Criteria for Being a New Virtual CO

[+arisoft]

8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

My purpose above was to provide a real example which contradicts what we've been told about the selection criteria.

 

As far as I know the algorithm which match to the selected users is described in this sentence: " The algorithm was created by Geocaching HQ without direct input from community volunteer reviewers. "

[+barefootjeff]

The most complicated one I've done to date was the Newcastle Coastal Tour (put out by one of our reviewers) with 8 waypoints spread over a distance of 6 kilometres. While each of the waypoints could be driven to, the CO recommended walking it, which is what I did (barefoot of course), using public transport to get to the beginning (some 80km from home as the crow flies) and back from the end. As if that wasn't enough, I managed to get one of the waypoint answers wrong and had to go back and do that one again. I was glad in a way as going back gave me the opportunity to go for a swim in the Bogey Hole at WP5, which I hadn't been able to do the first time because of big seas.

 

 

I'm sure some here will disagree, but for me that was a fun cache and one I'll remember for a long time to come.

Edited August 7, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+Team Microdot]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

9 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

My purpose above was to provide a real example which contradicts what we've been told about the selection criteria.

 

As far as I know the algorithm which match to the selected users is described in this sentence: " The algorithm was created by Geocaching HQ without direct input from community volunteer reviewers. "

 

Wow - you're right - I'd mis-remembered Moun10Bike's quote.

 

I'd thought it had included something about cache owners who had abandoned their caches to be archived by a volunteer reviewer would be excluded from the selection - but he didn't say that at all.

 

So it looks like cache abandonment was OK as far as being eligible for a new virtual was concerned

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

10 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

The ones I have seen locally to northwest England and Yorkshire are all unnecessarily complicated ones where you either have to drive round numerous stages for miles or walk round posh houses or buildings which are only open during certain hours. 

Sounds like fun to me. I'd love to see more caches (virtual or otherwise) that require a significant amount of time to complete.

 

Can't be any worse than some of the hideously tedious, unnecessarily complicated challenge caches where you have to drive round numerous stages for miles...

[+hal-an-tow]

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Wow - you're right - I'd mis-remembered Moun10Bike's quote.

 

I'd thought it had included something about cache owners who had abandoned their caches to be archived by a volunteer reviewer would be excluded from the selection - but he didn't say that at all.

 

So it looks like cache abandonment was OK as far as being eligible for a new virtual was concerned

 

 

 That criterion was my suggestion  for something really obvious and easy to implement that I  thought the secret algorithm really should have included.

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Wow - you're right - I'd mis-remembered Moun10Bike's quote.

 

I'd thought it had included something about cache owners who had abandoned their caches to be archived by a volunteer reviewer would be excluded from the selection - but he didn't say that at all.

 

So it looks like cache abandonment was OK as far as being eligible for a new virtual was concerned

 

 

 That criterion was my suggestion  for something really obvious and easy to implement that I  thought the secret algorithm really should have included.

 

I have to wonder why it wasn't part of the secret algorithm

[+hal-an-tow]

I can absolutely see why some virtual rewards have not been placed, and some which have been set have complex tasks (I'll not call them over complicated, as the acceptable level complication is a personal assessment)  For a start, I know of two C.O.s in my area who are effectively inactive cachers now, but recieved rewards which are as yet unused. They set good caches a while back, but their interest has tailed off, so I doubt they feel any urge to deal with a stream of e-mailed answers and waste their lives weeding out the armchair logging attempts. I'm guessing the complicated, multi location virtuals are setters trying to make sure loggers work a bit for the find, and therefore reduce the number of finders . If you really are a 'good'  C.O.,   you'd want to reply , however briefly, to all logging task e-mails and messages, and the time involved could be prohibitively long , so the obvious thing to do is cut down on the finds.

 

I've been chatting to one of the local C.O.s who was awarded a virtual ( deservedly in my opinion, having a good selection of interesting puzzle caches and high terrain caches, all favouite point magnets, dutifully maintained over a period of many years) . They are struggling to construct an imaginative and unusual  virtual which lives up to their standards, providing a bit of a physical challenge in an interesting location where it is possible to give a logging task which can't be subverted by armchair loggers and drown the C.O. in e-mails.

 

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.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

I've been chatting to one of the local C.O.s who was awarded a virtual ( deservedly in my opinion, having a good selection of interesting puzzle caches and high terrain caches, all favouite point magnets, dutifully maintained over a period of many years) . They are struggling to construct an imaginative and unusual  virtual which lives up to their standards, providing a bit of a physical challenge in an interesting location where it is possible to give a logging task which can't be subverted by armchair loggers and drown the C.O. in e-mails.

 

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.

 

A considered and insightful post

[+niraD]

10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

So it looks like cache abandonment was OK as far as being eligible for a new virtual was concerned

Based on Keystone's post in another thread, I think it's harder to scan the database automatically for "cache abandonment" than some people seem to think.

[+arisoft]

12 minutes ago, niraD said:

Based on Keystone's post in another thread, I think it's harder to scan the database automatically for "cache abandonment" than some people seem to think.

 

You can always count the days how long caches has been available and compare these numbers when deciding who has made the best job. Ok, this may give unjustified advance for those cache owners who has made many long living caches - nobody cares them - right?

 

[+Team Microdot]

4 hours ago, niraD said:

14 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

So it looks like cache abandonment was OK as far as being eligible for a new virtual was concerned

Based on Keystone's post in another thread, I think it's harder to scan the database automatically for "cache abandonment" than some people seem to think.

 

I can't imagine any difficulty at all scanning for caches archived by anyone other than the CO.

[+niraD]

Just now, Team Microdot said:

I can't imagine any difficulty at all scanning for caches archived by anyone other than the CO.

Have you read Keystone's post in the other thread? He explains a significant source of false positives.

[+Team Microdot]

12 minutes ago, niraD said:

Have you read Keystone's post in the other thread? He explains a significant source of false positives.

 

I have now. It's much like the rest of that thread - a never-ending stuck record of 'yeah but', ceaselessly flailing in pointless pursuit of utterly unattainable perfection.

 

If that thread was a horse they'd shoot it.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

It's much like the rest of that thread - a never-ending stuck record of 'yeah but', ceaselessly flailing in pointless pursuit of utterly unattainable perfection.

Well, when I first saw the thread, I rolled my eyes. I thought it would be an absolutely pointless stream of drama.

 

But now that it's been progressing a while, I think it has served the very useful purpose of demonstrating how difficult it is to come up with an algorithm for something like this.

[+Team Microdot]

6 hours ago, niraD said:

9 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

It's much like the rest of that thread - a never-ending stuck record of 'yeah but', ceaselessly flailing in pointless pursuit of utterly unattainable perfection.

Well, when I first saw the thread, I rolled my eyes. I thought it would be an absolutely pointless stream of drama.

 

But now that it's been progressing a while, I think it has served the very useful purpose of demonstrating how difficult it is to come up with an algorithm for something like this.

 

I think it would be more accurate to say how difficult it is to come up with a perfect algorithm for something like this that can be entrusted to a computerised system.

 

Entrust the processing to people rather than computers and the development of the algorithm would, I expect, be pretty simple and pain free.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Team Microdot
Remove repetition

[+redsox_mark]

I wonder if it made a distinction about adopted caches?   (I suspect not).

 

I recently saw a Virtual Reward cache from a CO who has several caches with a high percentage of Favourite Points.  Most of them were caches they adopted.  

 

Whilst it is good they kept them going and maintained them, should adopted caches count the same as ones hidden by the CO?

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

I wonder if it made a distinction about adopted caches?   (I suspect not).

 

I recently saw a Virtual Reward cache from a CO who has several caches with a high percentage of Favourite Points.  Most of them were caches they adopted.  

 

Whilst it is good they kept them going and maintained them, should adopted caches count the same as ones hidden by the CO?

 

One of the complainants on this thread mourns the fact they've not been awarded a virtual despite having many, many FP's.

 

Those FP's though are on caches they've adopted.

 

[+niraD]

31 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Entrust the processing to people rather than computers

I forget. How many millions of active geocaches are there currently?

[+Team Microdot]

Just now, niraD said:

32 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Entrust the processing to people rather than computers

I forget. How many millions of active geocaches are there currently?

 

Your argument centred on difficulty in coming up with an algorithm - not in the execution.

 

[+AnnaMoritz]

1 hour ago, redsox_mark said:

I wonder if it made a distinction about adopted caches?   (I suspect not).

 

No.

 

After adopting out no trace of the original Owner is left, everything falls to the new owner, good and bad. So if you can't guarantee you are able to do maintenance for a longer time for example because of a serious illness and adopt out your caches, no trace is left. If you collect the boxes while you are still able to do so and archive them, some here want to see you punished for archiving them.

 

I personally am strictly against the idea of forced adoption against the will of the original owner. If a geocache needs to be archived, archive it. The next geocacher can come up with a new geocache.

 

And I don't like the idea to consider all (also archived) geocaches of an owner, also because the first thing clever wannabe-reward-aspirants would do is to adopt out their unloved/low CHS geocaches to stay eligible as quite a few archived their unloved geocaches after learning (too late for this batch of Reward virtuals) that the overall favorite percentage ratio was the key. 

 

You should be able (also without being 'punished') to adopt the (not so outstanding or low-CHS) geocaches of a good buddy who asks you to adopt and keep his geocache-babies living because they themselves have serious health problems or other reasons for not being able to care fot the geocaches.

 

Yes, you would have been able to make it with two 'own' geocaches that had low percentage of favorite points and one not long ago high-favorited adopted geocache (even if it was what I consider hostile take-over e.g. threaten the original owner with-not-necessary-at-all-NA and assailing the owner with "adopt it out to me or the cache is going to archive" mails at a moment the original owner wasn't able to look after the cache.

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by AnnaMoritz

[+redsox_mark]

42 minutes ago, AnnaMoritz said:

 

You should be able (also without being 'punished') to adopt the (not so outstanding or low-CHS) geocaches of a good buddy who asks you to adopt and keep his geocache-babies living because they themselves have serious health problems or other reasons for not being able to care fot the geocaches.

 

 

 

Thanks, good points.  Adopted caches can work both ways.   Adopting caches with high FP ratios will make you look better to any algorithm; whilst adopting "ordinary" caches (that don't have FPs) will make you look worse.

 

In the case I was looking at, the adoptions were friendly.   The original owner moved out of the area and adopted them out.   He has since moved back. Both are good cache owners, though I think the original owner (who didn't get a virtual reward) was more deserving of one.    

[+NYPaddleCacher]

3 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

I wonder if it made a distinction about adopted caches?   (I suspect not).

 

I recently saw a Virtual Reward cache from a CO who has several caches with a high percentage of Favourite Points.  Most of them were caches they adopted.  

 

Whilst it is good they kept them going and maintained them, should adopted caches count the same as ones hidden by the CO?

 

I got a FP on one of my caches last weekend.  I adopted it in 2007.  Although I didn't create the initial listing and hide the original container (I replaced it with something that followed the theme of the puzzle better) I have kept it going for 11 years.  

[+J Grouchy]

I'll be curious to find out how many of the 4000 virtual rewards actually became published virtual caches at the end of the one-year deadline.  We've had three publish within a few miles of my home just in the last week or two, so I imagine there's a big rush to get the last stragglers published...but I'd actually be surprised if there was a full 100% participation.

[+AnnaMoritz]

Yes there's a big rush for the remaining 2+ weeks.

 

At the moment it looks like 2067 new virtuals are already published, but that can change any minute.

Edited August 9, 2018 by AnnaMoritz

[+STNolan]

A few of the new virtuals have already been published and summarily archived. I wonder how many more cases like that we will see. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by STNolan

[+niraD]

19 minutes ago, STNolan said:

A few of the new victuals

Yum, yum!

 

(SICNR)

[+STNolan]

8 minutes ago, niraD said:

Yum, yum!

 

(SICNR)

Hahaha; good catch. I've amended my post. 

[+J Grouchy]

13 hours ago, STNolan said:

A few of the new virtuals have already been published and summarily archived. I wonder how many more cases like that we will see. 

 

Interesting.  Were any reasons given for archival?

[+Fugads]

On 8/8/2018 at 2:25 AM, redsox_mark said:

I wonder if it made a distinction about adopted caches?   (I suspect not)

I wonder about this too. I adopted out several of my caches when I moved away from Tennessee and one CO in particular took over a couple which had high favorite point percentages (for relatively few finds). Not too much alter, the Virtual Rewards came out and I was thrilled to see that they received one of these. Of course, their own cache creations are works of art (milled aluminum puzzle boxes and the like) and get tons of favorite points, but I still wonder if the adoption of my well maintained and favorited caches helped them earn that Virtual reward. I'd like to think so!

Edited August 10, 2018 by Fugads
fix typo

[Blue Square Thing]

4 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Interesting.  Were any reasons given for archival?

 

I think one in the Netherlands was archived pretty quickly because it was too much hassle for the cache owner - in particular logs that didn't fulfil the requirements. I might be mistaken on that - I think it got made premium when it was archived as well. There's another in Tennessee, I think, which caused problems with difficult logs I think and went the same way. As did one in Western Germany.

 

There was one in somewhere like West Virginia which was archived because the location might have been too dodgy or something - after about two finds iirc. And one in, perhaps, the Minneapolis area which was in an art gallery and caused problems with people visiting it that hadn't been anticipated. I felt sorry for the cache owner there because it seemed like a different sort of cache.

 

8 of the new virtuals seem to have been archived for one reason or another as far as I can tell. I'm not sure about the other four, although perhaps one was in Japan and may only have had Japanese text. Perhaps. Of the 18 that I've done I think I've had replies from cache owners for maybe 5 of them and an automated reply from one. The other 12 don't seem to be in the habit of sending replies to answers.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Blue Square Thing

[+Rathergohiking]

The whole award system was flawed in my opinion. Should have had existing users voluntarily “opt in” and then the algorithm could be ran on that pool of cachers. That way you had cachers who were definitely interested in putting out a new virtual cache. 

[+cerberus1]

5 hours ago, Blue Square Thing said:

I think one in the Netherlands was archived pretty quickly because it was too much hassle for the cache owner - in particular logs that didn't fulfil the requirements. I might be mistaken on that - I think it got made premium when it was archived as well. There's another in Tennessee, I think, which caused problems with difficult logs I think and went the same way. As did one in Western Germany.

 

I could see that.   The few I look at time-to-time (that are maintained) seems like it's a chore some weekends.

The idea sounding good, until reality set in.    

May be the difference between  choosing  (opting)  to place one, and having one handed to you.

[+STNolan]

On 8/10/2018 at 5:08 AM, J Grouchy said:

 

Interesting.  Were any reasons given for archival?

One for safety concerns (at the owner's request after only one find).

One I saw for people not following the virtual instructions and the CO getting fed up with having to correct people.

I found one in Japan that was archived by the owner but I don't really understand the reason why. 

[+Team Hugs]

On 8/8/2018 at 4:09 AM, Team Microdot said:

 

I think it would be more accurate to say how difficult it is to come up with a perfect algorithm for something like this that can be entrusted to a computerised system.

 

Entrust the processing to people rather than computers and the development of the algorithm would, I expect, be pretty simple and pain free.

 

Then the complaints here would all be "look at all the evidence that I'm a good CO, it's obvious that the Lackeys hate me, the Lackeys just picked all their friends, why couldn't we have an unbiased computer make the selection, yadda yadda yadda ...."

 

People think computers make better decisions than people, right up until the point that the computer makes a decision with which they disagree, at which point the computer is an unfeeling piece of junk that should never have been entrusted with that responsibility.   (I teach computing history, and I've seen this happen over and over and over again.)

[+Team Microdot]

3 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

On 08/08/2018 at 9:09 AM, Team Microdot said:

I think it would be more accurate to say how difficult it is to come up with a perfect algorithm for something like this that can be entrusted to a computerised system.

 

Entrust the processing to people rather than computers and the development of the algorithm would, I expect, be pretty simple and pain free.

 

Then the complaints here would all be "look at all the evidence that I'm a good CO, it's obvious that the Lackeys hate me, the Lackeys just picked all their friends, why couldn't we have an unbiased computer make the selection, yadda yadda yadda ...."

 

People think computers make better decisions than people, right up until the point that the computer makes a decision with which they disagree, at which point the computer is an unfeeling piece of junk that should never have been entrusted with that responsibility.   (I teach computing history, and I've seen this happen over and over and over again.)

 

Absolutely.

 

The people in question will ONLY be happy when THEY get what they think they deserve and, at that point, the algorithm will be judged to be perfectly in the Goldilocks Zone and they'll support it fully - including providing reasons to justify why those who weren't selected by the algorithm were rightly so.

 

Which supports my assertion that coming up with an algorithm is not the difficulty here.

 

 

[+Mudfrog]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 5:47 PM, Rathergohiking said:

The whole award system was flawed in my opinion. Should have had existing users voluntarily “opt in” and then the algorithm could be ran on that pool of cachers. That way you had cachers who were definitely interested in putting out a new virtual cache. 

 

Yes, Groundspeak should have initially narrowed it down to people genuinely interested in placing a virtual cache. Then used the algorithm to generate the awards. While i'm not interested, there would no doubt be way over 4000 others that would. 

[+funkymunkyzone]

13 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

The people in question will ONLY be happy when THEY get what they think they deserve and, at that point, the algorithm will be judged to be perfectly in the Goldilocks Zone and they'll support it fully - including providing reasons to justify why those who weren't selected by the algorithm were rightly so.

 

Considering I am one of "the people in question" I'm not really sure how to take this, TM.  You personally know very well the time and effort I put into this game for the entertainment of others, so to imply that I am as selfish and immature as your statement suggests... well, I just don't know how to take that, my friend.

 

But it does seem rather insulting to generalise that everyone who was unhappy and outspoken about Groundspeak's reward process could only possibly be doing so because they are horribly flawed, incredibly selfish individuals, that would flip and be espousing its virtues and condemning those not picked, if they had in fact been rewarded themselves.

 

Taking your point further, what does it suggest about those who *were* rewarded, and who have spoken out about how great they thought the process was...?

[+Team Microdot]

3 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

17 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

The people in question will ONLY be happy when THEY get what they think they deserve and, at that point, the algorithm will be judged to be perfectly in the Goldilocks Zone and they'll support it fully - including providing reasons to justify why those who weren't selected by the algorithm were rightly so.

 

Considering I am one of "the people in question" I'm not really sure how to take this, TM.  You personally know very well the time and effort I put into this game for the entertainment of others, so to imply that I am as selfish and immature as your statement suggests... well, I just don't know how to take that, my friend.

 

But it does seem rather insulting to generalise that everyone who was unhappy and outspoken about Groundspeak's reward process could only possibly be doing so because they are horribly flawed, incredibly selfish individuals, that would flip and be espousing its virtues and condemning those not picked, if they had in fact been rewarded themselves.

 

Taking your point further, what does it suggest about those who *were* rewarded, and who have spoken out about how great they thought the process was...?

 

Sorry FMZ - I'm not sure I fully understand your point / question.

 

When you say that you are one of "the people in question" are you telling us that you're one of the people described by Team Hugs as saying stuff like this? "look at all the evidence that I'm a good CO, it's obvious that the Lackeys hate me, the Lackeys just picked all their friends, why couldn't we have an unbiased computer make the selection, yadda yadda yadda ...." ?

 

Or just that you're one of the people who wasn't awarded a new virtual?

 

Or that you're one of the people who wasn't awarded a new virtual and is unhappy about that?

 

Or that you're one of the people who wasn't awarded a new virtual and is unhappy about that and been actively critical in this thread of your local new virtuals and of their owners in a misguided attempt to make yourself look more worthy?

 

Context is important. At least it will help me to understand the scope of generalisation you think I'm making

 

 

 

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Sorry FMZ - I'm not sure I fully understand your point / question.

 

When you say that you are one of "the people in question" are you telling us that you're one of the people described by Team Hugs as saying stuff like this? "look at all the evidence that I'm a good CO, it's obvious that the Lackeys hate me, the Lackeys just picked all their friends, why couldn't we have an unbiased computer make the selection, yadda yadda yadda ...." ?

 

Or just that you're one of the people who wasn't awarded a new virtual?

 

Or that you're one of the people who wasn't awarded a new virtual and is unhappy about that?

 

Or that you're one of the people who wasn't awarded a new virtual and is unhappy about that and been actively critical in this thread of your local new virtuals and of their owners in a misguided attempt to make yourself look more worthy?

 

Context is important. At least it will help me to understand the scope of generalisation you think I'm making

 

 

 

 

Come now. It's obvious "the people in question" are those that are publicly unhappy about the rewards process. They certainly aren't the ones happy about it, that wouldn't make sense at all.

 

But please consider the final paragraph of my post you quoted. What of those who did receive rewards and are happy with the process? If your generalisation is true, are we to assume they would be unhappy and complaining if they hadn't received rewards?

 

I've got no beef with you, or anyone here actually, but at some point the land claims on the moral high ground have to end...

[+Team Microdot]

15 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Come now. It's obvious "the people in question" are those that are publicly unhappy about the rewards process. They certainly aren't the ones happy about it, that wouldn't make sense at all.

 

But please consider the final paragraph of my post you quoted. What of those who did receive rewards and are happy with the process? If your generalisation is true, are we to assume they would be unhappy and complaining if they hadn't received rewards?

 

I've got no beef with you, or anyone here actually, but at some point the land claims on the moral high ground have to end...

 

Ah, I see.

 

I don't remember you being publicly unhappy about the rewards process. I may have missed it but nothing springs to mind.

 

Nor am I sure what you mean re claims on moral high ground or why we should assume that those who have received awards would be unhappy and complaining if they had not.

 

I'm genuinely confused.

 

It's possible we are completely at odds here.

[+funkymunkyzone]

6 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Ah, I see.

 

I don't remember you being publicly unhappy about the rewards process. I may have missed it but nothing springs to mind.

 

Nor am I sure what you mean re claims on moral high ground or why we should assume that those who have received awards would be unhappy and complaining if they had not.

 

I'm genuinely confused.

 

It's possible we are completely at odds here.

 

If you are going to cynically point the finger at those who are complaining - the sore losers - and suggesting they would have been happy with the process if they had instead "won", then it is an entirely consistent extrapolation of that point that those who "won" and are happy about it would be complaining about it if they had not.

 

[+Team Microdot]

Just now, funkymunkyzone said:

If you are going to cynically point the finger at those who are complaining - the sore losers - and suggesting they would have been happy with the process if they had instead "won", then it is an entirely consistent extrapolation of that point that those who "won" and are happy about it would be complaining about it if they had not.

 

Well it 'aint necessarily so.

 

Those who have been awarded virtuals this time around are different people with unique personality traits and none of us can say how they would react if the tables were turned.

 

The problem here is that you appear to have taken what I've said previously as a global generalisation - which it never was.

 

My focus was on a subset of cachers different to the subset you appear to be imagining and my view is that the subset my focus was on would find fault with ANY selection process UNLESS it was in their favour.

[+funkymunkyzone]

8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Those who have been awarded virtuals this time around are different people with unique personality traits and none of us can say how they would react if the tables were turned.

 

And so are the people complaining. Thank you for proving my point.

 

10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

The problem here is that you appear to have taken what I've said previously as a global generalisation - which it never was.

 

My focus was on a subset of cachers different to the subset you appear to be imagining and my view is that the subset my focus was on would find fault with ANY selection process UNLESS it was in their favour.

 

Perhaps you should have been clearer and named names. Otherwise it seems a pretty safe assumption that you are talking about those people complaining about the process.

 

[+Team Microdot]

Just now, funkymunkyzone said:

 

And so are the people complaining. Thank you for proving my point.

 

 

Perhaps you should have been clearer and named names. Otherwise it seems a pretty safe assumption that you are talking about those people complaining about the process.

 

 

I'm glad you feel validated.

 

Perhaps you should have made more effort to read and understand what was written by myself and Team Hugs in the context it was written.

 

Or you can continue to blame me. Either way is fine.

[+funkymunkyzone]

4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Perhaps you should have made more effort to read and understand what was written by myself and Team Hugs in the context it was written.

 

Or you can continue to blame me. Either way is fine.

 

Are you kidding? Seriously mate?

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

6 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Perhaps you should have made more effort to read and understand what was written by myself and Team Hugs in the context it was written.

 

Or you can continue to blame me. Either way is fine.

 

Are you kidding? Seriously mate?

 

Not kidding at all mate - not even slightly.

[Keystone]

The last ten posts have been a tangential back and forth quotefest between two users.  If you wish to hammer out your differences or clarify your intentions, please use the forum or website messaging tools.  The rest of us would like to talk and read about the criteria for being a virtual reward cache owner.

[+Mudfrog]

Half of the last 10 replies (Keystone's doesn't count) provide a good example of what Team Hugs made mention of in his reply. Just seems kinda funny that a person would complain about that but at the same time, prove the point exactly.

 

Bottom line is that it would not have mattered how the awards were awarded. They could have been given to everyone and as we all know, there'd still be complaints. It's normal that we'll be disappointed and feel that we deserved better from time to time. Thing is, it's usually just better to suck it up and get over it. 

 

Btw, it still irks me that Briansnat got the Geocacher of the Year award back in 2008. It should have been me! 

Edited August 13, 2018 by Mudfrog

[+noncentric]

On 8/6/2018 at 7:42 AM, Team Microdot said:

The irony here is that the CO had a traditional cache here previously - with almost exactly the same name - and that was archived by a volunteer reviewer after a spell of DNF's and ignored NM.

Reminds me of a Virtual Reward cache I found. It was placed in the same spot that the CO previously had a Traditional, which went missing and was later archived by a Reviewer. The real irony is that, before being archived, the CO allowed cachers to log finds with just a picture at where the Trad was supposed to be. No algorithm is going to be perfect.

[+Team Microdot]

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.