No More Virtual Caches?

[+FireRef]

And even if the only thing they had going for them is "the size of their database.", that is a pretty BIG thing.

 

I have looked at a couple of other sites and they are far from user friendly and have next to no data.

 

I am not a huge fan of some of Groundspeak's methods etc. but the reality is they are the only game in town of any consequence. And I doubt it would be feasible, financially or otherwise, to develop an alternative at this stage of the game.

 

Hence...my comment on them having a de facto monopoly.

[+TrailGators]

And even if the only thing they had going for them is "the size of their database.", that is a pretty BIG thing.

 

I have looked at a couple of other sites and they are far from user friendly and have next to no data.

 

I am not a huge fan of some of Groundspeak's methods etc. but the reality is they are the only game in town of any consequence. And I doubt it would be feasible, financially or otherwise, to develop an alternative at this stage of the game.

 

Hence...my comment on them having a de facto monopoly.

I would like to put TB hotels on Park Place and Boardwalk!

[jholly]

And even if the only thing they had going for them is "the size of their database.", that is a pretty BIG thing.

 

I have looked at a couple of other sites and they are far from user friendly and have next to no data.

 

I am not a huge fan of some of Groundspeak's methods etc. but the reality is they are the only game in town of any consequence. And I doubt it would be feasible, financially or otherwise, to develop an alternative at this stage of the game.

 

Hence...my comment on them having a de facto monopoly.

I would like to put TB hotels on Park Place and Boardwalk!

 

Sorry, the rules don't allow that. Try an alternate game.

 

 

Jim

[+Zor]

Personally, it is somewhat annoying sometimes the "rules" that GSP has put in place but the fact is, someone has to do it.

 

As far as virtuals are concerned, list them or don't list them. Doesn't much matter to me. I can see the point to some extent when I look at waymarks and see that Dunkin Donuts and gas stations are listed as waymarks. Uhm ya. That kind of listing is garbage. Last thing I'd want to see is virtuals like that fill up areas that could have decent real caches.

[+baloo&bd]

That kind of listing is garbage. Last thing I'd want to see is virtuals like that fill up areas that could have decent real caches.

 

Virtuals were exempt from the saturation rules when a physical cache was nearby.

[+sTeamTraen]

Virtuals were exempt from the saturation rules when a physical cache was nearby.

Indeed. You could, if you wanted to, place 100 virtuals in 100 feet, one for every post on a railing. In fact, if virtuals came back, I would bet money that something like this would happen in fairly short order.

[+sTeamTraen]

I've never heard that Groundspeak stated no money changed hands over the Earthcache program. I always assumed money did change hands.

You could try this question and this answer. I agree that it's not 100% categorical, but the implication is clear. Also, I've never seen Groundspeak mention any relationship with the GSA when listing examples of promotions.

 

Virtuals were exempt from the saturation rules when a physical cache was nearby.

Indeed. You could, if you wanted to, place 100 virtuals in 100 feet, one for every post on a railing. In fact, if virtuals came back, I would bet money that something like this would happen in fairly short order.

[Keystone]

That kind of listing is garbage. Last thing I'd want to see is virtuals like that fill up areas that could have decent real caches.

 

Virtuals were exempt from the saturation rules when a physical cache was nearby.

Rules refresher: One of the reasons why it was so hard to get a virtual listed is because the virtual WOULD block the later placement of a physical cache nearby. The hider had to demonstrate that one couldn't hide a physical cache nearby (so no "good spot" would be taken) and that the virtual had "wow factor." If one could plop down physical and virtual caches right next to one another, there would have been less support for those criteria.

 

It was only after Geocaching.com stopped listing new virtual caches in November 2005 that the rules were changed to allow a physical cache to be placed at any close distance from a grandfathered virtual.

 

In contrast, waymarks and caches can peacefully coexist at the same coordinates, and many do. The waymark was obviously of interest to the person who posted it. I post Starbucks waymarks but not Dunkin Donuts or Tim Hortons waymarks. I can filter out those other coffee categories so I don't even see them. You couldn't do that with "lame virtuals," keeping only the "cool virtuals." The only filter for that was the review process. It was agonizingly difficult to tell cache owners that their child was ugly, and have them accept that statement without protest. I had that conversation for something north of 90% of all the virtuals I ever reviewed. I like it better now. I approve far more than 90% of all the Starbucks waymarks I ever reviewed.

[+sandrats]

We, too, would very much like to have VIRTUALS reinstated. Waymarking is NOT the same ... mysteries are already solved. WHY doesn't Groundspeak want them? I never heard an explanation. Do tell. Please.

[Keystone]

The following excerpt from an earlier post to this thread links to Toz's fairly long summary of the virtual cache. While it's not exactly the same summary I would write, it's a good summary that contains no inaccuracies. I commend it to you for careful study.

 

You are unlikely to receive a new and comprehensive explanation from Groundspeak or even from a volunteer cache reviewer like myself. The question's been asked and answered so many times over the years that it's difficult to rewrite the answer without sounding cranky each time when someone new asks the same question.

 

I vote we reinstate Virtual Caches immediately, or at least be told the reason WHY geocaching.com has decided to no longer list them.

I don't work for Groundspeak nor am I a volunteer reviewer. I do manage or am an officer of several Waymarking categories. This link is for a response I wrote last May when someone else asked why virtuals are no longer listed. I hope it gives you an idea of why the change was made and how you can still find interesting places when you are traveling and share them with others.

[+FireRef]

That kind of listing is garbage. Last thing I'd want to see is virtuals like that fill up areas that could have decent real caches.

 

Virtuals were exempt from the saturation rules when a physical cache was nearby.

Rules refresher: One of the reasons why it was so hard to get a virtual listed is because the virtual WOULD block the later placement of a physical cache nearby. The hider had to demonstrate that one couldn't hide a physical cache nearby (so no "good spot" would be taken) and that the virtual had "wow factor." If one could plop down physical and virtual caches right next to one another, there would have been less support for those criteria.

 

It was only after Geocaching.com stopped listing new virtual caches in November 2005 that the rules were changed to allow a physical cache to be placed at any close distance from a grandfathered virtual.

 

In contrast, waymarks and caches can peacefully coexist at the same coordinates, and many do. The waymark was obviously of interest to the person who posted it. I post Starbucks waymarks but not Dunkin Donuts or Tim Hortons waymarks. I can filter out those other coffee categories so I don't even see them. You couldn't do that with "lame virtuals," keeping only the "cool virtuals." The only filter for that was the review process. It was agonizingly difficult to tell cache owners that their child was ugly, and have them accept that statement without protest. I had that conversation for something north of 90% of all the virtuals I ever reviewed. I like it better now. I approve far more than 90% of all the Starbucks waymarks I ever reviewed.

 

And so, because 90% of the people you had to say "no" to complained, it became necessary to completely scrap that type of cache? Sounds to me there was one of two solutions - deal with it, or approve more of them. The third option, throw them out, benefited no one except the reviewers, from what you're saying.

 

And everyone... you have to be careful. Waymarking came along a long time after virtuals and other grandfathered types were stopped from being published. It was a solution that took a few years to come up with. So it isn't as if Waymarking came along and people just said "Hey, here's another option - lets get rid of the virtuals"... it was GS coming up with something, rather than just returning the cache types to where they should have been.

[+CacheDrone]

Until someone creates a website or listing service that has a database similar in size, this one has a de facto monopoly on the game. Last I checked, Anti-Trust laws basically don't allow this, at least in the US.

Last time you checked? And that would be.... never?

 

For anti-trust to kick in, gc.com would have to actively be preventing others from entering into the business. They're not doing that. Remember - it's that other site (no, not that one - the other other site) that doesn't allow cross-posting of caches. No such restrictions here.

 

Are you saying I can cross post my caches on another site?

 

Various caches are. Why shouldn't you be able to do that?

 

I thought I read somewhere that Groundspeak would delete your listing if you cross posted. Not sure where I saw that. Glad to hear it is not true.

 

It's not true Tequila. Trust me, I am not going to go looking on other websites to see if anyone listed the same cache there. If it meets the Groundspeak Listing Guidelines then that's all that should matter.

 

CD

[+edscott]

........

And everyone... you have to be careful. Waymarking came along a long time after virtuals and other grandfathered types were stopped from being published. It was a solution that took a few years to come up with. So it isn't as if Waymarking came along and people just said "Hey, here's another option - lets get rid of the virtuals"... it was GS coming up with something, rather than just returning the cache types to where they should have been.

 

Not that I want virtual caches to return, but based on the timing it does appear that Waymarking was a response to those that opposed the end of the virtual cache.

[+pppingme]

........

And everyone... you have to be careful. Waymarking came along a long time after virtuals and other grandfathered types were stopped from being published. It was a solution that took a few years to come up with. So it isn't as if Waymarking came along and people just said "Hey, here's another option - lets get rid of the virtuals"... it was GS coming up with something, rather than just returning the cache types to where they should have been.

 

Not that I want virtual caches to return, but based on the timing it does appear that Waymarking was a response to those that opposed the end of the virtual cache.

 

Or an attempt to create a market for their new idea, which from all appearances failed.

[Mr.Yuck]

........

And everyone... you have to be careful. Waymarking came along a long time after virtuals and other grandfathered types were stopped from being published. It was a solution that took a few years to come up with. So it isn't as if Waymarking came along and people just said "Hey, here's another option - lets get rid of the virtuals"... it was GS coming up with something, rather than just returning the cache types to where they should have been.

 

Not that I want virtual caches to return, but based on the timing it does appear that Waymarking was a response to those that opposed the end of the virtual cache.

 

I definitely remember us being promised "a solution" for virtuals and locationless for at least a year, leading up to the launch of Waymarking. We weren't even told what it was going to be called. That being said, it seemed quite obvious at the time it was a response to the outcry over what was then a de facto ban on both cache types.

Edited December 18, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+The Blue Quasar]

........

And everyone... you have to be careful. Waymarking came along a long time after virtuals and other grandfathered types were stopped from being published. It was a solution that took a few years to come up with. So it isn't as if Waymarking came along and people just said "Hey, here's another option - lets get rid of the virtuals"... it was GS coming up with something, rather than just returning the cache types to where they should have been.

 

Not that I want virtual caches to return, but based on the timing it does appear that Waymarking was a response to those that opposed the end of the virtual cache.

 

Or an attempt to create a market for their new idea, which from all appearances failed.

 

Appearances??? I could give you stats but it would just be used as further conjecture. I'll just say that Waymarking is very successful despite what the small percentage of Geocaching.com Forum participants try to indicate. Trust me, lots of people like the new version just fine.

 

Many people have walked through the gateway to the new playground... and there are those that are still shouting at the wall. I guess they are having fun doing so, but those in the new playground can't hear them either.

[Keystone]

Actual timeline:

 

February 2003: Groundspeak announced a moratorium on the creation of any new locationless caches.

Summer 2003: High level planning for Waymarking.com begins.

November 2003: "Wow factor" test for virtual caches added to listing guidelines.

August 2005: Launch of Waymarking.com.

November 2005: Groundspeak announced that no new virtual or webcam cache submissions would be accepted.

January 2006: Existing locationless caches locked to further logging.

[+paleolith]

why don't you go set up an alternate listing service to save us from the evils of an unresponsive company with a stranglehold on the game?

Because it's a natural monopoly. Most of us want to see a lot of listings. Small businesses can sell potholders at no disadvantage. But with listing services such as geocaching, it's precisely the large coverage which is advantageous.

 

Letterboxing appears to have resolved this in favor of a service which indexes listings from multiple sites. But that method suffers from lack of consistency and the difficulty of providing tools.

 

So that's why "start another service" is not a reasonable response.

 

Edward

[+pppingme]

I could give you stats but it would just be used as further conjecture.

Here's some real stats. After much effort (because the site is a pain to navigate) I found the dozen closest waymarks to me. After I eliminated stuff like McDonalds and other pointless items, it left me with about a dozen items that would be substantial enough to have been a virtual on the gc site.

 

Out of the dozen, NONE had visits, and all but two were placed by out of towners. There was NO local interaction at all.

[+edscott]

 

Appearances??? I could give you stats but it would just be used as further conjecture. I'll just say that Waymarking is very successful despite what the small percentage of Geocaching.com Forum participants try to indicate. Trust me, lots of people like the new version just fine.

 

Many people have walked through the gateway to the new playground... and there are those that are still shouting at the wall. I guess they are having fun doing so, but those in the new playground can't hear them either.

 

I visited the Waymarking page for the first time about 3 minutes ago. Pulled up the 25 closest ones to me which are within a radius of 5.4 miles. Of the 25, 8 have been visited. Tomorrow I could get 17 FTF's or go geocaching.. Think I'll stay on my side of the wall.

[+Sagefox]

...because people ask for them to be brought back constantly...

 

…regardless of what the players want. Well, what some of us want. Obviously, there are a lot of people who would like to see them come back, because the topic keeps coming back up…

 

I just think that the person in charge should listen more to the people that play the game… … He wouldn't have a website if people didn't use it - seems like a poor business model not to listen to the people who provide your busienss...

 

This subject comes up six times per year? Twelve? And there are how many active accounts? That a few of us argue this point often does not mean that the masses out there are exactly agonizing over the end of the virtual cache era.

 

Maybe this quote of yours is a bit more accurate:

 

Sad thing is, most people probably don't care one way or the other - they are happy if they can go out and find a container, trade some stuff, and sign a log.

 

Yep. I think the tens of thousands of active geocachers are mostly having fun with this game or they would probably not remain active.

 

They don't even know all of the other possibilities for this game that don't exist anymore because of a few people not liking them. I feel sorry for them.

 

I liked locationless and virtual caches and argued for them during the Great Forum Virtual Cache War years. They were fun but they weren’t what drew us into the game and I would guess that very few people quit playing because of these changes.

 

And now the remaining virtual caches are perhaps beginning to morph into a new cache type with the advent of the European Armchair Caching Craze. This is a serious abuse of this cache type and a significant number of virtual cache owners do not police and delete these "bogus" logs as is required by the guidelines.

[+BruceS]

I could give you stats but it would just be used as further conjecture.

Here's some real stats. After much effort (because the site is a pain to navigate) I found the dozen closest waymarks to me. After I eliminated stuff like McDonalds and other pointless items, it left me with about a dozen items that would be substantial enough to have been a virtual on the gc site.

 

Out of the dozen, NONE had visits, and all but two were placed by out of towners. There was NO local interaction at all.

 

As far as being a pain to navigate, I think all you have to do is type in your address in the search box which is located on the front page and it will display all waymarks within 100 miles of that address... does not sound like any serious navigation to me.

 

I don't know where you live in Kansas City however of the 902 waymarks within 100 miles of Kansas City exactly 9 are McDonalds. If I use your BBQ waymark Arthur Bryant's Barbeque "The single best restaurant in the world" as the center I don't get to another food or other chain waymark until I get to another BBQ restaurant and that is 80 waymarks from yours and to find the first McDonalds I have to go 10 miles and nearly 200 waymarks.

 

And as far as local involvement from what I see most are placed by people really far from there like Olathe, Overland Park and Liberty or all the way out in Basehor, KS... oh wait those are suburbs of KC.

[+briansnat]

That kind of listing is garbage. Last thing I'd want to see is virtuals like that fill up areas that could have decent real caches.

 

Virtuals were exempt from the saturation rules when a physical cache was nearby.

 

Actually they weren't until fairly recently, just after they were moved to Waymarking. Before that a virtual counted the same as a real cache when reviewers considered the .1 mile guideline.

 

Sad thing is, most people probably don't care one way or the other - they are happy if they can go out and find a container, trade some stuff, and sign a log.

 

A sad thing indeed, think of all those people out there having fun and enjoying the sport. My heart bleeds for them.

 

They don't even know all of the other possibilities for this game that don't exist anymore because of a few people not liking them. I feel sorry for them.

 

Me too. Think of all the fascinating places that they are missing out on by not visiting the Waymarking site.

Edited December 18, 2008 by briansnat

[+TrailGators]

Think of all the fascinating places that they are missing out on by not visiting the Waymarking site.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Anybody that enjoys the outdoors would enjoy being taken to a cool place. That's the main reason I geocache.

[+9Key]

I guess if anything positive came out of this thread it's that I have checked out Waymarking.com for the second time and may actually find a few.

[+Renegade Knight]

That kind of listing is garbage. Last thing I'd want to see is virtuals like that fill up areas that could have decent real caches.

 

Virtuals were exempt from the saturation rules when a physical cache was nearby.

 

They should have been excempt since there is no confusion to be had if you are looking for one kind and find the other on accident. For whatever reason this site chose to implement the 528' rule. I'm not sure if they ever did qualify for the cache saturation rule. That came into prominence after new ones were no longer allowed.

[+BruceS]

I guess if anything positive came out of this thread it's that I have checked out Waymarking.com for the second time and may actually find a few.

 

And if I remember from way back when that I was down in your area caching, many of your cache locations would make good waymark also.

[+FireRef]

And now the remaining virtual caches are perhaps beginning to morph into a new cache type with the advent of the European Armchair Caching Craze. This is a serious abuse of this cache type and a significant number of virtual cache owners do not police and delete these "bogus" logs as is required by the guidelines.

 

Then Groundspeak needs to police the people who have the virtuals - not punish those of us who would like to see them return, or those of us who would like to do them by removing them.

 

How hard would it have been to add a software requirement to the logging process that the owner was notified by email of a "pending" log, and something to click on to approve or deny that log entry, for the cache types which require it. Virts and EC's could easily be regulated by this system.

 

Wow factor aside (and again, my argument against that is it was an excuse to get rid of them... mainly by the reviewers who said they received too many to sort through, or like Keystone said, too many people that complained when they turned down submissions), Virtuals would still work. They can be done. They don't have to be thrown out, as evidenced by the Earthcaches. But GC does whatever they want, regardless... so who knows.

[+FireRef]

I could give you stats but it would just be used as further conjecture.

Here's some real stats. After much effort (because the site is a pain to navigate) I found the dozen closest waymarks to me. After I eliminated stuff like McDonalds and other pointless items, it left me with about a dozen items that would be substantial enough to have been a virtual on the gc site.

 

Out of the dozen, NONE had visits, and all but two were placed by out of towners. There was NO local interaction at all.

 

As far as being a pain to navigate, I think all you have to do is type in your address in the search box which is located on the front page and it will display all waymarks within 100 miles of that address... does not sound like any serious navigation to me.

 

I don't know where you live in Kansas City however of the 902 waymarks within 100 miles of Kansas City exactly 9 are McDonalds. If I use your BBQ waymark Arthur Bryant's Barbeque "The single best restaurant in the world" as the center I don't get to another food or other chain waymark until I get to another BBQ restaurant and that is 80 waymarks from yours and to find the first McDonalds I have to go 10 miles and nearly 200 waymarks.

 

And as far as local involvement from what I see most are placed by people really far from there like Olathe, Overland Park and Liberty or all the way out in Basehor, KS... oh wait those are suburbs of KC.

 

But until they develop PQ's for that site (which has been promised, like the return of the Archived Caches to the GC.com google maps, but never appeared, and it has been several years), there is no way to be out there without a phone with good internet access and see what waymarks you happen to be near to visit and check out. I tried it in my area, but because I can't download batches, I can't efficiently play the game. Waste of time. We have tons of stuff I'd be happy to play around with and waymark, but it took several months for us to even get a list of categories we could download so we had some idea what kinds of things to look for as we were out there.

 

Maybe if they actually finished developing the site, it would work well as an alternative to locationless caches - but not virts or webcams - those need to return here.

[+Renegade Knight]

Think of all the fascinating places that they are missing out on by not visiting the Waymarking site.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Anybody that enjoys the outdoors would enjoy being taken to a cool place. That's the main reason I geocache.

Themun are the same places that few'en of us ever be visitin until they stuck a cache there?

If it's a good waymark, odds are it's a good spot for a cache, real or virtual.

[+TrailGators]

Think of all the fascinating places that they are missing out on by not visiting the Waymarking site.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Anybody that enjoys the outdoors would enjoy being taken to a cool place. That's the main reason I geocache.

Themun are the same places that few'en of us ever be visitin until they stuck a cache there?

If it's a good waymark, odds are it's a good spot for a cache, real or virtual.

I agree even though I-um had ta read dat twice'um to git yer meanin.'

[+Rockin Roddy]

And now the remaining virtual caches are perhaps beginning to morph into a new cache type with the advent of the European Armchair Caching Craze. This is a serious abuse of this cache type and a significant number of virtual cache owners do not police and delete these "bogus" logs as is required by the guidelines.

 

Then Groundspeak needs to police the people who have the virtuals - not punish those of us who would like to see them return, or those of us who would like to do them by removing them.

 

How hard would it have been to add a software requirement to the logging process that the owner was notified by email of a "pending" log, and something to click on to approve or deny that log entry, for the cache types which require it. Virts and EC's could easily be regulated by this system.

 

Wow factor aside (and again, my argument against that is it was an excuse to get rid of them... mainly by the reviewers who said they received too many to sort through, or like Keystone said, too many people that complained when they turned down submissions), Virtuals would still work. They can be done. They don't have to be thrown out, as evidenced by the Earthcaches. But GC does whatever they want, regardless... so who knows.

 

If you think you have the answer, this is the wrong place to post it, you're just peeing into the wind here! Why not make the software, send the idea in and see where it floats? I mean, you made it pretty clear it should be simple, right?

[+Prime Suspect]

 

I visited the Waymarking page for the first time about 3 minutes ago. Pulled up the 25 closest ones to me which are within a radius of 5.4 miles. Of the 25, 8 have been visited. Tomorrow I could get 17 FTF's or go geocaching.. Think I'll stay on my side of the wall.

Just pulled up the waymarks near me. The two closest items I knew about since I have caches at those locations. But then I find out Mickey Mantle's grave is just 6 miles away. Never knew he was buried here. Awesome! If the waymarks near you suck, well, sorry about that. You could go out and enter some good ones, or just sit home and complain about it.

[+TrailGators]

 

I visited the Waymarking page for the first time about 3 minutes ago. Pulled up the 25 closest ones to me which are within a radius of 5.4 miles. Of the 25, 8 have been visited. Tomorrow I could get 17 FTF's or go geocaching.. Think I'll stay on my side of the wall.

Just pulled up the waymarks near me. The two closest items I knew about since I have caches at those locations. But then I find out Mickey Mantle's grave is just 6 miles away. Never knew he was buried here. Awesome! If the waymarks near you suck, well, sorry about that. You could go out and enter some good ones, or just sit home and complain about it.

I got to meet Mickey Mantle when I was 6 years old after a Senators vs. Yankees game. The Senators became the Rangers and then I started rooting for the Orioles. Anyhow, I agree waymarks can lead you interesting places. The other nice thing about Waymarking is that you can ignore entire categories if you don't like those categories. So the experience can be customized to fit your tastes, which is something that you can't do with geocaching and I wish you could do.

Edited December 18, 2008 by TrailGators

[+FireRef]

And now the remaining virtual caches are perhaps beginning to morph into a new cache type with the advent of the European Armchair Caching Craze. This is a serious abuse of this cache type and a significant number of virtual cache owners do not police and delete these "bogus" logs as is required by the guidelines.

 

Then Groundspeak needs to police the people who have the virtuals - not punish those of us who would like to see them return, or those of us who would like to do them by removing them.

 

How hard would it have been to add a software requirement to the logging process that the owner was notified by email of a "pending" log, and something to click on to approve or deny that log entry, for the cache types which require it. Virts and EC's could easily be regulated by this system.

 

Wow factor aside (and again, my argument against that is it was an excuse to get rid of them... mainly by the reviewers who said they received too many to sort through, or like Keystone said, too many people that complained when they turned down submissions), Virtuals would still work. They can be done. They don't have to be thrown out, as evidenced by the Earthcaches. But GC does whatever they want, regardless... so who knows.

 

If you think you have the answer, this is the wrong place to post it, you're just peeing into the wind here! Why not make the software, send the idea in and see where it floats? I mean, you made it pretty clear it should be simple, right?

 

Yeah, I know - but maybe some people will start to see there is a better option, start pushing for it like I am, and maybe, just maybe, Jeremy will listen.

 

It should be simple - I haven't been a programmer for 15-20 years at this point, but was decent when I did it. Or at least should be something that can be done if they would take the time to do it. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is no solution just because it is easy...

[Keystone]

And now the remaining virtual caches are perhaps beginning to morph into a new cache type with the advent of the European Armchair Caching Craze. This is a serious abuse of this cache type and a significant number of virtual cache owners do not police and delete these "bogus" logs as is required by the guidelines.

 

Then Groundspeak needs to police the people who have the virtuals - not punish those of us who would like to see them return, or those of us who would like to do them by removing them.

And yet, when a reviewer does just that, and enforces the established written guideline for virtual cache maintenance, you call this a very bad decision.

 

It sounds like... gosh, what's the word I'm searching for... I know I've seen it in some posts this week... oh, yes... inconsistency.

[+Kabuthunk]

I've gotta side with Groundspeak on this one. What's a geocache if not a cache at a geographic location. And there's a perfectly good site for locations that don't have a cache... Waymarking as others have mentioned.

 

If I'm in the mood for sightseeing, I'll check out Waymarking. If I'm in the mood for treasure-hunting, I'll go geocaching. As a personal preference, I much prefer the latter, since it typically has a healthy dose of the former in it anyway.

[+FireRef]

And now the remaining virtual caches are perhaps beginning to morph into a new cache type with the advent of the European Armchair Caching Craze. This is a serious abuse of this cache type and a significant number of virtual cache owners do not police and delete these "bogus" logs as is required by the guidelines.

 

Then Groundspeak needs to police the people who have the virtuals - not punish those of us who would like to see them return, or those of us who would like to do them by removing them.

And yet, when a reviewer does just that, and enforces the established written guideline for virtual cache maintenance, you call this a very bad decision.

 

It sounds like... gosh, what's the word I'm searching for... I know I've seen it in some posts this week... oh, yes... inconsistency.

 

The problem is the inconsistency of the enforcement. Some will let it go a few weeks, some a few months, some for years - some will email the owner, some will post a reviewer note... some give a few weeks to reply, some give a month, etc... Some reviewers actively go looking for caches which may not quite perfectly meet the guidelines, some give way more latitude, some don't look unless somone points it out.

 

It was a bad decision. The fact that the inconsistency in the way reviewers do things is not addressed by Groundspeak, or that they even make decisions which force reviewers (oh wait, they tend to do things how and when they want... no force there... maybe... who knows) to remove perfectly good caches or not allow the posting of specific cache types, or "accepted" cache types with certain words or phrases in them (the "agenda" garbage)... sometimes... is not good for the game.

 

His choice for when to enforce it and how to enforce it was the bad thing - the fact that he enforced it because he wanted to, not because of a complaint... we have tons of caches in our area that you don't know there are problems with because you don't actively go looking at 10s of thousands of logs and find the caches with problems. Some reviewers seem to make this witchhunt a part of their job, others choose not to because either they feel they don't need to, they choose not to, or the sheer number of caches makes that impossible. Who knows - no one seems to have any consistency in how reviewers are supposed to do things or interpret rules.

[+The Blorenges]

The problem is the inconsistency of the enforcement. Some will let it go a few weeks, some a few months, some for years - some will email the owner, some will post a reviewer note... some give a few weeks to reply, some give a month, etc... Some reviewers actively go looking for caches which may not quite perfectly meet the guidelines, some give way more latitude, some don't look unless somone points it out.

 

It was a bad decision. The fact that the inconsistency in the way reviewers do things is not addressed by Groundspeak, or that they even make decisions which force reviewers (oh wait, they tend to do things how and when they want... no force there... maybe... who knows) to remove perfectly good caches or not allow the posting of specific cache types, or "accepted" cache types with certain words or phrases in them (the "agenda" garbage)... sometimes... is not good for the game.

 

His choice for when to enforce it and how to enforce it was the bad thing - the fact that he enforced it because he wanted to, not because of a complaint... we have tons of caches in our area that you don't know there are problems with because you don't actively go looking at 10s of thousands of logs and find the caches with problems. Some reviewers seem to make this witchhunt a part of their job, others choose not to because either they feel they don't need to, they choose not to, or the sheer number of caches makes that impossible. Who knows - no one seems to have any consistency in how reviewers are supposed to do things or interpret rules.

 

Why do you feel the need to strive for some sort of perfect consistency in the way this global game is played? Would it make you so much happier if there was an Official Rule Book, probably running to 50+ pages which addressed every possible situation, every minor variation, every significant 'local' consideration in the way that geocaching works and the way it should be regulated?

 

The reviewers are all individuals, in different states and countries, applying a general set of Guidelines to the best of their abilities. Yes, errors/anomalies/regional variation become apparent in the way it all works - so what?

 

Only yesterday someone drew my attention to one such anomaly of which I personally wasn't aware: A very new geocacher who works as a civilian out in the Middle East did a search for local caches and discovered that a large percentage of them are inaccessible for them because they are placed on American military bases. This fact appears to go against the 'general accepted guideline' that caches should be available to all geocachers. However, somewhere in the history of the development of this hobby some 'flexibility' has been allowed (probably for some reasons relating to military restrictions) and shock! horror! - It's an inconsistency!

 

As to your final paragraph regarding how stringently various reviewers enforce various guidelines - I would regard this rather like housework: One tries to get all the major, most visible chores done to the best of one's ability. The other stuff gets done as and when there's time, depending (I would guess) on how much extra spare time the individual reviewer has to sweep the front steps, polish the ornaments or iron pleats in the curtains.

 

Once again, I refer to these words below

 

About Groundspeak's relationship with the volunteers

 

Occasionally, there will be a contested decision made by a volunteer moderator or reviewer, and someone will pull out an example from another forum or caching area where the same guideline has apparently (and, in some cases, very clearly) not been followed. I believe that this actually helps my point: we give the volunteers a lot of freedom, including the freedom to make mistakes. Where those mistakes cause genuine problems, we try to clear them up afterward. But in many cases, our guidelines are more about trying to do the right thing most of the time, than aiming at some kind of perfection.

 

We accept that in a given year, a certain number of caches will be published too close to a railroad line, or with the name of a business in the title, or in a disrespectful position in a cemetery, or whatever. The volunteers help protect the future of the game, to the extent that they keep these incidents to a minimum, within reason. Perfection is not possible here and thus not required, and if anyone has genuinely acquired that impression due to the limitations of our communication, then you have Groundspeak's apologies.

 

 

...my bold in the final sentence. If you want it all to fit in to your idea of "perfection" then I fear you'll spend the rest of your geocaching lifetime haunting these forums alerting us all to (in your opinion) inconsistencies. Really... Try not to worry about it, revel in the consistencies instead and if you really, really, need to tell somebody about some a problem, then please try and sort it out via polite emails with the local reviewer. I know that they'll be happy to listen.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe.

 

 

 

MrsB

[+Tequila]

hard to imagine that searching for tupperware in the woods could get so complicated.

[+baloo&bd]

It was a bad decision. The fact that the inconsistency in the way reviewers do things is not addressed by Groundspeak, or that they even make decisions which force reviewers (oh wait, they tend to do things how and when they want... no force there... maybe... who knows) to remove perfectly good caches or not allow the posting of specific cache types, or "accepted" cache types with certain words or phrases in them (the "agenda" garbage)... sometimes... is not good for the game.

 

Not so sure about that last part. The game seems to be surviving fine. Not even sure it is a question of inconsistency as much as latitude, which is very desirable.

[+ChileHead]

I think the vast majority of people have no problem with the way the site works. So - keep up the good work!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I have to agree, leave the flexability and no thanks to hardline RULES (I like the guidelines just fine thank you)!

 

I also agree that some try to make a simple game way too complicated and, in the attempt, try to take all the fun from it as well...

 

Lastly, they are volunteers doing their best, if you'd like to pay them, I bet they'd do what you want them to do.

[+FireRef]

hard to imagine that searching for tupperware in the woods could get so complicated.

 

I agree - most of the reasons it has become complicated is because the owner of this website went beyond "Take something, leave something, sign the log" and made it WAY more complicated than it had to be, by setting up guidelines and restrictions which lessen the game from the perspective of these original rules (to the extent that the originator of the game quit playing).

[+ChileHead]

I agree - most of the reasons it has become complicated is because the owner of this website went beyond "Take something, leave something, sign the log" and made it WAY more complicated than it had to be,

 

Well thank goodness virtuals are no longer getting listed, as that goes beyond "Take something, leave something, sign the log".

[Moun10Bike]

I agree - most of the reasons it has become complicated is because the owner of this website went beyond "Take something, leave something, sign the log" and made it WAY more complicated than it had to be, by setting up guidelines and restrictions which lessen the game from the perspective of these original rules (to the extent that the originator of the game quit playing).

 

Never mind that each and every one of those guidelines and restrictions came as the direct result of some situation that required it. The guidelines are a compilation of stances taken to prevent geocaching from being forced underground.

 

And Dave Ulmer quit for reasons quite different from guideline changes, I assure you.

[+FireRef]

I agree - most of the reasons it has become complicated is because the owner of this website went beyond "Take something, leave something, sign the log" and made it WAY more complicated than it had to be, by setting up guidelines and restrictions which lessen the game from the perspective of these original rules (to the extent that the originator of the game quit playing).

 

Never mind that each and every one of those guidelines and restrictions came as the direct result of some situation that required it. The guidelines are a compilation of stances taken to prevent geocaching from being forced underground.

 

And Dave Ulmer quit for reasons quite different from guideline changes, I assure you.

 

Would you please elaborate, since the website which has a "history of geocaching" has been purported to be skewed against this website? I know you are one of the people who would be considered to know this history, so it makes sense to ask you. (or ask you for a source where that question could be answered).

 

And "required" is not a good choice of words here. I highly doubt that any of the rule changes were "required" by anyone other than the person in charge of this website deciding that they were good for his version of the game.

Edited December 19, 2008 by FireRef

[+FireRef]

I agree - most of the reasons it has become complicated is because the owner of this website went beyond "Take something, leave something, sign the log" and made it WAY more complicated than it had to be,

 

Well thank goodness virtuals are no longer getting listed, as that goes beyond "Take something, leave something, sign the log".

 

As I said - they are inconsistent. If we go back to that, virts, webcams, multis, mysteries, events, earthcaches, locationless, and any others which are not "traditionals" should go too.

 

Do I want to see that? Probably not. But if we reverted to that rule, they would have to. We went so far away from that rule that some of the rules are just plain silly. I won't elaborate, because I have in multiple other posts.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I agree - most of the reasons it has become complicated is because the owner of this website went beyond "Take something, leave something, sign the log" and made it WAY more complicated than it had to be,

 

Well thank goodness virtuals are no longer getting listed, as that goes beyond "Take something, leave something, sign the log".

 

As I said - they are inconsistent. If we go back to that, virts, webcams, multis, mysteries, events, earthcaches, locationless, and any others which are not "traditionals" should go too.

 

Do I want to see that? Probably not. But if we reverted to that rule, they would have to. We went so far away from that rule that some of the rules are just plain silly. I won't elaborate, because I have in multiple other posts.

 

Round and round we go, when we stop, no one knows!

[+Tequila]

If it was up to me, I know when we would stop.