A bit of a gripe.

[+Seth!]

Hi! In the spirit of the holidays, I have a gripe. Actually, two. Neither are aimed at YOU. But I thought you might want to read them so that you can nod your head in agreement.

 

The first is holiday themed geocaches. I think that, in June, when every third geocache is a Christmas-themed geocache, we're going to collectively puke.

 

Temporary geocaches just aren't cool (except in very limited quantities) because the whole point is for a geocache to stay there for a long time while people visit it over the months and years.

 

It's probably too late to bring this up for Christmas, but how about we all take a pass on the "Easter Bunny Geocache" ideas that are brewing.

 

Gripe number two: Virtual "geocaches". I'm noticing that more and more of these are showing up on the geocache list, waiting for approval. Now, if it's in a National Park and a physical geocache is off limits, that's cool. But often it seems that people are just too lazy to bother planting a geocache container. So please, don't be lazy. If the neato statue you found won't be a good hiding spot, then use it in an offset or multi-cache.

 

It's not like we have a shortage of geocaches in the Northwest. If you haven't found a great hiding spot or had a great idea for a hunt, then wait for inspiration to strike. There are still plenty of others to go out and find.

 

(end gripe)

 

On that note, Happy Holidays! Whee!

 

- Seth! <--if you agree

- Anonymous <--if you think I'm being harsh

 

[+leatherman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seth!:

The first is holiday themed geocaches. I think that, in June, when every third geocache is a Christmas-themed geocache, we're going to collectively puke.

 

- Seth! <--if you agree

---

 

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

[+Criminal]

Agree, Don't think temps are worth the effort and to be honest, I don't even know what a "virtual" cache is. And please, don't tell me I don't want to know...

[+travisl]

[deleted]

[+travisl]

I agree, too. Do The Puyallup is disabled, but on my 'nearest 50' list, and I doubt it'll be back until next September. I searched for an Easter-themed cache last March (no offense intended, Kidletts), but it seemed kind of goofy to still see people looking for it in November.

 

I'm not as opposed to temporary caches, provided that it's clear up front that the cache will be disabled on a certain date, but looking for Christmas caches in June is as silly as looking for Easter caches in November. Seth, I'm sure you'll agree that Grave Robber was a very cool Halloween-themed cache, but it should probably be archived instead of temporarily disabled. It's not impossible to un-archive it, if it comes back next year. That way, it doesn't show on folks' 'nearest 25' lists in February.

 

"I'm sure she would have been thrilled to find so much pooh in a little metal box."

[+sskamp]

Perhaps you should wait until you see some of the logs from people who have visited some of the caches before you rush an opinion. Not everthing has to be SWAG related.

I have created three virtual caches because of something unique and not because I get to collect signatures. I have yet to have a post on a virtual cache that was negative or remotely so.

PS I am not lazy

[+leatherman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sskamp:

I have created three virtual caches because of something unique

---

YAWN

quote:

---

PS I am not lazy

---

Hmm, no investment. No effort.

Anyone can take waypoints where ever they go and post a virtual. Boring.

 

Three out of four of your caches are virtual. What are you contributing to this sport?

 

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

[+oregone]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seth!:

 

...

 

Gripe number two: Virtual "geocaches". I'm noticing that more and more of these are showing up on the geocache list, waiting for approval. Now, if it's in a National Park and a physical geocache is off limits, that's cool. But often it seems that people are just too lazy to bother planting a geocache container. So please, don't be lazy. If the neato statue you found won't be a good hiding spot, then use it in an offset or multi-cache.

 

...

 

http://www.geocachingwa.org

 

Too true, Seth! I'm not sure about Seattle, but Portland is starting to get more than its share of strange virtual caches that could better be used as stages in a multi-cache. We're not as bad as, say, Washington DC or some other major metropolitan areas, but we're getting there.

 

On the other hand, i must say that some of our virtuals are worth doing. Virtuals are great as long as they require you to think, lead to an unexpected conclusion, or make you shamelessly plug your own virtual cache. But writing down dates on statues doesn't do it for me.

 

And all christmas caches are dumb. It's not like jebus died for your tupperware. I'm saying the following without researching it at all, so i should probably be flamed: Anyone that placed a christmas cache last year probably lost interest in geocaching in about February.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

[+niskibum]

A temporary, virtual, Christmas themed cache. I like it! Thanks for the idea Seth!. I think there is a fire hydrant down the street I can use for the final waypoint. No wait, I can make it a temporary, virtual, locationless, Christmas themed cache where you have to pose next to any fire hydrant in a Santa suit and post the pick for credit. Then it naturally changes to a bunny suit for Easter. Cooool!!! Pointless yet absurd!

