Some old cache types have their virtues

August 9, 2013

When I see some of the old virtual caches disappear, I cannot help being a little sad. Isn't it about time we cachers band together and demand that Virtual caches be allowed?

August 9, 2013

When I see some of the old virtual caches disappear, I cannot help being a little sad. Isn't it about time we cachers band together and demand that Virtual caches be allowed?

...Because nobody has tried that yet! There's this thing called "Search" you should try it sometime!

3.8k · August 10, 2013

I don't think there has been a serious attempt at it. Sure, numerous thread about bringing them back, but I haven't seen anything like I saw with the Google Maps thing.

3k · August 10, 2013

When I see some of the old virtual caches disappear, I cannot help being a little sad. Isn't it about time we cachers band together and demand that Virtual caches be allowed?

I, too, carry a nostalgic sentiment for virtuals (and also locationless caches), so I understand the way you feel. But as an enthusiastic and optimistic veteran of the old days, the Waymarking experiment and the Challenge experiment, and having closely followed many of the forum discussions that have taken place during these times, I can say with some confidence that the ability to list new virtual caches, or adopt old virtual listings, will never return to Geocaching.com.

Of course, I could be wrong. But my advice would be to just move on.

38.2k · August 10, 2013

Personally I'd rather they not come back, so no.

For those who want them back, do they want them back in the original form were flag poles and sewer grates were considered appropriate subjects for virtuals, or do they want them back with the "wow factor" that was introduced in 2003?

Edited August 10, 2013 by briansnat

19k · August 10, 2013

Wow!

2.3k · August 10, 2013

Personally I'd rather they not come back, so no.

For those who want them back, do they want them back in the original form were flag poles and sewer grates were considered appropriate subjects for virtuals, or do they want them back with the "wow factor" that was introduced in 2003?

There's a whole lot of middle ground between those two extremes... That being said, I'd be happy with just letting them, along with webcams etc., be able to be adopted out just like any other cache type can.

10.2k · August 10, 2013

Wow!

Wow! is right. Whom are you, again? :huh:

When I see some of the old virtual caches disappear, I cannot help being a little sad. Isn't it about time we cachers band together and demand that Virtual caches be allowed?

I, too, carry a nostalgic sentiment for virtuals (and also locationless caches), so I understand the way you feel. But as an enthusiastic and optimistic veteran of the old days, the Waymarking experiment and the Challenge experiment, and having closely followed many of the forum discussions that have taken place during these times, I can say with some confidence that the ability to list new virtual caches, or adopt old virtual listings, will never return to Geocaching.com.

Except that neither the Waymarking, nor Challenges experiments are what the masses asked for.

Q. Can we have virtuals back?

A. No, but here's an entire bandwidth sucking website we came up with in 2005 that becomes increasingly irrelevant every day, instead.

Challenges on the other hand, do not exist. They never existed. "Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." That would be an Orwell quote.

6.1k · August 10, 2013

Wow a genuine "Bring Back Vituals" thread!

What makes virtuals interesting is that there are so few of them. Personally, I'd like to see them archived, and have Groundspeak modify its existing icons. Mystery caches could probably be split up into several different categories with all different icons. Even multis with a virtual stage could have a virtual/ multi hybrid icon. Log only traditionals should show a logsheet icon instead of a Tupperware box. Because icon growth has stagnated, people are clinging to the old rare ones. Bringing back virtuals would actually dilute the existing ones and make them less interesting.

Edited August 10, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

August 10, 2013

I love virtuals and wish they could come back. I've never seen one that is a sewer grate :lol: so maybe if they did come back they'd have to be a bit more strict with them.

Thinking about it now, an earthcache is quiet similar. You go to a specific location and (usually) answer some questions that you'd only be able to answer if you're actually there.

2.8k · August 10, 2013

We have virtual caches now, you just have to pass a geology test to log one.

I like virtuals too but probably because they are rare and no new ones are being released, if they did away with puzzle caches I could see myself liking the surviving ones a decade down the road.

4.1k · August 10, 2013

Why worry about the quality of virtuals when the quality of regular caches is so varied. There are many, many regular caches that suck royally, but nobody want to do away with regular caches, or do they?

List virtuals and let the people give them favorite points if they are good quality (as we can do with regular caches) and then people will have a good idea about the virtuals to go do.

Why make things so difficult?

John

1.3k · August 10, 2013

Personally I'd rather they not come back, so no.

For those who want them back, do they want them back in the original form were flag poles and sewer grates were considered appropriate subjects for virtuals, or do they want them back with the "wow factor" that was introduced in 2003?

There's a whole lot of middle ground between those two extremes... That being said, I'd be happy with just letting them, along with webcams etc., be able to be adopted out just like any other cache type can.

That should give you an idea on how disliked virtuals are by TPTB. Not only are they not going to allow any new ones, the existing ones cannot be adopted to anyone else to be kept alive. If GS thought they could archive the rest of the virtuals without a major revolt from the membership, those virts would've been history long ago.

August 10, 2013

I think virtuals should come back as well. They are useful to bring people to a location that is not possible to have an actual container to find. For example, in Hillsdale, MI there is a virtual that takes you to the historic "Poor house". The location is not feasible to have an actual cache at, so the virtual is the only alternative to get other geocachers to check out the area.

And I thought that was a main reason behind geocaches, to get people to visit places they otherwise wouldn't. Virtuals were a great tool for that.

Also I think it is better to just have virtuals at muggle-heavy locations as opposed to all the stupid "nanos" that currently get placed instead.

Edited August 10, 2013 by ZeekLTK

August 10, 2013

+1

Bring them back! And let them be adopted. We just lost one from 2002.

1.5k · August 10, 2013

Virtuals (sort of) are easy. Ever hear about an multi/offset cache? Take folks to the spot you want them to see..... Have them calculate co-ords from a sign, or something that will lead them to the cache. There are very few places you can't do this with.

10.2k · August 10, 2013

Why worry about the quality of virtuals when the quality of regular caches is so varied. There are many, many regular caches that suck royally, but nobody want to do away with regular caches, or do they?

List virtuals and let the people give them favorite points if they are good quality (as we can do with regular caches) and then people will have a good idea about the virtuals to go do.

Why make things so difficult?

John

Yeah that one never held water, did it? Basically, we we're told "too many lame ones" were being submitted. Could you imagine them, in a million years, start rejecting caches in store parking lots because "too many lame ones" were being submitted? :lol: I'm sure I could even find a quote from a lackey along the lines of "too many lame ones", although I doubt the word lame was used, and was softened up slightly. Maybe they said mundane or something.

38.2k · August 10, 2013

Why worry about the quality of virtuals when the quality of regular caches is so varied. There are many, many regular caches that suck royally, but nobody want to do away with regular caches, or do they?

List virtuals and let the people give them favorite points if they are good quality (as we can do with regular caches) and then people will have a good idea about the virtuals to go do.

Why make things so difficult?

John

Yeah that one never held water, did it? Basically, we we're told "too many lame ones" were being submitted. Could you imagine them, in a million years, start rejecting caches in store parking lots because "too many lame ones" were being submitted? I'm sure I could even find a quote from a lackey along the lines of "too many lame ones", although I doubt the word lame was used, and was softened up slightly. Maybe they said mundane or something.

I agree that the quality of real caches can be questionable. The trend is toward more and more pill bottles chucked under a bush in front of a strip mall or gas station. I really don't see the point of adding to that problem (for those of us who believe it is a problem). Ya think there are a lot of lame caches now? Just wait until the bunch that spews film canisters like grass seed has virtuals at their disposal. They don't even need to take the trouble of finding a pill bottle and piece of paper. Heck, if they can find some verifying info in street view, they don't even have to visit the location.

I don't see how making it even easier to list lame (low quality, mundane, whatever word) caches will improve the geocaching experience for anyone but the hard core numbers hounds.

August 10, 2013

Why worry about the quality of virtuals when the quality of regular caches is so varied. There are many, many regular caches that suck royally, but nobody want to do away with regular caches, or do they?

List virtuals and let the people give them favorite points if they are good quality (as we can do with regular caches) and then people will have a good idea about the virtuals to go do.

Why make things so difficult?

John

Yeah that one never held water, did it? Basically, we we're told "too many lame ones" were being submitted. Could you imagine them, in a million years, start rejecting caches in store parking lots because "too many lame ones" were being submitted? I'm sure I could even find a quote from a lackey along the lines of "too many lame ones", although I doubt the word lame was used, and was softened up slightly. Maybe they said mundane or something.

I agree that the quality of real caches can be questionable. The trend is toward more and more pill bottles chucked under a bush in front of a strip mall or gas station. I really don't see the point of adding to that problem (for those of us who believe it is a problem). Ya think there are a lot of lame caches now? Just wait until the bunch that spews film canisters like grass seed has virtuals at their disposal. They don't even need to take the trouble of finding a pill bottle and piece of paper. Heck, if they can find some verifying info in street view, they don't even have to visit the location.

I don't see how making it even easier to list lame (low quality, mundane, whatever word) caches will improve the geocaching experience for anyone but the hard core numbers hounds.

As I see it:

1.the problem with virtuals after the WOW factor was instituted was that the reviewers did not want to be the arbiters of WOW.

2. many people that want virtuals to come back want more than anything to be the CO of a virtual

Why not let the reviewers nominate a small fixed number/year of potential virtuals from their own experience (most of them are cachers)that would be reviewed by an anonymous (and rotating) panel of other reviewers and geocachers. The ones that are approved are added to the listings. The CO would be Groundspeak and a group of lackeys would be responsible for verifying logging requirements, any maintenance issues, etc.

Sure, people would still complain that they know this great spot that is just perfect for a virtual, how could the reviewer not know about it, etc. but that will die down.

This would keep them relatively rare, take the heat off the reviewers since the rank and file would not be submitting the virtuals and except in unusual circumstances keep the new virtuals alive indefinitely.

Offset just don't work because they are generally avoided by geocachers. In addition, there is something unsatisfying about visiting a nice location, gathering the needed data for the final and arriving at GZ to find a nano.

Beyond the added labor needed by GS to maintain the added virtuals, a concern may be that this would represent a shift in philosophy. Geocachers (any geocacher) have always been the ones to place caches, GS has only published them. Limiting nomination for new virtuals to a subset of geocachers may strike some as undemocratic. That is a valid argument. I can only counter that I am willing to live with that in order to enjoy the new experiences more quality virtuals would bring.

6.1k · August 10, 2013

You know what's many times worse than a parking lot micro? A parking lot virt. No container at all, and no active owner. Just log it from your armchair.

Every now and then I see a 76 Mustang, or an old AMC Pacer on the road and feel nostalgic. For some odd reason I didn't like them at all when there were a million of them around, though.

4.5k · August 10, 2013

Why worry about the quality of virtuals when the quality of regular caches is so varied. There are many, many regular caches that suck royally, but nobody want to do away with regular caches, or do they?

List virtuals and let the people give them favorite points if they are good quality (as we can do with regular caches) and then people will have a good idea about the virtuals to go do.

Why make things so difficult?

John

I never was a big fan of virtuals but at the same time, never understood why they were taken away. Sure, i know one of the reasons given was that there were too many silly/unWOW/goofy/dumb ones were being placed. I can understand that.

But now it seems that GC.com's philosophy of quality over lameness is changing. They themselves are now promoting silly/unWOW/goofy/dumb traditionls. Why? To increase income. It stands to reason that if this is working with tradionals, it would work with virtuals. Imo, bringing back virtuals would be a win win for gc.com. I think we'll see them back on the site sooner or later.

4.1k · August 10, 2013

Why worry about the quality of virtuals when the quality of regular caches is so varied. There are many, many regular caches that suck royally, but nobody want to do away with regular caches, or do they?

List virtuals and let the people give them favorite points if they are good quality (as we can do with regular caches) and then people will have a good idea about the virtuals to go do.

Why make things so difficult?

John

Yeah that one never held water, did it? Basically, we we're told "too many lame ones" were being submitted. Could you imagine them, in a million years, start rejecting caches in store parking lots because "too many lame ones" were being submitted? I'm sure I could even find a quote from a lackey along the lines of "too many lame ones", although I doubt the word lame was used, and was softened up slightly. Maybe they said mundane or something.

I agree that the quality of real caches can be questionable. The trend is toward more and more pill bottles chucked under a bush in front of a strip mall or gas station. I really don't see the point of adding to that problem (for those of us who believe it is a problem). Ya think there are a lot of lame caches now? Just wait until the bunch that spews film canisters like grass seed has virtuals at their disposal. They don't even need to take the trouble of finding a pill bottle and piece of paper. Heck, if they can find some verifying info in street view, they don't even have to visit the location.

I don't see how making it even easier to list lame (low quality, mundane, whatever word) caches will improve the geocaching experience for anyone but the hard core numbers hounds.

As I see it:

1.the problem with virtuals after the WOW factor was instituted was that the reviewers did not want to be the arbiters of WOW.

2. many people that want virtuals to come back want more than anything to be the CO of a virtual

Why not let the reviewers nominate a small fixed number/year of potential virtuals from their own experience (most of them are cachers)that would be reviewed by an anonymous (and rotating) panel of other reviewers and geocachers. The ones that are approved are added to the listings. The CO would be Groundspeak and a group of lackeys would be responsible for verifying logging requirements, any maintenance issues, etc.

So, having GC be the owner would be like Gc's answer to locationless caches (world wide challenges) - Only GC could do the World-wide challenges and they came up with things like "Kiss a Frog", now that had some real "WOW" to it!

John

August 10, 2013

Why worry about the quality of virtuals when the quality of regular caches is so varied. There are many, many regular caches that suck royally, but nobody want to do away with regular caches, or do they?

List virtuals and let the people give them favorite points if they are good quality (as we can do with regular caches) and then people will have a good idea about the virtuals to go do.

Why make things so difficult?

John

Yeah that one never held water, did it? Basically, we we're told "too many lame ones" were being submitted. Could you imagine them, in a million years, start rejecting caches in store parking lots because "too many lame ones" were being submitted? I'm sure I could even find a quote from a lackey along the lines of "too many lame ones", although I doubt the word lame was used, and was softened up slightly. Maybe they said mundane or something.

I agree that the quality of real caches can be questionable. The trend is toward more and more pill bottles chucked under a bush in front of a strip mall or gas station. I really don't see the point of adding to that problem (for those of us who believe it is a problem). Ya think there are a lot of lame caches now? Just wait until the bunch that spews film canisters like grass seed has virtuals at their disposal. They don't even need to take the trouble of finding a pill bottle and piece of paper. Heck, if they can find some verifying info in street view, they don't even have to visit the location.

I don't see how making it even easier to list lame (low quality, mundane, whatever word) caches will improve the geocaching experience for anyone but the hard core numbers hounds.

As I see it:

1.the problem with virtuals after the WOW factor was instituted was that the reviewers did not want to be the arbiters of WOW.

2. many people that want virtuals to come back want more than anything to be the CO of a virtual

Why not let the reviewers nominate a small fixed number/year of potential virtuals from their own experience (most of them are cachers)that would be reviewed by an anonymous (and rotating) panel of other reviewers and geocachers. The ones that are approved are added to the listings. The CO would be Groundspeak and a group of lackeys would be responsible for verifying logging requirements, any maintenance issues, etc.

So, having GC be the owner would be like Gc's answer to locationless caches (world wide challenges) - Only GC could do the World-wide challenges and they came up with things like "Kiss a Frog", now that had some real "WOW" to it!

John

John, kindly re-read my post. GS would only be the CO. Reviewers would come up with them and a panel of reviewers and other geocachers would approve them. If reviewers were responsible for "Kiss a Frog" I will withdraw my idea.

3.3k · August 10, 2013

When I see some of the old virtual caches disappear, I cannot help being a little sad. Isn't it about time we cachers band together and demand that Virtual caches be allowed?

You can demand it all you want, but Groundspeak are so determined to make better mistakes tomorrow that they seem utterly disinterested in correcting the mistakes of the past.

Spinning virtuals off into Waymarking just shunted them into a virtual dark corner as far as I could tell, while also opening the floodgates for areas with the wow factor to give way to endless series like "every branch of McDonalds" and "every place on earth you can buy an overpriced frappacrappacino". Then came Wherigo which could have been great if only they did the job properly, challenges that could have been an interesting game but was pretty much dead from the beginning when Groundspeak couldn't think of anything better than "kiss a frog" as a demonstration of how much fun they could be.

August 10, 2013

I think that the best we can hope for for now is to allow current active virtuals be adoptable. Maybe even allow some of the archived caches be adopted as well.

6.1k · August 10, 2013

They were able to be adopted at one time. A few people then created sock accounts and adopted them out to the socks so they wouldn't be bothered with receiving and answering all of the emails.

Edited August 10, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

3k · August 10, 2013

As much as I like Virtual caches they can be replaced by other caches with a little extra work. Make an offset multi cache or a Wherigo.

2k · August 10, 2013

I personally wish Groundspeak would at the minimum allow them to be adopted out, same with webcams.

Edited August 10, 2013 by lamoracke

10.2k · August 11, 2013

I personally wish Groundspeak would at the minimum allow them to be adopted out, same with webcams.

Ya know what's even worse, and this is a highly little known fact. You cannot change the coordinates on a webcam cache (and I assume a virtual). Case in point, there was a webcam cache in Grimsby, Ontario (near Hamilton) at a computer store. It's in the downtown of a small city, so they up and moved a few storefronts down. BZZZZZTTT. Wrong answer. Webcam cache gone forever.

2k · August 11, 2013

I personally wish Groundspeak would at the minimum allow them to be adopted out, same with webcams.

Ya know what's even worse, and this is a highly little known fact. You cannot change the coordinates on a webcam cache (and I assume a virtual). Case in point, there was a webcam cache in Grimsby, Ontario (near Hamilton) at a computer store. It's in the downtown of a small city, so they up and moved a few storefronts down. BZZZZZTTT. Wrong answer. Webcam cache gone forever.

I did one webcam where the coordinates are like 2 or 3 miles off. Very annoying, but as you know, can't change them. Wish the CO would have listed that in the description at least.

9.3k · August 12, 2013

Why worry about the quality of virtuals when the quality of regular caches is so varied. There are many, many regular caches that suck royally, but nobody want to do away with regular caches, or do they?

List virtuals and let the people give them favorite points if they are good quality (as we can do with regular caches) and then people will have a good idea about the virtuals to go do.

Why make things so difficult?

John

Yeah that one never held water, did it? Basically, we we're told "too many lame ones" were being submitted. Could you imagine them, in a million years, start rejecting caches in store parking lots because "too many lame ones" were being submitted? I'm sure I could even find a quote from a lackey along the lines of "too many lame ones", although I doubt the word lame was used, and was softened up slightly. Maybe they said mundane or something.

I agree that the quality of real caches can be questionable. The trend is toward more and more pill bottles chucked under a bush in front of a strip mall or gas station. I really don't see the point of adding to that problem (for those of us who believe it is a problem). Ya think there are a lot of lame caches now? Just wait until the bunch that spews film canisters like grass seed has virtuals at their disposal. They don't even need to take the trouble of finding a pill bottle and piece of paper. Heck, if they can find some verifying info in street view, they don't even have to visit the location.

I don't see how making it even easier to list lame (low quality, mundane, whatever word) caches will improve the geocaching experience for anyone but the hard core numbers hounds.

I so totally agree with this. I remember quite some time ago, someone posted the usual "Bring Back Virtuals" silliness. As most of these discussions go, the conversation turned to how many lame virtuals would exist if there was no 'WOW' factor. In an attempt at irony, I calculated waypoints 529' away from each other down the 130ish miles of Interstate 4, from Tampa to Daytona. Because the Interstate is just over 300' wide at most points, I could stagger them betwixt the east and west bound lanes, squeezing in about 2000 points. I threatened to create a virtual power trail of guard rail bolts, highway lamp poles and fence posts, so folks could score 2000 smilies in a 4 hour round trip drive. No need to stop! Just click a pic as you drive by...

Surely, such an abomination would be met with naught but scorn... Right?

Wrong. There were folks who thought it was a great idea!

That was a sad day for me.

August 12, 2013

Last year when 1st. Mate and I went to Coinfest, we looked up the Virtuals in the area. Especially ones with favorite points. It was pretty much the highlight of our trip doing them. The areas we saw and the pictures we took and the memories made were great. Going to do the same this year.

August 12, 2013

I have never seen a sewer grate virtual.

Never understood why someone would dislike them so much...just don't go to them.

Never been disappointed in any virtual I have found. Nearly always took me to a place I would never have visited.

It would be nice if virtuals could be adopted.

Wasn't this a subject on the forum votes (that we don't have anymore) that was liked by many?

Not holding my breath, but trying to be optimistic.

Cache Happy.

5.7k · August 12, 2013

When I see some of the old virtual caches disappear, I cannot help being a little sad. Isn't it about time we cachers band together and demand that Virtual caches be allowed?

Didn't we do that a couple years ago? We got "challenges" instead.

Wow!

Wow, indeed. Is the vacation over, or is this just proof of life?

10.2k · August 12, 2013

Why worry about the quality of virtuals when the quality of regular caches is so varied. There are many, many regular caches that suck royally, but nobody want to do away with regular caches, or do they?

List virtuals and let the people give them favorite points if they are good quality (as we can do with regular caches) and then people will have a good idea about the virtuals to go do.

Why make things so difficult?

John

Yeah that one never held water, did it? Basically, we we're told "too many lame ones" were being submitted. Could you imagine them, in a million years, start rejecting caches in store parking lots because "too many lame ones" were being submitted? I'm sure I could even find a quote from a lackey along the lines of "too many lame ones", although I doubt the word lame was used, and was softened up slightly. Maybe they said mundane or something.

I agree that the quality of real caches can be questionable. The trend is toward more and more pill bottles chucked under a bush in front of a strip mall or gas station. I really don't see the point of adding to that problem (for those of us who believe it is a problem). Ya think there are a lot of lame caches now? Just wait until the bunch that spews film canisters like grass seed has virtuals at their disposal. They don't even need to take the trouble of finding a pill bottle and piece of paper. Heck, if they can find some verifying info in street view, they don't even have to visit the location.

