An open letter to Groundspeak about Virtuals

[jholly]

It's also not surprising that a lot of the big numbers people saw challenges as a threat.

How do challenges present a threat to the big number people? I can't imagine them being anymore of a threat than whymarking, they are basically the same thing.

[Keystone]

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.

By no means are my views on reviewing virtual cache submissions a minority or singular view. They're shared by many (if not most or all) veteran reviewers, including those who participated in the GWX Reviewer Panel.

 

Thanks for the chuckle, though.

[+B+L]

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.

By no means are my views on reviewing virtual cache submissions a minority or singular view. They're shared by many (if not most or all) veteran reviewers, including those who participated in the GWX Reviewer Panel.

 

Thanks for the chuckle, though.

Glad to help. Thank you for confirming that the veteran reviewers have such an outsized influence on the shape of the game.

[cezanne]

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.

 

No, my reply was not that it is too much work - I said that I do not want to be involved with managing a category. As creating a category is regarded I guess it should be pretty apparent that I could not do it even if I wanted.

 

My own virtual cache dates from 2003, additional waypoints and attributes did not exist back then - so I definitely know how to cope without them. I'm however not the one who visits my own geocaches.

 

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.

 

A new site would be fine, but I have neither the ressources nor the ability to set up such a site.

As Waymarking is regarded, I have no hope whatsoever that Groundspeak will invest serious work into Waymarking.

 

 

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.

 

I do not agree for several reasons. First, I explicitely do not want virtuals to count for the gc.com find count. Second, a new site would be fine for me, but only if contributions can be made by everyone who has ideas. This is neither the case for challenges nor for Waymarking (as new ideas are regarded). Of course, the decision how to manage a system is up to the owner of the system, but I do not need to appreciate the approach taken.

 

Third, I never asked the old virtuals to be revived. What I said is that I'd wish to have some platform to implement my virtual ideas

- I do not want to become involved as a reviewer. There are others who offered their availability, but I never was among them.

I'm still able to hide physical caches.

 

As I have mentioned there are several cache ideas that I would like to implement in a virtual way as I do not like to hide containers in certain areas. But actually my degree of not-liking is higher for forcing something into a system where it does not fit in my opinion (Waymarking) than to hide a container in a way that I do not like or throw away my idea at all.

That said does not mean that I would not like to have a nice way to implement virtual ideas. Of course one could invest a lot of work on other places. My point was just that all what is needed for what I'd like to see is already there (not on Waymarking) without any major work for anyone.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 4, 2012 by cezanne

[cezanne]

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.

 

Of course there are many individual caches that don't work well, but the essential statement about challenges from my personal point of view is that the concept behind challenges is not suited for most type of virtuals I like. Of course there exist nice challenges as well, but the issue is not at the individual level. Challenges are directed to a different audience and that is not a matter of quality and improvements that could be made. The direction decision has been made right at the beginning.

 

I also agree with you that with a lot of changes and a lot of work, one could turn challenges and Waymarking into something that works better for virtuals, but honestly why take that effort if what is needed is already existent from the system point of view and also will fit the virtual cache concept better than improvements of something which never has been intended for virtual geocaches (stress on geocaches) on the first hand?

 

Cezanne

Edited June 4, 2012 by cezanne

[+B+L]

It's also not surprising that a lot of the big numbers people saw challenges as a threat.

How do challenges present a threat to the big number people? I can't imagine them being anymore of a threat than whymarking, they are basically the same thing.

The perceived threat ended when challenges were removed from the finds count.

[Mr.Yuck]

It's also not surprising that a lot of the big numbers people saw challenges as a threat.

How do challenges present a threat to the big number people? I can't imagine them being anymore of a threat than whymarking, they are basically the same thing.

The perceived threat ended when challenges were removed from the finds count.

 

Well you know, they only said the would count for like 2 days. Most people probably forgot.

[jholly]

It's also not surprising that a lot of the big numbers people saw challenges as a threat.

How do challenges present a threat to the big number people? I can't imagine them being anymore of a threat than whymarking, they are basically the same thing.

The perceived threat ended when challenges were removed from the finds count.

So if they weren't what would prevent the big number guys from doing challenges and keep their numbers up? Maybe the problem with challenges most see them as lame and don't want them included in the count? The forums for challenges are basically dead, perhaps that is an indication. Most, big and small number folks, complained and Groundspeak responded. No need for dramatics.

[+B+L]

It's also not surprising that a lot of the big numbers people saw challenges as a threat.

How do challenges present a threat to the big number people? I can't imagine them being anymore of a threat than whymarking, they are basically the same thing.

The perceived threat ended when challenges were removed from the finds count.

So if they weren't what would prevent the big number guys from doing challenges and keep their numbers up? Maybe the problem with challenges most see them as lame and don't want them included in the count? The forums for challenges are basically dead, perhaps that is an indication. Most, big and small number folks, complained and Groundspeak responded. No need for dramatics.

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

 

 

[+Volvo Man]

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.

 

Just to note, my understanding is that the Flack the reviewers got came from their judgements of the "WOW" Factor once it was introduced, should this requirement be added to any other type of cache, the abuse would return. It should also be noted that this "WOW" factor was a change to the requirements that came from GC.

[+lamoracke]

given what happened with the challenges (folks giving negative votes across the board vs the ones that were truly not appropriate or appealing), I would agree that this particular system did not work so applying it to any new virtual would not probably work.

 

I would also agree the creme de la creme of virtuals is probably what we see now, relatively speaking.

 

I just can't imagine if limits were put in place like premium members only can create them and say only accounts that are premium for one year, and each account say can only get 1 or 2 virtuals created, and then have say a volunteer reviewer panel, and new rules (aka the new wow)....something could not be done.

 

It would just be a trial basis, an attempt to only make so many and if these virtuals still were consistently not working for people, I would join the group of naysayers and not ask for more virtuals.

