Virtual Caches

[+Snoogans]

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

Just for the record: every time someone brings up Virtuals and how much fun they are, someone else brings up that they've been replaced by Challenges or Waymarks. Then there's a debate about Challenges and Waymarks that eventually comes to a point where the advocates of Challenges and Waymarks complain bitterly about people thinking Challenges and Waymarks are replacements for Virtuals.

 

Suggesting the OP look at Challenges and Waymarks is a good idea, don't get me wrong. There are certainly similarities. But through repeated debates I've learned that it is simply wrong to call either of them replacements for Virtuals. Although it's also true that Virtuals will never come back.

 

Challenges and Whybothermarks are not a replacement for Virtuals and Locationlesses. They are not caches. Whybother? I guess some people are easily amused. Vist the local curch and log three whybothers! Why bother?

Yes. There were mounting probles with Locationless and virtuals. They are gone, or grandfathered. Sorry that there was no resolution how to solve the problems.

I guess that I do not miss them that badly. But I could care less about the alternatives.

 

Okay I love love love the term Whybothermarks. Gonna use that from now on.... The whole system and my experience with utterly failed to blow my skirt up. Sorta like Notveryfunzees.

 

It took me awhile to warm up to Challenges and while they are not technically replacements for virts and locationless caches if you choose to view it thataway they are a great innovation on the concept of both. I like 'em. I think it shows a willingness on the part of Groundspeak to try to meet customer demand to bring back virts and locationless caches.

If Waymarks were combined and counted as finds, I think it would attract more users. I'm not the kind of Waymarker that would log or submit a McD's, but I did log a KFC in Corbin, Ky. Too bad the geocache was missing, I would have logged that too. The orginal KFC, WoW!

 

There's a Swanky McD's at the gate to the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC that I have been meaning to log. It has only been 4 years. Maybe I'll get a round tuit some day.

[+Manville Possum]

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

Just for the record: every time someone brings up Virtuals and how much fun they are, someone else brings up that they've been replaced by Challenges or Waymarks. Then there's a debate about Challenges and Waymarks that eventually comes to a point where the advocates of Challenges and Waymarks complain bitterly about people thinking Challenges and Waymarks are replacements for Virtuals.

 

Suggesting the OP look at Challenges and Waymarks is a good idea, don't get me wrong. There are certainly similarities. But through repeated debates I've learned that it is simply wrong to call either of them replacements for Virtuals. Although it's also true that Virtuals will never come back.

 

Challenges and Whybothermarks are not a replacement for Virtuals and Locationlesses. They are not caches. Whybother? I guess some people are easily amused. Vist the local curch and log three whybothers! Why bother?

Yes. There were mounting probles with Locationless and virtuals. They are gone, or grandfathered. Sorry that there was no resolution how to solve the problems.

I guess that I do not miss them that badly. But I could care less about the alternatives.

 

Okay I love love love the term Whybothermarks. Gonna use that from now on.... The whole system and my experience with utterly failed to blow my skirt up. Sorta like Notveryfunzees.

 

It took me awhile to warm up to Challenges and while they are not technically replacements for virts and locationless caches if you choose to view it thataway they are a great innovation on the concept of both. I like 'em. I think it shows a willingness on the part of Groundspeak to try to meet customer demand to bring back virts and locationless caches.

If Waymarks were combined and counted as finds, I think it would attract more users. I'm not the kind of Waymarker that would log or submit a McD's, but I did log a KFC in Corbin, Ky. Too bad the geocache was missing, I would have logged that too. The orginal KFC, WoW!

 

There's a Swanky McD's at the gate to the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC that I have been meaning to log. It has only been 4 years. Maybe I'll get a round tuit some day.

 

Oh, yeah. This one: http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM5PKH_The_McDonalds_Near_Biltmore

My daughter wants to visit the Biltmore Estate, maybe this "WayMac" will do?

The place is something to see, I visited it in 1982 when the Worlds Fair was in Knoxville, Tn. Ashville is only about two hours via interstate from me, but I get culture shock when I visit. There are alot of good geocachers in the area, and Brew Pubs.

[Mr.Yuck]

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

Just for the record: every time someone brings up Virtuals and how much fun they are, someone else brings up that they've been replaced by Challenges or Waymarks. Then there's a debate about Challenges and Waymarks that eventually comes to a point where the advocates of Challenges and Waymarks complain bitterly about people thinking Challenges and Waymarks are replacements for Virtuals.

 

Suggesting the OP look at Challenges and Waymarks is a good idea, don't get me wrong. There are certainly similarities. But through repeated debates I've learned that it is simply wrong to call either of them replacements for Virtuals. Although it's also true that Virtuals will never come back.

 

Challenges and Whybothermarks are not a replacement for Virtuals and Locationlesses. They are not caches. Whybother? I guess some people are easily amused. Vist the local curch and log three whybothers! Why bother?

Yes. There were mounting probles with Locationless and virtuals. They are gone, or grandfathered. Sorry that there was no resolution how to solve the problems.

I guess that I do not miss them that badly. But I could care less about the alternatives.

 

Okay I love love love the term Whybothermarks. Gonna use that from now on.... The whole system and my experience with utterly failed to blow my skirt up. Sorta like Notveryfunzees.

 

It took me awhile to warm up to Challenges and while they are not technically replacements for virts and locationless caches if you choose to view it thataway they are a great innovation on the concept of both. I like 'em. I think it shows a willingness on the part of Groundspeak to try to meet customer demand to bring back virts and locationless caches.

 

Whybothermarks is OK, but I think Skidmarks is funnier. I'm just sayin'.

[+geodarts]

The issue is that the "wow" virtuals have been grandfathered and many people see that the exception made to allow virtual caches in special places results in some of the most memorable caching experiences, and these caches often get many favorite points.

 

I wanted to find out how much the wow factor contributed to my memorable caching experiences, so I decided to focus on the 271 caches on my favorites list. Of those, 87 are virtuals (excluding earthcaches) and 87 are traditionals. Of the virtuals, I could find only four that were placed under the "wow requirement" (as defined by Keystone's timeline cited in a previous post). So less than 5 percent of the virtuals that I have favorited were deemed to be "wow." If I had included archived virtuals when I made my favorite list, the percentage would have been even less.

 

Since about 9 percent of the virtuals I have found were placed under the wow factor, it does suggest that for me, the wow requirement is not significant in determining whether I find a virtual to be remarkable. I am not a statistician but it does appear to me that I am less likely to be wowed by a wow virtual than I am by a virtual that did not have this requirement.

 

I understand that the wow factor was adopted for administrative purposes during a limited period of time. so that the numbers approved under it are therefore smaller. But it is not that the "wow" virtuals I have found represent the cream of the crop or dominate my favorites.

 

This is not to say that virtuals should be allowed without appropriate guidelines. I accept the prevailing wisdom that the wow factor was adopted because the number of questionable virtuals being submitted was increasing. But I am not simply looking at "'wow' virtuals [that] have been grandfathered" and finding them to be particularly exceptional.

Edited December 3, 2012 by geodarts

[+Semper Questio]

<soapbox>

 

I kinda like Challenges, but they just aren't quite "there" enough to call a replacement for virtuals. Mainly, they need to be downloadable in PQs. Otherwise, I'm checking my gizmo for the next nearest cache and forget to check my phone app for what Challenges may be available. I suspect if they were in PQ's, you would see more folks doing them.

