of the discussion is well covered by rules 11,12,13,18 & 57)

 

In fact, the whole Virtual Cache argument, along with most things on GC.com is pretty well covered by Rules 18 & 57, I'm just glad they've managed to keep the proof of Rules 34 & 61 off the site. Don't forget, Live by Rule 60 and you'll be OK.

 

PS - I personally vote for the return on Virtuals, under the suggestions I've listed above.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Volvo Man

[+randycoxclemson]

Everyone that sees the existing virtuals and says "See! They are great" keeps missing the fact that there was a "wow" component imposed. What they are NOT seeing are the submissions for a virtual of a sneaker in the forest (tell me the brand and left/right), a dead animal carcass, someone's favorite coffee house, a sign in front of a school (tell me the mascot), a flag pole, etc., etc. These were actual submissions for virtuals.

Of my the 12 oldest caches I've found, all placed during or before summer of 2002, eight are virtuals. And none of those are bad caches.

 

If I understand correctly, there was no "wow" rule back then, yet these virtuals are all fine. Most are even exceptional. And here's the great part, only 3 are in any Fodor's travel guides I've seen. I would not have ever known that there is a scale model park of S.C. without virtual geocaching. And it's less than 10 miles from where I grew up!

 

So, all these old, pre-wow virtuals were doing just fine before a few people threw out sneakers or stumbled upon dead animal remains. Seems that the solution was to kill a gnat with a sledgehammer, so to speak.

 

But all that said, if virtuals aren't allowed, it's not all that hard to stick a dreaded nano out where you're trying to get someone to go. That's what I did to show people where a movie was filmed in Clemson, SC. I couldn't do a virtual to tell the story, so I told the story in the cache write up and put a nano out there for people to find. It's working out very well, so no harm done (unless it were in a national park ).

[+Glenn]

Everyone that sees the existing virtuals and says "See! They are great" keeps missing the fact that there was a "wow" component imposed. What they are NOT seeing are the submissions for a virtual of a sneaker in the forest (tell me the brand and left/right), a dead animal carcass, someone's favorite coffee house, a sign in front of a school (tell me the mascot), a flag pole, etc., etc. These were actual submissions for virtuals.

 

...As a cacher since 2003, (ok so i've been inactive a bit through that time) long before the "wow" factor rule, I found many virtuals which were awesome, and none which took me to a dumpster behind Wal-mart. I do agree with the can you place a physical cache requirement, although I did find that with most of the early virtuals I visited which could have accomodated a physical cache, it would have been purely for the sake if it and not the point of going there, they would also have been subject to disappearance and DNFs, even though you'd accomplished the whole point of the hunt anyway (the location/object etc).

 

...

 

As for the wow factor, why not leave that up to us? thanks to the wonders of logging, and rating, there's nothing stopping TPTB from releasing a thumbs up or down voting ability (kinda like yahoo answers) then the first 20 or so visitors could decide if its a worthy cache or not. (OOPS, I think I've opened a can of worms)

 

...

 

 

If memory servers me correctly Markwells example of a old, smelly, and rotten sneaker falling apart in the woods is an example of a real virtual that was listed.

 

As far leaving it up to us. I'm going to use the infamous McDonalds Waymarking category as an example. Some people, for some reason, really hate that category and use it as THE example of why they don't Waymark whenever the subject comes up. What makes you think that if virtuals were to return that places like the dreaded McDonalds wouldn't get listed. After all there are LPCs in McDonalds parking lots. Obviously if someone thinks that a McDonalds parking lot is an interesting enough to place to put a physical cache in then why wouldn't it also make a good place for a virtual cache? Other than the physical cache container there is really little difference between the two cache types.

[cezanne]

Everyone that sees the existing virtuals and says "See! They are great" keeps missing the fact that there was a "wow" component imposed. What they are NOT seeing are the submissions for a virtual of a sneaker in the forest (tell me the brand and left/right), a dead animal carcass, someone's favorite coffee house, a sign in front of a school (tell me the mascot), a flag pole, etc., etc. These were actual submissions for virtuals.

