Jump to content

An open letter to Groundspeak about Virtuals


Recommended Posts

Have an interesting location to share? Currently you can list it on Waymarking, and in several categories if there are some. Then you can place a Challenge in the exact same spot. Next, make it a virtual first stage of a multi. Then hide a nano or a micro there also. It could also be part of a puzzle. But its not good enough, as a genuine virtual ghost icon is needed.

 

Why??

 

+1

Link to comment

That doesn't even make sense, especially when you are repeating almost verbatim what CathyH said earlier in the thread. The question remains: why the wow factor only for virtuals?

I will agree that the reason for the "Wow" factor is not the one that is officially given.

 

The official reason was "Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. "

 

This clearly is a narrow-minded, prejudice, provincial attitude. Perhaps the reward for a physical cache is finding the cache, but certainly there was reward for visiting the location as well. And who is to say that reward for the virtual cache wasn't finding the the answer to the verification question or even getting that photo of the target with your GPS included to prove you were there.

 

I personally believe the reason for the wow requirement was to control the number of virtual caches. For those for whom the core of geocaching is finding that hidden container, uncontrolled virtuals are a real threat. There is no reason for someone to get permission, prepare a container, fill it with swag, hide it, and maintain it; when they can simply post coordinates, ask people to post a picture or to count the number of vowels on a sign and call it a virtual cache.

 

Were some virtuals fun and entertaining? Sure. And the "wow" requirement ensured that the ones that did get published were more likely to be that. But look at Waymarking and challenges and you will get an idea that without a "wow" guideline they would be in the same locations that now have lamppost hides and power trails.

 

You can moan all you want that physical caches are placed in less than "wow" locations, but the idea is to allow each hider to decide what is worthy of a cache - and not be dictated by narrow-minded, prejudiced, provincial Groundspeak lackey or volunteer reviewers. For some people simply having a cache to find is reason enough to bring to a place. Wouldn't that apply to containerless locations as well?

 

The attitude of Groundspeak was that finding a cache was at the core of geocaching.

 

This was pretty much what Dave found out when he proposed Wonderts. People didn't care that it was Dave Ulmer, the inventor of geocaching, suggesting that some locations might be interesting enough to be a reward just to visit and that a physical cache wasn't necessary. The let him know that they wanted geocaching to be about finding containers. So he pretty much went elsewhere.

 

In the meantime, it was discovered that there were some places you couldn't get permission to hide a cache, or where leaving a container would be inappropriate. As an experiment, Groundspeak created a new cache type that didn't have a container, to allow people to go geocaching in these areas. And while this experiment was successful in meeting this goal it came at a cost of threatening the core idea of geocaching - in part because these virtual caches were too easy to place. In my opinion "Wow" was meant to control the number of virtual caches. When enforcement of "wow" proved to be too big a burden on the reviewers, and once Waymarking existed to provide a way to share locations without hiding geocaches, virtual caches on geocahing.com were grandfathered.

Link to comment

I somehow think that already the idea of defining virtual caches needs end up in something which is similar to the waymark concept in the sense that it sets out a narrow framework which is quite inflexible.

It's funny how we can have two polar opposite views about the flexibility of the Waymarking framework.

I find Waymarking far more flexible than geocaching.com.

 

In some sense I also regard it as more flexible, but not for implementing what I have in mind with geocaches.

 

There is a rich set of variable types you can chooses from, and while I haven't looked lately, I would not be surprised to find a variable type for recording additional waypoints if a category uses them.

 

Maybe I overlooked it, but then it must be very well hidden.

Anyway, Waymarking is extremely user-unfriendly (I'm very experienced with all sorts

of computer systems - so it cannot be my fault).

 

Had geocaching not been invented before Waymarking someone could have defined a category for hidden containers or even one for virtual caches like I linked to above.

 

But it does not seem to be possible to use D/T-ratings, attributes etc and filter according to them.

Are you aware of any intelligent search possibilities within a Waymarking category?

It appears to me that due to the category concept and the flexibility that the concept offers, there cannot exist intelligent

search routines that are perfectly fitting for geocache-like constructions.

This also played a role when I mentioned the lacking flexibility for implementing caches.

In theory of course even caches with containers could be a Waymarking category, but by implementing geocaches as waymarks a payoff results in terms of worse support of geocaches due to the fact that also non geocache objects should be supported.

 

You could create a category that corresponds to the multi location virtual caches that tell a story or educate the visitor about some event. Certainly Waymarking lacks a capability to download PQs and it may not be easy to record additional waypoints, but geocaching did not have these features originally either. I recall multi caches and even multi-part virtuals from the time when geocaching.com had neither additional waypoints or pocket queries, so it's hard for me to believe that one could not create waymarks just because some feature is "missing" from the website.

 

The essential difference is that back then one did not need methods for filtering and sorting out the stuff one does not want to be bothered with. This has changed enormously.

 

Missing waypoints are just one aspect. In order to come up with caches of the type I want to see at Waymarking, one would need to create such a group and then be willing to manage it. This involves work I would not even be willing to do if Waymarking would perfectly fit the purpose I have in mind. I'd not even want to invest the amount of work you have for the wow category.

 

The problem is that it also doesn't make sense to the person who simply wants to bring you to a favorite places.

 

It appears to me that Waymarking is already well suited for that purpose anyway except for the case when the place belongs to a category which requires photos and one does not want to ask for photos.

 

What is the point of the verification method? It is enough to ask to share your impressions in the log? Nor did it make sense to the many people who thought "If I know the answer to the verification question, shouldn't I be able to log a find?"

 

Typically people who have not been at the location, will not have anything interesting to share. Consider e.g. a long distance hike. I'd like if at least the vast majority of the loggers really hiked along the way. This also ensures that one can decide to contact one of the finishers and ask for their experiences and trust to some extent the obtained answers.

 

Granted we have arguments over what constitutes a find of a physical geocache, but I have a harder time with the issue of when you can log a find on virtual. It's not as easy as saying that you have to both visit the location and meet the verification method. Isn't the purpose of the verification method to verify you visited the location?

 

I works well in case of my virtual. I never had any issues for 9 years.

It also works well for reasonably done Earthcaches.

 

I would argue that without a wow requirement virtual caches would have fared even worse.

 

Yes, of course as long as the virtuals count for the hide and find count. If they do not count, I guess that most numbers people prefer to drop off film canisters. For virtuals where questions need to be answered (and asked in the role of the owner) I guess there is a further limiting element involved.