 

Yes yes yes, I know challenges were the new answer to virtuals, but for many reasons, they are not to me (will give a couple...pictures do not count towards your gallery, they can get voted down by folks who just hate the system, and no one person owns them).

[cezanne]

given what happened with the challenges (folks giving negative votes across the board vs the ones that were truly not appropriate or appealing), I would agree that this particular system did not work so applying it to any new virtual would not probably work.

 

The system only failed as long challenges counted towards the find count. Back then many challenges got archived. The like/not like votes have never been an issue, the issue was the automatic archival which almost stopped to occur after the change.

 

I just can't imagine if limits were put in place like premium members only can create them and say only accounts that are premium for one year, and each account say can only get 1 or 2 virtuals created, and then have say a volunteer reviewer panel, and new rules (aka the new wow)....something could not be done.

 

I do not think that being a PM has any correlation with the quality of the suggested caches/ideas.

I'm interested into the best ideas and definitely do not want to restrict this to PMs. Among PMs there are many number hounds - many of the people in my local community who do not care at all about numbers are not PMs. I expect much more interesting contributions (interesting with respect to my personal interest)

from them as from the standard 0815 PM who has started geocaching during the last years.

 

While I fully agree that special features which are their for the profit of those who use them (like PQs, ignore list, bookmark lists) should be restricted to those who pay, this should definitely not be true for the most important aspect in geocaching, the one Groundspeak cannot provide, namely the caches (challenges, Waymarks etc).

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

 

Maybe he has stupid challenges like the Kiss a frog one in mind. Indeed the majority of cachers I know of

regarded this challenges by Groundspeak as silly. In my opinion, one of the worst ideas Groundspeak ever had.

 

Cezanne

[jholly]

It's also not surprising that a lot of the big numbers people saw challenges as a threat.

How do challenges present a threat to the big number people? I can't imagine them being anymore of a threat than whymarking, they are basically the same thing.

The perceived threat ended when challenges were removed from the finds count.

So if they weren't what would prevent the big number guys from doing challenges and keep their numbers up? Maybe the problem with challenges most see them as lame and don't want them included in the count? The forums for challenges are basically dead, perhaps that is an indication. Most, big and small number folks, complained and Groundspeak responded. No need for dramatics.

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

So what prevented the big number guys from doing challenges to keep their numbers? nothing that I can see. So your premises that it was the big number guys felt threatened by challenges seems a bit weak to me.

[cezanne]

So what prevented the big number guys from doing challenges to keep their numbers? nothing that I can see. So your premises that it was the big number guys felt threatened by challenges seems a bit weak to me.

 

First, I do not think that being of the opinion that challenge completions and cache finds should not be mixed together are automatically complainers.

(I share this opinion, btw.)

Second, I think that many who "complained" belong to the group who take their finds very seriously. They do not like if find counts are increased in a non-honest manner and many challenges could/can be completed in an armchair manner which of course disturbs those who consider geocaching as a competition.

 

Cezanne

[+JesandTodd]

So if they weren't what would prevent the big number guys from doing challenges and keep their numbers up? Maybe the problem with challenges most see them as lame and don't want them included in the count? The forums for challenges are basically dead, perhaps that is an indication. Most, big and small number folks, complained and Groundspeak responded. No need for dramatics.

 

Yes. We complained, and complained loudly. And GS actually listened and made changes to the challenges right away.

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

Ha! Were you on the user voice boards ever? about the Aug 18th time? We complained, dramatically so.

 

It.wasn't.a.pretty.sight.

 

 

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

 

Maybe he has stupid challenges like the Kiss a frog one in mind. Indeed the majority of cachers I know of

regarded this challenges by Groundspeak as silly. In my opinion, one of the worst ideas Groundspeak ever had.

 

Cezanne

 

Kiss a frog.

Hug your dog.

Wear a straw hat with a piece of straw in your mouth.

Find a geocache.

photograph green grass

Photograph a cop

 

 

These were the replacement for the virtual, and they added to our find counts. People were racking up huge finds on day one, just armchair logging any and all challenges that came up.

 

 

And yes, there was drama...

[+B+L]

It's also not surprising that a lot of the big numbers people saw challenges as a threat.

How do challenges present a threat to the big number people? I can't imagine them being anymore of a threat than whymarking, they are basically the same thing.

The perceived threat ended when challenges were removed from the finds count.

So if they weren't what would prevent the big number guys from doing challenges and keep their numbers up? Maybe the problem with challenges most see them as lame and don't want them included in the count? The forums for challenges are basically dead, perhaps that is an indication. Most, big and small number folks, complained and Groundspeak responded. No need for dramatics.

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

So what prevented the big number guys from doing challenges to keep their numbers? nothing that I can see. So your premises that it was the big number guys felt threatened by challenges seems a bit weak to me.

Except they were apparently more concerned about other people's numbers, not their own, otherwise they would have been content to just ignore challenges.

[4wheelin_fool]

Groundspeak tried to envision what Challenges would eventually evolve into, but they included the definitions of it immediately. It was too much of a gap from what Geocaching was, and most people believed the find count was being polluted. Today, they appear to function in a similar way as virtuals.

 

For the graft to hold, they should rather call them Virtual Challenges and include the ghost icon. This would satisfy the left brained dominated people who would then accept Virtual Challenges as a valid subsitute for virtuals. They would then create many Virtual Challenges in the spirit of the original virtuals. Many popular virtuals would then be cross listed as Virtual Challenges , and eventually the ownerless virtuals would be able to archived without much drama. Virtual Challenges in the future eventually could be modified to include other type of Challenges which do not fit the traditional Virtual Challenges mold. Virtual Challenges would then be seen as exciting, and interesting, and challenging of course, and exactly what the Dos Equis Guy would do.

 

 

This is a guy who would clearly enjoy Virtual Challenges .

Virtual Challenges are exciting, interesting, and challenging.

Enjoy a Virtual Challenge today!

Edited June 4, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+B+L]

So if they weren't what would prevent the big number guys from doing challenges and keep their numbers up? Maybe the problem with challenges most see them as lame and don't want them included in the count? The forums for challenges are basically dead, perhaps that is an indication. Most, big and small number folks, complained and Groundspeak responded. No need for dramatics.

 

Yes. We complained, and complained loudly. And GS actually listened and made changes to the challenges right away.

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

Ha! Were you on the user voice boards ever? about the Aug 18th time? We complained, dramatically so.

 

It.wasn't.a.pretty.sight.

 

No one said no one complained, however, the tiny number of people participating on uservoice, these forums, etc, is a vanishingly small percentage of geocachers and is not even remotely close to "most".

 

[+briansnat]

So if they weren't what would prevent the big number guys from doing challenges and keep their numbers up? Maybe the problem with challenges most see them as lame and don't want them included in the count? The forums for challenges are basically dead, perhaps that is an indication. Most, big and small number folks, complained and Groundspeak responded. No need for dramatics.

 

Yes. We complained, and complained loudly. And GS actually listened and made changes to the challenges right away.

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

Ha! Were you on the user voice boards ever? about the Aug 18th time? We complained, dramatically so.

 

It.wasn't.a.pretty.sight.

 

 

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

 

Maybe he has stupid challenges like the Kiss a frog one in mind. Indeed the majority of cachers I know of

regarded this challenges by Groundspeak as silly. In my opinion, one of the worst ideas Groundspeak ever had.

 

Cezanne

 

Kiss a frog.

Hug your dog.

Wear a straw hat with a piece of straw in your mouth.

Find a geocache.

photograph green grass

Photograph a cop

 

 

These were the replacement for the virtual, and they added to our find counts. People were racking up huge finds on day one, just armchair logging any and all challenges that came up.

 

 

And yes, there was drama...

 

Actually those were a replacement for locationless (aka reverse) caches

[cezanne]

Actually those were a replacement for locationless (aka reverse) caches

 

The kiss a frog challenge was considerably more silly than any locationless I have ever seen.

For the locationless caches I am aware of one had to leave one's home. The kiss frog challenge

warmly encouraged arm chair logs which is quite a stupid idea from my point of view and was certainly

nearly the worst one could come up as a start for challenges.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited June 4, 2012 by cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

 

Maybe he has stupid challenges like the Kiss a frog one in mind. Indeed the majority of cachers I know of

regarded this challenges by Groundspeak as silly. In my opinion, one of the worst ideas Groundspeak ever had.

 

Cezanne

 

There are actually quite a few people that see nothing wrong with acting a little silly every once in awhile. The Kiss a Frog Challenge no longer seems to exist but the "Be a kid again" challenge (climb a tree) has over 6000 completions. It also has 1347 likes to 281 dislikes. It looks to me that those that are actually doing challenges, and engaging in the user review/rating process actually like doing challenges that are a little silly.

 

I can't help but chuckle that the "Meet A Lackey" challenge has 37 likes to 88 dislikes. To put this into perspective, the "Square Dancing" challenge has 151 likes to 90 dislikes. Does this mean that more people would rather go square dancing than meet a lackey? I also notice that virtually every completion log on the Meet A Lackey challenge shows a photo that was taken before the challenge was issued.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

So if they weren't what would prevent the big number guys from doing challenges and keep their numbers up? Maybe the problem with challenges most see them as lame and don't want them included in the count? The forums for challenges are basically dead, perhaps that is an indication. Most, big and small number folks, complained and Groundspeak responded. No need for dramatics.

 

Yes. We complained, and complained loudly. And GS actually listened and made changes to the challenges right away.

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

Ha! Were you on the user voice boards ever? about the Aug 18th time? We complained, dramatically so.

 

It.wasn't.a.pretty.sight.

 

 

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

 

Maybe he has stupid challenges like the Kiss a frog one in mind. Indeed the majority of cachers I know of

regarded this challenges by Groundspeak as silly. In my opinion, one of the worst ideas Groundspeak ever had.

 

Cezanne

 

Kiss a frog.

Hug your dog.

Wear a straw hat with a piece of straw in your mouth.

Find a geocache.

photograph green grass

Photograph a cop

 

 

These were the replacement for the virtual, and they added to our find counts. People were racking up huge finds on day one, just armchair logging any and all challenges that came up.

 

 

And yes, there was drama...

 

Actually those were a replacement for locationless (aka reverse) caches

 

Only worldwide challenges could be considered a replacement for locationless caches. User contributed challenges must be tied to a specific geographic location and, except for some types of virtuals, can mimic many virtuals. One of the most memorable virtuals I've ever done is on the Badaling section of the Great Wall of China. There isn't anything inherent in Challenges which would prevent a Challenge at the exact same location from being created such that it produced an identical user experience (other than it wouldn't add to ones find count.)

[cezanne]

Maybe he has stupid challenges like the Kiss a frog one in mind. Indeed the majority of cachers I know of

regarded this challenges by Groundspeak as silly. In my opinion, one of the worst ideas Groundspeak ever had.

 

There are actually quite a few people that see nothing wrong with acting a little silly every once in awhile. The Kiss a Frog Challenge no longer seems to exist

 

Because Groundspeak later on realized that this challenge was a really bad idea.

 

but the "Be a kid again" challenge (climb a tree) has over 6000 completions. It also has 1347 likes to 281 dislikes. It looks to me that those that are actually doing challenges, and engaging in the user review/rating process actually like doing challenges that are a little silly.

 

Typically people do not have trees in their living room. Climb a tree can be seen as a locationless cache of the old type, kiss a frog however not.

 

I can't help but chuckle that the "Meet A Lackey" challenge has 37 likes to 88 dislikes. To put this into perspective, the "Square Dancing" challenge has 151 likes to 90 dislikes. Does this mean that more people would rather go square dancing than meet a lackey?

 

Perhaps rather that more have the chance to go square dancing than meeting a lackey?

Moreover, meeting a lackey might also have attracted the negative response of those that were angry about the introduction of challenges.

 

I also notice that virtually every completion log on the Meet A Lackey challenge shows a photo that was taken before the challenge was issued.

 

We had a discussion on this issue before. I guess it depends on one's point of view on challenges. For me the date does not play a role.

I also do not take the word challenge seriously as otherwise most challenges would seem quite absurd to me as they are very far from what I associate with the term challenge. (I'm aware of the fact that challenge is used in the English language in a broader sense than if used in other languages like in German as a word coming from the English language which is used only as a noun and not as a verb and only when something is really difficult).

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

There isn't anything inherent in Challenges which would prevent a Challenge at the exact same location from being created such that it produced an identical user experience (other than it wouldn't add to ones find count.)

 

If it was one of the "take a photo virtuals" (which I hate), then I agree.

 

Cezanne

[+StarBrand]

Not sure if its been brought up (enough) but...

 

Virtuals (when allowed) were slowly being used as a grand excuse to ban physical Geocaches. i know this for certain as I watched it happen and then get reversed when virtuals were no longer accepted.

 

No thanks - I don't miss them.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I also do not take the word challenge seriously as otherwise most challenges would seem quite absurd to me as they are very far from what I associate with the term challenge. (I'm aware of the fact that challenge is used in the English language in a broader sense than if used in other languages like in German as a word coming from the English language which is used only as a noun and not as a verb and only when something is really difficult).

 

Cezanne

 

That's the way I see it. I think a lot of people see the word Challenge as an adjective, as in, "That was a challenging hike" instead of as a verb "I challenge you to a duel". If used as an adjective the assumption is that a challenge is something that must be difficult to do. If used as a verb, it can be thought of as a request to perform a task, and that completing the task is not necessarily difficult (though it could be).

 

My son frequently has used the phrase, "I have a challenge for you", and often the challenge is basically just answering a few of his questions. Some of his questions are easy, others don't have simple answers.

Edited June 4, 2012 by NYPaddleCacher

[cezanne]

I also do not take the word challenge seriously as otherwise most challenges would seem quite absurd to me as they are very far from what I associate with the term challenge. (I'm aware of the fact that challenge is used in the English language in a broader sense than if used in other languages like in German as a word coming from the English language which is used only as a noun and not as a verb and only when something is really difficult).

 

Cezanne

 

That's the way I see it. I think a lot of people see the word Challenge as an adjective, as in, "That was a challenging hike" instead of as a verb "I challenge you to a duel". If used as an adjective the assumption is that a challenge is something the must be difficult to do. If used as a verb, it can be thought of as a request to perform a task, and that completing the task is not necessarily difficult (though it could be).

 

I'm not sure about the use of challenge in other languages than English and German, but I do know that in German speaking countries the use of the noun challenge and to a lesser extent of the adjective challenging have become common in recent decades (like e.g. here http://www.ypdpeople.com/at/ ), but challenge does not exist as verb in German texts.

 

Cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There isn't anything inherent in Challenges which would prevent a Challenge at the exact same location from being created such that it produced an identical user experience (other than it wouldn't add to ones find count.)

 

If it was one of the "take a photo virtuals" (which I hate), then I agree.

 

Cezanne

 

When you're talking about visiting a location such as the Great Wall of China, Machu Picchu, the top of Killemanjara, Victoria Falls or some other natural or man-made wonders of the world, the nature of what you do to complete a challenge when you get there just doesn't seem to me to be all that important.

[cezanne]

There isn't anything inherent in Challenges which would prevent a Challenge at the exact same location from being created such that it produced an identical user experience (other than it wouldn't add to ones find count.)

 

If it was one of the "take a photo virtuals" (which I hate), then I agree.

 

Cezanne

 

When you're talking about visiting a location such as the Great Wall of China, Machu Picchu, the top of Killemanjara, Victoria Falls or some other natural or man-made wonders of the world, the nature of what you do to complete a challenge when you get there just doesn't seem to me to be all that important.

 

It does matter for me when it comes to logging my visit. I have been at the Great Wall, but definitely would not want to upload a photo showing me there.

In many cases I do not even have a camera with me. I'm not that fond of taking photos. The predominant photo aspect also annoys me in Waymarking (even more for submitting waymarks than for visiting them).

 

Cezanne

[+B+L]

Not sure if its been brought up (enough) but...

 

Virtuals (when allowed) were slowly being used as a grand excuse to ban physical Geocaches. i know this for certain as I watched it happen and then get reversed when virtuals were no longer accepted.

 

No thanks - I don't miss them.

Sounds like a nice story to scare the kids with. It is not at all unusual for a fringe, poorly understood activity to get banned until various groups can form to advocate on its behalf. See mountain biking for an example.

 

Today it's just as easy to say traditional caches are slowly being used as a grand excuse to ban physical geocaches in some places. Scapegoating virtuals is easy, but it completely ignores the antipathy and ill will caused by rubbishy, badly placed, poorly though out traditionals, hidden without the permission or knowledge of land managers.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There isn't anything inherent in Challenges which would prevent a Challenge at the exact same location from being created such that it produced an identical user experience (other than it wouldn't add to ones find count.)

 

If it was one of the "take a photo virtuals" (which I hate), then I agree.

 

Cezanne

 

When you're talking about visiting a location such as the Great Wall of China, Machu Picchu, the top of Killemanjara, Victoria Falls or some other natural or man-made wonders of the world, the nature of what you do to complete a challenge when you get there just doesn't seem to me to be all that important.

 

It does matter for me when it comes to logging my visit. I have been at the Great Wall, but definitely would not want to upload a photo showing me there.

In many cases I do not even have a camera with me. I'm not that fond of taking photos. The predominant photo aspect also annoys me in Waymarking (even more for submitting waymarks than for visiting them).

 

Cezanne

 

Okay, then how about some natural or man-made world wonder you've never visited? Does it really matter if there is a Challenge there instead of virtual? The experience of visiting that location would be exactly the same.

 

Although I do like taking pictures and don't mind being in the photo myself (I was asked to have my picture taken with someone while on the wall by 4-5 different people and was glad to oblige) I don't care for the "take a photo of yourself or your GPS in front of some object" that is predominant with Challenges (I don't look at the Waymarking site often enough to know how common it is there). I see the self-photo requirement as an artifact of virtuals where, because there isn't a log book, some other sort of "proof" that you were actually there is requested, in order to log it as a find. Since Challenges nor Waymarks are not "counted", at least as far as ones total find count is concerned, I don't why it's so important to be in the photo. If the object of the Challenges is something like a waterfall, I've met enough geocachers to come to the conclusion that forcing someone or their GPS to be in the photo as "proof" is usually going to detract from the quality of the photo. Furthermore, for those of us that geocache or do challenges alone, we end up taking an arms length self portrait with the object that is the focus of the Challenge most likely out of focus in the background.

[cezanne]

 

Okay, then how about some natural or man-made world wonder you've never visited? Does it really matter if there is a Challenge there instead of virtual?

 

No it does not matter. I have already mentioned that I do not care how the animal is called.

I do care however what I need to do to log a visit and do care about the extra profit which is provided by a cache/challenge/waymark in comparison to a visit induced by a 0815 guide book. The short description text of challenges will not tell me anything I do not yet know in most cases.

 

The experience of visiting that location would be exactly the same.

 

Yes, of course.

 

I see the self-photo requirement as an artifact of virtuals where, because there isn't a log book, some other sort of "proof" that you were actually there is requested, in order to log it as a find.

 

There are other ways for such a proof like e.g. asking questions. That is my preferred way. Unfortunately, it is still not possible for challenges to ask questionss and that was exactly the reason why I replied to your post about sights like the Chinese Wall in the way I did. I am pretty much sure that QR challenges will come before challenges where questions (plural) can be asked if the latter come at all.

 

 

Cezanne

[AZcachemeister]

Groundspeak tried to envision what Challenges would eventually evolve into, but they included the definitions of it immediately. It was too much of a gap from what Geocaching was, and most people believed the find count was being polluted. Today, they appear to function in a similar way as virtuals.

 

For the graft to hold, they should rather call them Virtual Challenges and include the ghost icon. This would satisfy the left brained dominated people who would then accept Virtual Challenges as a valid subsitute for virtuals. They would then create many Virtual Challenges in the spirit of the original virtuals. Many popular virtuals would then be cross listed as Virtual Challenges , and eventually the ownerless virtuals would be able to archived without much drama. Virtual Challenges in the future eventually could be modified to include other type of Challenges which do not fit the traditional Virtual Challenges mold. Virtual Challenges would then be seen as exciting, and interesting, and challenging of course, and exactly what the Dos Equis Guy would do.

 

 

This is a guy who would clearly enjoy Virtual Challenges .

Virtual Challenges are exciting, interesting, and challenging.

Enjoy a Virtual Challenge today!

 

Ya know, I'm kinda with you there.

One could have expected the burst of lame challenges that came out at the beginning, but the Geoundspeak-created examples (that should have been shining examples of how it would be) left me doing a complex mixture of vomiting and laughing at the same time.

[+MickEMT]

I agree with the OP that Virtuals should be brought back, or at least TPTB should put it to a "vote" of the users.

I think that it may be a good idea for some of us who are "pro virtual" to create a working group online to try and come up with a set of guidelines for the type first. I would be willing to create a "yahoo group" for this, I'd do it right now, but I'm not sure if I would be allowed to give the link. If we are serious about our desire, we should take this step. Then we are showing that we are willing to take on some of the burden ourselves, instead of just, as some would put it, "whining".

 

I would also be willing to help out with the added review burden that the return of the type would create.

 

I do agree that some of the virtual caches that were out there were, at least in my opinion, not that great. Of course, the same could be said about any cache type.

 

I think that we could use the Earthcache type guidelines as part of the new Virtual guidelines. A photo may not even be needed, but perhaps require the finder to do some more research ( in the case of a historical site ) or find more answers at or near the site ( i.e. email the CO the name from a grave stone in the cemetery that is from the 1800's )

 

Done properly, this could be an enhancement to our hobby.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Okay, then how about some natural or man-made world wonder you've never visited? Does it really matter if there is a Challenge there instead of virtual?

 

No it does not matter. I have already mentioned that I do not care how the animal is called.

I do care however what I need to do to log a visit and do care about the extra profit which is provided by a cache/challenge/waymark in comparison to a visit induced by a 0815 guide book.

 

I have no idea what an 0815 guide book is, the fact that a Challenge listing does not have comprehensive information about a location does not preclude me from looking up that location in a guidebook or on the internet later. I've yet to encounter anyone that suggests that a virtual, waymark, or challenge listing should be a replacement for information found in other sources. I will also point out that nobody is forcing you to log anything. The mere existence of a Challenge, Waypoint, or Virtual may be all it takes to bring someone to a specific location and groundpeak pages which support each of these types provide enough functionality to capture the coordinates for these locations so that they're easy to find. I've got a copy of the Lonely Planet guides for a couple of major cities as apps on my iPhone and although they're quite comprehensive and have a nice map interface, it doesn't provide a set of lat/long coordinates that would facilitate finding my way to some of the point of interest in a city I've never previously visited.

 

The short description text of challenges will not tell me anything I do not yet know in most cases.

 

 

I've addressed this before. The limit on the description text in challenges is something that can changed (assuming that you can convince TPTB to do so). It's something that can be fixed and I would contend that the likelihood of increasing the maximium length of the description is far greater than convincing TPTB to bring back virtuals in some form.

 

 

I see the self-photo requirement as an artifact of virtuals where, because there isn't a log book, some other sort of "proof" that you were actually there is requested, in order to log it as a find.

 

There are other ways for such a proof like e.g. asking questions. That is my preferred way. Unfortunately, it is still not possible for challenges to ask questionss and that was exactly the reason why I replied to your post about sights like the Chinese Wall in the way I did. I am pretty much sure that QR challenges will come before challenges where questions (plural) can be asked if the latter come at all.

 

Cezanne

 

Perhaps I'm just a bit more optimistic about what can be done with challenges, partially based on reading Kathy's post that Challenges *will* evolve. I also come from a long software development background and understand that developing good features takes time. Yes, we can't do long descriptions now, or issue question based challenges now, but to do it right takes time and I'm willing to wait until an implementation is bullet proof (mostly) then have them shove something out the door that is untested and might even break other features. I also don't want to see GS spend a lot of time developing something that addresses exceptions to the norm so that every possible variant of a challenge can be created.

[+tozainamboku]

It's also not surprising that a lot of the big numbers people saw challenges as a threat.

How do challenges present a threat to the big number people? I can't imagine them being anymore of a threat than whymarking, they are basically the same thing.

The perceived threat ended when challenges were removed from the finds count.

So if they weren't what would prevent the big number guys from doing challenges and keep their numbers up? Maybe the problem with challenges most see them as lame and don't want them included in the count? The forums for challenges are basically dead, perhaps that is an indication. Most, big and small number folks, complained and Groundspeak responded. No need for dramatics.

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

It was not the numbers cachers who complained about challenges counting as finds, but rather the puritans who felt that a challenge was too easy to "cheat" at. With no owner to delete bogus finds, the "cheaters" were certain to log challenges complete that they never completed. And for many challenges the only "verification" was the word of the cacher in the the log that they had completed the challenge.

 

Perhaps you are a unique individual who gets their knickers in a twist when someone hasn't signed the log in a physical cache but who doesn't care if the honor system is used to determine if a challenge is completed or a virtual cache was found .

 

Of course if you are now coming around to agreeing that the arguing over find counts and what should or should not count as find is a silly way to decide which caches are worthwhile or not then I salute you.

[+B+L]

It was not the numbers cachers who complained about challenges counting as finds, but rather the puritans who felt that a challenge was too easy to "cheat" at. With no owner to delete bogus finds, the "cheaters" were certain to log challenges complete that they never completed. And for many challenges the only "verification" was the word of the cacher in the the log that they had completed the challenge.

 

Perhaps you are a unique individual who gets their knickers in a twist when someone hasn't signed the log in a physical cache but who doesn't care if the honor system is used to determine if a challenge is completed or a virtual cache was found.

 

Of course if you are now coming around to agreeing that the arguing over find counts and what should or should not count as find is a silly way to decide which caches are worthwhile or not then I salute you.

There you go with the knickers again.

 

I'm not going to agree about who was doing the complaining. There was some of what you insist on calling puritanism, but you can't simply ignore the motivation behind it.

 

This whole game is based on the honor system and I'd like to think that most people are honest enough to play it straight. I really don't care about find counts, ours or anyone else's, but I do care about the integrity of the game. Who wants to be involved in a game where casual cheating is the norm? But what really bothers me is the culture that defends and enables the people who are seemingly incapable of playing a such a simple game without claiming they found something they didn't find, or pretending they never looked for something when they couldn't find it. If there were any actual Puritans playing this game, their logs would be honest.

 

But none of that has anything to do with this topic. It's not about what constitues a find. Then again, when you have an axe to grind, every thread is a potential grindstone.

[+briansnat]

It's also not surprising that a lot of the big numbers people saw challenges as a threat.

How do challenges present a threat to the big number people? I can't imagine them being anymore of a threat than whymarking, they are basically the same thing.

The perceived threat ended when challenges were removed from the finds count.

So if they weren't what would prevent the big number guys from doing challenges and keep their numbers up? Maybe the problem with challenges most see them as lame and don't want them included in the count? The forums for challenges are basically dead, perhaps that is an indication. Most, big and small number folks, complained and Groundspeak responded. No need for dramatics.

Most people complained? Most people didn't care. Where are these dramatics you speak of?

It was not the numbers cachers who complained about challenges counting as finds, but rather the puritans who felt that a challenge was too easy to "cheat" at. With no owner to delete bogus finds, the "cheaters" were certain to log challenges complete that they never completed. And for many challenges the only "verification" was the word of the cacher in the the log that they had completed the challenge.

 

Perhaps you are a unique individual who gets their knickers in a twist when someone hasn't signed the log in a physical cache but who doesn't care if the honor system is used to determine if a challenge is completed or a virtual cache was found .

 

Of course if you are now coming around to agreeing that the arguing over find counts and what should or should not count as find is a silly way to decide which caches are worthwhile or not then I salute you.

 

I saw complaints coming from both sides, but numbers cachers seemed to be the most vocal. "They are not geocaches!" was the common complaint. But when you checked their profile they almost without exception had logged numerous CITOS, GPS Mazes, events, virtuals, megas, locationless, webcams and other things that ain't geocaches.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I like an occasional .

 

I haven't given up on Challenges, and I've been a fan (and a frequent critic) of Waymarking since the beginning, and I'm still an active participant.

 

Over the years I've followed these "Bring back virtuals!" threads closely. But after all this time (and really, I've given this some thought), I can't think of a single practical, rational reason why Groundspeak would even consider making any more attempts to reintroduce the concept of virtual caches into its listing service. Face it: geocaching.com functions quite successfully without allowing new listings.

 

I get that some people want to experience the Return of the Virtual Cache - I really do. But after everything that has transpired over the last 7 years or so, what possible motivation would Groundspeak have for trying this again? Nothing that has been attempted has even come close to dousing the pitchfork fires, despite (at least, in my opinion) some legitimate attempts to in some way reincarnate the original (but unsustainable) concept.

 

For anyone who seriously wants Groundspeak to once again allow the listing of caches of the type I suggest that you present a logical argument based on the value it brings to Groundspeak, Inc. That might get some attention.

 

"Because people want this and Groundspeak should listen to it's paying customers!" has merit. "Because people don't want this and Groundspeak should listen to it's paying customers!" has equal merit.

 

My eyesight isn't as good as it used to be, but as hard as I stare at the horizon, I'm just not seeing a tipping point that brings new to the geocaching.com web site.

 

I'd love to see my Waymarks on a tab on my GC.com account, though.

[+briansnat]

I like an occasional .

 

I haven't given up on Challenges, and I've been a fan (and a frequent critic) of Waymarking since the beginning, and I'm still an active participant.

 

Over the years I've followed these "Bring back virtuals!" threads closely. But after all this time (and really, I've given this some thought), I can't think of a single practical, rational reason why Groundspeak would even consider making any more attempts to reintroduce the concept of virtual caches into its listing service. Face it: geocaching.com functions quite successfully without allowing new listings.

 

I get that some people want to experience the Return of the Virtual Cache - I really do. But after everything that has transpired over the last 7 years or so, what possible motivation would Groundspeak have for trying this again? Nothing that has been attempted has even come close to dousing the pitchfork fires, despite (at least, in my opinion) some legitimate attempts to in some way reincarnate the original (but unsustainable) concept.

 

For anyone who seriously wants Groundspeak to once again allow the listing of caches of the type I suggest that you present a logical argument based on the value it brings to Groundspeak, Inc. That might get some attention.

 

"Because people want this and Groundspeak should listen to it's paying customers!" has merit. "Because people don't want this and Groundspeak should listen to it's paying customers!" has equal merit.

 

My eyesight isn't as good as it used to be, but as hard as I stare at the horizon, I'm just not seeing a tipping point that brings new to the geocaching.com web site.

 

I'd love to see my Waymarks on a tab on my GC.com account, though.

 

Good post. Say this small but vocal "we demand virtuals" group gets their way, then which virtual meme would it be? The unfettered virts of 2000-2002 or the "wow factor" days of 2002 until the ban? Or something else?

 

From what I've seen there are 3 popular opinions of how to do it:

 

1. Bring them back with "wow factor". This essentially continues the ban as very few virts were published after the "wow factor" was introduced. Also the problems this caused among the review team have been discussed ad nauseam.

 

2. Bring them back and treat them just like regular caches with no "wow factor". Ya think LPCs are lame? Just wait until people start submitting random pieces of litter, piles of horse dung, nails in trees, sewer covers, telephone poles, etc. Most of the ardent virtual advocates gush over the great places virts bring them. I think most might tire quickly of virtuals after their 20th "read the serial number on the back of the dumpster".

 

3. Bring in a special review team specifically for virtuals. What will the criteria be? Wow factor? I don't think people who would volunteer for this realize what crap reviewers have to go through when reviewing caches using specific guidelines. Multiply that by 100 times when the guidelines become subjective.

 

Reviewers now ask a single question when they examine a new submission,does it comply with the guidelines or not? I don't think these wannabe reviewers of virtuals have a clue as to what they will have to deal with when they decline a virtual cache based on their personal bias.

 

If you want to find geocaches this website is for you. If you are just looking for a location there are alternatives.

Edited June 5, 2012 by briansnat

[+Glenn]

The orphaned stepchild status of waymarks and challenges can be laid squarely at their feet.

 

Ever stop to think why most people don't search out virtual caches that aren't listed on GC.com?

 

I like goecaching so much that if something happened to GC.com I wouldn't mope around waiting the website to return. I would find some way to geocache. If that meant posting geocache reports to a forum or emailing reports to friends then that is what I would do.

 

GC.com doesn't list new virtual caches. But Waymarking.com has an extensive list of places to visit and now there are Challanges. If someone truly enjoys virtuals then they shouldn't need to get smiley from GC.com for each one they find. Since there places to get your virtual cache "fix" then there must be some other reason behind wanting new virtuals to be listed at GC.com.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

Here's the guidelines from March, 2003. Please read them carefully. Note how unstructured and simple they are. Also note how they fit onto one page, but about 2/3 of the page is devoted to virtuals and locationless caches, mostly locationless. See if you can find any guidelines about proximity.

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why a regular geocache – perhaps a micro or only a log book - couldn’t be placed there?” If there is a good answer, then it may be a valid virtual cache opportunity. Also, consider making the location a step in a multi-stage cache, with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

 

There have been virtual caches approved in the past on the basis that "a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained" at the location, often by a user who is traveling through the area. This essentially "blocks" the area for later placement of a physical cache. Physical caches have priority, so virtual caches of this nature will usually not be approved.

 

Virtual caches should be geographically dispersed. New postings which are within 0.1 mile of an existing cache will generally not be approved, unless the poster provides a compelling rationale. Posting a virtual cache at every animal cage in a zoo is an example of something that will not be approved.

 

Yes, virtuals and locationless caches created more guideline headaches than traditionals, which is why they took up 2/3 of the page.

[cezanne]

Perhaps I'm just a bit more optimistic about what can be done with challenges, partially based on reading Kathy's post that Challenges *will* evolve.

 

I do believe that they will evolve, but just not in directions desired by me.

 

I also come from a long software development background and understand that developing good features takes time.

 

As I have said, the cache like features I'd like to see are there and are already implemented for geocaches. The reason for not using them is that they

on purpose decided to come up with something new and different that appeals to an entirely different audience.

 

Take a look at Earthcaches. They are certainly not the type of activity that fits well for smartphones or paperless GPS units. The same is true for the type of challenges I'd like to see.

 

For me it's not about being optimistic or pessimistic, I just believe that there is a conflict of interests.

 

Cezanne

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Not sure if its been brought up (enough) but...

 

Virtuals (when allowed) were slowly being used as a grand excuse to ban physical Geocaches. i know this for certain as I watched it happen and then get reversed when virtuals were no longer accepted.

 

No thanks - I don't miss them.

Sounds like a nice story to scare the kids with. It is not at all unusual for a fringe, poorly understood activity to get banned until various groups can form to advocate on its behalf. See mountain biking for an example.

 

Today it's just as easy to say traditional caches are slowly being used as a grand excuse to ban physical geocaches in some places. Scapegoating virtuals is easy, but it completely ignores the antipathy and ill will caused by rubbishy, badly placed, poorly though out traditionals, hidden without the permission or knowledge of land managers.

 

I have to agree with this. A big argument against virtuals is that the NPS used virtuals as a way to "ban" physical geocaches but still allow geocaching on their property. Now, let's suppose that the National Parks did an about face and decided that physical geocaches would be allowed across the board at all parks. I, for one, shudder to think of the volume of poorly maintained, poorly thought out geocaches that would invade those parks and would end up as alot of ownerless garbage. Kind of what we already have outside of the National Parks. In that scenario, a virtual cache is far preferable to litter.

[cezanne]

2. Bring them back and treat them just like regular caches with no "wow factor". Ya think LPCs are lame? Just wait until people start submitting random pieces of litter, piles of horse dung, nails in trees, sewer covers, telephone poles, etc. Most of the ardent virtual advocates gush over the great places virts bring them. I think most might tire quickly of virtuals after their 20th "read the serial number on the back of the dumpster".

 

Do you have any evidence at all that this is going to happen if virtuals do not count for the find/hide count on gc.com?

 

In my area all existing waymarks and challenges lead to locations that deserve a visit. The majority of the new urban physical caches in my area lead to places of the type you mention above.

 

 

If you want to find geocaches this website is for you. If you are just looking for a location there are alternatives.

 

You apparently want to say "if you wand to find containers", but even then the statement is wrong as typically at events no container is to be found and there is also no container for Earthcaches (I leave out the grandfathered types) and these are nevertheless to be found on this website.

 

What do you suggest to those who want to have a cache-like set up, but do think that in many cases containers are not the best solution?

You cannot send them to sites which are only about locations because the way of thinking behind location sharing and a cache-like setup is not the same.

 

I still do not understand why we could not have something much more cache-like instead of these hyper-modern challenges. It has no effect on the reviewers and it has no effect at all at the way cachers like you can perform their caching activities. What's the problem?

 

Cezanne

[+Manville Possum]

Not sure if its been brought up (enough) but...

 

Virtuals (when allowed) were slowly being used as a grand excuse to ban physical Geocaches. i know this for certain as I watched it happen and then get reversed when virtuals were no longer accepted.

 

No thanks - I don't miss them.

Physical geocaches are not banned now of NFS property in my area, they only require me a $59 per year permit to place a geocache on a hiking trail for you to find. Sorry, but I don't feel it's worth it to me for your enjoyment. Virtuals and Waymarks are still free and do not require a permit, so what was feared is real.

[+nthacker66]

I have to say I am impressed this debate continues, but have went from being enthusastic in thinking this could have been a very good discussion, to angry over the lashings I took both here and locally in my area, to amused and enlightened here.

 

1) I have learned above all that people really do not read much of what is written. The number 1 thing that was said to me, even by a lackey was "We do not want virtuals back because people were listing sneakers on wires as a virtual and that diminished the game" - and to my dismay and futile efforts to try to get people to read my original post - I never once said I want the virtuals back as they were. So I gave up.

 

(i wondef if anyone has gotten this far yet)

 

2) I have learned there is a raging hypocrisy amongst cachers who claim "i dont knock how you play the game so dont try to change it for me" Which was always amusing to me because I would staunchly defend on these forums and in person, ways people play the game that I personally do not find enjoyable. I do not like numbers running, or gaurdrail caches, or film cans in street signs or FTT hounding. But I will stand against anyone who wishes to chnage that. Because I defend the essence of this game which is it can be played however one wishes. One of the joys I get out of geocaching is watching others get joy out of it, even if it is a style I perosnally do not find entertaining. So to be told by bringing virtuals up for discussion is "changing" how the game is played, is just inaccurate - the same logic "if you dont like micros in the woods, you dont have to go after them" can and should be applied to "if you dont like virtuals, dont go look for them"

 

3) The idea of trying to define what geocaching is or is not. This is the silliest thing of all. What does it matter what it is or is not - what are people so afraid of if someone defines geocaching one way or they other. I think because one persons way of playing the game is a challenge to someone elses way of playing the game. Most often, because geocaching is an obsessive hobby for many and even a big part of their lives, they move from into the relam of sacred and it is challenging their beliefs - much like a religion. It is the "My God is better than your god" syndrome. I still cannot wrap my head around the concept of "why does it matter what geocaching should be defined as" I don't say how whether a container or no container matters on either side.

 

4) Losing sight that this really is just a game. I got caught up for a day in this debate, made a fool of myself locally and learned that some people I thougt were friends were quite rude and condescending. WHen I calmed down I realized, "its just a game, why does it matter" Live and learn.

[+nthacker66]

"briansnat, on 04 June 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

 

2. Bring them back and treat them just like regular caches with no "wow factor". Ya think LPCs are lame? Just wait until people start submitting random pieces of litter, piles of horse dung, nails in trees, sewer covers, telephone poles, etc. Most of the ardent virtual advocates gush over the great places virts bring them. I think most might tire quickly of virtuals after their 20th "read the serial number on the back of the dumpster""

 

This is a prime example of what I speak. No matter how many times I attempted to clairify my stance (bring them back but with restriction, possible review committees - like earthcachers, possible offsetting but with a different icon to distinguish this is a multi with a significant location - all just suggestions) I could not get a response from the repated "pi8les of horse dung" arguments. It is either the huge egos got in the way of seeing this or they simply are ignroning it for some other reasons. What that is, who knows, perhaps something only those in the inner sanctum keep close. I am not knocking that, but just do not ignore the fact that this was never the intention - to bring back virtuals as they were. Again, please read my original post.

[+TeamTwoStar]

Meh. I want the stuff I find to count towards one working list..so, no, I have no interest in starting a Waymarking account.

 

Virtuals provide a neat way to add incentive for CACHERS to go visit areas that would not be allowed to have physical caches, such as national parks in the us.

 

Besides. Ghosties are cute!