Shot Down In Flames

December 18, 2003

One hell of a lot of geocachers do like virtuals, and yet more do them if they are in the area even if they are not their favorite. This is a key point. Geocachers like them. Not all, but enough. This site dislikes them enough to reject them unless they are the last viable option. What this points out is that geocachers and this site are not always on the same page on an issue.

This is unfair, I think.

Sure, a lot of geocachers like virtuals, at least potentially. I'm one of them. I don't think that a cool location is improved simply by hiding a film canister behind a post. (Equally, doing so doesn't rescue a lame virtual; it simply creates a lame micro instead.)

But there are in fact many cachers who would dearly love to see virtuals eliminated from this site entirely. They just don't ignore them, they lobby for an outright ban.

So once again we are told that geocaching.com doesn't listen to its 'customers' or reflect their wishes. But just which bloody customers are they supposed to be listening to?

9.4k · December 18, 2003

Sure, a lot of geocachers like virtuals, at least potentially. I'm one of them. I don't think that a cool location is improved simply by hiding a film canister behind a post. (Equally, doing so doesn't rescue a lame virtual; it simply creates a lame micro instead.)

Ask yourself this: does placing a micro lessen someone's enjoyment of the site?

The average visitor would not know there is a cache there, so it would not affect them one bit.

The geocacher would be able to read the marker if they wanted to. If not, they would find the cache and be gone. If you are trying to force someone to read the marker, make it the first stage of a multicache.

Quit trying to force people to learn about your 'important historical site'. Not everyone enjoys history, and no one enjoys having it force-fed to them.

2.1k · December 18, 2003

But just which bloody customers are they supposed to be listening to?

That's easy. Since it is entirely possible to include more virtuals (by means of reducing their restrictive criteria) on this site (appeasing those who want to see it) and it is entirely possible to create ways to search for caches that would avoid including any nearby virtuals (appeasing those who don't want them on the site), then they should be included and a method for filtering them from your search should be incorporated...thus satisfying both sets of customers.

Anyone who lobbies for their removal from the site even after they are able to remove them from their sight if they wish is simply being arrogant.

24.7k · December 18, 2003

yumitori

ju66l3r sums it up fairly well.

As far as virtuals and most issues where geocaching is split in large chuncks both directions, the only guide you can use is to ask which solution does the most people the most good. Banning, or making them so they have their own section/filter. In that light banning isn't it.

However the real point of your post is wheather it's fair to say what I did about Geocachers and GC not always lining up on an issue. The answer depends on where you want to draw the lines. If 51% of cachers think virtuals should exist, then absolutly. Less than that? Maybe, for no better reason than it's an easy fix to make a lot of geocachers happy. This is not the same issue as safety, or park rules, or other fairly black and white issues.

Edited December 18, 2003 by Renegade Knight

December 18, 2003

That's easy. Since it is entirely possible to include more virtuals (by means of reducing their restrictive criteria) on this site (appeasing those who want to see it) and it is entirely possible to create ways to search for caches that would avoid including any nearby virtuals (appeasing those who don't want them on the site), then they should be included and a method for filtering them from your search should be incorporated...thus satisfying both sets of customers.

Sounds like an opportunity to write some code, just like Jeremy suggested in the thread about alternative moderation ideas.

I look forward to seeing your submission.

Anyone who lobbies for their removal from the site even after they are able to remove them from their sight if they wish is simply being arrogant.

Maybe you and Team GPSaxophone need to work this out between yourselves...

By the way, Team GPSaxophone, was that 'you' a general one, or directed to me? If the latter, I think you missed my point. But you are welcome to look over all of the virtuals I've hidden and let me know which ones you disapprove of.

38.2k · December 18, 2003

But there are in fact many cachers who would dearly love to see virtuals eliminated from this site entirely. They just don't ignore them, they lobby for an outright ban.

That's a fact? I may have missed something (I don't visit these forums very often :mad: ), but if many geocachers would love to see virtuals eliminated and lobby for an outright ban, I've never seen it. I know some who have complained about the multitude of really lame virtuals and the trend toward making virtuals out of every flagpole, manhole cover and roadside marker in existence. I know others who were concerned that many land managers were looking at virtuals as a viable alternative to real caches, thus endangering traditional geocaching in many areas. But, I've never seen a groundswell of people looking to ban them from this site. In fact, if the forums are any indication, a lot geocachers want virtuals back the way they were before the rules were tightened.

Edited December 18, 2003 by briansnat

5.3k · December 18, 2003

Sounds like an opportunity to write some code, just like Jeremy suggested in the thread about alternative moderation ideas.

I look forward to seeing your submission.

The moderation idea was for the forums; Groundspeak has repeatedly turned down offers of code to improve the main site.

1.3k · December 19, 2003

I've just had a virtual rejected. I still don't understand why.

The archived cache page can be seen here.

It is located at a bona fide historic site in an area of West Virginia where there are few caches of any kind. While it's certainly true that I could have used information at the historic location as an offset to a micro cache, I chose not to do that because I would not be able to maintain the cache (since I live more than an hour away); anyway, a virtual is a legitimate form of cache with a set of guidelines that I believe I honored.

In my view, there are plenty of virtuals here in the DC area with equal or less historic value. I think we have a right to expect some consistency in the approval rules. Despite the guideline, "the past approval of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the approval of a new cache," the guidelines should be fairly and consistently applied.

Given that there are few if any virtuals extant that could not be used as an offset to a physical cache, it's hard for me to understand why the category of virtual cache even exists if one the possibility of an offset precludes approval of a virtual.

This was my first attempt to place a cache, and obviously there is something I am missing here. Can I get some feedback as to whether the cache approver acted correctly, and if so, why? Thank you!

1.3k · December 20, 2003

I'd like to see a comparison of virts and physical caches based on number of DNF's. None of the virtuals I have found had any DNF logs on them. I'm sure there are some out there, but I suspect the ratio of DNF's will be strikingly different. This is because in most cases, it is easier to follow the instructions on the cache page, than to actually search for something. They have their merits, and can be fun, but amount to little more than "puzzle waypoints" in my opinion. I would not like to see them banned, but they are not the same thing as physical caches. there is seldom any searching involved. I'm sure some people can link to a few pages that are exceptions, but we're discussing them as a whole.

Anyway, virts are a last resort when a physical cannot be placed. If you wanted to place a container initially, then why the complaint?

Your mention of possibleproblems with muggles at the site suggests two possible reasons. One, you don't wish to have to bother with frequent maintenance. (Not a reason to place a virt where a physical can go.) Or two, the place is just not suitable for a cache at all. If it has not met the coffee table book requirement, it's not interesting enough to stand alone as a virt. If it's too busy an area, then leave it to someone who can find a way to hide and maintain a physical there.

When that happens your ultimate goal will be achieved, bringing cachers to the site.

December 20, 2003

Yes, Bloencustoms will now provide a link to a list of all the "Approved" Coffee Table books :mad:

Its really a semi insane way to measure the value of a virt cache isnt it? Isnt a coffee table book a highly subjective measurement? Like they have MADE all the coffee table books that will EVER be made, but if you send the link to the book then its OK?

I have half a mind (sometimes literally) to go and fine the most insane coffee table book I can and make a virt out of it!

24.7k · December 20, 2003

...Anyway, virts are a last resort when a physical cannot be placed. ...

The original bias was the coffee table book rule which set a high subjective standard. The “if you can’t place a traditional there” rule was added to raise the standard yet higher and discourage virtuals to an even larger extent. It's this sites choice to do that but the intent is clear.

That same high standard can be applied to a traditional cache. "Is your cache located in an area of such significance that the spot is featured in someones book or calender, or has historical significance" But it’s not.

Edited December 20, 2003 by Renegade Knight

2.3k · December 20, 2003

...Anyway, virts are a last resort when a physical cannot be placed. ...

The original bias was the coffee table book rule which set a high subjective standard. The “if you can’t place a traditional there” rule was added to raise the standard yet higher and discourage virtuals to an even larger extent.

That same high standard can be applied to a traditional cache. "Is your cache located in an area of such significance that the spot is featured in someones book or calender, or has historical significance" But it’s not.

Thats exactly correct. "But it's not" can be used to apply any idea to anything else and then dismiss it.

"The standards for organ transplant surgery can be applied to Hair transplant surgery"

"But it's not"

"The standards for automotive safety can be applied to Motorcycle safety"

"But it's not"

Isn't this fun!

Now you try.

7.2k · December 20, 2003

No one can see your cache page except approvers since it was not approved. Your question for the cache was:

"To earn credit for this virtual cache, visit the structure at the given coordinates and read the historic marker sign in front. Then, email me with the answers to the following questions:..."

This is from the guidelines:

"Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."

Since it does not conform to the guidelines it was archived.

24.7k · December 20, 2003

...Anyway, virts are a last resort when a physical cannot be placed. ...

The original bias was the coffee table book rule which set a high subjective standard. The “if you can’t place a traditional there” rule was added to raise the standard yet higher and discourage virtuals to an even larger extent.

That same high standard can be applied to a traditional cache. "Is your cache located in an area of such significance that the spot is featured in someones book or calender, or has historical significance" But it’s not.

Thats exactly correct. "But it's not" can be used to apply any idea to anything else and then dismiss it.

"The standards for organ transplant surgery can be applied to Hair transplant surgery"

"But it's not"

"The standards for automotive safety can be applied to Motorcycle safety"

"But it's not"

Isn't this fun!

Now you try.

You started the game...

"The rule could be applied to a traditional cache but it's not". That it's not, and that the standards for cache aesthetics if you will permit the turn of the phrase, are lower just reinforces the bias against virtuals.

The rule of aesthetics could of been applied uniformly to all cache types, but it’s not.

Hey, this is fun! That it’s not applied uniformly just makes the virtual issue stand out all the more.

Is the problem virtuals, or that aesthetics are very bad thing to try to enforce a rule on. Take art. The aesthetic standard could be applied to “true art”. But it’s not. dadgum I could get used to this! When it comes to anesthetics. It’s just not that simple. You probably thought your post was funny, but it’s not. It’s just smarmy.

That was fun!

Except that you are taking advantage of your moderator status to play a game at my expense. But what the heck.

2.3k · December 20, 2003

Except that you are taking advantage of your moderator status to play a game at my expense. But what the heck.

No I was making that same kind of reply that many people make here. That is not taking advantage of anything. Had I closed the thread after posting, that would have been taking advantage. Simply posting my viewpoint is not taking advantage.

1.3k · December 20, 2003

Personally, I'm not in favor of "vacation virtuals" (place because of an inability to maintain a cache) while virtuals occupy the same area of the web site as regular caches. I'd hate for someone to be stuck by the .1 mile rule in a few months simply because a vacation virtual was placed there.

That being said, if virtuals were to move to their own section (like benchmarks) I would LOVE to see more vacation virtuals. I'd also welcome temporary virtuals, such as the nearby house that won the Today Show's christmas display contest.

But if a cache can be placed there by someone else, then leave the area for someone else to place a cache there. At this rate of growth, it's a sure bet that somebody will.

Edited December 20, 2003 by bons

1.3k · December 20, 2003

"Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches."

Since it does not conform to the guidelines it was archived.

In my case, the sign explained the significance of the cache and questions about it were intended to verify the visit. The site of the historic event is a physical place quite distinct from the marker. Anyway, if this were the objection, the approving authority should have clearly pointed it out.

The explanation I got was "I don't think there's enough info here to approve it and or it doesn't meet the posting guidelines." After I explained why I thought this did meet the guidelines, all I got was, "I still don't feel this really fits as a virtual cache."

Don't misunderstand me. I don't object to rules and standards. Actually, I welcome them provided, of course, that they are clear and fairly applied.

I think I'll go back to benchmark hunting. <sigh> At least there, the rules are clear.

December 20, 2003

That being said, if virtuals were to move to their own section (like benchmarks) I would LOVE to see more vacation virtuals.

Jeremy has said that virtuals will indeed have their own section. A multi-virtual I had planned for a Paris park was turned down; rather than throw down a film canister where it would almost surely disappear I am holding out for the new section and "less strict" (as it was put to me) rules. I do wonder, however, if in the future virtual finds will still count as cache finds or if they will be totally separated as benchmarks are. I think we could see a lot of cachers up in arms when their cache totals decrease by tens or hundreds...

Cheers--

IntotheWoods :mad:

December 20, 2003

In my view, there are plenty of virtuals here in the DC area with equal or less historic value. I think we have a right to expect some consistency in the approval rules. Despite the guideline, "the past approval of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the approval of a new cache," the guidelines should be fairly and consistently applied.

I think the guidelines were applied pretty evenly here.

If you look a little closer at Washington DC, you will see only 3 virtuals have been approved there in all of 2003, and none in almost 9 months.

The caches you are talking about are grandfathered, approved before the current guidelines, and many of the lame ones you mention are part of the reason the guidelines are stricter now.

There are also about 4 pages of declined virtuals for DC, mostly submitted by people who would never, or rarely return to maintain a physical cache.

December 20, 2003

When the crackdown on virtuals came I never really understood what the issues were after having several of mine turned down, still did not see the light. It was after going to one that got approved after the crack down with the WOW factor and saw what they were talking about. They were always easy for me to do a virtual on the road in search of numbers and have found over 300 of them and can only remember about five or six of them, they were not WOW caches just a number when I got home after that trip I archived 15 of my virtuals because I could see where they were there just for a smiley face, 10 of those were my famous Zoo Virtuals one at almost every cage and none were more than 165 feet apart with a few at 40 feet. Does anyone remember that guideline Heeee Heee.

I have not tried to place anymore virtuals because nothing I see has that WOW effect, but have been placing micros there instead, even if they did not mean to, they saw what I wanted them to see, and they say so in there logs so I am still a happy cacher.

Geeeeeee Wizzzzzz I wish they could do the same thing for lame caches. ……………….JOE

9.4k · December 20, 2003

I have not tried to place anymore virtuals because nothing I see has that WOW effect, but have been placing micros there instead, even if they did not mean to, they saw what I wanted them to see, and they say so in there logs so I am still a happy cacher.

Isn't that really the issue with virtuals? Getting people to see something that is interesting is fine, but some people go overboard and expect that person to appreciate it as much as they do or try and force them to learn about it.

I prefer finding micro-caches in places like that. If I am interested, I'll stay and read about the site on my own, but if I'm being forced to in order to get a 'find', I'll just skim through to find the answer and leave. Maybe I'll still learn something that way, but I'll forget what it was a lot sooner than if I had looked around on my own.

I think the phrase, 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink' applies here.

1.5k · December 21, 2003

Slightly OT, but your smurf avatar is better looking.

Shot Down In Flames

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation