+Rathergohiking Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 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! Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 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. 3 Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 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. 3 Quote Link to comment
+IceColdUK Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 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? 1 Quote Link to comment
+MNTA Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 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. 1 Quote Link to comment
+TriciaG Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 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. 2 Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 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... 1 Quote Link to comment
+MNTA Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment
+Rathergohiking Posted August 10, 2018 Author Share Posted August 10, 2018 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. 1 Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 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) Quote Link to comment
+redsox_mark Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment
+geodarts Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 (edited) 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 August 10, 2018 by geodarts Quote Link to comment
+K13 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 I see a way to help G$ out on the unused Virtuals. Start the bidding at $250.00 US each. Serious cachers and the ego-feeders who want a Virtual Cache will pony up the money and the usual suspects will still whine about how unfair the process was. Groundspeak gets the usual grief, but this time they have a few dollars to ease their suffering. Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 2 hours ago, K13 said: I see a way to help G$ out on the unused Virtuals. Start the bidding at $250.00 US each. How much is that in geodollars? Quote Link to comment
+arisoft Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 38 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said: How much is that in geodollars? About 50 geocoins. Quote Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted August 10, 2018 Share Posted August 10, 2018 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 ... Quote Link to comment
+Rathergohiking Posted August 10, 2018 Author Share Posted August 10, 2018 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. 2 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.