 

Consider Earthcaches. They are certainly not very popular among beginners.

 

Add to that that that many land managers will see this and adopt policies against placing physical caches because they believe virtual caches will be easier for them to deal with as well.

 

I already mentioned that this might certainly be an issue in countries like the US (and apparently has been an issue there). It is not an issue in my country - there are no land managers.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Have an interesting location to share? Currently you can list it on Waymarking, and in several categories if there are some. Then you can place a Challenge in the exact same spot. Next, make it a virtual first stage of a multi. Then hide a nano or a micro there also. It could also be part of a puzzle. But its not good enough, as a genuine virtual ghost icon is needed.

 

Why??

 

I'd appreciate if you stopped repeating your prejudice about the icon-hunt over and over again.

 

Let's look at this cache of mine:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

 

It does not fit on Waymarking, it does not fit into challenges (already the length would be an issue, the puzzle and multi elements are further obstacles).

Inserting virtual stages and adding puzzles also do not apply as there are virtual stages and puzzles involved anyway.

 

Placing a nano or a micro also does not apply - I even managed to hide a small container, but at the expense of having to hide it in an urban area where I do not like to hide/hunt for a cache. So if any reasonable alternative for a virtual existed, I would have used it, but certainly not to obtain the virtual icon and certainly not to have less work.

 

If I just wanted to share the key location, that of course would be easy with Waymarking, with challenges and also with a nano right at the location. My intention was however not let everyone know which location the cache is leading to - so first a puzzle needs to be solved and then also at the location several challenges wait for the visitor to make it more challenging and interesting for the target audience and in order to keep as many of those who do not belong to the target audience away. So far this worked out very well.

 

There are way more reasons for wishing to be able to set up virtual caches than the ones you and others in this thread can imagine.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

There is a rich set of variable types you can chooses from, and while I haven't looked lately, I would not be surprised to find a variable type for recording additional waypoints if a category uses them.

 

Maybe I overlooked it, but then it must be very well hidden.

Anyway, Waymarking is extremely user-unfriendly (I'm very experienced with all sorts

of computer systems - so it cannot be my fault).

 

 

Not really that well hidden but one would not find it unless they were willing to create and manage a category which is when variables are defined for the category. Additional coordinates are one of the nineteen variable types available to aid the category leaders define their categories.

Link to comment

That doesn't even make sense, especially when you are repeating almost verbatim what CathyH said earlier in the thread. The question remains: why the wow factor only for virtuals?

I will agree that the reason for the "Wow" factor is not the one that is officially given.

 

The official reason was "Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should "WOW" the prospective finder. "

 

This clearly is a narrow-minded, prejudice, provincial attitude. Perhaps the reward for a physical cache is finding the cache, but certainly there was reward for visiting the location as well. And who is to say that reward for the virtual cache wasn't finding the the answer to the verification question or even getting that photo of the target with your GPS included to prove you were there.

 

I personally believe the reason for the wow requirement was to control the number of virtual caches. For those for whom the core of geocaching is finding that hidden container, uncontrolled virtuals are a real threat. There is no reason for someone to get permission, prepare a container, fill it with swag, hide it, and maintain it; when they can simply post coordinates, ask people to post a picture or to count the number of vowels on a sign and call it a virtual cache.

 

Were some virtuals fun and entertaining? Sure. And the "wow" requirement ensured that the ones that did get published were more likely to be that. But look at Waymarking and challenges and you will get an idea that without a "wow" guideline they would be in the same locations that now have lamppost hides and power trails.

 

You can moan all you want that physical caches are placed in less than "wow" locations, but the idea is to allow each hider to decide what is worthy of a cache - and not be dictated by narrow-minded, prejudiced, provincial Groundspeak lackey or volunteer reviewers. For some people simply having a cache to find is reason enough to bring to a place. Wouldn't that apply to containerless locations as well?

 

The attitude of Groundspeak was that finding a cache was at the core of geocaching.

 

This was pretty much what Dave found out when he proposed Wonderts. People didn't care that it was Dave Ulmer, the inventor of geocaching, suggesting that some locations might be interesting enough to be a reward just to visit and that a physical cache wasn't necessary. The let him know that they wanted geocaching to be about finding containers. So he pretty much went elsewhere.

 

In the meantime, it was discovered that there were some places you couldn't get permission to hide a cache, or where leaving a container would be inappropriate. As an experiment, Groundspeak created a new cache type that didn't have a container, to allow people to go geocaching in these areas. And while this experiment was successful in meeting this goal it came at a cost of threatening the core idea of geocaching - in part because these virtual caches were too easy to place. In my opinion "Wow" was meant to control the number of virtual caches. When enforcement of "wow" proved to be too big a burden on the reviewers, and once Waymarking existed to provide a way to share locations without hiding geocaches, virtual caches on geocahing.com were grandfathered.

At long last we are getting close to something we can agree on. However, I will note that when Dave Ulmer spoke of leaving, geocaching was two months old. It's not like there was an active geocaching community at that point. The "people" you are referring to above, was a guy with a website.

Link to comment

Have an interesting location to share? Currently you can list it on Waymarking, and in several categories if there are some. Then you can place a Challenge in the exact same spot. Next, make it a virtual first stage of a multi. Then hide a nano or a micro there also. It could also be part of a puzzle. But its not good enough, as a genuine virtual ghost icon is needed.

 

Why??

 

I'd appreciate if you stopped repeating your prejudice about the icon-hunt over and over again.

 

Let's look at this cache of mine:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

 

It does not fit on Waymarking, it does not fit into challenges (already the length would be an issue, the puzzle and multi elements are further obstacles).

But when you are told that you can create something like this on Waymarking your response is that it too much work or that there's some feature lacking that you need (even though geocachers were finding ways to list similar caches long before these features existed on geooaching.

 

Your best argument is that nobody would visit it if were on Waymarking. Perhaps because Waymarking is confusing to use, perhaps because of the missing features like pocket queries.

 

How about instead of bringing back virtuals we work to get Groundspeak to add these features to Waymarking or to challenges or create a new site that is designed for the kinds of experiences you are trying to create.

 

It's no wonder that people like 4wheelin_fool impugn a motive of an icon or smiley to the virtual cache crowd. Because all the other problem could be fixed if you applied some effort to convincing Groundspeak to do it. Only the ghost icon and the geocaching smiley in your stats require reviving the old virtual caches.

Link to comment

 

I'd appreciate if you stopped repeating your prejudice about the icon-hunt over and over again.

 

Let's look at this cache of mine:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

 

It does not fit on Waymarking, it does not fit into challenges (already the length would be an issue, the puzzle and multi elements are further obstacles).

Inserting virtual stages and adding puzzles also do not apply as there are virtual stages and puzzles involved anyway.

It would fit fine at Waymarking. There is not a category for it now but one could be created. If you wanted the category, were willing to create the category, convince the Waymarking community the validity of your category and manage your category then it could fit fine. But you have already expressed that you are not willing to do that. Waymarking categories are a user/community managed thus they require people who are willing to become involved. Don't insist that it does not fit in Waymarking.

Link to comment

Have an interesting location to share? Currently you can list it on Waymarking, and in several categories if there are some. Then you can place a Challenge in the exact same spot. Next, make it a virtual first stage of a multi. Then hide a nano or a micro there also. It could also be part of a puzzle. But its not good enough, as a genuine virtual ghost icon is needed.

 

Why??

 

I'd appreciate if you stopped repeating your prejudice about the icon-hunt over and over again.

 

Let's look at this cache of mine:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

 

It does not fit on Waymarking, it does not fit into challenges (already the length would be an issue, the puzzle and multi elements are further obstacles).

Inserting virtual stages and adding puzzles also do not apply as there are virtual stages and puzzles involved anyway.

 

Placing a nano or a micro also does not apply - I even managed to hide a small container, but at the expense of having to hide it in an urban area where I do not like to hide/hunt for a cache. So if any reasonable alternative for a virtual existed, I would have used it, but certainly not to obtain the virtual icon and certainly not to have less work.

 

If I just wanted to share the key location, that of course would be easy with Waymarking, with challenges and also with a nano right at the location. My intention was however not let everyone know which location the cache is leading to - so first a puzzle needs to be solved and then also at the location several challenges wait for the visitor to make it more challenging and interesting for the target audience and in order to keep as many of those who do not belong to the target audience away. So far this worked out very well.

 

There are way more reasons for wishing to be able to set up virtual caches than the ones you and others in this thread can imagine.

 

Cezanne

 

I'm sure that if we all tried hard enough we could each come up with a varient that doesn't fit well into the traditional, unknown, multi, waymark, or challenge mold. As I suggested before, these are exceptions to the norm and I don't except Groundspeak to adapt their site for every puzzle, historic, containerless, multi-location varient. The three standard cache types, challenges, and waymarks probably cover 95% of the types of game pieces people want to create. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a significant amount of development effort to accommodate every possibility, and with improvements and enhancements to Challenges, the options for the containerless aspect of the game can evolve quite a bit.

Link to comment

 

Okay, so I agree that Waymarking is a bad idea, and that challenges are poorly executed. However, I actually do enjoy challenges. From my (admittedly short) experience caching, I feel like the better challenges represent what virtuals were.

 

That's interesting. Even though there are many categories in Waymarking that bore me, I feel that Waymarking outperforms challenges by far as it comes to virtuals that are potentially interesting for me (the setup, not the logs of visits as they hardly exist anyway). Challenges are currently a "Happen to be somewhere, take a photo" activity that might get a further even more boring category of the type which results by take a photo replaced by scan a QR code. Unlike challenges there are Waymarking categories which are not about taking and posting photos.

 

The virtuals I enjoy do not involve taking photos of myself, playing around with smartphones or behave like a children, but learn something about places that I have not known before and which is beyond wikipedia level.

Well-done Earthcaches are a good role model for the type of virtual I'd like to see (but with no fixed topic) and challenges are not suited for that purpose at all.

 

Cezanne

I love Earthcaches, and would enjoy seeing a new historical-based cache category in that same vein. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that more in line with what you're looking for? I'm not sure if we specifically need Virtuals to accomplish that. ^^

 

As for the Waymarking, I think that my area is just lame when it comes to that aspect. Most of them are basically "Check this out." One is at a Pizza Hut that hasn't been in business for nearly four or five years. Dx I am sure that I just didn't look into it enough, but honestly part of the problem is leaving geocaching.com to get them, haha.

Link to comment

I'll be honest, I didn't read the whole thread, why, because for the large part after the first page, i could predict what would come up, and scanning through, I was right.

 

For the record:

 

1: the OP speaks for me. (except the If there must be a physical then there can be an offset - this is called geotrash, and shame on TPTB for any advocation of it, if the cache container location isn't the point of doing the cache, don't place it (that was the WHOLE POINT of virtuals, worthy places you couldn't hide a container)

 

2: I could swear there used to be a forum vote capability here, but not anymore, otherwise we actually could take a vote on this.

 

Quality of caches is entirely a seperate issue to type, there are dire examples of bad caches in every type of cache category, and I have to say, a lot of these are Multis that are all great doing the clues, but there's just no good place to put the container, when you've done all the clues (and completed the point of the cache), the containers gone, again!

 

So, the argument about quality - INVALID, applies to all types equally

The arguments about maintenance - INVALID - Applies to all types (but "Holiday Virtuals" should not return)

The arguments about the flack the reviewers got - INVALID - Applies to all types. - Simple answer, let the members decide, give virtuals a vote system, if a virt drops below say a -2, archive it. (write a macro to do it, no reviewer to bitch at then)

Arguments about changes to location affecting the cache - INVALID applies to all types, particularly the type of changes made with a chainsaw.

Arguments from those that don't want to see Virts return - INVALID - don't do them then. I don't really like Multis that much, so I don't do them, I've never advocated their removal from the game.

Challenges are the replacement - INVALID, how does being taken to the most incredible volcanic lake I've ever seen in or out of a book, compare to visiting caches no-one has been to for 6 months (there's probably a reason for that) then having to go to australia to find a tupperware box??? Totally different concepts, Challenges are the replacement for COs who want to torment people with ludicrous ALRs (which used to apply to most types)

GC doesn't want to so they won't - INVALID - Thats what everybody said about increasing cache count in PQs

 

Caches have to have a physical log to sign - WHY?? and BTW how exactly do I sign a webcam? Virts were one of the first additional cache types, before all the other stuff that doesn't seem to be all that popular, but Virts have maintained their popularity (those that are left anyway) and have the most vocal and loyal fanbase of any kind of cache, I really do not hear anyone standing up for 35mm plastic film containers anywhere near as consistently as fans of Virtuals, that's gotta tell you something. BTW I <3 Micros too

 

Someone said, lets have a vote, I second that motion, that's usually good enough to go to a vote in the free world. Lets take that vote and all agree to abide by the majority consesus.

 

Heres a good idea, GC should like this one, I'll pay them for the ability to post a Virtual. Whats more, I'll pay them on a per cache basis! here's my proposal:

 

I'll pay $5 per virtual I submit and is approved. On the condition that I get a refund if its archived by a reviewer within 24 months.

 

There you go, Money on the table, right where my mouth is!

 

My logic in this, I'll save that on the pointless container for the offset, and the return visits to replace it when a squirrel thinks it a tasty new treat for the winter. BTW I <3 Squirrels too

Link to comment

I love Earthcaches, and would enjoy seeing a new historical-based cache category in that same vein. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that more in line with what you're looking for? I'm not sure if we specifically need Virtuals to accomplish that. ^^

 

As for the Waymarking, I think that my area is just lame when it comes to that aspect. Most of them are basically "Check this out." One is at a Pizza Hut that hasn't been in business for nearly four or five years. Dx I am sure that I just didn't look into it enough, but honestly part of the problem is leaving geocaching.com to get them, haha.

 

You notice one of three Pizza Hut waymarks within 15 miles of your first geocache but didn't notice over 100 Waymarks that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and another 100 historical marker waymarks but you say you are interested in historical based caches.

Link to comment

That doesn't even make sense, especially when you are repeating almost verbatim what CathyH said earlier in the thread. The question remains: why the wow factor only for virtuals?

I will agree that the reason for the "Wow" factor is not the one that is officially given.

 

The official reason was "Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. "

 

This clearly is a narrow-minded, prejudice, provincial attitude. Perhaps the reward for a physical cache is finding the cache, but certainly there was reward for visiting the location as well. And who is to say that reward for the virtual cache wasn't finding the the answer to the verification question or even getting that photo of the target with your GPS included to prove you were there.

 

I personally believe the reason for the wow requirement was to control the number of virtual caches. For those for whom the core of geocaching is finding that hidden container, uncontrolled virtuals are a real threat. There is no reason for someone to get permission, prepare a container, fill it with swag, hide it, and maintain it; when they can simply post coordinates, ask people to post a picture or to count the number of vowels on a sign and call it a virtual cache.

 

 

Well, Geocaching was a much, much smaller fringe activity back in those days, and most people who did it on a regular basis, and logged in regularly, were really "into" it. I believe the nutcases who posted to these forums really did represent the overwhelming majority back in those days. They said there were too many lame virts, and "they" listened? Either that or J.I. was trying to stick it to the creator of Geocaching. :o

 

I don't think it was too much of an issue for the "wow factor" declaration being made for virtuals, but I've always said locationless were killed purely due to bandwidth issues. I do remember me bringing that up once, and Keystone admitting it was a factor, but not a magor one, as Pinehurst would say. But let me tell you, I was on dial-up in 2004, and looking at a locationless cache page was beyond brutal. I think I may have burned out a hard drive on a 486. :laughing:

Link to comment
That doesn't even make sense, especially when you are repeating almost verbatim what CathyH said earlier in the thread. The question remains: why the wow factor only for virtuals?

 

Good question. Let me snip this out to address it. The "wow factor" was implemented in response to the use of virtuals by lazy cache owners to list caches. They would find the most mundane items to list fence posts, manhole covers, a sneaker in the woods, rotting animal carcasses, a nail in a tree, it got to the point of absurdity.

 

The introduction of the "wow factor" was an answer to the absurdity. That didn't work (the reason has been documented in this thread) so TPTB decided that geocaching should be about geocaches. That meant that locations were not geocaches and that is the end of the story today.

Link to comment
That doesn't even make sense, especially when you are repeating almost verbatim what CathyH said earlier in the thread. The question remains: why the wow factor only for virtuals?

 

Good question. Let me snip this out to address it. The "wow factor" was implemented in response to the use of virtuals by lazy cache owners to list caches. They would find the most mundane items to list fence posts, manhole covers, a sneaker in the woods, rotting animal carcasses, a nail in a tree, it got to the point of absurdity.

 

The introduction of the "wow factor" was an answer to the absurdity. That didn't work (the reason has been documented in this thread) so TPTB decided that geocaching should be about geocaches. That meant that locations were not geocaches and that is the end of the story today.

Here I've got to agree with bring back virtual crowd. That doesn't make any sense. People place the most mundane physical caches - in parking lots and next to dumpsters in back of mini malls. Or they place 600 caches ever .1 miles along some back country road so you can find the same cache over and over again for 60 miles.

 

If you were going to allow container-less geocaches in the first place, why have a "quality" requirement for them and not have one for physical caches?

 

I contend the "wow" requirement wasn't about quality as much at it was about providing a way to control the number of virtual caches. It gave the reviewers the capability to reject just about everything that got submitted as a virtual cache. And knowing that it was going to be hard to get a virtual cache approved, encouraged people to at least think about ways to make it a physical cache.

Link to comment
That doesn't even make sense, especially when you are repeating almost verbatim what CathyH said earlier in the thread. The question remains: why the wow factor only for virtuals?

 

Good question. Let me snip this out to address it. The "wow factor" was implemented in response to the use of virtuals by lazy cache owners to list caches. They would find the most mundane items to list fence posts, manhole covers, a sneaker in the woods, rotting animal carcasses, a nail in a tree, it got to the point of absurdity.

 

The introduction of the "wow factor" was an answer to the absurdity. That didn't work (the reason has been documented in this thread) so TPTB decided that geocaching should be about geocaches. That meant that locations were not geocaches and that is the end of the story today.

Yes, what you are saying agrees with everything I've seen, but it still does not explain why the wow factor was only for virtuals. It's not like there's never been a dearth of mundane and even absurd regular caches. if there was a concern that there were too many lame virtual caches, a better solution would have been to make it easier for people to find the types of caches they like, not to make some sort of arbitrary distinction about what a cache is, disallowing one type but then doing nothing while rampant lameness overwhelms the other types.

 

Perusing the forum archives I see a lot of posts in support of virtuals and very few complaining about them (excluding the people who merely repeat ad infinitum what they think Groundspeak wants). If the lame virtuals were really so mundane and absurd then people would have ignored them until they went away. Or maybe not. They should have at least been given a chance to choose them or not, just like they are with film cans tossed out car windows every 528 feet.

 

Groundspeak's motto is "The language of Location". Perhaps that's why they wandered off-script and forgot they shouldn't add challenges to geocaching.com

Link to comment

The arguments about the flack the reviewers got - INVALID - Applies to all types. - Simple answer, let the members decide, give virtuals a vote system, if a virt drops below say a -2, archive it. (write a macro to do it, no reviewer to bitch at then)

Were you a reviewer when the site accepted virtual cache submissions? I was. As a statement of fact, virtuals were the single biggest source of aggravation, flames, insults and threats out of any activity that's been part of my volunteer work. The day that Groundspeak asks me to start reviewing virtual caches again is my last day as a volunteer for them. They know this, so systems like Waymarking and Challenges have been designed around that fact of life.

 

For an illustration of how community-based voting works here, look at the first week of Challenges, when they counted as geocaching finds. Users were shooting down Challenges just for sport.

Link to comment

If you wanted the category, were willing to create the category, convince the Waymarking community the validity of your category and manage your category then it could fit fine.

 

Waymarking WOW factor?

Convince the community, and not only manage my own waymark(s), but the entire category?

 

:lol:

 

I suppose that if more people really wanted Waymarking to get better, they would do this.

 

The next time someone asks how to become a reviewer, just direct them to Waymarking where they can be the 'reviewer' for a multitude of categories only limited by their imagination. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

 

Not really that well hidden but one would not find it unless they were willing to create and manage a category which is when variables are defined for the category. Additional coordinates are one of the nineteen variable types available to aid the category leaders define their categories.

 

Let me put the question differently: Does there exist a category that uses these waypoints and are they downloadable for the visitors?

I have no access to the system for creating waymark categories - so I could not have a look at it.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

For an illustration of how community-based voting works here, look at the first week of Challenges, when they counted as geocaching finds. Users were shooting down Challenges just for sport.

 

So why we could not have virtual caches which do not count as geocaching finds? I even would prefer it that way. The same should apply for events and Earthcaches anyway.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

If you wanted the category, were willing to create the category, convince the Waymarking community the validity of your category and manage your category then it could fit fine.

 

Waymarking WOW factor?

Convince the community, and not only manage my own waymark(s), but the entire category?

 

:lol:

 

I suppose that if more people really wanted Waymarking to get better, they would do this.

 

The next time someone asks how to become a reviewer, just direct them to Waymarking where they can be the 'reviewer' for a multitude of categories only limited by their imagination. :rolleyes:

You laugh but that is what is done for every category on Waymarking. When I started I wanted to create a Waymark for a site listed as National Natural Landmark but there was not a category for it so I created the category, it was voted on and now I manage that category. Same for when I wanted to Waymark buildings listed as Great Buildings

Link to comment

You notice one of three Pizza Hut waymarks within 15 miles of your first geocache but didn't notice over 100 Waymarks that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and another 100 historical marker waymarks but you say you are interested in historical based caches.

 

I am not the person whom you address, but I'd like to mention that the categories you mention do not correspond to my idea of history caches. The type of history caches I would enjoy in my area should offer me knowledge I have not known before and that cannot easily googled in wikipedia. Waymarks which lead to places I know more about than what is written on the Waymarking page and more than the creator and that I have passed 1000 times in my life are not what I'm interested in.

 

There does not exist a single waymark in my area that tells me something new.

http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f=1&lat=47.069717&lon=15.4356&t=6

This does not mean that these locations are predominantly lame - on the contrary. Many are interesting to visit, but not for a local.

 

The situation is similar for challenges in my area.

None of these challenges

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/search.aspx?st=loc&q=graz&lat=47.070714&lng=15.439503999999943

is lame in the sense of leading to an animal carcass, a guardrail or something the like.

They lead to locations that are of interest to see, but only if your main focus is either on the visit (for tourists that do not like complex tasks and are not interested into detailled knowledge, but prefer just visiting a location and not being bothered by intellectual stuff) or on providing some funny completion log or photo

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

You laugh but that is what is done for every category on Waymarking. When I started I wanted to create a Waymark for a site listed as National Natural Landmark but there was not a category for it so I created the category, it was voted on and now I manage that category. Same for when I wanted to Waymark buildings listed as Great Buildings

 

I am aware of this procedure and it is one of the reasons why Waymarking does not have much appeal for me.

I'd like to implement a few ideas, but definitely not engage in a reviewer-like job and even less in a world-wide context where there

is no upper limit on the work to be done.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

For an illustration of how community-based voting works here, look at the first week of Challenges, when they counted as geocaching finds. Users were shooting down Challenges just for sport.

I also noticed that once Challenges no longer counted towards the find count cachers for the most part stopped doing them. There is still a small group that routinely does Challenges and those that do them on occasion. But that community appears to be no larger than the Benchmarking community. Benchmarking being another aspect of this website that is largely ignored any only because it doesn't increase your find count. If someone really enjoys doing virtual caches then they are already Waymarking and don't care that it doesn't increase their find count.

 

If anyone should be calling for the return of Virtual Caches you'd think it would be the Waymarkers and not those that shun Waymarking.

Link to comment

I love Earthcaches, and would enjoy seeing a new historical-based cache category in that same vein. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that more in line with what you're looking for? I'm not sure if we specifically need Virtuals to accomplish that. ^^

 

As for the Waymarking, I think that my area is just lame when it comes to that aspect. Most of them are basically "Check this out." One is at a Pizza Hut that hasn't been in business for nearly four or five years. Dx I am sure that I just didn't look into it enough, but honestly part of the problem is leaving geocaching.com to get them, haha.

 

You notice one of three Pizza Hut waymarks within 15 miles of your first geocache but didn't notice over 100 Waymarks that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and another 100 historical marker waymarks but you say you are interested in historical based caches.

 

Yea, I think the problem here isn't with the Waymarking filter. It is with the personal filter.

Link to comment

If someone really enjoys doing virtual caches then they are already Waymarking and don't care that it doesn't increase their find count.

 

I'm a counter example. I do enjoy certain types of virtual caches (not all, and not the ones of the type go to this monument and take a photo of yourself theer), but I neither enjoy the challenges nor the waymarks that are locally available.

I do not care about find counts and would prefer if all containerless caches would not count towards the find count. In particular, I'd like to see that for events.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Yea, I think the problem here isn't with the Waymarking filter. It is with the personal filter.

 

Not in my case. I've listed above all local challenges and waymarks.

So no filtering required. You simply cannot decide what others should be interested into.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

If someone really enjoys doing virtual caches then they are already Waymarking and don't care that it doesn't increase their find count.

 

I'm a counter example. I do enjoy certain types of virtual caches (not all, and not the ones of the type go to this monument and take a photo of yourself theer), but I neither enjoy the challenges nor the waymarks that are locally available.

I do not care about find counts and would prefer if all containerless caches would not count towards the find count. In particular, I'd like to see that for events.

 

Cezanne

Unfortunately there aren't many like you. Most of the people here calling for the return of Virtuals will insist that they increase their find count too. I can see their point. Anything that doesn't increase the find count isn't popular with the majority. It's been proven over and over again. If you want to see the popularity of any particular cache type drop off to almost nothing all you have to do is remove the smiley.

Link to comment

 

I'd appreciate if you stopped repeating your prejudice about the icon-hunt over and over again.

 

Let's look at this cache of mine:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

 

It does not fit on Waymarking, it does not fit into challenges (already the length would be an issue, the puzzle and multi elements are further obstacles).

Inserting virtual stages and adding puzzles also do not apply as there are virtual stages and puzzles involved anyway.

It would fit fine at Waymarking. There is not a category for it now but one could be created.

 

Yes, an artificial category could be created that fits this cache, but not many others. The next idea will need a new category etc

The category approach is simply not fitting to what I have in mind.

 

As a side remark: I do think that getting through a category of the type which is needed to

accomodate my cache mentioned above (note that is also linked to the mandatory completion of a physical geocache) would end up in quite a fight and debate because the waymark type of thinking is quite different.

 

If you wanted the category, were willing to create the category, convince the Waymarking community the validity of your category and manage your category then it could fit fine.

 

I agree, but having one singular idea does not mean that one wants to have a whole category for it and thus somehow encourages people to come up with exactly this type of object. That's not very creative.

 

Moreover, the wish to implement an idea does not imply that one does want to become involved in "managing projects".

Suppose what would happen if you asked everyone who wants to hide a physical cache of a certain type that is new to become involved as reviewer.

 

But you have already expressed that you are not willing to do that. Waymarking categories are a user/community managed thus they require people who are willing to become involved.

 

Actually, even if I wanted, I could not become involved.

 

Let's look at another type of example to demonstrate why I do not like the category approach:

 

Consider the mountain summit category

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=63c14036-82ef-4b90-b883-2dc6df5fe4ea&exp=True

and compare e.g. with this traditional cache hidden at a mountain summit

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=93e7f495-701d-4d1f-9f2e-c957dcb9ec7a

 

The waymarks in the category are about taking photos, no terrain rating is provided, no route descriptions, no parking suggestions etc

 

Of course, one could introduce a new category or even more than one that are also listing mountain summits, but with a different verification method and with mandatory route suggestions etc.

 

The result would however even more confusing and less user friendly when it is now.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I'm a counter example. I do enjoy certain types of virtual caches (not all, and not the ones of the type go to this monument and take a photo of yourself theer), but I neither enjoy the challenges nor the waymarks that are locally available.

I do not care about find counts and would prefer if all containerless caches would not count towards the find count. In particular, I'd like to see that for events.

 

Cezanne

Unfortunately there aren't many like you. Most of the people here calling for the return of Virtuals will insist that they increase their find count too. I can see their point. Anything that doesn't increase the find count isn't popular with the majority. It's been proven over and over again. If you want to see the popularity of any particular cache type drop off to almost nothing all you have to do is remove the smiley.

 

Yes, I fully agree that for too many the numbers are predominant. This numbers run has ruined a lot in geocaching.

I recently had a debate with some cachers about a recent event in Austria where the cache description mentioned that only those participants of the event in a climbing hall that manage to climb up to the highest point and reach the log book there are entitled to write an attended log. Apart from the fact that the guidelines are not in favor of such conditions, I personally feel that someone who is present during the whole event, is climbing like the others, but just does not manage the highest point is to be seen as an attendant of the event even in the strictest sense. One guy with whom I was discussing then told me that if he were the organizer of an event of that type, he would have offered two parallel events so that everyone can score a point and be happy, those who take part in the high performance physical activity (attend event 1) and those who are just watching the others (attend event 2).

He did not even get that my concern was not with respect to the "found it" counter and that my point was that also untalented climbers who enjoy climbing and take part (of course accompanied by someone experienced so that there are no safety issues) in the climbing actibity should be accepted as full value events participants.

 

In case of events, I however believe that they still would stay popular even if not counted for the find count, but stories like the one above would probably not occur.

 

As virtuals are regarded, I still think that it could be worth trying how virtuals would work if not counted.

It would be something similar to challenges, with cache listings, owners and many other aspects known from caching.

I'm convinced that this would never attract the masses, but it might appeal much better to fans of virtuals than Waymarking and

challenges.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

Let's look at another type of example to demonstrate why I do not like the category approach:

 

Consider the mountain summit category

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=63c14036-82ef-4b90-b883-2dc6df5fe4ea&exp=True

and compare e.g. with this traditional cache hidden at a mountain summit

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=93e7f495-701d-4d1f-9f2e-c957dcb9ec7a

 

The waymarks in the category are about taking photos, no terrain rating is provided, no route descriptions, no parking suggestions etc

 

Of course, one could introduce a new category or even more than one that are also listing mountain summits, but with a different verification method and with mandatory route suggestions etc.

 

The result would however even more confusing and less user friendly when it is now.

 

Cezanne

The category does not restrict the submitter from including that type of information in the waymark description. Such as shown on mine. That category does not require photos for visits though they are encouraged. They are required to submit the waymark.

 

When submitting a cache you not required to include all that information either, it is an option.

 

No you could not create a new category for mountain summits with different requirements, that would be viewed a duplicate, one of the four criteria the community is asked to use when voting on categories.

Edited by BruceS
Link to comment

 

The category does not restrict the submitter from including that type of information in the waymark description. Such as shown on mine.

 

There does not seem, however, a method to download all these waypoints. Most cachers do not like to type in many waypoints manually. Moreover, there is no search method

for filtering with respect of difficult of the hike.

 

That category does not require photos for visits though they are encouraged. They are required to submit the waymark.

 

I'm sorry that I have mixed up the requirement for submitting with the requirement for visits.

It is absurd for me to have to upload a photo showing me or my GPSr (it is crazy to require that it should be mine, and not e.g. the one of a relative) for setting up a waymark. My issue is not with having to visit the location, but with uploading information I regard as private and with the dependence of Waymarking on photos.

 

No you could not create a new category for mountain summits with different requirements, that would be viewed ed a duplicate, one of the four criteria the community is asked to use when voting on categories.

 

I guess that categories that would be needed to accomodate my ideas would be voted down anyway as they simply do not fit into the philosophy of Waymarking. That is the essence of what I mean with "does not fit Waymarking".

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

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....

It is entirely up to the OP to decide when the horse is D.E.A.D for him. If you believe in something, fight the goog fight until you can no longer do it. I support the open letter...just my opinion.

Link to comment
Yes, what you are saying agrees with everything I've seen, but it still does not explain why the wow factor was only for virtuals. It's not like there's never been a dearth of mundane and even absurd regular caches.

 

At that time the wow factor was introduced this nonsense of caches in every parking lot, strip mall and guardrail hadn't begun. The bulk of real caches were in places worth visiting. Sure there were clunkers, but people tended to hide caches in places that were of interest to them. So at the time there was a significant difference between the quality of real caches and the road virtuals were starting down.

 

The wow factor was a response to that. The concept of reviewers as the arbiters of cache quality was a failure so TPTB never considered introducing the wow factor to real caches even when they started going down the same road as virts.

Link to comment

The concept of reviewers as the arbiters of cache quality was a failure so TPTB never considered introducing the wow factor to real caches even when they started going down the same road as virts.

 

Agreed. But then the quality should not be brought up as argument against allowing virtuals again. Back then there was almost no selection work to be done at the searcher's side, but this has changed by now regardless of virtual or physical. The same approaches that need to applied for physical caches could be applied to virtual ones.

 

Noone has explained so far why there could not be an experiment with virtuals handled as cache listings with owners and properties as known for caches, but with no review process and no inclusion in the found it score as in challenges. That would also allow to apply already existing filtering techniques, ignore lists etc to virtuals while all this does not exist for challenges.

 

I guess that quite some money, energy and time went into challenges. Personally, I feel that it would have been more effective trying to come along with something more cache-like and use the already existing ressources.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Challenges are the replacement for virts.

 

No, they aren't.

 

Cezanne

Amen!

 

The automobile could never completely replace the horse. But after its been dead for 7 years, should we keep whuppin on it to check for movement?

Only if there's a chance it can be revived...no matter how small, it would be amazing.

Link to comment

Challenges are the replacement for virts.

 

No, they aren't.

 

Cezanne

Amen!

 

The automobile could never completely replace the horse. But after its been dead for 7 years, should we keep whuppin on it to check for movement?

Only if there's a chance it can be revived...no matter how small, it would be amazing.

 

There's no chance....

Link to comment

Challenges are the replacement for virts.

 

No, they aren't.

 

Cezanne

Amen!

 

The automobile could never completely replace the horse. But after its been dead for 7 years, should we keep whuppin on it to check for movement?

Only if there's a chance it can be revived...no matter how small, it would be amazing.

 

There's no chance....

I don't believe you can definitively say no. There is a chance, albeit slim, but that's better than a definitive no. IMO, a bad virtual is sometimes better than a micro in a parking lot.

Link to comment

 

I'd appreciate if you stopped repeating your prejudice about the icon-hunt over and over again.

 

Let's look at this cache of mine:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

 

It does not fit on Waymarking, it does not fit into challenges (already the length would be an issue, the puzzle and multi elements are further obstacles).

Inserting virtual stages and adding puzzles also do not apply as there are virtual stages and puzzles involved anyway.

It would fit fine at Waymarking. There is not a category for it now but one could be created.

 

Yes, an artificial category could be created that fits this cache, but not many others. The next idea will need a new category etc

The category approach is simply not fitting to what I have in mind.

 

As a side remark: I do think that getting through a category of the type which is needed to

accomodate my cache mentioned above (note that is also linked to the mandatory completion of a physical geocache) would end up in quite a fight and debate because the waymark type of thinking is quite different.

 

If you wanted the category, were willing to create the category, convince the Waymarking community the validity of your category and manage your category then it could fit fine.

 

I agree, but having one singular idea does not mean that one wants to have a whole category for it and thus somehow encourages people to come up with exactly this type of object. That's not very creative.

 

Moreover, the wish to implement an idea does not imply that one does want to become involved in "managing projects".

Suppose what would happen if you asked everyone who wants to hide a physical cache of a certain type that is new to become involved as reviewer.

 

But you have already expressed that you are not willing to do that. Waymarking categories are a user/community managed thus they require people who are willing to become involved.

 

Actually, even if I wanted, I could not become involved.

 

Let's look at another type of example to demonstrate why I do not like the category approach:

 

Consider the mountain summit category

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=63c14036-82ef-4b90-b883-2dc6df5fe4ea&exp=True

and compare e.g. with this traditional cache hidden at a mountain summit

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=93e7f495-701d-4d1f-9f2e-c957dcb9ec7a

 

The waymarks in the category are about taking photos, no terrain rating is provided, no route descriptions, no parking suggestions etc

 

Of course, one could introduce a new category or even more than one that are also listing mountain summits, but with a different verification method and with mandatory route suggestions etc.

 

The result would however even more confusing and less user friendly when it is now.

 

Cezanne

Attitudes like this are particularly bothersome to me.

 

When Waymarking came out, particularly as most categories seem to be the cataloging type - mainly intended to make a list of places in the category, I agreed with the attitude that while Waymarking might be a substitute for locationless caches, it wasn't going to work for virtual caches.

 

But then I realize that I could do something about that. I started the "wow" waymarkers group to come up with a definition for a category that would mimic the best virtual caches.

 

In the course of our work we found there was no one definition of a good virtual cache. So the group decided to chose one aspect and submit that category with the hope that others would follow suit and create a more Waymarking categories to address the needs of their best virtual caches.

 

What we came up with was the Best Kept Secrets category. We think that one aspect that made a virtual caches good was that it brought you someplace you would not have known about except for geocaching. We asked people to submit locations that were not so well known but which would be interesting enough that most people would appreciate visiting and learning more. We also have a verification requirement like virtual caches. The waymark owner must provide a verification method that can only be accomplished by visiting the location.

 

We don't have a difficulty rating (most virtuals were difficulty 1) but we do ask for the terrain rating. And we provide a way for the owner to have an encrypted hint. We didn't copy all the fields that a geocache has simply because then weren't necessary for our category.

 

Finally, while not a requirement, we suggest that the description leaves it a mystery as to exactly what you might find. The hope is that someone reads the description and is then curious to find out more.

 

Since we do have subjective requirements (most people don't know about it and it has enough general interest for people to want to visit), Best Kept Secrets are submitted to a a vote of the officers. A majority of the officers voting must approve the waymark for it to be published.

 

So I feel particularly qualified in saying that categories like this can be created and managed in the Waymarking environment.

 

It's true that searching based on the category variables never got implemented. Which is strange because, in my opinion, this would be even more useful for the cataloging type categories. And it is true that no pocket query or full GPX format is available. You can download some information for waymarks to your GPS but that may not be enough for some categories.

 

Had Waymarking been adopted as an alternative to virtual caches, I believe that these categories could have coexisted with catalog categories and with other GPS based games and challenges. Waymarking would have been better for everyone and Groundspeak would likely have provided more support to add the features that Waymarking lacks. Instead, over the years I've heard nothing but excuses that Waymarking was too complicated or not user-friendly or it was too much effort to create categories. This may be true. But if one tenth the effort that has been spent on trying to "bring back virtuals" had been spent on creating Waymarking categories and getting Groundspeak to put up the resources toward fixing the issues with Waymarking, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

If caching was about the container then most of the logs should be something like "Found black cylindrical container with a slightly leaky lid under the lamp skirt". Caching is about getting out and having an adventure. I would rather climb a mountain for a virtual that had a great view then climb a mountain for a nano in a tree.

Link to comment

If caching was about the container then most of the logs should be something like "Found black cylindrical container with a slightly leaky lid under the lamp skirt". Caching is about getting out and having an adventure. I would rather climb a mountain for a virtual that had a great view then climb a mountain for a nano in a tree.

 

HUH???:blink: Either one brings you to the same mountain with the same view. I don't understand the difference you are trying to articulate.

 

edit to add.... you must be referring to two different mountains. But then, how would you know that until you got there?? Unless you are implying the nano somehow spoiled the view??

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

If caching was about the container then most of the logs should be something like "Found black cylindrical container with a slightly leaky lid under the lamp skirt". Caching is about getting out and having an adventure. I would rather climb a mountain for a virtual that had a great view then climb a mountain for a nano in a tree.

If people were forced to decide if the reason they cache is to find the container or "for the journey" my guess is that you'd find the results about 50/50. Of course we're not forced to choose, so the real truth is the there is a mixture and it differs for each of us.

 

One thing I can say is that before geocaching, I often climbed mountains. Sometimes there was even a summit register at the top so I could sign my name on a log. I certainly don't need geocaching if that is the only thing I care about.

 

Of course back then there wasn't a place to come and share my experiences on line with others. But nowadays there are plenty of hiking websites and Facebook groups where I can post which mountains I've climbed and I can see what trail and mountains other people recommend. I can even use Waymarking.com where there are categories for hiking trails and mountain summits.

 

What I don't understand is the insistence that geocaching needs virtual caches for you to do this. If you don't care about finding the container, there are other activities that better fit your needs than geocaching.

 

My guess is that you do like to find the container, but there are containers hidden in places that you don't care to visit and containers you find less enjoyable because of the size or the difficulty of the hide. Fortunately, geocaching.com gives you tools with terrain and difficulty ratings, attributes, and favorite points. It's not hard to avoid looking for the nano in a tree if you think it will spoil the view. It's also no shame to post "DNF: Looked for the cache briefly, but nanos in trees are not my favorites. But view is spectacular from the top and made the hike worthwhile."

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

If caching was about the container then most of the logs should be something like "Found black cylindrical container with a slightly leaky lid under the lamp skirt". Caching is about getting out and having an adventure. I would rather climb a mountain for a virtual that had a great view then climb a mountain for a nano in a tree.

If people were forced to decide if the reason they cache is to find the container or "for the journey" my guess is that you'd find the results about 50/50. Of course we're not forced to choose, so the real truth is the there is a mixture and it differs for each of us.

 

One thing I can say is that before geocaching, I often climbed mountains. Sometimes there was even a summit register at the top so I could sign my name on a log. I certainly don't need geocaching if that is the only thing I care about.

 

Of course back then there wasn't a place to come and share my experiences on line with others. But nowadays there are plenty of hiking websites and Facebook groups where I can post which mountains I've climbed and I can see what trail and mountains other people recommend. I can even use Waymarking.com where there are categories for hiking trails and mountain summits.

 

What I don't understand is the insistence that geocaching needs virtual caches for you to do this. If you don't care about finding the container, there are other activities that better fit your needs than geocaching.

 

My guess is that you do like to find the container, but there are containers hidden in places that you don't care to visit and containers you find less enjoyable because of the size or the difficulty of the hide. Fortunately, geocaching.com gives you tools with terrain and difficulty ratings, attributes, and favorite points. It's not hard to avoid looking for the nano in a tree if you think it will spoil the view. It's also no shame to post "DNF: Looked for the cache briefly, but nanos in trees are not my favorites. But view is spectacular from the top and made the hike worthwhile."

 

I have to agree with this^.

 

Surprised as I am by that. :o

Link to comment

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.

I believe your argument to be flawed. Some don't work well, not all of them.

 

The same could be said for Challenges, but there are a lot of people that dismiss them without consideration that, with some improvements, they could work better. One might argue, that if you're selective, one could find a lot of examples of traditional, unknown, or multi caches that don't work very well.

Link to comment

The arguments about the flack the reviewers got - INVALID - Applies to all types. - Simple answer, let the members decide, give virtuals a vote system, if a virt drops below say a -2, archive it. (write a macro to do it, no reviewer to bitch at then)

Were you a reviewer when the site accepted virtual cache submissions? I was. As a statement of fact, virtuals were the single biggest source of aggravation, flames, insults and threats out of any activity that's been part of my volunteer work. The day that Groundspeak asks me to start reviewing virtual caches again is my last day as a volunteer for them. They know this, so systems like Waymarking and Challenges have been designed around that fact of life.

 

For an illustration of how community-based voting works here, look at the first week of Challenges, when they counted as geocaching finds. Users were shooting down Challenges just for sport.

I'm sure you are a valued and cherished contributor, but allocating so many resources to keep one volunteer happy is a strange way to run a business.

 

Community based voting? That was anarchy. The botched Challenges launch was a good example of what happens when you completely misread your customers. It was not really surprising when the initial revulsion immediately turned hostile. It's also not surprising that a lot of the big numbers people saw challenges as a threat.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...