Virtual Caches

[4wheelin_fool]

Another cacher in favor of new virtuals!

 

Wild speculation is that new virtuals will return as identically the same as the recently deceased Challenges.

 

If they had just called them virtuals to begin with..

[+Frank Broughton]

There would be no "Wow factor" to define, if TPTB didn't put the "Wow factor" in place in the first place. Why was there a Wow factor? Too many lame ones were being submitted? A quarter million or so, and growing daily, parking lot micros on private property without permission tells me they couldn't give a hoot about "lame ones being submitted".

 

Good point Mr Yuck. Getting headache though from this thread.... I better back out before I get banned again for getting personal at the pile oners....

Edited December 9, 2012 by Frank Broughton

[+tozainamboku]

There would be no "Wow factor" to define, if TPTB didn't put the "Wow factor" in place in the first place. Why was there a Wow factor? Too many lame ones were being submitted? A quarter million or so, and growing daily, parking lot micros on private property without permission tells me they couldn't give a hoot about "lame ones being submitted".

 

Good point Mr Yuck.

There's a difference between a micro hidden in a parking lot without permission and a virtual cache to get the numbers off the green transformer box in the same parking lot.

 

The hope is that you won't have a quarter million or so caches hidden without permission. If people ignore the permission guidelines, then perhaps we can count on the bomb squad blowing up suspicious containers or property owners contacting Groundspeak to get the cache archived. And as more of this happens the more that it would occur to people that you could just have people report the numbers they found on the transformer box.

 

Even though these parking lots are private, nobody is going to get arrested for trespassing when they get numbers off an existing object in the parking lot. And no matter how suspicious they look copying numbers from a transformer, the bomb squad isn't going to find an Altoid tin they can blow up. Maybe a security guard will get suspicious and chase you away. But since is should take less time to get the number than to find a magnetic keyholder, I suspect that most people will have gotten this smiley long before security gets there. With nothing to go missing and no need to ask permission (or even pretend to ask permission), the virtual is the perfect parking lot cache.

 

Groundspeak made the decision that if people are going to hide caches in parking lots they should at least be physical caches. And I suspect they hoped that permission and other guidelines about selecting appropriate locations and containers would be followed, or that at least people would be aware of the guidelines and consider placing their caches someplace else.

Edited December 9, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+Manville Possum]

Another cacher in favor of new virtuals!

 

Wild speculation is that new virtuals will return as identically the same as the recently deceased Challenges.

 

I hope so, the value of my PM just went down with the time and effort that I put into my listings. I think they could have been salvaged, but agree that they had issues plenty. We had no control over our listings and I guess that too many wanted Groundspeak to remove fake logs, ect., and they just became too much trouble for the Company. I'm sure that we will be compensated with better mistakes.

[+Bear5719]

Here's our two cents for what it is worth.

 

-

 

- Neither Waymarking, nor the now extinct Challenges, were truly substitutes for what virtuals were. There has been much discussion already about that, no need to re-hash it here. One of the key elements for us, having paid to be premium members since we started in 2005, if memory serves, is to have a one stop shopping where all of our "language of location" needs are met. For us that means all finds count in one place. Not interested in going to another website with separate counts (Waymarking, benchmarks), or having two tallies (Challenges). Not interested in going to the other non-Groundspeak sites for geocaching that provide some of these services as well. We'd like to have one stop shopping at WWW.Geocaching.com. That is what we want to pay for, and we'd be willing to suck up a little more cost, if only Groundspeak would be willing to provide it. Mr. Irish & Co. this bullet is aimed directly at you.

 

- We find it interesting that there has been so little mention of the one sort of virtual cache that is still still permitted, earth caches, in this discussion. We believe that earth caches offer the template for how a variety of categories of virtual caches might be re-introduced. Think Historocache, Memorialcache, as two examples. Virtuals which have specific and measurable requirements that must be met in order to get approved. Not some undefinable "WOW" factor.

 

Lastly, we'd reiterate that we all should be able to choose to pursue what caches we like. If you can't stomach a hide that has no container, then just ignore those, much like we do with most puzzle caches. But to the powers that be, we'd offer that it is counter productive to limit our choices.

 

Happy hunting all, whatever it is you search for!

 

Well Said, because this expresses my thoughts to a tee! Thanks so much!

[+Bear5719]

I'm gonna let my amazing spouse speak here--he said geocaching has always been about the location! Regardless of the type of container-physical, virtual, EC, CITO, etc., the common theme is location, location, location. Yeah, we have lots of cute containers, cute names, and logs, pictures, pins, coins and all that Swag! in fact, an awful lot of the traditional caches are named for their location! But, it has always been about the find, the location and the adventure.

My point in all this is discussion is to point out that by discontinuing virtuals I feel that some very interesting locations are lost without good cause. I find geocaching just a whole lot of fun-in fact-its my favorite hobby and I have several. Geocaching is a little zen to me-its a walk in the park, a stroll along the city street, a hunt in the woods, or even a historical plaque, but in the end, regardless of the approach, the find, the swag--it's all about the location.

 

So a virtual is a cache placed at a location, there's just no container! If a cacher is true to the sport and a good player, he will place a virtual at a location where there's something interesting, informative, historical, instructional or otherwise attractive to geocachers. I don't know about the "wow" factor. I personally think that's a bit of marketspeak invented to justify discontinuing virtuals. you could say "zip", "pizazz" (i know that dates me), but it's all the same.

 

I think, properly placed and interestingly selected, all caches have "wow". "Wow, we found it!" "Wow, isn't that a neat container!" "Wow, i never knew that!" And of course, "Wow! What a great location!" We have "wowed" at virtuals of 20-foot tall sculpted eagles, Cadillacs buried nose down in the Texas Prairie, a statue of an unknown physician in Washington, DC (and you thought they were all of dead white politicians), and another statue in Washington of Mahatma Gandhi. And anyone who has not found the virtual at the WWII Memorial in DC, and who knows the history of that awful conflagration, needs to find the virtual at that awe-inspiring memorial. One of my favorites, and i never would have seen it had it not been for virtuals. What a great location!

 

I think we need to bring back virtuals just so we can visit some of those wonderful locations and learn about things we don't know, see things we would never see, and visit places that no man has been before (where is Ms Captain Piccard, anyway?). I think they give added value to the customers, the stakeholder (US!), and all those wonderful folks out there who make geocaching it a most interesting and fun sport!

 

Where are the mods? Is there a real possibly that some folks who have expressed a desire to "Bring back virtuals" can be heard?

 

Thanks All, because there has been some good discussion, both for and against, going on.

Mary-AKA-theMamaBear

[+tozainamboku]

I'm gonna let my amazing spouse speak here--he said geocaching has always been about the location! Regardless of the type of container-physical, virtual, EC, CITO, etc., the common theme is location, location, location.

Yes I understand that what many people like about geocaching is that it takes you to new and for the most part interesting locations. It appeals to the explorer in us. And of course Groundspeak knows this and they certainly present geocaching this way.

 

However there are also many people for whom geocaching is about finding geocaches that have been left by other. This is a much more simple game of hide and seek. The need for a location to be novel or have a special interest is not important. The idea is simply to find more caches. So these individuals will leave caches in parking lots at fast food restaurants or create power trails with caches every .1 miles.

 

Now it would be nice if these two groups could play nice and simply ignore what they don't want to find. But I'm not sure that is likely to happen.

 

One problem with allowing virtual caches is that they would be available to both groups. Sure some people looking for ways to share interesting location without having to hide a physical cache would place more virtual caches like these. But the group that just wants more caches to find would use them as well to cut down on maintenance visits and to avoid the need to get permission.

 

It is always harder to place a physical cache. You need to have a container and log, you need to find a hiding place that won't get muggled, and you need to get permission in most cases. With virtual caches you don't need any of these. You just need coordinates and theoretically some object that can be identified by the finder to take a picture of or answer questions about.

 

We hear the argument that virtual caches will only be used in places where you can't put a physical cache. But I'm not sure what that really means. Many people will point out that micros are often placed in parking lots ostensibly with out getting permission. If you had virtual caches as an option, than anyone who asks for permission and gets turned down, may in fact turn around an make it a virtual cache. Not only that but if people had the option to place a virtual, they might decide this is easier than even bother to ask permission in the first place.

 

Not surprisingly, when park managers knew about the option to have a virtual cache, they would adopt rules to allow only virtual caches. I'm not sure why we were so happy that virtuals allowed us to geocache in these areas. I think this simply hid the fact that some places didn't allow physical caches. Sure the National Parks are cool places to visit, but I'm not sure why we need virtual cache to get us to. It's like saying you need a micro in the parking lot in order to go shopping at Walmart.

 

One problem that the old virtual caches caused was dealt with when they were grandfathered. Virtual locations were removed from the proximity rules. So it is possible now that if someone makes some historic marker in a city park a virtual cache, someone else could hide a micro 10 feet away. Given this rule it may be possible to allow virtual caches and those who don't want to look at them will simply ignore them. However, I suspect that others will be more than happy to get two smilies. Eventually people may realize that the could put a virtual cache at every physical cache location to double their find count. At that point I suspect there will be a big outcry to get rid of virtual caches (or at least to have special requirements for placing them).

[cezanne]

However, I suspect that others will be more than happy to get two smilies.

 

For that reason and to reduce the rate of lame virtuals, my suggestion I made before is introduce separate counters for virtuals, but make them searchable from cache pages by the nearvy command (an option even available for waymarks which was missing for challenges who have been almost a complete fail due to the clumsy implementation not directed to geocachers but rather to those who want to play a game with their smartphone).

[+geodarts]

One problem with allowing virtual caches is that they would be available to both groups. Sure some people looking for ways to share interesting location without having to hide a physical cache would place more virtual caches like these. But the group that just wants more caches to find would use them as well to cut down on maintenance visits and to avoid the need to get permission.

 

I suppose it would depend on how virtuals were implemented. It does not have to be that way.

 

Not surprisingly, when park managers knew about the option to have a virtual cache, they would adopt rules to allow only virtual caches. I'm not sure why we were so happy that virtuals allowed us to geocache in these areas. I think this simply hid the fact that some places didn't allow physical caches. Sure the National Parks are cool places to visit, but I'm not sure why we need virtual cache to get us to. It's like saying you need a micro in the parking lot in order to go shopping at Walmart.

 

I agree in part. The manager for the national park lands in my area has told me that traditional caching will never be allowed on his watch and the park removed 95% of the caches that had been grandfathered into the area by Groundspeak. It had nothing to do with whether virtual caches provided an alternative. I don't think they needed to point to an alternative - whether it be virtuals, earthcaches, waymarks, challenges, or any other location based game. They were concerned with the impact of containers on their land. He was willing to approve earthcaches that did not have that perceived impact.

 

Still, it is beside the point to ask if I need to have a virtual to visit a national park. It is like saying that I don't need to have a camera to visit a national park -- it may be true but photography adds to the trip. In the same way, virtuals have enhanced my experience at national parks and have been a valuable part of my experience as part of this game. They have taken me to places in a park that I would not have discovered or helped me to see things in new ways. Perhaps I would have stood at Toroweap without a virtual, but it definitely helped get me there. Without virtuals I would not have had fun discoveries in any number of places - from Yosemite to Incan Salt Ponds - where traditional caching is not appropriate.

 

Do we need to have caching to take us anywhere? Perhaps not. But it is nice when this game can include unique places.

[+Ambrosia]

And anyone who has not found the virtual at the WWII Memorial in DC, and who knows the history of that awful conflagration, needs to find the virtual at that awe-inspiring memorial. One of my favorites, and i never would have seen it had it not been for virtuals. What a great location!

 

I'm not trying to pick, I'm just curious about this statement. Are you saying that without a virtual at the WWII Memorial, you would not have visited it?

 

I guess I'm asking because I understand when a virtual takes you to someplace obscure, or something you didn't even know about without the virt, but the WWII Memorial is a pretty major stop for DC tourists.

[+briansnat]

They were concerned with the impact of containers on their land. He was willing to approve earthcaches that did not have that perceived impact.

 

Interesting. As if the grass you walk on and bush you walk through cares whether you're there for a virtual or a real cache.

 

And anyone who has not found the virtual at the WWII Memorial in DC, and who knows the history of that awful conflagration, needs to find the virtual at that awe-inspiring memorial. One of my favorites, and i never would have seen it had it not been for virtuals. What a great location!

 

So you never would have found it if someone found a way to make it a real cache?

[+Ambrosia]

They were concerned with the impact of containers on their land. He was willing to approve earthcaches that did not have that perceived impact.

 

Interesting. As if the grass you walk on and bush you walk through cares whether you're there for a virtual or a real cache.

 

And anyone who has not found the virtual at the WWII Memorial in DC, and who knows the history of that awful conflagration, needs to find the virtual at that awe-inspiring memorial. One of my favorites, and i never would have seen it had it not been for virtuals. What a great location!

 

So you never would have found it if someone found a way to make it a real cache?

 

Lol, you and I think too much alike, Brian.

[+Packanack]

They were concerned with the impact of containers on their land. He was willing to approve earthcaches that did not have that perceived impact.

 

Interesting. As if the grass you walk on and bush you walk through cares whether you're there for a virtual or a real cache.

 

And anyone who has not found the virtual at the WWII Memorial in DC, and who knows the history of that awful conflagration, needs to find the virtual at that awe-inspiring memorial. One of my favorites, and i never would have seen it had it not been for virtuals. What a great location!

 

So you never would have found it if someone found a way to make it a real cache?

[+Packanack]

If someone had found a way to make it a real cache, it would have been an act of desecration.

[+Bear5719]

And anyone who has not found the virtual at the WWII Memorial in DC, and who knows the history of that awful conflagration, needs to find the virtual at that awe-inspiring memorial. One of my favorites, and i never would have seen it had it not been for virtuals. What a great location!

 

I'm not trying to pick, I'm just curious about this statement. Are you saying that without a virtual at the WWII Memorial, you would not have visited it?

 

I guess I'm asking because I understand when a virtual takes you to someplace obscure, or something you didn't even know about without the virt, but the WWII Memorial is a pretty major stop for DC tourists.

 

No, of course not! and i didnt mean it to sound like that It was just an added perk to pick up a smiley while touring DC.

For the records spouse and I are both vets, our fathers are war vets and we lived in DC for 8 years, but there are places that virtuals find that I would never have found without GS.

[+tozainamboku]

If someone had found a way to make it a real cache, it would have been an act of desecration.

How is that?

 

I found a multi-cache that took me to the WWII Submariners memorial in Seal Beach, CA. After collecting information from several parts of the memorial (not unlike getting the information needed to log a virtual) I computed coordinates that took me to a nearby park to find the cache.

 

Granted that the National Mall is administered by the NPS and many of the government buildings in Washington DC have high security, so it would be much harder to find a place for a final physical stage for a multi.

 

The other issue is who decides when a physical cache would desecrate a memorial but a virtual wouldn't. Once I found a physical cache at a 9/11 memorial and felt it was a respectful distance away - but the reviewer may have felt different because this is the only case I know of where after the container went missing, the reviewer allowed the owner to change the cache to a virtual.

[Dulce-Joy]

There would be no "Wow factor" to define, if TPTB didn't put the "Wow factor" in place in the first place. Why was there a Wow factor? Too many lame ones were being submitted? A quarter million or so, and growing daily, parking lot micros on private property without permission tells me they couldn't give a hoot about "lame ones being submitted".

+1

[cezanne]

They were concerned with the impact of containers on their land. He was willing to approve earthcaches that did not have that perceived impact.

 

Interesting. As if the grass you walk on and bush you walk through cares whether you're there for a virtual or a real cache.

 

Actually, I do know the situation in that park. I have been however to too many caches where a container has been hidden and the area looked like after an attack by horde of wild boars. (My most recent DNF provides a typical example - http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0503a0ff-c208-4591-88d2-fdb5e39a2400

I have never ever experienced something like that at an Earthcache or virtual.

 

In my area there are no land managers or rangers giving green light to a placement of a container and there is also noone who checks after some time whether a placed container causes damages. Under these circumstances virtuals can often be the much better solution.

 

Cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

They were concerned with the impact of containers on their land. He was willing to approve earthcaches that did not have that perceived impact.

 

Interesting. As if the grass you walk on and bush you walk through cares whether you're there for a virtual or a real cache.

 

And anyone who has not found the virtual at the WWII Memorial in DC, and who knows the history of that awful conflagration, needs to find the virtual at that awe-inspiring memorial. One of my favorites, and i never would have seen it had it not been for virtuals. What a great location!

 

So you never would have found it if someone found a way to make it a real cache?

 

I don't think the WWII Memorial (on the Mall in DC) is the best example since it's in the area which most tourists are going to visit so it would be hard to miss.

 

It's those locations that are *not* in the guidebooks but are at locations where a physical cache can't or shouldn't be placed where a virtual works well. Most people that visit DC as a tourist plan on hitting the Mall where most of the locations but last time I was there for business, I walked about a miles or so from a metro stop to the World bank and stopped at three off-mall virtuals. The one at the Navy memorial quite nice and probably isn't on most tourists must see lists.

[+Packanack]

There would be no "Wow factor" to define, if TPTB didn't put the "Wow factor" in place in the first place. Why was there a Wow factor? Too many lame ones were being submitted? A quarter million or so, and growing daily, parking lot micros on private property without permission tells me they couldn't give a hoot about "lame ones being submitted".

+1

The wow factor was a canard to allow for e discontinuance of new virtual listings so that transition to Waymarking could begin in earnest. It was part of the development of a business . some people want virtuals, Groundspeak will eventually, IMO, find a way to provide them in a form consistent with the want and consistent with the need to produce revenue . Just because the first two attempts have face planted doesn't mean the next won't soar. I like an idea where the sell virtual licenses similar to premium membership. It will be interesting to see.

[+tozainamboku]

There would be no "Wow factor" to define, if TPTB didn't put the "Wow factor" in place in the first place. Why was there a Wow factor? Too many lame ones were being submitted? A quarter million or so, and growing daily, parking lot micros on private property without permission tells me they couldn't give a hoot about "lame ones being submitted".

+1

The wow factor was a canard to allow for e discontinuance of new virtual listings so that transition to Waymarking could begin in earnest. It was part of the development of a business . some people want virtuals, Groundspeak will eventually, IMO, find a way to provide them in a form consistent with the want and consistent with the need to produce revenue . Just because the first two attempts have face planted doesn't mean the next won't soar. I like an idea where the sell virtual licenses similar to premium membership. It will be interesting to see.

Wow was suggested and implemented long before Waymarking was ever thought of. It was instituted because it was becoming clear that creating a virtual cache was so much simpler than hiding and maintaing a physical cache that they threatened the core aspect of geocaching as a game of hide and seek. It certainly might make sense to charge a fee to list a virtual and use that the to restrict the number hidden. It also seems likely that a fee based virtual cache would prevent a lot of parking log virtuals as people trying to hide a lot of caches will likely not want to pay a fee.

 

I would still like to see a set of guidelines for virtuals that

1. Emphasize the use of GPS. The virtual should be a specific object that can be identified by the GPS coordinats. A beach, a view, or a park is not a virtual target. There should be a specific object that you find.

2. Clearly state what the cache owner can require for an online find. Asking for arbitrary tasks to be accomplished should not be allowed. Owners should not be deleting finds over a triviality (such as a mispelling in the answer to a question).

3. Clearly indicate how couch potato logs will be handled. Owners should be required to delete logs that appear to be bogus, in particular, those that are clearly couch potato logs. If the owner is not deleting bogus logs, the cache should be archived and the fee forfeited.

4. Clearly indicate the maintenance responsibilities beyond the deletion of couch potato logs. One possibility is to make he fee an annual fee. If the cache owner does not renew each year the cache will be automatically archived.

5. State what happens to the fee if the virutal becomes inaccesible outside the control of the cache owner. My opinion is that this risk should be bourne entirely by the cache owner, but I'm sure this will be a controversial topic.

Edited December 11, 2012 by tozainamboku

[4wheelin_fool]

There would be no "Wow factor" to define, if TPTB didn't put the "Wow factor" in place in the first place. Why was there a Wow factor? Too many lame ones were being submitted? A quarter million or so, and growing daily, parking lot micros on private property without permission tells me they couldn't give a hoot about "lame ones being submitted".

 

With a lame virtual, the cache owner did not put anything there. The virtual only exists on the site, while the parking lot micro has an actual container. The container will need eventual maintenance, while the virtual will live on forever. Without listing a container, the site has then lowered it's standards even lower. Listing lame caches without any container at all forces Groundspeak to be an enabler.

[+Bear5719]

With a lame virtual, the cache owner did not put anything there. The virtual only exists on the site, while the parking lot micro has an actual container. The container will need eventual maintenance, while the virtual will live on forever. Without listing a container, the site has then lowered it's standards even lower. Listing lame caches without any container at all forces Groundspeak to be an enabler.

 

Again, this is the type of virtual that should not have happened. This is a result of lack of "care" on the part of the cacher. I submit that proper placed virtuals would be worthy.

[+geodarts]

Wow was suggested and implemented long before Waymarking was ever thought of. It was instituted because it was becoming clear that creating a virtual cache was so much simpler than hiding and maintaing a physical cache that they threatened the core aspect of geocaching as a game of hide and seek. It certainly might make sense to charge a fee to list a virtual and use that the to restrict the number hidden. It also seems likely that a fee based virtual cache would prevent a lot of parking log virtuals as people trying to hide a lot of caches will likely not want to pay a fee.

 

As I understand the previous discussion, WOW was used by individual reviewers but Groundspeak itself did not adopt it as a formal guideline until after high level planning for Waymarking was begun. In any event, as much as I like virtuals, I would not want a fee based system. Among other reasons, it is not a precedent I would want to see for listing anything on this site.

 

If the number of potential submissions is at issue, then I would simply cap the number that a premium member can submit. I would hope that if a person were allowed only a single virtual (or some other initial number), it would be a good one. I live in an area that has large amounts of NPS land, with hidden places that the public rarely visits. There are historical sites where traditional caching is not appropriate. It would be a difficult choice for me, but I would want it to be the "best of the best."

 

As far as I know (and I know very little), returning virtuals to this site is not on the table. But simply for purposes of this forum, there are a number of ways that virtuals could be implemented: a defined focus for both content and what constitutes a "find"; placement on only certain types of land; express permission (similar to earthcaches); a review system (peer based or otherwise); requirements for monitoring and site visits; restrictions on proximity, duplication of themes, or the like.

 

The existing type of virtual, earthcaches, are much harder to place than traditional caches. I don't think that virtuals would have to be implemented in such a way that they would be an easy substitute for a lamp post hide in a parking lot.

Edited December 11, 2012 by geodarts

[Keystone]

Wow was suggested and implemented long before Waymarking was ever thought of. It was instituted because it was becoming clear that creating a virtual cache was so much simpler than hiding and maintaing a physical cache that they threatened the core aspect of geocaching as a game of hide and seek. It certainly might make sense to charge a fee to list a virtual and use that the to restrict the number hidden. It also seems likely that a fee based virtual cache would prevent a lot of parking log virtuals as people trying to hide a lot of caches will likely not want to pay a fee.

 

As I understand the previous discussion, WOW was used by individual reviewers but Groundspeak itself did not adopt it as a formal guideline until after high level planning for Waymarking was begun. In any event, as much as I like virtuals, I would not want a fee based system. Among other reasons, it is not a precedent I would want to see for listing anything on this site.

My daughter invented the term "wow factor" for virtuals. At the time, she was nine years old. Today she finished her first semester of college final exams.

 

As someone who was "in the room" when these changes came about years ago, I am writing to confirm that Toz has gotten it right. His posts to this discussion have been quite valuable and that may be one of the reasons why reviewers haven't been motivated to post much. I for one have not needed to say anything.

[+briansnat]

There would be no "Wow factor" to define, if TPTB didn't put the "Wow factor" in place in the first place. Why was there a Wow factor? Too many lame ones were being submitted? A quarter million or so, and growing daily, parking lot micros on private property without permission tells me they couldn't give a hoot about "lame ones being submitted".

+1

The wow factor was a canard to allow for e discontinuance of new virtual listings so that transition to Waymarking could begin in earnest. It was part of the development of a business . some people want virtuals, Groundspeak will eventually, IMO, find a way to provide them in a form consistent with the want and consistent with the need to produce revenue . Just because the first two attempts have face planted doesn't mean the next won't soar. I like an idea where the sell virtual licenses similar to premium membership. It will be interesting to see.

Wow was suggested and implemented long before Waymarking was ever thought of. It was instituted because it was becoming clear that creating a virtual cache was so much simpler than hiding and maintaing a physical cache that they threatened the core aspect of geocaching as a game of hide and seek. It certainly might make sense to charge a fee to list a virtual and use that the to restrict the number hidden. It also seems likely that a fee based virtual cache would prevent a lot of parking log virtuals as people trying to hide a lot of caches will likely not want to pay a fee.

 

I would still like to see a set of guidelines for virtuals that

1. Emphasize the use of GPS. The virtual should be a specific object that can be identified by the GPS coordinats. A beach, a view, or a park is not a virtual target. There should be a specific object that you find.

2. Clearly state what the cache owner can require for an online find. Asking for arbitrary tasks to be accomplished should not be allowed. Owners should not be deleting finds over a triviality (such as a mispelling in the answer to a question).

3. Clearly indicate how couch potato logs will be handled. Owners should be required to delete logs that appear to be bogus, in particular, those that are clearly couch potato logs. If the owner is not deleting bogus logs, the cache should be archived and the fee forfeited.

4. Clearly indicate the maintenance responsibilities beyond the deletion of couch potato logs. One possibility is to make he fee an annual fee. If the cache owner does not renew each year the cache will be automatically archived.

5. State what happens to the fee if the virutal becomes inaccesible outside the control of the cache owner. My opinion is that this risk should be bourne entirely by the cache owner, but I'm sure this will be a controversial topic.

 

I wouldn't want to see a fee, but if they ever do come back I'd like to see them counted separately,the way benchmarks are and challenges were. Then we'll see how any people REALLY people like them. I have a sneaking suspicion however that they won't be all that popular without the smiley.

Edited December 11, 2012 by briansnat

[+geodarts]

Wow was suggested and implemented long before Waymarking was ever thought of. It was instituted because it was becoming clear that creating a virtual cache was so much simpler than hiding and maintaing a physical cache that they threatened the core aspect of geocaching as a game of hide and seek. It certainly might make sense to charge a fee to list a virtual and use that the to restrict the number hidden. It also seems likely that a fee based virtual cache would prevent a lot of parking log virtuals as people trying to hide a lot of caches will likely not want to pay a fee.

 

As I understand the previous discussion, WOW was used by individual reviewers but Groundspeak itself did not adopt it as a formal guideline until after high level planning for Waymarking was begun. In any event, as much as I like virtuals, I would not want a fee based system. Among other reasons, it is not a precedent I would want to see for listing anything on this site.

My daughter invented the term "wow factor" for virtuals. At the time, she was nine years old. Today she finished her first semester of college final exams.

 

As someone who was "in the room" when these changes came about years ago, I am writing to confirm that Toz has gotten it right. His posts to this discussion have been quite valuable and that may be one of the reasons why reviewers haven't been motivated to post much. I for one have not needed to say anything.

 

I understand that reviewers were rejecting lame virtuals before guidelines were officially changed -- and that was why I directed my comment to Groundspeak's formal adoption of the guidelines, as you set forth on other occasions. As you stated earlier, by the time that the guidelines caught up with practice, it was probably too late. By then at least, high level planning for Waymarking had begun.

 

I think we are all grateful that many reviewers saw that part of their function was to reject "lame" virtuals even before the wow factor was formally adopted as a guideline. I have done virtuals that slipped through and are close to lamppost hide quality -- as well as stunning ones that make me go "wow." Some of the ones that wowed me the most have been archived, but I am glad for the ones that remain.

 

The recent experience with challenges also made it clear that introducing virtuals without well thought out standards and limitations would be a mistake. As a friend of mine has said in other contexts, "Despite what they say about beggars, if you are not choosers you end up with a lot of crap."

Edited December 11, 2012 by geodarts

[+geodarts]

I wouldn't want to see a fee, but if they ever do come back I'd like to see them counted separately,the way benchmarks are and challenges were. Then we'll see how any people REALLY people like them. I have a sneaking suspicion however that they won't be all that popular without the smiley.

 

I probably would not do too many. I enjoy running across benchmarks, but do not do them as a matter of course or log the ones I see. Earthcaches are among my favorites and are one of the few types of caches that I will go out of my way to find, but I did not do them when they were moved to Waymarking. For that matter, there are many outstanding waymarks, but I do not waymark. I did not do challenges. I never played Groundspeak's "Mighty Egg Hunt" app.

 

So if you define "the smiley" as being part of this game, I suspect you are right. I cache. I do another location based game on the iphone that I sometimes compare to virtuals (with soft coordinates). I would probably not take up a separate activity. I enjoy the existing virtuals because they are part of this game and enhance it for me.

[+Frank Broughton]

It certainly might make sense to charge a fee to list a virtual and use that the to restrict the number hidden. It also seems likely that a fee based virtual cache would prevent a lot of parking log virtuals as people trying to hide a lot of caches will likely not want to pay a fee.

 

I like this idea much....I would even be willing to pay $10 for each one (at least). A win win for GS and those who want to place quality virtuals!

[+tozainamboku]

I understand that reviewers were rejecting lame virtuals before guidelines were officially changed -- and that was why I directed my comment to Groundspeak's formal adoption of the guidelines, as you set forth on other occasions. As you stated earlier, by the time that the guidelines caught up with practice, it was probably too late. By then at least, high level planning for Waymarking had begun.

If by high level planning you mean that Grounspeak had said that they were looking into a replacement for locationless caches you may be right.

 

When I started in Feb. 2003 there was already a moratorium on new locationless caches. Groundspeak may have said that they were working on a solution for locationless. The "wow" requirement wasn't official yet, but many reviewers were already denying virtuals base on something like it. There was already some sort of statement about subjects for coffee table books being good subjects for virtual caches, though I don't recall if that was in the guidelines or just in the description of the virtual cache type.

 

I don't know for sure, but I don't think the idea for replacing virtuals with waymarks occurred until much later. Even when the Waymarking beta went public, Jeremy had not officially decided what to do with virtuals. There were actually discussion in the forum that Jeremy actively participated in about what to do with virtuals with options ranging from archiving them altogether, moving them to Waymarking, or continuing with virtuals on Geocaching.com

 

I just don't see how you can make a argument that the wow requirement was just a canard to get rid of virtual caches. If anything it was an attempt to make virtual caches a viable alternative on Geocaching.com for places that cried out for a cache but where a physical cache was impossible or inappropriate. Of course it didn't quite work and instead of tweaking it or finding some other way, Groundspeak decided to try making a "better mistake". For many people, of the three mistakes they have tried, the first one was the best.

[+geodarts]

I just don't see how you can make a argument that the wow requirement was just a canard to get rid of virtual caches. If anything it was an attempt to make virtual caches a viable alternative on Geocaching.com for places that cried out for a cache but where a physical cache was impossible or inappropriate. Of course it didn't quite work and instead of tweaking it or finding some other way, Groundspeak decided to try making a "better mistake". For many people, of the three mistakes they have tried, the first one was the best.

 

I don't think I have made the argument and would not do so. I think Groundspeak introduced virtuals to respond to a need. Without a doubt, some standard had to be applied to them. But from what I understand, the subjectivity of the Wow Requirement raised as many issues among the reviewers as it was intended to solve. Since planning for Waymarking was started before the wow requirement was formally adopted as part of the guidelines, I suspect it presented itself as a solution.

 

I also think challenges were a good faith effort to respond to this need, although I don't think Groundspeak fully understood that many of us wanted more than just a reason to get out and do something.

 

So over the years, the perceived need for virtuals as part of this game has remained, particularly as they continue to be archived through attrition (including some of the best I have done). Thus, you have periodic threads like this one and a lot of people voting for virtuals to return on the old feedback sites.

[+sTeamTraen]

I don't know for sure, but I don't think the idea for replacing virtuals with waymarks occurred until much later. Even when the Waymarking beta went public, Jeremy had not officially decided what to do with virtuals. There were actually discussion in the forum that Jeremy actively participated in about what to do with virtuals with options ranging from archiving them altogether, moving them to Waymarking, or continuing with virtuals on Geocaching.com

IIRC that was just about the existing virtuals. Waymarking was built specifically to address the issues with virtuals and locationless caches, notably the fact that reviewers hated having to make quality calls.

 

But in any case, that was before we had macros to generate logs that GSAK could upload. Does anyone really doubt that within a week of virtuals being brought back, we wouldn't have a 35,000-cache virtual PT from Maine to California (and if the old proximity rules applied, i.e., no proximity problem with virtuals, this would be a million caches. There are enough determined people out there to do this. Then just run GSAK for a month or so to make a million couch potato logs, and you're the world's champion geocacher. Woop-de-doop.

[hoosier guy]

Hey I have logged that KFC cache. That is a pretty neat place.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't know for sure, but I don't think the idea for replacing virtuals with waymarks occurred until much later. Even when the Waymarking beta went public, Jeremy had not officially decided what to do with virtuals. There were actually discussion in the forum that Jeremy actively participated in about what to do with virtuals with options ranging from archiving them altogether, moving them to Waymarking, or continuing with virtuals on Geocaching.com

IIRC that was just about the existing virtuals. Waymarking was built specifically to address the issues with virtuals and locationless caches, notably the fact that reviewers hated having to make quality calls.

I don't doubt that by the time they rolled out Waymarking TPTB had decided to grandfather the virtuals and direct people to Waymarking. But I distinctly remember about that time Jeremy asking for people to provide reasons to keep virtuals in some form. Of course if he had made up his mind already this could've been just so he could say no to all the suggestion.

 

But in any case, that was before we had macros to generate logs that GSAK could upload. Does anyone really doubt that within a week of virtuals being brought back, we wouldn't have a 35,000-cache virtual PT from Maine to California (and if the old proximity rules applied, i.e., no proximity problem with virtuals, this would be a million caches. There are enough determined people out there to do this. Then just run GSAK for a month or so to make a million couch potato logs, and you're the world's champion geocacher. Woop-de-doop.

Sure, but there are those who will continue to whine about bringing back virtuals nonetheless. They have a point that listing cool locations on another website doesn't fill the place of a part of the game they love so much. The idea is to think of ways to bring back virtuals that can be controlled is some other way than having reviewers decide what is wow.

 

There are ways to control the number of virtuals without a wow requirement. Certainly there are other problems such a controlling couch potato logs, making sure that maintenance requirements are met, and agreeing on what should count as a find in lieu of there being a log to sign.

 

The reason I like a fee isn't so Groundspeak makes money from them, but because if the owners have to invest some money in putting up a virtual they are more likely to use them only when they are truly appropriate and they are more likely to follow guidelines for ownership of these caches if they know that they will forfeit their investment if they don't.

 

I thought about a lottery instead of a fee but there are too many ways to game the lottery (including people opposed to virtuals entering the lottery to acquire rights they will not use).

[+Totem Clan]

Is it just me or is this thread starting to go in circles?

[+Semper Questio]

Is it just me or is this thread starting to go in circles?

 

Starting?

[+Totem Clan]

Is it just me or is this thread starting to go in circles?

 

Starting?

 

I was trying to be tactful.

[Clan Riffster]

Unfotunately, Groundspeak seem to have a habit of moving on to the next idea before the current project is completed, and they did this with Waymarking in a big way.

And with Challenges... And with Wherigos...

[+Castle Mischief]

Unfotunately, Groundspeak seem to have a habit of moving on to the next idea before the current project is completed, and they did this with Waymarking in a big way.

And with Challenges... And with Wherigos...

 

...and with Souvenirs...

[+briansnat]

The "wow" requirement wasn't official yet, but many reviewers were already denying virtuals base on something like it.

 

Most reviewers were not using a "wow" requirement because that wasn't part of the vocabulary at the time. What many reviewers were doing was to take things in their own hands and implement a "not yuck" factor. That's why the rotting animal carcass, dirty sneaker in the woods and some other incredibly lame virtuals never saw the light of day. Not all reviewers were doing it though, as virtual quality was not a guideline.

Edited December 12, 2012 by briansnat

[+Mighty Pirates]

Unfotunately, Groundspeak seem to have a habit of moving on to the next idea before the current project is completed, and they did this with Waymarking in a big way.

And with Challenges... And with Wherigos...

 

I am having a problem with Souvenirs being on my profile that I did not earn. Is there any way to delete them?

[+niraD]

I am having a problem with Souvenirs being on my profile that I did not earn. Is there any way to delete them?

You can contact Groundspeak at contact@geocaching.com and ask them to remove unearned Souvenirs.

[+Bear5719]

Sure, but there are those who will continue to whine about bringing back virtuals nonetheless. They have a point that listing cool locations on another website doesn't fill the place of a part of the game they love so much. The idea is to think of ways to bring back virtuals that can be controlled is some other way than having reviewers decide what is wow.

 

There are ways to control the number of virtuals without a wow requirement. Certainly there are other problems such a controlling couch potato logs, making sure that maintenance requirements are met, and agreeing on what should count as a find in lieu of there being a log to sign.

 

The reason I like a fee isn't so Groundspeak makes money from them, but because if the owners have to invest some money in putting up a virtual they are more likely to use them only when they are truly appropriate and they are more likely to follow guidelines for ownership of these caches if they know that they will forfeit their investment if they don't.

I don't feel like I'm trying to whine-I sure didn't mean to come off that way. I just honestly believe that virtuals have a place in GS and I honestly don't like the other site.

Last night we attended a local caching event and I mentioned virtuals (and this tread) to several fellow cachers. For the most part the response to bring back virtuals was 'yea, let's!' and one groan. I was frankly surprised to find that most people liked virtuals and did believe the belonged in the game. Challenges were not well received, EC loved, events loved and of course caching, ooh-rah!

One honest suggestion I received was to offer to be part of the solution-sound advice and one I will offer my services too.

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

Finally, I must say I don't know how I feel about an extra fee. Last night I met a lady who cached with a friend who couldn't afford even prime membership. Times are tough for lots of folks out there, my husband and I are truely blessed that he has a great job and we are not in that category. I haven't worked for over a year (due to a physical injury-theres a log w/picture of that event) and we feel the difference just not greatly.

[+bflentje]

Kilroy was here.

[Keystone]

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

[+Castle Mischief]

Kilroy was here.

 

I love that virt!

[+nthacker66]

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

 

I am sure there are plenty of other folks who would love a shot at being a reviewer. Maybe some new blood is what this needs.

 

It has been mentioned before that perhaps a new system, not all that unlike GSA does with earth caches, be put in place for virtuals. Since most virtuals are historic places - perhaps a panel of reviewers could review submissions, again, like GSA does.

 

I think the fact that all of the knowledge and experience of the past is going to waste with not refining a better way to do something that it seems the community at lrage likes and has liked.

Edited December 13, 2012 by nthacker66

[+Castle Mischief]

I thought the GS Reviewers had taken over for GSA...?

[+nthacker66]

I thought the GS Reviewers had taken over for GSA...?

 

Not from my understanding - while GSA themselves may not review them, there are seperate reviewers just for ECs - the local-regional reviewers do not review ECs.

[Andronicus]

I have also begun to suspect that the prime reason for chucking virtuals was bogus logs (aka arm chair cachers). It seems this might be the most challenging element of controlling virtuals. It seems like if this could be prevented, then a major source of contention would be removed.

This was not a material factor at the time of the decision to grandfather virtuals. The main reason was the flood of virtual submissions that didn't meet the guidelines, the inordinate time it took to process virtual submissions, and the morale factor for lackeys and site volunteers. I found a post I made in late 2003, reporting that I received hate mail / flame messages for more than a third of all virtual submissions. If I'm forced to review virtuals again, I'll be in the line of reviewers who walk out the door.

 

I am sure there are plenty of other folks who would love a shot at being a reviewer. Maybe some new blood is what this needs.

...

Wow! I hope you don't have plannes to list a new cache any time soon. I suspect your "usualy within 3 days" just went up to 15 days.