Announcing Virtual Rewards 3.0

[+Gill & Tony]

I agree. All the first round winners around here were deserving and their virtual were all excellent.  I never heard anyone from round here complaining.

 

However, go back to the thread on these forums covering the first round and a lot of disappointed people complained that they should have got one because they were more deserving than someone who did get one.

 

There's a big difference between "I didn't get one, I'm disappointed, but maybe next time if there is one." and "I didn't get one but Fred did and I've done much more for caching and I've got more FPs than Fred."

[+MartyBartfast]

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

one thing I've noticed is a fair few of the recipients have outstanding NMs on some of their existing hides.

TBH a blanket "No outstanding NM's" would be a bit harsh, anyone who's cache was just reported within the last day or so as needing maintenance and they haven't been abe to fix it yet would be unfairly disdvantaged.

 

 

7 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

So, they will just whack Owner maintenance logs on their caches before submitting their application.  Or am I just a cynic?

They could make it something like "as of the date of the announcement you have had no unactioned NMs outstanding for more than X days/weeks/months within the previous Y years"

 

 

 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

one thing I've noticed is a fair few of the recipients have outstanding NMs on some of their existing hides.

TBH a blanket "No outstanding NM's" would be a bit harsh, anyone who's cache was just reported within the last day or so as needing maintenance and they haven't been abe to fix it yet would be unfairly disdvantaged.

 

By "outstanding" I mean that they've gone beyond what would be a reasonable time for the CO to act. Of course that then gets into even murkier waters because a remote cache that's difficult to reach, particularly if access is seasonal, would have to be allowed more time for its owner to respond. Throw in fires, floods and other calamities that can prevent a CO visiting their caches for an extended period of time and becomes even harder to know where to draw the line. So yes, I'll concede that something like that could be difficult in practice but it still irks a little to see virtuals going to COs who've had NMs outstanding for years.

[+MartyBartfast]

22 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So yes, I'll concede that something like that could be difficult in practice but it still irks a little to see virtuals going to COs who've had NMs outstanding for years.

Yep, I agree.

[+Rustynails]

5 hours ago, Team Canary said:

 

You say complaining, I say disappointed.

 

I believe the first round in NSW predominantly went to very deserving COs and the quality of those Virtuals is amazing.

Well said. I noticed the same thing.

[+Heidiekkroamer]

Congratulation to all winners of the third Round.

 

Yes i am sad that i didn't get one this time. Thats life.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

My awarded virtual GC9P4VQ "The One and Only" was published yesterday at 5:08PM Pacific time. It had two finds before 6:08PM. It is in Bend Oregon at the location of the last Blockbuster Video store on planet earth.

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, tomfuller & Quill said:

It is in Bend Oregon at the location of the last Blockbuster Video store on planet earth.

I thought that might be where you were placing it...

[+dimwit61]

Got my Virtual the day before yesterday. It will be the first virtual in Shikoku. I don't have any NMs but I do have one disabled. It is a homemade one and takes a while reconstruct.

[+CCFwasG]

On 2/8/2022 at 12:41 PM, Geocaching HQ said:

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.

 

...[clip]

 

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.

 

 

 

Well I feel like... thanks for nothing. All of a sudden I am getting new caches notifications and never heard about opting-in. I meet the criteria easily. Yet someone who got one told me they received an email about it...! How did Groundspeak decide who to notify and who not? Grumpy.

Also a comment on the last bit I clipped above: why does Groundspeak allow the selected COs to place their virtuals in countries where they are not currently living / are not currently COs? (I won't be more specific, just think it is very odd.)

[Moun10Bike]

3 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

How did Groundspeak decide who to notify and who not? Grumpy.

 

Only users who have opted into receiving promotional emails from HQ would have received that email. Looking at your settings, it appears that you have opted out of receiving those sorts of communications. You are also opted out of receiving the weekly newsletter, where this sort of info is also often shared.

[Moun10Bike]

9 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

Also a comment on the last bit I clipped above: why does Groundspeak allow the selected COs to place their virtuals in countries where they are not currently living / are not currently COs? (I won't be more specific, just think it is very odd.)

 

The guidelines for virtuals at https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=899 state:

Vacation Virtuals

The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. Placements near the cache owner’s home coordinates are encouraged.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

19 hours ago, tomfuller & Quill said:

My awarded virtual GC9P4VQ "The One and Only" was published yesterday at 5:08PM Pacific time. It had two finds before 6:08PM. It is in Bend Oregon at the location of the last Blockbuster Video store on planet earth.

 

Isn't there another one in Australia?

Although, I think I read that in that case, the franchisee BOUGHT the name and signage for local use in just one location as a tribute to the company.

He's no longer connected to the company (obviously) but he's still a BlockBuster Video!

[+Max and 99]

3 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

Yet someone who got one told me they received an email about it...! How did Groundspeak decide who to notify and who not? Grumpy.

Hey Grumpy. 😁

I feel your pain. 

I don't know if this will help you but almost like clockwork every Tuesday at noon CST you can read new posts on the official geocaching blog. The newsletters are often information found in the blog. There was a very short window to apply for VR3! I myself tried to spread the word to my friends who might not have known about the opportunity. 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Max and 99

[+lee737]

3 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

receiving promotional emails from HQ

HQ don't spam you - in fact the weekly blog emails and info emails (like for VR3.0) are generally enjoyable, and as you've found out, useful.....

[+CCFwasG]

4 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

The guidelines for virtuals at https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=899 state:

Vacation Virtuals

The cache owner must have visited the location and any additional waypoints in the previous two months before submitting the Virtual Cache for publication. Placements near the cache owner’s home coordinates are encouraged.

 

I'd be darned impressed if there was a way to prove that! Ok there is: they have to have FOUND a cache in the location they want to use (or at least the same country maybe?!)... that's a great way to check.

As it happens one was set in my home territory by someone from another country who has not cached outside their own country in the past 6+ months. (I checked.)  So....?!?!

[+lee737]

42 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

So....?!?!

Live and let live I say....

[+geodarts]

The lotteries are always disappointing.   
 

I advocated for the return of virtuals long before it was popular.  I love the concept and have done over a thousand.  I live in an area where physical caching is prohibited on a large percentage of the land - and although I have advocated with park managers to change that. it remains policy.  I have several earthcaches and an adventure lab on this land but there are some things that would make a better virtual.  But I have never been lucky with lotteries of any type.

 

It’s just the way it is.  I wish the process was different, but I am glad that virtuals are part of this game.  It’s more of the “if only” sigh whenever I think about something I want to create.
 

A disappointment to be sure.  But we have some trips coming up so there will be more to find.  

[+barefootjeff]

From what I've seen on the local FB groups and from discussion at last night's Geocaching NSW event in Maitland, it doesn't look like any of the new virtuals went to the Central Coast or Hunter regions here. Time will tell of course, but so far it doesn't look too promising locally. These regions did quite well in the 2.0 release, though, so I can't really complain.

 

It's still very early days, but here's a breakdown of the 3.0 virtuals published so far worldwide:

 

16  Australia

      6 Tasmania

      3 ACT

      3 Victoria

      2 South Australia

      2 New South Wales

 

2 New Zealand

 

1 Asia

       1 Malaysia

 

50 North America

     40 USA

     10 Canada

 

119 Europe

     25 France

     14 Germany

       9 The Netherlands

       9 Norway

       8 Finland

       8 Czechia

       5 Sweden

       5 Italy

       5 Spain

       4 Portugal

       3 Greece

       3 Belgium

       3 UK

       2 Romania

       2 Lithuania

       2 Poland

       2 Slovakia

       2 Denmark

       2 Switzerland

       1 Latvia

       1 Estonia

       1 Slovenia

       1 Martinique

       1 Luxembourg

       1 Ireland

[+tomfuller & Quill]

My new virtual GC9P4VQ "The One and Only" has been logged 9 times in the past 5 days. Some even posted pictures in front of the last Blockbuster in the world.

