Jump to content

What's everyone's impression of the new Virtual caches?


medoug

Recommended Posts

I'm curious what people think of the new virtual  caches that were placed by the cache owners who were granted virtual cache rewards to place from August 2017 to August 2018.  Do you think that those cache owners met the expectations of bringing geocachers to unique, interesting places worthy of visiting, or did they disappoint the general caching community?

 

From what I have seen in my area, they seem to be getting a lot of favorites points and high percentages from premium member.  Does anyone have any statistics on this?  I'm especially interested in the favorite percentages which I feel are a better indication of of the cache's quality.  (Raw number of favorite points can be deceiving depending on if the virtual caches are placed in heavily populated/visited areas compared to those in more obscure locations.)

Edited by medoug
Link to comment

I am aware of that other post concerning Virtual caches, but it analyzes where and when they were placed.  I'm interested if the cachers who did place their virtual rewards caches put them in locations of interest to others.  Afterall, there was a lot of discussion here as to the algorithm that was used to select these cachers and whether they were more or less worthy than others.  Much of GC's goal was to select cachers who they thought would place good quality virtual caches.  So regardless of if these selected cachers were worthy of receiving such a privelege, did they deliver?

Edited by medoug
Link to comment
1 minute ago, medoug said:

I am aware of that other post concerning Virtual caches, but it analyzes where and when they were placed.  I'm interested if the cachers who did place their virtual rewards caches put them in locations of interest to others.  Afterall, there was a lot of discussion here as to the algorithm that was used to select these cachers and whether they were more or less worthy than others.  Much of their GC's goal was to select cachers who they thought would place good quality virtual caches.  So regardless of if these selected cachers were worthy of receiving such a privelege, did they deliver?

Sorry. I didn't look closely at the stats. I'm sure you'll get lots of responses here!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

The closest new virtual to me I still haven't found.  Saving it for when needed for something (A souvenir maybe) for the other 2/3rds.  :)

The rest are 100 miles or better, and since I could care less about stats, most are too low in terrain to interest me.

Did notice that these new virtuals have a lot more FPs than many of the "old" ones ,  but I'd think most realize it's simply because FPs didn't come out until 12/10. 

 

 

Edited by cerberus1
Spllelling
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I for one thought that everyone in this region who received a virtual reward and has published them deserved it and, from the ones I've found so far, did a good job with them. All but one are into double digit FP counts, and the one that isn't is quite a hike in bushland well away from suburbia and has 6 FPs from 13 finds. There are a few more I'm keen to visit in the coming months too and by the look of them, they're sure to live up to expectations. What I need to do now is go and find a whole lot of run-of-the-mill caches so I'll have enough FPs to award to those that deserve them.

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

I think it was nice to give the community a couple of more Virtuals since they constantly asked for it.

 

But to be honest, I have not done one new Virtual yet that really kicks it. 90 % could have been a letterbox or regular cache. But then again, many old Virtuals had the same issue.

 

One of the most successful ones in Germany is a multi of lab cache type questions. Everyone hates lab caches but in a new disguise people love it. 

 

The cache type simply has very few sensible uses. I am yet to spend my first favorite point on a new Virtual but I acknowledge that diversity (of cache types) improves the quality of the game in general.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, medoug said:

Do you think that those cache owners met the expectations of bringing geocachers to unique, interesting places worthy of visiting, or did they disappoint the general caching community?

 

This goal if quite difficult to achieve because there is wery limited number of places where you can place only virtual caches. Virtual waypoints have already been used for places too difficult to have a hidden container. Due to this problem, some new virtual caches has been placed at the same place where already exists another cache or another virtual cache in the worst case. For example one virtual cache presents the same place where I already have a field puzzle for the same reason.

 

I would say that expectations were higher than reality but the reason is obvious: too limiting rules what you can do with a new virtual cache. The opportunity was not as inspirational as expected. Only few cache owners managed to make an exceptional virtual cache within these limits but all of them have been appealing anyway.

 

 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, medoug said:

met the expectations of bringing geocachers to unique, interesting places worthy of visiting,

 

I'm curious about whose expectations these are?   As far as I know, they're not expressed by Geocaching.com; nothing in the Blog post that describes the release, and nothing in the Virtual Rewards guidelines speaks to anything like "unique", or "worthy".  Those two expressions (and arisoft's, "where you can place only virtual caches") go back to the Virtual guidelines in place in since July 2002,   updated in 2003  strengthening the preference for physical caches  and requiring, "quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects" - the wow factor.

Neither of those expectations were part of any guideline or description of this release.  

 

Stats - I believe Frau Potter gave some stats on a Pod Cacher show   http://www.podcacher.com/show-645-0-virtual-rewards-report-from-hq/

 

 

Edited by Isonzo Karst
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I've found 13 of them and just like the old virtuals, they've been hit and miss. I've found a couple that were placed due to the personal meaning the location holds for the CO.  They're a nice tribute but they're in locations that are just, well, bland.  I've only given one a FP and enjoyed four others.  The rest are nice but are similar in nature to what I've already managed to find.  One I enjoyed already has 160 favorite points but I enjoyed the old multi that used to be there more, since I did it first.  The return trip was nice but not as fun as the first time.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, medoug said:

I'm curious what people think of the new virtual  caches that were placed by the cache owners who were granted virtual cache rewards to place from August 2017 to August 2018.  Do you think that those cache owners met the expectations of bringing geocachers to unique, interesting places worthy of visiting, or did they disappoint the general caching community?

 

From what I have seen in my area, they seem to be getting a lot of favorites points and high percentages from premium member.  Does anyone have any statistics on this?  I'm especially interested in the favorite percentages which I feel are a better indication of of the cache's quality.  (Raw number of favorite points can be deceiving depending on if the virtual caches are placed in heavily populated/visited areas compared to those in more obscure locations.)

 

Even before the New Virtuals, virtual caches typically got a high percentage of favorite points.  Many speculated that because new virtuals were banned many years ago, that the ones that remained are the creme of the crop, and thus get a lot of favorites.  It would be interesting to compare favorite percentage states for old and new virtuals.  I've only done one new virtual,  in Malmo Sweden which featured a nice piece of outdoor art.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

I'm curious about whose expectations these are?   As far as I know, they're not expressed by Geocaching.com; nothing in the Blog post that describes the release, and nothing in the Virtual Rewards guidelines speaks to anything like "unique", or "worthy".  Those two expressions (and arisoft's, "where you can place only virtual caches") go back to the Virtual guidelines in place in since July 2002,   updated in 2003  strengthening the preference for physical caches  and requiring, "quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects" - the wow factor.

Neither of those expectations were part of any guideline or description of this release.  

 

It's not an official requirement, but it seems like a reasonable expectation. If new Virtuals are almost universally great then it shows their merits and encourages Groundspeak to allow a limited amount again in the future. But if the majority of Virtuals are "meh" then it could (and arguably should) be the death knell of Virtuals. 

 

I agree the language expressed, especially "unique", is a little too strong, but I agree with the sentiment. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Those COs that have been awarded seem to be taking into account that the old ones were often 'armchair' logged -which has got easier with the advent of streetview and/or a good search of the internet- and, of the ones I've seen in the UK, seem to be more a multi-cache and as such may well have been somewhere close a container could have been hidden...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, medoug said:

Do you think that those cache owners met the expectations of bringing geocachers to unique, interesting places worthy of visiting, or did they disappoint the general caching community?

I can't say anything about the new virtual caches as a whole, but the one I did recently was good.

 

Some historical artifacts had been displayed on private property, and had a physical cache there. (It was one of my Favorites.) Then the artifacts were donated to the city, and the city moved them to public property in a cache-saturated area. So they've been there for a while with no cache to highlight them. The virtual cache brings people to the historical artifacts again, so it's a good cache.

Link to comment

I think some of the Virtual Rewards were definitely wasted. The one that was placed at Stone Mountain, GA falls into that category - there were already dozens of active caches there, including a few old Virtuals, and a couple of them are even very close to where the Virtual Reward was placed. It's a great cache location in a vacuum, but not in the present day.

 

I decided to examine the Virtual Rewards placed in Florida, of which there are 28.

  • About 1/2 of them appear to be placed at a location where a physical cache would have been possible at or close to the Virtual.
    (More if permission could be secured from private property owners.)
  • Over 1/3 have at least one physical cache already active in the area.
  • 1 is an underwater location. Although I'm not a scuba diver thus will never be able to get this cache, it sounds like a neat underwater location and a great use of a Virtual.
  • 6 seem to be nature-based caches, including the paddle caches. 1 looks like it could have been done as an Earthcache. 2 of them are paddle caches (on the same river).
  • at least half involve a historical site, monument, memorial, cemetery, and/or unusual architecture (IMO the best use of a Virtual) including a fort and a lighthouse.
  • only 3 or 4 of them seem to be personally motivated, although 2 of those 3 seem to be rather dull locations

I can't say how many I would award Favorites to as I've only found 1 of the 28 so far.

Edited by JL_HSTRE
Link to comment
22 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I think some of the Virtual Rewards were definitely wasted. The one that was placed at Stone Mountain, GA falls into that category - there were already dozens of active caches there, including a few old Virtuals, and a couple of them are even very close to where the Virtual Reward was placed. It's a great cache location in a vacuum, but not in the present day.

 

 

That Stone Mountain one, I agree, is kinda wasted.  I'm convinced, however, it was placed as a reaction to current events that were playing out at the time.  

 

 

As for Favorite Points, I honestly do not pay them any mind in this case.  I personally believe that the majority of those FPs were placed primarily BECAUSE of the fact that they are new virtuals...and not necessarily because of where they were placed or what the subject matter is.  I believe it is meant as some sort of informal "vote" on the existence of new virtuals, maybe even some sort of wish for future virtual rewards.  I can't really offer any evidence for that claim, of course.  Just a hunch.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I haven't been able to find a virtual reward close to where I live because the closest one is 5 hours drive (besides one who got published a month ago and is only 2h drive) but I've found some while traveling. I don't have any complaints about them. Yes, maybe a physical cache could have been placed in some locations, but finding a virtual instead of a trad/letterbox/etc. doesn't make it less rewarding. There are virtuals in my hometown that I'm exciting to find on my next visit. Some of them show a place where it's impossible to place a physical container (GC7B8ZM for example).

One thing I would like to mention. These virtual rewards enabled a lot of people to find this rare type of cache without travelling hundreds and thousands of kilometers. For countries where geocaching got popular less than ten years ago, it was a great opportunity to have a wider variety of cache types.

Also, I believe virtual caches could have a longer life because they can't be muggled or damaged by any other physical forces (weather, construction, etc). Especially when talking about busy touristic places in Europe. 

So overall, I am satisfied with these new virtuals, even though I haven't find many of them yet. 

Edited by EggsTheBest
Link to comment

The Virtual Rewards I’ve found have been more interesting than the old Virtual’s I’ve found.  That’s probably because the Virtual Reward owners were only awarded one each and in the majority of cases used their Virtual Reward wisely.  It also helped that Groundspeak were very selective when allocating the Virtual Rewards.

 

I feel the Virtual Rewards have been a success and a second batch should be allocated to the next set of worthy cache owners.  Again keeping them to one per cache owner and excluding anyone who was awarded one last time.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Curly_McWurly said:

The Virtual Rewards I’ve found have been more interesting than the old Virtual’s I’ve found.  That’s probably because the Virtual Reward owners were only awarded one each and in the majority of cases used their Virtual Reward wisely.  It also helped that Groundspeak were very selective when allocating the Virtual Rewards.

 

I feel the Virtual Rewards have been a success and a second batch should be allocated to the next set of worthy cache owners.  Again keeping them to one per cache owner and excluding anyone who was awarded one last time.

And double the drama? I vote no.

Link to comment

The virtuals where awarded to people who have made great physical caches (and to Groundspeak volunteers) . That doesn't mean that they are also able to create great virtual caches. Something that makes a physical cache great, like a ingenious container or a surprising hiding place are not available with a virtual cache.

 

So we've gotten a lot of new virtuals, some great, some lame and a lot of mediocre. Which is not much different from all the other caches that are published.

 

All in all I do appreciate:

 - Rewarding cache owners that have a positive contribution to the game (although there always will be discussion about the selection of those owners)

 - Bringing back some virtuals in a way that does not constitute in an explosion of (lame) virtuals

 

And of course I'm hoping to be selected for the next batch were we are allowed to create a locationless cache.

 

Tc

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment

I've only found 2.   One was a 5/5, the other a nice easy one at a historic lighthouse.    The 5/5 was in an area (abandoned mine) where I had cached before; it is a great area.  The virtual itself was similar to the physical caches there, without the box! 

 

There are 2 others nearby I'd like to find but can't.  One is a D5 puzzle I can't solve.  The other is a 5/5 beyond my abilities.    In my very local area, there seems a tendency for extreme virtuals with these.  

 

I've seen a few more published recently which I' should be able to do, will try them soon.   

Link to comment

So far we've found 9.  They've been pretty good.

 

I have passed up a few that I assumed would be pretty easy, but ended up being multiple stop scavenger hunts: go here, go there, go over here, now go over there.  But then I don't have too many finds on older virtuals like this, either, with some exceptions, like those in and around Arlington Cemetery.  I think of virtual multis like these as a Wherigo, but without the work of putting together a Wherigo cartridge.

 

Should there be a round 2 for which we qualify, I've been idly thinking about what we'd put together.  I think it'd be something neat in a cool location that wouldn't otherwise be good for a physical cache, like a national park or historic monument, or even an airport.  Which might make permission take a while to secure, but I'm used to that with earthcaches anyway, so whatever.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

There is a new one at Walden Pond and although I haven't done it yet from the looks of the logs people are enjoying it.   The one thing that's cool about this cache is an opportunity to re-visit a place I've enjoyed in the past.   I did a multi there and enjoyed the cache and the area.   I now get to go back there and enjoy both things again.

 

I think virtuals have the ability to add this dimension to caching and I like the idea of it.       

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

A D5 puzzle Virtual? That's an...interesting decision. I guess they really wanted to avoid armchair logs...

But how you can make a puzzle when you have to take a picture at the final to prove you were there?

 

To answer to the OP I have found 21 new virtual and 19 old ones. Some of the new ones were great but most of them was just park and grab took a picture here...

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

But how you can make a puzzle when you have to take a picture at the final to prove you were there?

 

The same way you would make a puzzle when you have to find a container and sign the log, only instead of a pen, you need a camera.

 

Perhaps I don't understand the question.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

The same way you would make a puzzle when you have to find a container and sign the log, only instead of a pen, you need a camera.

 

Perhaps I don't understand the question.

I thought that you have to put the picture public in your log and then the FTF would reveal the spot but after reading the guideline again I don't saw it. 

 

So if you send it privately to the CO like arisoft said you don't have that issue. It just that nobody in my area use a puzzle with a virtual that I am aware of.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

A D5 puzzle Virtual? That's an...intetresting decision. I guess they really wanted to avoid armchair logs...

 

This is the puzzle virtual I was talking about.   Actually is only D=4; though I haven't been able to solve it, and it has only one finder since being set over a year ago.  

 

https://coord.info/GC7B79E

 

You have to send two photos to the CO.   But the hard part is figuring out where you need to go.. "and where she went". 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Lynx Humble said:

It just that nobody in my area use a puzzle with a virtual that I am aware of.  

 

Puzzle virtuals were highly anticipated but reality with photologging requirements hit the COs when trying to publish one. Making of innovative geocaches is hard both to the CO and reviewers. Needs better communication between.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

I thought that you have to put the picture public in your log and then the FTF would reveal the spot but after reading the guideline again I don't saw it. 

 

If it's a needle in a haystack type thing you're looking for, like one odd brick (or tree or rock) among thousands, it could still be doable.  But OK, I see your point.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

I thought that you have to put the picture public in your log and then the FTF would reveal the spot but after reading the guideline again I don't saw it.

Virtual caches don't even need a photo. You can just send information gathered from the location to the CO via email.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

To answer to the OP I have found 21 new virtual and 19 old ones. Some of the new ones were great but most of them was just park and grab took a picture here...

 

I enjoy simple photo Virtuals as long as the location is worth visiting. Especially if it's something at least semi-obscure that I probably wouldn't find without geocaching. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

 

This is the puzzle virtual I was talking about.   Actually is only D=4; though I haven't been able to solve it, and it has only one finder since being set over a year ago.  

 

https://coord.info/GC7B79E

 

You have to send two photos to the CO.   But the hard part is figuring out where you need to go.. "and where she went". 

 

I looked at that one when it came out - but it's a longish way from me - well, assuming it's anywhere near the published coords anyway. I thought I might have an idea for it but tbh I didn't feel up to pursuing the puzzle too much at that point. I might come back to it though - I do think it's a really interesting idea for a virtual. If they were all like that then it'd be boring - a bit like the old Tin Pan Alley cache in London (which in many ways would be a great virtual location in homage to the old trad) - if there were too many caches like that then yawn...

 

Overall - I've done 21 new ones. Some good, some OK, a few a bit meh. There are a few I won't be in a hurry to do and some I just flat out won't do for whatever reason.

 

I think there are some new ideas in the new ones compared to the old virtuals - perhaps some more interesting and up to date ideas maybe and quite a lot of variety. But that's no where near as universal as I, perhaps, hoped it would be.

Link to comment

I've found a few nice ones where a container would really not be possible. My favourite is probably the one on the old Forth Road Bridge outside of Edinburgh. Walk towards the midpoint of the bridge and answer a few questions. It's a nice walk with fantastic views. And I'd be surprised if people were allowed to place an actual container on that bridge. There were a few lesser ones, like at war memorials (those seem to be popular for some reason) or an addition to the Sidetracked series. It's nice that rail passengers have caches nearby but it always felt a bit shoehorned to place an EC for the sake of variation. Or now virtuals.

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...