Jump to content

virtual caches


Moral Decay
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

The dregs are what got them shut down.

 

I wonder if the same can not be said for "traditional caching" Will the dregs of "traditional caching" be the death of the game and get it shut down. I suspect probably at some not too distant time. Or, the simple lack of imaginative hides in interesting places will drive afficianados from the game. As it is now, some of my caching compatriots of the past eschew anything that has the aroma of a lpc or guardrail not to mention nanos.

 

I recently came back from vacation and the simply awful caching experience (for the most part)(bison tubes in pine trees, nanos on bike trail guardrails, wet logs, unmaintained caches), boy I would have liked to have seen a bad virtual in the mix

Link to comment

Oh the thread is locked, so I zoomed to the last post and found this. Not going to waste my time reading something that isnt on topic. <_<

 

Lol. That's real entertainment. Irony is my favorite form of humor.

 

You might as well quit the forums. Very few threads stay on topic. Take your post or umm this one. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

 

I was being funny.

 

So back on topic...Virtual cache will come back someday, Its a matter of when. 100 years after the moon is full of caches and dont have anymore room.

Link to comment

I seem to remember something about the reviewers threatening to quit if they had to deal with the whole virtual fiasco again.

 

That's the beauty of the Earthcache model of dedicated Virtual Cache reviewers. A small number of reviewers, who only review Virtual caches would be appointed. People who want to be Virtual Cache reviewers, and willingly take on the job. Certainly, there are qualified, and willing people. We wouldn't want Keystone to quit over this, would we? :ph34r:

 

Guidelines would have to be written. It would have to be relatively difficult to get a "new Virtual" approved. You know, something along the lines such that every roadside historical marker in America didn't end up being a virtual cache. :)

Link to comment

I seem to remember something about the reviewers threatening to quit if they had to deal with the whole virtual fiasco again.

 

That's the beauty of the Earthcache model of dedicated Virtual Cache reviewers. A small number of reviewers, who only review Virtual caches would be appointed. People who want to be Virtual Cache reviewers, and willingly take on the job. Certainly, there are qualified, and willing people. We wouldn't want Keystone to quit over this, would we? :ph34r:

 

Guidelines would have to be written. It would have to be relatively difficult to get a "new Virtual" approved. You know, something along the lines such that every roadside historical marker in America didn't end up being a virtual cache. :)

How you do it without using the term "wow" factor? :blink:

Link to comment

I seem to remember something about the reviewers threatening to quit if they had to deal with the whole virtual fiasco again.

 

That's the beauty of the Earthcache model of dedicated Virtual Cache reviewers. A small number of reviewers, who only review Virtual caches would be appointed. People who want to be Virtual Cache reviewers, and willingly take on the job. Certainly, there are qualified, and willing people. We wouldn't want Keystone to quit over this, would we? :ph34r:

 

Guidelines would have to be written. It would have to be relatively difficult to get a "new Virtual" approved. You know, something along the lines such that every roadside historical marker in America didn't end up being a virtual cache. :)

 

As I understand it earth caches are reviewed by people that are from outside groundspeaks structure. Geology experts. I doubt that will work for a catch all virtual category. While I do know several people who claim to know everything about everything I have yet to find any who will confirm the others expertise.

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.

 

 

Not sure how the same argument would have been possible to use since virtual placements did/would not block a physical placement.

Link to comment

I seem to remember something about the reviewers threatening to quit if they had to deal with the whole virtual fiasco again.

 

That's the beauty of the Earthcache model of dedicated Virtual Cache reviewers. A small number of reviewers, who only review Virtual caches would be appointed. People who want to be Virtual Cache reviewers, and willingly take on the job. Certainly, there are qualified, and willing people. We wouldn't want Keystone to quit over this, would we? :ph34r:

 

Guidelines would have to be written. It would have to be relatively difficult to get a "new Virtual" approved. You know, something along the lines such that every roadside historical marker in America didn't end up being a virtual cache. :)

How you do it without using the term "wow" factor? :blink:

 

Substitute the term "coolness quotient"?

Link to comment
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.

You've completely missed my point. i'm just adding a little actual history to the mix to the counter some of the revisionist history we are constantly fed in these forums.

 

Yes, the volunteers voted, but not necessarily the hiders and the seekers. What most people fail to take into account is how a small number of people have imposed their personal views of what caching is on everyone else. Telling other people how to play the game is allegedly an anathema around these forums, yet we only play the way we are allowed to play. If someone threatens to quit if virtuals are brought back. Let them. Thank them for their service and then give the a hearty handshake and a hale farewell. Holding the game hostage is a vile act and it should not be tolerated.

 

Groundspeak will act if enough people get riled up about something, such as the challenge counts and the dropping of Google maps. I wonder if they would have brought back Google maps had some volunteers threatened to quit if they did.

Edited by B+L
Link to comment

I seem to remember something about the reviewers threatening to quit if they had to deal with the whole virtual fiasco again.

 

That's the beauty of the Earthcache model of dedicated Virtual Cache reviewers. A small number of reviewers, who only review Virtual caches would be appointed. People who want to be Virtual Cache reviewers, and willingly take on the job. Certainly, there are qualified, and willing people. We wouldn't want Keystone to quit over this, would we? :ph34r:

 

Guidelines would have to be written. It would have to be relatively difficult to get a "new Virtual" approved. You know, something along the lines such that every roadside historical marker in America didn't end up being a virtual cache. :)

How you do it without using the term "wow" factor? :blink:

 

Substitute the term "coolness quotient"?

 

Well, I guess it would kind of be a wow factor, or coolness quotient. Just because a much smaller Groundspeak couldn't figure out how to define the wow factor during the wow factor period of two years, from May 2003 to August 2005, and threw out Waymarking instead, doesn't mean a much larger Groundspeak, and much larger Geocaching community couldn't come up with something now.

 

I have not seen a problem with lame virtuals at any of the alternative websites that still accept virtuals. Yes, we all know we can't make a roadside historical marker for the site of a log cabin in the middle of the City that was torn down in 1850 into a virtual cache. It wouldn't be very difficult to write stuff like that out of guidelines.

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

 

Do people really believe that there are enough people who would volunteer to be dedicated reviewers to deal with all the virtual cache submissions, most of which would not be "Wow" or pass whatever "coolness" guideline you came up with?

 

If there are really people out there who would volunteer for this thankless task and not burn out after a few weeks of dealing with the mostly junk they would see to get a few good virtuals, then why haven't any of them volunteered to create Waymarking categories that are more like the virtual caches they liked so much.

 

Yes Waymarking is different than virtual caches and there are few categories that are interesting to other then a special interest group like one that likes old train stations or another who want to know the location of every Starbucks. However there is nothing in the Waymarking rules that prevents someone from creating a category that has broad appeal like virtual caches. You can even create categories based on nothing but the "wowness" factor (if you can come up with a definition), perhaps even a category where you don't know what it is you will find till you visit the location. You can even can have logging requirements beyond taking a taking a picture. Granted these Waymarking categories are still not virtual caches as they don't count in your Geocaching.com statistics and you don't get a list of those nearby included in your geocaching pocket query. So you can pretty much count on fewer visits and on fewer submissions as well.

 

Still for over 5 years, I would invite people in threads like this to checkout the Best Kept Secrets Waymarking category and encourage others to try to improve Waymarking by carving out a niche for those who like virtual caches. But I got nowhere. After all it wasn't virtual caches; and it was on another website that they had no interest in checking out. But I think, as well, it was because it was too much work to setup such a category. Too much work to come up with definitions that describe what makes a good virtual cache. Too much work to review submissions. Too much work to reject those that didn't meet your guidelines.

 

In all those years there were no other categories like Best Kept Secrets set up. There are only 51 members of the "Wow" waymarkers group, and I doubt many are active. I seldom hear from anyone. When we get a submission I'm lucky to get one of the three other officers to vote on it.

 

When I hear that there are people who are going to volunteer to review virtual caches like the EarthCache reviewers review EarthCaches, I can only do this :rolleyes:

Link to comment

However there is nothing in the Waymarking rules that prevents someone from creating a category that has broad appeal like virtual caches.

 

Regardless of whether the category is of broad or narrow appeal, there are several preventing factors, one is that PM-ship is required (like for creating challenges btw) and another one is that is means a commitment to reviewing.

 

What I would like to do is to implement a small number of ideas in a virtual manner. I do not want to be involved with the worldwide submissions of others and actually I also do not care that much about the quality of the submissions of others. In my area there will never be a large number of submissions as long the activity does not add to the find count, so I have no reason to worry about too many lame submissions. It can never become worse than for physical geocaches and I'm thus used to filtering out manually anyway.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

However there is nothing in the Waymarking rules that prevents someone from creating a category that has broad appeal like virtual caches.

 

Regardless of whether the category is of broad or narrow appeal, there are several preventing factors, one is that PM-ship is required (like for creating challenges btw) and another one is that is means a commitment to reviewing.

 

What I would like to do is to implement a small number of ideas in a virtual manner. I do not want to be involved with the worldwide submissions of others and actually I also do not care that much about the quality of the submissions of others. In my area there will never be a large number of submissions as long the activity does not add to the find count, so I have no reason to worry about too many lame submissions. It can never become worse than for physical geocaches and I'm thus used to filtering out manually anyway.

 

Cezanne

So, you've been using the site for 10 years, don't want to pay, and want them to tailor something for your very specific, fairly exclusive taste?

 

Ayep, I'm sure they'll get right to work on that.

Link to comment

I seem to remember something about the reviewers threatening to quit if they had to deal with the whole virtual fiasco again.

I belive that is correct. I don't blame them. Use virtual reviewers, I'm sure some would volunteer.

Wont be me because I dont want death threats. There was plenty of that going during the "wow" factor days. :blink: I think thats one of the reason GS wants to get away from virtual. Too many cachers take it too personal when they were told no. I think virtuals will be still around if people know how to control themselves.

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!

 

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:

The flaw in this logic is that Earthcaches deal with a very narrow area of expertise (Geology) with guidelines specific to that narrow area. The people who volunteer to review EarthCaches do so because they have an interest in geology. I don't, so I'm not an EarthCache reviewer. In contrast, a general virtual reviewer group would need to be jacks of all trades - just like the reviewer group was from 2001-2005 when we had to deal with virtual submissions on topics that often didn't interest us, and about which we had little knowledge.

 

I'd gladly volunteer to be a HistoryCache reviewer if Groundspeak ever partnered with a sponsor like they did with GSA for EarthCaches. I like history, and I know it well. But if I'm ever asked to review another "funny street sign" virtual, just shoot me.

 

So, you'd need history buffs to review history virtuals, restaurant buffs to review eatery virtuals, geneology fans to review cemetery virtuals, and so forth. Sort of like Waymarking Category Management Groups, eh??

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

So, you've been using the site for 10 years, don't want to pay, and want them to tailor something for your very specific, fairly exclusive taste?

 

Above all, I don't want to give them my real name (for the same reason I never would apply for an EC master level) and they do not offer a way of an anonymous membership (there exist gift memberships, but then still someone would be on file they could somehow force to give out my name just in case ....).

 

I do not think that educational caches outside of Earthcaches are that exclusive and they could easily be implemented in a reviewerless manner by handling challenges like caches, but with no reviewing process and no inclusion to the find count. No new work would be needed.

 

I do not expect them to tailor anything for me. I did not post a feature request and never whined about the status quo. I just replied to another posting who made a claim that was too general.

One can have an interest into a type of virtual cache that is not covered by Waymarking, challenges and whatever.

I would be willing to pay much more than 30$ a year for a community based and governed system that does not consider geocachers as kindergarten children playing in a sandbox offered to them by generosity.

 

Moreover, it is not me who is losing anything if I can't implement my virtual ideas - the potential visitors are losing something. It makes sense to me to restrict special services to paying members, but offering activities to others is a service to the community and not a service that the creating person profits from. However, Groundspeak is a company and is free to decide whatever they want. I do not need to think that all their decisions are logical. That's not an issue of paying or not paying.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I seem to remember something about the reviewers threatening to quit if they had to deal with the whole virtual fiasco again.

 

That's the beauty of the Earthcache model of dedicated Virtual Cache reviewers. A small number of reviewers, who only review Virtual caches would be appointed. People who want to be Virtual Cache reviewers, and willingly take on the job. Certainly, there are qualified, and willing people. We wouldn't want Keystone to quit over this, would we? :ph34r:

 

Guidelines would have to be written. It would have to be relatively difficult to get a "new Virtual" approved. You know, something along the lines such that every roadside historical marker in America didn't end up being a virtual cache. :)

 

As I understand it earth caches are reviewed by people that are from outside groundspeaks structure. Geology experts. I doubt that will work for a catch all virtual category. While I do know several people who claim to know everything about everything I have yet to find any who will confirm the others expertise.

 

I'm not sure where all this is coming from, but one of our local reviewers is the also one of the GeoAware reviewers for part of Europe. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case with all of them. It's my guess that because of the stringent rules, most notably, explicit permission including a name and contact number for those giving it, keeps the new Earthcache subtitles to a minimum. Would this work for Virtuals? Who knows? What I do know is that I was a big fan of bringing virtuals back and was really excited when we all thought that was going to happen. Instead, we got Challenges and I quickly became aware that the majority of what was being submitted was stupid nonsense. Without extremely stringent rules, I believe that the exact same thing would happen if they brought back Virtuals. Also, except for the virtuals that I found in Glacier National Park, every other virtual that I have found could have very easily supported a small cache. In fact, about half of them were converted from traditional caches when the container went missing and the CO was either to lazy, or lived to far away to replace it.

 

After watching what happened with Challenges, I no longer support the idea of bringing back Virtual caches. I just don't think that there is a workable solution.

Link to comment

Instead, we got Challenges and I quickly became aware that the majority of what was being submitted was stupid nonsense.

 

The nonsense I have seen in my area in the starting phase was mainly triggered by Groundspeak (first, by originally including challenges into the find count and second, by introducing action challenges and encouraging tasks that are far from what typically arises for a virtual cache). There might exist regional differences, however.

There are tons of lame caches in my area, but only 17 challenges overall. None of these challenges attracts my personal interest, but that's another topic and is mainly due to the restrictions inherent in challenges (no ownership, very short descriptions only, only photo challenges available) and not due to the system itself.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
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.

You've completely missed my point. i'm just adding a little actual history to the mix to the counter some of the revisionist history we are constantly fed in these forums.

 

Yes, the volunteers voted, but not necessarily the hiders and the seekers. What most people fail to take into account is how a small number of people have imposed their personal views of what caching is on everyone else. Telling other people how to play the game is allegedly an anathema around these forums, yet we only play the way we are allowed to play. If someone threatens to quit if virtuals are brought back. Let them. Thank them for their service and then give the a hearty handshake and a hale farewell. Holding the game hostage is a vile act and it should not be tolerated.

 

Groundspeak will act if enough people get riled up about something, such as the challenge counts and the dropping of Google maps. I wonder if they would have brought back Google maps had some volunteers threatened to quit if they did.

Groundspeak doesn't have to act. They hold more than a 95% share of the worldwide geocaching activity. Their vision rules whether we like it or not.

 

I was more responding to the Mike Teague quote that you used. And you missed my point. The hiders have spoken. They vote with evey type of hide the vocal minority comes here to complain about. They would hide virtuals and any other cache type they are allowed to, but they'll do it regardless of the vocal minority. All the parking lot caches, guardrail caches, dumpster caches, and power trails are proof of that. It's ALL hide and seek.

 

No one is holding the game hostage. Growndspeak OWNS the largest database of caches and makes up the rules for its listings. We are all free to hide caches on a competing listing service. Most have virts and TC has a thriving database of locationless caches.

 

Nope. No hostages. We are at the mercy of the 800 pound gorilla here. If you want to play here, you play by the rules and requirements you are given and abide by what GS believes geocaching should be. You're free to disagree. I disagree with some of them, but I'm still at 90% satisfaction on my time investment here.....

Edited by Snoogans
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!

 

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:

The flaw in this logic is that Earthcaches deal with a very narrow area of expertise (Geology) with guidelines specific to that narrow area. The people who volunteer to review EarthCaches do so because they have an interest in geology. I don't, so I'm not an EarthCache reviewer. In contrast, a general virtual reviewer group would need to be jacks of all trades - just like the reviewer group was from 2001-2005 when we had to deal with virtual submissions on topics that often didn't interest us, and about which we had little knowledge.

 

I'd gladly volunteer to be a HistoryCache reviewer if Groundspeak ever partnered with a sponsor like they did with GSA for EarthCaches. I like history, and I know it well. But if I'm ever asked to review another "funny street sign" virtual, just shoot me.

 

So, you'd need history buffs to review history virtuals, restaurant buffs to review eatery virtuals, geneology fans to review cemetery virtuals, and so forth. Sort of like Waymarking Category Management Groups, eh??

 

The flaw in this logic is that Mr. Yuck is saying a new era Virtual Cache reviewer would need any special qualifications above and beyond the regular reviewers qualifications as stated in the knowledge books. You didn't quote GOF, (whose mouth you should have left duct taped at Geowoodstock, by the way :( ), but this seems to in line with his post saying how the Earthcache reviewers possess special knowledge and qualifications in Geology. Earthcaches have their own guidelines, and so of course "new virtuals" would have to.

 

I am saying this whole thing could be so as to not impose the extra work on the existing review team. And of course to avoid the imminent world-wide reviewer rebellion, if this workload was imposed. :lol:

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.

 

me hung up on numbers? You got the wrong guy. I don't give a clam's patootie about numbers. Fact is though that many geocachers are all about numbers, to the detriment of the game in many cases.

Link to comment

What I do know is that I was a big fan of bringing virtuals back and was really excited when we all thought that was going to happen. Instead, we got Challenges and I quickly became aware that the majority of what was being submitted was stupid nonsense. Without extremely stringent rules, I believe that the exact same thing would happen if they brought back Virtuals. Also, except for the virtuals that I found in Glacier National Park, every other virtual that I have found could have very easily supported a small cache.

 

My reaction to challenges was the same. Groundspeak seemed to have no idea why many of us had been asking virtuals to return and implemented them in a way that seemed to encourage things that had little or no relation to a location-based game. If going to an ice cream parlor, having your picture taken swimming in cold water, or playing charades were what the return of virtuals might mean, then I would never want to see them return.

 

Still, I know how virtuals have extended the game for me. I have not been to Glacier, but they brought this game into places like Yosemite, Zion, and Incan salt ponds in Peru. And I have found virtuals in other areas -- ghost towns, historical sites, and the like -- where they seemed more appropriate than physical containers. To be sure, I have also found some that were nothing more than something on a guard rail or a number from a mailbox, but I have also found "traditionals" that are nothing more than a film can stuck in a lamp post.

 

So I continue to think that the virtuals would not present insurmountable problems -- a number of things have been proposed over the years ranging from strict numerical limits (if you could only place one, perhaps it would be good) to firm educational guidelines or a category managed by a separate group of reviewers. But it is all theory unless Groundspeak decides to revisit the issue, which seems unlikely at the moment. Unless an official organization approaches Groundspeak with a proposal for certain types of educational caches (like the GSA did with earthcaches), then the most we will get is periodic threads asking questions or speculating about different approaches.

Link to comment

it would not hurt if GS ever took applications for new (and/or returning) virtual volunteers to be a different set of them than the existing volunteers so no one is forced to be a virtual volunteer. I know folks who would be interested assuming a clear definition was made to what we could allow and not (and maybe a limit on how many one could make in a trial phase).

 

As far as a prior poster who referenced the lack of Waymarking volunteer interested as a gauge to the virtual ones...I have had no desire to do the Waymarking because its a different website and counted differently. One site is enough for me.

 

Personally, I can't imagine bringing them back is a bad thing. Some of my favorite caches have been virtuals, even if I mainly seem the cream of the crop.

 

And no, the new "challenges" have not been a replacement for me in many ways, though they are not the worst thing since Diet Mountain Dew.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

And you missed my point..

I get your point just fine. It just has nothing to do with what I said. Your linked thread is pretty entertaining, so thanks for that. So, if threatening to quit isn't holding the game hostage, then it must be extortion.

Not extortion.... An excuse. You know, let em eat cake. It's good to be the king.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

Challenges are interpreted as being very different than virtuals, which is why they are not popular. The history of what they included when they were introduced, as well as the icon and the name, keeps cachers from trying them. However, the ones that I have noticed are nearly identicle to virtuals. They should name them virtual challenges, or use a morphed virtual icon since they are so similar.

 

A recent news article, although accurate, prominently mentions virtuals in a way, as if they are still currently being listed.

 

Caches can be physical, such as watertight containers in tucked-away places. A typical cache will have small trinkets to take away and a log book containing a record of the people who have found it.

 

And some caches are virtual, according to geocacher Colleen Hearn of Lansdale.

 

There is no physical cache for you to find; you must go to the location and answer a question or take a photo and email the owner to prove you were there, said Hearn.

 

Some of my favorites Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Grand Tetons, Yosemite all of the national parks are loaded with virtual caches because you cant hide a physical cache in them.

 

They really should just archive all existing virtuals and have them moved to Challenges.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment
Personally, I can't imagine bringing them back is a bad thing. Some of my favorite caches have been virtuals, even if I mainly seem the cream of the crop.

 

And you are indeed seeing the cream. The problem at the time was that virtuals were becoming the LPC of the day. People were submitting the most mundane things as virtuals. If virtuals continued unfettered in their original form, I suspect that there wouldn't be a plaque in the country that was not a virtual by now (a bit of an exaggeration but not by much).

 

I bet that those who are so enamored of virtuals today might not think so highly of them after finding 10 flagpoles, 5 sewer grates and 7 plaques saying "This bench donated by the Slobovia County Chamber of Commerce" in an afternoon.

 

That is what we'd have if we went back to the way virtuals were before the "wow factor".

 

Bring them back under the "wow factor"? Then the defacto ban on virtuals continues. It was nearly impossible to get a virtual published. I don't have the statistics for the number of virts published during the wow factor years, but if the number reaches 3 digits I'd be surprised.

 

Then instead of the monthly "bring back virtuals" threads, we'll be back to the weekly "Waahhh, waahhh the reviewer didn't like my virtual" threads.

Link to comment

How you do it without using the term "wow" factor? :blink:

I'm on the fence about the re-introduction of virtual caches, but the whole "it will overwhelm our Volunteer Reviews" argument seems like a rather lame excuse to me.

 

If you want to keep the numbers down, then let Premium Members submit only one virtual cache per month (or per year).

 

If you want to promote quality virtuals, then automatically archive all virtual caches (with at least 10 finds by Premium Members) that fail to maintain a minimum 10%-favorited threshold (or some other appropriate threshold).

Link to comment

Bring them back under the "wow factor"? Then the defacto ban on virtuals continues. It was nearly impossible to get a virtual published. I don't have the statistics for the number of virts published during the wow factor years, but if the number reaches 3 digits I'd be surprised.

I got my Hidden Dragon virtual published under the wow factor requirement. It helped that SoCal Reviewer knew the area and was just as surprised to find out about it as most folks that know the area are when they finally see it.

Link to comment

I suspect that as a web site development company Groundspeak was looking to develop new product lines. Virtual caches fell into the Geocaching Product Line, so they had to go so that Waymarking as a stand alone web site could be developed. When that one cratered, they sought to re visit and develop a new product for Smart Phone users and that product is Challenges. Challenges seemingly are not generating much interest among cachers and only seem to be popular in Germany. But it struck me as being part of an attempt to develop other business avenues. Groundspeak and this geocaching web site are not geocaching per se, they are business vehicles that cater to a group of consumers who happen to geocache. They choose to not provide virtual listing as they are pursuing alternative business avenues. Geocachers seem to think that the product needs to be offered to them, Groundspeak seem to say that they prefer to offer other product lines that will lead to expansion of their market.

Link to comment

Okay, let's do a quick Wow! test. http://coord.info/GCGKG2 - Plenty of photos in the gallery.

 

Yes or no, does this pass your personal Wow!

 

Yes, people all look to be having fun.

Are you serious?

 

I dont see any "wow" factor in that virtual. Yep, its a lame virtual for sure. People do them because they are rare and not many around. And they get a smiley. I am surprise the reviewer published it. :blink:

 

All virtual are "wow" now because they are rare and grandfathered. If virtual are still allowed today, people wouldnt be doing that one.

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.

 

Yep, thats why some people want virtual back because all they are seeing are the best of the best. At one time, it wasnt that way.

(Pssst... the OP's account goes back to 2001.)

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.

 

Yep, thats why some people want virtual back because all they are seeing are the best of the best. At one time, it wasnt that way.

(Pssst... the OP's account goes back to 2001.)

Well may be true, but pull up the stat page and see how often they been caching. A few a year isnt much to know whats going on.

Link to comment

How you do it without using the term "wow" factor? :blink:

I'm on the fence about the re-introduction of virtual caches, but the whole "it will overwhelm our Volunteer Reviews" argument seems like a rather lame excuse to me.

 

If you want to keep the numbers down, then let Premium Members submit only one virtual cache per month (or per year).

 

If you want to promote quality virtuals, then automatically archive all virtual caches (with at least 10 finds by Premium Members) that fail to maintain a minimum 10%-favorited threshold (or some other appropriate threshold).

 

It wasn't the volume of virtuals that overwhelmed reviewers, it was animosity that they had to deal with. Everybody seemed to think their virtual was special, so when the reviewer declined it it was like someone telling them their baby was ugly. The constant arguing over the things is what was tiresome for many reviewers. The wow factor has too much subjectivity and puts the reviewers in the uncomfortable position of becoming arbiters of cache quality.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Yes or no, does this pass your personal Wow!

 

Yes, people all look to be having fun.

Are you serious?

 

Oh, wait am I serious, only sometimes. When I go caching, I am decidely not serious, because I cache on bike and by hike with friends and by myself to get out and have some fun. Caching for me is recreation. When I look at the gallery and see people laughing and having a good time with each other and logging in with Favorites then I know that the problem is not with me, it is well with others who can not abide that some people have fun geocaching.

Link to comment

How you do it without using the term "wow" factor? :blink:

I'm on the fence about the re-introduction of virtual caches, but the whole "it will overwhelm our Volunteer Reviews" argument seems like a rather lame excuse to me.

 

If you want to keep the numbers down, then let Premium Members submit only one virtual cache per month (or per year).

 

If you want to promote quality virtuals, then automatically archive all virtual caches (with at least 10 finds by Premium Members) that fail to maintain a minimum 10%-favorited threshold (or some other appropriate threshold).

 

It wasn't the volume of virtuals that overwhelmed reviewers, it was animosity that they had to deal with. Everybody seemed to think their virtual was special, so when the reviewer declined it it was like someone telling them their baby was ugly. The constant arguing over the things is what was tiresome for many reviewers. The wow factor has too much subjectivity and puts the reviewers in the uncomfortable position of becoming arbiters of cache quality.

 

As I have said before, reviewers are not the aprbiters of what is good and what is bad, they should never have gotten into that mode, more problems have arisen when reviewers attempt to impose their idea of good or bad, safe or unsafe. More people have animus toward reviewers who do that. Locally it has produced no shortage of ill will.

Link to comment

How you do it without using the term "wow" factor? :blink:

I'm on the fence about the re-introduction of virtual caches, but the whole "it will overwhelm our Volunteer Reviews" argument seems like a rather lame excuse to me.

 

If you want to keep the numbers down, then let Premium Members submit only one virtual cache per month (or per year).

 

If you want to promote quality virtuals, then automatically archive all virtual caches (with at least 10 finds by Premium Members) that fail to maintain a minimum 10%-favorited threshold (or some other appropriate threshold).

It wasn't the volume of virtuals that overwhelmed reviewers, it was animosity that they had to deal with. Everybody seemed to think their virtual was special, so when the reviewer declined it it was like someone telling them their baby was ugly. The constant arguing over the things is what was tiresome for many reviewers. The wow factor has too much subjectivity and puts the reviewers in the uncomfortable position of becoming arbiters of cache quality.

If you want to avoid animosity towards reviewers and still promote quality virtuals, then automatically archive all virtual caches (with at least 10 finds by Premium Members) that fail to maintain a minimum 10%-favorited threshold (or some other appropriate threshold).

Link to comment

Okay, let's do a quick Wow! test. http://coord.info/GCGKG2 - Plenty of photos in the gallery.

 

Yes or no, does this pass your personal Wow!

 

My taste in quick stops along the road runs more toward this virtual. But I don't take the wow factor too seriously as a measure that should be readopted since it probably has been a couple of years since I have been wowed by a traditional cache.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

It wasn't the volume of virtuals that overwhelmed reviewers, it was animosity that they had to deal with. Everybody seemed to think their virtual was special, so when the reviewer declined it it was like someone telling them their baby was ugly. The constant arguing over the things is what was tiresome for many reviewers. The wow factor has too much subjectivity and puts the reviewers in the uncomfortable position of becoming arbiters of cache quality.

That's all due to the wow factor being imposed, so the pain was self-inflicted.

 

The argument about all the crappy virtuals seems pretty bogus when compared to the all the crappy traditionals and it's just getting worse. We used to be able to use geocaches as a way to find places we might not have found otherwise. These days we mostly do the reverse. We go to places we where we want to be and if there's a cache there, it's a sideshow, not the main event. Life's just too short to spend the time required to sift through all the dreck to find something good. Some people are happy finding them all (or at least claiming to) and that's fine if that's what they want, but we want something better.

 

Good virtuals are fun. A lot of people seem to forget that.

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.

 

 

Not sure how the same argument would have been possible to use since virtual placements did/would not block a physical placement.

The proximity rule used to apply to all cache types, including virtuals, plus people claimed the sheer number of virtuals would overwhelm the "real" caches.

Link to comment

Okay, let's do a quick Wow! test. http://coord.info/GCGKG2 - Plenty of photos in the gallery.

 

Yes or no, does this pass your personal Wow!

 

OMG, OMG, OMG. It was approved during the "Wow factor" period. When you couldn't get a virtual published in my State to save your life. I will be having no further comment on the inconsistencies that took place during that time period. No, that does not meet my personal "wow factor". :P

Edited by Mr.Yuck
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...