 

I never really warmed to Waymarks. I did make an effort to really try them for a while, especially when I could not cache much or when there were no caches where I was. But it just got to be more work than fun and I never liked the website so I dropped them and never looked back. Every once in a while I spot something and wonder if it is waymarked, but I just can't generate enough interest to figure out whatever the listing or visiting requirements may be. Another big problem with them. Those requirements should be standardized for basic listings and visits, not to mention needing at least a basic PQ function.

 

As for the "wow" factor for true virts, I could not care less and I think anyone who insists on that is being disingenuous at best. Other requirements can help control quality, but that one just doesn't wash. And as others, I come back to the massive number of lame micros that no one seems to mind, and if they do they simply ignore them. Same with lame virts. Or virts at all, for that matter. You don't like 'em? Ignore 'em.

 

Others will say that a cache MUST have a container. I throw the flag on that one too. If that is the standard, then GS needs to be consistent and yank all earthcaches and events from the game as well...or at least from counting as finds. Otherwise it is just hypocrisy.

 

</soapbox>

[Keystone]

The issue is that the "wow" virtuals have been grandfathered and many people see that the exception made to allow virtual caches in special places results in some of the most memorable caching experiences, and these caches often get many favorite points.

 

I wanted to find out how much the wow factor contributed to my memorable caching experiences, so I decided to focus on the 271 caches on my favorites list. Of those, 87 are virtuals (excluding earthcaches) and 87 are traditionals. Of the virtuals, I could find only four that were placed under the "wow requirement" (as defined by Keystone's timeline cited in a previous post). So less than 5 percent of the virtuals that I have favorited were deemed to be "wow." If I had included archived virtuals when I made my favorite list, the percentage would have been even less.

 

Since about 9 percent of the virtuals I have found were placed under the wow factor, it does suggest that for me, the wow requirement is not significant in determining whether I find a virtual to be remarkable. I am not a statistician but it does appear to me that I am less likely to be wowed by a wow virtual than I am by a virtual that did not have this requirement.

 

I understand that the wow factor was adopted for administrative purposes during a limited period of time. so that the numbers approved under it are therefore smaller. But it is not that the "wow" virtuals I have found represent the cream of the crop or dominate my favorites.

 

This is not to say that virtuals should be allowed without appropriate guidelines. I accept the prevailing wisdom that the wow factor was adopted because the number of questionable virtuals being submitted was increasing. But I am not simply looking at "'wow' virtuals [that] have been grandfathered" and finding them to be particularly exceptional.

Your argument is somewhat flawed because reviewers were stopping "lame" virtuals long before the guidelines caught up with daily practice. (Toz rails about this regularly, for all sorts of guideline issues, including the current discussion about limiting links to Facebook. He has a point.) I started reviewing caches in May 2003 (see my account's start date) and I was saying "no" to lame virtuals from day one. The "Wow factor" test just gave us something better to point to when cache owners hollered at the reviewers. By the time it entered the formal guideline text, it was already too late.

 

People don't like it when you review their baby and conclude that it's ugly.

 

Another factor you may not have accounted for: lame virtuals tend generally to fall victim to the archive reaper more so than wow virtuals. The owner of a wow virtual continues to derive satisfaction from the logs, ten years later.

[+tozainamboku]

The issue is that the "wow" virtuals have been grandfathered and many people see that the exception made to allow virtual caches in special places results in some of the most memorable caching experiences, and these caches often get many favorite points.

 

I wanted to find out how much the wow factor contributed to my memorable caching experiences, so I decided to focus on the 271 caches on my favorites list. Of those, 87 are virtuals (excluding earthcaches) and 87 are traditionals. Of the virtuals, I could find only four that were placed under the "wow requirement" (as defined by Keystone's timeline cited in a previous post). So less than 5 percent of the virtuals that I have favorited were deemed to be "wow." If I had included archived virtuals when I made my favorite list, the percentage would have been even less.

 

Since about 9 percent of the virtuals I have found were placed under the wow factor, it does suggest that for me, the wow requirement is not significant in determining whether I find a virtual to be remarkable. I am not a statistician but it does appear to me that I am less likely to be wowed by a wow virtual than I am by a virtual that did not have this requirement.

 

I understand that the wow factor was adopted for administrative purposes during a limited period of time. so that the numbers approved under it are therefore smaller. But it is not that the "wow" virtuals I have found represent the cream of the crop or dominate my favorites.

 

This is not to say that virtuals should be allowed without appropriate guidelines. I accept the prevailing wisdom that the wow factor was adopted because the number of questionable virtuals being submitted was increasing. But I am not simply looking at "'wow' virtuals [that] have been grandfathered" and finding them to be particularly exceptional.

Your argument is somewhat flawed because reviewers were stopping "lame" virtuals long before the guidelines caught up with daily practice. (Toz rails about this regularly, for all sorts of guideline issues, including the current discussion about limiting links to Facebook. He has a point.) I started reviewing caches in May 2003 (see my account's start date) and I was saying "no" to lame virtuals from day one. The "Wow factor" test just gave us something better to point to when cache owners hollered at the reviewers. By the time it entered the formal guideline text, it was already too late.

 

People don't like it when you review their baby and conclude that it's ugly.

 

Another factor you may not have accounted for: lame virtuals tend generally to fall victim to the archive reaper more so than wow virtuals. The owner of a wow virtual continues to derive satisfaction from the logs, ten years later.

I started a reply yesterday with my recollection of when the Wow requirement began, but when I got to the part about reviewers (or approvers as they were called back then) already enforcing Wow before it became an official guideline, I decided not to press Add Reply.

 

I can say that when my virtual was approved in October 2002, I'm pretty certain the guideline was in place. I remember exchanging emails with SoCalAdmin where I pretty much admitted that the location might not fit his idea of "wow".

 

Another thing to look at is the thread on "What the game once was". Even if most virtuals that were submitted back then were in more or less reasonable locations for a virtual, with the urbanization of gocaching and the every increasing difficulty that some people have in finding "good" places for hiding physical containers it is certain that more virtuals would be hidden and many of them would be in "inferior" locations. There are enough stories of the few virtuals that didn't get published (or got published but were later archived for one reason or another) to show that as the game progress it would become more and more of a problem.

 

I think the discussion of the whether or not Wow was needed detracts from what I think was the bigger problem. People were not submitting virtual as a substitute for where a physical cache couldn't be placed. Instead they were using Geocaching.com to share interesting places where they simply didn't want to be bothered with maintaining a physical cache or getting permission for one. They were in fact placing Waymarks - but they just didn't know what to call them.

 

I think that many virtual enthusiast are correct that they saw virtual caches as an enhancement or add-on to geocaching. When they were out looking for geocaches, they could also visit interesting places that didn't necessarily have a cache. In most cases, they even needed to find something in order to answer a question or take the required photo. So there was something akin to finding caches. Waymarking is unsatisfactory to those on the "finder" side since you can't easily download waymarks along with geocaches when you go out, you can't easily log them together with the geocaches you find, many lack the "find" aspect as there is no verification question or photo needed, and they don't count as smileys. Challenges appeared at first to address some of these issues but then either reversed position (e.g. whether they would count as finds) or didn't come through with promised enhancements.

[+Manville Possum]

People don't like it when you review their baby and conclude that it's ugly.

 

I love that quote. It's so true. I have a better understanding now of what reviewers do for this site than I did a couple of years ago and I don't like lame listings either. That was my issue with Waymarking until I learned how to navigate the site.

[+Straight-Cache-Homey]

I think I would enjoy challenges moreso if they had some sort of proximity rule. We're going to Disneyworld next week and I looked up challenges. There's 84 in the park altogether, with at least two in one exact same area. Seems a little silly to take a picture with one character statue at one ride, slide over three feet, and take another picture with another character for two separate challenges.

[+mcgillz]

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

 

And now challenges are being retired as they were a lame replacement for virtuals. Funny, but I think that was the plan.

 

I too love virtuals. Frankly, who cares whether somebody wants to sit at home and score a cache. Some people only want to find nanos in a coal mine but that's their business.

Virtuals can be very challenging and many are valuable because no 'real' cache can be placed where they are. I wish GEOCACHING would bring back virtuals. Maybe add a requirement for a photo at the location. I know that would disadvantage those without cameras but climbing a mountain to find a cache above the snow line disadvantages a lot more cachers!

[+Phetlern]

Given that Groundspeak have announced that they are going to "retire" Challenges, does that mean they are going to facilitate the return Virtual (and perhaps Locationless)caches?

[+Bear5719]

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

 

And now challenges are being retired as they were a lame replacement for virtuals. Funny, but I think that was the plan.

 

I too love virtuals. Frankly, who cares whether somebody wants to sit at home and score a cache. Some people only want to find nanos in a coal mine but that's their business.

Virtuals can be very challenging and many are valuable because no 'real' cache can be placed where they are. I wish GEOCACHING would bring back virtuals. Maybe add a requirement for a photo at the location. I know that would disadvantage those without cameras but climbing a mountain to find a cache above the snow line disadvantages a lot more cachers!

Yes , I completely agree!

[+Wintz50]

i love virtuals but ya know as soon as they came back, we would see virtual power trails.. lol

[+Maingray]

 

I think the discussion of the whether or not Wow was needed detracts from what I think was the bigger problem. People were not submitting virtual as a substitute for where a physical cache couldn't be placed. Instead they were using Geocaching.com to share interesting places where they simply didn't want to be bothered with maintaining a physical cache or getting permission for one. They were in fact placing Waymarks - but they just didn't know what to call them.

 

Agreed. And letting them back now (without some radical changes) would most likely end up with the former, with a lot of lower quality virtuals. For example, I'm glad the DC Mall Virtuals are there, but I shudder to think how dense the Mall would be if virtuals were allowed free rein ("oh look, another brick!"). It's a nice density and compromise as it is, with a good snapshot of interesting locations.

 

However, it still stands within the current guidelines that if somewhere IS really cool and there is no way a container would work, offset (multi) physical caches are the way to go.

[+Snoogans]

It took me awhile to warm up to Challenges and while they are not technically replacements for virts and locationless caches if you choose to view it thataway they are a great innovation on the concept of both. I like 'em. I think it shows a willingness on the part of Groundspeak to try to meet customer demand to bring back virts and locationless caches.

 

And the Snoogans curse is still potent. Less than 24 hours after proclaiming my new love of Challenges they have gone the way of the dodo. Gah!

 

Perhaps I will love Whybothermarks next.

 

Seriously why don't they take that site into the woods and shoot it?

[+Roman!]

It took me awhile to warm up to Challenges and while they are not technically replacements for virts and locationless caches if you choose to view it thataway they are a great innovation on the concept of both. I like 'em. I think it shows a willingness on the part of Groundspeak to try to meet customer demand to bring back virts and locationless caches.

 

And the Snoogans curse is still potent. Less than 24 hours after proclaiming my new love of Challenges they have gone the way of the dodo. Gah!

 

Perhaps I will love Whybothermarks next.

 

Seriously why don't they take that site into the woods and shoot it?

 

I thought you said you love puzzles? If not can I pay you to love puzzles?

[+tozainamboku]

Seriously why don't they take that site into the woods and shoot it?

Unlike Challenges there is an active Waymarking community. Frankly they're part of the problem. Instead of developing all sorts of games, some of which may have even appealed to geocachers, Waymarking is is basically an online cataloging project.

 

If more categories asked for some proof of visit both for submitting the waymark and for visiting it, I think geocachers would at least find those categories something that could be combined with geocaching (in that you actually go outside and visit places). I sort of understand the "whybothermarking" label if all you do is cut and paste a Wikipedia article and add some coordinates from Google maps, and if you can post a visit for having been there in 1978.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak can find a way to cut out a little piece of Waymarking, and add some tools and some guidelines that would appeal to geocachers.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Perhaps Groundspeak can find a way to cut out a little piece of Waymarking, and add some tools and some guidelines that would appeal to geocachers.

I agree. As an active and enthusiastic Waymarker (as well as a geocacher), some tweaks to Waymarking will make it appeal much more.

 

Actually you can make your own tweaks to help matters, but few seem willing to be bothered. A lot of people don't even seem aware of the ability to hide categories, so they bang on about categories that they aren't interested in.

 

When it comes down to it, Waymarking entirely covers the requirement for virtuals (as well as other things), except that it looks different from gc.com, it also includes locationless caches (which are far more popular than virtuals, as it happens) and it doesn't interact well enough with gc.com.

 

It's not enough that you can log a waymark. People don't want to go to a location, take a photo and log it on Waymarking, but give them exactly the same location and same writeup and make it visible on gc.com and they'll rave about how brilliant it is.

 

The solution to "bring back virtuals" is to allow certain Waymarks (those that pass qualifying criteria) to be directly visible on gc.com; logs being automatically posted on both sites at once.

[cezanne]

It's not enough that you can log a waymark. People don't want to go to a location, take a photo and log it on Waymarking, but give them exactly the same location and same writeup and make it visible on gc.com and they'll rave about how brilliant it is.

 

That might be true for some, but definitely not for all. I'm logging nothing that requires a compulsory photo (regardless of caches with ALR which existed back then, ECs, challenges, waymarks etc) . I'm not enjoying taking photos.

 

In my area neither waymarks nor challenges received any notable attention even though challenges were visible on gc.com. None of the existing waymarks nor challenges has anything to offer for me - they just list the most well known tourist locations.

 

Cezanne

[+Happy Humphrey]

Well, by "people" I didn't assume that every single person wants the same thing, so you can take it that I mean "almost everyone". In my (long) experience of talking about virtuals vs. waymarks the overriding grudge is that waymarks are only logged on the separate site and don't add to your profile numbers. Waymarks, like virtuals, sometimes require a photo, sometimes not. I just gave the "photo" example because it's quite common, and people don't mind submitting a photo (again, meaning "almost everyone").

 

And I don't quite understand what you mean by "existing waymarks or challenges". Unless your area is totally featureless then there must be lots of points of interest that could be waymarked (locationless style). Waymark one that you consider worthwhile, and everyone has a "virtual" to log.

 

My idea is that you could then submit it for promotion to a geocache; and if the category owner agrees that it's suitable, then it's sent for review. If the reviewer agrees, then a kind of "window" is opened from geocaching.com into Waymarking, where the geocacher can see and log this waymark. It could even be reformatted so it looks like a geocache listing.

Logging this updates his geocaching "Waymark geocaches logged" stats, and at the same time updates the Waymarking site with the log. Those that don't take an interest in Virtual caches can switch off this feature and close the Waymarking window.

If you're so uninterested that don't have a Waymarking profile, it will also be invisible (remember when Virtuals existed, and it seemed that everyone wanted to get rid of them? Well, such people are unlikely to want to see them back again even if they can suppress them).

 

Won't happen, of course, but it's an idea.

[4wheelin_fool]

Bring back Challenges!

[knowschad]

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

Challenges have joined virtuals. Check out here

[cezanne]

Well, by "people" I didn't assume that every single person wants the same thing, so you can take it that I mean "almost everyone". In my (long) experience of talking about virtuals vs. waymarks the overriding grudge is that waymarks are only logged on the separate site and don't add to your profile numbers. Waymarks, like virtuals, sometimes require a photo, sometimes not.