I don't see how making it even easier to list lame (low quality, mundane, whatever word) caches will improve the geocaching experience for anyone but the hard core numbers hounds.

I so totally agree with this. I remember quite some time ago, someone posted the usual "Bring Back Virtuals" silliness. As most of these discussions go, the conversation turned to how many lame virtuals would exist if there was no 'WOW' factor. In an attempt at irony, I calculated waypoints 529' away from each other down the 130ish miles of Interstate 4, from Tampa to Daytona. Because the Interstate is just over 300' wide at most points, I could stagger them betwixt the east and west bound lanes, squeezing in about 2000 points. I threatened to create a virtual power trail of guard rail bolts, highway lamp poles and fence posts, so folks could score 2000 smilies in a 4 hour round trip drive. No need to stop! Just click a pic as you drive by...

Surely, such an abomination would be met with naught but scorn... Right?

Wrong. There were folks who thought it was a great idea!

That was a sad day for me.

I'm actually aware of two interstate drive-by virtuals, some crow sculptures in Northern NY, and some Windmills in Southern Pa. And both of them were designed to be driven by on the Interstate. :blink:

EDIT: OMG P.S. the New York crows have 59 favorites points.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

38.2k · August 12, 2013

Why worry about the quality of virtuals when the quality of regular caches is so varied. There are many, many regular caches that suck royally, but nobody want to do away with regular caches, or do they?

List virtuals and let the people give them favorite points if they are good quality (as we can do with regular caches) and then people will have a good idea about the virtuals to go do.

Why make things so difficult?

John

I never was a big fan of virtuals but at the same time, never understood why they were taken away. Sure, i know one of the reasons given was that there were too many silly/unWOW/goofy/dumb ones were being placed. I can understand that.

But now it seems that GC.com's philosophy of quality over lameness is changing. They themselves are now promoting silly/unWOW/goofy/dumb traditionls. Why? To increase income. It stands to reason that if this is working with tradionals, it would work with virtuals. Imo, bringing back virtuals would be a win win for gc.com. I think we'll see them back on the site sooner or later.

Virtuals were not particularly popular back when they were being published. Many cachers didn't consider them to be geocaching and refused to log them. Even when the ban was announced there were some complaints and those quickly died down. There wasn't a firestorm of people demanding their return, threatening to end their membership and generally screaming bloody murder. That's because a significant portion of geocachers really didn't care. They've only become so popular these days because of their rarity and the forbidden fruit aspect.

I agree with Mudfrog in that Groundspeak's new focus on numbers tells me it's just a matter of time before they are back (despite the issues they presented). If they do come back I'd like to see them in their own section with their own count, as with benchmarks. We'll see just how loved they really are if cachers don't receive a smiley and a +1 to their overall find count. I wager they'll be as popular as benchmarks and waymarks are despite all of the people gushing about the wonderful, educational places virtuals bring them.

Edited August 12, 2013 by briansnat

2.2k · August 12, 2013

We'll see just how loved they really are if cachers don't receive a smiley and a +1 to their overall find count. I wager they'll be as popular as benchmarks and waymarks are despite all of the people gushing about the wonderful, educational places virtuals bring them.

100% agree.

If people really wanted to discover interesting places they would hit up Waymarking. I've found many interesting locations using that site. It doesn't take a lot of work to eliminate a bunch of categories that don't interest you and focus on the good stuff. In fact, being able to eliminate entire categories in a single shot makes it actually EASIER to filter out the lame stuff then it was with Virtuals.

Of course, a lame Virtual gets you a smiley whereas a cool Waymark doesn't so it's easy to see why Waymarking never caught on in a big way.

9.3k · August 12, 2013

I agree with Mudfrog in that Groundspeak's new focus on numbers tells me it's just a matter of time before they are back (despite the issues they presented). If they do come back I'd like to see them in their own section with their own count, as with benchmarks. We'll see just how loved they really are if cachers don't receive a smiley and a +1 to their overall find count. I wager they'll be as popular as benchmarks and waymarks are despite all of the people gushing about the wonderful, educational places virtuals bring them.

Maybe that will be tomorrow's better mistake? Groundspeak did just that with Challenges, giving folks the opportunity to bring players to geographic locations without the need to hunt for a container. I thought the user placed Challenges closely resembled Virtuals, as, with both, you go to a spot, some interesting, some, not so much, snap a picture, and post your adventure. Originally, these counted as finds, but after the vocal minority shouted to the heavens, Groundspeak changed it so they did not count. The greatest complaint I heard about Challenges placed by users was that the location was lame. If Virtuals come back without the WOW requirement, we will have a glut of lame locations marked on our maps.

August 12, 2013

Personally I'd rather they not come back, so no.

For those who want them back, do they want them back in the original form were flag poles and sewer grates were considered appropriate subjects for virtuals, or do they want them back with the "wow factor" that was introduced in 2003?

You know good and darn well brian, nobody really wants just any old virtual back. Time and again this issue has been hammered out in these threads and time and again it gets shot down - very serious and very good suggestions to bring virts back in some other form. Do the reviewer and Groundspeak ever even consider it? Nope. And nobody can ever come up with a good reason why any suggestion is not considered.

I have one theory - Groundspeak cannot see a profitable venture in it. Or at least whoever handles that part of the business is short sighted in it.

6.1k · August 12, 2013

The tendency is to listing lame locations, whether it's Waymarks, Challenges, or Geocaches. The difference is that Geocaches have actual containers, and can be entertaining, clever hides, even in lousy places.

Both Waymarks and Challenges gave the chance for improvement, and to bring back the functionality of virts. Challenges are gone, and the Waymarks site is empty like a ghost town. It's only adoration for a unique icon, nothing else.

38.2k · August 12, 2013

Personally I'd rather they not come back, so no.

For those who want them back, do they want them back in the original form were flag poles and sewer grates were considered appropriate subjects for virtuals, or do they want them back with the "wow factor" that was introduced in 2003?

You know good and darn well brian, nobody really wants just any old virtual back. Time and again this issue has been hammered out in these threads and time and again it gets shot down - very serious and very good suggestions to bring virts back in some other form. Do the reviewer and Groundspeak ever even consider it? Nope. And nobody can ever come up with a good reason why any suggestion is not considered.

I have one theory - Groundspeak cannot see a profitable venture in it. Or at least whoever handles that part of the business is short sighted in it.

I don't know that. Even in this thread there are those who suggest that some sort of quality control isn't necessary (call it the "wow factor", or whatever). Sure I think many of the people who clamor for the return of virtuals honestly want some sort of quality control, but there is also a significant segment who would would be perfectly happy to log a rotting deer carcass or a mound of horse manure as long as they got their +1.

Maybe that will be tomorrow's better mistake? Groundspeak did just that with Challenges, giving folks the opportunity to bring players to geographic locations without the need to hunt for a container. I thought the user placed Challenges closely resembled Virtuals, as, with both, you go to a spot, some interesting, some, not so much, snap a picture, and post your adventure. Originally, these counted as finds, but after the vocal minority shouted to the heavens, Groundspeak changed it so they did not count. The greatest complaint I heard about Challenges placed by users was that the location was lame. If Virtuals come back without the WOW requirement, we will have a glut of lame locations marked on our maps.

I thought with a little tweaking challenges could have been a viable replacement for virtuals. I submitted a few that were written up precisely as if they were a virtuals. But the community spoke up loudly and emphatically that people shouldn't get smileys for challenges because it isn't geocaching. Well challenges weren't geocaching, and virtuals aren't either (it was one of the reasons given when their end was announced). Once that smiley went away I knew the challenge concept was doomed to failure. There also is no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't be having this conversation if smileys were awarded for waymarks.

Proponents of virtuals almost always mention the interesting or educational places virtuals bring them, but they can find those places via Waymarking (and could have with challenges had they survived), or better yet maybe we as a community should place more real caches in interesting places. Problem solved.

Edited August 12, 2013 by briansnat

8k · August 12, 2013

Even in this thread there are those who suggest that some sort of quality control isn't necessary (call it the "wow factor", or whatever). Sure I think many of the people who clamor for the return of virtuals honestly want some sort of quality control, but there is also a significant segment who would would be perfectly happy to log a rotting deer carcass or a mound of horse manure as long as they got their +1.

The issue is probably more nuanced than that. The Wow requirement is given both as a reason that peole like virtuals so much and as the reason why virtuals stopped being approved and eventually were grandfathered.

It think people are trying different ideas to avoid burdening reviewers with the responsibility of having to decide what is wow. These have run the gamut from having an entirely separate group of volunteer reviewers just for virtuals to not having any wow requirement at all.

It's difficult for most people to get the idea that other people will inevitably have a different idea of what is reasonable for a virtual than they do. They may really feel that a "wow" requirement is not needed. There may be a few people who would submit virtuals in unappealing locations but these would be no worse than the unappealing locations where physical caches are placed.

It may be that desire to bring back virtuals is to allow geocaching in places where you can't have a physical cache. This may include both "interesting" places as well as mundane ones. Perhaps people believe that the tendancy will be to place a physical cache when possible. In the past, virtuals were often placed where a physical cache could be (or at least where the virtual could be an offset to a physical cache). People found that virtuals required no container, no maintenance, and no permission so they were the easiest alternative. Similarly, the virtuals provided an easy alternative to some land managers as they didn't involve having to decide if leaving a container was ok or if it was just another form of litter. Requiring explicit permission for virtuals may be a way to ensure that a land manager is allowing virtuals while prohibiting physical caches. EarthCaches have shown that not all land managers are even interested in having virtual caches and those that do often have there own restrictions on what they will allow. I know that the EarthCache permission rule is controversial, but it may be what limits EarthCaches and ensures some quality.

6.7k · August 13, 2013

As much as I like Virtual caches they can be replaced by other caches with a little extra work. Make an offset multi cache or a Wherigo.

An offset multi has always been the simple answer to replacing virts, and it's beyond me why the folks who are still hollering "bring back virtual caches" aren't out there doing that. Maybe simple obvious solutions are not what they really want...there's no drama involved with them.

If your purpose is to introduce cachers to an interesting place then an offset does the job quite nicely.

Edited August 13, 2013 by TheAlabamaRambler

6.1k · August 13, 2013

That one word reply was just the virtual Knowschad. Most of his posts are still listed and grandfathered, and some want to bring him back, but to enforce the WOW factor. We'll see.

3.8k · August 13, 2013

Wow!

And he climbs out of the woodwork. Welcome back Dan.

3.8k · August 13, 2013

I personally wish Groundspeak would at the minimum allow them to be adopted out, same with webcams.

THIS. And to be modified slightly with reviewer discretion.. such as, if a webcam link goes dead and there's another nearby, why not allow the change.

3.6k · August 13, 2013

That one word reply was just the virtual Knowschad. Most of his posts are still listed and grandfathered, and some want to bring him back, but to enforce the WOW factor. We'll see.

Wow! Just wow!

August 13, 2013

Virtuals (sort of) are easy. Ever hear about an multi/offset cache? Take folks to the spot you want them to see..... Have them calculate co-ords from a sign, or something that will lead them to the cache. There are very few places you can't do this with.

have done this a number of times with success... just trying to keep the multi within a 2 mile radius is my challenge with the setup, but still the trip overall makes for an interesting cache hunt for the seekers...aka virtual version 2013

August 13, 2013

As much as I like Virtual caches they can be replaced by other caches with a little extra work. Make an offset multi cache or a Wherigo.

An offset multi has always been the simple answer to replacing virts, and it's beyond me why the folks who are still hollering "bring back virtual caches" aren't out there doing that. Maybe simple obvious solutions are not what they really want...there's no drama involved with them.

If your purpose is to introduce cachers to an interesting place then an offset does the job quite nicely.

As I mentioned in my modest proposal (post 19) multis are avoided like the plague by a lot of geocachers because of poor experiences with missing stages and so on. They even filter them out of PQs routinely. In addition, as I mentioned, there is something unsatisfying about going to a nice location, getting the required information for the final and, at GZ, finding a nano on a fence.

Many virtuals would require you go quite some distance before you could place the final stage for a multi, see GC8808 in Gettysburg National Park for example.

Waymarking has been proposed as an alternative. That will only succeed if we stop counting smilies all together.

9.3k · August 13, 2013

As I mentioned in my modest proposal (post 19) multis are avoided like the plague by a lot of geocachers because of poor experiences with missing stages and so on.

I wonder how relevant this is, with regards to the topic? Granted, my rose colored glasses may be louding my judgement, as I am a fan of multis. I will concur that DNFing a multi because a stage is missing can cause some angst for those who are only focused on the end results, but I'm not sure it applies here.

Assume you create an offset multi in a National Park, with the final outside the boundaries of the park. What comes to mind for me is being directed to some specific landmark n the Park, and gathering numbers off of a plaque or other permanent fixture. Then you do whatever number crunching the CO requires to get the final coordinates. Unlike some multi stage caches, there really would be no fear that the needed numbers would go missing, unless the landmark itself disappeared.

I would argue that not going forward with this idea, (dump virts in favor of offsets), just because a small minority deliberately excludes them is flawed logic.

Waymarking has been proposed as an alternative. That will only succeed if we stop counting smilies all together.

The eight people who actually log Waymark finds might not like that. :lol:

Some old cache types have their virtues

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment