Long Distance Virtual Caching

[+CaptMK]

Hello. I thought I'd go here first and see if anyone has started a virtual cache while on vacation? I was in New mexico and I think I found the perfect virtual as well as my wife thinks so too. I have gotten oral permission at the building from the supertendent. I live in Colorado.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

[+Sagefox]

New Mexico doesn't seem all that far from Colorado. It will be up to your area cache approvers.

[+fly46]

Good luck getting a virt approved, anyway..

*If* your virt qualifies, *then* it's a matter of distance.

[+Mopar]

Can you hide a physical cache there?

 

If you can, could you maintain it?

[+fizzymagic]

Hello. I thought I'd go here first and see if anyone has started a virtual cache while on vacation? I was in New mexico and I think I found the perfect virtual as well as my wife thinks so too. I have gotten oral permission at the building from the supertendent. I live in Colorado.

As mentioned above by our resident nares suffusca, and for reasons that make no sense to me at all, TPTB have decided that one needs to be able to "maintain" virtual caches. Seems to me that Half Dome has been fine all by itself for several million years without me to hold its hand, but apparently That's Not Good Enough.

 

(No, I didn't ever try to place a virt on Half Dome, which is close enough that it wouldn't probably qualify as a vacation virt anyway. I used it to make a point.)

Edited June 22, 2005 by fizzymagic

[WH]

I own 1 virtual cache listing.

 

If I tried to get it listed today, it would never get approved.

[+CaptMK]

OK, how would you "maintain" a virtual cache? The virtual cache that I am thinking about is Smokey the Bear. The location is in Capitan and the coordinates are at the visitor center. You don't have to go in and pay. The only requirement is to name the famous character at this location. How would you maintain this? I don't believe they want anyone to go poking around for a physical cache at this location and besides, there would be too many mugglers.

[Keystone]

You maintain a virtual cache similar to a physical cache, minus things like replacing full logbooks, repairing leaky containers, etc. You monitor the logs for meeting the cache's requirements and any reported problems. You visit the site periodically to make sure everything's there and in good shape. You respond promptly to reported problems.

 

As a cache reviewer I deal quite regularly with maintenance issues from "absentee" virtual cache owners. Things like statues falling into sinkholes, historic markers being removed for cleaning, buildings being torn down, trucks smashing into monuments... you name it and it's happened somewhere! A local cacher can promptly react to such events and assess what to do with their virtual cache.

[+sept1c_tank]

Wow, a virtual-vacation cache (good luck with your endeavor)!

[+Prime Suspect]

As mentioned above by our resident nares suffusca, and for reasons that make no sense to me at all, TPTB have decided that one needs to be able to "maintain" virtual caches.

Can't conceive that something might happen to a virtual cache? Neither did he. (That final log's a classic.)

 

Or how about this one?

 

Or how about a 250 pound rock out in the middle of nowhere. That's certainly not going anywhere... oh, oops!

[+fizzymagic]

As a cache reviewer I deal quite regularly with maintenance issues from "absentee" virtual cache owners. Things like statues falling into sinkholes, historic markers being removed for cleaning, buildings being torn down, trucks smashing into monuments... you name it and it's happened somewhere!

Pretending there is a significant problem when there isn't is not a good way to promote your point of view. I'd be shocked if you see more than 3 or 4 incidents like that per year. I don't think that qualifies as "regularly."

 

I know that you are under tremendous pressure to rationalize the more or less completely arbitrary decision to prohibit these caches, but come on. This is really stretching it.

[+fizzymagic]

Can't conceive that something might happen to a virtual cache? Neither did he. (That final log's a classic.)

 

Or how about this one? 

 

Or how about a 250 pound rock out in the middle of nowhere. That's certainly not going anywhere... oh, oops!

I did not say that I can't conceive of something happening to a virt; I cannot conceive of something happening to so many virts that so requires local attention that a global rule must be enforced without any regard to the particulars of the hide.

 

Which of the cases you cited was ( a ) identified by the owner on a regular maintenance visit, or ( b ) corrected by the owner without archiving the cache?

 

None, right?

 

Is archiving a cache something that requires you to be at the site?

 

Nope.

 

So what, exactly, is it that the locals did in these cases? In only one of them was the owner even the one who archived it!

 

As I have repeatedly said, the claims that local maintenance for virtual caches is required in every case are generally an attempt to rationalize an arbitrary decision from TPTB. I guess I applaud the fierce dedication of some senior approvers to The Company, but, unfortunately, slavish devotion to the party line in cases like this tends to reduce one's credibility.

Edited June 23, 2005 by fizzymagic

[+mtn-man]

 

I would like you to please give us your facts to support your statement that the decision regarding the vacation virtual guideline was an arbitrary decision.

 

I see you as a person that just can't accept a nearly two year old decision from the site. It would be like me saying that you faked half your finds. I don't have any proof, but I will just keep saying it and maybe someone will believe it.

 

You have been given facts to show why the guideline is there. I was there for most of the discussions back then and since you are not a reviewer you were not involved in the discussions. So, what are your facts that clearly show that this decision was arbitrary? Enlighten us. Otherwise, please stop stating uninformed incorrect information from which you have no factual support.

[+fizzymagic]

You have been given facts to show why the guideline is there. 

First, no worthwhile evidence has been given to support the decision. Examples of virtual caches that had problems have been proffered, but since they are exceptions and anecdotal evidence is generally a poor decision-making tool, I reject your contention that they constitute factual evidence that long-distance virtuals are plagued with problems.

 

If you would like to present some actual data, I would be overjoyed. However, since, as you so clearly put:

 

I was there for most of the discussions back then and since you are not a reviewer you were not involved in the discussions.

 

...mere mortal cachers are not allowed input into the Secret Policy-Making Discussions of the Exalted Reviewers, none of these so-called "facts" were ever presented to the geocaching community at large prior to the decision being handed down from On High.

 

And, given the general secrecy surrounding almost all policy decisions of the site, I quite seriously doubt that any factual evidence will ever be given, your extraordinarily defensive protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Should you decide to present such evidence, I can happily give you exactly what would suffice:

• Number of active virtual caches on the site.
  
• Number of virtual caches disabled and archived over the last year because of "maintenance" problems.
  
• Number of those caches where the problem was resolved by a local cache owner and the cache was re-enabled.
  

As I wrote above, I am not exactly holding my breath, as cooperation and consultation with the caching community at large does not seem to be a priority for this site.

 

In the meantime, please don't continue to post falsehoods about how we have been given the "facts" until the above evidence is provided.

 

Thanks very much.

[+sept1c_tank]

As mentioned above by our resident nares suffusca,..

I know this is a topic (about something), but what the heck is nares suffusca?

 

Sorry for my ignorance.

[+fizzymagic]

I thought I would try to estimate the numbers I requested to perhaps perhaps produce a reasonable model of the decision-making process, and explain my use of the word "arbitrary" in describing the decision to ban long-distance virtuals.

 

I am assuming that, in making the decision to ban long-distance virtuals, TPTB had access to the data I requested above. If they didn't use such data, but instead relied upon scattered anecdotal evidence, then their decision-making process was embarrassingly flawed. But let's assume they had (and used) good data to make the decision.

 

I generated a PQ to estimate how many virtuals encounter problems that can only be solved by locals. From my home coordinates, there are 500 virtual caches within 313 miles. Of those, 4 are currently inactive, for a problem rate of less than 1%.

 

Let's assume that every one of the inactive caches has a problem that could only be resolved by a local owner. That's pretty generous to those who claim that it is a pervasive problem, but, for the sake of this argument, I will grant the point.

 

So, based upon a 1% problem rate, TPTB decided that a complete ban was called for.

 

To me, that seems like a pretty extreme reaction. If that 1% threshold were used to justify bans on any other form of cache, it would result in absurd restrictions:

• More than 1% of caches are placed without permission.
  
• More than 1% of caches are archived and abandoned, becoming geo-litter.
  
• More than 1% of caches are in dire need of maintenance right now.
  
• More than 1% of caches could potentially be mis-identified as bombs.
  

Remember, rather than place reasonable restrictions on long-distance virtuals, TPTB decided on a complete ban. Their logic appears to have been that anything that causes a 1% problem rate should be prohibited. But since physical caches have a much higher problem rate than that, by this logic all physical caches should be banned as well.

 

Given the glaring inconsistency, the claim that long-distance virtuals we banned solely as a result of a significant problem rate doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. When you factor in more data, the decision makes even less sense. To wit:

• Problems with virtuals are rarely discovered by the owner, but are almost always reported by seekers.
  
• If a problem with a long-distance virtual arises, it can (unlike a long-distance physical cache) be archived without any problem of geo-litter.
  

Since the decision to ban long-distance virtuals is completely inconsistent with other policies used by this site, it can only be described as "arbitrary."

 

I am hoping that TPTB revisit this decision-making process when virtuals are re-instituted on the site, and implement a policy that is more consistent with the guidelines for other situations.

[+Cow Spots]

This is a very interesting discussion. Never try to argue numbers with a scientist.

[Keystone]

As a cache reviewer I deal quite regularly with maintenance issues from "absentee" virtual cache owners.  Things like statues falling into sinkholes, historic markers being removed for cleaning, buildings being torn down, trucks smashing into monuments... you name it and it's happened somewhere!

Pretending there is a significant problem when there isn't is not a good way to promote your point of view. I'd be shocked if you see more than 3 or 4 incidents like that per year. I don't think that qualifies as "regularly."

 

I know that you are under tremendous pressure to rationalize the more or less completely arbitrary decision to prohibit these caches, but come on. This is really stretching it.

Well, be shocked then, because I can readily provide several times that many examples. Three out of the four situations in my first message all happened within the past year, just within my review territory, and I wasn't even trying hard to think of examples. The statue falling victim to a sinkhole was just archived on June 19th; it's the Madonna of the Trail Statue in Maryland.

 

I'll thank you to not suggest that I'm stretching the truth or "pretending." I have plenty of facts to back me up. The reviewers collect them to rebut naysayers.

 

In any event, the entire argument will in all likelihood be moot in the very, very near future.

[+fizzymagic]

Well, be shocked then, because I can readily provide several times that many examples.

 

OK, I am shocked.

 

I'll thank you to not suggest that I'm stretching the truth or "pretending."  I have plenty of facts to back me up.  The reviewers collect them to rebut naysayers.

 

I apologize, then. I was trying to give you a graceful way out.

 

I take it when you say you have "plenty of facts" that you can provide me with the statistics I requested above, to show that problems with virtuals that can only be addressed by a local owner happen to a significant fraction of virtual caches.

 

Please let us see it! No more anecdotal examples, though -- I am interested in statistics that show that virtual maintenance is a bigger problem than, say, geolitter. Thanks!

[+fizzymagic]

In any event, the entire argument will in all likelihood be moot in the very, very near future.

You know, a little bit of transparency in the creation of policies would go a long, long way towards defusing these kinds of issues.

 

Springing a whole new set of guidelines on the community without any public discussion is almost always likely to be perceived as arbitrary and capricious.

 

As a private company, Groundspeak has every right to act that way.

 

As a volunteer putatively "representing" geocachers, however, you may expect that not everyone will be thrilled by your participation in an oligarchical, authoritarian process.

 

There is already substantial evidence that some reviewers consider themselves more "equal" than everyone else; this process is only likely to exacerbate that perception.

Edited June 23, 2005 by fizzymagic

[Mushtang]

Can't conceive that something might happen to a virtual cache? Neither did he. (That final log's a classic.)

 

Or how about this one?

 

Or how about a 250 pound rock out in the middle of nowhere. That's certainly not going anywhere... oh, oops!

What surprises me is that in 2 of the 3 examples you list, people posted Finds on them after they were determined to be gone. Some even posted a Find saying, "I couldn't find the information".

 

I was the last to find this cache in texas. As I was getting the info from the sign some workers were removing it. Two people came along after me and logged it as a find even though the information was gone.

 

Maybe logs like this are how Fizzymagic padded his numbers? I heard somewhere that half of his finds were faked.

 

[+Sagefox]

As a volunteer putatively "representing" geocachers, however, you may expect that not everyone will be thrilled by your participation in an oligarchical, authoritarian process.

 

There is already substantial evidence that some reviewers consider themselves more "equal" than everyone else; this process is only likely to exacerbate that perception.

Your quest for facts has degraded to insults.

 

I think that your "substantial evidence" that some volunteer reviewers consider themselves "more equal" will be found to be anecdotal, voiced by (quite likely) less than 1% of the general geocaching population (forum population could be as high as 5%) and not supported by statistics.

[Keystone]

As a volunteer putatively "representing" geocachers, however, you may expect that not everyone will be thrilled by your participation in an oligarchical, authoritarian process. 

 

There is already substantial evidence that some reviewers consider themselves more "equal" than everyone else; this process is only likely to exacerbate that perception.

Your quest for facts has degraded to insults.

 

I think that your "substantial evidence" that some volunteer reviewers consider themselves "more equal" will be found to be anecdotal, voiced by (quite likely) less than 1% of the general geocaching population (forum population could be as high as 5%) and not supported by statistics.

Team Sagefox: Thank you.

 

Fizzymagic:

 

You ought to know that, as a volunteer, I am limited to giving anecdotal examples, of which there are dozens, not handfuls. Jeremy hasn't given me the keys to the database to perform statistical analyses of archived virtual caches.

[+fizzymagic]

You ought to know that, as a volunteer, I am limited to giving anecdotal examples, of which there are dozens, not handfuls.  Jeremy hasn't given me the keys to the database to perform statistical analyses of archived virtual caches.

OK. So are you telling me that the decision to completely ban long-distance virtuals was made unilaterally by Jeremy et al. or that it was made based on scattered anecdotal evidence? If the former, then my previous comments to you about rationalizing a decision you didn't make apply; if the latter, then the decision-making process was, indeed, deeply flawed.

 

Unfortunately, I am unable to respond with my own anecdotal evidence, for two reasons: first, I don't think anecdotal evidence is a good way to make policy, and second, I am reluctant to give examples of good long-distance virtuals that will never require maintenance because I am afraid that they will be archived in retaliation. Not by you, mind you! In no way do I consider you less than completely honorable. But I am not willing to place caches that I don't own at risk merely to score debating points.

 

The consistent claim has been that long-distance virtuals are banned because "virtuals require maintenance." Without any statistical evidence to quantify the problem, that is exactly equivalent to banning physical caches because "physical caches can be left as geotrash." I'll bet every one of the reviewers can come up with many, many examples of the latter.

 

The potential existence of a problem is a very poor basis upon which to base a complete ban.

 

Let's look at my statistical analysis again. You say that there are "dozens" of instances in which local maintenance was required for virtual caches. Fine. I'll grant you that for the sake of argument.

 

Let's say that 5% of the active caches are virtuals. That's a low estimate, but I am trying to give your argument every possible benefit of the doubt. As of today, there are 176,729 active caches. That means there are about 8500 active virtuals. My 1% number, then, translates to a total of about 85 cases per year. That is completely consistent with your claim, above, that there are "dozens" of examples. So it looks like, to first order, we agree on the magnitude of the problem.

 

Please remember that almost every one of the problems could have been solved for long-distance caches by simply archiving them. Not an optimal solution, I understand, but one without serious negative consequances.

 

So that leads to a very serious question:

 

Are you really willing to ban something completely based on a 1% rate of problems?

 

If so, when should we expect that ban on physical caches?

 

Edited June 23, 2005 by fizzymagic

[+fizzymagic]

I think that your "substantial evidence" that some volunteer reviewers consider themselves "more equal" will be found to be anecdotal, voiced by (quite likely) less than 1% of the general geocaching population (forum population could be as high as 5%) and not supported by statistics.

You're right. I was being hypocritical. Very good point.

 

I was wrong. I withdraw any such claim.

[+sbell111]

You don't fake your finds, do you?

Edited June 23, 2005 by sbell111

[+StarBrand]

 

Seems to me that fizzy wants the problem to be quantified numerically and the reviewers/Groundspeak folks want the problem to be solved simply.

 

In all seriousness, just how many vacation virtuals are just begging for approval?? Maybe leaving such sites to the locals for listing is a good idea??

 

Clearly the focus of this listing service is that of physical geocaches (until the "new solution" appears). All else has been pushed into the realm of simple solutions to complex potential problems.

[+sbell111]

Since the 'solution' to the virt 'problem' is just over the horizon, why don't we table this thread's angst for now?

 

This message brought to you by the symbol '.

[+fizzymagic]

Since the 'solution' to the virt 'problem' is just over the horizon, why don't we table this thread's angst for now?

Good question. The reason I am making the stink I am now is that I am hoping that the policy will be revisited before the new solution is presented to us as a fait accompli.

 

From the responses of the reviewers, it sounded to me that they considered the complete ban to be permanent and non-negotiable, and they seemed to indicate that the policy would not be changed for the new solution.

 

With Lep's recent remark, I am no longer so sure about that. Maybe this policy (along with several others) will be reviewed and changed. If so, that is great and I would be more than happy to contribute whatever I can to a rational decision-making process about it.

 

Either way, discussing it now seems better to me than discussing it later.

[+GrandpaKim]

Good question.  The reason I am making the stink I am now is that I am hoping that the policy will be revisited before the new solution is presented to us as a fait accompli.

 

From the responses of the reviewers, it sounded to me that they considered the complete ban to be permanent and non-negotiable, and they seemed to indicate that the policy would not be changed for the new solution.

 

With Lep's recent remark, I am no longer so sure about that.  Maybe this policy (along with several others) will be reviewed and changed.  If so, that is great and I would be more than happy to contribute whatever I can to a rational decision-making process about it.

 

Either way, discussing it now seems better to me than discussing it later.

I agree. If there's a possibility that the decision can be changed prior to it's announcement, then we need to discuss it. If we wait until it's been posted, it's a lot harder to change.

 

Kinda like it's easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission!

[Jeremy]

Good question. The reason I am making the stink I am now is that I am hoping that the policy will be revisited before the new solution is presented to us as a fait accompli.

If we waited this long to address these kinds of issues we'd be screwed. But you don't know anything about the solution so it makes sense you can have some concerns about what you think the solution is. Actually, in all honestly, finding out what you think the solution could be would be a much more interesting topic than this one. I'd love to know.

 

So, the "no virts on vacation rule" was decided by me, unilaterally. My justifications are flawed inasmuch as I am flawed. I did not base the decision on statistical analysis, quantum mechanics or string theory. It was a gut feeling to stem the flood of virtuals - which by the way are not really geocaches. If a virtual is so important to show to others it made sense that a local would "own" and "maintain" that listing. Which, by the way, isn't really a geocache, which happens to be the basis of this activity.

 

So where does that leave us? Well, at the tip I suppose we're in disagreement, so tough. However, it can be assumed that we could take the 4+ years experience in creating the geocaching.com site and apply it to the new solution. Obviously it won't make everyone happy but it will certainly address this issue. And since you don't know what the solution is you'll just have to be patient and wait to see it, after the fact. fait accompli indeed.

[+GrandpaKim]

And since you don't know what the solution is you'll just have to be patient and wait to see it, after the fact. fait accompli indeed.

Well, I guess you can lock this topic!!!

[+Prime Suspect]

I did not say that I can't conceive of something happening to a virt; I cannot conceive of something happening to so many virts that so requires local attention that a global rule must be enforced without any regard to the particulars of the hide.

 

Which of the cases you cited was ( a ) identified by the owner on a regular maintenance visit, or ( b ) corrected by the owner without archiving the cache?

 

None, right?

 

Is archiving a cache something that requires you to be at the site?

 

Nope.

 

So what, exactly, is it that the locals did in these cases? In only one of them was the owner even the one who archived it!

 

As I have repeatedly said, the claims that local maintenance for virtual caches is required in every case are generally an attempt to rationalize an arbitrary decision from TPTB. I guess I applaud the fierce dedication of some senior approvers to The Company, but, unfortunately, slavish devotion to the party line in cases like this tends to reduce one's credibility.

Yes, exactly. The owners weren't around to check on the caches, and others ended up wasting their time. Thanks for making my point.

[RockyMtnReviewer]

OK, how would you "maintain" a virtual cache? The virtual cache that I am thinking about is Smokey the Bear. The location is in Capitan and the coordinates are at the visitor center. You don't have to go in and pay. The only requirement is to name the famous character at this location. How would you maintain this? I don't believe they want anyone to go poking around for a physical cache at this location and besides, there would be too many mugglers.

How do you know the Forest Service would not allow a physical cache that helps them spread the message about fire prevention to geocachers?

The others have commented on your ability to maintain the cache, so I won't go into that part. The part I am concerned with is that you seem to know very little about the subject of your virtual cache. Specifically, Smokey is not "the" bear. His name is Smokey Bear. The character was created in 1944 after the success of having another forest animal, Bambi, on fire prevention posters. The Forest Service chose the name to be Smokey Bear, after “Smokey” Joe Martin, who had been the Assistant Chief of the New York City Fire Department.

6 years later, a black bear cub was found clinging to life after a terrible fire in the Capitan Gap area of the Lincoln National Forest. He was originally named "Hotfoot" or "Hotfoot Teddy" but was renamed "Smokey Bear" after gaining nationwide attention. He lived at the National Zoo in Washington D.C. until he died and was buried in Capitan, New Mexico. Smokey Bear is the only individual animal ever depicted on a U.S. postage stamp.

 

For more information about Smokey Bear and fire prevention, visit the following links:

U.S. Forest Service

smokeybear.org

[+sbell111]

Hmm. I always thought it was Smokey the Bear.

 

I blame the US Dept of Agriculture.

Edited June 23, 2005 by sbell111

[+The Leprechauns]

RockyMtnReviewer is an authority on bears. You can look it up.

 

Sounds like he or she is one of those dang virt lovers, too. That writeup would make for a nice cache page.

[RockyMtnReviewer]

Hmm. I always thought it was Smokey the Bear.

 

I blame the US Dept of Agriculture.

Songwriters use artistic license

 

That song was written 8 years after the Smokey Bear character was created and 2 years after the Capitan fire. I'll stick with the information from the U.S. Forest Service.

[+sbell111]

I'm not saying that your wrong. I merely mentioned that I (like many of us)always thought it was Smokey the Bear. I placed blame where I felt it belonged.

[Jeremy]

Hmm. I always thought it was Smokey the Bear.

 

I blame the US Dept of Agriculture.

Actually his full name is Smokey Bear the bear. So technically "Smokey the bear" and "Smokey Bear" are both correct, right? It's not like he's a llama.

[+fizzymagic]

Yes, exactly. The owners weren't around to check on the caches, and others ended up wasting their time. Thanks for making my point.

In the cases you cited, the owners were locals. How does that impact on the question of long-distance virts? If local owners "weren't around," as you put it, then how exactly would be different for non-local owners?

 

I guess maybe I don't understand the point you were trying to make.

[+mtn-man]

So, what are your facts that clearly show that this decision was arbitrary?  Enlighten us.  Otherwise, please stop stating uninformed incorrect information from which you have no factual support.

Thanks fizzy. I totally expected you do dodge my question. Your response is almost exactly what I expected. If you cannot answer something you twist the discussion and turn it on other people to dodge pointed questions directed at you. You are predictable if nothing else. This discussion is as pointless as trying to discuss something with you.

 

I am glad that you see the point at least...

As a private company, Groundspeak has every right to act that way.

 

Great. Discussion over.

 

But, I'm sure you will twist my words further. You are the master debater. Feel free to continue discussing this further if you need.

 

I went caching today and had fun myself. Four more states in two days. I didn't even fake them either. You can go read my name in the logbooks. I think I will wake up tomorrow and go geocaching again. Yeah. That's the ticket.

[Mushtang]

I went caching today and had fun myself. Four more states in two days.

Hey, cut it out. I'm trying to catch up with you and you're not making it easy.

[+fizzymagic]

Thanks fizzy.  I totally expected you do dodge my question.  Your response is almost exactly what I expected.  If you cannot answer something you twist the discussion and turn it on other people to dodge pointed questions directed at you.

 

But, I'm sure you will twist my words further.  You are the master debater.

Wow. I was going to stop posting on this, but after such an extraordinarily virulent personal attack, I feel as if I should say something.

 

First:

I went caching today and had fun myself.  I didn't even fake them either.  You can go read my name in the logbooks

Are you accusing me of faking finds? If you are, that is very clearly beyond the line of acceptable behavior. While I am certainly no angel when it comes to my own behavior in the forums, I don't think I would ever stoop that low.

 

Now on to the matter in question:

 

I attempted to explain, as clearly as I could, exactly why I believe that the decision was arbitrary. In a nutshell, the decision was based on a very small fraction of problems with virtuals and was inconsistent with other decisions made by the site.

 

The details:

 

As far as I can tell, the claim that you and others have made is that "virtuals require maintenance."

 

I asked very politely for the statistical evidence that was used in the decision, and none was provided. I did a little estimate using data I had available to me, and concluded that:

• Only a very small percentage of virtuals ever encounter problems.
  
• Those that do encounter problems are almost always dealt with by archiving the caches.
  
• The decision to completely ban long-distance virtuals is inconsistent with other decisions made by the site.
  

In all of the above, I tried to give the "virtuals require maintenance" argument the benefit of the doubt. I didn't even divert to discuss the meaning of the word "maintenance," which you and others have used improperly.

 

I tried very hard not to dodge the question; I believe that my response was directed squarely at the claims you had been making. If not, then I didn't understand the claim, and I would very much like to be enlightened.

[+Prime Suspect]

Yes, exactly. The owners weren't around to check on the caches, and others ended up wasting their time. Thanks for making my point.

In the cases you cited, the owners were locals. How does that impact on the question of long-distance virts? If local owners "weren't around," as you put it, then how exactly would be different for non-local owners?

 

I guess maybe I don't understand the point you were trying to make.

The point was a simple one. Virtual caches can require maintenance. Virtuals get moved, destroyed, fenced off, and sold on ebay.

 

As for my examples all concerning local owners, I have to wonder how to came to this erroneous conclusion. Since you make a point of it, I'd think you would have at least checked the owner's profiles. But apparently not.

[+Nazgul]

[+mtn-man]

I went caching today and had fun myself.  I didn't even fake them either.  You can go read my name in the logbooks

Are you accusing me of faking finds? If you are, that is very clearly beyond the line of acceptable behavior. While I am certainly no angel when it comes to my own behavior in the forums, I don't think I would ever stoop that low.

But, you are more than happy to accuse Groundspeak of arbitrary decisions. Sad. (shakes head) It's OK for you to make rash, unfounded, incorrect statements about other people, but heavens knows no one could ever make any kind of statements about you, huh. Kind of stinks when the shoe is on the other foot doesn't it.

 

Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly.

[twjolson & Kay]

fizzymagic:

Wow, I've never seen anyone get so worked up over something so stupid. Is creating virtual caches on vacation that life or death to you? I understand you have a opinion differant from them, but is it really worth getting so overwhelmingly worked up over it? It's ok to have an opinion, but when others can practically hear the anger in your text, it's time to cool down.

 

You keep arguing and arguing that no long distance virtuals was an arbitary choice. So what if it was. Last time I checked, Jeremy and his henchmen ran this site, no me, not you. Arbitrary or not, the choice was made. I don't agree with some of the things they do or choices they make sometimes either, but they started, and run the site, not me. If this issue is that critical that it gets your blood this boiling, go start your own site.

 

You are so intent on putting numbers to things here. But look at the numbers you put out. (If I understand what you did, otherwise correct me). You got a pocket Query that listed such and such a number of virtual caches, and of them you found 1% of them that were disabled. That's quite a limited sampling to continue to pound into everyone as a rule of how things are. Did it list the ones that were archived? I assume not, but again, I could be wrong. If it didn't, you're looking at the caches that are ok, and declaring that there is no problem. In theory, there could be just as many archived that had to be archived due to a problem. Stop putting a number to this. Jeremy flat out said he made the choice arbitrarly. If they made it behind closed doors, who are you or I to say one way or another about it. Do you go to Microsoft and tell them how to run their site? Do you tell CNN which stories to run? I assume you don't, because it's their business, they get to choose how to run it, for good or ill, whether you agree or not.

 

So, based upon a 1% problem rate, TPTB decided that a complete ban was called for.

From my understanding of Jeremy's point of view, it wasn't that there was a problem with maintence, and thus they banned long distance virtuals. While it maybe a hassle, and there maybe a problem. But from my reading of Jeremy's statement, he banned them to stop a flood of virtuals, which would be submitted and quickly forgotten by the submitter. Your WHOLE argument was based on maintence problems, but Jeremy flat out said it was an arbitrary choice to stem the tide of virtuals. If you have a problem with policy, at least argue against the reasoning behind the ban.

 

Don't be so quick to dismiss anecdotal evidence. That makes up the numbers that you so hunger for, behind every number is a story, stories that you are tossing away without consideration. It is quite unfair of you to dismiss the approvers opinon of how widespread the problem was/is. They are the ones that see the problems with the caches, not you or I. And if they say such and such happened to this cache or that one, it's quite unfair and unwise to argue. It's like us arguing what color shoes you wore today. We weren't there, if you say they are blue, who are we to say otherwise.

 

My two cents, I agree with them. If someone is so amazing that it deserves a virtual, the locals would have set it up long ago. And if anyone can just set up a virtual just anywhere, the number will skyrocket. I could see virtuals overtake regulars. Think about it, anyone with an internet connection and a little resourcefulness can flood the site with virtual caches; which then bogs down the approvers to approve them and if something goes wrong archive them if the creator doesn't. I really don't want to search for caches and have to wade through virtual after virtual just to find decent caches to go to. That is my taste and my opinion.

Edited June 25, 2005 by twjolson & Kay