Jump to content

Virtual Caches


Bear5719

Recommended Posts

I would particularly like to see a procedure put in place to enable the adoption of abandoned virtuals. I'd also like to see the procedure extend to allow the unarchiving of virtuals that had been archived as abandoned if there now is someone willing to take responsibility for them.

 

I hope that never happens. as soon as you allow reactivation and adoption of abandoned or archived virts you will start to see new threads complaining that the same should be allowed for all other archived and abandoned caches.

Link to comment

I would particularly like to see a procedure put in place to enable the adoption of abandoned virtuals. I'd also like to see the procedure extend to allow the unarchiving of virtuals that had been archived as abandoned if there now is someone willing to take responsibility for them.

 

I hope that never happens. as soon as you allow reactivation and adoption of abandoned or archived virts you will start to see new threads complaining that the same should be allowed for all other archived and abandoned caches.

 

The prohibition against adopting virtuals has led to some of the most amazing ones being archived - so at the very least I would like to see existing virtuals subject to the same rules that allow for adoption. Groundspeak's policy, of course, is to wait for virtuals to naturally disappear. Will the last remaining virtual hold a special place, like Mingo or the last APE cache, until that, too, is archived after every new cacher tries to armchair it to get the icon?

Link to comment

I don't care as much about the creation of new virtuals as I do about the preservation of the existing ones. Despite the anguish they caused, the reviewers seem to have done an excellent job of weeding out those lacking a "wow" factor. I can't think of one that I've found that has disappointed. It's a shame to lose that.

 

In this discussion thread, there've been a couple of things that have stood out to me (sorry but I've forgotten the posters' names and since the thread is so long can't find them easily). One is the sense of dedication exhibited by the poster who is in charge of the Waymarking category. A second is the sense of how much stress virtuals caused reviewers. A third is that if new virtuals are to be provided, there is a need to ensure a high level of quality, if for no other reason than to respect the existing collection. I don't think that charging will guarantee quality--there are plenty of fools with plenty of cash in the world. :-) A fourth is that the description of requirements for virtuals earlier in this thread from the 2003 (?) guidelines was quite well thought through.

 

I have my own strawman set of proposals, which I will put out just for the record:

 

1. Grandfathered virtuals will be allowed to be adopted through normal procedures without change to listing details (e.g., no change to hidden date). Abandoned grandfathered virtuals will be allowed to be adopted by a new owner but will become a new listing with their hidden date updated to the date of adoption.

 

2. For a limited period of time, grandfathered virtuals that were archived as abandoned will be allowed to be unarchived. If unarchived by the original owner, they retain their original hide date. If the original owner has no interest or is unreachable, adoption by a new owner is permitted but this will be a new listing with an updated hide date.

 

3. A limited number of new virtuals will be permitted from time to time. The criteria used for the new virtuals will be <<the description previously found in the 200? guidelines>>

3a. A committee of 5 Waymarking category managers will nominate at most 30 waymarks each quarter

3b. A nomination must have the consent of the waymark's poster, who will also be the owner of the virtual if approved

3c. A waymark must have been listed for at least a year on Waymarking.com before nomination

3d. The nominations will be accepted or rejected by majority vote of a committee of 5 Geocaching reviewers. If 5 reviewers cannot be found for the committee, the remaining positions will be filled by selecting from the pool of active geocaching.com premium members with at least five years continuous premium membership. The committee is encouraged, but not required, to provide feedback to the Waymarking category managers about the reasons for accepting and rejecting nominations.

 

The main reason for changing the hide date for abandoned virtuals is that this reflects the same process available for physical caches--making a new hide out of a previously abandoned cache. The main reason for the involvement of the Waymarking site would be to try to leverage the investment already made in sister sites. 1, 2, and 3 are all independent of each other--any could be adopted with or without the others. Also this definitely is a only a broad stroke plan--I can see lots of nuances that would need to be addressed. The limits (30, 5, etc.) are arbitrary, of course. They just seemed to make sense to me.

Link to comment

I got a newsletter from another geocache listing service today, and virtuals being alive and well was the main topic. I use the Waymarking site here, and enjoy it. With Challenges being gone now, and some areas will not allow a physical geocache to be placed, but virtuals are permitted. Limit virtuals to PM's only, like Challenges were. I have quite a few virtuals that I would like to see listed here, and I would like to recreate some of the ones that I lost when Challenges were done away with. I think there is enough interest by PM's in virtuals that they should be allowed in some form, other than a Waymark. :)

Link to comment

I don't care as much about the creation of new virtuals as I do about the preservation of the existing ones. Despite the anguish they caused, the reviewers seem to have done an excellent job of weeding out those lacking a "wow" factor. I can't think of one that I've found that has disappointed. It's a shame to lose that.

 

In this discussion thread, there've been a couple of things that have stood out to me (sorry but I've forgotten the posters' names and since the thread is so long can't find them easily). One is the sense of dedication exhibited by the poster who is in charge of the Waymarking category. A second is the sense of how much stress virtuals caused reviewers. A third is that if new virtuals are to be provided, there is a need to ensure a high level of quality, if for no other reason than to respect the existing collection. I don't think that charging will guarantee quality--there are plenty of fools with plenty of cash in the world. :-) A fourth is that the description of requirements for virtuals earlier in this thread from the 2003 (?) guidelines was quite well thought through.

 

I have my own strawman set of proposals, which I will put out just for the record:

 

1. Grandfathered virtuals will be allowed to be adopted through normal procedures without change to listing details (e.g., no change to hidden date). Abandoned grandfathered virtuals will be allowed to be adopted by a new owner but will become a new listing with their hidden date updated to the date of adoption.

 

2. For a limited period of time, grandfathered virtuals that were archived as abandoned will be allowed to be unarchived. If unarchived by the original owner, they retain their original hide date. If the original owner has no interest or is unreachable, adoption by a new owner is permitted but this will be a new listing with an updated hide date.

 

3. A limited number of new virtuals will be permitted from time to time. The criteria used for the new virtuals will be <<the description previously found in the 200? guidelines>>

3a. A committee of 5 Waymarking category managers will nominate at most 30 waymarks each quarter

3b. A nomination must have the consent of the waymark's poster, who will also be the owner of the virtual if approved

3c. A waymark must have been listed for at least a year on Waymarking.com before nomination

3d. The nominations will be accepted or rejected by majority vote of a committee of 5 Geocaching reviewers. If 5 reviewers cannot be found for the committee, the remaining positions will be filled by selecting from the pool of active geocaching.com premium members with at least five years continuous premium membership. The committee is encouraged, but not required, to provide feedback to the Waymarking category managers about the reasons for accepting and rejecting nominations.

 

The main reason for changing the hide date for abandoned virtuals is that this reflects the same process available for physical caches--making a new hide out of a previously abandoned cache. The main reason for the involvement of the Waymarking site would be to try to leverage the investment already made in sister sites. 1, 2, and 3 are all independent of each other--any could be adopted with or without the others. Also this definitely is a only a broad stroke plan--I can see lots of nuances that would need to be addressed. The limits (30, 5, etc.) are arbitrary, of course. They just seemed to make sense to me.

 

Like! Button!

Link to comment

I've always like virtuals. I own 18 of them - 17 are still active. I also Waymark, Benchmark, and did a whole bunch of Challenges before their demise.

 

I'd love to see the return of virtuals, but not as they were. There were too many virtuals placed where a traditional could (should) have been placed, and they gave the reviewers more headaches than they could deal with.

 

I'd love to see the concept of Earthcaches expanded. For example, create HistoryCaches where cachers visit a unique and specific historical feature. Have a separate review panel, and very specific requirements, like EarthCaches. I'm sure there could be a handful of other similar categories that would allow for the return of virtuals in a highly modified form, without the undue burdening of the reviewers or the return of the ever-unpopular "lame virtual."

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I've always like virtuals. I own 18 of them - 17 are still active. I also Waymark, Benchmark, and did a whole bunch of Challenges before their demise.

 

I'd love to see the return of virtuals, but not as they were. There were too many virtuals placed where a traditional could (should) have been placed, and they gave the reviewers more headaches than they could deal with.

 

I'd love to see the concept of Earthcaches expanded. For example, create HistoryCaches where cachers visit a unique and specific historical feature. Have a separate review panel, and very specific requirements, like EarthCaches. I'm sure there could be a handful of other similar categories that would allow for the return of virtuals in a highly modified form, without the undue burdening of the reviewers or the return of the ever-unpopular "lame virtual."

Sounds like we have alot in common. I do own quite a few virtual listings that would fit in the HistoryCache category, in places that physical geocaches are not feasable or a permitted. Challenges gave me a way to bring some to this site, and a few got lot's of visits. I Waymark and Benchmark also, and I would really like to list virtuals on the site.

Link to comment

I would particularly like to see a procedure put in place to enable the adoption of abandoned virtuals. I'd also like to see the procedure extend to allow the unarchiving of virtuals that had been archived as abandoned if there now is someone willing to take responsibility for them.

 

I hope that never happens. as soon as you allow reactivation and adoption of abandoned or archived virts you will start to see new threads complaining that the same should be allowed for all other archived and abandoned caches.

 

I agree.

- And with your user name, your post fit perfectly. :laughing:

Link to comment

I hope that never happens. as soon as you allow reactivation and adoption of abandoned or archived virts you will start to see new threads complaining that the same should be allowed for all other archived and abandoned caches.

 

Yep. I would like my virtuals reactivated. I archived them all during the original virtual wars and that caused me to miss all those great years of being able to delete "Greetings from Germany" logs. I hated to see all that fun passing me by. :lol:

Link to comment
On 11/28/2012 at 2:29 PM, Mr.Yuck said:

 

Oh, I agree with you 100%!! You Pre-date Challenges (August 2011), but not Waymarking (August 2005). See a trend there? I predict in August 2017, they will allow Virtuals. :lol:

 

Sorry, I just had to bring this old thread back to say that Mr.Yuck needs to buy a lottery ticket!

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
On 11/28/2012 at 4:03 PM, Mr.Yuck said:

For the record, I was totally joking when I said they would come back by 2017. Pretty much Groundspeak has publicly said they are not coming back. Is there a knowledge books article on why they got rid of them? I know Toz, if he ever see's this, has an old (long) post of his explaining the situation.

Maybe not on that lottery ticket... Although, it's crazy that he called this one. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Ambrosia said:

What's really creepy is that Mr. Yuck found a pattern that is turning out to be actually happening. Every six years, in August, Groundspeak will come up with something virtual on their site. What's in store for August 2023??? :o

 

Mr. Yuck is Jeremy :lol:

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Aquacache said:
On 11/28/2012 at 2:29 PM, Mr.Yuck said:

 

Oh, I agree with you 100%!! You Pre-date Challenges (August 2011), but not Waymarking (August 2005). See a trend there? I predict in August 2017, they will allow Virtuals. :lol:

 

Sorry, I just had to bring this old thread back to say that Mr.Yuck needs to buy a lottery ticket!

It's too mad that we can't reference specific posts any more because I don't think he remembers posting this.  He doesn't read the GS forums anymore (he was permanently banned a couple of years ago.)

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Castle Mischief said:
6 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

It's too mad that we can't reference specific posts any more because I don't think he remembers posting this.  He doesn't read the GS forums anymore (he was permanently banned a couple of years ago.)

Rest assured, he's aware of the post and thread. 

I know.  I posted about it in a forum that he *does* read.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 1/5/2013 at 3:29 AM, Web-ling said:

I'd love to see the concept of Earthcaches expanded. For example, create HistoryCaches where cachers visit a unique and specific historical feature. Have a separate review panel, and very specific requirements, like EarthCaches. I'm sure there could be a handful of other similar categories that would allow for the return of virtuals in a highly modified form, without the undue burdening of the reviewers or the return of the ever-unpopular "lame virtual."

This. And add nature caches in a similar way too!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, noncentric said:

It is still possible to create links to specific posts. Just use the share icon at the top right of each post to get a direct link to a post.

Or copy the link that is the time stamp (or "posted 2 hours ago"). That's a direct link to the post.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...