An open letter to Groundspeak about Virtuals

May 30, 2012

I am writing an open letter to Groundspeak on behalf of a large portion of the geocaching community. This is in regards to bringing back the virtual cache. Please hear me out and read this letter all the way through. In no way am I trying to reignite the same types of threads that have taken place here but I think this is due for another attempt to have a dialogue with Groundspeak on this topic. As well, I would like to address some of the “issues” folks and Groundspeak have listed in the past.

Last weekend’s geowoodstock in the Louisville/Indiana area was a wonderful spot for cachers to converge. Some of the best caches I did were virtuals. One such virtual that really reignited a drive to bring back the virtual was an old graveyard, in the middle of a shopping center. If it was not for geocaching, few would know this place existed. Surrounded by shrubs it just looked like an island in a large parking lot. Through a very “secret garden-esq” opening, not only did it swallow you into a new small world, it seemed the noise was canceled too.

Before we go down the canned answer “this is what Waymarking is for” Let us be honest – how many of us actually go to Waymarking.com? Secondly, trying to find gems of places like that amongst a heaping mound of “check out this rivet in a bridge, my granddaddy put this here” is the proverbial needle in a haystack. As well as being lost, we cannot share the stories, pictures and experiences quite like a cache can.

Listed are some of the “issues” I have seen in the past and a way to counter those issues with virtual caches:

1) “Virtual caches can be real caches, just place a micro on them or near them” – Well this is more of a counter issue – many of the virtuals, such as places in DC or pretty much most national historical park type places would not allow a cache to be placed there. So it is not as simple as putting a film can in a crevice.

2) “Virtuals locations can be part of a puzzle cache or multi” – Why? In all honesty and bluntness, this is a silly idea simply because a cache like that can get lost in the mix of the other icons. I almost passed up “cacher at the bat” in downtown Louisville (which was a multi that made you read information outside of the Louisville bat factory and museum and took you a block or so away to the final) simply because I didn’t want to take too much time with a multi. I did it regardless. Virtuals seem to stand out more, and we know exactly what they are about. Answer – Bring back the virtual icon holding a green container to let people know it is a virtual that has a final somewhere if we MUST have a physical cache near it”

3) “But it is easy to log a virtual without doing anything if the CO doesn’t log on to verify your answers” – Answer - Fine, have a mechanism in place that for all NEW virtuals, a CO must log in at least every 30 days to GC or else his/her virtual gets disabled.

4) (Here is my favorite) but this is what Waymarking/challenges are about – To paraphrase the general consensus bluntly – challenges are stupid. In fact, they go against just about everything Groundspeak has spoken out about virtuals. There is no real logging ability, no stories to tell, and they simply serve no purpose. Waymarking, again as stated above, just gets overloaded with garbage (and doesn’t apply to our numbers) nor does anyone really do it.

5) “But virtuals can be anything anyone wishes to make, so they can be equally as silly” – Answer – Have more restrictive listing requirements. A reviewer has the power to accept or deny caches based on rules right? Worried that virtual listing can be subjective? Well everything is subjective. I think we trust our reviewers enough that they have been caching a long time and can use subjectivity to make sure a virtual being listed is worthy of such an icon. Have the requirements for listing a virtual take you someplace with significance or truly unique. Make the virtual listing require photos and answer “why is this cache worth posting” – again, we trust our reviewers to use their experience.

|I know that isn’t every issue folks have had with virtuals, but it think it covers the major points.

I will close this letter on a comment Kathy (Groundspeak lackey) made at GW X this weekend about challenges “The community speaks and decides, if they don’t like something, we will respond and get rid of something” (something to that effect). Well Kathy, the community is speaking, the community wants virtuals back, is Groundspeak listening?

May 30, 2012

While I don't really have any objections to the return of virtual caches, I absolutely dislike posts called "open letters" that say they speak for some large group. It's far better to simply say what this is, a forum post with your opinion. Let others chime in and agree or disagree.

May 30, 2012

While I don't really have any objections to the return of virtual caches, I absolutely dislike posts called "open letters" that say they speak for some large group. It's far better to simply say what this is, a forum post with your opinion. Let others chime in and agree or disagree.

I only said this because many I talked to at GW and the general feeling is conveyed in this letter. Let us not embark on semantics and stay close to home on the purpose of this letter. That is all I will say about that.

1.8k · May 30, 2012

I like virts too-but whatever your letter said ain't gonna happen. Let it go...GS will not budge on this.

2.7k · May 30, 2012

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

7.3k · May 30, 2012

the community is speaking, the community wants virtuals back

This member of the community does not want virtuals back.

Indeed, my preference would be to auto-archive any virtual whose owner has not logged in 18 months.

May 30, 2012

the community is speaking, the community wants virtuals back

This member of the community does not want virtuals back.

Indeed, my preference would be to auto-archive any virtual whose owner has not logged in 18 months.

Again the idea of bringing virtuals back at GW got a warm reception. I think this is something GC should ask per member in an email vote.

1.2k · May 30, 2012

5) “But virtuals can be anything anyone wishes to make, so they can be equally as silly” – Answer – Have more restrictive listing requirements. A reviewer has the power to accept or deny caches based on rules right? Worried that virtual listing can be subjective? Well everything is subjective. I think we trust our reviewers enough that they have been caching a long time and can use subjectivity to make sure a virtual being listed is worthy of such an icon. Have the requirements for listing a virtual take you someplace with significance or truly unique. Make the virtual listing require photos and answer “why is this cache worth posting” – again, we trust our reviewers to use their experience.

I'm sure someone (Toz, Markwell) will post the full history of virts, but your proposal to bring them back was already tried before they were killed. It was called the WOW requirement. Virtuals had to have some significance and it was left up to the reviewer to approve or deny this. Reviewers already get enough flack for not publishing a regular cache that breaks a guideline (There's a thread every month about the 528 ft rule needing more leeway). They caught way more flack when virtuals were in place and that's one of the main reasons virtuals went away.

Challenges are the replacement for virts.

2k · May 30, 2012

I'd personally vote for yes to allowing virtuals back, but then again, I'd say yes to webcams and even locationless days.

If reviewers do not want to be saturated with virtuals, I think many respected cachers would be willing to be reviewers for the virtuals only.

However, would definitely want rules so some lame virtuals I did would not come to fruition.

I'd wager if one actually polled a statistically random sample of cachers, I think the vast majority would want them back, my opinion.

6.8k · May 30, 2012

Challenges are the replacement for virts.

No, they aren't.

Cezanne

7.8k · May 30, 2012

Would I like to see virtuals come back? Sure. Do I think there's a feasible way to do it? No, and this is the reason:

5) “But virtuals can be anything anyone wishes to make, so they can be equally as silly” – Answer – Have more restrictive listing requirements. A reviewer has the power to accept or deny caches based on rules right? Worried that virtual listing can be subjective? Well everything is subjective. I think we trust our reviewers enough that they have been caching a long time and can use subjectivity to make sure a virtual being listed is worthy of such an icon. Have the requirements for listing a virtual take you someplace with significance or truly unique. Make the virtual listing require photos and answer “why is this cache worth posting” – again, we trust our reviewers to use their experience.

This is the "WOW" factor that was attempted a long time ago. It didn't work. Either every virtual is published, or no virtual is published. We can't have any subjectivity by the reviewers in deciding which ones are worthy enough to be published. Or would you like to volunteer to look after the appeals@geocaching.com account? It would go absolutely bananas if the WOW factor were reintroduced. "Waaah, the reviewer didn't deem my lousy virtual good enough. :cry: I want to appeal their decision!"

7.8k · May 30, 2012

Challenges are the replacement for virts.

No, they aren't.

Cezanne

In the eyes of Groundspeak, they are. In reality, and the eyes of the majority of the community, they aren't.

May 30, 2012

Would I like to see virtuals come back? Sure. Do I think there's a feasible way to do it? No, and this is the reason:

5) “But virtuals can be anything anyone wishes to make, so they can be equally as silly” – Answer – Have more restrictive listing requirements. A reviewer has the power to accept or deny caches based on rules right? Worried that virtual listing can be subjective? Well everything is subjective. I think we trust our reviewers enough that they have been caching a long time and can use subjectivity to make sure a virtual being listed is worthy of such an icon. Have the requirements for listing a virtual take you someplace with significance or truly unique. Make the virtual listing require photos and answer “why is this cache worth posting” – again, we trust our reviewers to use their experience.

