Criteria for Being a New Virtual CO

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 8/7/2018 at 8:56 AM, hal-an-tow said:

I suspect if like this person you set really  good caches , and don't want to go down the obvious route and simply ask for  a photo of a building or other landmark and the answer to some question about a locally seen detail , but make interesting and unique use of your reward, it is not an easy task. A year may not be long enough for an idea to percolate down and form into the perfect virtual, so the time constraint on setting might mean the clock runs out on this particular virtual award, and maybe others

 

While I appreciate the desire to make great Virtual, I would prefer a good Virtual to no Virtual. And there are lots of places for good Virtuals.

[+J Grouchy]

On 9/7/2018 at 5:48 AM, Team Microdot said:

This morning I've seen a CO response to a cache that was trashed three years ago - the CO's first and only response - to hit the archive button.

 

That CO was awarded a new virtual.

 

That might be considered something of a failure on the part of the algorithm - and more than a little frustrating for some.

 

Beyond that, there are some who, based on who they are, get an apparent pass on missing the deadline.  One in the US (I won't name names or link the GC#) was an old virtual that at some point became inaccessible due to security reasons.  The CO was at one point a reviewer and eventually archived it.  No surprise, this long-time member got a virtual reward, and, on the very last day possible to publish one of these, re-listed this old virtual.  It was published and folks immediately began going out to try to log the find.  Problem was, apparently the old accessibility issues remained and the CO was not given permission by the landowners to send folks to this secure location.  Several DNFs/Notes (and five days) later, the CO finally decides to chime in and tell people that permission was not granted and it should not have been published.  It seems pretty clear to me that this was just done to hold his "spot" so that he could go beyond the publication deadline...that he likely never really intended to publish this same cache as-is, but meant to change it in his own time with no regard for the time limit imposed by the original Virtual Rewards announcement.  Meanwhile, it still sits there and people can't log it like it is and this person doesn't really have to give it up apparently...

[+K13]

10 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Beyond that, there are some who, based on who they are, get an apparent pass on missing the deadline.  One in the US (I won't name names or link the GC#) was an old virtual that at some point became inaccessible due to security reasons.  The CO was at one point a reviewer and eventually archived it.  No surprise, this long-time member got a virtual reward, and, on the very last day possible to publish one of these, re-listed this old virtual.  It was published and folks immediately began going out to try to log the find.  Problem was, apparently the old accessibility issues remained and the CO was not given permission by the landowners to send folks to this secure location.  Several DNFs/Notes (and five days) later, the CO finally decides to chime in and tell people that permission was not granted and it should not have been published.  It seems pretty clear to me that this was just done to hold his "spot" so that he could go beyond the publication deadline...that he likely never really intended to publish this same cache as-is, but meant to change it in his own time with no regard for the time limit imposed by the original Virtual Rewards announcement.  Meanwhile, it still sits there and people can't log it like it is and this person doesn't really have to give it up apparently...

 

Has anyone hit the NA button yet?  If not, WHY NOT?!

[+J Grouchy]

6 hours ago, K13 said:

 

Has anyone hit the NA button yet?  If not, WHY NOT?!

 

It's pretty obvious why not: certain people are treated differently.  I know GS claims they don't, but I've witnessed it firsthand and they clearly do. If someone is or has been a reviewer, they get to do stuff that the rest of us don't.  This is just one instance, but I can think of others.

Edited September 11, 2018 by J Grouchy

[+Isonzo Karst]

  @J Grounchy

My virt was published after the deadline  because it was waiting for a permit. It was submitted, even though NOT publishable, because of a log to it by Geocaching HQ, that warned that if weren't submitted by August 24 (25?)  it would be archived. So  I submitted it just before the deadline with a note to reviewer that there was NO permit, and  IF the permit didn't come by October sometime, I had alternate plan B  outside the permit required area. (i've waited 18 months for Division of Forestry permits, so I was prepared to ditch Plan A, if necessary). 

 

There are other virts being held, for other reasons mostly permits/ permission.  None of those reasons are, "based on who they are". Beyond who they are is a cacher with Virtual Reward listing. 

 

The virt J Grouchy  refers to belongs to a current reviewer, and was published in error by another reviewer, who didn't notice the cache owner's log that permission had not yet been received. He submitted his, as I did mine, pending permission.   It's been retracted.   I expect it took a couple of days to be retracted,  because the cache owner travels a great deal for business, and wasn't expecting the cache to be published at all.  He wasn't eyeballing cache owner email from Geocaching.com. 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Isonzo Karst

[+J Grouchy]

2 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

The virt J Grouchy  refers to belongs to a current reviewer, and was published in error by another reviewer, who didn't notice the cache owner's log that permission had not yet been received. He submitted his, as I did mine, pending permission.   It's been retracted.   I expect it took a couple of days to be retracted,  because the cache owner travels a great deal for business, and wasn't expecting the cache to be published at all.  He wasn't eyeballing cache owner email from Geocaching.com. 

 

 

So this person had an entire year, but chose the last few weeks to pursue permission?  The timing on all this just doesn't sit right with me and certainly makes it look like gaming the system and that there is preferential treatment.  I just get the feeling that anyone else who isn't/wasn't a reviewer would not even be given a chance to publish beyond 8/25, even if they stated they were still waiting for permission.  

I guarantee that permission will not be granted for the virtual in question...which leads me to believe it's intended as a placeholder while this person, who again was given an entire year to submit a virtual, comes up with one that won't cause security issues.  Surely you can understand why it is perceived this way, even if I'm way off base....?

 

Anyway, I know TPTB will probably disapprove of me even talking about this, but that just sort of goes back to my original point...which I guess I'll drop.

 

~shrug~

[+TriciaG]

17 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

So this person had an entire year, but chose the last few weeks to pursue permission?

Where was that said? Sometimes getting permission can take over a year. See IK's post and how he said it took 18 months for permission for him.

[+J Grouchy]

2 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

Where was that said? Sometimes getting permission can take over a year. See IK's post and how he said it took 18 months for permission for him.

 

Even if, on day one of the virtual rewards, the CO pursued permission...by day 364 he had to see the writing on the wall.  He knew the deadline...so show some respect for the people that gave out this limited reward.  Maybe have a backup location so that if permission isn't granted by, say, day 360, you can withdraw Choice A and instead submit Choice B.  To me, that shows respect for the rules set out by those that decided to try this rewards system (which, by the way, has earned them no end of grief by so many). 

[+bflentje]

13 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Even if, on day one of the virtual rewards, the CO pursued permission...by day 364 he had to see the writing on the wall.  He knew the deadline...so show some respect for the people that gave out this limited reward.  Maybe have a backup location so that if permission isn't granted by, say, day 360, you can withdraw Choice A and instead submit Choice B.  To me, that shows respect for the rules set out by those that decided to try this rewards system (which, by the way, has earned them no end of grief by so many). 

 

OMG, go play another geo-game if it bothers you that much....