Jump to content

Criteria for Being a New Virtual CO


geocat_

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

And another case where a previous hider of numerous novel and superbly engineered caches with plenty of FP's subsequently abandoned their hides and stopped responding to Needs Maintenance logs - while still actively finding.

 

I think more weight was given to maintenance history. Guessing from recent virtual owners in my area:

  • NMs were responded to in a timely manner, followed up with an OM
  • No NAs
  • No reviewer disables
  • No reviewer archivals

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

The problem with just going by number of favorite points received (and not ratio) is someone could simply have an exceptionally high amount of hides, where majority likely only have a favorite point or two, if any at all, but the amount of hides alone puts them at the top. I wouldn't say that denotes quality or giving anything to the community if the hides aren't taken care of, leaky messes.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, mimaef said:

The problem with just going by number of favorite points received (and not ratio) is someone could simply have an exceptionally high amount of hides, where majority likely only have a favorite point or two, if any at all, but the amount of hides alone puts them at the top. I wouldn't say that denotes quality or giving anything to the community if the hides aren't taken care of, leaky messes.

You beat me to it - I was just about to say something similar :D

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

From the reactions of local cachers I saw, high-numbers-placed cachers felt that they deserved a virtual because of all the effort they put into their hides.  My impression (and it's only that) is that virtual rewards were given to cachers who had hidden and maintained a relatively small number of high-quality caches.

I, for one, applaud that HQ rewarded non-powertrail hiders.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

From the reactions of local cachers I saw, high-numbers-placed cachers felt that they deserved a virtual because of all the effort they put into their hides.  My impression (and it's only that) is that virtual rewards were given to cachers who had hidden and maintained a relatively small number of high-quality caches.

I, for one, applaud that HQ rewarded non-powertrail hiders.

Their idea of effort and mine may differ slightly then.

I applaud them as well. While there is a place for powertrail hiders in the world and there are people that enjoy them, I have a feeling that a lot of them wouldn't like to be bothered with constantly receiving and checking their virtuals logs and maintaining them. I have seen very few power hiders who actually take care of their caches.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I think more weight was given to maintenance history. Guessing from recent virtual owners in my area:

  • NMs were responded to in a timely manner, followed up with an OM
  • No NAs
  • No reviewer disables
  • No reviewer archivals

 

And presumably, since they were using the CHS as a yardstick, few if any DNFs. That seems to be the case with the hides of some of the recipients I looked at here out of curiousity back when it was first announced.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I think more weight was given to maintenance history. Guessing from recent virtual owners in my area:

  • NMs were responded to in a timely manner, followed up with an OM
  • No NAs
  • No reviewer disables
  • No reviewer archivals

 

One of the new virtuals in my area went to a cacher who originally placed 14 caches around 6years ago. Of those only 4 are currently truly available, 2 have been disabled by a reviewer (in one case after nearly 3 years of DNFs and no maintenance whatsoever) , 2 were archived by the CO, the other 6 which have been archived were done with due warning by reviewers after DNFs/NMs and a disablement by reviewer, and an almost complete lack of maintenance by the CO., who as far as I can see has made an average of less than 1 visit per cache over the last 6 years. These are all caches not far from roads, easy to get to , not high T .

Quite how that adds up to a quality set of caches, I cannot imagine. If I was coming up with criteria to describe quality cache owning, the first cut would be to discount every C.O.who had a listing archived by reviewer for lack of maintenance.

 

Edited to add : Oh, and I should have said, they are not a reviewer.

 

Edited by hal-an-tow
absent mindedness
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

One of the new virtuals in my area went to a cacher who originally placed 14 caches around 6years ago. Of those only 4 are currently truly available, 2 have been disabled by a reviewer (in one case after nearly 3 years of DNFs and no maintenance whatsoever) , 2 were archived by the CO, the other 6 which have been archived were done with due warning by reviewers after DNFs/NMs and a disablement by reviewer, and an almost complete lack of maintenance by the CO., who as far as I can see has made an average of less than 1 visit per cache over the last 6 years. These are all caches not far from roads, easy to get to , not high T .

Quite how that adds up to a quality set of caches, I cannot imagine. If I was coming up with criteria to describe quality cache owning, the first cut would be to discount every C.O.who had a listing archived by reviewer for lack of maintenance.

 

Edited to add : Oh, and I should have said, they are not a reviewer.

 

Wow. I don't understand why this cache ownership behavior was rewarded. I can see how something like this could confuse and even anger the local community.  

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Wow. I don't understand why this cache ownership behavior was rewarded. I can see how something like this could confuse and even anger the local community.  

It neither confuses nor angers me.  I don't know what the criterion is/was.  Nor do I really care.  The new ones locally look very interesting.  I figured that I was too old to be interested in having a Virtual Cache.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Wow. I don't understand why this cache ownership behavior was rewarded. I can see how something like this could confuse and even anger the local community.  

Those local cachers I've talked to have been puzzled or wryly amused by the award, no doubt there will be some individuals thinking "Why that guy and  not me?" and consumed by envy, but happily I don't know any of them !

I am aware of 3 more C.O.s ( not reviewers) in the area who have been awarded virtuals, do maintain their caches diligently, but have not yet decided what to do with their virtual reward. 2 of them hardly ever cache any more anyway.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

The ones locally who got the rewards were all worthy recipients who've been log-time stalwarts of the game with many memorable hides. I have no qualms with any of them. I'm also glad I didn't receive one, having seen the hassles some are having with people logging finds without fulfilling the cache requirements.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

Those local cachers I've talked to have been puzzled or wryly amused by the award, no doubt there will be some individuals thinking "Why that guy and  not me?" and consumed by envy, but happily I don't know any of them !

I am aware of 3 more C.O.s ( not reviewers) in the area who have been awarded virtuals, do maintain their caches diligently, but have not yet decided what to do with their virtual reward. 2 of them hardly ever cache any more anyway.

My point entirely, they don't cache anymore so the reward is for what? Fair enough to use some algorithm but not to sanity check the outcome is what I find particularly out of kilter.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

Yes but giving virtuals to inactive cache owners who give nothing to the game is also a bad idea. I agree about number of hides shouldn't have been a factor but there are cache owners who have a large amount of hides who also have a high total number of favorite points who effectively were spat at in the face for years of work. 

 

15 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

if you run a search on Project GC 'Favourite Points Received' - how many of the top 5 in the North West got a Virtual?

https://project-gc.com/TopHiders/FavGained?country=United+Kingdom&region=Northwest+England&submit=Filter

 

Having a large number of hides / a high number of favourite points doesn’t necessarily indicate a quality hider deserving a reward.

Sure – they contribute a lot in terms of number of hides – but in my experience quality and quantity hardly ever go hand in hand.

Using the statistic provided by Project-GC and linked to by Chezrascal – with the exception of The Barrower  those top 5 cache placers in the North West are only actually earning a low percentage of favourite points per hide.  Granted, some of their hides will have a high number of favourite points, but the majority will have only one or two and many will have none at all.   This is illustrated perfectly by the statistics shown on Chezrascal’s own profile – 2236 FP’s on 22998 logs – which equates to just 10%.

If virtual rewards were being awarded based on favourite points alone, there are far more deserving CO’s further down this list who have a much higher Favourites to Hides ratio.

Thankfully, the algorithm appears to have (mostly) favoured those with a low number of quality hides who have proven themselves to be diligent CO’s by attending to NM logs in a timely manner / having a good CHS / not needing reviewer reminders etc..

However,  I can’t see the logic in awarding them to CO’s who have long since left the game.

Edited by LFC4eva
correction
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

If virtual rewards were being awarded based on favourite points alone, there are far more deserving CO’s further down this list who have a much higher Favourites to Hides ratio.

There are many places in the world where there simply aren't enough finders for caches to amass large numbers of FPs, now matter how good they are. Going on raw numbers of FPs, or even FPs per hide, would have restricted the rewards to only big city COs. At least using percentage FPs leveled that part of the playing field.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment

There are many cache owners who set quality caches and are do gooders when it comes to maintenance and some who have been setting big quality boxes since 2004, 2005. They didn't get virtuals as the algorithm decided they were bad cache owners because they have too many caches and it gave virtuals to inactive given up cachers. This is a kick to the teeth for cache owners who have given 10+ years of effort and expense in cache setting. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

There are many places in the world where there simply aren't enough finders for caches to amass large numbers of FPs, now matter how good they are. Going on raw numbers of FPs, or even FPs per hide, would have restricted the rewards to only big city COs. At least using percentage FPs leveled that part of the playing field.

Absolutely agreed.

I wasn't suggesting that using raw numbers of FP's or even FP's per hide would be a better way of choosing.. using raw numbers alone gives a very distorted picture.  Some would look at that list and think WOW - that guy with 4k+ favourites must be worthy of a reward - but when you factor in how many hides he owns and/or how many logs he's received, his FP ratio is actually quite poor.

I mentioned FP per hide to prove a point - there could be a CO in that list who owns just one quality cache which has 200 favourite points (in fact they might have 200 FP's from 200 finds, a 100% success rate) - but they would be way down on page 5 and some folk wouldn't even know they exist, they would rather give kudos to the guy with a 10% success rate just because he appears to be top dog.

Percentage FP's would be much better - especially as that also takes into account the fact that non PMO cachers can't award FP's at all.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

....They didn't get virtuals as the algorithm decided they were bad cache owners because they have too many caches and it gave virtuals to inactive given up cachers. This is a kick to the teeth for cache owners who have given 10+ years of effort and expense in cache setting. 

The algorithm didn't actually say anything of the sort.. with only a limited number of rewards available they had to draw the line somewhere.  Just because someone didn't get one, doesn't mean they are a bad CO.
 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
1 minute ago, LFC4eva said:

The algorithm didn't actually say anything of the sort.. with only a limited number of rewards available they had to draw the line somewhere.  Just because someone didn't get one, doesn't mean they are a bad CO.
 

Although that might still be the case.

Personally I can't see why people feel so aggrieved over something so insignificant.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

The announcement made by Groundspeak indicated only the top 1 percent would be given virtuals. 

Exactly - they didn't say "Only the top 1% will be given a virtual reward and the other 99% won't get one because they are bad cache owners"

Edited by LFC4eva
correction
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, LFC4eva said:

Exactly - they didn't say "Only the top 1% will be given a virtual reward and the other 99% won't get one because they are bad cachers"

How can someone who has given up and set three caches be measured against a cache owner of 15 years experience? Who also maintains their caches well?

Just for clarification I am not talking about myself here. I knew full well I wouldnt get a virtual as I have too many warnings under my belt but there are local cache owners to me who much more deserve a virtual than some anonymous part timer who gives nothing to the game. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

.... sigh.

For years, people have been complaining that there aren't enough virtual caches anymore, disregarding the PITA that virtual cache reviewing had become for reviewers and lackeys back in the old days.

So the Frog enables a small number of new virtual caches as a one-time deal, hoping that the new caches would be of high quality, and the chief result seems to be people complaining that the chosen few COs weren't obviously "worthy" enough --- at least in the eyes of the complainers.

What I'd really like to see is an analysis of the new virtual caches being placed, to see how their quality compares with the older virtuals that have survived.   If the new virtuals are  seen as high enough in quality, maybe the rationing approach will be ultimately vindicated.

(Oh, wait ... this is the Internet.   No decision can ever be vindicated.   Never mind.)

I can't contribute to the analysis effectively.   I've only found one of the new virtuals.   It's an outstanding virtual --- well within the spirit of what virtual caches should be, placed by a local CO who is well-respected.   But one data point isn't enough for me to draw a general conclusion.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

Exactly - they didn't say "Only the top 1% will be given a virtual reward and the other 99% won't get one because they are bad cache owners"

As far as I recall Groundspeak retracted / re-worded their original statement with regard to the roughly 1% of geocachers offered a new virtual.

The re-worded version seemed to try to explain that what was meant was that after whatever selection criteria were applied, roughly 1% of geocachers were offered a new virtual - and that this  did not mean that the 1% were necessarily considered the 'top 1%' of all geocachers.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Team Hugs said:

What I'd really like to see is an analysis of the new virtual caches being placed, to see how their quality compares with the older virtuals that have survived.   If the new virtuals are  seen as high enough in quality, maybe the rationing approach will be ultimately vindicated.

I can't compare them to the old virtuals as there are so few of those surviving around here (I've only ever found one), but of the five new virtuals I've done so far, they've all been a pleasant experience with a couple that were particularly memorable. The percentage FPs on those five to date are 20%, 6%, 46%, 65% and 56%, so all definitely better than the average P&G :).

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Team Hugs said:

What I'd really like to see is an analysis of the new virtual caches being placed, to see how their quality compares with the older virtuals that have survived.   If the new virtuals are  seen as high enough in quality, maybe the rationing approach will be ultimately vindicated.

Wasn't the ever undefinable quality part of the reason virtuals were originally retired?

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Wasn't the ever undefinable quality part of the reason virtuals were originally retired?

Well, yes.   But that didn't stop people from talking about cache quality --- on virtuals, or any other cache type.   I didn't say the analysis would be easy :) .   

There are other proxies for quality, of course --- in fact, the same proxies for quality that get used in the infamous "cache health" algorithm.   Those could be used.

And there are other criteria that could be objectively assessed.  For example: the one new virtual I've found is in a newly-opened national cemetery in the area.   I suspect that a physical cache placement in the cemetery would be forbidden (or at the least discouraged); one of the original reasons given for having virtual caches is bringing people to areas where physical caches couldn't/shouldn't be placed.

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

How can someone who has given up and set three caches be measured against a cache owner of 15 years experience? Who also maintains their caches well?

Just for clarification I am not talking about myself here. I knew full well I wouldnt get a virtual as I have too many warnings under my belt but there are local cache owners to me who much more deserve a virtual than some anonymous part timer who gives nothing to the game. 

 

It's possible they did get a virtual but chose not to use it.

There's a level of responsibility that some COs don't want (having to police bogus finds). Some COs may not consider virtuals to be real geocaches, and would prefer not to own one. And some COs may not be playing much anymore and would rather not own another cache.

 

Link to comment

What I also might be interesting is how many new Virtual Reward caches have been created compare to the maximum possible (if my GSAK query is correct it could be just over 1300). Maybe quite a few went to inactive cachers or those who had a couple of hides and decided that was enough for them?

How about setting a date when they should be set or else the invite should be passed on?

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, lodgebarn said:

How about setting a date when they should be set or else the invite should be passed on?

I'm pretty sure GCHQ stated that the "winners" had a year in which to place their virtual cache so the drop dead date is somewhere around the end of August 2018, and they %100 said that the "award" couldn't be passed onto anyone else if the winner didn't use it.


If you haven't listened to it this podcast episode is an interesting discussion where it's explicitly stated that they were heavily weighted to "quality" over "quantity" in the algorithm which awarded the new virtuals.

 

To address another point which was brought up in this discussion. While there have been quite a few complaints about who got an award and who didn't, it seems to me that the number of complainants was a very small percentage of active cachers, and given that "you can't please all the people all the time" it may still be seen as a successful promotion (which I think it was ;) )

 

Edited by MartyBartfast
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, lodgebarn said:

Maybe quite a few went to inactive cachers or those who had a couple of hides and decided that was enough for them?

After seeing the grief directed at some community volunteers (because their player accounts didn't seem "worthy" of receiving a Virtual Reward to some people), I'm not sure I would have placed my Virtual Reward if I had been so fortunate to receive one. If you let your Virtual Reward expire, then no one knows. If you publish your Virtual Reward listing, then you've "outed" yourself as another example of all that was wrong with the algorithm for assigning Virtual Rewards.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

There are other proxies for quality, of course --- in fact, the same proxies for quality that get used in the infamous "cache health" algorithm.   Those could be used.

One of the more popular new virtuals in this neck of the woods, currently with 56% FPs, also gets some DNFs since it's only accessible for an hour or so either side of low tide and if the seas are fairly calm (this is spelt out in big letters in the description). People either don't check the tides or underestimate the size of the waves and so end up logging a DNF, which I'm sure the CHS wouldn't like.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

As far as I recall Groundspeak retracted / re-worded their original statement with regard to the roughly 1% of geocachers offered a new virtual.

The re-worded version seemed to try to explain that what was meant was that after whatever selection criteria were applied, roughly 1% of geocachers were offered a new virtual - and that this  did not mean that the 1% were necessarily considered the 'top 1%' of all geocachers.

The textual explanation was:  " limiting this release to the top 1% of the results from our algorithm ... 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. "  TBTP acknowledged, even before all the uproar, that the algorithm wasn't perfect.

 

14 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It's possible they did get a virtual but chose not to use it.

There's a level of responsibility that some COs don't want (having to police bogus finds). Some COs may not consider virtuals to be real geocaches, and would prefer not to own one. And some COs may not be playing much anymore and would rather not own another cache.

And some CO's might've read in the forums, or read in the blogs, or read in social media, or heard at events about discussions like we're seeing in this thread. Cachers discussing how such-and-such CO just published a Virtual and "why did they deserve one", accompanied by an in-depth review of all the caches that CO had published in the past.

If the Virtual Reward recipient hadn't already submitted their Virtual cache idea, perhaps because they were giving it serious thought and didn't want to 'rush' into publishing one, then reading/hearing such conversations would certainly make them consider whether it's worthwhile to subject themselves to such scrutiny.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, noncentric said:
19 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

As far as I recall Groundspeak retracted / re-worded their original statement with regard to the roughly 1% of geocachers offered a new virtual.

The re-worded version seemed to try to explain that what was meant was that after whatever selection criteria were applied, roughly 1% of geocachers were offered a new virtual - and that this  did not mean that the 1% were necessarily considered the 'top 1%' of all geocachers.

The textual explanation was:  " limiting this release to the top 1% of the results from our algorithm ... 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. "  TBTP acknowledged, even before all the uproar, that the algorithm wasn't perfect.

That looks to me like the re-worded version.

Link to comment

Yes the initial announcement read "top 1% of geocachers" which prompted the outroar, despite clarifying the meaning, process, and limitations. So they decided to just take out the implication of rewarding "the best". But the damage was done (even if misplaced).  I still believe that if 100,000 people tied for first place (or just qualified) and 1000 were chosen at random, others would still complain at not being rewarded or feel cheated.  But it's the nature of a reward system.

Link to comment
On 4/15/2018 at 7:08 AM, lodgebarn said:

Today I see a new virtual reward allocated to someone who has few hides (all from 2011 or earlier) and three finds in 7 years and none since 2013.  This no comment about the virtual created, which is probably pretty good, but to get a reward seems very bizarre to me. Next time just allocate randomly please.

 

On 4/15/2018 at 8:04 AM, The Magna Defender said:

Agreed. The algorithm was a farce. 

 

Translation: Wah wah wah, we wanted a virtual and didn't get one, but Sunflower Twin did, therefore the system is fatally flawed, and therefore we must once again push our constant regional infighting into the main Geocaching discussion board.

Is there some way we need to resolve the regional backbiting from the UK?  Some sort of internet-free quarantine pit, so that you're all forced to address each other directly rather than passively aggressively posting here?

I've wanted to be a virtual cache owner since I started geocaching.  I too was disappointed I didn't get picked to hide a new one when Groundspeak announced virtual rewards back in August.  I got over it, also back in August. 

Since then, I have somehow managed to enjoy finding new virtual caches without comparing myself to their owners, holding them in contempt, or whining (whingeing, if you like) about it.

But adulthood isn't for everyone, so by all means, don't mind me, keep on tearing down your fellow cachers.  After all, you're better than them, right?

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
2 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

 

Translation: Wah wah wah, we wanted a virtual and didn't get one, but Sunflower Twin did, therefore the system is fatally flawed, and therefore we must once again push our constant regional infighting into the main Geocaching discussion board.

Is there some way we need to resolve the regional backbiting from the UK?  Some sort of internet-free quarantine pit, so that you're all forced to address each other directly rather than passively aggressively posting here?

I've wanted to be a virtual cache owner since I started geocaching.  I too was disappointed I didn't get picked to hide a new one when Groundspeak announced virtual rewards back in August.  I got over it, also back in August. 

Since then, I have somehow managed to enjoy finding new virtual caches without comparing myself to their owners, holding them in contempt, or whining (whingeing, if you like) about it.

But adulthood isn't for everyone, so by all means, don't mind me, keep on tearing down your fellow cachers.  After all, you're better than them, right?

Nope you have it completely wrong. I am not worrying at all about not getting a reward and did not expect one. However, I do have an issue with the ludicrous way some have been allocated especially to inactive cachers. What would have been wrong with a little "sanity check" before issuing?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Jeez, are we still talking about the reward algorithm?

I challenge some of you to take my advice..  I am top 1% hider in Minnesota, (at the time) ranked in top 5 favorite point recipient in Minnesota.. regularly maintain ALL of my caches, about 300 or so active. I was not chosen. Was I disappointed? Yes, for about two minutes. Am I angry? Nope. I MOVED ON WITH MY LIFE. That's my advice, MOVE ON.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
1 hour ago, lodgebarn said:

Nope you have it completely wrong. I am not worrying at all about not getting a reward and did not expect one. However, I do have an issue with the ludicrous way some have been allocated especially to inactive cachers. What would have been wrong with a little "sanity check" before issuing?

We did do a "sanity check"; we only included accounts that had posted any sort of log in the previous 9 months. (We didn't want to focus only on recent finds, as we didn't want to exclude any accounts that might focus on hiding only.)

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment

Which, understandably, means that an account that's been "inactive" for 5 years must be based on assuming that no finds = inactive (and we know last login date isn't reliable). But if they've posted a note, which isn't searchable from the user end but only by scanning cache listings, within the last 9 months then they'd be considered active. That sounds reasonable given the parameter.  They haven't been inactive for 5 years, and would be considered for the reward.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

The reason people are questioning the algorithm is because they are disappointed that they weren't chosen.

I wasn't chosen, as I'm new to geocaching (joined last year) and have only 8 finds and 1 hide.

Don't feel bad that you weren't chosen for hiding a new virtual cache. Just suck it up and move on.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, 321geocache said:

The reason people are questioning the algorithm is because they are disappointed that they weren't chosen.

I wasn't chosen, as I'm new to geocaching (joined last year) and have only 8 finds and 1 hide.

Don't feel bad that you weren't chosen for hiding a new virtual cache. Just suck it up and move on.

No, I'm not disappointed I wasn't chosen, in fact in some respects I'm glad I wasn't (dealing with found logs by people who haven't fulfilled the logging requirement is something I wouldn't relish), but I'm still critical of its use of the Cache Health Score in its selection process, given the emphasis and interpretation it places on DNF logs. Just because a cache is hard to find doesn't mean it or its CO are bad.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, 321geocache said:

The reason people are questioning the algorithm is because they are disappointed that they weren't chosen.

I wasn't chosen, as I'm new to geocaching (joined last year) and have only 8 finds and 1 hide.

Don't feel bad that you weren't chosen for hiding a new virtual cache. Just suck it up and move on.

Nope, not disappointed at all over here.

I realize that putting together an algorithm is tough and that even the best ones aren't fool proof. I also realize that i see only what is posted here and that i really don't know what else may have gone into the equation. Even so, i have become curious after reading some of the examples posted..

Link to comment
On 4/16/2018 at 4:57 PM, barefootjeff said:

One of the more popular new virtuals in this neck of the woods, currently with 56% FPs, also gets some DNFs since it's only accessible for an hour or so either side of low tide and if the seas are fairly calm (this is spelt out in big letters in the description). People either don't check the tides or underestimate the size of the waves and so end up logging a DNF, which I'm sure the CHS wouldn't like.

So, sure, include all of the discussions about the mysterious CHS algorithm that we've had over the last few months.

My original point still stands.   I'd be interested in knowing if the "new virtuals" are widely seen as being of "good quality", in comparison with the surviving "old virtuals".

(And, no I don't have the time to do the work.   Day job is killing me.)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Hugs said:

So, sure, include all of the discussions about the mysterious CHS algorithm that we've had over the last few months.

My original point still stands.   I'd be interested in knowing if the "new virtuals" are widely seen as being of "good quality", in comparison with the surviving "old virtuals".

(And, no I don't have the time to do the work.   Day job is killing me.)

Interesting question. I wanted to see what Project-GC could provide. Here's a link to Map Compare. I get 1344 new virtuals globally. Generally, they seem well-received based on favorite points but that doesn't really say much since some people might be giving FPs for the icon. 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • 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...
×
×
  • Create New...