 

I'm not missing that fact. It is obvious that people who place physical caches at every corner where one can be placed, will do the same with virtuals if they are allowed to do so. I'm perfectly sure that the old system could not work in 2012.

 

I fully understand why virtual caches in the old form have been abolished. What I do not understand is why so many people claim that Waymarking and challenges are a full-value replacement for virtual caches ignoring the fact that neither Waymarking nor challenges make a reasonable offer in terms of virtual caches with multi stage and/or mystery elements and for educational caches along the lines of Earthcaches (but with the focus on other fields than Earthsciences).

 

Cezanne

[+DonB]

Everyone that sees the existing virtuals and says "See! They are great" keeps missing the fact that there was a "wow" component imposed. What they are NOT seeing are the submissions for a virtual of a sneaker in the forest (tell me the brand and left/right), a dead animal carcass, someone's favorite coffee house, a sign in front of a school (tell me the mascot), a flag pole, etc., etc. These were actual submissions for virtuals.

Sounds like some reviewer wasn't doing their job, and who in their right mind would do a cache that wanted them to look for a sneaker in the woods. Out of all the virtuals I have done I can only remember one that didn't make any sense. Most of the ones I done had some historical significance or was something to do with a famous or interesting person. My feeling is the PTB got rid of them because either they thought it was too much work for the reviewers or they thought if they got rid of the virtuals that the national park managers would then let cachers put physical caches in the parks, which by the way I don't think happened.

[Keystone]

Things like the sneaker cache and the carcass cache were discussed in the forums by reviewers as examples of the "noise" that entered the queue of caches waiting to be reviewed. Those examples were not published, to my memory. They would be turned down, "wow factor test" or not, just for being stupid.

 

Less obvious examples of unpublishable virtual caches would often meet with intense negative reaction from the cache owner when the reviewer said "no" to their pet virtual cache. It was the worst part of the reviewer's job, and Groundspeak knows they'd have a revolt if the reviewers were asked to screen virtuals again.

 

So instead, you've seen "review by committee of people interested in the subject" (Waymarking) and "anything goes until it's voted off the site by the community" (Challenges).

 

Remember that first week or so of Challenges, when they added to the geocacher's find count? That's what it was like to see virtual cache submissions, raw and uncut.

[cezanne]

It was the worst part of the reviewer's job, and Groundspeak knows they'd have a revolt if the reviewers were asked to screen virtuals again.

 

So instead, you've seen "review by committee of people interested in the subject" (Waymarking) and "anything goes until it's voted off the site by the community" (Challenges).

 

I fully understand that the reviewers are nowadays not willing to take on this extra burden.

 

What I do not understand is however, why we could not have virtual caches with a review process as in challenges or waymarks, but with all the other aspects familiar from geocaching (ownership, unlimited length of description, multi/mystery elements, D/T-rating, attributes etc) except that visits are not counting towards the find count on gc.com.

 

Cezanne

[+briansnat]

Everyone that sees the existing virtuals and says "See! They are great" keeps missing the fact that there was a "wow" component imposed. What they are NOT seeing are the submissions for a virtual of a sneaker in the forest (tell me the brand and left/right), a dead animal carcass, someone's favorite coffee house, a sign in front of a school (tell me the mascot), a flag pole, etc., etc. These were actual submissions for virtuals.

Of my the 12 oldest caches I've found, all placed during or before summer of 2002, eight are virtuals. And none of those are bad caches.

 

If I understand correctly, there was no "wow" rule back then, yet these virtuals are all fine. Most are even exceptional. And here's the great part, only 3 are in any Fodor's travel guides I've seen. I would not have ever known that there is a scale model park of S.C. without virtual geocaching. And it's less than 10 miles from where I grew up!

 

So, all these old, pre-wow virtuals were doing just fine before a few people threw out sneakers or stumbled upon dead animal remains. Seems that the solution was to kill a gnat with a sledgehammer, so to speak.

 

But all that said, if virtuals aren't allowed, it's not all that hard to stick a dreaded nano out where you're trying to get someone to go. That's what I did to show people where a movie was filmed in Clemson, SC. I couldn't do a virtual to tell the story, so I told the story in the cache write up and put a nano out there for people to find. It's working out very well, so no harm done (unless it were in a national park ).

 

 

Before the "wow factor" a lot of these lame virts were published. We aren't seeing these now because they've largely been archived. Virtuals were the LPC of the day, and were often submitted by the lazy sort who didn't want to be bothered putting together a real cache with a quality container and the responsibility of maintaining a real cache. Because they were lazy, they also didn't bother to police their logs so most of these have been archived over the years.

Edited May 21, 2012 by briansnat

[+DragonsWest]

Why is it viewed as such a massive obstacle to have that "Wow" filter in place?

 

Do TPTB still think that you can't get some volutneers out of the current crop of geocachers, who would be willing to vet these things before a Reviewer even saw them? I for one would happily volunteer for such duty. Put me at the head of the queue! What else do we need to do? Ask us Geocachers, we're some pretty solid people, not just a bunch of whiners and numbers rats.

[+randycoxclemson]

Why is it viewed as such a massive obstacle to have that "Wow" filter in place?

 

Do TPTB still think that you can't get some volutneers out of the current crop of geocachers, who would be willing to vet these things before a Reviewer even saw them? I for one would happily volunteer for such duty. Put me at the head of the queue! What else do we need to do? Ask us Geocachers, we're some pretty solid people, not just a bunch of whiners and numbers rats.

Good point.

 

I'd volunteer to be a pre-screener for virtual caches. Have owners submit the cache, along with a picture from ground zero, and let the pre-reviewer decide if there's enough of a wow or historical factor. If it passes muster, it goes to the real reviewer.

 

This could also incorporate a ratio rule where you can only own one virtual for every 3 or 4 traditional non-micro caches.

[GOF and Bacall]

Why is it viewed as such a massive obstacle to have that "Wow" filter in place?

 

Do TPTB still think that you can't get some volutneers out of the current crop of geocachers, who would be willing to vet these things before a Reviewer even saw them? I for one would happily volunteer for such duty. Put me at the head of the queue! What else do we need to do? Ask us Geocachers, we're some pretty solid people, not just a bunch of whiners and numbers rats.

Good point.

 

I'd volunteer to be a pre-screener for virtual caches. Have owners submit the cache, along with a picture from ground zero, and let the pre-reviewer decide if there's enough of a wow or historical factor. If it passes muster, it goes to the real reviewer.

 

This could also incorporate a ratio rule where you can only own one virtual for every 3 or 4 traditional non-micro caches.

 

I can see it now.

"Dear Frog,

 

My last cache submission for a virtual was denied by that bunch of puritans that think dumpsters aren't scenic enough. I demand you ban the lot of 'em and publish my creation right now!"

 

I wouldn't want a reviewers job for all the tea cozies in London! If keeping them happy means no virtuals I'm good with it.

[+DragonsWest]

Why is it viewed as such a massive obstacle to have that "Wow" filter in place?

 

Do TPTB still think that you can't get some volutneers out of the current crop of geocachers, who would be willing to vet these things before a Reviewer even saw them? I for one would happily volunteer for such duty. Put me at the head of the queue! What else do we need to do? Ask us Geocachers, we're some pretty solid people, not just a bunch of whiners and numbers rats.

Good point.

 

I'd volunteer to be a pre-screener for virtual caches. Have owners submit the cache, along with a picture from ground zero, and let the pre-reviewer decide if there's enough of a wow or historical factor. If it passes muster, it goes to the real reviewer.

 

This could also incorporate a ratio rule where you can only own one virtual for every 3 or 4 traditional non-micro caches.

 

I can see it now.

"Dear Frog,

 

My last cache submission for a virtual was denied by that bunch of puritans that think dumpsters aren't scenic enough. I demand you ban the lot of 'em and publish my creation right now!"

 

I wouldn't want a reviewers job for all the tea cozies in London! If keeping them happy means no virtuals I'm good with it.

 

The way I view it is thus: Earthcaches are quite a success largely due to there being a process of review - your local reviewers are not necessarily part of that review body, which keeps their job less complicated.

 

I see no reason why a similar process can't be in place for Virtuals to ensure they have quality and add to the game without increasing the burden upon present reviewers. I have no problem playing Umpire or Referee to someone who has their knickers in a twist because I can't see the "specialness" of their litter bin. If I can show where they can improve their editting skills, more than happy to, that's what I did in college (and was actually quite sought out for that.) If there's now way it will ever be remarkable enough to add then I have no problem explaining it, but providing encouragement to try again when they find something else they find special.

[+Glenn]

Why is it viewed as such a massive obstacle to have that "Wow" filter in place?

 

Do TPTB still think that you can't get some volutneers out of the current crop of geocachers, who would be willing to vet these things before a Reviewer even saw them? I for one would happily volunteer for such duty. Put me at the head of the queue! What else do we need to do? Ask us Geocachers, we're some pretty solid people, not just a bunch of whiners and numbers rats.

 

Wow is very subjective.

[+Harry Dolphin]

So, they tell me that Virtuals were set at a point of intrest where no regular could be set. Local virtual was archived. Great spot! (Except for cachers from Minnesota...) Verification was the number on the nearby electrical box. (Not historically relevant but part of showing that you had found the site.) When it was archived, I set up a mystery cache. Showed you the same things, but with a cache with log. Unfortunately, the final became unaccessible. So I replaced it with a multi that brought you to the same spot for information. Oh! It was a great spot! But a unknown/multi could also be set there. I'd have to say that about half the Virtuals I've found were rather boring...

Logged a WhyBotherMark Saturday. Did a traditional cache. Researched it on Google, and found there was a WhyBotherMark at the same location. Guess I just don't understand WhyMark? You can set one right on top of a traditional? Seems to defeat any porpoise. Oh, and I was the first to log it in four years. Sorry. I do not see any porpoise here. Oh, well.

[BlueRajah]

Why is it viewed as such a massive obstacle to have that "Wow" filter in place?

 

Do TPTB still think that you can't get some volutneers out of the current crop of geocachers, who would be willing to vet these things before a Reviewer even saw them? I for one would happily volunteer for such duty. Put me at the head of the queue! What else do we need to do? Ask us Geocachers, we're some pretty solid people, not just a bunch of whiners and numbers rats.

 

Wow is very subjective.

 

What is wow? What is wow in Utah.. is it Wow in California? Is a spot in the desert more interesting than a park? Everyone has likes and dislikes, things and places they love and detest. That shows when you have to judge a location.

[+DragonsWest]

Why is it viewed as such a massive obstacle to have that "Wow" filter in place?

 

Do TPTB still think that you can't get some volutneers out of the current crop of geocachers, who would be willing to vet these things before a Reviewer even saw them? I for one would happily volunteer for such duty. Put me at the head of the queue! What else do we need to do? Ask us Geocachers, we're some pretty solid people, not just a bunch of whiners and numbers rats.

 

Wow is very subjective.

 

What is wow? What is wow in Utah.. is it Wow in California? Is a spot in the desert more interesting than a park? Everyone has likes and dislikes, things and places they love and detest. That shows when you have to judge a location.

 

"The same exact yardstick for any geocache", but we're trying to be objective here.

[+McDeHack]

I would rather go to find a virtual with a 'WOW' than a 'Nano' cache that turns out to be a lump of magnetic metal stuck on railings in a populated area. This I went and found one recently. No log to sign and it was so easy to spot. No 'WOW' on this.

[+Glenn]

I would rather go to find a virtual with a 'WOW' than a 'Nano' cache that turns out to be a lump of magnetic metal stuck on railings in a populated area. This I went and found one recently. No log to sign and it was so easy to spot. No 'WOW' on this.

You may not have realized this but you just described an example virtual cache. A railing in a populated area lacking a lump of magnetic metal.

[+DragonsWest]

I would rather go to find a virtual with a 'WOW' than a 'Nano' cache that turns out to be a lump of magnetic metal stuck on railings in a populated area. This I went and found one recently. No log to sign and it was so easy to spot. No 'WOW' on this.

You may not have realized this but you just described an example virtual cache. A railing in a populated area lacking a lump of magnetic metal.

 

We seem to be heading there, but I assure you, metal railings without nanos still are far too common to have any Wow appeal.

[+Packanack]

I love virtuals, there is just no substitute and each time I go to visit in Washington DC I try and do a couple, it is the virtual capital of the country--really.

[+Cardinal Red]

I love virtuals, there is just no substitute and each time I go to visit in Washington DC I try and do a couple, it is the virtual capital of the country--really.

I once was involved in a 14 hour tour of Washington DC (starting and ending in daylight). Lots of fun with new friends. Lots of virtuals. I would gladly do it again, but just like last time I would not log them. They are not caches, and I only use Groundspeak to maintain a list of my CACHE finds. There is no substitute for a cache CONTAINER.

[+Glenn]

I would rather go to find a virtual with a 'WOW' than a 'Nano' cache that turns out to be a lump of magnetic metal stuck on railings in a populated area. This I went and found one recently. No log to sign and it was so easy to spot. No 'WOW' on this.

You may not have realized this but you just described an example virtual cache. A railing in a populated area lacking a lump of magnetic metal.

 

We seem to be heading there, but I assure you, metal railings without nanos still are far too common to have any Wow appeal.

I beg to differ. I've been to parts of this world where metal railings are rare and would be considered a novelty. Definitely soliciting a Wow from the indigenous population of Geocachers.

[+Glenn]

I love virtuals, there is just no substitute and each time I go to visit in Washington DC I try and do a couple, it is the virtual capital of the country--really.

 

Funny thing is despite the large number of virtuals there of all the caches that I've found in DC none of them were virtuals.

[+lamoracke]

I love virtuals, there is just no substitute and each time I go to visit in Washington DC I try and do a couple, it is the virtual capital of the country--really.

 

Funny thing is despite the large number of virtuals there of all the caches that I've found in DC none of them were virtuals.

 

Salt Lake City sure seemed to have a lot to me, but have not looked at a map to compare.

 

Personally, I'd love to be on a virtual reviewer group too if they were brought back and had some new guidelines in place to at least help....maybe limitations to premium members and maybe only x # of them per cacher, who knows, some rules to try and limit them early on as a trial basis. Course, I would argue the same with locationless, but that is a different story.

 

Planning a trip in the next week and as usual, loading up almost every virtual I can find. Its automatic for me. The only other automatic type of cache I load up are webcams.

[+randycoxclemson]

Planning a trip in the next week and as usual, loading up almost every virtual I can find. Its automatic for me. The only other automatic type of cache I load up are webcams.

Ditto. Exactly.

[+McDeHack]

I would rather go to find a virtual with a 'WOW' than a 'Nano' cache that turns out to be a lump of magnetic metal stuck on railings in a populated area. This I went and found one recently. No log to sign and it was so easy to spot. No 'WOW' on this.

You may not have realized this but you just described an example virtual cache. A railing in a populated area lacking a lump of magnetic metal.

 

We seem to be heading there, but I assure you, metal railings without nanos still are far too common to have any Wow appeal.

Any thing metal, including railings, if not under constant observation could be stolen for scrap in the UK at present.

So they could be a rare item in the future for a 'Vertual' .

[cezanne]

I once was involved in a 14 hour tour of Washington DC (starting and ending in daylight). Lots of fun with new friends. Lots of virtuals. I would gladly do it again, but just like last time I would not log them. They are not caches, and I only use Groundspeak to maintain a list of my CACHE finds. There is no substitute for a cache CONTAINER.

 

If the container is the important part for you, then I agree. For me a geocache is a suggestion to visit one or more points of interest and ideally experience a nice walk/hike on the way the owner of a geocache wants to show me. When I have arrived at the container, the cache is basically over for me (except the way back to my starting point) and I prefer finding the container within seconds at the first place I look at.

 

My favourite cache type are multi caches that invite for a walk/hike and where all stages except the last one are containerless and where finding the container at the end requires no searching effort. From there the way to virtual caches is not that far and actually considerably shorter than from Waymarking or challenges to virtual caches of that type I enjoy the most.

 

Cezanne