Jump to content

What Is Worthy Enough For A Virtual Cache?


Recommended Posts

This website grows bigger every day. To me it looks like they are giving the MAJORITY what they want.

 

If someone thinks they can do a better job, do it. (How IS that locationless caching site coming along, RK?)

 

This isn't the first website for geocaching. Looks like Jeremy did a better job of giving the MAJORITY what they want then the last guy did. If someone else does a better job of pleasing the MAJORITY of geocachers then this site does, then this site will either adapt or die. Either way, the MAJORITY of geocachers get what they want.

Marketing 401:

 

If you own the market, don't fall asleep at the wheel, someone will come along and blow you out of the water. To keep from falling asleep, refer to your notes from marketing 101, 201, 301. Plus study AT&T as a phone monopoly, IBM as the leader in the Personal Comptuer market, GM and Ford's loss of dominance in their home market.

 

Mopar: You can list locationless on Scout's site. Terracachers has a larger mission than building a single faucet of a larger game. Case in point, looking for a marketing person to help with the Deparment of Commerce in Idaho to promote geocaching, and to build from that to other states.

Link to comment
The only reason that I can think of that they are even on this site is that a few parks only allow them.

 

That, and they used to be part of the site, sport but got to be too much work and were over approved.

Link to comment
<SNIP>

 

Mopar:  You can list locationless on Scout's site.  Terracachers has a larger mission than building a single faucet of a larger game.  Case in point, looking for a marketing person to help with the Deparment of Commerce in Idaho to promote geocaching, and to build from that to other states.

What, you changed your mind after commiting to it?????? I am shocked!

 

 

:grin:

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment
The reason I do not share the cache is because I have learned from the experience and I am learning even more now that we are discussing virtual caches. I think the cache was valuable and have received enough disappointment by not having it approved. I don't need a forum of people nit-picking apart the cache. I hope that it is satisfying enough to everyone that the virtual cache was unique, contained history, and would have been interesting to cachers. The approver obviously disagreed.

 

The problem is that without more information there is little left to discuss. For all I know the cache was really not listed for some other reason. For example, if it is not in your area, that is reason for non-approval regardless of how cool the site might be. If there is a public area nearby, an off-set could be made etc. I also am not comfortable relying on a declaration that the cache merited approval as a unique site simply based on a single declaration that it does.

 

Anyway, if you were more wishing to debate the existence of the rules, Ok, go ahead. But if you want to debate the fact that your cache should have been approved under existing rules, then that is impossible without details.

Link to comment

I have never seen or heard of a location that could not be used as part of a multi-cache. It doesn't matter if the next stage is 100 feet or 100 miles away. :mad:

 

That said, there has still been 35 virtual caches approved in California since the beginning of the year. That doesn't sound like a ban to me :grin::mad:

Link to comment

I AM sorry that your cache did not get approved. I have had several of my caches not get approved in the two years I have been caching. A couple of them were when I was a noob and didn't quite know what I was doing, and a regular cache just recently. It is not fun. :grin:

Link to comment

Not much can be said here to help out with this discussion without the link to the cache page or posting the descriptions. Without that all we can do here is argue or yawn. I have mine surpressed but I decided not to declare which it is.

 

A general question of getting virtuals approved is too broad and subjective. Either LFLB has a "wow" or they don't. Requests have been made to see their stuff and until we do I'm afraid we can only piss them off or disagree with each other.

Link to comment
I have had 6 virts approved since Aug. of last year. Only one is in a national park, one I temporarily archived for safety, and the rest are not well know monuments, but rather they represent well know periods of history that most people know in passing about, but not the actual places or persons involved. They have been very well received, and I hope they will in the future.

That is interesting. So if I understand you correctly, you think Virtual caches should be intersting to cachers, not some garbage can, but something new or unique that people would be interested in seeing.

 

I agree, as long as it has interest by cachers and that is usually determined by whether people visit the cache. You must have had a much easier approver than I did. Couple of things you might be interested in:

 

From the virtual cache guidelines

"The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit. Although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant listing as a unique cache page. "

 

When I talked to the approver, he said that Virtual Caches need not just be interesting, but they need a "WOW" factor to it.

 

This is why I am confused about what contains a WOW factor. I believe if a virtual cache is interesting and enjoyable then it should be approved so others can share in the experience. I pointed out other comparable virtual caches in the area and the approver said the following:

 

"Both caches you mention were approved before the guidelines on virtual caches were tightened up. Therefore they do not apply. They have been allowed to remain because they were Grand Fathered under the old ruling.

 

 A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or Geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder.  Signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as virtual caches.  Unusual landmarks or items that would be in a coffee table book are good examples."

 

This is why I can only think of NP and well known monuments, which are things in a coffee table book. I suppose there are a few unknown places. But for the most part that really limits virtual caches. Things that are very interesting could be unapproved.

Please...you don't have to show me the same guidelines I have read over numerous times.

 

As far as your last sentence, what makes you think what has been passed approval (not mistakenly) will be unapproved ?

Link to comment
Anyway, if you were more wishing to debate the existence of the rules, Ok, go ahead. But if you want to debate the fact that your cache should have been approved under existing rules, then that is impossible without details.

As I mentioned earlier, I do not wish to debate the existence of my cache - I have washed my hands of it. If I wanted people to review it I would have made a topic for people to review my site. The main topic is trying to figure out what is allowed to be a virtual cache and what us as users think should be allowed as a virtual cache.

 

I have not really seen much discussion of specific examples that would be allowed as virtual caches. Not even from the approvers. Only the repitition, the place needs to be a novelty, like what can be found in a coffee table book. Not much help, but there has been a lot of good discussion. Everyone knows my opinion, if the place is of interest to cachers then it should be approved as a virtual cache, especially if a physical cache can not be placed there.

Link to comment

I guess your opinion pretty much sounds like the guidlines to me. Place needs to be interesting, of special interest, and can't have a physical cache.

 

The problem is, each approver is a human being, and they each have different opinions. It's the way it is.

 

It seems to me, that once your cache does not get approved, even if it is not fair, then that's that.

 

I don't know how we could give specific examples, except to show caches that have been approved recently. But yet again, each approver has a different opinion, and so I don't know if that would be any help.

Link to comment
The main topic is trying to figure out what is allowed to be a virtual cache and what us as users think should be allowed as a virtual cache.

You know, users of this interstate highway systems probably have differing opinions of what the speed limit should be. The govening body for this interstate highway system decided to have specific guidelines for what that speed limit should be. I have to follow those guidelines to drive on this interstate.

 

You know, users of this geocaching site probably have differing opinions of what a virtual cache should be. The govening body for this geocaching site decided to have specific guidelines for what that virtual cache should be. I have to follow those guidelines to place geocaches on this site.

 

As far as examples, well, the best thing for you to do is search the the most recently approved virtual caches in each state, starting with your own. I think you will find your answers there. I'm sorry, but I am not going to waste my time linking them here when all you have to do is go look at the active caches yourself. That is a very simple process. You have 35 approved in the last 4.5 months to choose from in your own state.

Link to comment
I agree with the last few posts. If you've done everything you can to put in a real cache, and the place is truly unique, you should be fine.

 

I put in a virtual in a place that could not support a physical cache, my page was well done, and had pics and history, and it was in a great spot. The approver said that he doesn't usually put up virtuals, but that mine looked neat, and he hoped to be able to go to it someday. So it is possible, if you do it right.

 

Hey- I checked, and that was Mtn-man that approved it! ( I guess that I was telling on you! :grin::mad: )

I vividly remember that cache. It is indeed an awesome place.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...03-d6f14d053561

 

There is one example for you. It is a banned NPS area. It is a beautiful area and the cache page is very well done. It is not an established tour that you find by going to the hotel lobby and asking for places to go sight-see or that you find on a flyer in the hotel lobby. It is something that you would not ordinarily find without a GPS. It is unusual and the journey would make most people go "WOW!" (or ouch).

 

*That* is a virtual cache.

Link to comment

I would add to what mtn-man said...

That while I posted two recent examples from virtuals I reviewed and listed this week, I was mainly doing so to demonstrate how the owners met the guidelines. I am not about to give away the details of what their cache is about without first obtaining the owners' consent. That would be like publishing the solution to a puzzle cache. The fun of a good virtual cache is saying "wow, was this a surprise!" when you see the cool spot.

 

It is perhaps easier to make a list of the types of virtuals that will not be listed, because they are mentioned specifically in the listing guidelines and/or are very common objects:

 

Statues

Monuments/Memorials

Gravestones/Headstones

Border Markers

Highway Markers

Historical Signs, Markers, etc.

Famous Buildings

Natural Landmarks (mountain, lake)

a "Nice View" or a "Nice Trail to Hike"

Commercial sites ("my favorite pub/coffee shop/diner/etc.")

 

This list probably describes the majority of the virtual cache submissions we still see, week in and week out, despite the listing guidelines being tightened in March 2003 and again in November of 2003.

 

There are exceptions, of course. A unique gravestone that is truly one-of-a-kind, and you'd likely not even notice it if you visited the cemetery. Or a virtual multicache that ties together 10 different monuments on a Civil War battlefield (NPS site) so that the journey tells the story of the battle, and so on.

Link to comment
The govening body for this geocaching site decided to have specific guidelines for what that virtual cache should be. I have to follow those guidelines to place geocaches on this site.

I can understand rules, everywhere has rules. Normally the rules make sense. With the virtual caches the rules make sense but are very general. You would think being general would allow for some freedom on the cachers part.

 

A request to you approvers. I know you have a lot of caches to go through and it is a volunteer position. If a cache would be of interest to cachers, don't block it just because you as the approver is not interested in that particular cache. It is one thing to enforce general guidelines, it is another thing to force your opinion on the cachers in the area.

 

Like I said, everyone knows my opinion. Take it to heart or take it as a grain of salt. One thing I have learned from this topic is to either avoid Virtual Caches or be in constant contact with your local approver. It would be nice (and less discouraging) to have a little more freedom on geocaching.com pertaining to virtual caches. Unless there is a change in the ideaology of geocaching or something better comes along then we are all stuck in a rut. Please forward this to whoever makes the decisions. Rules are good to keep the common trash off the site (porn, cursing, boring caches, etc.), but too many rules infringe on the freedom for geocachers to have fun and ends up frustrating eveyone in the long run. If a rule is not necessary or if a rule is over exagerated, there is no good that comes from it.

 

Thanks for everyones thoughts!

 

Leap Frog

Link to comment
The cache I tried to approve was on private property that provided tours of the facility. I m sure the company that owns the property would not appreciate a physical cache and that is more than enough reason to create a virtual cache.

 

Not to beat your already dead horse, but did you ask? You'd be surprised, if they offer tours then maybe they'd be interested in tapping a new market for those tours.

 

Oh and to stay on topic here, I'm not a fan of virts. The first one I did wasn't all that exciting (I won't use the L*** word). But I did see one pop up and would love to do it next time I'm in the area. It meets all the guidelines and it even made me go "Cool!"

 

Ozette River Steam Donkey

Link to comment

Whether I like a particular cache or not is absolutely irrelevant to whether I should list it because it meets the published guidelines. I personally don't enjoy webcam caches and have never logged one. But if a new one shows up and it meets the guidelines, I will gladly list it. The same is true for virtuals, although in the case of virtuals, I like finding them as well.

Link to comment
The cache I tried to approve was on private property that provided tours of the facility. I m sure the company that owns the property would not appreciate a physical cache and that is more than enough reason to create a virtual cache.

Just because I really enjoy beating dead horses... :grin:

 

If it is on private property that's owned by a company, then it sounds like a commercial cache and it should not be approved on that basis alone.

 

As far as getting a virtual cache approved, if you take the advice given here and speak with your local approver ahead of time, you will probably get the answer "Make it into a multi", but at least you'll know before you waste your time submitting it. I almost always give the "Make it into a multi" answer when I get requests for approving a virtual, but that is because it can almost always be made into a multi which is what the guidelines and the owners of this site have suggested to do anyway.

Link to comment
but too many rules infringe on the freedom for geocachers to have fun and ends up frustrating eveyone in the long run. If a rule is not necessary or if a rule is over exagerated, there is no good that comes from it.

Too many rules is not the problem with virtuals. You want a specific list of approvable virtual concepts but that would be a long list and could never be complete.

 

It appears rather clear to me that virtual caches have to be interesting and unique. Many of the virtuals I've visited are not, including some of my own. But most of those were from the old days before things tightened up. I'm glad to see it go in this direction so that I can look forward to future virtual caches and know that they will meet a higher standard. (Don't get me wrong though - I have been to many great older virtuals.)

 

Reading the current vitual policies and using some imagination will result in an approvable virtual cache. And possibly an attempt or two will be denied.

 

The complaint of denied caches comes up often and rather than complain about it and constantly stir up this fuss it would be far less stressful just to go out and relocate the cache.

 

I believe that we are (at least we used to be) encouraged to bring denied caches to the forums and see if there might be a consensus for approval. If you had done that than maybe this topic would be more valuable to you. That is why we kept asking to see the one you have "washed your hands of". Maybe people would like it and take your side or if not they could at least offer suggestions or personal expierences that might be helpful.

Link to comment
<SNIP>

 

Mopar:  You can list locationless on Scout's site.  Terracachers has a larger mission than building a single faucet of a larger game.  Case in point, looking for a marketing person to help with the Deparment of Commerce in Idaho to promote geocaching, and to build from that to other states.

What, you changed your mind after commiting to it?????? I am shocked!

 

 

:grin:

CO_Admin:

 

Change my mind? Nope.. The paragraph under member ownership covers it.

 

Team Sagefox:

 

The complaint of denied caches does come up often. Usually virtuals. The guidelines are not clear. How can subjective ever be clear?. Approvers are then forced in turn to make decisions that are subjective and then get nailed in the forums for doing their best. This site gets to hear time and again these complaints come up. It must truly suck to be THE SITE OF CHOICE so that people would take the time to voice their opinion here in hopes of making it more enjoyable. That the site doesn't seem to learn or even bother to respond every now and then so we regulars and approvers who do respond can at least quote the company line is amazing. "Read the guidelines" is not a response that will do anyone any good.

Link to comment
Team Sagefox:

 

The complaint of denied caches does come up often. Usually virtuals. The guidelines are not clear. How can subjective ever be clear?.

Precisely. So a simple shift of logic will allow us to use our instincts as to what will work and what will not rather than beating on the "subjective" drum.

 

Has anyone who wants less subjective virtual instructions ever offered up any examples of how you could possibly accomplish that in a few paragraphs?

Link to comment
A request to you approvers. I know you have a lot of caches to go through and it is a volunteer position. If a cache would be of interest to cachers, don't block it just because you as the approver is not interested in that particular cache. It is one thing to enforce general guidelines, it is another thing to force your opinion on the cachers in the area.

I agree with Keystone about objectively looking at each cache. Back when locationless caches were able to be submitted I reviewed a lot of them right before the moratorium. I did not like to do them, but if it passed the guidelines I approved it. I like all of the other cache types (just look at my profile), so I look at all of them strictly based on the guidelines.

 

Related to your quote above, I recently had a virtual come across my queue. I LOVED the target of the cache and would have been "wowed" by seeing the target. I felt like I was biased in the other direction than is expressed here, so I asked the other admins if it was an approvable virtual cache. They all agreed, so the cache was approved. I cannot wait to go visit it!

Link to comment

Since no one else seems able or willing to answer your question directly, I will.

 

The Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Washington Memorial, Monticello etc. would all make good and at least some are virtuals. Sears Tower, Empire State and Golden Gate are some just 'normal' structures that are or would make good virtuals. Gettysburg Battlefield, Kennedy Space Center and Meteor Crater are all areas that would make or are good virtuals.

 

These of course are my opinion only, yours may vary.

 

I have enjoyed all of the virtuals we have found. Yes, some are better than others. I think any of the ones mentioned above would get a WOW from at least 51% of the people who have seen them.

Link to comment
...Precisely. So a simple shift of logic will allow us to use our instincts as to what will work and what will not rather than beating on the "subjective" drum.

 

Has anyone who wants less subjective virtual instructions ever offered up any examples of how you could possibly accomplish that in a few paragraphs?

I'm fairly experienced at this game. My instincts are getting worse for what's approvable and not and I'm talking traditional caches. There was a time that I knew the spirit of the game that was behind the guidelines. While I like to think I still know that spirit, either I don't, or the guidelines are becoming less and less flexible because the spirit is being lost in favor of an expansing set of guidelines.

 

As a result I changed my policy. All my caches are viable. I do know the rules and I do know the spirit of the game. So, GC.com gets first shot at a cache. If they reject it I list on Navicache. That means less will find the cache but that's aslo a cache that isn't cross listed anywhere else and Navicache gets a shot in the arm.

 

So far it's come into play on two caches. One was that 528' is a parking lot and 320' is a rock climb that gives you an alcove where you are overlooking the river. It was an easy choice to make. The other was a cache placed in Arizona where I only get to once a year so I got help to maintain the cache but respected their privacy and would not disclose who was helping. Another Navicache cache.

 

In those cases the rules didn't make the world a better caching place and the spirit of the game was not violated. My philosopy hasn't changed but GC.coms has.

 

Dropping two rules for virtuals would not ruin the game. GC could drop the coffee table book rule and they could drop the "can you place a traditionlal rule' and this game wouldn't be any worse. People will stop complaining about not being able to list virtual caches so much and more people will complain about finding lame caches. But hell, I have a hard time respecting the complaints people have about finding caches.

Link to comment
The Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Washington Memorial, Monticello etc. would all make good and at least some are virtuals.

Ummm.. those that are were probably approved long ago. These days I don't think they would be. At least I wouldn't. :grin:

 

I look for things that are unique and compelling. A monument that every tourist is going to see anyways doth not a virtual make. A good virtual is one that is going to show you something awesome that isn't on the normal tour brochures. :mad:

Link to comment
People will stop complaining about not being able to list virtual caches so much and more people will complain about finding lame caches.

Hmm. I think it was those complaints about lame caches that led to the tightened guidelines on virtual caches. I highly doubt we'll go back.

Link to comment
The Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Washington Memorial, Monticello etc. would all make good and at least some are virtuals.

Ummm.. those that are were probably approved long ago. These days I don't think they would be. At least I wouldn't. :grin:

 

I look for things that are unique and compelling. A monument that every tourist is going to see anyways doth not a virtual make. A good virtual is one that is going to show you something awesome that isn't on the normal tour brochures. :mad:

Ahhhh... but how can you say that ANY of the choices I put in my post are NOT 'unique and compelling'? What exactly does how many tourist visits a site may get have to do with whether it is 'wow' enough to be a virtual?

 

That is why the subjective nature of the current guidelines for posting virtuals is questioned. My (as cache owners) vs approvers opinion. That is also why I put in the line about it being only MY opinion on those places.

 

But my post was not really to debate the merits of a particular cache, or virtuals in general, only to answer the thread starter.

Link to comment

I do combo vitual/conventional caches to get around the "ban" and because I just like doing them. You gather clues at interesting virtuals to determine where the single conventional container is located, Like this.

 

Or I do a theme virtual that pulls the virtuals together but still with a conventional cache at the end. Like that. I wonder if Keystone Approver would approve this one without the container under the new rules based on its "coffee table book" theme. Would it KA? :grin:

 

Alan

Link to comment
I'm fairly experienced at this game. My instincts are getting worse for what's approvable and not and I'm talking traditional caches. There was a time that I knew the spirit of the game that was behind the guidelines. While I like to think I still know that spirit, either I don't, or the guidelines are becoming less and less flexible because the spirit is being lost in favor of an expansing set of guidelines.

If I deny a cache submission that violates a guideline which ought to have some flexibility and room for judgment in it, such as the 528 foot rule or the maintainable distance rule, then I'm subject to criticism for being the rigid, inflexible enforcer of the regime's totalitarian rules. If I list the same cache because, in my judgment as an experienced geocacher who's been entrusted to review others' cache submission, an exception is warranted, then I'm subject to criticism for showing favoritism and being subjective. Either way, it's enough to get a guy chugging gasoline.

 

The Guidelines haven't "expanded" in six months. Even so, the November 2003 version is regarded by those who drafted them as simply being a clearer and more detailed statement of the criteria already being followed. In truth, it's been more than a year since most of the major rules changes came into effect, such as traveling caches and the maintainable distance rule. Even so, look at the growth of geocaching.com since then! Record numbers for new members, new cache placements and new logs. With that growth, inevitably, more rules follow.

Link to comment
I do combo vitual/conventional caches to get around the "ban" and because I just like doing them. You gather clues at interesting virtuals to determine where the single conventional container is located, Like this.

 

Or I do a theme virtual that pulls the virtuals together but still with a conventional cache at the end. Like that. I wonder if Keystone Approver would approve this one without the container under the new rules based on its "coffee table book" theme. Would it KA? :grin:

 

Alan

I may very well have listed your tour of a series of covered bridges as a virtual cache. I've listed a similar cache or two in Pennsylvania. It is way higher up on the "wow factor" and "coffee book table" tests than a stop at a single bridge or a single historic sign. Nevertheless, I appreciate your effort to incorporate a physical cache at the end of the journey, as the guidelines encourage you to do. I have also archived covered bridge virtuals when it was clear from the maps that a physical cache could be placed nearby - i.e., the bridge is in a rural area adjacent to a state forest. Conversely, I listed a single covered bridge as a virtual becuase it was surrounded by cornfields - private property - with no parks or forests for miles, and no safe place to pull off the road and park legally. The bridge had a unique architectural style and had been featured on a network TV show.

 

Every cache should be considered on its own merits, tested against the published guidelines.

Link to comment
So far it's come into play on two caches. One was that 528' is a parking lot and 320' is a rock climb that gives you an alcove where you are overlooking the river. It was an easy choice to make.

 

The other was a cache placed in Arizona where I only get to once a year so I got help to maintain the cache but respected their privacy and would not disclose who was helping. Another Navicache cache.

The rock climb & ledge with a view sounds great. I don't always agree with the 528' rule but if an approver says no, even after I make a strong sales pitch, I find that it is less stressful to forget about it than get mad over it.

 

I might be misinterpreting "respected their privacy" but what possible privacy problem could there be in telling the approver who the local maintainer is in the Note to Approver section? That note does not go public.

Link to comment
...I might be misinterpreting "respected their privacy" but what possible privacy problem could there be in telling the approver who the local maintainer is in the Note to Approver section? That note does not go public.

I know the approver by email and forum postings. These people I know in person. The choice between which way to lean on the issue is simple. Respect the people I know and let GC.com show how much it trusts my judgment in meeting their guidelines. I met the guidelines but did not meet the burden of proof they desired. Yet I still have the trust of those who matter the most. It is because I am willing to make decisions like that that I have the trust of many of the people I know.

Link to comment
Nevertheless, I appreciate your effort to incorporate a physical cache at the end of the journey, as the guidelines encourage you to do.

 

Thanks KA for you compliment. But I got to tell you, its not always easy to find a place to hide a container. I just did a similar multi covered bridge cache in Catskill Park. Although the bridges and the trails are in the park, placing containers are forbidden. I had to drive miles outside the park to find a place to hide the container.

 

Catskill is relatively small but NY's Adirondacks are hugh as are National Parks.

 

Yet these are are devoid of caches which is a shame as cachers are missing some really beautiful areas.

 

Why not allow virtuals there. They could be set up so a series of virtual "sights" could be set up along the way. That would get people into the parking caching where no caching is going on at all. It would open all our National Parks up to lots of caching.

 

What do you think?

 

Alan

Link to comment
A request to you approvers. I know you have a lot of caches to go through and it is a volunteer position. If a cache would be of interest to cachers, don't block it just because you as the approver is not interested in that particular cache. It is one thing to enforce general guidelines, it is another thing to force your opinion on the cachers in the area.

With out giving too much away about the cache that started this thread it involved PONYS!!!!!!!!! My love of pony's is much documented on this site to the point the several of the admins and a few of the regulars refer to me as Pony Boy. Trust me this had nothing to do with my lack of interest in the area. In fact I have been there 6 time to see the pony's.

Link to comment
What exactly does how many tourist visits a site may get have to do with whether it is 'wow' enough to be a virtual?

This is a good example of the problem of trying to be more specific with guidelines. Each and every specific point can be dragged out into the streets and stoned to death.

 

It would be more productive to step back and look at the big picture rather than to argue literal and intellectual interpretations of what "coffee-book" and "wow" mean.

 

I TRULY believe we all instinctively know what these terms mean. Make it interesting, make it unique and don't pick a commonly visited site. Why make it more complicated than that?

 

A productive denied-cache topic might include: Posting denied caches to get public opinion on the cache merits and refraining from complaining about being denied so people can comment without that negative influence (if you really want to know if the public thinks your cache sounds good or not).

 

Multiple topics regarding denied caches help us develop a picture of what is not acceptable. Multiple topics arguing for literal interpretations of subjective quidelines and suggestions that people will go elsewhere do not, in my opinion, advance the cause.

Link to comment
I know the approver by email and forum postings. These people I know in person. The choice between which way to lean on the issue is simple. Respect the people I know and let GC.com show how much it trusts my judgment in meeting their guidelines. I met the guidelines but did not meet the burden of proof they desired.

I have no doubt about your integrity and your level of participation in geocaching.

 

I was just curious as to what the reason might be that a cache maintainer would need to remain anonymous. It does not seem logical to me.

Link to comment
The Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, Washington Memorial, Monticello etc. would all make good and at least some are virtuals.

Ummm.. those that are were probably approved long ago. These days I don't think they would be. At least I wouldn't. :huh:

 

I look for things that are unique and compelling. A monument that every tourist is going to see anyways doth not a virtual make. A good virtual is one that is going to show you something awesome that isn't on the normal tour brochures. :D

UH?

The essence of caching whether virt or tradional is expressed in the words we have ALL read in logs. "But for geocaching", I would not have taken the time to go here..... that is it. So what if its a tourist destination. Many times a cache there is what is needed to TAKE THE TIME to go see stuff you never otherwise would.

Link to comment
I know the approver by email and forum postings.  These people I know in person.  The choice between which way to lean on the issue is simple.  Respect the people I know and let GC.com show how much it trusts my judgment in meeting their guidelines.  I met the guidelines but did not meet the burden of proof they desired.

I have no doubt about your integrity and your level of participation in geocaching.

 

I was just curious as to what the reason might be that a cache maintainer would need to remain anonymous. It does not seem logical to me.

Why do a good portion of the approvers remain anonymous? They choose to. It's really as simple as that. The reasons can vary, but it's something we should respect even if we don't agree with the reasons.

Link to comment
Why do a good portion of the approvers remain anonymous? They choose to. It's really as simple as that. The reasons can vary, but it's something we should respect even if we don't agree with the reasons.

It is very logical and practical for an approver to remain anonymous. They are in the spotlight, the hot seat, what ever you want to call it and they also want to be a normal cacher when they go out on the hunt.

 

A cache maintainer, on the other hand, can remain anonymous to the general caching public because they only need be identified in the Note to Approver on the cache application page. That note is archived when the cache is approved.

 

Are you saying that your maintainer is concerned the cache approver and only the cache approver will know who they are? What are we using aliases for? Or, if your maintainer is a non-cacher you still don't need to use their real name.

 

I almost let this go away but you brought it up as a justification to post your cache on another site and I don't see any logic in your answers as yet. If I was a cache approver I would be inclined to believe that you don't really have a maintainer. (I, personally, would actually write a note in support of you posting a desert cache without a maintainer because they usually don't need maintenance more than once a year, if not longer.)

 

---

 

The forums can be fascinating study in human psychology. What I find interesting is how many people choose to make geocaching hard when it is really a very easy sport to participate it. You just go out and geocache! Why make it hard? If you get a cache denied you just make adjustments and repost or give that one up. No big deal.

Link to comment
...It is very logical and practical for an approver to remain anonymous...

A cache maintainer, on the other hand, can remain anonymous to the general caching public because they only need be identified in the Note to Approver on the cache application page. That note is archived when the cache is approved.

 

Are you saying that your maintainer is concerned the cache approver and only the cache approver will know who they are? What are we using aliases for? Or, if your maintainer is a non-cacher you still don't need to use their real name.

 

I almost let this go away but you brought it up as a justification to post your cache on another site and I don't see any logic in your answers as yet. If I was a cache approver I would be inclined to believe that you don't really have a maintainer. (I, personally, would actually write a note in support of you posting a desert cache without a maintainer because they usually don't need maintenance more than once a year, if not longer.)

 

---

 

The forums can be fascinating study in human psychology. What I find interesting is how many people choose to make geocaching hard when it is really a very easy sport to participate it. You just go out and geocache! Why make it hard? If you get a cache denied you just make adjustments and repost or give that one up. No big deal.

You understand and agree with the reasons for an approver to remain anonymous. There are no doubt reasons out there that you would not agree with.

 

The issue on privacy is trust. Which is different from having someone maintain a cache. Do I trust my approvers? Sure, for approving caches, for debating issues in the forums etc. Do they trust me? Sure for placing a cache, maintaining it in my local radius etc. That's geocaching. My relationship with the person maintaining the cache is real. It has it's own rules. Rules that I live by. When rules conflict choices are made. Something gets priority. In this case I wouldn't reveal the names. An approver does not get the same level of trust that I place in the people that I know. As hard as it has been to explain to you, it would be equilly hard to explain to them. "I had to give out your names to get my cache approved to which they would ask "Why?"...

 

You pointed out that if they were a non GC.com cacher I'd not have to use their real name. Yet I coudl'nt use the name "Local maintainer". Think about that.

 

When it comes to listing on another site there is no justification needed. I placed a cache, I'd like to list it on GC.com, if they won't list it due to their listing rules, I'll list it on Navicache. For my own reasons I don't like to cross post caches.

Link to comment
With out giving too much away about the cache that started this thread it involved PONYS!!!!!!!!! My love of pony's is much documented on this site to the point the several of the admins and a few of the regulars refer  to me as Pony Boy. Trust me this had nothing to do with my lack of interest in the area. In fact I have been there 6 time to see the pony's.

For CO Admin and everyone else who still thinks it is necessary that I share my cache - I will say this again. This topic has NOTHING to do with my cache. This topic stemmed from the confusion of what should be a virtual cache and why virtual cache regulations have been stiffened over the past couple of years. It is amazing that with everyone preaching how users should research previous forum threads and research the regulations before submitting a cache, that those same people can't seem to read the previous posts for this topic or the topic name to figure out that the topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cache I submitted.

 

By the way, let me add that I had not mentioned the approver's name until he himself mentioned his name. I did not want to personally attack his integrity, only address a larger issue.

 

Taking into consideration that this topic spawned from the confusion of why my virtual cache and many other virtual caches are denied, there is one thing that truly could have prevented this topic. As a response from the approver I received the "WOW" idea along with regurgitated junk from the regulations I have already read. I thought my cache was within the guidelines and the approver didn't. What could have helped was a more helpful email about not only why the cache was denied, but also what could be done to make the virtual cache possible. If a virtual cache is not at all possible for the location, then a simple explanation that the location is a tourist destination or too well known would have sufficed. Plus it would be helpful for the approvers to give examples of what might make good virtual caches.

 

I know this can be hard to figure out, but I truly believe if approvers put their heads together - that they could come up with some ideas. The problem is that when the approver lists the places not allowed (signs, memorials, tombstones, historical markers, etc.), some of those places under certain circumstances maybe be very virtual cache worthy and it is hard to understand why it would be turned down.

 

It sounds like to me that there needs to be a change in the way cachers think about virtual caches, especially with the stricter rules. By having an idea of places approved may change the whole idea of virtual caches.

 

It may seem natural to some that people should look at the recently approved virtual caches to get ideas. Realistically, many people don't do this. In fact many people don't even read previous logs for a particular cache. For better communication along with less frustration and confusion, such helpful messages can go a long way. The cacher then feels that the approver is there to help, instead of there to deny their cache. It could be that I have just had bad experiences with approvers, but with my experiences, if the approver took a different approach in their emails I may have reacted in a more productive manor.

 

Not that I don't think this topic has been productive. I have learned a lot from what everyone has said and I feel a lot more prepared now then I did after communicating with the approver.

Link to comment
...Plus it would be helpful for the approvers to give examples of what might make good virtual caches.

 

I know this can be hard to figure out, but I truly believe if approvers put their heads together - that they could come up with some ideas. The problem is that when the approver lists the places not allowed (signs, memorials, tombstones, historical markers, etc.)...

 

...it could be that I have just had bad experiences with approvers, but with my experiences, if the approver took a different approach in their emails I may have reacted in a more productive manor...

You have three comments in one long post about what the approvers could be doing for us. I find that for myself that I don't want approvers to have to spend much time with me. If they say my cache is not approvable then I believe it is up to ME to make it work, not them. They have far too much work to do to.

 

I've talked several times with a local approver (now retired from approving) and have observed others. I can't imagine how they can possibly handle the volume of work that comes their way.

 

My primary point is that I believe we, as placers, need to stumble through the virtual guidelines and make whatever number of attempts necessary to get one approved. I've been bounced several times with virtuals. Usually I'm surprised that what I thought would be a great virtual was deemed not acceptable. I consider the reasons why they denied me and then make adjustments. It is just not that big of a deal to get denied.

 

I believe most of us (me at least) have been calling for you to post your cache only because you are withholding it. The withholding makes it more interesting. But it appears that consensus has decided to let you live in peace now. You don't need to be concerned about that specific cache as far as this topic goes.

Link to comment

Adding to the confusion and submitted for your perusal:

 

...........Total.......Virtual...%age...New Caches......New Virts.......%age......2004

State...Caches....Caches..Virts....Since 1/1/04....Since 1/1/04.....Virts......Growth

.................................................................................................................(All)

AL.........758............21.....2.8%.........321..................5..............1.6%......73.5%

AK.........341............11....3.2%.........57.....................0..............0.0%.....20.1%

AZ.......2402..........200.....8.3%.........607..................5..............0.8%......33.8%

AR........592.............26....4.4%.........252..................0...............0.0%......74.1%

CA.....11280..........655....5.8%........3445.................35..............1.0%......44.0%

CO......1374..........196....14.3%........315..................4...............1.3%......29.7%

CT........544...........25.......4.6%........111..................0...............0.0%......25.6%

DE........140............6........4.3%..........47..................0..............0.0%.......50.5%

DC.........71...........45.......63.4%.........0...................0...............0.0%.......0.0%

FL........3670.........169.......4.9%........1519................10.............0.7%......70.6%

GA.......1228.........114......9.3%..........311.................1..............0.3%......33.9%

HI.........283...........32......11.3%.........52..................0...............0.0%......22.5%

ID........1823.........114......6.3%.........386.................0...............0.0%......26.9%

IL.........1948..........61........3.1%........574................1...............0.2%......41.8%

IN........1978..........81........4.1%........565.................7...............1.2%......40.0%

IA.........693...........31........4.5%........185................1................0.5%......36.4%

KS........982...........167......17.0%.......189................0................0.0%......23.8%

KY........961...........65.........6.8%........249...............0.................0.0%......35.0%

LA........430............30........7.0%........138................0................0.0%......47.3%

ME.......514............35........6.8%..........87................0................0.0%......20.4%

MD.......896...........43.........4.8%........235................0................0.0%......35.6%

MA......1136..........58.........5.1%........280................4................1.4%......32.7%

MI.......1880.........173........9.2%........406...............21...............5.2%......27.5%

MN......1397..........57.........4.1%........446................1................0.2%......46.9%

MS.......666..........26.........3.9%........231................1.................0.4%......53.1%

MO......1326.........127.......9.6%........298................1.................0.3%......29.0%

MT.......476...........24........5.0%........105................1.................1.0%......28.3%

NE.......474...........27........5.7%........161.................1................0.6%......51.4%

NV......1154..........77........6.7%........274................4.................1.5%......31.1%

NH.......385...........18........4.7%.........65................0.................0.0%......20.3%

NJ.......1064..........84........7.9%........219...............0.................0.0%......25.9%

NM.......773...........54........7.0%........221................5................2.3%......40.0%

NY......2590.........133........5.1%........522................1................0.2%......25.2%

NC......1433.........114.......8.0%.........489................6................1.2%......51.8%

ND.......118............3........2.5%...........23...............0.................0.0%......24.2%

OH......1464..........64........4.4%.........439...............9................2.1%.......42.8%

OK.......885..........151......17.1%........287...............4................1.4%.......48.0%

OR......3303.........139........4.2%........881..............1.................0.1%.......36.4%

PA......2314.........186........8.0%........547..............3.................0.5%.......31.0%

RI........156...........6..........3.8%.........54................0................0.0%.......52.9%

SC.......786..........58.........7.4%.........192..............4................2.1%.......32.3%

SD.......277..........16.........5.8%..........51...............0................0.0%.......22.6%

TN......1957.........129........6.6%.........689..............2.................0.3%......54.3%

TX......4055.........430.......10.6%........1380............8.................0.6%......51.6%

UT......2513.........321.......12.8%........527............107..............20.3%.....26.5%

VT.......223...........10.........4.5%.........56...............0.................0.0%......33.5%

VA.......1388........127........9.1%.........439.............9..................2.1%.....46.3%

WA......3478.........96.........2.8%........1025............1..................0.1%.....41.8%

WI......1570.........109........6.9%.........373.............1..................0.3%.....31.2%

WY.......370...........77.......20.8%.........62.............10................16.1%.....20.1%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

..........72830......5021........6.9%......20387..........269.................1.3%.....38.9%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

All numbers were culled from GC.com May 23, 2004 between 6pm and 10pm EDT. I had some spare time and was bored! I used the GC.com search facility so this included any cache currently showing on their system. I was getting sleepy near the end so the math could be iffy...

 

Stats to ponder:

 

Why are CO, KS, OK and WY over twice the national average for Percentage of Virtual Cache ? (Do they have more National Park land than other states and therefore less traditional cache opportunities?) (I can understand why DC is so high.)

 

Why is ND so low in Percentage of Virtual Caches? (Is the state THAT boring?)

 

What is the deal with UT and WY with newly approved Virtual Caches? Do these states have higher "WOW" factors than the other 48?

 

An increase of 38.9% in US caches since 1/1/04 -- now that definitely deserves a coffee table book WOW!

 

To be truthful I wanted to see if there were regional differences in Virtual Cache approval stats. I have no idea if this supports this hypothesis or not. However, it does seem to point out that some states (e.g., Michigan, Utah, Wyoming) may have a lower WOW threshold. I sincerely hope that this post doesn't make it harder for virtuals to be approved in those states.

Link to comment
But it appears that consensus has decided to let you live in peace now. You don't need to be concerned about that specific cache as far as this topic goes.

Thank you, I am glad that you understand. I do also realize that the approvers are very busy, but there is a certain tone of customer relations that they need to uphold since they are somewhat representing geocaching.com. I am not saying that all approvers are jerks, most are exactly opposite. What I am saying is that by simply taking a different approach in their emails, making their comments more helpful rather regurgitating the rules could make a world of difference in how the cacher react. It isn't rocket science.

 

With my job, I have to answer many many emails a day. By taking that extra fews second to be helpful has brought a lot of positive feedback. It is harder for emailers to portray emotion in their messages. When the reader gets the message declining their cache they will automatically think of it as a negative - don't you love human nature - assume the worst. So like I said above, it is hard to protray negativity in a helpful message.

Link to comment

WY.......370...........77.......20.8%.........62.............10................16.1%.....20.1%

Wow, that is interesting. Especially Wyoming, there are lot of virtuals there compared to physical caches. I haven't looked at WY specifically, but they do have Yellow Stone, mountains, along with a lot of uncivilized area either privately owned or owned by State/Fed gov. I am sure that has added to the reason.

Link to comment

I've been thinking about this post. I think you need a response.

 

Taking into consideration that this topic spawned from the confusion of why my virtual cache and many other virtual caches are denied, there is one thing that truly could have prevented this topic. As a response from the approver I received the "WOW" idea along with regurgitated junk from the regulations I have already read. I thought my cache was within the guidelines and the approver didn't. What could have helped was a more helpful email about not only why the cache was denied, but also what could be done to make the virtual cache possible. If a virtual cache is not at all possible for the location, then a simple explanation that the location is a tourist destination or too well known would have sufficed. Plus it would be helpful for the approvers to give examples of what might make good virtual caches.

"Regurgitated junk"? OK, so you read the "regurgitated junk", or what most of us call the guidelines. Good start at least I guess. Regarding your submission; I've seen it. It was a commercial cache to boot. I also answered your virtual cache question in about 90 seconds by searching the answer out on the net. Maybe you didn't actually read the guidelines? "Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services." I won't "regurditate" the guidelines where it tells you that your virtual verification question should not be so easy that it only takes 90 seconds to find siting in your chair at home. Based on the commercial aspect of your cache, the lack of an adequate verification question and the fact that the target was not unique in the world nor guaranteed to actually be there for the find -- frankly, I don't think you could make it acceptable.

 

I know this can be hard to figure out, but I truly believe if approvers put their heads together - that they could come up with some ideas.

 

<snip>

 

It may seem natural to some that people should look at the recently approved virtual caches to get ideas. Realistically, many people don't do this. In fact many people don't even read previous logs for a particular cache. For better communication along with less frustration and confusion, such helpful messages can go a long way. The cacher then feels that the approver is there to help, instead of there to deny their cache.

You have been given suggested ideas in this topic regarding what makes a good virtual cache. You have been given two examples in this topic. You have been given a methodology for further review of existing virtual caches. If you will not take the time to carefully read the guidelines, review the two caches listed as examples in this topic and will not take the time to search out other virtual caches in your area then I don't know what we as cache reviewers can do for you. You basically want us to do it all for you.

 

If you have specific questions about a prospective virtual cache target then I am sure that your local reviewer would be happy to help you. I know him well and your representation is totally incorrect. Since the focus of a virtual cache *is* the unusual, there is no way for us to tell you what is acceptable in a topic like this. You need to find something that is unique, out of the ordinary and extraspecial rather than something that almost every American has seen on TV. As you say, this isn't rocket science.

 

I would also remind you to read this post in this topic:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...ndpost&p=917158

Link to comment
"Regurgitated junk"? OK, so you read the "regurgitated junk", or what most of us call the guidelines. Good start at least I guess. Regarding your submission; I've seen it. It was a commercial cache to boot. I also answered your virtual cache question in about 90 seconds by searching the answer out on the net. Maybe you didn't actually read the guidelines? "Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services." I won't "regurditate" the guidelines where it tells you that your virtual verification question should not be so easy that it only takes 90 seconds to find siting in your chair at home. Based on the commercial aspect of your cache, the lack of an adequate verification question and the fact that the target was not unique in the world nor guaranteed to actually be there for the find -- frankly, I don't think you could make it acceptable.

mtn-man, I don't know what I have done to you personally to set you off, but I really don't need the attitude.

 

When I said "regurgitated junk", I am not specifically talking about the guidelines. I am talking about in general unhelpful emails filled with the guidelines that I and other cachers have already read. As I said earlier in this topic (in case you missed it), guidelines are necessary to keep a certain quality to caching. Instead of picking certain keywords out of my comments, please look at what I am saying as a whole. The emails being sent could be a little more helpful and if the approver was more helpful I wouldn't have needed to start this topic. Although I have enjoyed everyone's thoughts and I have learned a lot.

 

It is not that I want the approver to do all the work, just a point in the right direction would be nice. From what I have read, there are a lot of people confused about virtual caches -- so I guess there a lot more idiots in this world who aren't supposedly reading the guidelines. The truth is, they are reading the guidelines, but are just confused. Either way, if an approver is frustrated with this and feels it is necessary to give the cacher an attitude, then maybe the approver is a little burnt out. I don't know you or CO Admin personally, but from my communications thus far, I am not impressed.

 

As for the supposed commercial cache. I am not happy that CO Admin felt it necessary to share the cache that I not only specifically requested not to be shared, but I also commented that I have learned from the cache and moved on.

 

The cache in my opinion is not a commercial cache. It has nothing to do with the facility it is located on and that particular facility does not charge for entrance or sell anything but maybe a few souvenirs (what place doesn't). Plus I am not profiting from it at all. The focus I used in this cache was for this exact reason; I did not want it to be a commercial cache. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. The fact is, the cache IS NOT approved and like I said above your post - this topic has nothing to do with that cache - so DROP IT!

Link to comment
The fact is, the cache IS NOT approved and like I said above your post - this topic has nothing to do with that cache - so DROP IT!

The fact is that you are the one that keeps going back to the cache in question. I did not have the reviewer point it out to me. He has avoided the cache completely in fact. I have the ability to look at all caches, whether they are approved or archived or whatever. I went looking for your cache and found it. You keep saying that you don't want to discuss the cache but you keep coming back to it. If you mention it again I will consider your post off topic and I will close this topic because you continually do not have the ability to stay on topic in your own topic.

 

As I have said, there is no way for us to tell you what is a virtual cache. It is by definition unusual and something that is not commonplace. We tell you specifically what are *not* virtual caches, yet beaches, trails, views, signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers, statues, businesses and even animal carcasses are submitted as virtual cache items. You need to think of one-of-a-kind items that are "novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects" and are in a location where you cannot place a regular cache. Again, as I have said, if we could tell you what is a virtual then it wouldn't be unusual. You need to tell us. AND if you have a question about the validity of a virtual cache then feel free to write your local approver, write the contact address or post a message in the forums to see if it might be novel enough.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...