Jump to content

Announcing Virtual Rewards 3.0


Geocaching HQ
Followers 10

Recommended Posts

(This information is repeated from a just-published Geocaching Blog post.)

 

Get ready for Virtual Rewards 3.0!

 

2022 is the Year of the Hide. As part of this, Geocaching HQ is thrilled to reward cache owners who have given so much to the game with Virtual Rewards 3.0, a limited number of Virtual Caches for the geocaching community.

 

An opt-in web page is now available for cachers to apply for a Virtual Reward. The page is open until February 26, 2022.

 

  • Approximately 50,000 geocachers around the world meet the criteria to apply for a Virtual Reward. 
  • Those who previously received a Virtual Reward are not eligible to participate in Virtual Rewards 3.0.
  • From all applicants, Geocaching HQ will randomly select up to 4,000 geocachers (with geographic distribution) on March 1, 2022 to receive one Virtual Cache. 
  • Approximately 30 new community volunteers are receiving a Virtual Reward, as a thanks for giving their time to support the geocaching community.
  • Winners will have one year to create their Virtual Cache. The caches must comply with specific guidelines.

 

The first two rounds of Virtual Rewards have resulted in more than 6,200 new Virtual Caches caches created between August 2017 and December 2021. Those new caches are very popular by several measures, including total Favorite points, Favorite point percentage, log length, and find frequency. In addition, the review process has not created any undue burden on community volunteer reviewers.

 

One of the most exciting aspects of the new Virtuals is that they are now located in a wider range of countries. Prior to Virtual Rewards, most Virtual Caches were in the United States. In fact, 81% of old Virtual Caches (placed prior to 2006) are in the United States. With the launch of Virtual Rewards 1.0 and 2.0, only 15% of the new Virtuals are in the United States and Virtuals now exist in 155 countries. See the following pie charts for the differences.

 

Global distribution of Virtual Caches before Virtual Rewards:
 

Screen1.png

 

 

Global distribution of Virtual Rewards Caches 1.0 and 2.0.:

 

Screen2.png

 

 

Here are answers to common questions:

 

Does this mean Virtuals are back for good?
Not exactly. Yes, we’re hoping to see up to 4,000 new Virtual Caches in the next year. But we want to make it clear that Virtuals remain a legacy cache type.

 

Are Virtual Rewards distributed evenly among countries?
No. Countries vary in land area and the number of active geocachers. We use an algorithm to help distribute Virtuals among countries, while favoring countries still growing in geocaching. We set the qualifying criteria for cache hiders as low as possible, in order to achieve better geographic distribution. The approximately 50,000 cache hiders who meet the Virtual Reward 3.0 criteria represent 88 countries. During the 2019 launch, they were from 89 countries, a significant increase from 63 countries during the 2017 launch.

 

Can I apply with more than one account that I own?
If you own more than one Geocaching account, please apply only with one account. If we discover abuse, we reserve the right to remove a Virtual Reward.

 

Could an account receive more than one Virtual Reward from Geocaching HQ?
No, Geocaching HQ will not be providing an account more than one Virtual Reward, from the 2017, 2019, or 2022 launches.

 

How do I find out when new Virtual Rewards are published?
Premium members can set up Instant notifications to be aware when new Virtual Rewards are published. All members can use filters to conduct a worldwide search for Virtuals.

 

Will there be more Virtual Rewards in the future?
Assuming Virtual Rewards 3.0 goes smoothly, we will consider launching a similar set of Virtuals in the future. We would likely continue to make adjustments to the selection process to encourage new participants.

 

Combined with previous Virtual Reward launches, are there too many Virtual Caches now?
There are currently around 10,600 Virtual Caches, which is 0.3% of the world’s 3,326,000 active caches. Even if this new launch adds 4,000 new Virtual Caches, they will still only account for 0.4% of all active caches.

 

Why not just make Virtual Caches available for everyone to hide?
Because today’s Virtual Caches are rare, and because the remaining Virtuals tend to be well-liked, people often forget (or maybe never knew) that many problems led to the Virtual becoming a legacy cache type in 2005.

 

The Virtual Cache type was originally created so people could place hides where physical caches were not permitted, or where muggles were so heavy that a physical cache was not practical. While the intent of this cache type was positive, it created significant problems for reviewers and often led to poor cache quality. Some people used Virtual Caches as a shortcut to create basic caches that did not require maintenance. Guidelines were eventually updated to require Virtuals to have special qualities to set them apart from other caches. However, that introduced so much subjectivity that the review process became difficult for both reviewers and cachers. The decision was finally made for the Virtual to become a legacy cache type and no longer permit them unless we could find a way to avoid the aforementioned issues.

 

We feel that these limited Virtual Rewards release have helped to minimize the previous problems with Virtuals, while delivering more opportunities for the community to enjoy this beloved cache type. Most importantly, it’s a fun reward for cache owners who have contributed so much to the game.

  • Upvote 4
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 3
Link to comment

Not a fan of this one:

The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. 

Or this one:

Quality: Your owned geocaches must have at least 20 total Favorite points.

Edited by Max and 99
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, lee737 said:

With the AL's around here, literally dozens of 'virtuals' have been created in the past couple of years.... I wonder where these virtuals will go??

 

 

The Central Coast got none in the first round and four in the second, and there are ten ALs (most in urban locations), so I'm sure there are still a few spots, particularly in the national parks, where another one or two could be squeezed in. At least virtuals have the advantage over ALs that they don't require phone coverage at GZ.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Not a fan of this one:

The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. 

Or this one:

Quality: Your owned geocaches must have at least 20 total Favorite points.

 

If you haven't visited the location recently how do know is as you remember it? It would be a shame to create a Virtual only to find the sign with the answers is gone or the vantage point for the photo closed.

 

A minimum requirement for Favorite points was on VR 2.0 as well I think. It's a way to narrow the applicants to those with experience hiding caches the community likes.

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Not a fan of this one:

The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. 

 

I don't think that's too unreasonable. Locations can change quite quickly, particularly if the virtual is associated with a man-made structure, but even for natural features, such as something in a national park, access can change. There was a puzzle cache near here (now archived) that relied in street-view images from various places around the globe but, by the time I got around to doing it a few years after publication, signs had been removed, shops had changed hands and had different names, etc. and for almost every waypoint I had to go back and find historical images.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

It's a way to narrow the applicants to those with experience hiding caches the community likes.

 

But it's also very dependent on how many cachers there are in the community and is biassed towards someone who hides lots of low D/T caches. I have a friend who specialises in more remote high-terrain caches which get very few finders but have high (sometimes 100%) FP percentages. One of his caches, an EC published in 2017, has still only had one finder (he gave it an FP) and his other recent hides have only had a handful of finders between them. I'm sure a virtual from him would be awesome but it would also likely only get a small handful of finders so maybe that's not what HQ wants.

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

It's a way to narrow the applicants to those with experience hiding caches the community likes.

 

And, to be honest - its a pretty low bar. Especially the cache finding requirement - 'posted a log' - maybe you don't have to even find a single cache in the last 6 months.....

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Not a fan of this one:

The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. 

 

Or this one:  Quality: Your owned geocaches must have at least 20 total Favorite points.

 

Hasn't that visiting the location within two months been a requirement all along?  Guess I thought it was...

 

I agree about FPs...  

You could rack up 20 FPs on one cache placed at an event, and older caches, well-liked, and found by many, may not have enough FPs simply because they were placed years before 12/10...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

But it's also very dependent on how many cachers there are in the community and is biassed towards someone who hides lots of low D/T caches. I have a friend who specialises in more remote high-terrain caches which get very few finders but have high (sometimes 100%) FP percentages. One of his caches, an EC published in 2017, has still only had one finder (he gave it an FP) and his other recent hides have only had a handful of finders between them. I'm sure a virtual from him would be awesome but it would also likely only get a small handful of finders so maybe that's not what HQ wants.

 

No, I don't think it would be.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

With a rare sunny day, I decided to go for a walk out to what will be my preferred spot for a virtual should I receive one. It's a 10km return hike through Brisbane Water National Park to an unusual rock formation atop a headland and affording breathtaking views south across Woy Woy Bay, Umina Beach, Broken Bay and the ocean beyond.

 

DSC_0689.jpg.49a4d60d8906f5b85452d150bbbf0e37.jpg

 

I last visited this spot in 2017 when I was hoping to put a physical cache near there, and while my initial discussion with the ranger seemed positive, it was ultimately rejected because the unofficial track passed close to some Aboriginal rock engravings. She told me that it was okay for people to unofficially go out there and that something like a virtual cache would be fine since they don't need formal approval under the National Parks geocaching policy, so it's been sitting on the back burner ever since. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of an EarthCache but my knowledge of geology isn't sufficient to come up with anything scientific about this formation, then when I received my second AL credit I thought of working this into it but unfortunately the almost-useless map in the AL app doesn't show any of the tracks on the headland and it would be too easy for someone to get lost.

 

The length of the walk and the rough track with some steep climbs in places means, if it eventuates, it'll be a T4 with the Significant Hike attribute and all the other ones like Cliffs/Falling Rocks, Dangerous Animals, Takes more than an Hour and Wading Required (there's a creek to cross along the way) that you'd expect on a cache like this. My return journey today took a full four hours, I went through three litres of water along the way and probably still ended up a bit dehydrated on what was a hotter than expected day (probably the hottest this summer).

 

This really is one for experienced hikers only and I don't expect it'll ever get more than a handful of finders, so maybe I've done my dash in the selection process by posting this. Still, I reckon it'd make a great virtual.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Love 4
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Not a fan of this one:

The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. 

Or this one:

Quality: Your owned geocaches must have at least 20 total Favorite points.

 

I can't really see the problem. Having visited the place months before submission is very generous. I would expect "yesterday" to ensure that the location is exactly as described.

 

20 favorite points? That should not be hard to get unless you are in an area with very few geocachers. A CO with very few FPs might not have any ambition to make the virtual interesting.

  • Funny 3
Link to comment

No problem meeting the requirements but when I hit the 'request a virtual' in the mail I received I end up on https://www.geocaching.com/play/request/virtuals2022  with on the bottom the mention

'Thank you for your entry! If you are randomly selected, you will receive a draft Virtual Rewards 3.0 cache page on March 1, 2022.)

 

Didn't have to fill in anything, it's just that. Would that be enough as a request ? I'd imagine there would come a place to fill in the GC-name and stuff like that.

Or is it's linked directy to the GC-name when opening the file ?

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Yes, I'm fully aware of saturation rules.... my point was there are only so many 'virtual-worthy' spots....

 

I've found 19 Virtual Rewards caches, 7 from the first release and 12 from the second. A small sample I know, but I haven't noticed any decline in "virtual worthiness" in the second batch. About half are in national parks or other places where a physical cache would be problematic and offer a wide variety of experiences from a Japanese garden in Gosford to an island kayak paddle in Lake Macquarie. Some of the highlights for me were the Figure 8 Pool in the Royal National Park south of Sydney, the "secret" WW2 gun placements on West Head, walking the plank at Iron Ladder Beach in Bouddi National Park, a "hidden" airfield at Somersby and even a big tree that I drove 200km to get FTF on!

 

Virtuals.jpg.079645c53ee08872ad0bce785be267cc.jpg

 

In this part of the world at least, I'm sure there are plenty more virtual-worthy spots waiting to be found. Sometimes you just have to go off the beaten track a little.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

In this part of the world at least, I'm sure there are plenty more virtual-worthy spots waiting to be found. Sometimes you just have to go off the beaten track a little.

 

You're right - even a quick scout across the satellite map has given me some ideas, if my son manages to jag one this time..... :)

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Hello. I am a paid member who meets all of the criteria to enter the Virtual Rewards 3.0 promotion. I simply would like a chance to enter, but am being rejected. I spoke with a rep but am not longer hearing back. So here we go...

I was told "Unfortunately, your published cache does not meet the requirements, as it must have been published before the Virtual Rewards 3.0 announcement was made."

That language is NOT in the rules listed here: https://www.geocaching.com/play/request/virtuals2022 

As long as I had a cache published between 2/8/18 and 2/8/22 I should be eligible, which I did. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC9N9PH I simply want a chance to participate. Thank you.

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

It doesn't matter. There is no 6th rule that states submitting a cache before the announcement is required. It was approved and published by the moderator on 2/8/22. 

 

So far the response from HQ is that oops, we realized we worded the rules poorly, but we're not going to fix it. Here's a discount next time you spend money with us. They also mentioned that people have a slim chance of winning anyway. Not great customer service.

 

 

Here is a screenshot of the only rules for qualification:

Screen Shot 2022-02-10 at 2.33.18 PM.png

Edited by The Goggled Crusaders
added screenshot
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, The Goggled Crusaders said:

They also mentioned that people have a slim chance of winning anyway.

 

Hmm, last time just about all the active hiders I knew received one, to the point where I was almost starting to wonder what evil deed I'd committed to be excluded. Their announcement said that 50,000 cachers are eligible for the 4000 virtuals so at worst it's a 12.5 to 1 chance, but with the bar set so low there will be a lot of eligible cachers who aren't really active enough to bother applying, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the odds are much better than that. At least that's what I'm hoping :).

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Hmm, last time just about all the active hiders I knew received one, to the point where I was almost starting to wonder what evil deed I'd committed to be excluded. Their announcement said that 50,000 cachers are eligible for the 4000 virtuals so at worst it's a 12.5 to 1 chance, but with the bar set so low there will be a lot of eligible cachers who aren't really active enough to bother applying, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if the odds are much better than that. At least that's what I'm hoping :).

We seemed to get a bunch around here - in our immediate group of friends I know of 5 VR 2.0's, and a couple of others as well - and as they say, you have to be in it to win it....

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Goggled Crusaders said:

It doesn't matter. There is no 6th rule that states submitting a cache before the announcement is required. It was approved and published by the moderator on 2/8/22. 

It seems to me that your issue revolves around whether the dates they mentioned on the announcement :-

 

image.png.3a97b08a30d80064ad7ae68da2ccb0aa.png

 

are inclusive or exclusive, they're being treated as exclusive by GCHQ and as such you were a day late getting your cache published, you think they should be inclusive 'cos that way you would have been in the draw. There's no hard and fast rule in the English language about whether the limits should be one or the other.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Goggled Crusaders said:

It was approved and published by the moderator on 2/8/22.

 

Caches aren't "approved;" they are published by Community Volunteer Reviewers.  You received very fast service from your local Reviewer, when you submitted your first cache hide in eight years on the very day when the announcement came out about Virtual Rewards 3.0.  In fact, the service was so fast that you had to disable your cache page because you hadn't yet placed the container. 

  • Upvote 7
  • Funny 6
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Keystone said:

In fact, the service was so fast that you had to disable your cache page because you hadn't yet placed the container. 

Your assumption is false based on a log you read. My container was always in place. I disabled it for a couple hours to apply some extra paint and flourishes and I didn't want FTF-hunters to get messy. I like to put a lot of craftsmanship into my hides. Regardless, it was active and ready to be found on 2/8.

 

And I'm not sure why the word "approved" is a hangup for you. There is often a back and forth with a reviewer to secure the info they need from hiders to make sure the cache meets the guidelines. A lot of times when you hit publish, a cache is not immediately approved by a reviewer until you provide more info.

 

13 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

There's no hard and fast rule in the English language about whether the limits should be one or the other.

Literally any coupon that says "valid from 2/8.18 to 2/8/22" would still be redeemable ON 2/8/22. What you are not aware of is that I have emailed with GC staff several times and they conceded that the rule was poorly worded, but changing the pre-set database was not going to happen. That's why this is a problem.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, The Goggled Crusaders said:

And I'm not sure why the word "approved" is a hangup for you. There is often a back and forth with a reviewer to secure the info they need from hiders to make sure the cache meets the guidelines. A lot of times when you hit publish, a cache is not immediately approved by a reviewer until you provide more info.

I am not a volunteer reviewer, and I don't play one on TV, but I have heard a number of them say that they publish a LOT of caches that they do not approve of. But the caches meet the guidelines, so they publish them whether they approve of them or not.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 2/9/2022 at 11:11 AM, Ginirover said:

Didn't have to fill in anything, it's just that. Would that be enough as a request ? I'd imagine there would come a place to fill in the GC-name and stuff like that

 

I got the same message and I'm guessing thats all that is required. I was surprised by how straightforward it was too. I have heard of others who applied who did not meet the criteria and instead got a 'Sorry you're not eligible' message, so apparently it knows its you, it checked your creds and you should be good to go.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

I said it in VR2 and I will repeat it here for VR3:

 

Virtual caches are rare, even if the VRs remain a reoccurring practice. The biggest advantage they have is not that they are an uncommon cache type, but that they can be placed where physical caches are not permitted including National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and cemeteries. There are also places where physical caches are technically permitted, but the muggle traffic is high and/or hiding places so sparse that a physical hide is impractical. Please try to make the most of your Virtual Reward.

 

Also, keep in mind old Virtuals were published when the internet was still relatively new. We've now got resources like Wikipedia, Waymarking, the Historical Marker Database, Find A Grave, Google Earth, and Google Street View. Please try to chose questions for your Virtual that cannot be easily armchaired.

  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
On 2/11/2022 at 8:08 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

I said it in VR2 and I will repeat it here for VR3:

 

Virtual caches are rare, even if the VRs remain a reoccurring practice. The biggest advantage they have is not that they are an uncommon cache type, but that they can be placed where physical caches are not permitted including National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and cemeteries. There are also places where physical caches are technically permitted, but the muggle traffic is high and/or hiding places so sparse that a physical hide is impractical. Please try to make the most of your Virtual Reward.

 

Also, keep in mind old Virtuals were published when the internet was still relatively new. We've now got resources like Wikipedia, Waymarking, the Historical Marker Database, Find A Grave, Google Earth, and Google Street View. Please try to chose questions for your Virtual that cannot be easily armchaired.

 

Any suggestions for questions in remote areas?  Unique questions that don't involve signage?

Link to comment
Quality: Your owned geocaches must have at least 20 total Favorite points. I cannot remember where to find that information - probably right in front of me!!
 
Edited. few minutes later: If that info was any closer it would have bit me. Found it.
Edited by Jayeffel
added a word to make sense!
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

Any suggestions for questions in remote areas?  Unique questions that don't involve signage?

 

The remote location I'm thinking of using if I get one doesn't have any signage, but at one of the waypoints where there is a large pothole in the creek, a question might be to use a stick to estimate its width and depth (a well-prepared cacher might even bring a tape measure)...

 

DSC_0676.jpg.97251b35708a6d2fd3a003c867f01a29.jpg

 

It's tempting to require a photo of the cacher actually in the pothole but, well, perhaps not, that water can get rather cold in winter.

 

At another waypoint there's a nice view across the bay to the ridge on the far side where there's a prominent man-made structure. For that, the question might be What is it?

 

At the final location with the view and unusual rock formation that I posted earlier in this thread, the requirement will be a photo of yourself or something of yours there, but there's also some century-old rock engravings that could also be used in a question.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

"The remote location I'm thinking of using if I get one doesn't have any signage, but at one of the waypoints where there is a large pothole in the creek, a question might be to use a stick to estimate its width and depth (a well-prepared cacher might even bring a tape measure)..."

 

I know this only an idea at present , the "estimate its depth and width"  seems to me to allow a wide range of guesses. But the cacher would have to be there to make that estimate and that would probably  be enough to show they found it. I would not allow any measurements to be entered into any log. But you are certainly aware of these. 

 

 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Jayeffel said:

I know this only an idea at present , the "estimate its depth and width"  seems to me to allow a wide range of guesses. But the cacher would have to be there to make that estimate and that would probably  be enough to show they found it. I would not allow any measurements to be entered into any log. But you are certainly aware of these. 

 

That's only a thought for something to do at an interesting waypoint along the way. It's a long hike (5km each way) so I'm thinking of having a few waypoints to break it up, with some pretty easy questions at each one. The main requirement will be the photo at GZ, if it eventuates.

Link to comment
On 2/20/2022 at 6:51 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

The remote location I'm thinking of using if I get one doesn't have any signage, but at one of the waypoints where there is a large pothole in the creek, a question might be to use a stick to estimate its width and depth (a well-prepared cacher might even bring a tape measure)...

 

DSC_0676.jpg.97251b35708a6d2fd3a003c867f01a29.jpg

 

It's tempting to require a photo of the cacher actually in the pothole but, well, perhaps not, that water can get rather cold in winter.

 

At another waypoint there's a nice view across the bay to the ridge on the far side where there's a prominent man-made structure. For that, the question might be What is it?

 

At the final location with the view and unusual rock formation that I posted earlier in this thread, the requirement will be a photo of yourself or something of yours there, but there's also some century-old rock engravings that could also be used in a question.

 

Seriously. Groundspeak should send you a bill for disk space usage.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, bflentje said:

 

Seriously. Groundspeak should send you a bill for disk space usage.

 

Sorry, I was just trying to answer MNTA's question about ideas on what to ask when there are no signs and I thought the best way to describe my example was with a photo, as just saying "pothole" for me conjures up a hole in the road. For the record, that image is about 150kB. Should I send HQ a box of floppy disks?

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 3
  • Love 2
Link to comment

Looking at the above pie chart - Global distribution of Virtual Rewards Caches 1.0 and 2.0.:  You can see U.S.A is allotted only 15% of 4000 virtual caches (600).  This leaves 3400 for the rest of the world. I'm guessing there are more cachers in the U.S. compared to all other countries together. At 600 our chances here are very slim. 

Link to comment
On 2/25/2022 at 12:37 PM, rustynails. said:

Looking at the above pie chart - Global distribution of Virtual Rewards Caches 1.0 and 2.0.:  You can see U.S.A is allotted only 15% of 4000 virtual caches (600).  This leaves 3400 for the rest of the world. I'm guessing there are more cachers in the U.S. compared to all other countries together. At 600 our chances here are very slim. 

 

Getting a figure for the number of cachers is tricky because there are lots of inactive accounts with varying degrees of inactivity. Perhaps the number of caches in each country is a more objective measure, in which case the USA has about a third of the world's caches. So you're probably still being dudded with your 15% but perhaps not by as much as you think.

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...
Followers 10
×
×
  • Create New...