Virtual rewards 3.0

[+dennistubaplayer 18]

This is exactly why

1 minute ago, Lynx Humble said:

Sadly your friend is wrong because Groundspeak announced they are giving 500 more AL to random player that placed at least one AL before today....

 

I hope I am not getting a third I have no idea where I would put those 5 cheap +1.

This is why Virtuals were origanally grandfathered- there were too many virtuals and all the most remarkable places were taken up and replaced with not so interesting virtuals. They have been grandfathered for quite some time now and the numbers have dwindled away (at least in my area, I am sure that there are many old archived virtuals that weren't mantained) so why not bring back virtuals in some kind of opt-in or reward manner? I think that sadly ALs are going down the same path as Virtuals.

[Keystone 3455]

20 minutes ago, dennistubaplayer said:

This is why Virtuals were origanally grandfathered- there were too many virtuals and all the most remarkable places were taken up and replaced with not so interesting virtuals.

 

What is your source for this statement?  I was part of the decision-making process for stopping the publication of new virtuals way back in 2005, but perhaps my memory has failed me.

[+dennistubaplayer 18]

4 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

What is your source for this statement?  I was part of the decision-making process for stopping the publication of new virtuals way back in 2005, but perhaps my memory has failed me.

I have heard from Numorus people who have been caching a lot longer for me that virtuals weren't just as special anymore and that there wasn't as many interesting spots. I know that I'm talking in circles, but there are so many cool and interesting spots that don't allow physical caches or you can't get a cell phone signal from for ALs. Even if they don't do another round of VRs, I would be happy with just being able to do ALs on a GPSr. Does this make any sense? Thanks everyone!

[Keystone 3455]

Your contacts are misinformed, or you are mispercieving them, both in regards to (1) Geocaching HQ's plans for Adventure Labs and (2) the reasons why virtuals were grandfathered in 2005 until their revival in 2017 on a limited basis via the Virtual Rewards program.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Keystone

[+Lynx Humble 437]

42 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Your contacts are misinformed, or you are mispercieving them, both in regards to (1) Geocaching HQ's plans for Adventure Labs and (2) the reasons why virtuals were grandfathered in 2005 until their revival in 2017 on a limited basis via the Virtual Rewards program.

Could you explain a bit more why we are mispercieving it?

 

I wasn't there in 2005 and was under the impression that virtual got grandfathered because reviewers had to judge of their WOW factor and there were too many dispute on logging requirements.

 

Also Groundspeak plans about Adventures Labs have never been clear from the little information we are getting. I wonder if they even know themselves what is the plan with all the missing features and the fact they are still at the beta stage after almost 2 years.

[+lee737 445]

3 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

I hope I am not getting a third I have no idea where I would put those 5 cheap +1.

My son and I both got seconds.... I don't think we'll even place them.

[+thebruce0 2487]

One difference though (and a big one I'd say) between Virtuals and ALs is that the V's are about real-world stuff. ALs can be entirely fictional and creative. So while 'wow' spots may grow slim, in theory ALs could keep getting published as long as the owners continue to be creative.

(not that I'm advocating for endless ALs)

[+arisoft 824]

6 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Also Groundspeak plans about Adventures Labs have never been clear from the little information we are getting. I wonder if they even know themselves what is the plan with all the missing features and the fact they are still at the beta stage after almost 2 years.

 

History has a tendency to repeat itself. As memory fades, events from the past can become events of the present. Wherigo... Adventure Lab... I predict that both will have  the same fate.

[+lee737 445]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

One difference though (and a big one I'd say) between Virtuals and ALs is that the V's are about real-world stuff.

Another difference is that virtual's are still a reasonably precious commodity, and AL's seem to be becoming as common as dirt....

[+arisoft 824]

7 hours ago, Keystone said:

Your contacts are misinformed, or you are mispercieving them, both in regards to (1) Geocaching HQ's plans for Adventure Labs and (2) the reasons why virtuals were grandfathered in 2005 until their revival in 2017 on a limited basis via the Virtual Rewards program.

 

I am curious, did the limited Virtual Rewards program solve problems that led to the grandfathering of the original virtuals?

[+NYPaddleCacher 1828]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I am curious, did the limited Virtual Rewards program solve problems that led to the grandfathering of the original virtuals?

 

I wouldn't say that it solved the problems the led to the grandfathering of the original virtuals but the guidelines used for the virtual reward program did a pretty good job of avoiding those issues.

[+arisoft 824]

49 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I wouldn't say that it solved the problems the led to the grandfathering of the original virtuals but the guidelines used for the virtual reward program did a pretty good job of avoiding those issues.

 

So you mean that grandfathering of the original virtuals could have been avoided by using these guidelines?

[+dennistubaplayer 18]

28 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

So you mean that grandfathering of the original virtuals could have been avoided by using these guidelines?

Yes, I think that they would not have been grandfathered if Virtuals and Webcams had an opt in reward program similar to ALs from the start. It would have been interesting to see what would happend if this took place.

[Keystone 3455]

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I am curious, did the limited Virtual Rewards program solve problems that led to the grandfathering of the original virtuals?

 

I wouldn't say that it solved the problems the led to the grandfathering of the original virtuals but the guidelines used for the virtual reward program did a pretty good job of avoiding those issues.

 

Good question and good answer.  I do think that the structure of Virtual Reward Caches dealt adequately with the problems which led to the grandfathering of virtuals:

• Old virtuals "took up a spot" which could have held a physical cache in many cases.  Virtual Reward caches are not subject to the Cache Saturation guideline.
• Old virtuals could be "spammed" - I recall an example where every historic marker in a small city was submitted as a separate virtual cache.  Virtual Rewards are a limited commodity - one per account.
• Old virtuals could only be published if they met the "wow factor" test - featuring a location that made the visitor say "wow, I never knew this was here" or "wow, I learned something I didn't know about," etc.  With Virtual Rewards being a limited commodity, the recipient is more likely to pick a location with "wow factor" rather than wasting their one Virtual on a street sign or historic marker.  As a result, Community Volunteer Reviewers do not review for "wow factor" and thus there are no disputes about the eligibility of a location, as was the case week in and week out during the years leading up to the grandfathering of Old virtuals.

[+dennistubaplayer 18]

13 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

Good question and good answer.  I do think that the structure of Virtual Reward Caches dealt adequately with the problems which led to the grandfathering of virtuals:

• Old virtuals "took up a spot" which could have held a physical cache in many cases.  Virtual Reward caches are not subject to the Cache Saturation guideline.
• Old virtuals could be "spammed" - I recall an example where every historic marker in a small city was submitted as a separate virtual cache.  Virtual Rewards are a limited commodity - one per account.
• Old virtuals could only be published if they met the "wow factor" test - featuring a location that made the visitor say "wow, I never knew this was here" or "wow, I learned something I didn't know about," etc.  With Virtual Rewards being a limited commodity, the recipient is more likely to pick a location with "wow factor" rather than wasting their one Virtual on a street sign or historic marker.  As a result, Community Volunteer Reviewers do not review for "wow factor" and thus there are no disputes about the eligibility of a location, as was the case week in and week out during the years leading up to the grandfathering of Old virtuals.

My point is now that Virtuals have grown less common, A person who receives a Virtual reward would be more lenient to put a Virtual in a location where geocaching isn't allowed in a spot that is a big "wow" factor such as a state park that doesn't have a cell phone signal, so no ALs can be put there. All in all, I do agree with HQ's choice and your point of view.

Edited December 16, 2020 by dennistubaplayer

[+Lynx Humble 437]

2 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

Good question and good answer.  I do think that the structure of Virtual Reward Caches dealt adequately with the problems which led to the grandfathering of virtuals:

• Old virtuals "took up a spot" which could have held a physical cache in many cases.  Virtual Reward caches are not subject to the Cache Saturation guideline.
• Old virtuals could be "spammed" - I recall an example where every historic marker in a small city was submitted as a separate virtual cache.  Virtual Rewards are a limited commodity - one per account.
• Old virtuals could only be published if they met the "wow factor" test - featuring a location that made the visitor say "wow, I never knew this was here" or "wow, I learned something I didn't know about," etc.  With Virtual Rewards being a limited commodity, the recipient is more likely to pick a location with "wow factor" rather than wasting their one Virtual on a street sign or historic marker.  As a result, Community Volunteer Reviewers do not review for "wow factor" and thus there are no disputes about the eligibility of a location, as was the case week in and week out during the years leading up to the grandfathering of Old virtuals.

So why Groundspeak is doing the exact same mistakes with AL that led to grandfathering of virtuals?

 

They even removed the reviewer part from it so people can put multiple AL at the same GZ...

[+lee737 445]

59 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

So why Groundspeak is doing the exact same mistakes with AL that led to grandfathering of virtuals?

I've wondered the same.....

[+arisoft 824]

2 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

They even removed the reviewer part from it so people can put multiple AL at the same GZ...

 

That was the problem. Reviewers didn't like flood of virtuals. Now reviewers have been eliminated from the equation.

Edited December 16, 2020 by arisoft

[Keystone 3455]

3 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

So why Groundspeak is doing the exact same mistakes with AL that led to grandfathering of virtuals?

 

They even removed the reviewer part from it so people can put multiple AL at the same GZ...

 

Interesting take.  I arrive at the same conclusions about Adventure Labs that I stated in my prior post about Virtual Reward caches (no saturation impact to block physical caches, no spamming of a limited commodity, and no wow factor test).  The only added feature is Bonus Caches associated with many Adventures.  But, these have physical containers, which are part of the core geocaching experience.

[+niraD 3305]

4 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

They even removed the reviewer part from it so people can put multiple AL at the same GZ...

The lack of review reminds me of Geocaching Challenges™ (not to be confused with Challenge Caches). When Geocaching Challenges™ first came out, a lot of them (including those published by Groundspeak) were pretty silly. But after a while, things seemed to settle down, and it looked like they might evolve into something interesting. Then Groundspeak eliminated them completely.

[+funkymunkyzone 533]

15 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

Good question and good answer.  I do think that the structure of Virtual Reward Caches dealt adequately with the problems which led to the grandfathering of virtuals:

• Old virtuals "took up a spot" which could have held a physical cache in many cases.  Virtual Reward caches are not subject to the Cache Saturation guideline.
• Old virtuals could be "spammed" - I recall an example where every historic marker in a small city was submitted as a separate virtual cache.  Virtual Rewards are a limited commodity - one per account.
• Old virtuals could only be published if they met the "wow factor" test - featuring a location that made the visitor say "wow, I never knew this was here" or "wow, I learned something I didn't know about," etc.  With Virtual Rewards being a limited commodity, the recipient is more likely to pick a location with "wow factor" rather than wasting their one Virtual on a street sign or historic marker.  As a result, Community Volunteer Reviewers do not review for "wow factor" and thus there are no disputes about the eligibility of a location, as was the case week in and week out during the years leading up to the grandfathering of Old virtuals.

 

I think you've highlighted perfectly the issues that lead to the grandfathering of virtuals way back, thanks for that, but I'm not sure I agree about the third point with respect to the virtual rewards solving the problems.  In my humble experience and opinion, there are a lot of virtual reward caches (and subsequently ALs also) that are rather ho-hum, with no discernible "wow factor", simply because the recipient felt they needed to use the virtual rewards (or AL credits) they were offered, and what's more, had a time limit within to do so.  And there are still cachers who missed out, and had great ideas for "wow-factor"-worthy virtuals.  Luckily, however, since these virtual rewards were limited to 1 (or 0) per account, at least, as you pointed out, the map is not saturated with non-"wow factor" virtuals.  ALs on the other hand... still limited, but....

 

Edit to add: Please no one take offence - whether a virtual (or AL) is good or boring is entirely subjective.

Edited December 17, 2020 by funkymunkyzone

[+JoLTeam 5]

I would love to see Virtual rewards 3.0 focus on Webcam caches, but of course there shouldn't be as many as 4000, like the Virtual Rewards 2.0. 400 would be a viable number, since the amount of Webcam Caches would then triple, which would make them a tad less rare, but still very rare and thus interesting.

[+NLBokkie 50]

On 12/28/2020 at 6:03 PM, JoLTeam said:

I would love to see Virtual rewards 3.0 focus on Webcam caches, but of course there shouldn't be as many as 4000, like the Virtual Rewards 2.0. 400 would be a viable number, since the amount of Webcam Caches would then triple, which would make them a tad less rare, but still very rare and thus interesting.

 

Same here. I'd love if HQ would adopt an option for parties interested in bringing up a Webcam to file a plan for how the Webcam would be set up including maintenance plan to secure the continuous operation of the Webcam for some time to come. HQ could select the best ideas based on the actual plans and grant a Webcam cache to those. That would be a pretty safe way to set up just a limited amount of new Webcam caches that probably will stay for a while.

[+dennistubaplayer 18]

13 hours ago, NLBokkie said:

 

Same here. I'd love if HQ would adopt an option for parties interested in bringing up a Webcam to file a plan for how the Webcam would be set up including maintenance plan to secure the continuous operation of the Webcam for some time to come. HQ could select the best ideas based on the actual plans and grant a Webcam cache to those. That would be a pretty safe way to set up just a limited amount of new Webcam caches that probably will stay for a while.

I don't think that you're the only one that wants Webcams to come back. I've scrolled through a lot of posts, and I have seen posts of people wanting webcams back left and right. I would very much like to see something like you described. I am even in the process of making a new version of a "Multi webcam!" I am still getting he parts ready and gathering info, but I'll have it done eventually. I have found that one of the best things about the forums is being able to bounce ideas and thoughts off people, kind of like what I'm doing right now with the Multi webcam idea.

[+Harry Dolphin 1167]

On 12/28/2020 at 12:03 PM, JoLTeam said:

I would love to see Virtual rewards 3.0 focus on Webcam caches, but of course there shouldn't be as many as 4000, like the Virtual Rewards 2.0. 400 would be a viable number, since the amount of Webcam Caches would then triple, which would make them a tad less rare, but still very rare and thus interesting.

 

Guess I'm lucky I got mine published almost fifteen years ago, before they were no longer permitted.  I received permission from the agency that owns it.  They thought it a great idea to attract more visitors, and they painted a white cross to show you where to stand.  1129 finders and 373 favorite points!  It's tough to maintain, because so many cachers try posting selfies.   But it's fun!