Jump to content

Are Virtuals Totally Dead?


Recommended Posts

Thanks, Saxman, for pointing out the downside of trying to sidestep the approval process. It's precisely that type of thinking that has led to some of the programming changes you're seeing on the cache pages, such as not being able to edit the cache type or to make large changes to the coordinates. (And I'm not picking on ju66l3r since many others have tried it before.) Some approvers also track for changes to the caches they approve, through ordering special pocket queries, keeping caches on their watchlists, etc. It's extra work but I'm glad to do it. I'm tired of reading criticisms of "how did this cache ever get approved" or "why did the site let this cache get changed to a virtual, since I don't do virtuals?"

 

It would be nice if I could trust my fellow geocachers to submit their new geocaches for approval in the form they're intended to have. Fortunately, in the vast majority of cases, this is still true.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

 

That's not even funny, ju66l3r. The approval process is there for the benefit of geocachers. Side-stepping the system will get you in trouble.

 


 

Translation: See fellas? I'm ready to be an admin. Call me! Please?!?! icon_wink.gif

 

 

 

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by MountainMudbug:

Seems we're all (for the most part) agreed that virtuals are enjoyable and should remain, but that they need their own section.

 

Do any admins know if this is being seriously considered for the future? Can someone Markwell me to a sorta-solid answer if there is one?

 

We understand it is hard to run this huge site and keep everyone happy, but I guess if we knew something definitive it might lessen the amount of fussing from us virtual-ites icon_biggrin.gif


 

The short answer to this is yes. I don't have many details but what I have heard is exciting.

 

Keep this in mind, virtual caches consume most of our daily approval time. It would be easy for us to simply approve them all and move on, but that wouldn't be right. All the approvers try to work with the cache placer to make virtuals submissions approvable. This usually involves several back and forth email exchanges, changes to the cache page, running the submission by other approvers to make sure we are interpreting the guidelines correctly.

 

Trust me when I say the user group who are most anxious for the virtuals to be reworked are the volunteer admins. Despite what some people think, we don't enjoy having to archive a virtual cache that someone obviously put a lot of energy and time into creating.

 

TMJ

 

_________________________________________________________

Don't mind us, we're just looking for tupperware in this bush.

Link to comment

Could I ask you not to be *too* eager? I've known about the plans for virtual waypoints for several months and I share TMJ's enthusiasm, but it is up to Jeremy to decide when to announce details. From speaking with him, I understand that the programming work is substantial. This is not a next-month project.

 

Let me also echo what TMJ said about approving virtuals. It is the hardest part of our job. Because we're geocachers, we wish we could approve every new cache, and we open each new page with that expectation. It is hard to say 'no.'

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team Misguided:

quote:
Originally posted by MountainMudbug:

Seems we're all (for the most part) agreed that virtuals are enjoyable and should remain, but that they need their own section.

 

Do any admins know if this is being seriously considered for the future? Can someone Markwell me to a sorta-solid answer if there is one?

 

We understand it is hard to run this huge site and keep everyone happy, but I guess if we knew something definitive it might lessen the amount of fussing from us virtual-ites icon_biggrin.gif


 

The short answer to this is yes. I don't have many details but what I have heard is exciting.

 

Keep this in mind, virtual caches consume most of our daily approval time. It would be easy for us to simply approve them all and move on, but that wouldn't be right. All the approvers try to work with the cache placer to make virtuals submissions approvable. This usually involves several back and forth email exchanges, changes to the cache page, running the submission by other approvers to make sure we are interpreting the guidelines correctly.

 

Trust me when I say the user group who are most anxious for the virtuals to be reworked are the volunteer admins. Despite what some people think, we don't enjoy having to archive a virtual cache that someone obviously put a lot of energy and time into creating.


 

Cross post this on all the Virtual Whining threads and lock them down!

Link to comment

Let me emphasize, it may be a bit early for an "announcement"... there were/are the more urgent projects of maps and conversion of all the pages to the new .net platform. Please be patient. In the meantime, which will be a long meantime, we will continue to do the best we can with the current system. And actual/perceived flaws in the current system thus remain a valid topic for respectful discussion.

Link to comment

Agreed that an announcement is too early. How about an Admin-started thread asking for input so all this virtual stuff can be discussed in one all-inclusive thread?

 

This would help to eliminate some of the rumblings that come about when admins change something based on secret emails and no input from the forum community (yes, like the images in sig lines)

You know you'll get complaints once you make the announcement that 'they didn't warn us ahead of time' if you don't

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

Link to comment

We were not expecting a specific answer, just something along the lines "virtuals will not be killed, there is something in mind to change them without eliminating them"

 

Leatherman, you quit your whining. I take an interest in this subject, and I don't perceive anymore whining on it than other topics around here. Its a discussion, we're discussing it. Don't read it if it bores you.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

That's not even funny, ju66l3r. The approval process is there for the benefit of geocachers. Side-stepping the system will get you in trouble.


 

Wasn't meant to be. It's clear that the only reason the micro is necessary is to satisfy an arbitrary "rule" of this site. This site has a lock on geocacher web traffic such that a cache listed elsewhere has little chance of getting noticed. The system allows for a cacher to edit their text to more accurately describe their cache. How would this be any different (or discernable) from a situation where they place the micro and it is stolen and they take a really long time to replace it and in the meantime are willing to verify logs by information from the other 10 stages of the multi?

 

--

 

http://magazine.audubon.org/features0101/goodwood.html

Link to comment

I'm curious to see if the webcam caches will be lumped in with virtuals in the event of a change.

Also, for all of the stats people out there, will the number of caches found drop by the number of virtuals found? Imagine the stink that will cause. icon_biggrin.gif

 

Someone posted an excerpt from the guidelines on virts. I think the problem (which I stated before on a thread in the gc.com discussion forum) is that people think that it is cool to place a virt, and that virts are a normal accepted part of caching. It is easy to look at the grandfathered ones, and take inspiration from them. A new cacher sees some virts in their area, enjoys finding them, and thinks it might be fun to place one. The one virt I placed (now archived) was for that very reason, I wanted to give it a try. I think it needs to be made more clear that virts are not supposed to be a first choice. They are a last resort when there is no way to get a physical cache at a given location. If this were drummed into new cachers from the start, they wouldn't get all exited about placing them, then go to all kinds of trouble to make a fantastic virt, only to find out (much to their suprise) that virts are in fact, a last resort.

 

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

Link to comment

quote:
How would this be any different (or discernable) from a situation where they place the micro and it is stolen and they take a really long time to replace it and in the meantime are willing to verify logs by information from the other 10 stages of the multi?


First of all, if they're taking that long, there probably is a maintenance issue. Altering the means of verification on a cache changes the entire cache. Should they allow people who also found the container to log 2 finds?

The difference you asked about is simply, intent. In one example, you have a person who (however well intended) changes their multi's verification from a logbook to descriptions of the various stages. In the other example, you have a person who intentionally abuses the cache listing priveledge to place a virt under the guise of a multicache, thereby circumventing the approval process. Big difference indeed.

 

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

Link to comment

I will have to try this again, but last time I got involved reading one of these discussions on virtuals I created a pocket querry of new virtuals approved each week, and was amazed how many are approved - you only hear about the ones that are not approved here. I think it is time to run my little test again and see if there has been a change.

 

YeOleImposter.DoesntExist.com

Link to comment

quote:
Bloencustoms wrote: <snip>I think it needs to be made more clear that virts are not supposed to be a first choice. They are a last resort when there is no way to get a physical cache at a given location.</snip>
Geez, what a great post! I think this beautifully sums up what the volunteer cache reviewers try to communicate.

 

www.texasgeocaching.com Why do people walk so far out into the woods to drink beer?

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...