Virtual Subjectivity

[+OzGuff]

I posted some stats about the percentage of all caches that are virtuals in a now-locked thread. Since my posting was late in the thread it may have not been read by many. (I also should have jus started my own thread with the stats.) So here are the stats and my other comments:

 

*****************************************************

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.

****************************************************************

 

I understand that virtual caches may not be the main emphasis of GC.com and am fine with that; I would also hate for them to disappear. However I am a little unclear on the guidelines, as there appears to be a huge amount of subjectivity -- what is a WOW for one reviewer may be boring for another. (Of course I am in agreement that an animal carcass should not qualify under any definition of a virtual cache.)

 

Based on the above stats it appears as though the reviewers in Michigan, Utah and Wyoming are operating with a lower WOW standard. (Or coffee table books are not nearly as exciting in those states...) That is OK with me.

 

The amount of discussion and stress that virtuals -- and their non-approval -- causes seems to come in part from the vagueness of the guidelines. There may not be a good solution; we may be doomed to this discussion forever more.

 

I just re-read this and realized that I haven't really added anything to the discussion. Maybe I should just delete the post...

 

(I decided not to.) If you have a reaction or anything to add...

[+jeff35080]

Woohoo! AL had the second largest growth in virtuals

[+Mopar]

What's this? Round 4,327?

 

I posted some stats about the percentage of all caches that are virtuals in a now-locked thread.

That's the thread where the virtual was totally lame and the topic starter took a shot at the reviewers and locked it, right? Yeah, prob not the best place, huh?

Edited May 27, 2004 by Mopar

[+mtn-man]

Didn't this same topic just end?

 

I actually think it has been more than that Mopar.

[+BadAndy]

Wyoming has lots of barren square miles, and 2 major natl parks (Yellowstone and Teton) Utah is also basically desert acreage, with Zion natl park.

[+mtn-man]

I just re-read this and realized that I haven't really added anything to the discussion. Maybe I should just delete the post...

I agree.

[+clearpath]

Whoa, OzGuff you are a number crunching machine. Do you have any baseball stats I could use in the Geocaching fantasy baseball league?

[+Webfoot]

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

I can't speak for Wyoming, as I haven't been there in awhile and only into the northwest corner of the state, but having visited Utah recently, I'd say yes, it has WOW factor.

 

I think you could make an argument to just make the entire state of Utah a national park. Fabulous scenery there.

[+Webfoot]

Whoa, OzGuff you are a number crunching machine. Do you have any baseball stats I could use in the Geocaching fantasy baseball league?

Hey, you beat me last week just fine without the extra help.

[+Renegade Knight]

Unfortunately while you have an apparent discrepancy in approvals you also need to know how many were submitted to make a real comparison.

 

My experience is that some reviewers are more flexible than others.

[+clearpath]

Whoa, OzGuff you are a number crunching machine.  Do you have any baseball stats I could use in the Geocaching fantasy baseball league? 

Hey, you beat me last week just fine without the extra help.

Oh Hi Ryan Express, I didn't think anyone would catch me trying to cheat. hehehe

[+OzGuff]

Woohoo! AL had the second largest growth in virtuals

That was actually for all caches so far in 2004. An even bigger "Woohoo!"

[+OzGuff]

What's this? Round 4,327?

I agree that this topic seems to generate more than its fair share of discussion and/or grief. Maybe this is a possible indicator that more definitive guidelines vis a vis virtuals are needed.

[+OzGuff]

I would like to point out to both Mopar and mtn-man the following, which is from the Groundspeak Forum Guidelines:

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

I would be more than happy to read your learned views on ways to make the virtual review process less subjective.

[+mtn-man]

What's this? Round 4,327?

I agree that this topic seems to generate more than its fair share of discussion and/or grief. Maybe this is a possible indicator that more definitive guidelines vis a vis virtuals are needed.

I posted this in the topic that was closed by the topic starter where you posted this the first time:

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.

The focus is the unusual. The focus is things that are not common. A list of unacceptable targets has been given to you. A list of acceptable targets cannot be given to you though. You have to find the unusual yourself.

 

Beaches, trails, views, signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers, statues, businesses and things like this will not be approved. Virtual cache that are novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects may very well be approved if the virtual cache will not block the area from having a traditional cache approved.

 

And, of course:

Re: Virtual Caches

If you really want to enter the murky realm of virtual caches, ask first and post second. Consider that your virtual cache will most likely not get listed. That way you are prepared for disappointment.

Jeremy Irish

Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessability of caching in areas that discourage it. If you must create a virtual cache its best to bring the idea up before doing the research. Expect a no first and a yes in extraordinary situations. I hate it has to be blunt but that's the fact, Jack.

Jeremy Irish

[+mtn-man]

I posted some stats about the percentage of all caches that are virtuals in a now-locked thread.

I will also remind you of the guidelines for posting on these discussion boards:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

 

Posting Messages: Posting the same message to many topics or boards is considered spam. Duplicate messages will be deleted or consolidated by our moderators. Please do your best to post new topics to the appropriate forum board, moderators will move topics that are posted inappropriately.

[+OzGuff]

Unfortunately while you have an apparent discrepancy in approvals you also need to know how many were submitted to make a real comparison.

 

My experience is that some reviewers are more flexible than others.

I am sure that my numbers have some inaccuracies. My main point, which I tried to support with statistics, is that there may be some level of subjectivity in the virtual approval process. I have not checked the percentages of NPS land in each state -- this may be what lends states such as Wyoming and Utah to have higher percentages of virtuals. (Though this would not explain Michigan's higher-than-average virtual numbers.) And I agree that the total number of submissions makes a difference; these numbers are not accessible to me.

 

Your second point about flexibility is of more interest to me. This is what potentially ticks people off about their virtuals not getting listed. If their virtual does not meet the guidelines via their local reviewer but a similar virtual gets listed via another reviewer, I can understand the "What the ----!" reaction. Is more flexibility needed or do the more flexible reviewers need to get stiffer? (So to speak.)

 

And for the record, this thread is not meant as a personal attack on any reviewer. They do a great job! Give them all raises! Differences in opinion are some of the things that make life more interesting!

[ju66l3r]

Yay! Rules slapping!

 

In the meantime, I have learned that following the "ask first, submit second" leads to "ask first, be told why your idea is garbage second, be warned that if you submit it it will be denied immediately because you were already told it was garbage third".

 

There's little point in asking, because of the subjectivity of it. You're going to ask and *someone* of the dozens of people who read and post here isn't going to like you or the idea and come up with anything they can think of to frown at your cache.

 

Ted Williams hit the longest shot in Fenway history (and it's a 500+ foot doozy)and the result is to enshrine the hit as a single red chair in the right field bleachers. A ballpark oddity in a very unique ballpark to begin with. I suggested this as a virtual.% The first comment from someone nowhere close to Fenway was "if we allow your's then *every* piddly baseball-related spot can get marked"...which of course doesn't even agree with the site's own rules on using previous virtuals as examples for accepting future ones. But the point of the matter is that some people don't give two shakes to baseball. To them there is no "Wow" to Teddy Ballgame or his homerun. To others, the "Wow" of baseball is far greater than the average. I don't know where the answer to all of this lies (except to always err on more liberal definitions of "Wow" meaning you don't have to do a cache that got approved if it doesn't impress you enough to do it).

 

% - Yes, I am already aware of the "caches in pay locations must be approved by site before submission".

[+OzGuff]

Beaches, trails, views, signs, memorials, tombstones or historical markers, statues, businesses and things like this will not be approved.  Virtual cache that are novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects may very well be approved if the virtual cache will not block the area from having a traditional cache approved.

Thank you for re-posting everything ever posted about the virtual review process. I read this all (again) and still feel that your words tend to support the subjective nature of this process. "...of interest to other players..." is probably the greyest of greys, for any number of reasons. And what exactly is a "...special...geocaching quality..."?

 

The fact that I see virtual caches listed that don't make me go "Wow!" doesn't mean they should not have been listed; they may be "of interest to other players." And the logic doesn't exactly follow but it is possible that some virtual caches that are not listed because the reviewer sees no "Wow" may be "...of interest to other players..." Are reviewers depriving some players a chance to search for and find perfectably reasonable virtual caches because the reviewer's own life experiences lead them to believe that a particular non-approved virtual cache doesn't have "Wow"?

[+OzGuff]

I posted some stats about the percentage of all caches that are virtuals in a now-locked thread.

I will also remind you of the guidelines for posting on these discussion boards:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

 

Posting Messages: Posting the same message to many topics or boards is considered spam. Duplicate messages will be deleted or consolidated by our moderators. Please do your best to post new topics to the appropriate forum board, moderators will move topics that are posted inappropriately.

And I apologize for that! I should have Markwelled my first stats-heavy post! I do feel that the stats themselves have a heavier impact if seen, and some folks would not have made the effort to follow the link. My bad for wasting bandwidth! (Of course, let us not discuss the seemingly infinite waste of bandwidth due to posts which basically say, "You suck!", "You are wrong!" and "Beating the dead horse.") (Good thing there are none of those in this thread... )

[+CO Admin]

Im having a problem understanding the 2004 growth all stat. can you explane how you arrived at that figure please.

[+briansnat]

Im having a problem understanding the 2004 growth all stat. can you explane how you arrived at that figure please.

 

I think that's the overall percentage of cache (all kinds) growth this year (YTD), vs. existing caches pre 1/1/04. At least that's how I read it.

[+Two Geeks and a GPS]

Michigan has many, many WOW! factors. Take a visit here!

[+Mopar]

The OP (that stands for Original Poster, mtn-man! ) and half the people in this thread so far joined up after the Locationless debates/moratorium, but a few people here have been around long enough to remember what happened then.

 

All this nitpicking of the rules, and complaining that things aren't good enough now is not going to make TPTB drop everything they are doing to just keep this site online with the ever-increasing popularity of the game. They are not gonna stop working on server farms and load balancing to try and come up with a virtual cache solution that pleases everyone (yea, like you will EVER please everyone here). If you get your way, and TPTB agree the current virtual situation is a problem, then they will probably do the exact same thing they did to locationless. They will put a moratorium on new virtuals (and any new problems) until they can figure out a way to make everyone happy. That won't be until after the servers are running smooth, we get archived finds PQs and cache attributes, and of course, new locationless caches.

 

I can't imagine that the people here the longest (and the ones most complaining that the system needs to be fixed) can't see this themselves. I gotta wonder if they aren't really trying to eliminate virtual caches by constantly stirring the pot.

Edited May 27, 2004 by Mopar

[+cachew nut]

Thanks for posting those stats, I must have missed your other thread. The thread seems to be interesting and on-topic, so I don't understand why some people would post here to complain about it. If they find it uninteresting, then they don't need to read it or reply to it.

Keep up the good work!

[+mtn-man]

In the meantime, I have learned that following the "ask first, submit second" leads to "ask first, be told why your idea is garbage second, be warned that if you submit it it will be denied immediately because you were already told it was garbage third".

Of course, I'm sure there is absolutely no posibility that the idea may have in fact been "garbage" (my choice of words would have been "in violation of the posted guidelines").

 

 

 

If anyone wants to have a positive impact in this topic, then I would suggest submitting ideas for what you think the guidelines should be. (And please don't say approve everything. I'm talking constructive suggestions.) The people that make the decisions regarding the guidelines might take some of those suggestions into consideration.

[MOCKBA]

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

Very good post, I would very much like to defend it from attacks. As to UT questions ...

1) we are blessed with huge National Parks and National Monuments, and most of the rest of the state is either designated Wilderness or a military reservation. You can't place a trad there no matter how much Jeremy wants more trads.

2) There was a lot of snowfall this winter which badly hampered placing new physical caches

3) We have a lot of history buffs, including descendants of the original Utah Pioneers, so the WOW factor of historical locations is very high

4) & the most important - UtahAdmin is no longer approving virtuals after being cornered by TPTB (as of 4/25/04). In the local forum, UtahAdmin lamented:

I have suggested to the top management at geocaching that it would be better to eliminate the option for submitting virtuals since we are not supposed to approve them anyway.

In fact of the last 100 approved caches in Utah, there was a single virtual which is in a National Park & has a high enough WOW factor to serve as a semi-official symbol of the state (e.g. on the license plates, among other things).

[+RuffRidr]

Hey cool. Arkansas has the highest amount of growth! Woot! Keep up the good work fellow Arkansas cachers. I bet most of that growth can be attributed to the River Valley. Caches are popping up like crazy down there.

 

--RuffRidr

[+Sparky-Watts]

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.)

 

Well, if you had ever done a virtual in Kansas, you'd see it's nothing to brag about. Back in the day before the more strict guidelines, there were many virts that should never have been allowed, even then. Two come to mind right off the bat, they are road signs. Not at all particulary interesting, unique, or anything wonderful. Just road signs that you need to tell the owners what they say. There are so many more, I won't even dare list them.

 

I don't know the answer to how to make virt approvals less subjective and more objective, but I think the system is working just fine, as proven by Mopar in about 3,247 other threads by listing the numbers and links of all virts in any given area that have been approved since the alleged "de facto ban" on virts. Popcorn anyone?

[+hydee]

The guidelines were revised back in the fall due to many requests from the community stating they were unclear. There were many people involved in the re-write of the guidelines including community members that are not site volunteers. I think they did a great job! The 'wow' factor was contributed at that time by a very intelligent young lady. It seemed to be a simple way to explain what qualifies. Have the location be something that when most people arrive they say "WOW!!!". Being the “judge” of what qualifies as a virtual cache is the least desirable part of being a site volunteer.

 

Team Sagefox mentioned this in a earlier thread and I am going to bring it back up. I feel it was a great suggestion. We can all sit and beat on the 'dead horse' or we can be proactive and do something to change what we don't like.

 

If the geocaching community feels the guidelines are unclear on what qualifies as a virtual cache, then please feel free to email me through the link on my profile page suggestions as to what would be more clear. At this point in time I cannot dedicate the web development time to change the way the site handles Virtual Caches. But I can change the guidelines.

 

There may be a great view that makes me say 'wow', but a view is a view not a cache. So no matter how spectacular your view, it should not be approved. Virtual caches are unique locations that the local tour bus in your city won't be stopping at. I should not be able to research the location on the internet. As cool as most rock stars, movie stars and famous people may be, their gravesites do not qualify.

 

Here is a quick list of things that are normally too common to qualify as a virtual cache:

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.")

thanks KA for the list

 

As I mentioned I am willing to review the virtual guidelines and if someone has a better way to explain a place that makes you go “WOW”.

[+Doggiewoggie]

Here is a quick list of things that are normally too common to qualify as a virtual cache: 

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.")

 

Wow... all of the virtuals I've found fall within these categories--is there anything that doesn't?

 

That said, I'm grateful the rules are stringent--I don't want to waste my time looking for a stupid roadsign.

[+nfa]

yawn

[+Team GPSaxophone]

yawn

Hey, if you've got nothing useful to add to the discussion, feel free to just up your post count.

[+nfa]

ok

[+nfa]

yawn

Hey, if you've got nothing useful to add to the discussion, feel free to just up your post count.

Does anyone ave anything useful to add to this discussion, or has it all been said...again and again and again

[+Team GPSaxophone]

ok

That's much better

[+nfa]

Hey, if you've got nothing useful to add to the discussion, feel free to just up your post count.

and why on earth would anybody care about their forum post count?

 

nfa

[+mtn-man]

Hey, if you've got nothing useful to add to the discussion, feel free to just up your post count. 

and why on earth would anybody care about their forum post count?

 

nfa

True, but that is a topic for discussion elsewhere. (Hint hint, nudge nudge )

Yawns are fine, since that does express your opinoin on the topic.

 

(I think I feel a yawn coming on myself...)

Edited May 27, 2004 by mtn-man

[+Mopar]

[+nfa]

ok...here's an opinion (or at least a rambling set of thoughts):

 

1) geocaching is about the hunt, not the prizes

 

2) virtuals provide an opportunity to hunt for a waypoint that someone feels is interesting

 

3) there are lame virtuals, micros, traditionals, multis, puzzles, etc.

 

4) cache finds can be (and often are) logged online

 

5) virtuals require a question or other log enter-able proof that the cacher found it

 

6) approvers can archive a cache that proves to be lame or pointless

 

The 6 statements listed above would be hard to challenge (from a logical standpoint), and would seem to lead one to the conclusion that there shouldn't be a problem with listing virtuals since they could add to the game without costing it much...

 

There is obviously a problem listing virtuals, so one must assume that TPTB don't want to list virtuals...

 

Continuous discussions concerning the listing of virtuals quickly become circular in nature because although there may be good reasons for being able to list virtuals, if TPTB don't wish to, it won't happen...

 

hence my earlier "yawn"

 

nfa

 

ps - have a nice weekend everyone

Edited May 27, 2004 by NFA

[ju66l3r]

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

 

Virtual cache:

 

There are two kinds of virtual caches. The first kind is a particular spot that would be perfect for inclusion in a more traditional cache hunt but is currently in an area that restricts geocaching (e.g., NPS land). These virtuals can be considered "stake points" for future geocaches if restrictions were to be lifted. The second kind of virtual cache is to highlight something out of the ordinary even in a place where a normal geocache might fit. The purpose is to bring attention to some of the more subtle landmarks and sublime experiences or facts for your area. Often a number of these smaller points of interest can be strung together to tell a story about your locality. Because of the subjectivity involved, your submission for this type of cache must meet a number of requirements:

 

1) Is your submission unique? Is it peculiar to your specific location? (i.e., no animal carcasses or tennis shoes in the woods)

 

2) Can someone solve your validation information without actually going to the site? (if so, then you can not be approved)

 

3) Whether interested in the topic or not, will the seeker have gained a particular insight, knowledge, or appreciation from having completed your cache?

 

Remember that not every virtual is approved because the system can not currently maintain the difference between virtual hides and traditional hides. To preserve more area and system resources for the physical placement of caches, you may be asked to use your virtual as the beginning of an offset cache instead. The final decision is for the approver to determine and the dismissal of your virtual will require you to consider improving any one of the above criteria before it will be considered again.

 

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

 

I think "Wow" may better be summarized as the ability to impress someone with their find even if they were not initially interested in the topic. Of course, the way it is phrased does not mean that *everyone* needs to come away with an appreciation for what they've been shown (just like park'n'cache traditionals don't instill some sort of appreciation for me to do them either)...but the subject or way in which the virtual is accomplished should give the seeker at the very minimum a trivia fact to quote to someone a day later.

 

I think that is a more pragmatic approach to defining a virtual than "wow". Finding a historical marker denoting the flanking point of General Hammersham in the Battle of Gettysburg....doesn't instill the person with anything. Finding every historical marker that follows the Union army's advance on the Confederacy over a 3 mile distance....instills at the minimum an appreciation for how far the soldiers had to go in the few days that the Battle took. And so on...

[Keystone]

I believe that ju66l3r's proposed re-write is the type of substantive contribution to this topic that hydee was looking for, and I thank him for taking the time to post it. By splitting virtuals into two categories, he provides a somewhat different framework for analysis.

 

ju66l3r, to be sure I understand correctly, for the second type of virtual, would you propose that the listing requirements NOT include the test about whether or not a traditional cache could be hidden nearby (including a micro, or the first stage of a multi)? It is not one of your three listed requirements, but then you mention it in the paragraph which follows.

[+Mopar]

Wow, make ju66l3r's post a virtual!

I really like it, except the part that seems to say it's OK to put a virt where a regular cache goes. That seems to contradict a major part of the current guidelines.

 

[EDIT: KA said it first, and said it better!]

Edited May 27, 2004 by Mopar

[+Sparky-Watts]

6) approvers can archive a cache that proves to be lame or pointless

 

They can? Well, if they did, that would drastically reduce the number of caches worldwide.......

 

Or did you mean prior to approval? Still, I don't see that happening, either. Being pointless or lame, to my knowledge, isn't a qualified reason for non-approval, or for archiving an existing cache. Any approvers care to comment, as I may be wrong (again)?

 

Edit: After re-reading your post, I'm thinking that maybe you made this as a suggestion for listing guidelines, right? It didn't hit me that way at first. Either way, I don't like that idea.

Edited May 27, 2004 by Sparky-Watts

[ju66l3r]

ju66l3r, to be sure I understand correctly, for the second type of virtual, would you propose that the listing requirements NOT include the test about whether or not a traditional cache could be hidden nearby (including a micro, or the first stage of a multi)? It is not one of your three listed requirements, but then you mention it in the paragraph which follows.

I was actually a bit torn when I wrote it (which is why you see both options in the text ).

 

My *personal* belief is that a virtual should be able to go anywhere. I'd rather find just the virtual if it is potentially interesting in and of its own right, without having to dig under the nearby newspaper box to find an altoids can. BUT I know the prediliction of the site is to force the altoids can, so I left enough ambiguity that you'd still be able to ask for it without going against the first phrase. In that way, I left it up to the reviewer as to whether they may or may not need to require the cache modified into an offset or not.

 

Whether that specific criteria for a non-restricted land virtual is requirement #4 or still remains ambiguous and at the discretion of the reviewer is something I'll leave the site to decide.

[+Renegade Knight]

...My main point, which I tried to support with statistics, is that there may be some level of subjectivity in the virtual approval process...

Actually I agree that there is a lot of subjective. That's the problem that makes virtuals so much a thorn. There is no way to quantify Wow. You can't bottle it. You can't sell it, define it, or otherwise do much with it other than annoy everyone.

 

Here is a site suggestion. Remove Wow as a guideline. Respond to all "this virtual is lame comments with the following handy phrase" Tweak as needed.

 

"Caches are placed and maintained by people who go out of their way to make this hobby happen; a hobby that we all enjoy. While we recognize that ideally all caches should be winners, the cache owner is the sole judge of where and how they would like to place a cache and we respect that for them just as we respect that for you. We list all caches that meet the guidelines that have been developed to protect geocaching."

[+nfa]

6) approvers can archive a cache that proves to be lame or pointless

 

They can? Well, if they did, that would drastically reduce the number of caches worldwide.......

 

Or did you mean prior to approval? Still, I don't see that happening, either. Being pointless or lame, to my knowledge, isn't a qualified reason for non-approval, or for archiving an existing cache. Any approvers care to comment, as I may be wrong (again)?

 

Edit: After re-reading your post, I'm thinking that maybe you made this as a suggestion for listing guidelines, right? It didn't hit me that way at first. Either way, I don't like that idea.

hi,

 

Wrong...actually, I wasn't suggesting it as a new listing guideline, I wouldn't presume...I just made a mistake, I thought that approvers could archive a cache that consistently got bad reviews (and BTW, why can't they?).

 

To address another point you made...they are of course making judgements all the time about caches they believe to be lame or pointless (it is just talked about using the words "WOW factor" or "Coffee Table Worthiness" instead of lame or pointless).

 

I think that the rest of my thoughts still hang together somewhat, but find that I don't particularly care...TPTB will do what they want vis a vis virtual and locationless, and who am I to call their judgement into question?

 

nfa

[+Sparky-Watts]

6) approvers can archive a cache that proves to be lame or pointless

 

They can? Well, if they did, that would drastically reduce the number of caches worldwide.......

 

Or did you mean prior to approval? Still, I don't see that happening, either. Being pointless or lame, to my knowledge, isn't a qualified reason for non-approval, or for archiving an existing cache. Any approvers care to comment, as I may be wrong (again)?

 

Edit: After re-reading your post, I'm thinking that maybe you made this as a suggestion for listing guidelines, right? It didn't hit me that way at first. Either way, I don't like that idea.

hi,

 

Wrong...actually, I wasn't suggesting it as a new listing guideline, I wouldn't presume...I just made a mistake, I thought that approvers could archive a cache that consistently got bad reviews (and BTW, why can't they?).

 

To address another point you made...they are of course making judgements all the time about caches they believe to be lame or pointless (it is just talked about using the words "WOW factor" or "Coffee Table Worthiness" instead of lame or pointless).

 

I think that the rest of my thoughts still hang together somewhat, but find that I don't particularly care...TPTB will do what they want vis a vis virtual and locationless, and who am I to call their judgement into question?

 

nfa

Ok, I bring the question back to the approvers: Can you archive a cache just because someone logs it as being lame, even if it still fits within the guidelines? I'm saying no, any approvers care to answer?

[+Prime Suspect]

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%

Hummmm..... Did West Virginia leave the union? Could that be why the totals are off?

[Keystone]

The wet cat is correct. "Lameness" or "bad reviews" is not part of the cache guidelines. I am obligated to approve a cache fifty feet down the trail from the parking lot, if it meets the listing guidelines. Personally, I would label that as a lame cache unless it were hidden creatively, used a novel container, etc. If I found that cache under my player account, and gave it a critical log, that's one thing. But my definition of "lame" could be very different than someone else's. So, in my role as a volunteer for this website, my bad review and everyone else's bad reviews are irrelevant.

 

If the website added a guideline that said "no more caches within 50 feet of a road or parking lot," then I would be able to enforce that as an objective rule when evaluating new submissions. But even then, I couldn't go back and archive the "lame" cache from the above example, as it would be grandfathered. It met the listing criteria in effect at the time the cache was submitted.

 

Now, if the bad reviews on a cache were because of the container being wet, or filled with improvised explosive devices, and someone brought the cache to my attention, that would be different. This is because proper cache maintenance and appropriate cache contents are both discussed in the guidelines.