Virtual And Locationless Geocaches

[+canadazuuk]

Threads just keep appearing on these topics.

 

Why can't we have locationless caches?

Why wasn't my virtual cache approved?

 

For, against, neutral, documentorial, analytical, polite, rude, genuine, disingenuine, funny, sad, mad... all these types I have read at one time or another.

 

IMHO, it's time for an updated, or at least 'current' word from the site owner as to what is going, or not not going to happen with locationless caches.

 

The thread should be pinned at the top of the general forum. While you're at it, might as well have someone re-encapsulate all the major points regarding virtuals and why they are declined more often than approved, and pin it up there as well.

Edited January 24, 2004 by canadazuuk

[+CYBret]

The thread should be pinned at the top of the general forum. While you're at it, might as well have someone re-encapsulate all the major points regarding virtuals and why they are declined more often than approved.

Seems to me the average ranter writes first and reads later.......much later.

 

Bret

[+Mopar]

The thread should be pinned at the top of the general forum. While you're at it, might as well have someone re-encapsulate all the major points regarding virtuals and why they are declined more often than approved, and pin it there as well.

Ahhh, it's a noble idea, but......

it won't work.

 

Partly because of the reason CYBret, stated, and mainly because the answer is already right there in the guidelines 99% of the time.

If these people can't be bothered to read the guidelines before hiding a cache, and they can't be bothered to read the guidelines before submitting a cache (despite checking off they did in fact read them), what makes you think they will read a pinned topic in the forums before posting a rant. Even if they DID read it, it seems most of the ranters seem to think the rules don't apply to them anyway, so they would STILL post.

 

PS. Maybe TPTB should add something to the guidelines, like "baseless rants/complaints/geo-suicides/bashing will result in a $25 surcharge being billed to your account". Still won't change a thing, but at least TPTB will be paid back for all the extra bandwidth and agravation these things cause.

Edited January 24, 2004 by Mopar

[+Renegade Knight]

The rules are guidelines and an exception can be found for every rule in the book.

 

Since cache placers make this sport happen they deserve to air their complaints about getting a cache listed even when nobody agrees. They do learn even if they don't like what they learn. Every now and then the forum members agree and if we are lucky the approvers and TPTB take note.

 

I'm in agreement that the topic should not be pinned.

Edited January 24, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+bob393]

All that aside I agree that we should still have virtual and reverse locationless caches. I enjoyed them just like I enjoyed benchmark caches before it was a separate category.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I'll be honest. I've stated my enjoyment about doing virtuals and locationless. I see no reason to beat this topic to death.

[+canadazuuk]

I think it's at least time for some 'current' comments about locationless caches from this site.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I <heart> locationless

[+Sagefox]

Redundant or not, I just want to say that I love virtuals and am having a lot of fun with locationless caches. I'll weigh in on this anytime it seems on or nearly on-topic so tptb see support for these cache types.

 

Long time ago there was this cacher guy from Oregon on a visit to Eureka, California. Came through and hit 6 or 8 local virtuals and one or two regular caches. On each virtual page he said how much he disliked virtuals. There were at least 30 regular caches available with many being easy finds. What was that all about? Upset the virtual placers, it did, and for what reason?

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

When I first started I was more into traditional than virtuals because I wanted to write in a logbook and see dollar store crap. Then after collecting enough crap I began to enjoy virtuals more and more.

 

The loctionless caches I find very interesting because some of them are very difficult to spot. Sure sometimes it's a short drive to nab one but the same is true of many caches. But trying to float 10 or 15 various locationless caches in your mind while driving around is very challenging. I really enjoy them a lot.

[+cacheKidds]

The rules are guidelines and an exception can be found for every rule in the book.

 

Since cache placers make this sport happen they deserve to air their complaints about getting a cache listed even when nobody agrees. They do learn even if they don't like what they learn. Every now and then the forum members agree and if we are lucky the approvers and TPTB take note.

 

I'm in agreement that the topic should not be pinned.

RK,

I agree with everything you said--especially the rules are guidelines bit.

[+seneca]

....Ahhh, it's a noble idea, but......

it won't work.

Partly because of the reason CYBret, stated, and mainly because the answer is already right there in the guidelines 99% of the time.

If these people can't be bothered to read the guidelines before hiding a cache, and they can't be bothered to read the guidelines before submitting a cache (despite checking off they did in fact read them), what makes you think they will read a pinned topic in the forums before posting a rant.

The problem is that the answer is not in the guidelines. Has anyone stopped to wonder why just over 5% of caches are virtuals, yet complaints regarding dissaproval of virtual caches on these forums seem to outnumber complaints for traditional caches by a factor of at least 10 to 1. In my opinion this is entirely due to the subjective nature of the approval. Nobody likes to hear "we don't like your idea".

 

I think it is also extremely unfair for the approvers to have to be put in this position. Approvers are clearly under direction to keep approval of virtual caches to a minimum, and they have been given arbitrary subjective powers of judgment to do achieve that. Nobody likes being subjected to that.

 

Until a change is made, these threads will continue even if every person who proposes a virtual cache is intelligent and reads the guidelines 10 times over.

[+cacheKidds]

 

Until a change is made, these threads will continue even if every person who proposes a virtual cache is intelligent and reads the guidelines 10 times over.

I believe that's true.

[sarge76]

I recently had a traditional cache turned down b/c it was too close to a "virtual" and the approver told me my options of moving the cache or waiting b/c in the future "virtuals" could end up on a separate site like benchmarking.

[+IV_Warrior]

The problem is that the answer is not in the guidelines. Has anyone stopped to wonder why just over 5% of caches are virtuals, yet complaints regarding dissaproval of virtual caches on these forums seem to outnumber complaints for traditional caches by a factor of at least 10 to 1.

Funny, I just re-read the guidelines, and I read right in the the most common reasons why virts are denied. Some of it is even in BOLD to help those who are just glossing over the page.

 

I'd say the biggest reason for so much whining in the forums is people are whiners, and think the world owes them everything. If they'd take the time to READ and COMPREHEND the guidelines, they would have a lot less trouble getting caches approved here, or realize that they need to go somewhere different and try to get their cache listed there, if it doesn't meet the guidelines for listing HERE.

[+seneca]

I'd say the biggest reason for so much whining in the forums is people are whiners, and think the world owes them everything.

If people are simply whiners, then why don't we see them whining about traditional caches not being approved?

[+IV_Warrior]

If people are simply whiners, then why don't we see them whining about traditional caches not being approved?

You're apparantly skipping those threads?