The_Brownies Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 There has been a lot of Discussion about virtual caches. This morning a thought occurred to me. Why not have virtuals counted separately from the physical finds? Virtuals would still show on the main lookups but they would have a count of their own. This way you could see how many Virtuals, Benchmarks, and physical caches a person has found. In a sense you would get an accurate reflection of the cacher just by the stats. Maybe this is the solution to the virtual issue? Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Here is my take on counts. First of all we can't all be No. 1 in overall finds. Last time I looked CCCooperagency was by a wide margin. So I set out to be #1 in my state and succeded (though I'm fairly sure I've been passed up since moving to a cache poor area). So now that I can't be no 1 in the state, that leaves no 1 in my city. Skydiver has another version of counts that give points. Urban cahces are worth less due to being found all the time. Caches not found often are worth more. Sounds good and it's a different angle. So if he gets the bugs worked out. I'd like to compete in that arena. The point is... The more ways to count the more ways to compete. Total caches is one way. Only virtuals another. Only traditionals another still. So why not do them all. Then we can all have a goal that is something we can do. Wherever you go there you are. Quote Link to comment
+Sluggo Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I’m not particularly fond of VCs, and to date, I’ve hunted only one. It appealed to me because you had to find it and then figure out how it got its name. (See “Nuts To You” by ikayak). It’s not about whether I’m hunting a “box-in-a-place” or a “place” it’s just that I (like most of us) have my ideas about what a cache (and geocaching) should be. “The Game” is to get you to go somewhere interesting, find something, use a GPSr to do it, and have fun. But, I don’t see why there should be a one-size-fits-all approach to it. BTW, there is another thread on the General Forum ongoing that discusses this very issue; I was really amazed at the emotional responses. No one seems to be upset that benchmarks are tracked separately, and I am not aware that separate tracking is any more difficult than tracking them all together. This went longer than I intended so here’s the condensed version: Trinkets in a box = cache Benchmarks = no cache Virtual Cache = no cache (Maybe Discovery Point would be a better name) Geocaching.com can and should support all three and track them separately. Unknown objects are operating under intelligent control... It is imperative that we learn where UFO's come from and what their purpose is... - -Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter Director, Central Intelligence Agency 1947-1950 Quote Link to comment
+bazzle Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Renegade Knight: The point is... The more ways to count the more ways to compete. Total caches is one way. Only virtuals another. Only traditionals another still. This is a competition?? Dang it! Why am I always the last to find out anything?? The only competition I have found here is strictly between me and the cache hider. So everytime I find a cache... I WIN Whatever style of cache that happens to be for that hunt. Life is as much a journey of discovery, as it is a discovery of the journey... **Namaste** Quote Link to comment
The_Brownies Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 The question being posed is very simple, should GS Track virtual caches separate from physical caches. Geocaching is not a competition and I don't look at caching in this fashion, but I like virtuals, and I would like them to be counted separately. I'm just trying to see who else has this same general thought. I agree there are others out there who try and be the cacher with the most numbers, but that is them, and I honestly could care less about them. It's not about numbers and that is topic for another thread, Not this one. SO please, keep to the topic at hand. Would you like to see virtual caches tracked separately. Me -- I would like to see this implemented, but do you? Quote Link to comment
+lostinjersey Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 there's no reason why they can't just list it like this 100 (75/15/10) 100 is my total & the breakdown is 75 physical caches, 15 virtuals & 10 locationless (or whatever the number is) silly silly silly. it's simple it lets you know where your strengths are. seperate counts? unnecesary. keeping a breakdown? useful and it should hopefully satisfy folks like you. Hope so. www.gpswnj.com Quote Link to comment
+BDC Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Why is it the people who talk most about virtuals being seperate are the same people who have logged them? I myself do not like locationless caches so I don't do them! Do I think they should be seperate? NO, because other people like them. If They were to seperate them(virtuals) into another catagory I would just change the virtuals I have placed into multi caches with a log book! Of course someone would want to segregate those also! Where would it stop! Quote Link to comment
+Kodak's4 Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 quote:Originally posted by The_Brownies:There has been a lot of Discussion about virtual caches. This morning a thought occurred to me. Why not have virtuals counted separately from the physical finds? Virtuals would still show on the main lookups but they would have a count of their own. This way you could see how many Virtuals, Benchmarks, and physical caches a person has found. In a sense you would get an accurate reflection of the cacher just by the stats. Maybe this is the solution to the virtual issue? What I'd REALLY like to see is locationless caches counted separately. Quote Link to comment
+EraSeek Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Hmm. Not sure how to vote here. I really like GWHO's idea: ''there's no reason why they can't just list it like this 100 (75/15/10) 100 is my total & the breakdown is 75 physical caches, 15 virtuals & 10 locationless (or whatever the number is) '' This would be a great way to do it. Personally, I see virtuals more as regular caches and NOT the same as locationless. I feel locationless are not the same because you do not use a GPS to find them, and to me that is the whole idea of a cache hunt. I do see where some virtuals do not present enough of a challange to feel like a find, so I understand the opposition to them. Quality is always the key folks. I do like hunting benchmarks but think they fit nicely in a different category, as would locationless. I vote for ''GWHOS SOLUTION'' Quote Link to comment
+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I think lots of you people need to get a life instead of worrying about all this stupid stuff. It's a hobby for crying out loud. Who cares? This isn't a sport. There is no training. There is no winner. It's not really about numbers anyway. Bowling is, geocaching isn't. The only time I even notice numbers is when someone logs a can't find it on one of my caches. If they are very experienced I'll head out there to check on my cache. If it's a newbie I don't worry about it as much. So lets say the lords of geocaching decide to no longer count virtuals. What's next? No micros? Go find a cache for crying out loud and leave things alone. I hear voices.....and they don't like you! Quote Link to comment
+EraSeek Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Bowling?? Bowling is a sport??? A sport is something that makes you breathe hard. If rolling a ball down a long floor makes you breath hard...I call that a heart condition! (boy, am I going to get the hate mail! Only kidding.) Quote Link to comment
+lostinjersey Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 duplicate post [This message was edited by Gwho on January 12, 2003 at 05:11 AM.] Quote Link to comment
+lostinjersey Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I've done virtuals & locationless that have been more challenging them many of the 1/1's we have in NJ. And sometimes figuring out where to find a qualifying item has taken more research on the computer then I've spent looking (ahem) for cache containers. --Rant removed for being unprovoked & excessive-- I will say that i wish the vocal minority that is loking to bash LC at every turn as well as anyone who likes them would tone down the rhetoric. Especially when some of them have logged LC. To me it seems hypocritical to say they're horrid, an afront to geocaching, etc, then go & log them. (a test one may be ok, but more then one sounds inconsistent with their vocalizations) Things evolve, new concepts emerge, change occurs, live with it. Just give a break down. It's a fair compromise which gives the finders their due credit, while making it clear how they got their total www.gpswnj.com [This message was edited by Gwho on January 12, 2003 at 06:51 PM.] Quote Link to comment
+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 quote: Bowling?? Bowling is a sport??? A sport is something that makes you breathe hard. If rolling a ball down a long floor makes you breath hard...I call that a heart condition! I'm not a bowler but at least bowling requires practice which is an indication of a sport. My point being that too many guys treat this hobby as a sport. Worried about others cache totals. Complaining that someone is getting too many easy virtuals or easy locationless caches. Leave it alone. Geocaching is just fine right now. I did not care for the thread Seth started when he blasted virtuals. When a moderator starts blasting an aspect of the activity that I enjoy I know that unneeded changes are about to occur and they did. I hear voices.....and they don't like you! Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Some people walk the Boston Marathon just to say they did it. Others try and run it, and try to win. For some the competivie angle to this game gives it one additinal angle of interest. For others...they are the walkers. Having fun, doing it for kicks and still finishing the race. Wherever you go there you are. Quote Link to comment
+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 quote:For some the competivie angle to this game gives it one additinal angle of interest. For others I feel sorry for them then. Because they are competing against people who aren't competing. Sort of like trying to win a race on the freeway, when you're the only one wanting to get in front. So it's a game then? I don't think it is. There would be a winner, the end of the game, end of the season. A champion. And if there were such a thing as a champion how far would it be to change the rules now when the champion was allowed to count virtuals and locationless caches. This entire thing is silly to me. I hear voices.....and they don't like you! Quote Link to comment
+EraSeek Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:Leave it alone. Geocaching is just fine right now. I did not care for the thread Seth started when he blasted virtuals. When a moderator starts blasting an aspect of the activity that I enjoy I know that unneeded changes are about to occur and they did. I consider Seth a friend of mine, but I must agree. I'm not sure I want any moderator creating policy, only enforcing it. Creating rules is Jeremy's domain. In Seth's defense, I think the issue he is concerned with if the flood of meaningless virtuals in some areas that delutes the quality of Geocaching. Hopefully what Seth's intent is, is to enforce Jeremy's statment that he will be tougher in approving virtuals and locationless caches to bring the quality up. I'm not sure who GWHO is yelling at, but as for me I have the right to say what is caching and what in my book isn't. Numbers used to mean something to me, and it was a fun competition in a way. Now, they mean absolutly nothing to me because I've moved beyond that and caching itseft has changed. I'll try a locationless every now and then (I've done two) but my preference doesn't usually include them. I like to find things with my GPS. If others like it fine! I have no problem with that at all. Virtuals to me, are caching as long as the pose a surprise or challenge. Then I like them as much as any cache. I still like GWHO's count format. Quote Link to comment
+leatherman Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 That's not very reasonable. quote:Originally posted by Gwho:I do think one thing should be mandatory: if you feel locationless are evil horrid things that shouldn't exist, you may only make suchs posts IF YOU'VE NEVER LOGGED ONE. Quite the contrary. In order to express a negative opinion one should have logged at least one. How could you possibly express how lame a virtual or locationless cache is if you've never experienced one? I've logged one and I was very disappointed. Beings there was no hunt involved. If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do. Mokita! Quote Link to comment
+EraSeek Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 This is why locationless cache are different for me: Navigation. That is the main part of what we do. You do not navigate to a locationless. You come across one and then log where it is. I see them as valid, but only in the ''other'' category. They are more like a postcard of where we have been. Never the less, I can live with them, and may even do one now and again. Quote Link to comment
+Ish-n-Isha Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 If the count was itemized there would be no need for a seperate site for LCs, VCs, or Benchmarks. Can anyone think of another explaination of the angst at "headquarters" over VCs and LCs other than find counts? If totals dont matter to people then why do they care who enjoys what? I just dont see it I guess. It seems at odds with the concept of "give the customer what they want". People dont have to do more than a few LCs or VCs to see if they like them or not. Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha! Quote Link to comment
The_Brownies Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 Nice idea EraSeek. I had not thought of using a break down of stats like this. I.e. 160 total finds with a breakdown(10/100/50)Benchmark, physical, virtauls. Put EraSeeks stat breakdown on "MY CACHE PAGE", and leave the total count on the user logs alone. Please Note..We are not brow beating virtuals here. I simply want to know if they should have a count of thier own. EraSeeks' solution is a rather simpe one that I would not mind seeing implemented. It encorporates the separate virtual cache count, but leaves the total number of caches found alone. Sometimes simple solutions are far better than complicated ones. [This message was edited by The_Brownies on January 13, 2003 at 07:29 AM.] Quote Link to comment
The_Brownies Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 I'm killing this thread, but I want to thank all of you for the input. I think the solution posed by EraSeek is the best possible solution. Quote Link to comment
+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 You only need a solution when there is a problem. Some people just need to find problems I guess. I hear voices.....and they don't like you! Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.