Virtual Rewards 4.0

[+Hügh]

On 1/20/2024 at 8:29 AM, TheLimeCat said:

Seems strange that an active cacher who met the requirements and applied each time would be passed over 4 consecutive times.

 

Napkin math, but: if 50,000 people met the criteria each time, and they selected only 4,000, then the probability of not winning all four times under a perfectly fair draw is (1 - 4/50)^4 = 71%. The true probability would be higher in the United States, since they biased selection by region.

Edited January 26 by Hügh

[+hzoi]

3 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

The main complaint I would have for this round is that they went from having to apply to giving them out completely randomly.

 

I would argue that the application process changed.

 

For round 1, it was relatively random, and there was no opt-in to ensure that theople were actually going to do one.

 

After that, it went from having people opt in by raising their hand, to having people opt in by hiding a cache of sufficient quality.

 

I thought I had done so, but I didn't get enough FPs to qualify. I moved halfway across the US last year. I didn't bother hiding anything new at the old house, because I knew I'd be picking it up in six months. I should have gotten out earlier to hide a cache at the new house, but I didn't get around to it until early fall, and by then, it was apparently too late.

 

Well, bummer, but life goes on.

 

3 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

For the avoidance of doubt I did get one this time (but not previously when I applied) so it's not sour grapes from me.

 

Congratulations!

 

3 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

8 hours ago, TheLimeCat said:

The gist of it is, people want criteria that favor themselves, and they want virtuals to be placed only in locations that are most accessible to them.

 

The main takeaway from this whole thread is that every time virtuals are given out, people find reasons to get all butthurt about it.

 

I think both of you sum up this thread and the last few discussions about virtual rewards pretty well. It's always interesting to see how people deal with disappointment. Like:

 

16 hours ago, Hydronor said:

After roulette spin 1-2-3-4 disappointment, I now have 193 fewer caches to maintain. The rest is archived at the next disappointment at roulette spin 5.

 

Being a petulant child is certainly one way to deal with disappointment, but it's not the preferred technique.

[+MartyBartfast]

54 minutes ago, hzoi said:

For round 1, it was relatively random, and there was no opt-in to ensure that theople were actually going to do one.

After that, it went from having people opt in by raising their hand, to having people opt in by hiding a cache of sufficient quality.

Yes the first allocations were completely random but for round 2 and 3 there was an opt-in page where we had to apply:
 

Quote

 

Geocaching HQ is excited to announce Virtual Rewards 2.0 to introduce another limited number of new Virtual Caches for the geocaching community.

 

Beginning today, an opt-in web page is available for cachers to apply for a Virtual Reward. The page is open until June 1, 2019.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

17 hours ago, Hydronor said:

Rewards must be given to those who deserve it. It is easily  measured in the number of years as Premium, the number of caches owned and the number of favorites received.
Time to stop competing with Las Vegas.

The time has come for a reward for everyone with 10 years as a cache owner, and or everyone with more than 2,500 favorite points received

 

Giving a Virtual to anyone with 10+ years of Premium Membership that has not already received a Virtual seems reasonable. 

 

 2500 Favorite Points seems more arbitrary. 

 

Rewarding accounts that simply own a lot of caches would be rewarding quantity not quality. I'd rather reward someone with 5 caches that all have 10+ Favorites than someone who owns a 100-cache power trails that gets 100 Favorites on the first cache in the series. 

 

How would you define ten years as a cache owner? An active listing for ten years? Ten years with at least one active listing? I'm not sure any such things are easy for Groundspeak to query. 

[+thebruce0]

For the next round (if there is one), instead of "giving one" to anyone with 10+ years premium, how about make that a requirement for the opt in. As a thank you for the long-term community, still require active/favourable caching history/ownership, but you're not in the running if you're not a 10+ year subscriber...

[+Goldenwattle]

14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

For the next round (if there is one), instead of "giving one" to anyone with 10+ years premium, how about make that a requirement for the opt in. As a thank you for the long-term community, still require active/favourable caching history/ownership, but you're not in the running if you're not a 10+ year subscriber...

That sounds good, as long as it doesn't include favourite points, which some parts of the world can't compete with.

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

How would you define ten years as a cache owner? An active listing for ten years? Ten years with at least one active listing? I'm not sure any such things are easy for Groundspeak to query.

 

Adopted caches add an extra complexity. I'm not sure if the system keeps a record of who the original owner was or when the adoption took place.

[+BFMC]

On 1/27/2024 at 7:05 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

Adopted caches add an extra complexity. I'm not sure if the system keeps a record of who the original owner was or when the adoption took place.

 

Indeed. I own 8 caches that were placed before I started caching, the oldest over 10 years before started.

[+barefootjeff]

400 new virtuals have now been published, a tenth of the allocation, so we can now get some idea of their geographical distribution:

 

 

Bahamas, Ireland, Boznia and Herzegovina, South Korea, Latvia, China, Croatia, Luxembourg, Curacao, Taiwan, Nepal, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Pakistan, Aland Islands, Romania and Singapore each have one to date.

Edited January 29 by barefootjeff

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Hypothetical question: Can previous visits to a location count if the CO wants to allow it on their new virtual?

 

I do not want to do this, but someone who doesn't frequent the forums here asked me and I wasn't sure...

[+barefootjeff]

58 minutes ago, Corp Of Discovery said:

Hypothetical question: Can previous visits to a location count if the CO wants to allow it on their new virtual?

 

I was wondering the same thing. The guidelines aren't specific either way and I've noticed one of the new ones in the USA already has 41 FPs from 89 finds, with most of those from visits prior to publication. On my own one (GCAJHJV), I've specifically said that photos from prior visits aren't acceptable, basing that on similar wording I saw on a 2.0 Reward,  but realistically I wouldn't be able to tell the difference as the location looks the same now as it did decades or more ago. In any case, I have questions as well that would likely require a fresh visit to answer.

 

I noticed a newly published one in Queensland where the only requirement is a photo of the view from a lookout. I visited there a decade ago and have a photo of that view, but I'm not about to claim a find. If I get the chance to revisit I'll take a new photo and claim it then. If I'm going to log a find, I'd want to be doing more than just sitting at my desk going back through old photos.

Edited February 3 by barefootjeff

[Keystone]

1 hour ago, Corp Of Discovery said:

Hypothetical question: Can previous visits to a location count if the CO wants to allow it on their new virtual?

 

I do not want to do this, but someone who doesn't frequent the forums here asked me and I wasn't sure...

 

This is up to the owner of the Virtual Reward Cache.  From the perspective of Geocaching HQ (log dispute resolution) and Community Volunteer Reviewers (cache page guidelines compliance), all that matters is whether the finder can meet any permissible photo requirements and provide the right answers to any verification questions.

 

So, if the photo requirement is to post a picture of a famous landmark, and a geocacher has one from years ago because everyone who visits this landmark takes a photo of it, this can qualify if there are no additional conditions.  Virtual Reward Cache Owners who do not want to allow previous visits can add guideline-compliant conditions, like requiring a photo that shows not just the famous landmark, but also a sign with their caching nickname and the current date.  A verification question that asks for a trivial detail can also protect against logs based on prior visits.  I might have a picture of Niagara Falls taken from a certain popular spot, but I'm unlikely to know the text of Rule 7 that's posted on a nearby sign which lists the ten rules that visitors must follow when they're at this location.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

 

This is up to the owner of the Virtual Reward Cache.  From the perspective of Geocaching HQ (log dispute resolution) and Community Volunteer Reviewers (cache page guidelines compliance), all that matters is whether the finder can meet any permissible photo requirements and provide the right answers to any verification questions.

 

So, if the photo requirement is to post a picture of a famous landmark, and a geocacher has one from years ago because everyone who visits this landmark takes a photo of it, this can qualify if there are no additional conditions.  Virtual Reward Cache Owners who do not want to allow previous visits can add guideline-compliant conditions, like requiring a photo that shows not just the famous landmark, but also a sign with their caching nickname and the current date.  A verification question that asks for a trivial detail can also protect against logs based on prior visits.  I might have a picture of Niagara Falls taken from a certain popular spot, but I'm unlikely to know the text of Rule 7 that's posted on a nearby sign which lists the ten rules that visitors must follow when they're at this location.

Thanks for the succinct clarification!

[+PeoriaBill]

Instead of a random push distribution of virtual caches to those who qualify, perhaps a system whereby cachers who qualify are notified and have to "accept" a virtual cache within a specific period. Then all 4,000 would presumably get placed. I would not turn one down, but I am pretty sure there are others not interested in placing a virtual cache.