 

Those waymarks that did not require a photo I came across typically had no verification process at all which is not what I had in mind. What I have in mind is being able to ask several questions and receive free text replies (like in well designed Earthcaches or like in my own virtual).

 

I just gave the "photo" example because it's quite common, and people don't mind submitting a photo (again, meaning "almost everyone").

 

Enough people minded it so that they did away with the photo requirement for Earthcaches some time ago.

 

And I don't quite understand what you mean by "existing waymarks or challenges". Unless your area is totally featureless then there must be lots of points of interest that could be waymarked (locationless style). Waymark one that you consider worthwhile, and everyone has a "virtual" to log.

 

I was not talking about locations, but about waymarks and challenges listed on gc.com - for the sake of brevity I called them existing waymarks and challenges.

(Those listed are mostly locations that I have visited several hundreds of times in my life and the descriptions tell less than what I know off-head - to sum up: boring and not worth to waste my time.)

 

I do not have any interest into listing locations and those locations that people with an interest in listing locations would list in my area are already known to me since my childhood. What I'm interested into is learning something about locations I'm not familiar with, e.g. learning some historical facts that are not told in every guide book or in primary school in the concerned area.

 

For example, one could come up with a nice guided tour through a city leading to locations associated with the history of the Jews in that city or to locations that played a role in NS time etc. Such tours are incredibly akward to implement in Waymarking and not implementable at all as challenges. One only can implement them as geocache by placing a container, but that requires that one wants to place a container which not necessarily is the preferred way.

 

 

 

My idea is that you could then submit it for promotion to a geocache; and if the category owner agrees that it's suitable, then it's sent for review. If the reviewer agrees, then a kind of "window" is opened from geocaching.com into Waymarking, where the geocacher can see and log this waymark. It could even be reformatted so it looks like a geocache listing.

Logging this updates his geocaching "Waymark geocaches logged" stats, and at the same time updates the Waymarking site with the log. Those that don't take an interest in Virtual caches can switch off this feature and close the Waymarking window.

If you're so uninterested that don't have a Waymarking profile, it will also be invisible (remember when Virtuals existed, and it seemed that everyone wanted to get rid of them? Well, such people are unlikely to want to see them back again even if they can suppress them).

Won't happen, of course, but it's an idea.

 

I agree. Won't happen, but would not spark any interest in me anyway. I'd like to have a platform for implementing virtuals with the full flexibility of including puzzle and multiple stage aspects, but yet have D/T rating, downloadable additional waypoints and many other aspects now common for geocaches at my disposition. I do know that this will not happen either, but it would spark my interest unlike your idea which is only about the logging process which is not an issue for me.

 

Cezanne

[BoredRoom]

For example, one could come up with a nice guided tour through a city leading to locations associated with the history of the Jews in that city or to locations that played a role in NS time etc. Such tours are incredibly akward to implement in Waymarking and not implementable at all as challenges. One only can implement them as geocache by placing a container, but that requires that one wants to place a container which not necessarily is the preferred way.

 

I'd like to have a platform for implementing virtuals with the full flexibility of including puzzle and multiple stage aspects, but yet have D/T rating, downloadable additional waypoints and many other aspects now common for geocaches at my disposition. I do know that this will not happen either, but it would spark my interest unlike your idea which is only about the logging process which is not an issue for me.

 

Could a Wherigo do this? Or are they going to kill that too?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Pre-Wherigo, I created a waymark that involves a tour of a village, taking in various points along the way.

 

Here.

 

I agree that it would be better with multiple waypoints available. But then again, multicaches have become rather unpopular so I doubt that multi-virtuals would be greeted with great enthusiasm. D/T ratings also seem to have fallen by the wayside and are often wildly inaccurate to the point where I now regard them as no more than part of the sub-game of D/T Grid Filling.

 

Waymarkers have always been banging on about how Waymarks were a good idea but need more work; Groundspeak agreed that we only had phase 1 and made improvements a priority (about six years ago!). 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. Baffling really, as it has many features that we could do with on gc.com (for instance, categories and the ability to suppress them), and only needed a few improvements to become quite popular.

[cezanne]

But then again, multicaches have become rather unpopular so I doubt that multi-virtuals would be greeted with great enthusiasm.

 

I think that the situation is different in those countries in Europe where the proportion of multi caches always has been higher. While also in these countries the number of cachers who do not like multi caches is increasing, there are still many cachers around who even prefer multi caches to all other types of caches. For example, still >20% of the active caches in Vienna are multi caches (further 28% are mysteries among which there are some with multiple stages as well). Some years ago this rate was higher than 30%.

 

I'm convinced that tours of the type I have in mind would spark considerably more interest than Waymarking

which does not play any notable role in Austria. Most of the waymarks that exist get hardly any visit as most locations are locations that all the locals know. The offer is worse than it has been in geocaching back in 2004.

 

I agree, however, that virtuals never will appeal to the vast majority, but always only to a certain group.

What I tried to point out was mainly that all the efforts after virtuals, be it waymarks or challenges focused on single location concepts and made it hard to incorporate multiple locations and mysteries in a natural way.

It would not be too hard to repair some of these deficiencies, but it appears to be that the required will to do does not exist on the side of Groundspeak.

 

Cezanne

[Andronicus]

I think it is obvious that Groundspeak plans to start allowing a limited number of new virtuales to be listed by platinum members.

[+Manville Possum]

I think it is obvious that Groundspeak plans to start allowing a limited number of new virtuales to be listed by platinum members.

Rumor is that they have plans to bring back a Virtual Hampster type geocache. I saw that posted in the Secret Platinum Members forums in the furry critters thread.

[+JL_HSTRE]

One of the reasons that remaining Virtuals are popular is they nearly always take you someone really good. Virtuals without a review process seems like a mess, but most Reviewers have stated they want nothing to do with reviewing for quality - just getting everyone to follow the Guidelines is enough of a headache.

 

If Virtuals come back, I would do it this way:

 

1) Virtuals have a normal cache page like any other cache (including a CO!), even the same "ghost" icon and count toward your normal cache stats like the old ones.

 

2) Virtuals cannot be published within proximity to any existing cache, including other Virtuals, Earthcaches, and virtual stages of multicaches & mystery caches. This cuts down on saturation issues and helps limit Virtuals to places they could not otherwise go.

 

3) Limit the frequency of Virtual publication. Perhaps only Premium Members can publish them and only 1 per week? Again, keep them under control.

 

4) All new Virtuals require a Confirmation Code (existing Virtuals are exempt and grandfathered in). The required Confirmation Code will entered by the CO when creating or editing the cache page. You must enter the Confirmation Code to be able to log a Find. This cuts down on armchair logging and, if the CO becomes absent, the Finds can still be verified.

 

5) Possibly also voting on Virtuals: thumbs up or thumbs down. You can only vote if you log a Find (to avoid the abuses seen with voting on Challenges). Once you receive at least 10 votes, if your Virtual ever gets more than 50% Thumbs Down then it gets archived? (Very speculative on this one.)

 

IF Virtuals come back then they need to be done in away that addresses all the concerns about abuse and all the problems that occurred with Challenges.

[+S6sputnik]

Another cacher in favor of new virtuals!

[+Bear5719]

One of the reasons that remaining Virtuals are popular is th

 

If Virtuals come back, I would do it this way:

 

5) Possibly also voting on Virtuals: thumbs up or thumbs down. You can only vote if you log a Find (to avoid the abuses seen with voting on Challenges). Once you receive at least 10 votes, if your Virtual ever gets more than 50% Thumbs Down then it gets archived? (Very speculative on this one.)

 

IF Virtuals come back then they need to be done in away that addresses all the concerns about abuse and all the problems that occurred with Challenges.

 

I like the idea of voting on virtuals. Something akin to the idea of 'does this cache meet the standards or a historic/cultural/geo signficants'

Also we should come up with a good set of rules, as suggested, and submit our request to bring back virtuals. Even if they are limited in number it would be fine!

After my trip I was somewhat dismayed that there were so few virtuals in most of PA, or Va. It was kinda enlightening. Since I had my mother with me, I sure wasn't going trooping thru the woods, lol

[+DonB]

My research seems to indicate that the main reason for discontinuing virtuals was lack of a “wow” factor; either the cache was poorly placed, or someone replaced a “lost” container with a virtual.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the main reason for discontinuing the listing of new virtual caches was the lack of a workable definition of "wow".

I say you are both wrong, TPTB wants to get rid of them so they stand a better chance of getting physical caches in the national parks. I have done virtuals in many states that have had plenty of wow factor. How much wow factor does a pill bottle in a bush have?

[Mr.Yuck]

My research seems to indicate that the main reason for discontinuing virtuals was lack of a “wow” factor; either the cache was poorly placed, or someone replaced a “lost” container with a virtual.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the main reason for discontinuing the listing of new virtual caches was the lack of a workable definition of "wow".

I say you are both wrong, TPTB wants to get rid of them so they stand a better chance of getting physical caches in the national parks. I have done virtuals in many states that have had plenty of wow factor. How much wow factor does a pill bottle in a bush have?

 

I have to admit we're beating a dead horse there. Correct, the now growing by leaps and bounds and pushing 100 Employees Groundspeak, Inc. would never kill any type of cache for two many lame ones being submitted in this day and age, but it was a different era back then. The main reason we were given was indeed there was no workable definition of the Wow factor, but as I said earlier in the thread, there would have been no wow factor if they didn't say there was one in the first place. I suppose I will stand by my opinion that there was a definite "caches are containers with a logbook" stance taken by the then 10 Employee or so Groundspeak, Inc.

[+tozainamboku]

I suppose I will stand by my opinion that there was a definite "caches are containers with a logbook" stance taken by the then 10 Employee or so Groundspeak, Inc.

I tend to disagree with this. In the early days, TPTB did what they could to encourage more geocaches so the could attract more geocachers and grow. Virtual caches solved a particular problem. People wanted to put their geocaches in places they felt were more interesting and they found that in many of the these places they could not hide a physical cache. Whether is was sbell's virtual cache at Disneyland or one at an historic cemetery, these soon became quite popular.

 

Now there were of course some geocachers who felt that geocaching was about going for a hike in the woods and finding a box with trade items. They didn't see the point of visiting Disneyland or a cemetery to find a cache. So from the start there was a dispute whether or not these should be caches. But I'm pretty sure Groundspeak liked that these increased the cache count and appealed to a new demographic.

 

As geocaching continued to grow it attracted people who enjoyed being able to find many caches in relatively close by and easy-to-get-to places. Whether these people were motivated by a bigger find count or they were just a new demographic of urban dwellers who found using a GPS to find hidden things a fun activity doesn't matter. They began hiding smaller and smaller containers, often in areas previously considered impossible to hide a cache in. Many of the locations that would have been virtuals could now have a physical cache. And since at the time virtuals counted in the proximity rule, there was often a battle between placing a virtual and placing a physical.

 

It was likely that these disputes lead to more people (and perhaps now some of TPTB) to argue that physical caches should take precedence over virtual caches. This view was strengthened by cacher owners who converted their physical caches to virtuals when the container went missing. Virtual caches became the perfect choice for cache owners who did not want to have the expense of containers or the hassle of maintaining them. And Jeremy himself argued that since you weren't leaving anything, so long as you weren't trespassing, you didn't need permission for a virtual cache. So they were much easier to hide.

 

I think the real reason for the Wow factor was to level the playing field. Virtual caches were becoming the cache of choice. (Of course you could ask why there isn't a Wow factor for micros to keep them from overrunning place where a regular could be hidden).

 

It does seem a bit strange that when wow failed they didn't just go back to letting community to decide what proportion of virtual to physical there would be. Instead the stopped accepting virtual caches altogether to ensure that the ratio would eventually be zero. So perhaps by that time TPTB made the decision that a cache has to be a physical container. Certainly they no longer had a need for virtuals to solve the original problem of trying to increase the number of caches being placed.

[+GeocachingJoy]

I really enjoyed this topic and the many responses to it. First I would like to say I LOVE Geocaching, and the many WOW!! experiences I have enjoyed while doing it. The game of Geocaching has brought me to some really beautiful places that otherwise I would have never explored on my own (without the tour book or guide) and to some places that I wish I would have never explored on my own as well. (that dreaded LPC with the family of wasps nesting inside, those one for the numbers nanos on street signs, or the pill bottles in guard rails )

 

On a good note, I can say that I enjoy many aspects of the game that it provides, I prefer to cache for the places that it takes me, the beauty, the history, the creative container, & the fun. Many of the places that I have explored have been sooooo amazing that I have even forget about looking for the cache. The Virtuals I do think have a place in Geocaching & 95% of the 10 I have found have been some of my Favorites from Cherokee Hieroglyphics, an Eagle Scout project, an Appalachian historical post office, to the best of all an abandoned RR tunnel. Just about a month ago, we explored a virtual that was not even on our to do list for the day, the description was clever but elusive and I am so glad we stopped. This virtual is well worth keeping in the game of Geocaching.

And in regards to it being a WOW!!! factor and the rules being ignored for reasons of discontinuing this aspect of the game, OK, what about those awful recycled food container caches hidden behind a gas station or at a commercial business that are part of Geocaching?

Just my two cents.

 

Melanie/

Geocaching Joy

 

Check out GC4D11

(what kind of house is it?) and if you like Youtube videos I just uploaded one about this awesome place. (Wake Up!!! It's Geocaching Time /Youtube user Geocaching Joy)

[+Packanack]

I dont think that this really had to do with container or no container, virtual or physical. I think the decision was made by Groundspeak as a business to try an exploit the resource of alternative geolocation forms as alternative web sites to see if they would achieve the level that has been achieved by Geocaching.com. Money is to be made in clicks and hits and sales of ad space and products of advertisers, more websites from the developer theoretically means more money to the company, provided the cost to support the site and servers is not prohibative.

 

Groundspeak is not geocaching they are a business servivng geocaching. To think that they would not seek profit in all permutations of the games surrounding that hobby is a little naive. So they tried to move virtuals into other profict potential categories, Waymarking and Challenges. It really did not work because when the sun goes down it is really Geocaching that carries the day.

[+Semper Questio]

To quote myself from another thread....

 

What I REALLY don't get are all the folks that say webcams and virts should not count as finds. Especially those that have some in their find list. If you REALLY believe this, change your finds to notes. It will lend you a bit of credibility.

 

But really, why does it matter? You don't want them in your count? Don't find them. Wanna get them off your list Ignore them. Wanna find them without counting? Go to Waymarking and list them there or visit them if they are listed already.

 

Or are you a believer in "true" caches? Fine...for YOU. But again, give yourselves some credibility and in addition to the virts and webcams, let's see you remove your finds for aarthcaches and any events (regular, CITO, or mega) where you did not have to use your GPS to find a container that contained the log for the event.

 

In any case, why force your way on everyone else? There are multiple ways to deal with caches you don't want to count as a find, but not so much the other way.

[+Bear5719]

I really enjoyed this topic and the many responses to it. First I would like to say I LOVE Geocaching, and the many WOW!! experiences I have enjoyed while doing it. The game of Geocaching has brought me to some really beautiful places that otherwise I would have never explored on my own (without the tour book or guide) and to some places that I wish I would have never explored on my own as well. (that dreaded LPC with the family of wasps nesting inside, those one for the numbers nanos on street signs, or the pill bottles in guard rails )

 

On a good note, I can say that I enjoy many aspects of the game that it provides, I prefer to cache for the places that it takes me, the beauty, the history, the creative container, & the fun. Many of the places that I have explored have been sooooo amazing that I have even forget about looking for the cache. The Virtuals I do think have a place in Geocaching & 95% of the 10 I have found have been some of my Favorites from Cherokee Hieroglyphics, an Eagle Scout project, an Appalachian historical post office, to the best of all an abandoned RR tunnel. Just about a month ago, we explored a virtual that was not even on our to do list for the day, the description was clever but elusive and I am so glad we stopped. This virtual is well worth keeping in the game of Geocaching.

And in regards to it being a WOW!!! factor and the rules being ignored for reasons of discontinuing this aspect of the game, OK, what about those awful recycled food container caches hidden behind a gas station or at a commercial business that are part of Geocaching?

Just my two cents.

 

Melanie/

Geocaching Joy

 

Check out GC4D11

(what kind of house is it?) and if you like Youtube videos I just uploaded one about this awesome place. (Wake Up!!! It's Geocaching Time /Youtube user Geocaching Joy)

 

Love your comments! I have not done too many 'real' ones lately because I might have to trek over hill and dale thru trash, discarded tires and the like. That is discouraging to me and takes the fun out of it sometimes.

[+Bear5719]

To quote myself from another thread....

 

What I REALLY don't get are all the folks that say webcams and virts should not count as finds. Especially those that have some in their find list. If you REALLY believe this, change your finds to notes. It will lend you a bit of credibility.

 

But really, why does it matter? You don't want them in your count? Don't find them. Wanna get them off your list Ignore them. Wanna find them without counting? Go to Waymarking and list them there or visit them if they are listed already.

 

Or are you a believer in "true" caches? Fine...for YOU. But again, give yourselves some credibility and in addition to the virts and webcams, let's see you remove your finds for aarthcaches and any events (regular, CITO, or mega) where you did not have to use your GPS to find a container that contained the log for the event.

 

In any case, why force your way on everyone else? There are multiple ways to deal with caches you don't want to count as a find, but not so much the other way.

 

I second your opinion and that is why I asked this question in the first place. Why are we stopping virtuals-because it seems like they belong, they are fun, and it seems that many folks enoy them. I think they deserve a second look or a second chance.

[+Bear5719]

I dont think that this really had to do with container or no container, virtual or physical. I think the decision was made by Groundspeak as a business to try an exploit the resource of alternative geolocation forms as alternative web sites to see if they would achieve the level that has been achieved by Geocaching.com. Money is to be made in clicks and hits and sales of ad space and products of advertisers, more websites from the developer theoretically means more money to the company, provided the cost to support the site and servers is not prohibative.

 

Groundspeak is not geocaching they are a business servivng geocaching. To think that they would not seek profit in all permutations of the games surrounding that hobby is a little naive. So they tried to move virtuals into other profict potential categories, Waymarking and Challenges. It really did not work because when the sun goes down it is really Geocaching that carries the day.

 

And this might be the saddest truth of all!

[+tozainamboku]

95% of the 10 I have found have been some of my Favorites

Wonder what was wrong with the half of a virtual cache that was not a favorite?

 

And in regards to it being a WOW!!! factor and the rules being ignored for reasons of discontinuing this aspect of the game, OK, what about those awful recycled food container caches hidden behind a gas station or at a commercial business that are part of Geocaching?

Just my two cents.

 

Melanie/

Geocaching Joy

 

I'm puzzled when people use this argument. The wow factor was introduce to virtual caches for a reason. The stated reason was that since there was no cache to find, the reward should be the location itself. (More likely the wow requirement was applied only to virtuals because virtuals were cheap and easy to create, so often people were hiding these instead of contributing to the numbers of phyiscal caches placed. The wow factor made creating virtual caches a littler more difficult by requiring the cache owner to convince the reviewer there was something unique about the location.

 

There have always been geocachers who are attracted to this game because it takes them to new and interesting places. One the other hand there have always been geocaches who are attracted to the this game because they like find caches (even ones hidden in less tha inspiring places). Allowing virtual cache to be placed anywhere would result in many of these getting placed simply because there are even easier and cheaper to create than putting a film can in lightpost. In spite of the wow requirement, people continued to submit these locations as virtuals. The reviewer probably denied 99% of every 10 virtuals that go submitted. The ones that did get published were truly "wow".

 

I dont think that this really had to do with container or no container, virtual or physical. I think the decision was made by Groundspeak as a business to try an exploit the resource of alternative geolocation forms as alternative web sites to see if they would achieve the level that has been achieved by Geocaching.com. Money is to be made in clicks and hits and sales of ad space and products of advertisers, more websites from the developer theoretically means more money to the company, provided the cost to support the site and servers is not prohibative.

 

Groundspeak is not geocaching they are a business servivng geocaching. To think that they would not seek profit in all permutations of the games surrounding that hobby is a little naive. So they tried to move virtuals into other profict potential categories, Waymarking and Challenges. It really did not work because when the sun goes down it is really Geocaching that carries the day.

Interesting hypothesis. Groundspeak certainly decided early on that they would be the language of location. The would expand from geocaching to other GPS based games and GPS databases because they saw this as a growth area. Some initial ideas were tried out on Geocaching.com - benchmarks, virtual caches, and locationless. Later they saw that these were somewhat different than the original concept of geocaching. They started looking a different solutions for these and other applications.

 

It is puzzling, however, at the way they abandon these other projects when they aren't immediately as popular as geocaching.

Edited December 7, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+Packanack]

95% of the 10 I have found have been some of my Favorites

Wonder what was wrong with the half of a virtual cache that was not a favorite?

 

And in regards to it being a WOW!!! factor and the rules being ignored for reasons of discontinuing this aspect of the game, OK, what about those awful recycled food container caches hidden behind a gas station or at a commercial business that are part of Geocaching?

Just my two cents.

 

Melanie/

Geocaching Joy

 

I'm puzzled when people use this argument. The wow factor was introduce to virtual caches for a reason. The stated reason was that since there was no cache to find, the reward should be the location itself. (More likely the wow requirement was applied only to virtuals because virtuals were cheap and easy to create, so often people were hiding these instead of contributing to the numbers of phyiscal caches placed. The wow factor made creating virtual caches a littler more difficult by requiring the cache owner to convince the reviewer there was something unique about the location.

 

There have always been geocachers who are attracted to this game because it takes them to new and interesting places. One the other hand there have always been geocaches who are attracted to the this game because they like find caches (even ones hidden in less tha inspiring places). Allowing virtual cache to be placed anywhere would result in many of these getting placed simply because there are even easier and cheaper to create than putting a film can in lightpost. In spite of the wow requirement, people continued to submit these locations as virtuals. The reviewer probably denied 99% of every 10 virtuals that go submitted. The ones that did get published were truly "wow".

 

I dont think that this really had to do with container or no container, virtual or physical. I think the decision was made by Groundspeak as a business to try an exploit the resource of alternative geolocation forms as alternative web sites to see if they would achieve the level that has been achieved by Geocaching.com. Money is to be made in clicks and hits and sales of ad space and products of advertisers, more websites from the developer theoretically means more money to the company, provided the cost to support the site and servers is not prohibative.

 

Groundspeak is not geocaching they are a business servivng geocaching. To think that they would not seek profit in all permutations of the games surrounding that hobby is a little naive. So they tried to move virtuals into other profict potential categories, Waymarking and Challenges. It really did not work because when the sun goes down it is really Geocaching that carries the day.

Interesting hypothesis. Groundspeak certainly decided early on that they would be the language of location. The would expand from geocaching to other GPS based games and GPS databases because they saw this as a growth area. Some initial ideas were tried out on Geocaching.com - benchmarks, virtual caches, and locationless. Later they saw that these were somewhat different than the original concept of geocaching. They started looking a different solutions for these and other applications.

 

It is puzzling, however, at the way they abandon these other projects when they aren't immediately as popular as geocaching.

 

Because of the financial drain in keeping them up and going while waiting for the revenue to start. In all higher end ventures there is a revenue projection coupled with time lines, when revenue does not meet the projection time line the analysis shifts to a question of throwing good money after bad or trying to rework the product to make if more profitable or attractive. In the case of challenges that was an insurmountable hump. I set up 10 challenges and they were trashed off the bat, I did 30, but also saw no back up interest from locals. Even my caching group could not be encouraged to get behind them.

 

What is difficult for cachers to understand is the possibility that Groundspeak withheld the virtual from geocaching to further their own revenue stream. I do not find that so hard to understand from a business standpoint, it makes good sense from a business standpoint. Marketing another vehicle and possibly add additional revenue. Groundspeak is a business, it is not the activity of geocaching.

[+Zekester & Simon]

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

 

- We like to pursue the sorts caches that we like to do. We resent it when the company that organizes this offers them up and then takes them away. As you may have surmised, Virts are one of the sorts we like to do.

 

- We try very hard not to pass judgement on other cachers. You should find your joy in this hobby your own way. While we are happy to share our joy in it with you, we recognize that what we like, you may not, and what you like, we may not. As an example, we'd offer up puzzle caches. Our joy is in the hunt, finding the hide. We take no pleasure in searching for coordinates. But for all of you puzzle cachers out there, have at it!

 

- 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!

Edited December 8, 2012 by Zekester & Simon

[+GeocachingJoy]

I really enjoyed this topic and the many responses to it. First I would like to say I LOVE Geocaching, and the many WOW!! experiences I have enjoyed while doing it. The game of Geocaching has brought me to some really beautiful places that otherwise I would have never explored on my own (without the tour book or guide) and to some places that I wish I would have never explored on my own as well. (that dreaded LPC with the family of wasps nesting inside, those one for the numbers nanos on street signs, or the pill bottles in guard rails )

 

On a good note, I can say that I enjoy many aspects of the game that it provides, I prefer to cache for the places that it takes me, the beauty, the history, the creative container, & the fun. Many of the places that I have explored have been sooooo amazing that I have even forget about looking for the cache. The Virtuals I do think have a place in Geocaching & 95% of the 10 I have found have been some of my Favorites from Cherokee Hieroglyphics, an Eagle Scout project, an Appalachian historical post office, to the best of all an abandoned RR tunnel. Just about a month ago, we explored a virtual that was not even on our to do list for the day, the description was clever but elusive and I am so glad we stopped. This virtual is well worth keeping in the game of Geocaching.

And in regards to it being a WOW!!! factor and the rules being ignored for reasons of discontinuing this aspect of the game, OK, what about those awful recycled food container caches hidden behind a gas station or at a commercial business that are part of Geocaching?

Just my two cents.

 

Melanie/

Geocaching Joy

 

Check out GC4D11

(what kind of house is it?) and if you like Youtube videos I just uploaded one about this awesome place. (Wake Up!!! It's Geocaching Time /Youtube user Geocaching Joy)

 

Love your comments! I have not done too many 'real' ones lately because I might have to trek over hill and dale thru trash, discarded tires and the like. That is discouraging to me and takes the fun out of it sometimes.

[+GeocachingJoy]

Thank you.

[+GeocachingJoy]

Wonder what was wrong with the half of a virtual cache that was not a favorite?

 

In answer to the half, one of the virtuals was actually a triangulation benchmark at the top of Stone Mountain, cool find that I otherwise would have missed on the hike to the top, but not exactly what I consider in my opinion in my top 10 of awesome virtuals I have found. Triangulation marker vs. an abandoned rail road tunnel, you do the math.

 

"And in regards to it being a WOW!!! factor and the rules being ignored for reasons of discontinuing this aspect of the game,...."

 

And in response to you being puzzled by me and others using the WOW argument as above. I may have used this term loosely, but WOW!!! to me, is mainly what the game has brought to my life, "WOW!!! how I LOVE this Game." but sometimes I would have rather not wasted my gas and stayed home and on those days WOW!!! is not my word of choice. to use your quote (The ones that did get published were truly "wow".)is what I meant on how I feel when I find a virtual that I like or otherwise when I find a great cache. I really don't wish for virtuals to be published just for the cheapness of it, or placed like some caches are, like I said for the WOW!!! of it and there are virtuals out there that do deserve to stay in the game of Geocaching and some that need to be added.

 

& to use your quote

 

I'm puzzled when people use this argument. The wow factor was introduce to virtual caches for a reason. The stated reason was that since there was no cache to find, the reward should be the location itself. (More likely the wow requirement was applied only to virtuals because virtuals were cheap and easy to create, so often people were hiding these instead of contributing to the numbers of phyiscal caches placed. The wow factor made creating virtual caches a littler more difficult by requiring the cache owner to convince the reviewer there was something unique about the location.

 

There have always been geocachers who are attracted to this game because it takes them to new and interesting places. One the other hand there have always been geocaches who are attracted to the this game because they like find caches (even ones hidden in less tha inspiring places). Allowing virtual cache to be placed anywhere would result in many of these getting placed simply because there are even easier and cheaper to create than putting a film can in lightpost. In spite of the wow requirement, people continued to submit these locations as virtuals. The reviewer probably denied 99% of every 10 virtuals that go submitted.

 

I dont think that this really had to do with container or no container, virtual or physical. I think the decision was made by Groundspeak as a business to try an exploit the resource of alternative geolocation forms as alternative web sites to see if they would achieve the level that has been achieved by Geocaching.com. Money is to be made in clicks and hits and sales of ad space and products of advertisers, more websites from the developer theoretically means more money to the company, provided the cost to support the site and servers is not prohibative.

 

Groundspeak is not geocaching they are a business servivng geocaching. To think that they would not seek profit in all permutations of the games surrounding that hobby is a little naive. So they tried to move virtuals into other profict potential categories, Waymarking and Challenges. It really did not work because when the sun goes down it is really Geocaching that carries the day.

Interesting hypothesis. Groundspeak certainly decided early on that they would be the language of location. The would expand from geocaching to other GPS based games and GPS databases because they saw this as a growth area. Some initial ideas were tried out on Geocaching.com - benchmarks, virtual caches, and locationless. Later they saw that these were somewhat different than the original concept of geocaching. They started looking a different solutions for these and other applications.

 

It is puzzling, however, at the way they abandon these other projects when they aren't immediately as popular as geocaching.

[+tozainamboku]

Wonder what was wrong with the half of a virtual cache that was not a favorite?

 

In answer to the half, one of the virtuals was actually a triangulation benchmark at the top of Stone Mountain, cool find that I otherwise would have missed on the hike to the top, but not exactly what I consider in my opinion in my top 10 of awesome virtuals I have found. Triangulation marker vs. an abandoned rail road tunnel, you do the math.

I can't do the math for you. Some people actually get excited finding benchmarks. There's a whole section of the site dedicated to them. And they don't even complain that the benchmarks don't count in their find counts.

 

Similarly there are people fascinated by abandoned railroad tunnels while others may not care one bit.

 

 

"And in regards to it being a WOW!!! factor and the rules being ignored for reasons of discontinuing this aspect of the game,...."

 

And in response to you being puzzled by me and others using the WOW argument as above. I may have used this term loosely, but WOW!!! to me, is mainly what the game has brought to my life, "WOW!!! how I LOVE this Game." but sometimes I would have rather not wasted my gas and stayed home and on those days WOW!!! is not my word of choice. to use your quote (The ones that did get published were truly "wow".)is what I meant on how I feel when I find a virtual that I like or otherwise when I find a great cache. I really don't wish for virtuals to be published just for the cheapness of it, or placed like some caches are, like I said for the WOW!!! of it and there are virtuals out there that do deserve to stay in the game of Geocaching and some that need to be added.

I'm not clear about your point. Sounds like you believe that "wow" requirement should be applied to virtual caches. Perhaps you are arguing that "wow" should apply to physical caches as well.

 

I was simply trying to give a little history of why virtuals had a wow requirement while there is none for physical caches. It's a bit silly, IMO, to claim that "good" virtual caches are punished because of a few "bad" ones, but physical caches don't have to meet that criteria.

 

The "wow" issue was only one part of the decision to grandfather virtual caches. The volunteer reviewers did not like the amount of time they had to spend on virtual caches explaining to people why their cache was not "wow". And probably the bigger issue was they couldn't give clear instructions as to what they had to do to make it "wow". TPTB could have decided to revoke the "wow" requirement, but that wouldn't have solved other problems (including ones the "wow" requirement was meant to solve in the first place).

 

The core idea of geocaching is to hide something and for cachers to come and find it. It is a game of hide and seek. Virtuals were added to attempt to solve the issue of how to allow caching where physical cache couldn't be placed. Often those who want to bring back virtual caches are unaware of the part of the guideline that said

A virtual cache must be a unique physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates.

 

The idea was you go to the coordinated and you find the object. You then take a picture or answer some questions to show you found the target. Often the object you were supposed to find was a plaque that had the information to answer the question.

 

What happened with "wow" is that this object now had to be at a place of special historic, community, or geocaching interest. Some people lost sight of the "hide and seek" game and started submitting virtuals that were really just posting the locations of historic or other "interesting" sites. And even those that still asked you to get information off a plaque, now had the issue that that information was probably available online someplace. IMO, Warymarking is a far better solution if all you want to do is share an interesting location.

 

I understand that many people really enjoy finding virtual caches for reasons other that just the smiley. Whatever your personal definition of "wow" is you can find virtual caches that will satisfy it. And I believe that if there is actually something to find and a way to verify that you found it, that these could be a part of geocaching. But coming up with guidelines and a way to enforce them seems to be a problem. Nobody has yet suggested something that would avoid the problems of the past. Instead we have people arguing that virtuals are so cool that we should just ignore the problems.

[+Sagefox]

...one of the virtuals was actually a triangulation benchmark at the top of Stone Mountain...

Some people actually get excited finding benchmarks. There's a whole section of the site dedicated to them. And they don't even complain that the benchmarks don't count in their find counts.

 

Did someone say "benchmarks"? Yep. I love 'em.

 

Something to search for and they often contain short bits of interesting history. I really like that they show in my stats but as Toz said we don't need them in our find counts.

 

Virtual caches to me are collector's items. I don't care now if they have wow or not because they are in a permanent state of grandparental lockdown. I enjoyed most of the virts we found but a lot were very lame thus supporting the need for the Wow Factor. When they shut them down I understood why.

 

I would not like to see the return of virtual caches, Wow, or not. I like that we have a "Prime Directive" (container with a log at minimum).

[cezanne]

The core idea of geocaching is to hide something and for cachers to come and find it. It is a game of hide and seek.

 

For me the core always has rather been to show something of interest to others or to provide them with a rewarding experience. The GPSr in there is just used as a helpful tool.

 

The idea was you go to the coordinated and you find the object. You then take a picture or answer some questions to show you found the target. Often the object you were supposed to find was a plaque that had the information to answer the question.

 

That does not correspond at all to my favourite type of virtual and also not to my favourite type of cache with a container as for me the way to the cache and what can be experienced there does play a considerable role.

What you describe above would somehow well fit to Waymarking (ignoring the fact that it might be hard to filter out just those waymarks that match one's preferences).

 

What happened with "wow" is that this object now had to be at a place of special historic, community, or geocaching interest. Some people lost sight of the "hide and seek" game and started submitting virtuals that were really just posting the locations of historic or other "interesting" sites. And even those that still asked you to get information off a plaque, now had the issue that that information was probably available online someplace. IMO, Warymarking is a far better solution if all you want to do is share an interesting location.

 

This shows the same philosophic gap between your attitude and mine.

Consider e.g. Earthcaches. While I'm in favor of separating EC counters from counters for caches with containers, I'm much more interested into a well done EC than in the majority of the containers that can be found nowadays. At a well done EC I learn something new and spend my time in a way which makes much more sense to me than if I spend the same time in searching at 50 tree roots in order to find a plastic container.

 

In my opinion, Waymarking is well suited if the key issue is really just to share a single location. It is however much less well suited if one wants to make other learn new things or show them new trails without telling them in advance the destination. Think e.g. of a city walk where only the start is provided and all further points are determined on the scratch and are not known beforehand.

 

 

Nobody has yet suggested something that would avoid the problems of the past. Instead we have people arguing that virtuals are so cool that we should just ignore the problems.

 

It is hard to suggest something that would avoid the problems as all is based on speculations. An approach that definitely would produce something of appeal to myself would be a mixture between the old virtuals and the now abolished challenges. No reviewers involved and not adding the counters to the counters for caches with containers, but apart from that the system for geocaches (unlimited descriptions, waypoints, D/T-rating, ownership, full flexibility as multiple stages, puzzles and logging verification is regarded).

 

What will be impossible indeed is coming up with a type of virtual that will be highly popular. Personally, a type of virtual that is only popular among those not focussing on numbers has much more appeal than a solution (whichever it might be) that appeals to the masses. Then we essentially would have the same situation for virtuals and non-virtuals.

 

The types of virtuals I have in mind would appeal only to a small target group, something which is also the case for all my existing caches, regardless of whether virtuals or not.

 

Searching for a solution that at the same time appeals to the numbers people and cachers like myself is like the quadrature of the circle.

 

Cezanne

[+GeocachingJoy]

In response like I originally stated, I LOVE the game of Geocaching, whether looking for a benchmark, a waymark, a container, a virtual or even a challenge. I did not say that I did not like to find a benchmark I do, I was just trying to answer your mathematical question and to try and clarify what I meant on only giving it a half instead of a full percent, compared to the other 9 I had found. And for the WOW, I was comparing all types of quality cache types vs ones that have little or no thought behind them. I have enjoyed many of the above and they have been WOW!!! for me. I personally like to find as many things as I can find while out enjoying my day of caching and a one stop shop works best for me. I understand what I may think is a waste of my time, others might enjoy.

Happy Caching