[+MNTA]

1 hour ago, tomfuller & Quill said:

My new virtual GC9P4VQ "The One and Only" has been logged 9 times in the past 5 days. Some even posted pictures in front of the last Blockbuster in the world.

I'll be in Bend next weekend and will definitely stop for a picture. 

[+thebruce0]

I didn't get one. But I already got and published one in a previous round. 

The more rounds they do, the more chance you have of earning one randomly.

 

On 3/2/2022 at 5:24 PM, barefootjeff said:

There are lots of COs who put in many hours of work over many years to create interesting hides, but not all will get virtuals because it's a limited release with an eligibility bar and a random draw beyond that. The 1.0 release copped heaps of criticism because they used an algorithm to try to pick the cream of the crop, and now they're being criticised for not doing that.

 

Exactly this. The first I notice on complaints is whether a relative accomplishment was included in the disappointment. If it's just disappointment that one wasn't awarded, usually they understand it's a random draw after a relatively low bar for qualification. But there's an "and I've got 3000 FPs on my caches" or "and I've been caching for 19 years" or "and I put loads of work into my caches with great feedback",  it usually means they either didn't know it's a random draw, and I'd like to think that's most people who are disappointed in this way.

 

But I agree with other comments, I think it's entirely reasonable to be disappointed at not being picked randomly... the worst part is having a great idea for a Virtual location, then someone else getting one and making it first. On one hand, there's no way around it really; but on the other hand, at least your 'good idea' of a location has come to be created for the community to enjoy, even if it's not a Virtual listing that you own. (and ultimately, that's the point).

 

At least there's enough time between rounds for think of another great idea in the hopes of another round. That's one benefit of doing small limited releases in batches, rather than just letting anyone create them at will. Better chance for better listings and locations...

[+barefootjeff]

1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

But I agree with other comments, I think it's entirely reasonable to be disappointed at not being picked randomly... the worst part is having a great idea for a Virtual location, then someone else getting one and making it first. On one hand, there's no way around it really; but on the other hand, at least your 'good idea' of a location has come to be created for the community to enjoy, even if it's not a Virtual listing that you own. (and ultimately, that's the point).

 

I'd love for the "great location" I found to be used by someone else in their virtual. I'd actually prefer going there for someone else's cache than owning one there, particularly as those cachers around here who'd be at all likely to put something there would probably do a much better job of it than me. I even posted a photo and map on the main regional FB group in case someone was interested but it doesn't look like anyone in this region got one.

[+CCFwasG]

On 3/4/2022 at 5:48 PM, lee737 said:

Live and let live I say....

Well I would generally absolutely agree. However, it appears if they have been to the location it was not at all recent. Plus it isn't a particularly interesting spot, though it has enough interest to already be a stage of an Adventure Lab where it nicely fits a specific theme. And on top of that there are already 4 other virtuals very nearby, of which one is only about 500ft away.

I guess if I thought it was either worthy or by a local I wouldn't say a thing... but heck, just my two cents/pence. 

[+baer2006]

By some strange coincidence, the new "3.0" virtuals in my area are rather clustered so far. Of 5 new virtuals within 70 km of my home base, 4 are all in the same town, and the 5th one is in a village 10 km from that town.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

On 3/6/2022 at 9:42 AM, MNTA said:

I'll be in Bend next weekend and will definitely stop for a picture. 

There are lots of other great geocaches in and around town. Thanks for stopping by.  I did get my 2022 HIDER for "hiding" this one.

[+bflentje]

On 3/1/2022 at 3:35 PM, rustynails. said:

Nope, nothing.

 

Sad HQ doesn't consider someone with 3000 favorite points worthy of a virtual. A lot of time and work goes into creating interesting hides.

 

I am pretty sure Groundspeak explicitly said rustynails doesn't get a virtual reward.

[+Vooruit!]

On 3/9/2022 at 3:41 PM, baer2006 said:

By some strange coincidence, the new "3.0" virtuals in my area are rather clustered so far. Of 5 new virtuals within 70 km of my home base, 4 are all in the same town, and the 5th one is in a village 10 km from that town.

 

Ok, so that I completely don't understand. If I would get a virtual, I'd be sure to choose a town (or country even) where virtuals are absent, or at least rare.

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, Vooruit! said:

On 3/9/2022 at 3:41 PM, baer2006 said:

By some strange coincidence, the new "3.0" virtuals in my area are rather clustered so far. Of 5 new virtuals within 70 km of my home base, 4 are all in the same town, and the 5th one is in a village 10 km from that town.

 

Ok, so that I completely don't understand. If I would get a virtual, I'd be sure to choose a town (or country even) where virtuals are absent, or at least rare.

Since I wrote my posting, 3 additional virtuals have been published in the area, and 2 of them are also in that "cluster town" . This is starting to get creepy  ... but maybe that's just appropriate, when the cache symbol is a ghost !

[+baer2006]

21 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Since I wrote my posting, 3 additional virtuals have been published in the area, and 2 of them are also in that "cluster town" . This is starting to get creepy  ... but maybe that's just appropriate, when the cache symbol is a ghost !

Update: Today, the next Virtual 3.0 in my extended home zone was published. Not in "the town" ... but less than 10 km away. So currently, 8 out of 9 Virtual 3.0 caches within about 80 km of my home base are in a single town, or very close by. And the 9th one is 20 km from that town, but still somewhat in the general area.

 

I think I should build a conspiracy theory around that ...

[+Nicht-Suchhund]

Ghosts keep together, one could think so 

In the German small GZ-HDH-DLG area there has been published a cluster of four virtuals in the last days - two have been existing before.

Looking southward to the large Allgäu there is nothing new and only two older ones.

Even Augsburg has got only three in the past.

[+barefootjeff]

15 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Update: Today, the next Virtual 3.0 in my extended home zone was published. Not in "the town" ... but less than 10 km away. So currently, 8 out of 9 Virtual 3.0 caches within about 80 km of my home base are in a single town, or very close by. And the 9th one is 20 km from that town, but still somewhat in the general area.

 

I think I should build a conspiracy theory around that ...

 

So far worldwide, 575 3.0 virtuals have been published, so 14.4% of the total release. I don't know whether that's enough to draw any statistical conclusions about the distribution, but so far four of those have been in my state (New South Wales, Australia), with one in Sydney (on the harbour 60 metres from an EarthCache and 640 metres from a 2.0 virtual) and the others in the south of the state. As far as I know, there's been only one recipient north of Sydney and they're up on the north coast. All four are P&Gs, two 1.5/1.5 and the other two 1.5/1.0, but maybe that's a good thing if it lets more people experience them. For me, though, I'd prefer something that takes a bit of physical effort to get to, like the T4 2.0 virtual in the Blue Mountains I did last month (GC7B6E4). Another one like that would get me a lot more enthused than just taking another photo of myself with the Sydney Opera House in the background.

[+Vooruit!]

As someone who hopes to complete the Virtual D/T grid some time, I'm all for virtuals with physical effort! 

[+baer2006]

On 3/17/2022 at 11:38 AM, baer2006 said:

Update: Today, the next Virtual 3.0 in my extended home zone was published. Not in "the town" ... but less than 10 km away. So currently, 8 out of 9 Virtual 3.0 caches within about 80 km of my home base are in a single town, or very close by. And the 9th one is 20 km from that town, but still somewhat in the general area.

 

I think I should build a conspiracy theory around that ...

And the next one, smack in the middle of the ghost cluster ! Must be a conspiracy !

Time to include a screenshot of the GC map, filtered for Virtuals (all of them are "3.0"), of this ghost-riddled town ...

You can see the scale of the map. As I said earlier, two more are within 10 km of the city.

[+Hügh]

On 3/18/2022 at 1:42 AM, Vooruit! said:

As someone who hopes to complete the Virtual D/T grid some time, I'm all for virtuals with physical effort! 

 

I'm working on the same goal!

 

A few weeks ago I made a count of the numbers of Virtual caches per D/T (in Canada.)

 

 

Canadian (British Columbian) Virtual Reward recipients; please fill some of those "0" spots! 

[+Vooruit!]

Alas, it's quite the same over here in the Netherlands. About 10 virtuals with T > 3, and only TWO with D > 3. Instead, there are way too many 'selfie in front of a statue' virtuals. *yawn* What a waste.

[+Former Hawkeye]

I am happy to say my virtual GC9P4XC has been published and has had 3 visitors so far!  Thank you Geocaching.com for awarding me this virtual.  Also a shoutout to Gat R Done, the reviewer.

[+releasethedogs]

Ahhhh i missed out again!!

 

Sad

[+Odberger]

Still quite astonished that HQ says that it was all random distribution within the different countries... In Sweden we've got 50 (fifty!) published in "Västra Götaland" and 0 (zero!) in Stockholm and the same for Skåne (zero)... Västra Götaland has only 2/3 of the population as Stockholm and Skåne is just slightly less populated than VG.

Sweden has 21 regions and some are quite small population wise. 13 of those got a V3.0 published as of today. Here's the bar stats showing all published V3 in Sweden:

https://project-gc.com/Statistics/CachesPerArea?country=Sweden&type[0]=Virtual Cache&hidden_fromyyyy=2022&hidden_frommm=3&hidden_fromdd=1&hidden_toyyyy=2023&hidden_tomm=12&hidden_todd=31&submit=Filter

I've contacted HQ and they only answer that "yes, it's random and probably those in Stockholm and Skåne didn't publish theirs yet...." - Yeah, sure! ;-)

Has the same strange distribution in geography been done in other countris also?

[+barefootjeff]

13 minutes ago, Odberger said:

Has the same strange distribution in geography been done in other countris also?

 

Here in New South Wales (Australia), all but one of the 29 3.0 virtuals published so far have been in the southern half of the state, and that exception is owned by someone who lives in the southern half of the state.

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

35 minutes ago, Odberger said:

Still quite astonished that HQ says that it was all random distribution within the different countries... In Sweden we've got 50 (fifty!) published in "Västra Götaland" and 0 (zero!) in Stockholm and the same for Skåne (zero)... Västra Götaland has only 2/3 of the population as Stockholm and Skåne is just slightly less populated than VG.

 

There's no obligation for people who live in Stockholm to publish their hides in Stockholm.

 

Also, remember that random distribution isn't even distribution. 

[+Isonzo Karst]

overall distribution of virts in Sweden seems okay to me? Round 2 went pretty heavy to Stockholm area, see image:

[+Odberger]

Are you sure? Looking att all Virtuals, regardless which batch in this chart... So it's normal that Stockholm, with about 40% more habitants should only have 33 virtuals vs. Västra Götalands 86? Not that well distributed if you ask me...?

And if it wasn't about population, then the map would be even even worse... So I guess it has something about the amout of cachers... Those exact numbers I don't have though and all I'm basing this on is population. But I've hard time thinking that the percentage of population i VG would be like 4 times higher than in Stockholm. But hey. I might be wrong! And I was just curious if some other areas had similar findings...

[+MNTA]

14 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

There's no obligation for people who live in Stockholm to publish their hides in Stockholm.

 

Also, remember that random distribution isn't even distribution. 

 

Agreed mine is 300 miles from my home location. Middle of nowhere. 

 

 

 

 

[+hzoi]

On 11/6/2022 at 6:08 AM, Odberger said:

In Sweden we've got 50 (fifty!) published in "Västra Götaland" and 0 (zero!) in Stockholm and the same for Skåne (zero).

 

Virtual caches were grandfathered before I started geocaching. They were unavailable for anyone to hide for the first ten years I was a geocacher, and the number of virtual caches slowly dwindled. I never thought I'd be able to see a new one published, ever - let alone own one. But then, happily, Virtual Rewards were announced in 2017.

 

I see that it has only taken five years for the Virtual Reward program to go from a happy gift to the geocaching community to an expected entitlement - "Where's my Virtual Reward?!" Because, let's be honest, that's really what your posts are about, right? You live around Stockholm, you wanted a Virtual Reward, and you didn't get one.

 

Perhaps there should not be a Virtual Reward 4.0 release. Or at least, if there is one, perhaps it should be delayed for a time, so some can learn to appreciate the "reward" aspect of them a little more.

 

Meanwhile, if you really need to own a cache without a container, may I recommend you try placing an earthcache?

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, hzoi said:

I see that it has only taken five years for the Virtual Reward program to go from a happy gift to the geocaching community to an expected entitlement - "Where's my Virtual Reward?!" Because, let's be honest, that's really what your posts are about, right? You live around Stockholm, you wanted a Virtual Reward, and you didn't get one.

 

Perhaps there should not be a Virtual Reward 4.0 release. Or at least, if there is one, perhaps it should be delayed for a time, so some can learn to appreciate the "reward" aspect of them a little more.

 

I mentioned earlier in this thread that, so far, all but one of the 29 3.0 Reward caches published so far in New South Wales have been in the southern half of the state (with the exception placed at Barrington Tops belonging to a CO living in the southern half of the state):

 

 

That count is now up to 31 and, you guessed it, the latest two are also in the southern half of the state. That seems a rather odd geographic distribution given that there are probably similar numbers of cachers living north and south, but given the numbers now it'd be hard to dismiss it as mere chance. My concern isn't because I missed out on getting one myself, it's about all the northern communities who've missed out on experiencing any of them. Perhaps that's the same reason Odberger is concerned about the lack of any in Stockholm and Skåne.

 

Perhaps more concerning is that, nine months on, only 2538 of the 4000 allocated globally have been published. Clearly a lot of people who applied for one had no idea what they'd do with it if they got it. Maybe there'll be a rush of them when the March deadline draws closer but it still seems likely that a fair proportion of them will go unused. Maybe it'd be a good idea if those unused ones could go into a second draw for those who missed out previously, or maybe to those geographic regions that were excluded in the first draw.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I mentioned earlier in this thread that, so far, all but one of the 29 3.0 Reward caches published so far in New South Wales have been in the southern half of the state (with the exception placed at Barrington Tops belonging to a CO living in the southern half of the state):

 

Just further on this, here's the distributions of original, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 virtuals in New South Wales:

 

 

Most of the 13 surviving original virtuals are in Sydney, with half a dozen to the west and south-west. The 21 Rewards 1.0 virtuals mostly went to Sydney, which is unsurprising given the selection criterion as most of the state's noteworthy COs live there. The 43 Rewards 2.0 had a good spread north, south and west of Sydney and is probably reasonably aligned to the cacher population. But as I said, the 31 Rewards 3.0 virtuals published so far all went to COs in the southern half of the state and I'm curious what the northern half did to get on HQ's naughty list.

 

Incidently, the Central Coast region where I live, which lies between Sydney and Newcastle, has no originals, got no 1.0 virtuals, four 2.0 virtuals and no 3.0 virtuals. I guess those four from the 2.0 release means we're now saturated with them.

 

I've enjoyed most of the Rewards virtuals I've found (some of the Orignal ones are a bit ordinary though) but nearly all the 3.0 ones are outside the range of a day trip for anyone living north of Sydney.