The Issue With Virtuals

January 23, 2005

I am curious as to why there seems to be a bias against promoting virtual caches?
I find them most interesting, educational and enjoyable.

Uh, everyone has the opportunity to hide and find these:

Earthcache virtuals

-WR

2k · January 23, 2005

One of the most fun caches I ever visited was a virtual cache. I also was able to convince the National Park Service to allow me to place a virtual cache when the parks policy was no geocaches, so I feel that there is still a place for a good virtual cache. I haven't attempted to place a virtual lately so I don't really know what the more restrictive rules require before they will allow you to place such a cache. I do know that virtuals are still being approved. <_<

Edited January 23, 2005 by Night Stalker

January 23, 2005

Those interested in historical matters might consider scanning the benchmark data base provided by Groundspeak

.

I know this isn't supposed to be about the numbers, but if the benchmarks counted towards your count, maybe more people would do them.

January 23, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

I, for one, happen to like micros

I have nothing against good micros, I have noticed recenty in my area a explosion of really lame micros on light poles in parking lots or on utility boxes next to sidewalks on busy streets.

7.2k · January 23, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

I, for one, happen to like micros

I have nothing against good micros, I have noticed recenty in my area a explosion of really lame micros on light poles in parking lots or on utility boxes next to sidewalks on busy streets.

Don't you HATE when that happens?

24.7k · January 23, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

I, for one, happen to like micros

I have nothing against good micros, I have noticed recenty in my area a explosion of really lame micros on light poles in parking lots or on utility boxes next to sidewalks on busy streets.

Don't you HATE when that happens?

Not really.

528' away from a walmart micro is more parking, roads, and utility boxes. The cache only blocks more if it's own ilk.

5.7k · January 23, 2005

How then do we address the issue of walking into a park office to dicuss placing geocaches and hearing the guy say, "Ah see you have these here vir-to-ewl caches where you don't leave no box in the woods. "We'll let y'all do that". This was increasingly becoming and issue to the point where traditional geocaching was being threatened in some regions.

I'm sorry, sir, but there is nothing that meets even the loosest virtual cache definition 2 miles back on trail #9 where I think people should visit, help clean the park, and enjoy the outdoors. I do know that my highly non-intrusive ammo box will fit all of my needs and your's though and has worked in over 100,000 other cases. I hope we can reach a common ground on this. I'd hate for the thousands of local and visiting geocachers to avoid your park and not participate in keeping up with its maintenance because you aren't willing to let me place and maintain this small box amongst the acres of beautiful land here.

(add more butt-kissing as seems necessary)

Point being that many people have opened doors to parks that weren't even interested in virtual geocaches simply by selling the activity to the managing bodies. Cooperation on rules that even exceed GC.com (like X many caches per park and time limits on their placement) and well-organized selling points would solve the problem of virtuals "replacing" geocaches in people's minds.

As far as I am concerned this is just another outlandish extreme smoke screen response. Since no one can control what some person in some 'park office' might say or do you just need to be brave enough to deal with it on a case by case basis. I fail to see how such ill-informed responses from "some person in some park office somewhere" has any bearing on virtual caches crowding out traditional caches or on the merits of any particular cache being approved or denied for any reason.

My advice would to be not approve the addition of any cache that threatens the viability of another cache. And further to remove any cache that might at some later point in time prove to have had such a negative impact upon said cache.

So let's just cut to the chase shall we? Please look at the virtuals at the Grand Canyon (Grand Canyon Explorers, Birdseye Survey of the Canyon) and Williams, Arizona (Eight Cribs), Martinez, California (Shaken Not Stirred) and downtown Napa, California (Can You Hear me Now?).

I'd like to understand the down-side of continued approval of these type caches? And ceratinly there are more examples that are just as appropriate for inclusion in the world of informative, interesting, educational, scenic, etc... virtual caches. That some people have seen fit to 'create' virtuals that are refered to in here as "lame" (I have another descriptive term that I won't mention) and to somehow sneak them past reviewers is, in my opinion, a "lame" excuse in itself for discouraging the continued submission and approval of appropriate virtuals.

Depending upon your point of view, it looks as though 2002 and to a lesser extent 2003 were pretty good years for virtuals. I hope that we can get 'Back to the Future' some day soon.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Team cotati697

7.2k · January 23, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

I, for one, happen to like micros

I have nothing against good micros, I have noticed recenty in my area a explosion of really lame micros on light poles in parking lots or on utility boxes next to sidewalks on busy streets.

Don't you HATE when that happens?

Not really.

528' away from a walmart micro is more parking, roads, and utility boxes. The cache only blocks more if it's own ilk.

Yeah, but it's just chaffe to wade through to find the good stuff.

January 23, 2005

with concepts like wiki's and voting available in our 21st century times, why are we stuck with such antiquated concepts of "box in the woods with a logbook"

Some thoughts:

a. I hate signing logbooks. They're usually wet. I'd rather grab a code word on the box and type that in to gc.com to prove I was there. Just like a travel bug. Thank god there's no logbook for them.

b. if people keep thinking such and such cache sucks, why can't they vote. Much like a Wiki or log lets you add commentary to the cache, which isn't there a voting mechanism that would indicate "what's the happy rating of this cache" to which I can filter out caches that suck.

c. stop making excuses for exceptions. Exceptions don't count. Improve the process and the tool to make it easy to filter out crappy X-caches and everybody will be happy.

d. to me the sport is about finding something with my GPS. That something can come in a variety of flavors. I am able to choose which types of something I want to find. I don't want some dude dictating that the only things I can look for are "boxes in the woods with a logbook" as that is too narrow for what might interest myself or somebody else.

e. there are no alternatives to geocaching.com. The market leader contains the bulk of the caches and the others do not have the clout to change this site in any meaningful fashion.

Janx

38.2k · January 23, 2005

As far as I am concerned this is just another outlandish extreme smoke screen response

As far as I'm concerned apples are blue.

Your concerns don't negate the fact that these are real issues. They don't make these restrictions up. They come in response to actual problems. They tightened the guidelines for virtuals and have stuck to their guns despite a firestorm of criticism and a loss of business to other websites.

You asked, people gave you a number of good reasons and you just don't like the answer. I don't understand why you would continue whipping this dead cow unless you just enjoy trolling. GC.com has very tight rules for listing virtuals. If you don't like their rules there are other places you can list your virtual cache.

Edited January 23, 2005 by briansnat

24.7k · January 23, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

I, for one, happen to like micros

I have nothing against good micros, I have noticed recenty in my area a explosion of really lame micros on light poles in parking lots or on utility boxes next to sidewalks on busy streets.

Don't you HATE when that happens?

Not really.

528' away from a walmart micro is more parking, roads, and utility boxes. The cache only blocks more if it's own ilk.

Yeah, but it's just chaffe to wade through to find the good stuff.

You have to do that anyway.

When I started the whining was over caches that were "Just a box in the woods".

Now it's lame micros. Get rid of them it will be something else and you will still have to look for the ones you like.

1.6k · January 23, 2005

I think I have said it before , but I will however continue saying it . What is lame or not up to other standards may be cool to someone else. I think sometimes we all forget that.

Myself , usually if its a cache of anytype , I love it. And if I happen upon one that is not to my liking , I just simply will not hunt it.

Star of Team Tigger

5.7k · January 23, 2005

As far as I am concerned this is just another outlandish extreme smoke screen response

As far as I'm concerned apples are blue.

Your concerns don't negate the fact that these are real issues. They don't make these restrictions up. They come in response to actual problems. They tightened the guidelines for virtuals and have stuck to their guns despite a firestorm of criticism and a loss of business to other websites.

You asked, people gave you a number of good reasons and you just don't like the answer. I don't understand why you would continue whipping this dead cow unless you just enjoy trolling. GC.com has very tight rules for listing virtuals. If you don't like their rules there are other places you can list your virtual cache.

Sadly the expected response. Why use a fly swatter when an atomic bomb yields the same result...............a dead fly. We can dwell on the unchangable past or we can move forward reasonably. I know my choice.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Team cotati697

January 23, 2005

I think I have said it before , but I will however continue saying it. What is lame, or not up to other standards, may be cool to someone else. I think sometimes we all forget that.

Myself , usually if its a cache of anytype , I love it. And if I happen upon one that is not to my liking , I just simply will not hunt it.

Star of Team Tigger

I agree with Team Tigger.

Additionall, I think any virtual, micro, locationless, box in the woods, etc, etc, that get me to an interesting place, or provide me with a good caching experience, is what it is all about.

10.1k · January 23, 2005

Myself , usually if its a cache of anytype , I love it. And if I happen upon one that is not to my liking , I just simply will not hunt it.

Hunt the ones you like. Ignore the ones that you know you will not like. Good advice!

My caching partner refuses to do any that are in cemeteries. He considers it sacrilegious and profane. As a result, there are two on his Ten-Mile List that will never be found by him.

I will respect his feelings. Actually, I rather agree with him. Visit a grave to get numbers off a tombstone?!? EWW!

Then, again, I almost have my brother convinced to visit:Tomb of Saint Margaret, when he goes to Budapest next month. Our mother, Margaret, passed away lasat year, and it would be good for him, I think.

And log a cache too? Hmmm....

5.7k · January 23, 2005

Let's get them posted first.............then we hunt. This is the reason that I started this discussion in the first place. To promote reasonable virtual cache approvals. Unfortunately many responders wish to unproductively dwell on past 'mistakes' rather than use them as a means to improve the ongoing quality and enjoyment of virtual caches for all to seek. That is most unfortunate.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Team cotati697

9.4k · January 23, 2005

I am curious as to why there seems to be a bias against promoting virtual caches?

Because there is a bias against virtual caches. The whole basis of geocaching is to find a container hidden for someone else to find.

I think soccer, snowboarding and sailing is fun, but I don't expect geocaching.com to build areas to support these activities.

We are actively pursuing a solution to virtual caches that will allow you to continue to enjoy this sister activity, along with locationless caches. But they will be a different animal, and IMO with more appropriate tools to manage them.

My original response needs requoting.

5.7k · January 23, 2005

I am curious as to why there seems to be a bias against promoting virtual caches?

Because there is a bias against virtual caches. The whole basis of geocaching is to find a container hidden for someone else to find.

I think soccer, snowboarding and sailing is fun, but I don't expect geocaching.com to build areas to support these activities.

We are actively pursuing a solution to virtual caches that will allow you to continue to enjoy this sister activity, along with locationless caches. But they will be a different animal, and IMO with more appropriate tools to manage them.

My original response needs requoting.

Thank you Jeremy. I eagerly await the result of your 'in progress' efforts to improve the handling of virtual caches.

7.2k · January 23, 2005

Unfortunately many responders wish to unproductively dwell on past 'mistakes' rather than use them as a means to improve the ongoing quality and enjoyment of virtual caches for all to seek. That is most unfortunate.

Actually, the mistakes of the past *are* the reason for the current improvement in quality of virtual caches that are now approved. Sounds like you got your wish. I guess you are ready to drop this now?

:huh:

9.4k · January 23, 2005

I guess you are ready to drop this now?

I bet he was about to until the moment you twisted the sword in further

I think, ultimately, there are three points:

1. Virtuals have a right to exist.

2. Geocaching.com was not designed for virtual (or locationless) caches.

3. There is a solution in the works which will improve functionality around virtual (and locationless) caches.

The solution is pretty close but from past experience I do not make deadlines anymore. We're just too small for that.

(edit: can't count)

Edited January 23, 2005 by Jeremy

9.1k · January 23, 2005

1. Virtuals have a right to resist

Daddy Leprechaun: Surely that was a freudian slip?

Little Leprechaun: His name's Jeremy, not Shirley.

9.4k · January 23, 2005

Heh. Don't code and post at the same time. Strange things will happen...

5.7k · January 24, 2005

1. Virtuals have a right to resist

Daddy Leprechaun: Surely that was a freudian slip?

Little Leprechaun: His name's Jeremy, not Shirley.

Edited January 24, 2005 by Team cotati697

5.7k · January 24, 2005

I guess you are ready to drop this now?

I bet he was about to until the moment you twisted the sword in further

I think, ultimately, there are three points:

1. Virtuals have a right to exist.

2. Geocaching.com was not designed for virtual (or locationless) caches.

3. There is a solution in the works which will improve functionality around virtual (and locationless) caches.

The solution is pretty close but from past experience I do not make deadlines anymore. We're just too small for that.

(edit: can't count)

Jeremy, right you are. Some people just don't know how to 'win' do they? Thanks for everything that you and your associates do. All that I think any of us want is a reasonably accomodating process for responsible virtual caching. Verbal wars should be avoidable as should patronizing platitudes.

Unless someone else has a burning interest, I consider this issue closed.

7.2k · January 24, 2005

Sorry Team cotati697. I was typing as you posted. Glad it works out in the end. That's all that matters.

January 25, 2005

I would just like to add my two cents worth.

I began caching last July, and due to monetary and other constraints, was unable to go and find that traditional "box in the woods" type cache for a while. Most of my caching has been done in town and unless I suddenly become independently wealthy enough to pay for all of the gas my rig guzzles and take tons of time off to find single caches placed in the woods, I suspect that is where I will do most of it in the near future.

After my first few "regular" sized caches, I started to dislike micros because they were sometimes hard to find and I didn't get the opportunity to trade or read the log book. Over time, I discovered some really interesting micros that take advantage of people's perceptions and try to sneak something past the beholder as something else. This discovery has led me to now seek out micros that are described as non-traditional. The thrill of seeing something hidden in plain sight is really cool.

I found a cache that would have best been served by not having a log book and a "password" instead, as the paper was always wet, but it had one anyway because the rules say that it has to unless it is a virtual. My joy in finding it consisted of realizing where it HAD to be, not signing a logbook or finding a container. In fact, there was no container at all!

I recently tried to submit a similar cache only to be told that it has to have a log book. Granted that the location has nothing redeeming about it, the method of placement is something that I have not seen in this area and would like to introduce local cachers to the concept through their own hunt.

Seems like most of the complaints so far against Virts include the log book issue or some "quality" issue with a cache.

Here is an idea to have your cake and eat it too.

1.) Password type caches must have the password changed every month or so.

2.) Some sort of filter so that the owner can say "this cache has no scenic, historical, geological etc, value but may be a good puzzle", so that the emphasis is not on the location, but on the hunt.

I think we all forget that we as cache seekers can readily filter out unwanted caches and that unless we are illiterate, there is no excuse for not reading the cache page.

Sorry if I offended anyone, just my two cents.

7.2k · January 25, 2005

Over time on the forums I have seen less of a bias against virtuals and more of a bias against micro caches. Perhaps this is because virtuals are harder to get approve and micros have no trouble getting approved, good or bad. As for the nature of the game being about finding a box with goodies in it, I would have to disagree with that, as geocaching continues to evolve so do the goals of the players.

I, for one, happen to like micros

I have nothing against good micros, I have noticed recenty in my area a explosion of really lame micros on light poles in parking lots or on utility boxes next to sidewalks on busy streets.

Don't you HATE when that happens?

Not really.

528' away from a walmart micro is more parking, roads, and utility boxes. The cache only blocks more if it's own ilk.

Yeah, but it's just chaffe to wade through to find the good stuff.

You have to do that anyway.

When I started the whining was over caches that were "Just a box in the woods".

Now it's lame micros. Get rid of them it will be something else and you will still have to look for the ones you like.

Dude, are you even reading the same thread as I am?

Point one: area used have a decent mix of caches with the general quality fairly high.

Point two: someone comes in and places cheap, lame micros with little to no redeeming value. All at the lower end of the quality scale.

Point three: now because you wish to skip wasting gas, time, and effort on absolutely lame cache, you try to skip them.

Point four: they sit on your nearest list like trash on you favorite lookout. You are forced to look past this to see things worth your while.

Point five: some see these and only see "oh, one more for my find count! I can place some of these."

Point six: next thing you know the place is over run with these.

Point seven: now instead of a visitor coming in and only find a stinker or two, they have to weed through the affore mentioned chaffe to find something worth their while to spend their time on.

Point eight: if a visitor finds a couple of these lame micros first they will most likely filter on micros and actually miss the good ones.

So, no, placing lame micros is not harmless.

1.6k · January 25, 2005

The concern about virtuals being replaced with lame micros is a real one. The concern about the proliferation of lame virts is a documentably real historic fact. We had these lame virts and that was part of the reason for their being restricted as a whole class.

The thing that bothers me about all of the threads about poor quality caches is that we never seem to be willing to go to the root of the problem. A given cacher seems content to spew garbage caches and ruin an area, and GC seems perfectly content to let it happen. When ever someone brings up any kind of quality control suggestion, either the "no rules" set will scream at them or TPTB will squelch the conversation.

Do good virts belong? Sure, but does a tennis shoe in the woods qualify as a good virt? No. Do good micros belong? Sure, but does a cacher really add to the game with 20 cut and paste cache pages all referencing keyholders under garbage cans? No. Do good trads belong? Sure, but does a cacher really add to the game with a cache that is a drive by, stop, walk 20 feet along some nature trail, look behind the tree (Oh, and did we mention that we aren't supposed to leave the trail?) to find the box? No.

Lets start seriously working on some meaningful cache rating system or some local control system so we can avoid imbalance of types and we can counsel lame cache hiders to start hiding better ones.

Back in the day, we ran into the lame virt problem because there were so few cache approvers that 3 or 4 did all of North America. There was no way for them to research the cache sites effectively and no way for them to do any QC checks on caches they had approved. We have more approvers and we have more cachers that are experienced enough to be recruited to either add to the ranks of approvers or help the approvers check out caches. The labor problem should not be a barrier today.

Back then we didn't really have a good definition for a given cache type as to what was and wasn't a good example. Now we do. We can point to examples in most any city and certainly in any state of good practice in the design, and implementation of most any cache type.

Back then we didn't have as many local groups and the ones we had were small and just getting started. We have more local groups who could take on the role of teaching cache placement to new players.

We need to get at this.

7.2k · January 25, 2005

Dude, are you even reading the same thread as I am?

Point one: area used have a decent mix of caches with the general quality fairly high.

Point two: someone comes in and places cheap, lame micros with little to no redeeming value. All at the lower end of the quality scale.

Point three: now because you wish to skip wasting gas, time, and effort on absolutely lame cache, you try to skip them.

Point four: they sit on your nearest list like trash on you favorite lookout. You are forced to look past this to see things worth your while.

Point five: some see these and only see "oh, one more for my find count! I can place some of these."

Point six: next thing you know the place is over run with these.

Point seven: now instead of a visitor coming in and only find a stinker or two, they have to weed through the affore mentioned chaffe to find something worth their while to spend their time on.

Point eight: if a visitor finds a couple of these lame micros first they will most likely filter on micros and actually miss the good ones.

So, no, placing lame micros is not harmless.

Just for the sake of the discussion, can't you replace "micro" with "virtual" in this list and have the same effect? From my point of view, the answer is yes.

24.7k · January 25, 2005

...
Dude, are you even reading the same thread as I am?

Point one: area used have a decent mix of caches with the general quality fairly high.

Point two: someone comes in and places cheap, lame micros with little to no redeeming value. All at the lower end of the quality scale.

Point three: now because you wish to skip wasting gas, time, and effort on absolutely lame cache, you try to skip them.

Point four: they sit on your nearest list like trash on you favorite lookout. You are forced to look past this to see things worth your while.

Point five: some see these and only see "oh, one more for my find count! I can place some of these."

Point six: next thing you know the place is over run with these.

Point seven: now instead of a visitor coming in and only find a stinker or two, they have to weed through the affore mentioned chaffe to find something worth their while to spend their time on.

Point eight: if a visitor finds a couple of these lame micros first they will most likely filter on micros and actually miss the good ones.

So, no, placing lame micros is not harmless.

Sure we are reading the same thread. We just don't agree.

Point 1. Lame is as lame does. If you can't have fun don't do the cache and don't bitch about it. I'd rather do a "Lame Walmart micro" while waiting for my daughter to find the perfect pair of pants or for my oil to be changed than twiddle my thumbs.

Point 2. Lame is relative. You don't like it someone else will.

Point 3. You can have a high quality "Lame" cahe.

Point 4. You probably also skip completely cool caches as well. SCUBA, Rock Climbing, Vertigo, etc. etc. You are going to skip caches, get over it.

Point 5. This hobby depends on cahe placers, everyone deserves some slack for a cache that misses the mark. No placers nothing for the finders to complain about or debate over the lame factor. Placers trump finders for that reason.

Point 6. A lame cache in a cool spot is still a cool experience. You can't overun the world with lame caches. It just can't be done. Mostly is the location that people don't like. Yes there are wet logs. It's a fact of the hobby. Such is life.

Point 7. Visitors usually ask what's cool, and/or read logs.

Point 8. There are more "Lame" caches and more "Cool" caches, there are just more of everthing out there. I don't have time to do them all anyway. One issue is that as the cool spots are all taken I'm not gong to stand in line and point at someone new and say. "Tough nuts, you can't place a cache because the only places left are in the urban jungle.

Yes we read the same thread, we just don't agree on this point. There is always the next thread.

38.2k · January 25, 2005

Point 2. Lame is relative. You don't like it someone else will.

Its attitudes like that that gave us Brittany Spears, American Idol and Domino's pizza.i

7.2k · January 25, 2005

Just for the sake of the discussion, can't you replace "micro" with "virtual" in this list and have the same effect? From my point of view, the answer is yes.

Actually, I think you could replace "micro" with "cache" and still be on the mark.

However, I'd rather see a lame virt than a lame micro. If the definition of a virt was held to the fact that it has to be a "(semi) permanent point of interest* with a found item for verfication" then even the lamest of virts would still be more interesting than the lamest of micros.

What's more interesting, a lamp post in some random Walmart or a historical marker? What about a micro hidden on a power transformer at some random off ramp versus yet another military memorial?

Sure, micros have their place. Team360's example is prime. Nothing but a pulloff, a guardrail, and magnificent view. But replace the view with some ordinary building, then it changes.

I'd much rather be inudated with listings of every plaque, marker, and statue in an area than every lamppost, power transformer, and dumpster. Wouldn't you?

*historical marker, plaque, statue, or extrordinary object or location

7.2k · January 25, 2005

Point 6. A lame cache in a cool spot is still a cool experience.

See, this is where the failure lay. If you have some redeeming value, then it's not lame. (Unless you're claiming it's something it's not.)

In my book lame is something where you have to wonder why the heck someone brought you there. They make you wonder just what the heck were they thinking.

A cache doesn't have to be lame to be enjoyed. You can place an interesting cache and it be just as enjoyable if not more so. You can even use a spot that would have been lame if it only was a micro traditional and make it interesting.

No, you're definition of lame apparentely is different than mine.

38.2k · January 25, 2005

Point 6. A lame cache in a cool spot is still a cool experience.

See, this is where the failure lay. If you have some redeeming value, then it's not lame. (Unless you're claiming it's something it's not.)

In my book lame is something where you have to wonder why the heck someone brought you there. They make you wonder just what the heck were they thinking.

Agreed. If the cache is in a cool spot it can't be lame. My definition of lame is identical to CR's.

January 25, 2005

The concern about virtuals being replaced with lame micros is a real one. The concern about the proliferation of lame virts is a documentably real historic fact. We had these lame virts and that was part of the reason for their being restricted as a whole class.

The thing that bothers me about all of the threads about poor quality caches is that we never seem to be willing to go to the root of the problem. A given cacher seems content to spew garbage caches and ruin an area, and GC seems perfectly content to let it happen. When ever someone brings up any kind of quality control suggestion, either the "no rules" set will scream at them or TPTB will squelch the conversation.

Do good virts belong? Sure, but does a tennis shoe in the woods qualify as a good virt? No. Do good micros belong? Sure, but does a cacher really add to the game with 20 cut and paste cache pages all referencing keyholders under garbage cans? No. Do good trads belong? Sure, but does a cacher really add to the game with a cache that is a drive by, stop, walk 20 feet along some nature trail, look behind the tree (Oh, and did we mention that we aren't supposed to leave the trail?) to find the box? No.

Lets start seriously working on some meaningful cache rating system or some local control system so we can avoid imbalance of types and we can counsel lame cache hiders to start hiding better ones.

Back in the day, we ran into the lame virt problem because there were so few cache approvers that 3 or 4 did all of North America. There was no way for them to research the cache sites effectively and no way for them to do any QC checks on caches they had approved. We have more approvers and we have more cachers that are experienced enough to be recruited to either add to the ranks of approvers or help the approvers check out caches. The labor problem should not be a barrier today.

Back then we didn't really have a good definition for a given cache type as to what was and wasn't a good example. Now we do. We can point to examples in most any city and certainly in any state of good practice in the design, and implementation of most any cache type.

Back then we didn't have as many local groups and the ones we had were small and just getting started. We have more local groups who could take on the role of teaching cache placement to new players.

We need to get at this.

I feel BigRedMed said it very well. There is a place for all the different style hides. The responsibility of monitering the quality is in the approvers hands. The same goes for the whole "charity" issue that gets discussed ad nauseum. As Bigredmed says, "get to the root of the problem".

I enjoy the variety of cache hides out there, traditional, virtual and locationless. I would have lost interest if all the caches involved a 5 mile round trip walk through the woods.

7.2k · January 25, 2005

Just for the sake of the discussion, can't you replace "micro" with "virtual" in this list and have the same effect? From my point of view, the answer is yes.

Actually, I think you could replace "micro" with "cache" and still be on the mark.

However, I'd rather see a lame virt than a lame micro. If the definition of a virt was held to the fact that it has to be a "(semi) permanent point of interest* with a found item for verfication" then even the lamest of virts would still be more interesting than the lamest of micros.

What's more interesting, a lamp post in some random Walmart or a historical marker? What about a micro hidden on a power transformer at some random off ramp versus yet another military memorial?

Sure, micros have their place. Team360's example is prime. Nothing but a pulloff, a guardrail, and magnificent view. But replace the view with some ordinary building, then it changes.

I'd much rather be inudated with listings of every plaque, marker, and statue in an area than every lamppost, power transformer, and dumpster. Wouldn't you?

*historical marker, plaque, statue, or extrordinary object or location

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The lame virtual caches I'm talking about are the dead animals, rolled up grass tied with pine straw, tennis shoes thrown over a power line, golf balls left in the woods, tennis balls thrown into the woods, manhole covers, fireplugs, etc., etc., etc. I think historical markers compare to a better class of micros, just as a power transformer compares to a trashy virtual.

You have to compare apples to apples.

7.2k · January 25, 2005

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The lame virtual caches I'm talking about are the dead animals, rolled up grass tied with pine straw, tennis shoes thrown over a power line, golf balls left in the woods, tennis balls thrown into the woods, manhole covers, fireplugs, etc., etc., etc. I think historical markers compare to a better class of micros, just as a power transformer compares to a trashy virtual.

You have to compare apples to apples.

Yet, TPTB completely skipped over being able to do what I'm talking about.

Virts have practically been shut down and pointless micros flourish.

January 25, 2005

... Do good virts belong? Sure, but does a tennis shoe in the woods qualify as a good virt? No.

Yes, I agree that there have been many excellent virtual caches. I also agree that the value of many virtual caches would be diminished if the focus of the visit were to find a film canister rather than locating/reading/learning/observing something of value. I also agree that the proverbial "sneaker in the woods" would not be a worthwhile virtual cache.

Now, to digress a little: I see no reason why that "sneaker in the woods" could not make a perfectly acceptable "traditional physical cache." Would it necessarily be any different than the many well-implemented fake rocks, fake birdhouses, fake beehives, fake animals, fake sprinkler heads, etc., etc. currently in place?

Almost invariably, whenever a novel idea/method for hiding a cache reaches an area, it is immediately celebrated and championed as being "clever" or "original." Several imitations usually follow in quick succession, and by the third or fourth similar cache, that novel/clever/original idea is considered passe or "lame" ... even if the succeeding caches were superior to the original. That's the way it goes.

Back to the quoted post:

Do good micros belong? Sure, but does a cacher really add to the game with 20 cut and paste cache pages all referencing keyholders under garbage cans? No.

That depends entirely on one's perspective. I agree with you that such caches are worthless, but many people have demonstrated that they will eagerly travel a thousand miles or more in order to spend the weekend "bagging" a few hundred micros similar to that.

Do good trads belong? Sure, but does a cacher really add to the game with a cache that is a drive by, stop, walk 20 feet along some nature trail, look behind the tree (Oh, and did we mention that we aren't supposed to leave the trail?) to find the box? No.

Again, I happen to agree with you, but refer back to my previous comment. That is precisely the type of cache many, many geocachers prefer and welcome warmly. That's why caches with high terrain ratings are visited less frequently than caches with low terrain ratings.

The concern about the proliferation of lame virts is a documentably real historic fact. ... Back in the day, we ran into the lame virt problem because there were so few cache approvers that 3 or 4 did all of North America.

Is it? I never viewed the "lame" problem as being specific to virtual caches. In my area, I recall people began commenting about the proliferation of "lame" caches in early 2002, shortly after a major influx of new cachers. The way I see it, it was far easier (for the website) to severely restrict virtual caches than to address the entire problem by placing stricter requirements on all caches types. Certainly, placing stricter requirements on virtual caches eliminated a part of the problem. Unfortunately, that solution seems to have led to the creation of something many people consider to be a much larger problem. (That certain category of microcaches beloved by some and despised by others.)

Lets start seriously working on some meaningful cache rating system or some local control system so we can avoid imbalance of types and we can counsel lame cache hiders to start hiding better ones.

But isn't it their ("lame cache hiders" ...or perhaps you meant "the hiders of lame caches") game every bit as much as it is "MisterFindsNeedlesInHaystacksMountainGoat's?" Face facts: In order for the game to have the broadest appeal to the largest audience, the game must be tailored to appeal to "the lowest common denominator."

Edited January 25, 2005 by Bassoon Pilot

7.2k · January 25, 2005

Yet, TPTB completely skipped over being able to do what I'm talking about.

Virts have practically been shut down and pointless micros flourish.

I understand totally. I like a good virtual too. I have been to good ones and to bad ones. I have created what I thought were several good ones before the changes in the guidelines. But, it is their site and they can choose to do with it what they want.

9.4k · January 25, 2005

Yet, TPTB completely skipped over being able to do what I'm talking about.

What are you talking about?

Virts have practically been shut down and pointless micros flourish.

Seems like another topic. This one is about virtuals. If you're saying "micros suck too" it is a red herring. Micros and virtuals have nothing in common except coordinates are involved. Don't try justifying a lame virtual with a lame micro. Never justify bad behavior with other bad behavior.

Granted, some traditionals, micros, multi-caches, etc. suck. It happens. Not sure why this even becomes part of the virtual issue (which I must repeat ad nauseum, is being addressed).

9.4k · January 25, 2005

Yet, TPTB completely skipped over being able to do what I'm talking about.

Virts have practically been shut down and pointless micros flourish.

I understand totally. I like a good virtual too. I have been to good ones and to bad ones. I have created what I thought were several good ones before the changes in the guidelines. But, it is their site and they can choose to do with it what they want.

Maybe I'm just writing for the wall.

Hello wall. Maybe you'll read my posts.

2k · January 25, 2005

Though I like many of the virtuals I have visited very much, it has occurred to me that with all the "normal" caches being created we are running low on available numbers. If virtuals were as easy to come by as they once were this would compound the problem

24.7k · January 25, 2005

Point 2. Lame is relative. You don't like it someone else will.

Its attitudes like that that gave us Brittany Spears, American Idol and Domino's pizza.i

Britteny Spears would best serve the world as a centerfold.

I don't do Dominos but I do, use Papa Murphey's.

But I have bought a CD by at least one winner of American Idol.

It's all relative.

Edit: That CD only had one good song...

Edited January 25, 2005 by Renegade Knight

7.2k · January 25, 2005

I think, ultimately, there are three points:

1. Virtuals have a right to exist.

2. Geocaching.com was not designed for virtual (or locationless) caches.

3. There is a solution in the works which will improve functionality around virtual (and locationless) caches.

The solution is pretty close but from past experience I do not make deadlines anymore. We're just too small for that.

I've read it, I understand it and I am perfectly happy with it. I am just happy to be geocaching, no matter what form it takes on this site. As I say, it is your site and you can do with it what you want. I am happy to play the game within those parameters.

January 25, 2005

Virts have practically been shut down and pointless micros flourish.

Seems like another topic. This one is about virtuals. If you're saying "micros suck too" it is a red herring. Micros and virtuals have nothing in common except coordinates are involved. Don't try justifying a lame virtual with a lame micro. Never justify bad behavior with other bad behavior. ... Not sure why this even becomes part of the virtual issue ...

The two issues are intertwined because the restrictions on one type (virtual caches) were directly led to the proliferation of the other (microcaches.) Actually, cache quality (or the lack thereof) is the tangental issue.

5.7k · February 12, 2005

I think, ultimately, there are three points:

1. Virtuals have a right to exist.

2. Geocaching.com was not designed for virtual (or locationless) caches.

3. There is a solution in the works which will improve functionality around virtual (and locationless) caches.

The solution is pretty close but from past experience I do not make deadlines anymore. We're just too small for that.

I've read it, I understand it and I am perfectly happy with it. I am just happy to be geocaching, no matter what form it takes on this site. As I say, it is your site and you can do with it what you want. I am happy to play the game within those parameters.

Let me guess, your favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla but if they are out of that one you'll be perfectly happy with chocolate.

5.7k · February 12, 2005

Though I like many of the virtuals I have visited very much, it has occurred to me that with all the "normal" caches being created we are running low on available numbers. If virtuals were as easy to come by as they once were this would compound the problem

Available numbers of what?

February 13, 2005

I am curious as to why there seems to be a bias against promoting virtual caches?
I find them most interesting, educational and enjoyable.

The points regarding cache maintenance of a virtual seem to me for the most part to be a smoke screen. The virtuals that I have visited and seen on the web site do not seem to be things that might 'change' very often thus requiring 'maintenance'. As such, I don't get what is wrong with promoting virtuals that have an obvious liklihood of not 'changing' over time? And when such virtuals do change, isn't that what archving is for?

Thanks, Team cotati697

I agree! I have tried to get virtuals approved and all I get are a list of excuses about why they aren't possible when there are alternatives that, although aren't virtual, lead to a physical cache.

Why this is, I have no idea, so I've abandoned any hopes of having any really unique places made into virtual caches despite the fact that these places are off-limits for any physical cache container, and there really is no way to place one nearby.

I agree 100% and have also had recent attempts to set up virtual caches denied. I love historical, notable virtuals. Reading the threads here I was una ware of the problems some people have had with virtuals. I have never seen a bad virtual in CO.

My interest in creating virtuals was the recent spate of vandalism to numberous traditional caches in the area including one of mine, but that is another topic.

1.2k · February 13, 2005

Ok, lets save some time here...It's Jeremy's site, he doesn't want virtuals listed at this time. Questions? Now if I could just find a dead horse to beat...

A cynic might say because there's no way to hype www.geocaching.com on a virtual. :-P

7.2k · February 13, 2005

I think, ultimately, there are three points:

1. Virtuals have a right to exist.

2. Geocaching.com was not designed for virtual (or locationless) caches.

3. There is a solution in the works which will improve functionality around virtual (and locationless) caches.

The solution is pretty close but from past experience I do not make deadlines anymore. We're just too small for that.

I've read it, I understand it and I am perfectly happy with it. I am just happy to be geocaching, no matter what form it takes on this site. As I say, it is your site and you can do with it what you want. I am happy to play the game within those parameters.

Let me guess, your favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla but if they are out of that one you'll be perfectly happy with chocolate.

Ironically, my favorite is vanilla. (You could call me a purist, but it is a cajun thing I think.) I don't like chocolate though. Give me the chocolate chip cookie dough, pralines and cream or Blue Bell's banana split.

The Issue With Virtuals

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment