Jump to content

Introducing Virtual Rewards!


Geocaching HQ
Followers 19

Recommended Posts

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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.
 
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.  

Link to comment
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
Link to comment

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
Link to comment

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:

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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? 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment

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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 19
×
×
  • Create New...