[+The Tungsten Jihad!]

quote:

---

Originally posted by leatherman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sskamp:

I have created three virtual caches because of something unique

---

_YAWN_

quote:

---

PS I am not lazy

---

Hmm, no investment. No effort.

Anyone can take waypoints where ever they go and post a virtual. Boring.

 

Three out of four of your caches are virtual. What are you contributing to this sport?

---

 

What we have here is 10 pounds of **** in a 5 pound bag. If you two are gonna start fighting like a couple of teenage girls over the last N'Sync concert ticket, take it to the general forum. But really, the NW fourums have been rather flame free. So if you want to beat this old tired subject yet again take it elsewhere.

[+leatherman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Tungsten Jihad!:

What we have here is 10 pounds of **** in a 5 pound bag. If you two are gonna start fighting like a couple of teenage girls over the last N'Sync concert ticket, take it to the general forum. But really, the NW fourums have been rather flame free. So if you want to beat this old tired subject yet again take it elsewhere.

---

 

Throwing your flames around like you have some say in the matter. Your in no position to correct anyone.

So keep your bulls*it in your own corral.

 

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

[+misguided one]

quote:

---

Originally posted by travisl:

I agree, too....

....I'm not as opposed to temporary caches, provided that it's clear up front that the cache will be disabled on a certain date, but looking for Christmas caches in June is as silly as looking for Easter caches in November. Seth, I'm sure you'll agree that http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=39525 was a very cool Halloween-themed cache, but it should probably be archived instead of temporarily disabled....."

---

 

OK, I know that graverobber should be archived, but I'm working on turning it to a micro. I should have it re-activated in January.

 

___________________________________________

 

It's not what you fling,

It's the FLING itself.

[Sassquatch]

1ST of all It's great to see t.j. in the mix. We thought you had sucumed to the dark side. A P.O. box is not worthy of a virtual but some are *** kicken. I love the J of arc statue cache, it is amazing.Oh yeah. Leatherman, come on down, we,re going by height. T.J. is upstanding and respectable and I can't remember a bogus virtual placed by him. No harm no foul.

 

I don't believe in BEATLES, I only believe in me. (John Lennon)

 

 

OZZY, what we expected. Anna whatsherface omigod shes so horrible. I am the IRON MAN.

 

[This message was edited by Sassquatch on December 23, 2002 at 01:42 AM.]

[+Quantum Mechanic]

What's with all the hostility? It's supposed to be the happy season. Stress out on what gifts to get your significant other...not on your fellow cachemates. Can't we all just get along? (sniff)

 

Peace through superior firepower

[+LindaLu]

I for one would appreciate it if you dropped the pseudo-swearing *****. Think of me whatever you like, I just think treating each other with respect is the right thing to do.

 

LindaLu

[+Grandpa Rocks & Grouchy Gramma]

Don't make us send all of you to your rooms. We may have to call for timeouts.

 

Can't complain, no one listens anyway.

[The_Brownies]

Who ever said caching was about treasures or trinkets or signing a log? Its the thrill of the hunt that should inspire everyone. Taking others to places where they might not have been before. Virtuals can be fun if they are used in the correct context. So don't go brow beating others when you happen to think something is a bad idea. If virtuals were not appropriate, they would not be a form of cache.

 

Instead try and take the positive side to these caches. They can be a lot of fun, if you make the picture side of the virtual cache a little bit out of the ordinary. Plus it gives new cachers an easy first find.

 

Please note, a virual cache now might be a micro cache tomorrow. I just planted my first 4 virtuals but I have no intention on leaving them this way. Right now there is a real problem with the number of cachers in Ellensburg, and I just want to get new players interested in the sport and what a better way then to introduce a realatively easy find. Of course, when the virtual changes to a micros in the next couple of weeks, it will give the same person a chance to log a 2nd find.

 

On the other side of the coin, I do agree that not all caches should be Virtual. I tend to use the 1/3 ratio. No more than 1/3 of caches placed by a user should be virtuals. Too many virtuals makes things a bit dull. Plus if an area is being saturated by viruals, then a micro cache might be a tad bit more appropriate.

 

[This message was edited by The_Brownies on December 23, 2002 at 09:51 AM.]

[+pdxmarathonman]

quote:

---

I just want to get new players interested in the sport

---

 

Almost exactly 1 year ago I found my first cache with my then 8 year-old daughter. I seriously doubt we would have been interested in searching out a statue or a film canister.

 

I was totally in awe of searching out something that someone had actually hidden, finding it and actually trading something that was in there with something of my own. I knew nothing of the person who may have hidden a cache, and it hadn't yet occurred to me that I might one day be hiding them myself, but I just had to go find the nearest one to my house.

 

I am not trying to make fun here. I am totally serious. I could barely contain myself trying to find that first cache. It was my first night cache experience, and my first no-find

 

The sport is called Geocaching.

 

quote:

---

cache: hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

---

[+Trafcon]

Just want to say that I have never flamed in a forum and don't intend to start now. It's one reason why I avoid the general forum as a rule.

 

Seth your point is well taken. However the topic of virtual caches has been debated adnauseaum in the general forum and it always ends up in war. I just figure I will look for the ones that sound interesting to me and raise my curosity such as one in Florida I visited because I was close that was a burial crypt right in the middle of a nice older hometown street. (freaked my wife out).

 

I would hate to see this Northwest forum I call home disentegrate into a flaming forum.

 

Merry Christmas to everyone and I hope you have a wonderful New Year.

 

P.S. BTW TJ nice new avatar.

 

KTF !!! GBWY !!!

 

[This message was edited by Trafcon on December 23, 2002 at 03:59 PM.]

[+Mr. Snazz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by leatherman:

Three out of four of your caches are virtual. What are you contributing to this sport?

---

 

sskamp contributes the golden toad. sskamp's non-virtual cache was the third cache I visited.

[+Navdog]

Well, I wish I could say I was "Virtual Free", but I am guilty of logging a few. Maybe I should delete them and start a "Virtual Free Campaign". I also could Markwell a thread from over a year ago about the first dicussion relating to vituals, but it doesn't look like there is any link to the old forums. At that time I begged that this site not turn into geotravel.com.. Of course that was even before locationless caches came into the picture. They're going to spread like weeds and there is nothing we can do to stop them! I am suprised how even the lamest caches can get so many hits, but it is because we are all guilty of supporting them. Now, with all that said, take a look at this locationless cache. To me this is a great example of how a cache of this type can be done. It has regional history and is something that we all have passed by in our travels, but have maybe taken for granted. So I guess I am going to be doing a locationless soon. Shhh! Don't tell anyone!

 

The adventures of Navdog, Justdog, and Otterpup

[Chief Paulina]

I recently chose to qualify my cache searches to interesting hikes and country. I have no use for trinkets. Searching in a rockpile with a prod just doesn't do it for me either. There are virtuals out there that interest me, tho not many(most are lame).

 

I know Sskamp and his interests in history and historical sites. He has led me on some great journeys. If Geocaching.com won't publish his virtual caches, I will get the coords directly from him. Then everybody can be happy.

 

There are some excellent cache hiders here in Central Oregon. I encourage them to continue.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I have done many virutals and find them every bit as enjoyable as a regular cache. It's a shame they are getting bashed by a mod here. I guess that shows us the direction geocaching is heading, again.

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

[The_Brownies]

Ok, so you don't like virtuals. Who says you are required to log one? If people want to go after a virtual, then let them go after one. I don't go after every cache that is out there, plus It would be virtually impossible. Probably one of the best Hybrid virual caches I have seen is The Photographer's Cache VIII. In short, stop beating this dead horse. What may seem stupid to you might be interresting to others.

[+Seth!]

Kicking a ball is great, but not appropriate during a basketball game. That's for soccer or football.

 

The focus of this site is a game called "geocaching". A cache is a container, intentionally placed for others to find it. (Or to find it yourself, if it's fresh water, etc.) Just because you can record a waypoint for it does not make it a geocache.

 

There are places where one can post Points of Interest, which many VCs are. At the risk of repeating myself, there are occasions where posting a Virtual Geocache makes sense. National Parks, for instance, since we are currently not allowed to place geocaches there. Even then, I would excercise good and cautious judgement.

 

I'm sorry that this thread digressed for a bit. My purpose for posting it here was that VCs seem to be getting out of hand in our region. This has happened elsewhere, but I haven't paid as much attention to it. I just don't want to see our "population" of geocaches watered down by lame VCs.

 

One admin uses this example: If you were going to take a reporter on his or her first geocache hunt, what would you want them to see to represent our sport?

 

Anyway, we don't need to beat this to death. I just wanted to call attention to it. Hopefully we'll see some results in the coming weeks.

 

- Seth!

 

[+MattandLaura]

I have one reply...how many people who have done caching for a while still exchange? I have alot of took nothing left nothings in logs left in my caches and really don't see the difference between somebody TNLN or virtual. I agree with Oregone's, as long as VC's are well thought out and not just an address or statue then I have no problems with them. As far as Christmas caches. I may be a minority here but I did a Xmas cache last year near La Center that wanted to exchange ornaments. I liked that cache and thought it was a good idea. One last thing, who is this leatherman? dadgum calm down already

 

I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.

[+dasein]

Although Doug and I have only been caching since June 1st this year, I'd say we currently TNLN or exchange items pretty evenly...close 50/50 (we haven't actually COUNTED though). Sometimes we TN but leave something in appreciation of the incredible journey or exceptional view. The one thing that I'll never forget about our 1st geocache was being SOOO excited to find that container. It was like Christmas, and it still is everytime we find one. You never know what you'll find. Sometimes we and others take something and leave something just to mix things up a bit, then leave the same item in a cache later. Sometimes we pick up great toys for our kitten or 3 ferrets. So we think a good mix of caches and cache types is good. This is our favorite virtual cache so far. It was so very beautiful and unique that we didn't miss not having a can to find.

 

Remember, 'variety is the spice of life' and 'different strokes for different folks.' Balance is the key.

 

Temporarily French Polynesia's most prolific geocachers!

[+Navdog]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_Brownies:

In short, stop beating this dead horse. What may seem stupid to you might be interesting to others.

---

 

Frankly, this is one topic worth beating to death. As this is a topic that speaks to the heart of what geocaching is all about. And a majority of the crap on the General Forums is just that, crap. It is good to see that someone as respected like Seth!, shares a similar opinion as I do. As much as I wish that locationless and virtuals would go away, they won't. So any chance I get to explain my feelings, I will. Creativity and the pleasure of finding a physical treasure, even if we just sign the logbook, is what has fueled the growth in this sport, not the lame virtual, locationless, or physical caches. These are just the weeds that have sprouted around the edges, and it is important that all of us, as gardeners of this wonderful activity, to be mindful of this when tending our garden.

 

The adventures of Navdog, Justdog, and Otterpup

[drea]

Is there a site one can go to for virtual cache-type listings specifically? I see nothing wrong with virtuals spinning off into their own sport (or becoming a sub-phylum of geocaching proper), but no-one's mentioned a way to tease them apart from the traditional caches. Can you search by cache type?

 

For me personally the fun is in figuring out the puzzles, and I don't really mind what the payoff is, be it a tupperware container, a film container, a meme or a guy sitting in a bar waiting for the event cachers to roll in.

 

Drea

[The_Brownies]

If you read my above posts, you will see that I am for virtuals, but to a point. As a techie, I must take Seth's side on this entire issue. There are too many virtuals that should be micro or normal caches including two that I created. I'm going to remedy this shortly. In fact, I'm actually glad he killed one of my recently submitted virtual because it made me come up with an even better cache.

 

However, here is the main problem with virtual caches. It's the Hard Drive space they consume on Ground Speaks servers. If you browse different cache pages, you will notice a lot of electronic images. I.e. A hard drive is the filing cabinet where all of your word documents, excel spread sheets, etc. are stored.

 

Virtuals normally are logged in the form of a digital photo which can be a max of 100KB in size. (Please note, 100KB is GS's limit. A digital image may be 100 times that size). Anyway, if a virtual cache has just 10 logs and each log has one photo uploaded and that one photo is 100 KiloBytes(KB), then those 10 logs would take up 1 Megabyte of Hard drive space on Ground Speaks server. One Meg does not seem like a lot of space, but think about how many people use the Geocaching Website? There are a lot of them, correct? You can see where this is going. A lot of users and digital images means a lot of unneccessary Server Hard drive space being eaten up.

 

Who cares? Ok let's look at it from a business aspect. A server is a lot different than your PC. It can have many hard drives, and mulitple CPU's. That's why a good Compaq server cost's around $4500 to $12000. I could go into other costly items related to servers but I'll leave that for another time. If you are saying ouch, you can now see why Ground Speak asks for donatations and memberships.

 

Another con against virtuals, is most of them require a picture. Not everyone has a digital camera so not everyone can hunt them. The small digital camera we use sometimes is my sons digital camera which only has 640X480 resolution. He loves it because he's only 8 and it does do an ok job, but I wish I could get a 3.0 or higher Megapixel camera for me!! However, these cameras cost over $250 dollars which I don't have at the current moment.

 

What is nice about a physical cache us it lets you find the cache and log your visit. Plus you get to see who has been there before you. Granted I've found only 86 caches, but it's the thrill of the hunt that makes this sport so interresting to me. Plus I do enjoy reading the logs. Most of the time I don't take anything, but there are times when I'm looking for an interresting item to add to a new cache. Yep, you all are correct when you say virtuals pose no challenges when they are not handled correctly.

 

[This message was edited by The_Brownies on December 26, 2002 at 01:28 PM.]

[+yumitori]

While I don't have the experience some of the folks posting on this thread have, I personally don't have a problem with virtuals, locationless caches or any of the approaches to folks complain about.

 

I spend quite a bit of free time browsing through various cache descriptions (too much time), and my take on it is that any of the approaches can be well done. They can also be very, very lame.

 

Perhaps we could encourage folks to improve cache quality overall, rather than single out certain forms for complaints (even when some forms are more prone to lameness than others).

 

Ron/yumitori

[+Kodak's4]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattandLaura:

I have one reply...how many people who have done caching for a while still exchange?

 

.

---

 

A better question to ask would be "How many people who have done caching for a while still sign the logbook?"

 

As I approach 400 finds, I find that I enjoy signing the logbook, I enjoy reading the logbook, I enjoy leaving things for other people to take, but to be honest, I'm not very motivated to take something. I have enough things.

 

But I definitely enjoy finding a container a whole hell of a lot more than a virtual, and that goes for log only microcaches as well.

 

Let me put it this way: if there were nothing but traditional caches, how many of us would continue? Now, suppose there were nothing but virtual caches - how many of us would continue?

 

[+Renegade Knight]

Great a thread full of Geo-Critics.

 

Think about it. Your great cache could my lame find of the day and vice versa. This sport needs variety. Not a politically correct version of a cache that even big brother could approve. That would be a truly lame cache.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

[+leatherman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kodak's4:

I definitely enjoy finding a container a whole hell of a lot more than a virtual,

---

 

The search for the container is most of the fun. Walking up to a virtuals waypoint and taking a picture of something just leaves you unsatisfied.

 

If Admin and the cache approvers had a vote to do away with virtuals, at the next WSGA meeting, I'd vote for it.

 

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

[+EraSeek]

In a general sense, I enjoy some types of caches more than others, but any type of cache can be lame or great. I'm interested in creativity and place. That usually makes it or not for me. I'd be a bit carefull about what we try to dictate to others. I don't feel it is the place of a Geocaching organization to take on the role of Cache-police.

 

[+MattandLaura]

Most the logs I find in my cache's are say the same thing...found cache, great location thanks for the cache took whatever and left whatever..very few state a story about finding the cache itself. I do agree that finding a cache is gives me more enjoyment then virtuals but to me the debate can be looked at both ways. I have been to caches that one has to ask, "why?". It takes all about 5 minutes to get to the cache and find it. I much rather go to a virtual that takes me to a great place then to a cache that takes 60 minutes to drive to for a five minute find.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kodak's4:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattandLaura:

I have one reply...how many people who have done caching for a while still exchange?

 

.

---

 

A better question to ask would be "How many people who have done caching for a while still sign the logbook?"

 

As I approach 400 finds, I find that I enjoy signing the logbook, I enjoy reading the logbook, I enjoy leaving things for other people to take, but to be honest, I'm not very motivated to take something. I have enough things.

 

But I definitely enjoy finding a container a whole hell of a lot more than a virtual, and that goes for log only microcaches as well.

 

Let me put it this way: if there were nothing but traditional caches, how many of us would continue? Now, suppose there were nothing but virtual caches - how many of us would continue?

 

http://www.geocachingwa.org

---

 

I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.

[+Kodak's4]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattandLaura:

Most the logs I find in my cache's are say the same thing...found cache, great location thanks for the cache took whatever and left whatever..very few state a story about finding the cache itself.

---

 

Did I say that I found the entries in the log to be great literature? No, I did not. What I said was that I enjoyed reading the logbook. Even an entry that's nothing more than 'Seth! was here' tells me that someone I know stood in that spot, which I find fun. Just seeing a list of names and dates in a log only microcache is fun. If you disagree, fine. But I enjoy it.

 

quote:

---

I do agree that finding a cache is gives me more enjoyment then virtuals but to me the debate can be looked at both ways. I have been to caches that one has to ask, "why?". It takes all about 5 minutes to get to the cache and find it. I much rather go to a virtual that takes me to a great place then to a cache that takes 60 minutes to drive to for a five minute find.

---

 

That's not the question. The question is 'would you rather drive 60 minutes for a five minute find or drive 60 minutes for a virtual?' Because I've been to a fair number of virtuals, and in nearly every case, the virtual could have been a microcache [spots on NPS land excepted]. And microcaches can be a heck of a lot of fun.

 

All I'm saying is this: next time you're tempted to make a virtual cache, consider making it a log only microcache. With a little ingenuity and a little creativity, it can turn what would have been a ho-hum virtual into a pretty nice log-only cache, and it could turn a great virtual into a really stellar cace.

 

[+MattandLaura]

quote:

---

All I'm saying is this: next time you're tempted to make a virtual cache, consider making it a log only microcache. With a little ingenuity and a little creativity, it can turn what would have been a ho-hum virtual into a pretty nice log-only cache, and it could turn a great virtual into a really stellar cace.

 

http://www.geocachingwa.org

---

 

I guess I don't really see the difference between finding a film container or a name plate or dates long as both bring you to an unique area.

 

I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.

[+Logscaler and Red]

deleted

 

[This message was edited by logscaler on December 26, 2002 at 09:04 PM.]

[Chief Paulina]

I would assume that, if one didn't like to do virtuals, he simply wouldn't. The only solid reason I heard to dump virtuals was that it took up server space.

 

The web brings us geocaching, benchmarking, confluences, fire lookouts, hot springs, etc, etc, etc. Looks like a business opportunity for virtuals, should geocaching.com decide to focus more on caches. How about one for virtual historic sites also?

[+Sluggo]

In general I don’t care for virtuals. I don’t hate them… I don’t think they are lame (in general)….. I don’t think they are geocaches either.

 

The only virtual I have logged is one that required you to find the item that gave the cache its name. (Thanks, ikayak). That is a lot different from taking a photo or reading a plaque.

 

The term "Geocache" contains “cache” . There is no “cache” in virtual caches. (And no crying in baseball). Maybe the name should be changed from “virtual cache” to geodiscovery” or “geolocation” or “geo-something descriptive”. (I’m really being serious). The site supports “Benchmark Hunting” but we don’t call them “Benchmark Geocaches”.

 

Some people (myself included) have this ill-defined sense of “the spirit of geocaching” and tend to want to promote the game and keep it true to “the spirit of geocaching”. That doesn’t invalidate other people’s ideas or goals about the game.

 

The standard argument for whether it is acceptable to place a “virtual cache” is some place where it is impossible or impractical to place a “standard cache”. (NPS lands, ROW of a Railroad, etc). I think if you can’t place a cache, then whatever you chose to do, is something other than geocaching.

 

If someone wants to direct total strangers to a neat place and see something that they think is beautiful or unusual and means a lot to them, by giving them the coordinates of the location… then more power to them. The question is… should I make this connection through Geocaching.com? Maybe it’s in the best interest of Geocaching.com and the game of geocaching, to allow this activity to take place within the geocaching.com database. Then again, maybe that activity should be moved elsewhere. The site is supported by memberships, if more members like “standards” than “virtuals” then after a while the bulk of the membership will view “virtual lovers” as parasites. If more of the members like “virtuals” then the bulk of the membership will view “standard lovers” as parasites. Only if the bulk of the membership likes both equally, can the host-parasite relationship be avoided.

 

For me, I prefer a future where I go to Geocaching.com to check out the caches and then hop over to Benchmarkhunting.com to check out the benchmarks, and then over to Niceplacestovisitandfunthingstolookat.com to find a nice picnic spot.

 

If you intend to flame me, I won’t see it until tomorrow night, so don’t think this was “hit and run” It's just that I get up at 04:00.

 

 

Unknown objects are operating under intelligent control... It is imperative that we learn where UFO's come from and what their purpose is... - -Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter Director, Central Intelligence Agency 1947-1950

[+Navdog]

The real fuss and the original topic of this thread was about the quality of virtual caches. Virtuals and locatonless caches will probably never be removed from this site. It is a necessary component that adds an important dynamic to geocaching and allows for a broader appeal to more people. The one thing that bothers me though, is that folks say "Don't hunt a lame cache and it will go away". Well, I rarely see that happen. There must be a great topic here for a study on human behavior, when you see a lame cache that has recieved many negative comments on it's quality, and yet half the other logs will expound upon how it was a nice cache. Go figure.

 

It is still important that this kind of discussion takes place somewhere. What would happen if we never talked about the virtues of what makes a good cache. Some may call it cache-policing, but how else do you ensure that a certain bit of quality is maintained so that the site does remain popular and enjoyable for the majority of its users?

 

The adventures of Navdog, Justdog, and Otterpup

[+Logscaler and Red]

deleted

 

[This message was edited by logscaler on December 26, 2002 at 09:05 PM.]

[+niskibum]

I think it is interesting that some of the people that enjoy virtuals don't care for the benchmarks, when in a way it is the same kind of thing. There are many benchmarks that are in great spots, and take you to interesting landmarks and historical places. I suspect that the difference is that all the benchmarks have already been found and marked, so nobody can claim them as "theirs", so you never get an email saying "I found your cache". Is it really finding a cool spot, or is it the human interaction that drives people to look for virts? How many virts are there that don't have a benchmark within a couple of hundred feet of it?

 

Locationless caches really have me stumped. What is the challenge in finding a yellow jeep, and who cares if you do? If you find an old windmill and count it as your find for a locationless aren't you actually discouraging someone else from finding the same one since no one but you can claim it? Place a cache at that windmill and you will have people lining up to go see it.

 

I'm don't care if there are virt's or not, but I'm not too excited about hunting them either. I get a slightly more hollow feeling about finding a virt than I do when I find a traditional with all the good stuff gone and nothing but junk inside, but at least the expectation was there with the traditional.

[+vds]

How'bout a suggestion...

 

I made a couple trips recently to the Philadelphia and Washington DC area and hit about '50' virtual caches along the way. I guess 40 or so were virtual due to the 'no caches in National Parks' rules, almost all of the others could have been microcaches as others have suggested.

 

I definitely understand the "hey you didn't find anything though" argument. For example, you can log event 'caches' ? Hmmm....

 

Anyway, perhaps there's a middle ground...

 

Virtual/locationless are already specially tagged in the database (like event 'caches').

 

What if the web site treated locationless/virtual caches as a separate class of items (ala benchmarks), with separate counters and searches on the web site ?

 

Then folks could ignore (or not) locationless/virtuals just like they can do with benchmarks, but if they chose to go for them, they'd get their stats as usual.

 

Just a suggestion....

 

[+oregone]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Navdog:

...

 

The one thing that bothers me though, is that folks say "Don't hunt a lame cache and it will go away". Well, I rarely see that happen.

 

...

 

---

 

How true. I saw a topic in the generals about how we could "vote with our finds" or something along those lines. That is to say (and to reiterate the hypothetical situation you just outlined, navdog), lame caches (for the purposes of this example, virtuals) will eventually die out because people won't bother finding them.

Of course, that's fantasy. It seems to me that the easier the cache is to find, the more hits it gets.

 

To use examples from my own list, my lame caches like this one and this one are found with much greater frequency than, say, difficult ones like this one or this one.

 

Personally, i don't want to be regarded as a one-trick-pony in the geocaching universe that is known for writing stupid, incoherent logs about ex-girlfriends and drunken sex, so i've tried to make the caches i've hidden lately a little better. Sure enough, that means that less people find my caches.

Here's my point, i think: If you place a lame, easy, virtual cache, you'll end up with three or four finds a week. Out of those, at least ONE of them will praise it to no end--no matter how unrewarding it was. Conversely, if you place a well-thought-out, difficult cache, you'll end up with three or four finds per YEAR. Out of those, maybe two of the logs you get will contain more than 'thanks for the cache.' Alright, i'm totally off the subject.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

[Chief Paulina]

All of these caches, virtuals and benchmarks are beautiful in the eyes of the beholder. It should tell us something that the lame caches are more frequented, indeed more popular by their logs than we first imagined.

 

Does that make a difference in how I will proceed? No. I will utilize what information available to follow my own trail.

 

I also realize that most of my caches are lame because they do not get chased very often. Am I concerned? No.

 

Along the way, I will meet waypoint finders that I enjoy communicating with. Whatever else happens on geocaching.com is meant for the enjoyment of others. That's fine by me.

[+Seth!]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vds:

 

What if the web site treated locationless/virtual caches as a separate class of items (ala benchmarks), with separate counters and searches on the web site ?

---

 

You can expect that to happen. It has been discussed quite a bit and, at least for LCs, is inevitable. Personally, I'd like to see that for VCs as well, but I don't know if that will happen. But it is a very good idea, especially as the number of them grows.

 

I hope that this thread is about to wind down. I think that we should all just read Sluggo's post above and call it good.

 

- Seth!

 

[+Maps-R-Us]

quote:

---

Originally posted by yumitori:

 

Perhaps we could encourage folks to improve cache quality overall, rather than single out certain forms for complaints (even when some forms are more prone to lameness than others).

 

Ron/yumitori

---

 

This is the real point of the whole discussion: That there is room in this sport for all types of 'caches' and there is always someone who will enjoy the virtual trash cans and locationless jeeps. So be it. But everyone enjoys a really well done cache.

 

Call it cache policing if you want, but it is really what we need - a way of rating caches like restaurants so we can give encouragement to those that put in an extra effort for really clever/exciting/ingenious caches.

 

How many of us would drop everything for another "Contact Cache?" I really think those who are dedicated to this sport should, overtime, do like Oregone suggested and work to put better and more clever caches out there to improve the overall quality. Seth!, Navdog, fractal, Bodoni, joedohn, Team Exocet and others have always gone the extra mile to put out challenging caches. We can't really encourage their effort with finds alone, since they are sometimes remote and/or hard. But encouraging logs will help and a poll system, like used in these very forums, would be fantastic for user ratings.

 

We have slowed down our own efforts since if/when we put out another cache, it is going to be better than any before. And we are no longer seeking out every cache for higher find counts. Like others, we find it more enjoyable to seek out the good ones and try not to encourage the lousy ones.

 

So, as Navdog put it, lets all work to tend the geocaching garden and make it a better place then we found it. To better quality! Here, here!

[+The Minnesota Cajuns]

I've been holding off saying anything in this post, but I guess I just couldn't control myself and decided to throw my opinion out here. In my view, we all have different opinions of what constitutes a good cache. For some, it is finding a physical container with some goodies in it. For others, it is more about just getting out and seeing sites they have never seen before. Some people like caches you can just drive up to. Others like ones that are only accessible by boat. I could go on and on, but my point is that everyone has different opinions of what constitutes a good cache.

 

When a person says, "Virtual caches aren't REAL caches," they aren't stating fact, but are instead stating their opinions. Others don't share this opinion. In my reading of the forums here I think the more vocal of those two camps is the virtual cache haters and the non-haters are too busy logging VC after VC to bother posting. So, instead of trying to lobby to get VCs removed or moved somewhere else, consider the fact that their existance on this site isn't hurting you in any way. For those who are charter members, you can do pocket queries and filter VCs out. That way, you never even have to know they exist in your area.

 

My opinion of a perfect cache is not whether it is traditional or VC, but whether it is out in the woods somewhere and not at someone's doorstep, in a parking lot, or in those crappy little state parks that just have picnic tables and flat open ground. Just because I don't like these, doesn't mean others don't and I certainly wouldn't want these caches removed fomr this site just because they don't fit my definition of what a traditional cache is.

 

So, let's all try to be tolerant of others' thoughts and beliefs, stop the whining and complaining, and just enjoy geocaching as it fits in your definition. Let others worry about theirs. Also, realize that geocaching is not a non-dynamic entity and realize it will change over time. Change is a good thing. I personally love the fact that this activity has changed from the "hide goodies in a box" concept of the original and branched out in a whole lot of directions. I have seen some pretty creative geocaches and I always appreciate the extra effort put into them. I have personally never done a virtual cache, but I am sure there are good ones out there that are worth doing. I am also certain (this is from experience) that there are traditional caches out there not worth doing.

 

The good thing about this site and the evolution of geocaching which includes benchmark hunting, virtual caches, and locationless caches, is it gives people more choices. With some of these caches, you might now be able to include those with disabilities in the hunt. Those photography caches come into mind here. Those who live life in wheelchairs now have way to participate in the sport.

 

Anyway, let's just go out there and do this activity in the spirit in which it was intended, a cool mixture of sport and technology where the goal is to find something, whether it be physical or not, and share our experiences with others.

 

Thanks for reading this far,

DiscoJason