Introducing Virtual Rewards!

[+thebruce0]

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

 

 

Of course the first bit of the algorithm was trawling the forums looking for people who regularly get into arguments 

Does it factor in arguments which consist almost entirely of one person saying something and then spending the next X posts trying to claim that they didn't say that thing?

[+marcelteun]

4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

There is such a thing as a false analogy.

Yes there is,... I guess you mean to say it was a false analogy. Please argue. My point is that if you have the same chance, it doesn't necessarily mean it is fair. But as I said before, I think a lottery would have been fairer than this.

5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

(btw "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" isn't a comparison, but let's not get into grammar in the geocaching forum)

 

Yes it is: the relation between apple, tree and distance is compared to parent, kid, behaviour / looks. 

[Keystone]

Let's get back to discussing Virtual Rewards.  Conversations between two or three individuals that are not of interest to the worldwide community can take place by Forum private messaging, Geocaching.com email, or Geocaching.com message center.  Thanks!

[+Team DEMP]

I don't know why anyone would be disappointed. Every person whether they get to place one or find one should be thrilled there's likely a new and interesting place to visit because of this. Cache on!

[+MartyBartfast]

You could look at it that those chosen are actually disadvantaged, as they are the only cachers in the world who cannot (legitimately) find their new virtual, which could be REALLY annoying if there were some challenge cache for which a virtual would help qualify and you were the new owner of the only virtual for hundreds of miles

[+thebruce0]

 

3 minutes ago, marcelteun said:

My point is that if you have the same chance, it doesn't necessarily mean it is fair.

The algorithm treated everyone equally by a set of criteria Groundspeak defined, which are commonly understood ethics and/or stats towards helping identify most likely candidates who demonstrate 'good cache ownership'. No criteria is perfect in and of itself. By combining many criteria there is a better chance of highlighting the best candidates that satisfy the request. In this case, there was a cut-off of 4000 qualifiers. That necessarily means that there are more than 4000 people who'd have qualified. To assume that somehow one person had an unfair advantage over another is fallacious. The criteria are commonly understood, and they were applied evenly and universally for the caching career of each individual. There was no unfair advantage, no one had a step ahead of anyone else.  It may be unfortunate for the many who likely had just as much chance of being selected were it not for the 4000 cutoff, but it wasn't unfair. This is all gleaned from what was announced regarding the reward.

 

3 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

I don't know why anyone would be disappointed. Every person whether they get to place one or find one should be thrilled there's likely a new and interesting place to visit because of this. Cache on!

This!  Well, disappointed at not being selected, still am I    But really interested to see where the couple of locals I know will be creating theirs. I wouldn't be surprised if we get some new high D and/or T listings.

[+Touchstone]

29 minutes ago, marcelteun said:

OK. I forgot to say that the both will well prepared, but both didn't have access to the rules. In other words, luck is just luck, nothing more than that

I would argue that you DID have access to the "rules" but you chose to ignore them or to not prepare adequately. The rules were built upon the available data on the site, which by its virtue, is somewhat limited. You could have exploited this obvious limitation and positioned yourself in the top 1% or very close to the top by appearing to be a fantastic community member in every respect, but you chose not to. Don't blame Groundspeak for your lack of preparation or for the choices you make. 

[+Team Microdot]

9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The algorithm treated everyone equally by a set of criteria Groundspeak defined, which are commonly understood ethics and/or stats towards helping identify most likely candidates who demonstrate 'good cache ownership'. No criteria is perfect in and of itself. By combining many criteria there is a better chance of highlighting the best candidates that satisfy the request. In this case, there was a cut-off of 4000 qualifiers. That necessarily means that there are more than 4000 people who'd have qualified. To assume that somehow one person had an unfair advantage over another is fallacious. The criteria are commonly understood, and they were applied evenly and universally for the caching career of each individual. There was no unfair advantage, no one had a step ahead of anyone else.  It may be unfortunate for the many who likely had just as much chance of being selected were it not for the 4000 cutoff, but it wasn't unfair. This is all gleaned from what was announced regarding the reward.

 

This!  Well, disappointed at not being selected, still am I    But really interested to see where the couple of locals I know will be creating theirs. I wouldn't be surprised if we get some new high D and/or T listings.

Presumably there's a statement from Groundspeak somewhere which backs up all these details?

 

[+thebruce0]

The OP.

[+coman123]

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

https://project-gc.com/Tools/MapCompare?profile_name=project-gc.com&nonefound=on&ownfound=on&hidden_fromyyyy=2017&hidden_frommm=1&hidden_fromdd=1&type[]=Virtual+Cache&submit=Filter

THank-you

 

[+Car54]

THANK YOU!!!!

[+marcelteun]

51 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

The algorithm treated everyone equally by a set of criteria Groundspeak defined,

 

You are repeating this, and I replied already on this. I don't know how I can explain it more clearly to you. Equal chances doesn't necessarily mean fairness, please see my previous comparison. You hinted that the comparison was not valid, but without arguments. Instead you give the same argument I reacted on.

 

46 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

I would argue that you DID have access to the "rules"  

Please refer to them, i.e. where was it stated that these rules will be applied in the future to decide who will be able to create a new virtual cache.

Edited August 25, 2017 by marcelteun
typo

[+mvhayes1982]

After reading Keystone's post a few posts up, I've removed the original content of this post. 

I'm excited for the new Virtuals. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by mvhayes1982
Return to topic

[Keystone]

Discussion on the criteria for selecting Virtual Reward recipients, including the "fairness" of the process, can take place in this other thread, and in compliance with the Forum Guidelines.  Let's use this thread here for other questions and discussions about Virtual Rewards. Thanks!

Edited August 25, 2017 by Keystone

[+NanCycle]

8 hours ago, pingurus said:

I'm sorry if this has been asked before, but is there a way to see who got a virtual reward?

I skimmed through the rest of the thread to see if there was an answer to this (besides the "no" a few posts down) and didn't see one.

You will be able to see who got a reward when their new virtual cache is published.

[+Mudfrog]

Goes to show you, it doesn't matter how generous a person/company is, or that a person/company does something nice for someone else,, there will always be those that complain. I'm always amazed when i see this but at the same time,,, not surprised.

I call hogwash on anyone saying they don't know the rules. It's not like you have to be a rocket scientist to know what it takes to be a better than average cacher.

Come on people, this is one of the more positive things we've seen come about in the last few years. Let's enjoy this while we can!

[+terratin]

2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Goes to show you, it doesn't matter how generous a person/company is, or that a person/company does something nice for someone else,, there will always be those that complain. I'm always amazed when i see this but at the same time,,, not surprised.

I call hogwash on anyone saying they don't know the rules. It's not like you have to be a rocket scientist to know what it takes to be a better than average cacher.

Come on people, this is one of the more positive things we've seen come about in the last few years. Let's enjoy this while we can!

Perfect. And now please all go out and find some caches instead of continue splitting hair. Honestly, what do you think you'll achieve by this? That someone pads your head and tells you that you're right?

[+Team Christiansen]

2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Goes to show you, it doesn't matter how generous a person/company is, or that a person/company does something nice for someone else,, there will always be those that complain. I'm always amazed when i see this but at the same time,,, not surprised.

Begrudging someone else's good fortune, unfortunately, is a phenomenon that has been going on throughout history. There is even a biblical example in Matthew 20:1-16.

[+hzoi]

I can't say I'm not disappointed that I got passed over by the magic algorithm.  Not much I can do about it, other than to just keep hiding what I consider to be quality caches and hoping that the numbers eventually add up.

I'm glad other folks will get a chance to submit new virtual caches, and I look forward to seeing what folks come up with.

[+The A-Team]

3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Goes to show you, it doesn't matter how generous a person/company is, or that a person/company does something nice for someone else,, there will always be those that complain. I'm always amazed when i see this but at the same time,,, not surprised.

Yep. It seems like most are happy that the request to "Bring back Virtuals" has finally come true, but it seems like there are a few that actually meant "Bring back Virtuals, but only if I get the ability to hide them".

I won't deny that I'm disappointed that I wasn't selected, and I'm mildly curious how the algorithm worked, but I'm not planning to geocide or anything over this. I'll happily wait for all these new (and likely great) Virtuals to come out and go find them.

[+cheech gang]

My invite must have been lost in the mail as well

https://tenor.com/view/ck005-were-not-worthy-wayne-world-gif-8195602

Edited August 25, 2017 by cheech gang

[+JL_HSTRE]

Are Virtuals bound by any proximity rules?

I see one of the first new Virtuals published in the SE US has gone up at Stone Mountain, GA. There were already 6 old Virtuals in the park still active in the park, plus a plethora of physical caches.

[+Just a Trifle]

10 hours ago, Hokuri said:

I think I got it now—two words:

 

Occam's razor.

 

"The simplest explanation is the most likely."

 

So what's the simplest explanation?

 

MONEY

 

The "double secret probation" algorithm selects the cachers who somehow result in the most $$$$$ flowing to Groundspeak coffers.

 

GOT IT!!!!

 

Yes, we have noticed how some of those with an instagram/FB/youtube account seem to have received the reward ... yes, some have also placed some awesome caches, but others not so.  As a result, truly deserving COs have missed out which is very sad.

[RuideAlmeida]

4 minutes ago, Joshism said:

Are Virtuals bound by any proximity rules?

 

No.

Proximity

Virtual Caches have no proximity restrictions. If the cache owner wants to avoid placing a Virtual Cache with similar content, they can ask their reviewer to check for nearby unpublished caches with similar content.

Edited August 25, 2017 by RuideAlmeida

[+JL_HSTRE]

5 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Goes to show you, it doesn't matter how generous a person/company is, or that a person/company does something nice for someone else,, there will always be those that complain. I'm always amazed when i see this but at the same time,,, not surprised.

There is an old saying in Magic The Gathering that if Wizards of the Coast put a $100 in each booster pack some players would complain how it was folded.

[+Gill & Tony]

I've just found out about this and wanted to add my thanks to Groundspeak for getting this underway.  It really does seem a great compromise to allow a certain number of virtuals under controlled conditions.  I've heard of a couple of locals who did get selected and they were among the first names which popped into my head when i heard about this.

Given the angst that seems to have been generated among a few who think they should have been selected, but weren't, maybe a slight tweak to the selection process might alleviate this if there is another thing of this nature.  Instead of selecting the top 4000, select the top 5000 and randomly draw 4000 from that pool.  Then, anyone who didn't get selected, but feels that they are better than the bloke over there who did get selected, can just put it down to the luck of the draw.  

[+palmetto]

9 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

 Instead of selecting the top 4000, select the top 5000 and randomly draw 4000 from that pool.  Then, anyone who didn't get selected, but feels that they are better than the bloke over there who did get selected, can just put it down to the luck of the draw.  

Brilliant!

[+hyliston]

Interesting factoid.  The two images I uploaded to my new virtual (GC7B7WP) gallery were dated as Jan 30, 2005.  Was that the last day before virtuals were grandfathered?  Photos people are uploading with their logs now have the correct date.  Just thought it odd.

[+cheech gang]

13 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

Instead of selecting the top 4000, select the top 5000 and randomly draw 4000 from that pool.  Then, anyone who didn't get selected, but feels that they are better than the bloke over there who did get selected, can just put it down to the luck of the draw.  

I bet Groundspeak wishes they would have thought of this!

[+DragonsWest]

25 minutes ago, cheech gang said:

I bet Groundspeak wishes they would have thought of this!

I'll bet they are sorry they brought them back this way due to the stink it has created.

However you do something like this, someone is going to be unhappy.

 

As an old cuss, who has been at the game for well over a decade, had the great misfortune to have people steal my ammo boxes, spent hundreds, if not thousands on geocoins and other trackables, kept my caches in public lands and spaces, plus been kind enough to help along other cachers hides over the years, I'd think I'm a veritable prince among cachers.  But then there are those dark posts I've made on the forums over the years, about the direction Groundspeak has taken on many occasions and figure the frog-in-chief has it in for me anyway, never mind how passionate I've been for the game and try to be a good ambassador to people who ask what I'm doing in that bush, covered with scratches and comical crossed bandages.

 

Well, I didn't make the cut, but will say, I've had my eye on a few locations which would make some very fine virtuals.  One is a downtown WPA Art display I want to call attention to.  The others are in some national parks (where physical caches don't go.)

[+Mudfrog]

25 minutes ago, DragonsWest said:

I'll bet they are sorry they brought them back this way due to the stink it has created.

However you do something like this, someone is going to be unhappy.

 

As an old cuss, who has been at the game for well over a decade, had the great misfortune to have people steal my ammo boxes, spent hundreds, if not thousands on geocoins and other trackables, kept my caches in public lands and spaces, plus been kind enough to help along other cachers hides over the years, I'd think I'm a veritable prince among cachers.  But then there are those dark posts I've made on the forums over the years, about the direction Groundspeak has taken on many occasions and figure the frog-in-chief has it in for me anyway, never mind how passionate I've been for the game and try to be a good ambassador to people who ask what I'm doing in that bush, covered with scratches and comical crossed bandages.

 

Well, I didn't make the cut, but will say, I've had my eye on a few locations which would make some very fine virtuals.  One is a downtown WPA Art display I want to call attention to.  The others are in some national parks (where physical caches don't go.)

If this would have come about some two or more years ago, then yeah, i may have had a chance to be one of the 4000. I had put quite a bit of effort into our hobby up until around then. Because i've been unable to adapt, my geocaching activities have slowed to a crawl in the last two years. Events and CITOs aren't what they used to be because so many of them are placed mainly to up smiley and souvenir count, not for socializing and actual clean up. Physical caches are pretty much same ole same ole and have gotten boring for me. I haven't placed caches in a long while because i know they won't be found since they aren't park and grabs. And then like you stated, my pessimistic and negative attitude shown here in the forums is probably a big factor as well.

The thing is, i realize all of this.

I do hope someone(s) in our area was one of those picked as i am looking forward to seeing a virtual pop up in our area. Would be nice to see something different for a change.

[+K13]

2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

I do hope someone(s) in our area was one of those picked as i am looking forward to seeing a virtual pop up in our area. Would be nice to see something different for a change.

Keep an eye out for one about 150 miles to your north. I know someone there who got the reward.

[+noncentric]

11 hours ago, palmetto said:

20 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

 Instead of selecting the top 4000, select the top 5000 and randomly draw 4000 from that pool.  Then, anyone who didn't get selected, but feels that they are better than the bloke over there who did get selected, can just put it down to the luck of the draw.  

Brilliant!

Interesting idea, but there would still be complaints by those who didn't get the reward. The amount of complaining here and especially in FB makes me think that this may be the only time something like this happens.  Why would a company do something like this again when they know people are going to complain.  They sent invites for 4000 new virtuals, which would almost double the pre-existing count of Virtuals. It's too bad that cachers can't just be happy about this surprise addition to the geocaching gameboard.

 

On 8/25/2017 at 1:44 PM, The A-Team said:

On 8/25/2017 at 10:31 AM, Mudfrog said:

Goes to show you, it doesn't matter how generous a person/company is, or that a person/company does something nice for someone else,, there will always be those that complain. I'm always amazed when i see this but at the same time,,, not surprised.

Yep. It seems like most are happy that the request to "Bring back Virtuals" has finally come true, but it seems like there are a few that actually meant "Bring back Virtuals, but only if I get the ability to hide them".

^This!

[+thebruce0]

On 8/25/2017 at 4:44 PM, The A-Team said:

I won't deny that I'm disappointed that I wasn't selected, and I'm mildly curious how the algorithm worked, but I'm not planning to geocide or anything over this. I'll happily wait for all these new (and likely great) Virtuals to come out and go find them.

Most annoyingly, one was just published by a local 3 blocks from my home. And I was 50km away with a dead phone so had no idea. Totally could have FTF'd it. bah!  hehe

[+Mama514]

You know, I just don't understand how much some people need recognition. I DO, however, know several people who've done, and continue to do a whole lot more for their community/ies that deserve a hell of a lot more than this kind of recognition. Stop the sour grapes over a hobby. And, who cares about the algorithm, really? Jeez Louise... 

[+Team Christiansen]

5 hours ago, noncentric said:

Interesting idea, but there would still be complaints by those who didn't get the reward. The amount of complaining here and especially in FB makes me think that this may be the only time something like this happens.  Why would a company do something like this again when they know people are going to complain.  They sent invites for 4000 new virtuals, which would almost double the pre-existing count of Virtuals. It's too bad that cachers can't just be happy about this surprise addition to the geocaching gameboard.

But, all of the complaints notwithstanding, there will be "thousands" (hopefully the full 4,000) of new virtuals with "hundreds of thousands" of cachers finding them. Ultimately, this is not just a good thing, it is a great thing. I would have loved to have been able to earn a virtual reward, but even though I didn't, I am so grateful I will be able to find some new and most likely cool caches. 

[+WarNinjas]

I think it is great how GS did this.  Not only is it really cool to have some new caches around that don't take up space.  I am sure there are many good CO that let a few cache maintenance issues slide a bit because they can. If we had some warning they could have fixed them up in hopes of getting this reward.  Now it might always be in CO's heads that something cool like this might happen and if there caches are not in great shape they might not get the reward.  I didn't get a chance at a virtual but I think how they did it was great and made me think about my hides and what I could do to improve them.  I am sure others are thinking the same so I commend GS on how they did this!

[+Astro_D]

There is a virtual that was just published not too many feet from our traditional cache that has been in place for the last 11+ years..*sigh* Feeling very frustrated right now and thinking of archiving ours. There is no point in having two caches so close together to highlight the same thing. Wish there would be more review process before hitting the submit button on these new virtuals. After all the work we went through to secure permission for an actual cache at the location, to come back from vacation to find this. Yeah.......very frustrated and not happy right now. This is my introduction to this new virtual thing, and unfortunately, it's been cast as something negative. Will let the emotions calm down and then re-evaluate the situation. Thanks for letting me vent.

 

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, Astro_D said:

There is a virtual that was just published not too many feet from our traditional cache that has been in place for the last 11+ years..*sigh* Feeling very frustrated right now and thinking of archiving ours. There is no point in having two caches so close together to highlight the same thing. Wish there would be more review process before hitting the submit button on these new virtuals. After all the work we went through to secure permission for an actual cache at the location, to come back from vacation to find this. Yeah.......very frustrated and not happy right now. This is my introduction to this new virtual thing, and unfortunately, it's been cast as something negative. Will let the emotions calm down and then re-evaluate the situation. Thanks for letting me vent.

 

That really sucks and I don't blame you for being less than impressed.

Seems pointless to me to publish a virtual which does nothing more than duplicate an existing experience. 

[+Touchstone]

7 minutes ago, Astro_D said:

There is a virtual that was just published not too many feet from our traditional cache that has been in place for the last 11+ years..*sigh* Feeling very frustrated right now and thinking of archiving ours. There is no point in having two caches so close together to highlight the same thing. Wish there would be more review process before hitting the submit button on these new virtuals. After all the work we went through to secure permission for an actual cache at the location, to come back from vacation to find this. Yeah.......very frustrated and not happy right now. This is my introduction to this new virtual thing, and unfortunately, it's been cast as something negative. Will let the emotions calm down and then re-evaluate the situation. Thanks for letting me vent.

 

Sorry to hear that you feel that way.  If it's any consolation, there's a Traditional, Virtual and an Earthcache that have been happily coexisting on the summit of Mount Whitney (highest point in the lower contiguous U.S.) for quite some time now.  Having them all there together doesn't appear to diminish the enjoyment that people take in logging Finds on them all.

I hope you reconsider Archiving your cache.  People will appreciate the extra effort you put into placing it in the first place.

[+NanCycle]

56 minutes ago, Astro_D said:

There is a virtual that was just published not too many feet from our traditional cache that has been in place for the last 11+ years..*sigh* Feeling very frustrated right now and thinking of archiving ours. There is no point in having two caches so close together to highlight the same thing. Wish there would be more review process before hitting the submit button on these new virtuals. After all the work we went through to secure permission for an actual cache at the location, to come back from vacation to find this. Yeah.......very frustrated and not happy right now. This is my introduction to this new virtual thing, and unfortunately, it's been cast as something negative. Will let the emotions calm down and then re-evaluate the situation. Thanks for letting me vent.

 

The cache listing shows it to be a full .1 mile away,  not the matter of just a few feet that I was expecting to see based on your complaint.

[Keystone]

The arrival of a new virtual will likely increase visits to existing nearby caches.  Due to the novelty factor, people will make a point of including the new virtual caches in their travels.  Assuming that the goal of hiding a cache is for people to find it, it's possible for an affected CO to take a positive view of a new neighbor.

I am reminded of going out of my way to find Rockhound's Virtual Cache along with the Traditional cache 130 feet away and the Earthcache 35 feet away.  Though, in that case, the Virtual came first.  I would have skipped the spot entirely if it wasn't for the novelty of multiple caches in close proximity, taking advantage of the listing guidelines regarding cache saturation.

[+Astro_D]

23 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

The cache listing shows it to be a full .1 mile away,  not the matter of just a few feet that I was expecting to see based on your complaint.

Yes, but the statues are within 100 feet of my cache. The trophy (starting cords) are just around the corner of the parking lot.

Like I said, I just needed to vent and let the emotions calm down. It was just all a shock to see and learn about, and not in a good way for me. *Shrug*

ill get ove it (I am calming down) and can see the potential of having both. But I admit, it still stings and will for some time. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Astro_D

[+SeattleWayne]

On 8/24/2017 at 0:09 PM, 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. 

[+WarNinjas]

I think it will be a good thing Astro_D.  Bring more people to find your cache. At least the Bubble didn't cover your cache on the map!  We have a popular cache and seems about once a year or more someone plans a event at the exact spot and then the bubble covers our cache so possibly no one can see it or no one can see theirs.   Then after the event they often leave it there for a month or so!

 

 

[+SeattleWayne]

6 hours ago, Astro_D said:

There is a virtual that was just published not too many feet from our traditional cache that has been in place for the last 11+ years..*sigh* Feeling very frustrated right now and thinking of archiving ours. There is no point in having two caches so close together to highlight the same thing. Wish there would be more review process before hitting the submit button on these new virtuals. After all the work we went through to secure permission for an actual cache at the location, to come back from vacation to find this. Yeah.......very frustrated and not happy right now. This is my introduction to this new virtual thing, and unfortunately, it's been cast as something negative. Will let the emotions calm down and then re-evaluate the situation. Thanks for letting me vent.

 

Why is this such a bad thing? Cachers can log the Virtual then find yours or vice versa. 

[+Ambrosia]

Well, so far, there are four virts within 200 miles of me. All of them could be a physical cache. They look like nice virts, but it doesn't really seem to be the way a virtual should be, to me.

I think that I know where I'm going to put my virt. It's at a place that is more sensitive, where I had a cache that I had to archive twelve years ago. I even thought about making it a virt at the time, but it was just before they were grandfathered and I didn't think it would go through. It's an interesting historical place that just can't support a physical cache. I just need to decide if having higher traffic from the novelty of a virt will work for that spot. 

 

[+pantadeusz]

11 hours ago, Astro_D said:

There is a virtual that was just published not too many feet from our traditional cache that has been in place for the last 11+ years..*sigh* Feeling very frustrated right now and thinking of archiving ours. There is no point in having two caches so close together to highlight the same thing. Wish there would be more review process before hitting the submit button on these new virtuals. After all the work we went through to secure permission for an actual cache at the location, to come back from vacation to find this. Yeah.......very frustrated and not happy right now. This is my introduction to this new virtual thing, and unfortunately, it's been cast as something negative. Will let the emotions calm down and then re-evaluate the situation. Thanks for letting me vent.

 

Doesn't sound like the end of the world to me. Some of my favourite geocaching spots have 5 or 6 caches pointing to them - and I think it's awesome.

 

In other news a new virtual was just published in Dublin and I was about 5-10 minutes late for an ftf

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 8/25/2017 at 9:02 AM, coman123 said:

2 questions

1) Will there be a bookmark of the new virtual's and

It would be easy enough to create on by searching for Virtual caches and sorting by placed date.  I just did that and there are quite a few.  It would be easier if the Search Form had a date range selector like on the PQ search criteria page.  Because the results aren't paged anymore but more results appended as one scrolls down the page, it's difficult to select the first "n" caches on the list.  

I also noticed something odd.  There are a couple of virtual caches with a placed date in 2008 and one in 2010.   How did that happen?