This is the "WOW" factor that was attempted a long time ago. It didn't work. Either every virtual is published, or no virtual is published. We can't have any subjectivity by the reviewers in deciding which ones are worthy enough to be published. Or would you like to volunteer to look after the appeals@geocaching.com account? It would go absolutely bananas if the WOW factor were reintroduced. "Waaah, the reviewer didn't deem my lousy virtual good enough. I want to appeal their decision!"

And I do not think there is anything wrong with appealing it - again, lay some stricter guidelines for what a virtual can be instead of it just being a history marker or an old shed in the woods....

6.8k · May 30, 2012

Challenges are the replacement for virts.

No, they aren't.

Cezanne

In the eyes of Groundspeak, they are. In reality, and the eyes of the majority of the community, they aren't.

I do not even believe that in the eyes of Groundspeak they are a replacement. I understood Jeremy in the way that they thought that the community that enjoyed virtuals could also enjoy challenges (which, however, also does not seem to be the case for the majority of the community, but that's a different story).

Cezanne

May 30, 2012

Challenges are the replacement for virts.

No, they aren't.

Cezanne

In the eyes of Groundspeak, they are. In reality, and the eyes of the majority of the community, they aren't.

And the final point is most people do not like challneges, many like virtuals. If Groundspeak is true to their words to let the community decide, then let the community decide.

As I said in every point I made that is being rehased - dont we trust our reviewers enough to be able to follow a set of guidelines to make virtuals posted have stricter requirements then before? Our reviewers are seasons cachers, some of them being founding members. I am not saying they are perfect and any cache whether it is a virtual or not can be subjective. All I am saying is based on a mature and intelligent discussion - and allowing Groundspeak to let ALL of us vote (because these forums do not represent the community as not everyone even logs into the forums, nor does geowoodstock represent the entire community because not everyone goes to it). If the majority votes to keep virtuals away, great. If they vote them back, great.

7.8k · May 30, 2012

And I do not think there is anything wrong with appealing it - again, lay some stricter guidelines for what a virtual can be instead of it just being a history marker or an old shed in the woods....

There's no way you can write guidelines to cover EVERY possible case. There would still have to be some subjectivity involved. Can you come up with some draft guidelines as an example of what you're thinking about? I can't think of doing it in any way that wouldn't involve subjectivity.

May 30, 2012

And I do not think there is anything wrong with appealing it - again, lay some stricter guidelines for what a virtual can be instead of it just being a history marker or an old shed in the woods....

There's no way you can write guidelines to cover EVERY possible case. There would still have to be some subjectivity involved. Can you come up with some draft guidelines as an example of what you're thinking about? I can't think of doing it in any way that wouldn't involve subjectivity.

Again EVERYTHING is subjective. For example, a reviewer may decided he or she doesnt like people going into graveyards, so wont approve caches in a graveyard even if it is not illegal. Or drainage pipes. Or on parking decks, and so on. So everything in subjective. That is why there is vetting process to make someone a reviewer - because above all else we trust them to be fair and objective as possible but also recognize they are human. But I digress, yes I can draft a guideline for virtuals and would be more than willing to do so if Groundspeak and the community asked me to. But no, I cannot and would not attempt to make it so it was objective. We are human beings, not robots.

I will be more than happy to draft those guidelines and post in another topic.

Edited May 30, 2012 by nthacker66

May 30, 2012

Its 8am in seattle, so our lackeys should have some of seattle's best coffee in their systems and ready to read this :laughing:

Edited May 30, 2012 by nthacker66

19k · May 30, 2012

Again the idea of bringing virtuals back at GW got a warm reception. I think this is something GC should ask per member in an email vote.

Were there any reviewers in the group? In particular, any reviewers that were reviewing when virts were allowed? I'm betting there were not.

7.8k · May 30, 2012

Again EVERYTHING is subjective. For example, a reviewer may decided he or she doesnt like people going into graveyards, so wont approve caches in a graveyard even if it is not illegal.

That isn't the way it works. That's a permission issue. If caches are allowed in those graveyards, the reviewer MUST publish those caches. Their personal feelings don't come into play at all. Reviewers don't decide whether caches are "good enough" to be published, they decide whether they comply with the guidelines, and there's nothing in the guidelines about quality.

