Jump to content

virtual caches


Moral Decay
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I strongly disagree with Groundspeak's policy of disalllowing new virtual caches! A cache IMHO should bring the seeker to an interesting or attractive area (beautiful vista, interesting history or architecture, which is possible without a physical log. Earthcaches and benchmarks don't have logs, but they're allowed! I'd much rather go to a good virtual than a traditional cache attached to a dumpster in an alley (yet that would be allowed). At least some of the best virtuals are grandfathered and available.

Link to comment

Waymarking, Challenges, and a multitude of alternative websites that still accept the classic "virtual cache". I've placed plenty. Four this summer, as a matter of fact. :lol: If it's any consolation, with the failure, for lack of a better term, of Waymarking and Challenges, I think they're going to give in one of these days. I would suggest a small world-wide contingent of dedicated "virtual cache reviewers", not unlike what exists for Earthcaches, if anyone is listening. B)

Link to comment

Waymarking, Challenges, and a multitude of alternative websites that still accept the classic "virtual cache". I've placed plenty. Four this summer, as a matter of fact. :lol: If it's any consolation, with the failure, for lack of a better term, of Waymarking and Challenges, I think they're going to give in one of these days. I would suggest a small world-wide contingent of dedicated "virtual cache reviewers", not unlike what exists for Earthcaches, if anyone is listening. B)

 

Once GS loses a good share of their market share, it will happens. I am really glad to see a really serious competitor on the horizon against GS. We will be seeing GS work harder to keep us happy. I will give a year or two.

Link to comment

 

Once GS loses a good share of their market share,

Now THAT'S funny! Oh, wait... sometimes I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or not :unsure: but I always enjoy your posts!

 

FWIW, In my eight years here, I've always thought GS tried hard to make me happy.

They haven't always succeeded (like when Jeremy said challenges were going to count as finds) but mostly I've been happy. But I'm kind of a simpleton. I'm prolly just too igornant to realize what a bad job they've been doing...

Link to comment

Waymarking, Challenges, and a multitude of alternative websites that still accept the classic "virtual cache". I've placed plenty. Four this summer, as a matter of fact. :lol: If it's any consolation, with the failure, for lack of a better term, of Waymarking and Challenges, I think they're going to give in one of these days. I would suggest a small world-wide contingent of dedicated "virtual cache reviewers", not unlike what exists for Earthcaches, if anyone is listening. B)

 

Once GS loses a good share of their market share, it will happens. I am really glad to see a really serious competitor on the horizon against GS. We will be seeing GS work harder to keep us happy. I will give a year or two.

 

Wow, I better get my eyes checked. I see nothing but an empty horizon. If there is a serious competitor out there they have not shown up yet.

Link to comment

I strongly disagree with Groundspeak's policy of disalllowing new virtual caches! A cache IMHO should bring the seeker to an interesting or attractive area (beautiful vista, interesting history or architecture, which is possible without a physical log. Earthcaches and benchmarks don't have logs, but they're allowed! I'd much rather go to a good virtual than a traditional cache attached to a dumpster in an alley (yet that would be allowed). At least some of the best virtuals are grandfathered and available.

What makes you think a virtual cache would always bring a seeker to an interesting or attractive area? And who decides what is interesting or attractive?

 

I have news for you but most benchmarks are not in interesting or attractive places. Many are simply a marker on the side of road or in the middle of an intersection. Relatively few have any historic significance.

 

While EarthCaches, by definition, are educational, some are at not so attractive open pit mines or landfills.

 

While some traditional caches might not meet your definition of worthy location, I bet there are plenty of caches that do. If you only looked for caches in parks and natural areas or ones that had a number of favorite points, you wouldn't be finding so many that are next to dumpsters or in lampposts.

 

When Groundspeak allowed virtual caches, they implemented a "wow" requirement. Reviewers would only publish a virtual cache if was "novel, of interest to other players, and has a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects." This went beyond saying that a virtual cache took you to a interesting place or an attractive area. In fact, the guideline specifically ruled out attractive areas as not being a specific enough target (a virtual cache was suppose to be something to "find" using the GPS coordinates), and it was not enough to just be in an historic location (while a historic marker or statue could be a specific target, these were deemed too common and ordinary to be a virtual cache).

 

The result was that very few of the virtual caches that got submitted were published and the ones that were extremely unique and often surprising. The reason you find most virtuals today so enjoyable is that someone weeded out all the chaff. Unfortunately this took a lot of effort and was a thankless job, as those whose virtual submissions were denied felt they were judged unfairly. In the end, no satisfactory alternative was found. Prior to the "Wow" requirement virtual threaten for awhile to outstrip traditional caches. Perhaps it was the most interesting or attractive locations where it was "too hard" to maintain a physical cache (or to get permission for a physical cache), where people chose to go virtual instead of physical. IMHO, The grandfathering of virtuals has led to more caches being placed in interesting areas as cachers have found new ways to hide caches, and in some cases it has helped in convincing land managers to give permission for physical caches where before they would only allow virtuals.

Link to comment

Waymarking, Challenges, and a multitude of alternative websites that still accept the classic "virtual cache". I've placed plenty. Four this summer, as a matter of fact. :lol: If it's any consolation, with the failure, for lack of a better term, of Waymarking and Challenges, I think they're going to give in one of these days. I would suggest a small world-wide contingent of dedicated "virtual cache reviewers", not unlike what exists for Earthcaches, if anyone is listening. B)

 

Once GS loses a good share of their market share, it will happens. I am really glad to see a really serious competitor on the horizon against GS. We will be seeing GS work harder to keep us happy. I will give a year or two.

 

Wow, I better get my eyes checked. I see nothing but an empty horizon. If there is a serious competitor out there they have not shown up yet.

I think our eyes are fine. :blink: It would be nice to have some good new virtuals here but looks like Challanges are what we are given to work with. I can imagine what people would submit to the virtual cache reviewers. Maybe it's best that we just stick to Waymarking? I enjoy it. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

The remaining virtuals are (mostly) the cream of the crop.

 

The dregs are what got them shut down.

 

Ain't gonna happen.

 

Try Waymarking or Challenges.

 

I agree with the remaining Virtuals being mostly nice spots but STRONGLY disagree with your comment about trying Waymarking or Challenges. More power to the people that love these but they are NOT a replacement for virtuals no matter how you spin it. Waymarking was created as a replacement for Locationless caches and the new Challenges are really a joke to me. Some like them, and that is fine, but don't pass them off as a replacement to virtuals. They are nothing alike.

Link to comment

...STRONGLY disagree with your comment about trying Waymarking or Challenges. More power to the people that love these but they are NOT a replacement for virtuals no matter how you spin it.

 

I have logged exactly ONE waymark! :laughing:

 

I tend to agree with you, but these are what TPTB have provided as 'replacement' activities instead of virtuals.

I suppose there is some small chance they will reverse their decision and someday allow some type of virtual cache again, but I'm not holding my breath.

Link to comment

Waymarking, Challenges, and a multitude of alternative websites that still accept the classic "virtual cache". I've placed plenty. Four this summer, as a matter of fact. :lol: If it's any consolation, with the failure, for lack of a better term, of Waymarking and Challenges, I think they're going to give in one of these days. I would suggest a small world-wide contingent of dedicated "virtual cache reviewers", not unlike what exists for Earthcaches, if anyone is listening. B)

 

Once GS loses a good share of their market share, it will happens. I am really glad to see a really serious competitor on the horizon against GS. We will be seeing GS work harder to keep us happy. I will give a year or two.

 

Wow, I better get my eyes checked. I see nothing but an empty horizon. If there is a serious competitor out there they have not shown up yet.

 

They showed up a little over a year ago. We are not allowed to utter their mere name here. :blink: You could argue it's not Geocaching, but the word Geocaching is in their website's tagline. Will this competition make Groundspeak bring back virtuals? Who knows. I just think they're going to eventually bring them back because it's the most requested thing by the masses, and the masses poo-poo'd Waymarking, and most especially Challenges. I do both by the way. But I also find it interesting to note I posted the first visit on a 6 year old Waymark on Labor Day. :huh:

Link to comment

I just think they're going to eventually bring them back because it's the most requested thing by the masses, and the masses poo-poo'd Waymarking, and most especially Challenges.

 

I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone. As you say the masses are calling to bring them back but I think it only appears that way because those of us who are glad they are gone already know that this horse was buried a long time ago.

Link to comment

I just think they're going to eventually bring them back because it's the most requested thing by the masses, and the masses poo-poo'd Waymarking, and most especially Challenges.

 

I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone. As you say the masses are calling to bring them back but I think it only appears that way because those of us who are glad they are gone already know that this horse was buried a long time ago.

 

The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them, and have been since about 2004, when they were still technically accepted, but under the "Wow factor" provision. The response was Waymarking. Then when they kept screaming for them, their response 6 years to the month later, was Geocaching Challenges. I'm of the opinion the third time will be the charm for the screaming masses. Which I am not necessarily a member of, by the way. :laughing:

Link to comment
I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone.
I wouldn't say that I'm glad virtual caches are no longer being listed, but I value the contribution of the volunteer reviewers enough that if it's a choice between reinstating virtual caches and keeping the volunteer reviewers happy, then the volunteer reviewers win hands down.

 

AFAICS, Geocaching Challenges are virtual caches... without the features that caused the volunteer reviewers grief.

Link to comment

I just think they're going to eventually bring them back because it's the most requested thing by the masses, and the masses poo-poo'd Waymarking, and most especially Challenges.

 

I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone. As you say the masses are calling to bring them back but I think it only appears that way because those of us who are glad they are gone already know that this horse was buried a long time ago.

 

The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them, and have been since about 2004, when they were still technically accepted, but under the "Wow factor" provision. The response was Waymarking. Then when they kept screaming for them, their response 6 years to the month later, was Geocaching Challenges. I'm of the opinion the third time will be the charm for the screaming masses. Which I am not necessarily a member of, by the way. :laughing:

It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching.

 

If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too.

 

I’ve heard the excuses, no pocket queries, they don’t want to go to another website, etc. but I’ve always maintained that the biggest issue was no easy smileys. I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges.

Link to comment

I just think they're going to eventually bring them back because it's the most requested thing by the masses, and the masses poo-poo'd Waymarking, and most especially Challenges.

 

I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone. As you say the masses are calling to bring them back but I think it only appears that way because those of us who are glad they are gone already know that this horse was buried a long time ago.

 

The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them, and have been since about 2004, when they were still technically accepted, but under the "Wow factor" provision. The response was Waymarking. Then when they kept screaming for them, their response 6 years to the month later, was Geocaching Challenges. I'm of the opinion the third time will be the charm for the screaming masses. Which I am not necessarily a member of, by the way. :laughing:

It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching.

 

If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too.

 

I’ve heard the excuses, no pocket queries, they don’t want to go to another website, etc. but I’ve always maintained that the biggest issue was no easy smileys. I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges.

See bolded part.

 

Challenges do have their own, quite prominent, count. Those who are after numbers do realize that. Still not getting much traction...

 

I don't want new virts, either, just saying.

Link to comment

I just think they're going to eventually bring them back because it's the most requested thing by the masses, and the masses poo-poo'd Waymarking, and most especially Challenges.

 

I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone. As you say the masses are calling to bring them back but I think it only appears that way because those of us who are glad they are gone already know that this horse was buried a long time ago.

 

The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them, and have been since about 2004, when they were still technically accepted, but under the "Wow factor" provision. The response was Waymarking. Then when they kept screaming for them, their response 6 years to the month later, was Geocaching Challenges. I'm of the opinion the third time will be the charm for the screaming masses. Which I am not necessarily a member of, by the way. :laughing:

It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching.

 

If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too.

 

I’ve heard the excuses, no pocket queries, they don’t want to go to another website, etc. but I’ve always maintained that the biggest issue was no easy smileys. I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges.

See bolded part.

 

Challenges do have their own, quite prominent, count. Those who are after numbers do realize that. Still not getting much traction...

 

I don't want new virts, either, just saying.

 

It's prominent but not included in the overall total. That's the number most numbers oriented geocachers are concerned with.

Link to comment

I just think they're going to eventually bring them back because it's the most requested thing by the masses, and the masses poo-poo'd Waymarking, and most especially Challenges.

 

I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone. As you say the masses are calling to bring them back but I think it only appears that way because those of us who are glad they are gone already know that this horse was buried a long time ago.

 

The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them, and have been since about 2004, when they were still technically accepted, but under the "Wow factor" provision. The response was Waymarking. Then when they kept screaming for them, their response 6 years to the month later, was Geocaching Challenges. I'm of the opinion the third time will be the charm for the screaming masses. Which I am not necessarily a member of, by the way. :laughing:

It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching.

 

If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too.

 

I’ve heard the excuses, no pocket queries, they don’t want to go to another website, etc. but I’ve always maintained that the biggest issue was no easy smileys. I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges.

See bolded part.

 

Challenges do have their own, quite prominent, count. Those who are after numbers do realize that. Still not getting much traction...

 

I don't want new virts, either, just saying.

 

It's prominent but not included in the overall total. That's the number most numbers oriented geocachers are concerned with.

*sigh* You seem like a good guy but you're too hung up on numbers. Seriously.

Link to comment

I just think they're going to eventually bring them back because it's the most requested thing by the masses, and the masses poo-poo'd Waymarking, and most especially Challenges.

 

I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone. As you say the masses are calling to bring them back but I think it only appears that way because those of us who are glad they are gone already know that this horse was buried a long time ago.

 

The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them, and have been since about 2004, when they were still technically accepted, but under the "Wow factor" provision. The response was Waymarking. Then when they kept screaming for them, their response 6 years to the month later, was Geocaching Challenges. I'm of the opinion the third time will be the charm for the screaming masses. Which I am not necessarily a member of, by the way. :laughing:

It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching.

 

If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too.

 

I’ve heard the excuses, no pocket queries, they don’t want to go to another website, etc. but I’ve always maintained that the biggest issue was no easy smileys. I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges.

 

I'm one of the ones that abandoned WM early on. IMO a separate site was not needed. What are the stats on WM? How many different users actually frequent the site and contribute to it? I don't know anyone local to me that is an active participant on WM.

 

IMO Waymarking is a development drain from this site. Rather than support 2 sites and other GS projects that are frankly nowhere in popularity compared to geocaching.com, why not have WM and the other GS projects as facets of this site so we can manage our location based gaming and other related activities on one profile? WM would prosper greatly as a result. I would try it out again.

 

I would have no problem at all if virts were separated. At just over 1100 caches in 9.5 years, numbers aren't a concern for me.

 

It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching.

 

Okay, I'll eat a bug if about 75% of the complaining folk you mention are even still caching. That's the thing about the complainers an the folks that wanted to define what was true to geocaching for others. They burn out and the ones that didn't burn out are mostly lackeys & volunteers in my experience.

 

When I started caching they had just stopped accepting locationless caches. Wow factor came in for virts a few months later.

 

Virts and locationless caches are true to Geocaching for me, but that's the great thing about running a virtual monopoly. You don't really have to listen to what the customers are asking for. That's why Groundspeak gets a B for a letter grade from me. There's room for improvement but I'm not gonna be all bent out of shape if it doesn't happen. I'm certainly not holding my breath for a paradigm change. :laughing:

Link to comment

 

IMO Waymarking is a development drain from this site. Rather than support 2 sites and other GS projects that are frankly nowhere in popularity compared to geocaching.com, why not have WM and the other GS projects as facets of this site so we can manage our location based gaming and other related activities on one profile? WM would prosper greatly as a result. I would try it out again.

 

 

I remember a bold optimistic proclamation a few years back...

 

The Geocaching and Waymarking sites were going to be merged together (something like Groundspeak v2.0) to provide equal ease of downloading, finding, and logging both types of geolocation waypoints.

I thought: 'That sounds cool...bring it on!'

 

Apparently the 'merger' proved too difficult, and so 'Challenges' were (apparently) created to divert our attention.

Link to comment

My only wish about virtuals is that they could be adopted by others when the CO loses interest. Some go are archived because the area they are located changes, or the object is removed, but many are just noted "time to archive" for no real reason other than the desire to not "maintain" them according to the guidelines.

Link to comment

I remember a bold optimistic proclamation a few years back...

 

The Geocaching and Waymarking sites were going to be merged together (something like Groundspeak v2.0) to provide equal ease of downloading, finding, and logging both types of geolocation waypoints.

I thought: 'That sounds cool...bring it on!'

 

Apparently the 'merger' proved too difficult, and so 'Challenges' were (apparently) created to divert our attention.

 

I would imagine as they looked at merging to unrelated activities, the question was finally asked "why?".

Link to comment

 

The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them,

Why should we believe you? How could you possibly know this? Seriously, how do you know what the "masses" who never look at the forums want? Who are they screaming to, it they're not posting in the forums?

I tend to agree with Mac... in any question of changing something, those who want change are OVER represented because the "masses" who are just fine with the status quo have no reason to enter the debate.

Which would indicate that only a small percentage of cachers want to see the return of virtuals.

Link to comment

I'm just disappointed in the policy prohibiting the adoption of previous (grandfathered) virtual caches, especially ones of some significance, like the Four Corners Monument (GC6A98). This is one that at least from a geographic standpoint has some real significance (at least in the U.S.) I'd love to adopt it from the previous CO who hasn't logged into GC in years, but it appears this significant virtual is just going to go the wayside. Sad.

Link to comment

It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching.

 

If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too.

 

I’ve heard the excuses, no pocket queries, they don’t want to go to another website, etc. but I’ve always maintained that the biggest issue was no easy smileys. I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges.

Of course there were many around when virtuals were first instituted who thought they were great. They solved what was to some people an big problem facing geocaching - there were too many places where it just didn't seem possible to place a physical cache. There was no place to hide it, too much chance of it being found and taken by non-geocachers, or simply no way to ask for or get permission. Yet these were precisely the places people felt that caches needed to be hidden. They were places that were interesting or particularly attractive, often a favorite spot for the cacher that they wanted to share with others. We hear people who have been around that long say that even physical caches were nearly always hidden in such interesting places. The problem was that many interesting places couldn't support a physical cache and virtuals solved that problem.

 

Certainly there were people in those early days who felt that virtuals were a solution for a non-existent problem. Not every "cool" place needed a cache. There were still plenty of nice locations where a cache could be hidden and being a little clever you could figure out ways to hide caches in most of the areas where people were placing virtuals. You could even try harder to convince property owners and land managers to allow physical caches. For many players the idea was to find a container that someone had hidden, not to use the GPS to visit a pretty place. That seemed like something completely different.

 

I don't know what exactly were the reasons for the "wow" requirement. I tend to think that in the argument between the two groups, the "wow" requirement was meant to ensure that virtuals were only use when they really needed to be - when the location was truly unique and had a special historic, community or geocaching quality that justified allowing a listing without a hidden container to find. But this quality was too difficult to define. Especially since it wasn't being applied to physical caches. As more people began caching, physical caches began being hidden in not so interesting places. For some, if there was a gap of more than .1 miles that was reason enough to hide another cache. And people began to find ways to place physical caches where previously it was thought only a virtual cache could be hidden. Some began placing offsets that used a virtual location as a first stage to lead to a physical cache. Others found was to hide a micro on fence post or under a rock and still call your attention to the marker or monument nearby. Some people even worked with land managers to get permission for a limited number of caches in areas that previously had a total ban. The original need for virtual caches seemed like less and less of an issue.

 

Sure there are still places where caches are not permitted or where it would be inappropriate to leave a physical container. And I suppose that as long as these exist we will have people who want to bring back virtuals. Waymarking and Challenges provide some ways for people to share these interesting locations and while each provides some advantages, so long as they don't count as geocaching finds and don't show up in geocaching queries some people won't be satisfied.

Link to comment

BTW After nearly 10 years of caching in 40 states and 4 countries, 2 of my top 3 best geocaching experiences are virtuals. (Stingray City & Barney Smith's Toilet Seat Museum.)

 

Funny though, the cache that I consider the worst most pointless cache I've ever logged is a virt at a rest stop in Kansas. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

 

The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them,

Why should we believe you? How could you possibly know this? Seriously, how do you know what the "masses" who never look at the forums want? Who are they screaming to, it they're not posting in the forums?

I tend to agree with Mac... in any question of changing something, those who want change are OVER represented because the "masses" who are just fine with the status quo have no reason to enter the debate.

Which would indicate that only a small percentage of cachers want to see the return of virtuals.

 

The screaming on the two feedback systems before Groundspeak killed them, for one. And the fact that they actually created Waymarking and Geocaching challenges. I think the little bit of dissension you hear about bringing back virtuals in the forums is the tiny percentage.

 

Just like taking me, for example, someone who spouts off about lame micros in the forums. But the Wal-Mart micro gets 200 finds a year, the 1/2 mile hike in the woods in the same town gets 20 finds a year, and I'm the only one in Town with the Wal-Mart micro on my ignore list. :lol:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

I just think they're going to eventually bring them back because it's the most requested thing by the masses, and the masses poo-poo'd Waymarking, and most especially Challenges.

 

I would like to see a poll result between those who want to bring virtuals back as opposed to those who are glad they are gone. As you say the masses are calling to bring them back but I think it only appears that way because those of us who are glad they are gone already know that this horse was buried a long time ago.

 

The masses do not look at the forums. Only 16% of the more than 5,000,000 registered accounts have ever visited these forums. (Main forum page, "statistics" at the bottom, the forums have only 804,000 members.) Believe me, the masses are screaming for them, and have been since about 2004, when they were still technically accepted, but under the "Wow factor" provision. The response was Waymarking. Then when they kept screaming for them, their response 6 years to the month later, was Geocaching Challenges. I'm of the opinion the third time will be the charm for the screaming masses. Which I am not necessarily a member of, by the way. :laughing:

It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching.

 

If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too.

 

I’ve heard the excuses, no pocket queries, they don’t want to go to another website, etc. but I’ve always maintained that the biggest issue was no easy smileys. I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges.

 

I disageree with you. Waymarks are in "some" intersting places but not the majority. (I mean really...watertowers and Subway restaurants?) I have been around since 2003 in caching and I really want the return of Virtuals. You talk about the lameness that infected the virtuals? There is nothing more lame as far as geocaches go than the current power trails!!! I mean seriously? Hundreds and hundreds of little containers on guardrails or at signs?? Virtuals then were no more lame than current power trail caches are now. I am not "clamoring" for the demise of power trails but I am "clamoring" for the return of virtuals. Don't get me started on the ridiculous new Challenges. they are not virtuals either in any sense. For those that are saying in this thread they are virtuals are mistaken in my opinion.

Link to comment

It’s rare that you see someone who was around when new virtuals were allowed and before the “wow factor” was instituted, clamoring for the return of virutals. It’s usually newer cachers. That’s because those who were around then remember all of the incredibly lame virtuals and the forum threads complaining about virtuals and how they weren’t true geocaching.

 

If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too.

 

I’ve heard the excuses, no pocket queries, they don’t want to go to another website, etc. but I’ve always maintained that the biggest issue was no easy smileys. I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges.

 

First, having been in this since 2003 I am among those you refer to. While I don't "clamor" for virtuals to came back, it is because I have resigned myself to the fact that GS rarely reverses itself (something else learned in almost 10 years of doing this). Please do not mistake my lack of ranting about it as agreement. GS made a mistake taking virtuals away, it is there sandbox, so I accept it.

 

At issue is all the explanations i have heard for virtuals demise is to lessen the workload on the volunteers and keep them from having to deal with unpleasant situations on a regular basis. I appreciate greatly the work that volunteers do however there were other solutions that would have achieved the same goal.

 

Conversely, one of the few times they reversed a decision was to start allowing power trails again. This has a impact on many more individuals because the majority of these power trails are nothing more than LPC's, albeit on a trees, every 528 feet. This not only blocks other placements, possibly higher quality, from being place but denies cacher a otherwise more fulfilling experience with this alternative hides. before you check, I will look for any cache within the area I am in, so yes, I have done power trails.

 

Bottom line: Virtuals could have been converted to a community approved scenario which would have alleviated the issues the reviewers were having. Power trails could have continued to have been disallowed. Both would have accomplished a similar goal of reducing efforts by volunteers. I am confident they did not have as many issues with denying power trails near the volume of the virtual issues.

 

If you think it was "public outcry" or whining that got virtuals removed, let me bring you back to this side of the looking glass. Were this the case, only one find per cache would be system implemented. Micros would all but disappear. LPCs would be a fleeting memory. Audit logs would cease to exist and everyone would know who was watching their caches.

 

Having said all this. Virtuals are not coming back. Threads like this may vent frustration however beyond that, they serve little purpose.

Link to comment

A question from someone who has only been around for about half a year:

 

If EarthCaches have their own seemingly 'special' group with their own reviewers, has GS ever considered something similar for virtuals or other types of caches that have come and gone? If not, why not? If so, why was it shot down?

 

I see no harm in a group of cachers becoming a 'review board' so to speak of really any type of cache that the ban hammer came down on.

 

Just curious!

Link to comment

This not only blocks other placements, possibly higher quality, from being place but denies cacher a otherwise more fulfilling experience with this alternative hides.

Good points, but it's also kind of ironic that the same argument you are making here against power trails was also used against virtuals.

 

Speaking to a point briansnat made, the so called outcry against lame virtuals in the forums was pretty tepid. However, there are plenty of posts by some of the key reviewers (reinforced with their often undisclosed user accounts. Boo!, but that's another topic), where they opine that virtuals aren't real caches.

 

Here is the original post where virtual caches were first proposed: Topic: Virtual Cache The idea gets a favorable reception initially, but the haters are not far behind.

 

Here's a little tidbit from that thread about why Dave Ulmer left the game:

 

Im with the anti-virtual folks personally...

As a matter of history, this topic was the reason the founder of the game quit participating.. I wouldn't post one of his "virtual" caches on the original website, only "real" ones...

Link to comment

I strongly suspect that if Groundspeak reinstated virtuals tomorrow, but virtual finds were counted separately the way challenges and benchmarks are, virtuals would be about as popular as Waymarking, benchmarking and challenges.

 

Of course in that situation, virtuals would not be a part of this game. One of the reasons that virtual caches are among my favorites is that they can extend this game into areas where physical caches are not appropriate or where virtuals simply make more sense.

 

But as others have said, Groundspeak is not going to reverse their decision. We asked for virtuals to return, and their answer was challenges -- which do not offer the same experience at all.

Link to comment

If those people who demand the return of virtuals are truly looking for interesting locations, Waymarking and challenges are most certainly replacements for virtuals . There are some shortcomings, but if it is cool locations you want, there are plenty on Waymarking and as people better understand challenges, there will be plenty there too.

 

Neither Waymarking nor challenges offer a niche for educational caches such as Earthcaches where educational is not meant in the sense to send people just to a location and take a photo. I have many ideas, but no chance to implement them.

 

I still do not understand why challenges could not be like virtual caches from the set-up and from being open to everyone, but like challenges from the aspect of undergoing no review process and not counting for the cache find count.

 

The fact that lame virtuals have been submitted and the fact that reviewers are not willing to review virtuals do not provide any obstacle to have implemented challenges in a completely different way and moreover to exploit all the development work that has been done over years for geocaches.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

This not only blocks other placements, possibly higher quality, from being place but denies cacher a otherwise more fulfilling experience with this alternative hides.

Good points, but it's also kind of ironic that the same argument you are making here against power trails was also used against virtuals.

 

Speaking to a point briansnat made, the so called outcry against lame virtuals in the forums was pretty tepid. However, there are plenty of posts by some of the key reviewers (reinforced with their often undisclosed user accounts. Boo!, but that's another topic), where they opine that virtuals aren't real caches.

 

Here is the original post where virtual caches were first proposed: Topic: Virtual Cache The idea gets a favorable reception initially, but the haters are not far behind.

 

Here's a little tidbit from that thread about why Dave Ulmer left the game:

 

Im with the anti-virtual folks personally...

As a matter of history, this topic was the reason the founder of the game quit participating.. I wouldn't post one of his "virtual" caches on the original website, only "real" ones...

 

Don't tempt me to start another GeoCreationism vs. GeoEvolution thread. :laughing: The last one got locked.

 

What the guiding forces and pioneers of geocaching fail to take into account is that the activity is out of their hands. The volunteer hiders that crank this money machine and keep it lubed have voted with their submitted caches. Cachers WANT to play hide and seek anywhere and everywhere and 528 feet apart for 10,000 miles if possible. Trying to mold that into a neat cookie cutter shape is a near futile effort. It's entertaining to watch though.

 

Every cache is money in the bank for GS. I fail to understand why they would resist a reversal of the previous decision toward their vision of what true geocaching is. IMO if it's hide an seek, to me it's geocaching and that includes virts and most especially locationless caches.

 

GeoEvolution is a fact. The sooner the GeoCreationists give up their struggle to round off the square peg things will really start to improve. Otherwise they are gonna need a bigger mallet. :laughing:My link

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

This not only blocks other placements, possibly higher quality, from being place but denies cacher a otherwise more fulfilling experience with this alternative hides.

Good points, but it's also kind of ironic that the same argument you are making here against power trails was also used against virtuals.

 

Speaking to a point briansnat made, the so called outcry against lame virtuals in the forums was pretty tepid. However, there are plenty of posts by some of the key reviewers (reinforced with their often undisclosed user accounts. Boo!, but that's another topic), where they opine that virtuals aren't real caches.

 

Here is the original post where virtual caches were first proposed: Topic: Virtual Cache The idea gets a favorable reception initially, but the haters are not far behind.

 

Here's a little tidbit from that thread about why Dave Ulmer left the game:

 

Im with the anti-virtual folks personally...

As a matter of history, this topic was the reason the founder of the game quit participating.. I wouldn't post one of his "virtual" caches on the original website, only "real" ones...

 

Interesting. In my opinion, and just my opinion, the minor hating that took place in that thread was due to the fact that Jeremy had apparently not yet made different cache types. Traditional, Virtual, Multi, etc..

 

A question from someone who has only been around for about half a year:

 

If EarthCaches have their own seemingly 'special' group with their own reviewers, has GS ever considered something similar for virtuals or other types of caches that have come and gone? If not, why not? If so, why was it shot down?

 

I see no harm in a group of cachers becoming a 'review board' so to speak of really any type of cache that the ban hammer came down on.

 

Just curious!

 

I don't expect anyone to read every sentence of every post, but I suggested that in my first post to the thread. Exactly how they do it with Earthcaches. I don't know how many Earthcache only reviewers there are, but I'll guess it's a dozen or less world-wide. For example, per her profile, Geoawareca covers all of Canada, plus the Eastern U.S.

 

Dedicated virtual only reviewers would also eliminate the oft-cited excuse of a reviewer rebellion. :ph34r:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

I would suggest a small world-wide contingent of dedicated "virtual cache reviewers", not unlike what exists for Earthcaches, if anyone is listening. B)

 

I don't expect anyone to read every sentence of every post, but I suggested that in my first post to the thread. Exactly how they do it with Earthcaches. I don't know how many Earthcache only reviewers there are, but I'll guess it's a dozen or less world-wide.

 

Dedicated virtual only reviewers would also eliminate the oft-cited excuse of a reviewer rebellion. :ph34r:

 

Apparently my subconscious was listening! Great idea! :P

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...