Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Rathergohiking

Virtual awards - redux for 2018?

Recommended Posts

I think it would be great if Groundspeak did the virtual awards again this year. The new virtual caches last year were great.  I have already found quite a few of them. Would like to do more!

Share this post


Link to post

From the blog post last year:

Quote

Will there be more Virtual Rewards in the future?

We don’t have plans for anything beyond this release. But we’re always trying to think of ways to encourage quality (and healthy) cache hides, so who knows what the future may bring.

 

I don't think there was ever any intention of making this a regular thing. By making it a one-time thing with a limited number, it makes those who received it put more thought into how and where they use it. If you release too many, you get back to the original issue where people were effectively "wasting" them on mundane or ridiculous things.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

No thanks.  IIRC, many  didn't  use the ones "awarded" them now.  

Maybe the site has a plan for something new , now that they're interested in quality...

I'd like the AR caches temp idea allowed to take off a while too, see what becomes of it.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

No thanks.  IIRC, many  didn't  use the ones "awarded" them now.

I already thought of that after I posted, so I just set up a few PQ searches to see how many have been used at this point.

 

Of the 4000 that were awarded, there have been 1874 new Virtuals published as of this post.

 

I'm surprised that the number is this low with only a month left in which to use them. We might just get past 50% utilization by the time it's over. Based on this, I'd say there definitely isn't any need to award any more.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

I already thought of that after I posted, so I just set up a few PQ searches to see how many have been used at this point.

 

Of the 4000 that were awarded, there have been 1874 new Virtuals published as of this post.

 

I'm surprised that the number is this low with only a month left in which to use them. We might just get past 50% utilization by the time it's over. Based on this, I'd say there definitely isn't any need to award any more.

 

Similarly surprised.  How about a reallocation of the unused ones? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

I already thought of that after I posted, so I just set up a few PQ searches to see how many have been used at this point.

 

Of the 4000 that were awarded, there have been 1874 new Virtuals published as of this post.

 

I'm surprised that the number is this low with only a month left in which to use them. We might just get past 50% utilization by the time it's over. Based on this, I'd say there definitely isn't any need to award any more.

 Saw one placed just this past week. Not where I would have chosen to use it it but they did not ask me ;)

 

The issue I saw was a lot of the folks that placed them are not really active in placing caches in the first place. Some were pretty great, some meh. Some in parks already with other caches others in great locations that would not allow other types of caching. 

 

If they were going to do something similar I'd distribute them more a little better we had at least a dozen in my area. Let the more remote areas get one or two lots of complaints about small countries as I recall. I'd also ask that maybe a better vetting system needs to be made. You have to really justify why a virtual is required, what is the benefit to the community and possibly have the application reviewed by multiple folks. 

 

My favorite multi was https://coord.info/GC7B6FQ The Wreck of the Peter Iredale  Out on the Oregon coast and at high tide is almost completely submerged. It's a popular tourist draw and fun for the locals too and does not lend itself to a physical cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, MNTA said:

If they were going to do something similar I'd distribute them more a little better we had at least a dozen in my area. Let the more remote areas get one or two lots of complaints about small countries as I recall. I'd also ask that maybe a better vetting system needs to be made. You have to really justify why a virtual is required, what is the benefit to the community and possibly have the application reviewed by multiple folks. 

And people would complain, and dispute, and be upset if their "application" was rejected. As I have read in the forums before, no one likes to be told that their baby is ugly.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

Similarly surprised.  How about a reallocation of the unused ones? 

Yeah, that would never cause any drama like the original distribution of Virtual Rewards did...

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

And people would complain, and dispute, and be upset if their "application" was rejected. As I have read in the forums before, no one likes to be told that their baby is ugly.

This totally cracked me up. Soon true. Unfortunately we have a few of them still.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe the way virtuals were awarded last year was flawed? What about hiders requesting a virtual reward instead of gc.com awarding them. From that pool you could then do a limited amount of awards. Hence, you would have cachers that really want to creat quality virtuals. Perhaps if necessary further limit the pool by an algorithm that made sense, such as % of favorites for one’s hidden caches, etc. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Running with that idea - what if the ONLY difference between the way it was done and this 'new' way were to have a period (say 2 months?) for active geocachers to put their name in the 'draw'.  Reduce the initial pool from which the alogrithm draws, instead of assuming the entire userbase is a] active and b] desiting to place a virtual.  Would that have produced a higher amount of publishes, fewer lost to the ether, fewer ignored? Would it have caused other problems, even if it was still made clear that submitting your name was no guarantee of being selected?  (again, the only difference here being the reduction of candidates from millions to probably a few tens of thousands of confirmed active and willing accounts - instead of the algorithm trying to merely determine 'active' accounts, we now have an opt-in confirmation of both activity and desire)

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Running with that idea - what if the ONLY difference between the way it was done and this 'new' way were to have a period (say 2 months?) for active geocachers to put their name in the 'draw'.  Reduce the initial pool from which the alogrithm draws, instead of assuming the entire userbase is a] active and b] desiting to place a virtual.  Would that have produced a higher amount of publishes, fewer lost to the ether, fewer ignored? Would it have caused other problems, even if it was still made clear that submitting your name was no guarantee of being selected?  (again, the only difference here being the reduction of candidates from millions to probably a few tens of thousands of confirmed active and willing accounts - instead of the algorithm trying to merely determine 'active' accounts, we now have an opt-in confirmation of both activity and desire)

 

I think it would result in a higher amount of publishes.     But also a higher amount of disappointment for those who didn't get one.  Even if it is made clear that only a small number will be selected, having an application process will get cachers hopes up.  

 

Still, I think it is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that some opt in might have been helpful even if it led to disappointment.  There was disappointment in any event with how the rewards were distributed.  Perhaps it could be reduced by not by not making it a "reward."   Is someone with a dozen hides, relatively few favorite points, and only one or two virtuals found, a better choice for a virtual "reward" than others?   

 

Even among those who were selected and published virtuals, I was surprised  by how many I saw who seemingly had little or no experience with virtuals.  Interest in virtuals and a desire to extend the game  through them might be a good starting point.  Opting in might be one way of getting there.  

 

 

Edited by geodarts

Share this post


Link to post

I see a way to help G$ out on the unused Virtuals.  Start the bidding at $250.00 US each. Serious cachers and the ego-feeders who want a Virtual Cache will pony up the money and the usual suspects will still whine about how unfair the process was.

 

Groundspeak gets the usual grief, but this time they have a few dollars to ease their suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, geodarts said:

Even among those who were selected and published virtuals, I was surprised  by how many I saw who seemingly had little or no experience with virtuals.  Interest in virtuals and a desire to extend the game  through them might be a good starting point.  Opting in might be one way of getting there.  

 

In lots of places there weren't many of the old virtuals available to be found. In New South Wales (Australia) there are only 12 pre-2017 virtuals in the whole state.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, geodarts said:

I agree that some opt in might have been helpful even if it led to disappointment.  There was disappointment in any event with how the rewards were distributed.  Perhaps it could be reduced by not by not making it a "reward."   Is someone with a dozen hides, relatively few favorite points, and only one or two virtuals found, a better choice for a virtual "reward" than others?   

 

Even among those who were selected and published virtuals, I was surprised  by how many I saw who seemingly had little or no experience with virtuals.  Interest in virtuals and a desire to extend the game  through them might be a good starting point.  Opting in might be one way of getting there.  

 

I'd sorta like to see that, at least a CO showing some interest would be nice.   ;)

But I haven't even seen a simple promotion that had an "opt in" yet. 

 (To me) it feels like the site has an idea,   and all should be thrilled to join in with that idea,  rather than check to see if a paid member's even interested.

 - Seems they confuse me with their  team management/motivation.   :)

 

I believe most of the "disappointment" was the original wording used to distribute them more than how ...

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps the “opt in” idea I have could also be used for web cams?  

 

As for some being disappointed about not getting an award, life is full of disappointments so deal with it. Geocaching is just a game. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×