As for asking the community if they'd like virtuals to come back, I think we all know what the answer would be. That doesn't do any good, though. First, if there's no feasible way for them to come back, why force the issue? We'd just end up with a mess. Second, this isn't a democracy, it's a private company. If Groundspeak decides they can't feasibly bring them back, then they won't come back.

May 30, 2012

Again the idea of bringing virtuals back at GW got a warm reception. I think this is something GC should ask per member in an email vote.

Were there any reviewers in the group? In particular, any reviewers that were reviewing when virts were allowed? I'm betting there were not.

You would lose your bet. All of the reviewers there were reviewers when there were virts.

May 30, 2012

Again EVERYTHING is subjective. For example, a reviewer may decided he or she doesnt like people going into graveyards, so wont approve caches in a graveyard even if it is not illegal.

That isn't the way it works. That's a permission issue. If caches are allowed in those graveyards, the reviewer MUST publish those caches. Their personal feelings don't come into play at all. Reviewers don't decide whether caches are "good enough" to be published, they decide whether they comply with the guidelines, and there's nothing in the guidelines about quality.

As for asking the community if they'd like virtuals to come back, I think we all know what the answer would be. That doesn't do any good, though. First, if there's no feasible way for them to come back, why force the issue? We'd just end up with a mess. Second, this isn't a democracy, it's a private company. If Groundspeak decides they can't feasibly bring them back, then they won't come back.

Perhaps because we are paying customers and Groundspeak claims they listen to the community? Kathy did say that these things are decided by the community. That is why I wrote this open letter, to challenge Groundspeak to their words. I won;t give up because someone in the forums says "we tried before and it didnt work" and "its groundspeaks decisions" Had Kathy said "we at Groundspeak are going to stand by our decisions to nix virtuals, period" we wouldn't be having this discussion. Again, she uttered those words, and I want to see if Groundspeak is true to them. If the mjority of the community wants them back then let the community decide on guidelines, and then bring them back.

5.2k · May 30, 2012

And I do not think there is anything wrong with appealing it - again, lay some stricter guidelines for what a virtual can be instead of it just being a history marker or an old shed in the woods....

But we did have those guidelines! An excerpt...

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. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should "WOW" the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.

As one of the reviewers that was reviewing back then, I can tell you that every single day I would see at least a couple of virtual submissions that were a sign, memorial, tombstone, statue or historical marker. And every single one I had to deny. And many of those ended up here in the forums bitching about it.

I really don't want to go back there, nor do I see any way to improve it so any reviewers would want to go back there.

May 30, 2012

And I do not think there is anything wrong with appealing it - again, lay some stricter guidelines for what a virtual can be instead of it just being a history marker or an old shed in the woods....

But we did have those guidelines! An excerpt...

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. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should "WOW" the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.

As one of the reviewers that was reviewing back then, I can tell you that every single day I would see at least a couple of virtual submissions that were a sign, memorial, tombstone, statue or historical marker. And every single one I had to deny. And many of those ended up here in the forums bitching about it.

I really don't want to go back there, nor do I see any way to improve it so any reviewers would want to go back there.

And I respect that as well, but reviewers are not the entire community. While they are part of the community, they have an equal say. But you made a great point "you DID have guidelines" Revise them, make it more strict. Make a virtual really stand to a true wow factor. Groundspeka says "yah challenge replaced virtuals" but what WOW factor is in taking a picture of you climbing a tree. It seems like it was poorly thought out idea to "replace" something that a lot of people loved.

Again, a new draft to make it fair for the submitter and fair for the reviewer, I think could address this type of concern. But nothing is perfect - people will whine and moan no matter what you do. Just because there are people like that doesn't mean you close and lock the doors forever.

Edited May 30, 2012 by nthacker66

May 30, 2012

I say we go all General Sherman and burn the south to the ground.

That GeoWoodstock was way too hot and not in a good sexy way.

1.8k · May 30, 2012

Perhaps because we are paying customers and Groundspeak claims they listen to the community?

Gawd. I'm so sick of the sense of entitlement anymore. We pay $30 measly dollars for the ability to run PQs, see PMO caches, routes, etc. NOT to be sitting at the board and making decisions.

Anymore, if something doesn't go the way we want, then it's "I'm a paying member!"

I love Virts just as much as the next guy. Last year, I was alllll over the user forums fighting for them too.

But that horse is D.E.A.D. Let it go....

May 30, 2012

Also: can we convert all these stupid challenges back into mystery/unkown caches or split it off into the wayfinding game?

Edited May 30, 2012 by bramasoleiowa

7.8k · May 30, 2012

But you made a great point "you DID have guidelines" Revise them, make it more strict.

But again I ask, "How?"

Limit to only UNESCO World Heritage Sites? Surely those are worthy enough.

Officially recognized U.S. National Historic Landmarks and US and Canadian National Historic Sites? Sure.

How far down the list do we go before we hit virtuals that aren't worthy enough? And how do we put that into words? Where's the line, and how can we make it clear which side of the line on which a location falls? I'm pretty sure this is the biggest stumbling block with bringing virtuals back.

If the community seriously wants them to come back, they can get together and come up with a constructive proposal to give to Groundspeak. So far all I've seen in the forums is "I want them back!" Well, I want ice cream... :mmraspberry:

1.8k · May 30, 2012

But, not McDonald's ice cream...

19k · May 30, 2012

Again the idea of bringing virtuals back at GW got a warm reception. I think this is something GC should ask per member in an email vote.

Were there any reviewers in the group? In particular, any reviewers that were reviewing when virts were allowed? I'm betting there were not.

You would lose your bet. All of the reviewers there were reviewers when there were virts.

"All"? That means that there were more than one reviewer present, and agreeing with bringing back virts? I don't doubt you, but that sure comes as a surprise to me, given what I've seen in this forum over the years!

1.2k · May 30, 2012

Sometimes I feel that the term "community" is used to reference the vocal minority and not the majority.

Conceptually, I like virtuals, but in reality, they don't work that well.

May 30, 2012

Perhaps because we are paying customers and Groundspeak claims they listen to the community?

Gawd. I'm so sick of the sense of entitlement anymore. We pay $30 measly dollars for the ability to run PQs, see PMO caches, routes, etc. NOT to be sitting at the board and making decisions.

Anymore, if something doesn't go the way we want, then it's "I'm a paying member!"

I love Virts just as much as the next guy. Last year, I was alllll over the user forums fighting for them too.

But that horse is D.E.A.D. Let it go....

As I said, I asked for an intelligent and mature debate. I responded to a question when someone asked "why would Groundspeak listen to us" Please do not take my words out of context. Yes, I did say we pay, but I also said Kathy from Groundspeak said they listen to the community. It isn;t dead if Groundspeak was willing to make that claim that they listen to the community.

Again, please lets keep this mature and intelligent and not insulting (hello forum moderators? does the above statement count as a warning email to this person)?

1.1k · May 30, 2012

I like virts too-but whatever your letter said ain't gonna happen. Let it go...GS will not budge on this.

I love virtuals but, it is not what the Lilly Pad wants and what the Frog wants the Frog gets.

May 30, 2012

Sometimes I feel that the term "community" is used to reference the vocal minority and not the majority.

Conceptually, I like virtuals, but in reality, they don't work that well.

What do you feel doesn't work well?

1.8k · May 30, 2012

Perhaps because we are paying customers and Groundspeak claims they listen to the community?

Gawd. I'm so sick of the sense of entitlement anymore. We pay $30 measly dollars for the ability to run PQs, see PMO caches, routes, etc. NOT to be sitting at the board and making decisions.

Anymore, if something doesn't go the way we want, then it's "I'm a paying member!"

I love Virts just as much as the next guy. Last year, I was alllll over the user forums fighting for them too.

But that horse is D.E.A.D. Let it go....

As I said, I asked for an intelligent and mature debate. I responded to a question when someone asked "why would Groundspeak listen to us" Please do not take my words out of context. Yes, I did say we pay, but I also said Kathy from Groundspeak said they listen to the community. It isn;t dead if Groundspeak was willing to make that claim that they listen to the community.

Again, please lets keep this mature and intelligent and not insulting (hello forum moderators? does the above statement count as a warning email to this person)?

Keep this mature, by when your feelings get hurt you request a warnig email from forum mods? :rolleyes:

3.6k · May 30, 2012

The horse is dead. If I was GS, I would ban all virtuals and get it over with. The cream of the crops of virtuals is blinding alot of cachers now a day. Its making them think all virutals are awesome when it wasnt the case when virtual was allowed. most of the lame virtuals are gone now.

I am one of those cachers that DONT want them back. And to Groundspeak, thank you for listening to us that dont want them back.

May 30, 2012

Again the idea of bringing virtuals back at GW got a warm reception. I think this is something GC should ask per member in an email vote.

Were there any reviewers in the group? In particular, any reviewers that were reviewing when virts were allowed? I'm betting there were not.

You would lose your bet. All of the reviewers there were reviewers when there were virts.

"All"? That means that there were more than one reviewer present, and agreeing with bringing back virts? I don't doubt you, but that sure comes as a surprise to me, given what I've seen in this forum over the years!

Ok wow. I must remember that I am dealing with people who will take everything said as literal. Not EVERY SINGLE reviewer from all over the world was there. But every reivewer up on stage at that moment were reviewers form the era of virts. I will be more careful as to point these things out, but be prepared for longer posts then necessary so I can be concise as to not leave anything up for improper interpretation. Sheesh! :angry:

2.6k · May 30, 2012

I agree with the OP.

I've always like virtuals and was sad to see them go.....its amazing, in general , the amount of favorite points awarded to virtuals versus non-virtuals.

Challanges are strange.....I doubt I'll ever do one.

May 30, 2012

The horse is dead. If I was GS, I would ban all virtuals and get it over with. The cream of the crops of virtuals is blinding alot of cachers now a day. Its making them think all virutals are awesome when it wasnt the case when virtual was allowed. most of the lame virtuals are gone now.

I am one of those cachers that DONT want them back. And to Groundspeak, thank you for listening to us that dont want them back.

And again I respect that if this is what the mjority of the community wants, great. But here is thr thing. You personally od not like virtuals, you have a choice not to do them. I am not fond of guradrail caches. I am not appealing to Groundspeak to do away with them because I don't like them. I choose not to do them.

8.4k · May 30, 2012

Again the idea of bringing virtuals back at GW got a warm reception. I think this is something GC should ask per member in an email vote.

Were there any reviewers in the group? In particular, any reviewers that were reviewing when virts were allowed? I'm betting there were not.

You would lose your bet. All of the reviewers there were reviewers when there were virts.

I started walking down there with Monkeybrad and got waylaid. I missed most of the reviewer forum and paid no attention at all when I got there, but there weren't any noobs in that bunch. Most had been around as long or longer than me from what I saw.

I'd love to see all of the old cache types come back and I'd like to see Waymarking merged like benchmarking was so I could see it all on one profile. I can't remember the last time I logged in to WM. It has been several years at least.

1.8k · May 30, 2012

I think more of the community wishes guardrail caches were banned rather than bringing back virts

Edited May 30, 2012 by JesandTodd

6.8k · May 30, 2012

I really don't want to go back there, nor do I see any way to improve it so any reviewers would want to go back there.

I fully understand this and I also do not see a workable approach to make virtuals work as in the very old days.

I do not understand, however, why Groundspeak could not offer a type of virtual cache which inherits several properties from

the old virtuals and geocaches in general (ownership, description length, D/T-rating, multi and mystery elements possible, additional

waypoints, integration into maps and PQs together with caches if wanted by the person sending away a search request) while using the

community based review system of challenges and that completion does not add to the find count of geocaches.

Cezanne

Edited May 30, 2012 by cezanne

1.1k · May 30, 2012

I like virts too-but whatever your letter said ain't gonna happen. Let it go...GS will not budge on this.

Sorry double entry

Edited May 30, 2012 by captnemo

May 30, 2012

I think more of the community wishes guardrail caches were banned..

In fact, I would fight against that. Even if I personally don't like them. The game is so wide open but with good rules. I think we can all agree on the geocaching is mainly about the places it can take you. As my original post said, had it not been for that one virtual that took you to a gravesite in the middle of a nall parking lot, you would never have known it to be there. Sure, offset multi's, challenges, etc. But I am not appealing to Groundspeak to brinbg it back as it was - just to open thi discussion up to bring back what people loved about them and a way that it can be done to make it better and not via Waymarking and challenges which most of the community seems to have a very cold reception to vs. the warmth people still have for virtuals. And again, all of this based on the words Kathy used - let the community decide.

May 30, 2012

I really don't want to go back there, nor do I see any way to improve it so any reviewers would want to go back there.

I fully understand this and I also do not see a workable approach to make virtuals work as in the very old days.

I do not understand, however, why Groundspeak could not offer a type of virtual cache which inherits several properties from

the old virtuals and geocaches in general (ownership, description length, D/T-rating, multi and mystery elements possible, additional

waypoints, integration into maps and PQs together with caches if wanted by the person sending away a search request) while using the

community based review system of challenges and that completion does not add to the find count of geocaches.

Cezanne

As I said in the original post - perhaps a new icon thwat is a ghost holding a container. This could be an offset multi representing a virtual cahce as the "main cache" you need to go to to id some sort of thing that will give you the final coords for a physical cache - this way people can distinguish it from a regular multi and spmetning more special then "go to thsi tree and then go that that stump"

May 30, 2012

I think more of the community wishes guardrail caches were banned rather than bringing back virts

But how else will I stick my hand in and get stung by yellow jackets?

3.6k · May 30, 2012

I think more of the community wishes guardrail caches were banned rather than bringing back virts

But how else will I stick my hand in and get stung by yellow jackets?

Dont stick your fingers in there without looking.

1.8k · May 30, 2012

I think more of the community wishes guardrail caches were banned..

In fact, I would fight against that. Even if I personally don't like them. The game is so wide open but with good rules. I think we can all agree on the geocaching is mainly about the places it can take you. As my original post said, had it not been for that one virtual that took you to a gravesite in the middle of a nall parking lot, you would never have known it to be there. Sure, offset multi's, challenges, etc. But I am not appealing to Groundspeak to brinbg it back as it was - just to open thi discussion up to bring back what people loved about them and a way that it can be done to make it better and not via Waymarking and challenges which most of the community seems to have a very cold reception to vs. the warmth people still have for virtuals. And again, all of this based on the words Kathy used - let the community decide.

I think we are-to use a Bushism-misunderstanding each other.

I wish virts came back (or more importantly, I wish there were more awesome virts around)

I don't wish for guardrails to be banned

The community can be fickle.

If you were to actually poll active cachers, I bet you'd find more that wish to ban nanos and guardrails than bring back virts.

Take a look at the pathetic mess that are 'challenges' to get an idea of how virts would look.

And unfortunately, challenges WERE the answer to the community's desire for virts.

That'll teach US to ask for anything again...

Edited May 30, 2012 by JesandTodd

May 30, 2012

I will not continue to go back and forth on the issue of "i dont like virts" vs. "i do like virts" that was not the purpose of this thread. I am sure I will not convince those who do not like virts or those who think this issue cannot be raised and I know youy will not convince me otherwise. I am cool with agreeing to disagree on that. The core of this lies in Kathy words to "let the community decide" - Again, Groundspeak - if you are true to that - than let the community decide - lets have an up or down vote on it membership wide. What say you?

19k · May 30, 2012

Again the idea of bringing virtuals back at GW got a warm reception. I think this is something GC should ask per member in an email vote.

Were there any reviewers in the group? In particular, any reviewers that were reviewing when virts were allowed? I'm betting there were not.

You would lose your bet. All of the reviewers there were reviewers when there were virts.

"All"? That means that there were more than one reviewer present, and agreeing with bringing back virts? I don't doubt you, but that sure comes as a surprise to me, given what I've seen in this forum over the years!

Ok wow. I must remember that I am dealing with people who will take everything said as literal. Not EVERY SINGLE reviewer from all over the world was there. But every reivewer up on stage at that moment were reviewers form the era of virts. I will be more careful as to point these things out, but be prepared for longer posts then necessary so I can be concise as to not leave anything up for improper interpretation. Sheesh!

Settle down, there... :unsure:

I wasn't implying that I thought you literally meant "all reviewers"! I simply said that by the use of the word "all" that you must have meant more than one, or you would have probably said "the reviewer". Probably more than two, also, or you would have said "both reviewers". "ALL reviewers" would imply at least three. I'd say its a little early for you to be getting so defensive. :huh:

An open letter to Groundspeak about Virtuals

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment