Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 19
Geocaching HQ

Introducing Virtual Rewards!

Recommended Posts

This was pretty close to the last news I expected to read today. Seriously. I figured I'd read about a working warp-drive before I read about new Virtuals being published. Well done, HQ, welllllll done. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

I was quite confused when I received an email about owning a new virtual. Quite the pressure on me to come up with something worthwhile, especially since I've pretty much given up on ever hiding another geocache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

People have been BEGGING for something like this for ages. It is SO nice that HQ is acknowledging this.

I am sure there will be issues, like there is with anything really, but this is something that at least allows something new in this realm to happen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, _SWH said:

so exciting that Virts are 'back'! Good work to all those who were chosen! I see the first new Virt already published in San Antonio!! https://coord.info/GC7B6P3

:D

<3

Wow! The first one published and it has an ALR! You MUST POST A PHOTO of yourself at the location.

 

I guess the rules are different for the new Virtuals?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, SwineFlew said:

Where are the haters?

I better get out of the way.

I'm sure they will be coming!

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, K13 said:

Wow! The first one published and it has an ALR! You MUST POST A PHOTO of yourself at the location.

 

I guess the rules are different for the new Virtuals?

See the guidelines linked in the OP. Requiring a photo is allowed so long as the finder's face is not required in the photo. In the virtual you referenced, the CO states " you don't need to show your face is you don't want to."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

This is very cool. Hopefully not too many people will be "hurt" by not getting the algorithmically selected invitation to publish a Virtual :)

And hopefully people who get one will actually use it! (or take suggestions if they can't think of one, heh)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you. This is a truly brilliant solution to satisfy the yearning for virtuals. I don't suppose the honorees will be allowed to publish webcam caches if they'd rather?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Rock Chalk said:

See the guidelines linked in the OP. Requiring a photo is allowed so long as the finder's face is not required in the photo. In the virtual you referenced, the CO states " you don't need to show your face is you don't want to."

So the rules are different for the new Virtuals...

Quote

Acceptable logging tasks

  • Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.
  • Tasks for the finder to fulfill (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log).
  • Photos of the location or a GPS device/smartphone at the location.
  • Photos of geocacher at the location, as long as a face is not required in the photo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Thank you. This is a truly brilliant solution to satisfy the yearning for virtuals. I don't suppose the honorees will be allowed to publish webcam caches if they'd rather?

No, recipients cannot change the cache type from Virtual.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Thank you. This is a truly brilliant solution to satisfy the yearning for virtuals. I don't suppose the honorees will be allowed to publish webcam caches if they'd rather?

That would be interesting if at some point they did a similar thing for Webcam listings sometime in the future. Different set of rules obviously, let alone maintenance concerns, but it would be nice; they can be quite fun to do too.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, K13 said:

Wow! The first one published and it has an ALR! You MUST POST A PHOTO of yourself at the location.

 

I guess the rules are different for the new Virtuals?

It doesn't appear to have any Finds? Not sure what "ALR" is. There's just notes on there as of right now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

It doesn't appear to have any Finds? Not sure what "ALR" is. There's just notes on there as of right now. 

 

 

"ALR" is an Additional Logging Requirement, where just signing a log book is not enough to log a find: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=823

If Virtuals with ALRs are allowed, that Help Center text may need some adjustments.

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, kunarion said:

If Virtuals with ALRs are allowed, that Help Center text may need some adjustments.

From the Virtual Rewards - Guidelines:

Acceptable Logging Tasks

  • Questions that can only be answered by visiting the location.
  • Tasks for the finder to fulfill (for example, find five statues on the buildings around you and post the picture of the tallest one with your log).
  • Photos of the location or a GPS device/smartphone at the location.
  • Photos of geocacher at the location, as long as a face is not required in the photo.
 

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, _SWH said:

so exciting that Virts are 'back'! Good work to all those who were chosen! I see the first new Virt already published in San Antonio!! https://coord.info/GC7B6P3

:D

<3

Wow, announcement has only been out for minutes, and I see 3 new virts already published, one within 56 miles of me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, SwineFlew said:

Where are the haters?

I better get out of the way.

I'm not a "hater"...I just don't really understand the love that virtuals get.  I could take 'em or leave 'em...but I never really seek them out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

We are not sharing the algorithm. But we can say it factors in geocaching activity, geocache quality, and geocache health. The algorithm heavily favors cache quality over quantity.

That's nice to know I guess.     How does an algorithm know the "quality" of a cache?     

Do favorite points fit into that?  

 - There's a lot of older, popular hides that have few favorite points simply because they were added years after placed, and not many back-logged their FPs.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

 

That's nice to know I guess.     How does an algorithm know the "quality" of a cache?     

Do favorite points fit into that?  

 - There's a lot of older, popular hides that have few favorite points simply because they were added years after placed, and not many back-logged their FPs.

You're essentially asking us to share the algorithm. :smile:

Sorry, can't share any details about it.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I'm not a "hater"...I just don't really understand the love that virtuals get.  I could take 'em or leave 'em...but I never really seek them out.

*sarcasm* The wow factor. Lets not forget that one. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Rock Chalk said:

You're essentially asking us to share the algorithm. :smile:

Sorry, can't share any details about it.

Any conflict of interests are part of the algorithm?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Seems like a reasonable compromise on the persistent calls for reinstating virtuals.

Thanks.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, SwineFlew said:

Any conflict of interests are part of the algorithm?

I really have no idea what that means.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am happy.   I do not expect to be within algorithm for a number or reasons, but I have long stated that I thought virtuals could back if the numbers were limited to specific types of cachers and/or specific locations.  I can't wait to have time to read more about this and see what comes of it.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, just a handful of answers in this thread so far. And no hate yet :wub: Lets see what I can do with this one. Phew, what a responsibility :o

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, kunarion said:

"ALR" is an Additional Logging Requirement, where just signing a log book is not enough to log a find: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=823

If Virtuals with ALRs are allowed, that Help Center text may need some adjustments.

I don't think the Help Center text needs to be changed, as it specifies "physical" caches. Certainly ALR's have always been allowed for non-physical caches - EC's, Virtuals, Webcams.

A geocacher can log a  physical cache online as “found” if they have signed the logbook. All other logging requirements are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. The only exception to this rule is challenge caches.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, terratin said:

Wow, just a handful of answers in this thread so far. And no hate yet :wub: Lets see what I can do with this one. Phew, what a responsibility :o

I am waiting on Tozainamboku. *sarcasm* I know hes reading this and writing up a book about it.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, K13 said:

Wow! The first one published and it has an ALR! You MUST POST A PHOTO of yourself at the location.

 

I guess the rules are different for the new Virtuals?

Different from what?

From physical caches? Most certainly.

From previous virtual caches?  Not really.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Rock Chalk said:
27 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

 

That's nice to know I guess.     How does an algorithm know the "quality" of a cache?     

Do favorite points fit into that?  

 - There's a lot of older, popular hides that have few favorite points simply because they were added years after placed, and not many back-logged their FPs.

You're essentially asking us to share the algorithm. :smile:

Sorry, can't share any details about it.

I can understand why you might not want to share the algorithm.  Once it's known we might start seeing some CO's change their approach to hiding in order to "qualify" as one of the elite.

For example, one way to improve a cache health score is to avoid placing any caches that will be difficult to find, which might lead to an accumulation of DNFs.  Another way to reduce DNFs or even NM logs would be for a CO to allow throwdowns.  Others might be sitting on 80 hides, but will toss out 20 more in order to meet the 100 hides minimum.  Unless favorite points (as a percentage) are factored in,  this new feature (which I like in general) might encourage quantity over quality in order to make the elite list.  

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, geodarts said:

I am happy.   I do not expect to be within algorithm for a number or reasons, but I have long stated that I thought virtuals could back if the numbers were limited to specific types of cachers and/or specific locations.  I can't wait to have time to read more about this and see what comes of it.  

So am I... I dont want to be a virtual owner... too much drama that come with it. Its not worth it for me. However, I happy to see it coming back.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Christiansen said:

Wow, announcement has only been out for minutes, and I see 3 new virts already published, one within 56 miles of me.

I see 6 so far, 3 are in Germany. I hope to see a new one in Hong Kong.

Share this post


Link to post

This kind of stuff makes me so ANGRY! I can't believe geocaching .com has stooped so low. I quit!!! :mad:

 

 

As Johnny in Airplane said "Just Kidding".   i agree this is cool and a nice step to help get some variety back into geocaching. B)

 

Airplane johnny just kidding.jpg

Edited by Mudfrog
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

What a nice surprise!  It will be interesting to see what new Virtuals result from this effort.  I also think it's great that the announcement touched on the history of issues with Virtuals that got them grandfathered back in 2005.

 

7 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I can understand why you might not want to share the algorithm.  Once it's known we might start seeing some CO's change their approach to hiding in order to "qualify" as one of the elite.

For example, one way to improve a cache health score is to avoid placing any caches that will be difficult to find, which might lead to an accumulation of DNFs.  Another way to reduce DNFs or even NM logs would be for a CO to allow throwdowns.  Others might be sitting on 80 hides, but will toss out 20 more in order to meet the 100 hides minimum.  Unless favorite points (as a percentage) are factored in,  this new feature (which I like in general) might encourage quantity over quality in order to make the elite list.  

I would think that the risk of sharing the algorithm would be criticisms and complaints from cachers that think the algorithm wasn't built correctly and/or think they should've been identified as part of the top 1%. I'm not sure if a lot of cachers will be changing their ways in the hopes of qualifying for a future reward that may or may not happen, but if CO's take care of NM's in a more timely manner then that would be a good side-effect.

The "100 hides minimum" applies to how the Virtual Rewards were distributed to countries, or groups of countries.  A cacher didn't need to have 100 hides in order to get a Virtual Reward.

 

6 minutes ago, SwineFlew said:

So am I... I dont want to be a virtual owner... too much drama that come with it. Its not worth it for me. However, I happy to see it coming back.

I'm curious to see how many Virtual caches get published in the next year.  I'd be surprised if all of the cachers who received the reward actually end up 'redeeming' it.

 

30 minutes ago, terratin said:

Wow, just a handful of answers in this thread so far. And no hate yet :wub: Lets see what I can do with this one. Phew, what a responsibility :o

There is some hate are some complaints about not being chosen and about 'only 4000' in the FB post. I wouldn't be surprised if similar complaints crop up in the forums. Give it time.  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, noncentric said:

There is some hate are some complaints about not being chosen and about 'only 4000' in the FB post. I wouldn't be surprised if similar complaints crop up in the forums. Give it time.  :ph34r:

Limiting Virtual Rewards as a "rare commodity" will hopefully lead to high-quality submissions.  ("I only get one of these, so I'd better make it a good one.")  When there were no limits on submitting virtual caches, anything and everything was being submitted, placing the burden on reviewers to separate the awesome from the mundane.  This was a prime reason for the demise of virtual caches.  The new program is designed to prevent that.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Limiting Virtual Rewards as a "rare commodity" will hopefully lead to high-quality submissions.  ("I only get one of these, so I'd better make it a good one.")  When there were no limits on submitting virtual caches, anything and everything was being submitted, placing the burden on reviewers to separate the awesome from the mundane.  This was a prime reason for the demise of virtual caches.  The new program is designed to prevent that.

Are you saying if you submitted a not so great virtual and the reviewer deny it, you wont get a second chance? 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

 

That's nice to know I guess.     How does an algorithm know the "quality" of a cache?     

Do favorite points fit into that?  

 - There's a lot of older, popular hides that have few favorite points simply because they were added years after placed, and not many back-logged their FPs.

They could easily only look at logs since favorites were introduced, and look at the percentage of favorite points assigned.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be interested to learn more details of the algorithm. Nine years in caching and hundreds of caches hidden, adopted and maintained, with a variety of different cache hides thrown in, each with large amounts of favourite points. If this isn't good enough, then I may as well just archive all my caches now. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

I'd be interested to learn more details of the algorithm. Nine years in caching and hundreds of caches hidden, adopted and maintained, with a variety of different cache hides thrown in, each with large amounts of favourite points. If this isn't good enough, then I may as well just archive all my caches now. 

How is your health score?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, hyliston said:
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

 

That's nice to know I guess.     How does an algorithm know the "quality" of a cache?     

Do favorite points fit into that?  

 - There's a lot of older, popular hides that have few favorite points simply because they were added years after placed, and not many back-logged their FPs.

They could easily only look at logs since favorites were introduced, and look at the percentage of favorite points assigned.

In that case, they should look at the percentage of FPs for all of a COs finds.   The first or last cache in a large powertrail might get tons of favorite points but might otherwise be an unremarkable hide.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

I'd be interested to learn more details of the algorithm. Nine years in caching and hundreds of caches hidden, adopted and maintained, with a variety of different cache hides thrown in, each with large amounts of favourite points. If this isn't good enough, then I may as well just archive all my caches now. 

A lot of yours seem to be PL only caches. I wonder if that played a part in the algorithm?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Auntie Quated said:
9 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

I'd be interested to learn more details of the algorithm. Nine years in caching and hundreds of caches hidden, adopted and maintained, with a variety of different cache hides thrown in, each with large amounts of favourite points. If this isn't good enough, then I may as well just archive all my caches now. 

How is your health score?

Just like the algorithm they using for selecting the 4000 cachers that will be allowed to place a new virtual they're not providing a means for determining ones health score, how it's derived, or specifically how to improve it.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I am guessing there will be a certain amount of hand wringing and/or sour grapes over why someone was not chosen to place a new virtual. Can't please everyone all of the time. I like the way that GC has rolled this out. I am interested in going out and finding some of the new placed virtuals. I hope many of them are great spots!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

As Johnny in Airplane said "Just Kidding".

You got a + just for that Johnny reference :D

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Just like the algorithm they using for selecting the 4000 cachers that will be allowed to place a new virtual they're not providing a means for determining ones health score, how it's derived, or specifically how to improve it.

It's much like spam sorting algorithms, or search result relevance algorithms. To avoid playing the system, the creators really have to keep the functions under tight wrap, or it becomes ineffective to its intent, and needing further refinement. Organic algorithms are good though since people will still figure out ways and tricks to falsely improve their 'score' and visibility over time, so the developers have to keep adjusting for it with complex stats and analyses...  There's been plenty of discussion about the subjecitivity of concepts like Google's search result algorithms and whatnot. It's objective in that it applies to all, but it's subjective in that the developers still have to decide what aspects and properties to prioritize and score higher than others (and which to demote). I don't doubt it's the same with Groundspeak, which is still more good enough reason for them to keep hush about it. :ph34r:

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

I'd be interested to learn more details of the algorithm. Nine years in caching and hundreds of caches hidden, adopted and maintained, with a variety of different cache hides thrown in, each with large amounts of favourite points. If this isn't good enough, then I may as well just archive all my caches now. 

I knew it wouldn't take long...

 

This section of the announcement is for you:

3 hours ago, Geocaching HQ said:

I own great caches. Why wasn’t I selected for a Virtual Reward?

There are certainly more than 4,000 awesome cache hiders in the world, but we had to draw a line somewhere. We found that limiting this release to the top 1% of the results from our algorithm allowed for an ideal disbursement of new Virtual Caches around the world. No algorithm is perfect, ours included. We favored quality over quantity, but in creating our algorithm, we are sure that some great hiders were missed.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 19

×