Virtual cache?

[+Scuba4jews]

I Beleive I am kicking a dead horse here, but I tried to set up a virtual cache and could not. Then went to waymaking, and had an even harder time doing it. What's up with that?!

[+Semper Questio]

I Beleive I am kicking a dead horse here, but I tried to set up a virtual cache and could not. Then went to waymaking, and had an even harder time doing it. What's up with that?!

 

Virtual caches (other than Earthcaches) have not been allowed on geocaching.com for some time. The old ones are allowed to exist until they get archived for whatever reason. If you want it listed on GC you'll have to find a way to put a cache there or do an offset. If you really want a virtual, you'll have to go to another listing service.

 

Can't help you with Waymarking. I've never liked it.

[+Touchstone]

The reviewing process over on the Waymarking side is based on a community type of idea. In general the Officers of the various Categories have some interest in the things in their Category. For the most part, I usually get some feedback on why my submission was rejected and how to go about fixing it. In a few cases, the square thing I'm trying to jam into the round hole of the Category is just not going to fit. In cases like that it is sometimes helpful to get feedback from the Waymarking Forum regulars. There is also a newer feature on the site that allows you to toss your submission into a "bucket" of sorts, where other Users can see if they can figure out an appropriate Category, but I haven't tried that particular feature out yet.

 

Good luck!

[+tozainamboku]

I Beleive I am kicking a dead horse here, but I tried to set up a virtual cache and could not. Then went to waymaking, and had an even harder time doing it. What's up with that?!

You can no longer set up virtual caches. Waymarking is a different site that, among other things, lets you list existing objects and places of interest that you want to share with the Waymarking community. Depending on what you are tying to do, you may be able to accomplish roughly the same thing within the structure of Waymarking. If you are trying to get Virtual Cache icon in your Placed By caches on your profile, sorry but you can't anymore.

[+buttaskotch]

Appeal to the Waymarking Admins to see why they didn't allow you to do it. But you'll not see any new Virts around here anytime in the near future. Its all about a "real" cache on this site

[+briansnat]

You should have no problem getting it listed at Waymarking if it fits an existing category. If it doesn't then you can start your own category.

[cwmagui]

I Beleive I am kicking a dead horse here, but I tried to set up a virtual cache and could not. Then went to waymaking, and had an even harder time doing it. What's up with that?!

 

I believe the problem is that TPTB don't care what the paying members want.

 

It is obvious that this issue has caused a lot of heartburn with the members, but all we get back is advice telling us to go to the other site they're trying to promote. I'm not interested in what they're selling.

 

I have been away for a few years while the military put me out of reach of this site. I was a premium member when I left, but I refuse to upgrade while these elitists ignore and even insult members who voice there displeasure at this decision.

[+briansnat]

I Beleive I am kicking a dead horse here, but I tried to set up a virtual cache and could not. Then went to waymaking, and had an even harder time doing it. What's up with that?!

 

I believe the problem is that TPTB don't care what the paying members want.

 

It is obvious that this issue has caused a lot of heartburn with the members, but all we get back is advice telling us to go to the other site they're trying to promote. I'm not interested in what they're selling.

 

I have been away for a few years while the military put me out of reach of this site. I was a premium member when I left, but I refuse to upgrade while these elitists ignore and even insult members who voice there displeasure at this decision.

 

There are paying members who never cared much for virtuals and were happy to see them go. Perhaps TPTB were listening to paying members when they got rid of them.

Edited April 7, 2010 by briansnat

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

There are paying members who never cared much for virtuals and were happy to see them go. Perhaps TPTB were listening to paying members when they got rid of them.

I seriously doubt it.

 

My pure speculation is that they listened to a few powerful Reviewers who hold Groundspeak's full trust and attention, and they have been defending that decision regardless of what the paying membership wants ever since.

 

While it does happen, Groundspeak is not known for going against the Reviewer's wishes. Perfectly understandable, as without that body of volunteer Reviewers Groundspeak and geocaching.com probably wouldn't have happened! It certainly wouldn't be what it is today.

 

However, there are other ways to get virts approved without having the Reviewers judge the 'Wow factor' so that's never been a very compelling argument. I totally agree that the Reviewers should not be expected to judge the nebulous 'Wow factor', but they aren't asked to judge it for geocaches so the point is moot. I've seen no indication that other ways to evaluate virts were ever considered (or needed... evaluate them like geocaches!).

 

Besides, the 'Wow factor' of geocaches certainly doesn't even enter consideration, so why do we need it for virts? You can create all the lame geocaches you want but not a single virt because it may be lame? Really?

 

We can now place hundreds of micros on power line towers to create long trails of lame caches, so the idea that too many lame virts would be created is no longer a valid argument either.

 

My take on the whole issue is that Groundspeak is dug in on this topic and cannot reverse course.

 

Having made the investment in time, money and more importantly credibility to create Waymarking.com in part as a replacement for virts I don't expect that we will ever see Groundspeak admit that Waymarking isn't all that they wanted it to be. Every criticism of Waymarking is met by a few who have a vested interest in it telling us how successful it is. That geocachers avoid it in droves makes those arguments pretty transparent.

 

I have the highest respect for Groundspeak management and our Volunteer Cache Reviewers but my take is that we'll never hear them say "OK, we were wrong, let's go back to listing virts" (or wrong on any other important topic!). My limited knowledge of TPTB tells me that their personalities will not allow them to say that even if they believed it to be true.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There are paying members who never cared much for virtuals and were happy to see them go. Perhaps TPTB were listening to paying members when they got rid of them.

I seriously doubt it.

 

My pure speculation is that they listened to a few powerful Reviewers who hold Groundspeak's full trust and attention, and they have been defending that decision regardless of what the paying membership wants ever since.

 

While it does happen, Groundspeak is not known for going against the Reviewer's wishes. Perfectly understandable, as without that body of volunteer Reviewers Groundspeak and geocaching.com probably wouldn't have happened! It certainly wouldn't be what it is today.

 

...

 

Didn't exactly the same thing happen with regards to power trails? Rather than give the onerous task to reviews what constituted a power trail, the language was watered down to the point that pretty much anything could be allowed to pass the saturation guideline (as long as a cache or caches adhered to proximity guidelines). As I wrote a few weeks ago, until we see an example of a series of caches that were not published because they didn't adhere to the saturation guidelines as they're currently written, that language in the guidelines is superfluous.

[+briansnat]

I have the highest respect for Groundspeak management and our Volunteer Cache Reviewers but my take is that we'll never hear them say "OK, we were wrong, let's go back to listing virts" (or wrong on any other important topic!). My limited knowledge of TPTB tells me that their personalities will not allow them to say that even if they believed it to be true.

 

TPTB have reversed decisions in the past when there was an overwhelming outcry from the community. Other than the monthly thread on this subject, usually posted by a newbie cache hider who didn't read the guidelines, I don't see an overwhelming outcry to bring back virtuals.

 

It's not a subject that comes up at events or when I'm out on group hunts. In fact I know a lot of geocchers who don't care for virtuals.

[+Semper Questio]

 

...It's not a subject that comes up at events or when I'm out on group hunts. In fact I know a lot of geocchers who don't care for virtuals.

 

 

We talk about them here fairly often and I know a lot of cachers that love them. But you're a moderator and a 4-time geocacher of the year, so I guess you win.

[+briansnat]

 

...It's not a subject that comes up at events or when I'm out on group hunts. In fact I know a lot of geocchers who don't care for virtuals.

 

 

We talk about them here fairly often and I know a lot of cachers that love them. But you're a moderator and a 4-time geocacher of the year, so I guess you win.

 

5 time. The sig line doesn't have room for all of them

[+Semper Questio]

 

...It's not a subject that comes up at events or when I'm out on group hunts. In fact I know a lot of geocchers who don't care for virtuals.

 

 

We talk about them here fairly often and I know a lot of cachers that love them. But you're a moderator and a 4-time geocacher of the year, so I guess you win.

 

5 time. The sig line doesn't have room for all of them

 

My bad.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

TPTB have reversed decisions in the past when there was an overwhelming outcry from the community. Other than the monthly thread on this subject, usually posted by a newbie cache hider who didn't read the guidelines, I don't see an overwhelming outcry to bring back virtuals.

As far as I know the question was never asked, so we do not know if there is a large percentage of geocachers who would like to see virts listed again.

 

I belong to a lot of forums, and polls work in the vast majority, but not here. That makes me wonder if Groundspeak wants a mechanism for members to vote on topics such as this. I think not... it's much easier to make and enforce a decision when no one really knows how the membership overall thinks on this!

 

It's not a subject that comes up at events or when I'm out on group hunts. In fact I know a lot of geocchers who don't care for virtuals.

I'm quite sure there a lot of gerocachers who didn't like virts and were glad to see them go, but for a reasonable conversation we have to define "a lot". A poll would be a good way to do that.

 

I can tell you this... if I saw by member poll vote that the majority of geocachers want virts to remain waymarks then I would never say another word about them. However, I believe that the opposite is true and that a membership poll would reveal that most geocachers want them listed here.

 

As to it coming up outside of this forum, the desire to bring back virts is one of the very few forum topics that I DO hear regularly expressed in groups and at events.

 

What I would like to see is for Groundspeak to include two links in the weekly newsletter... for a sixty-day period ask the simple yes/no question:

 

Do you want virtual caches listed on geocaching.com?

Click here for yes, click here for no.

 

Each registered account gets one vote.

 

That way you get a straight-forward up or down vote from the membership and settle the question once and for all.

[+Semper Questio]

This whole thing made me think of it this way...

 

The world's biggest circus' crew tells the ringmaster that they don't like clowns because they can't control how they look or what they do. Of course, they can't control many other aspects of the circus, but they REALLY don't like dealing with the clowns. So the ringmaster says "OK, no more clowns!"

 

The circus-goers who hate clowns are happy, but those that love clowns are just SOL. Every so often the circus-goers get together and bicker about the merits of bringing the clowns back but everyone knows it probably ain't ever gonna happen. Well, except for certain types of clowns that they call "jesters."

 

In the meantime, the ringmaster puts up another tent elsewhere and say, "If you really wanna see clowns, go over to the tent across town every so often and you'll find a whole bunch of people dressed all kinds of ways doing all kinds of things. Here's a book with a picture and a description of each of them and the groups they are assigned to so you can see what you will see."

 

The folks that liked clowns wander over to the other tent and see it's just a mass of confusion over there. But if they look hard enough they'll find the clowns standing around off in a corner by themselves. Of course, they REALLY prefer seeing clowns IN the circus, not massed with a bunch of other folks in another tent somewhere.

 

Other folks go over and REALLY like watching all the different people who are conveniently clustered in their little groups so they can ignore clowns, hippies, stock brokers, and fast food workers.

 

OK. So it's not a perfect analogy, but that's the kinda stuff that rolls through my head sometimes.

[+Castle Mischief]

I believe the problem is that TPTB don't care what the paying members want.

 

It is obvious that this issue has caused a lot of heartburn with the members, but all we get back is advice telling us to go to the other site they're trying to promote. I'm not interested in what they're selling.

 

I have been away for a few years while the military put me out of reach of this site. I was a premium member when I left, but I refuse to upgrade while these elitists ignore and even insult members who voice there displeasure at this decision.

 

You're a customer, not a shareholder.

 

EDIT: Nor are you a registered voter in the Republic of Groundspekia, for that matter.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+Castle Mischief]

I think the time of guidelines and policies being directed by the community or internal forces (outside of reviewers) has passed. I only see outside forces or logistics directing things going forward. I could be wrong.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+tozainamboku]

Every criticism of Waymarking is met by a few who have a vested interest in it telling us how successful it is. That geocachers avoid it in droves makes those arguments pretty transparent.

Perhaps geocachers avoid Waymarking in droves because they were never that interested in finding virtuals in the first place. People keep posting that they like caches that take them to interesting places and that they liked virtuals because they almost always took you to an interesting place. The same people complain about LPCs (parking lots aren't interesting) and power trails (even if the trail is someplace interesting you really only need one or two caches there).

 

A few geocachers may have been able to grasp the concept of a virtual. It was not just a interesting object or place to see. There was something you had to find at the coordinates. Only when you found it could you answer the verification question or take a picture to show you were there. If this was some place that cache couldn't be places or that couldn't be used as a stage in a multi-cache, the virtual provided a way to have a cache at that location. Most people couldn't grasp this. Instead they wanted to use virtuals as a way to mark interesting objects or locations they wanted to share with others.

 

Waymarking allows people to share information (including the GPS coordinates) of interesting places and things. These are categorized so you can find the kinds of things that are interesting to you and ignore the others. It really isn't that much different to create a waymark than a virtual cache. Sure sometimes category managers are a little slow at publishing waymarks and maybe a very few are hardnosed about trivialities in the submission and deny listings with a spelling error or a blurry photograph. But you don't generally have to get over the Wow barrier that was in place for virtuals. Waymarking still doesn't have something like pocket queries so it can be tough to plan a trip to visit waymarks you might find interesting.

 

I don't think many geoachers ever planned a trip entirely around virtuals. It was more like, if there is a virtual in the area I'll stop and look. It's an easy smiley. If this is the reason you looked for a virtual you're not likely to want to spend time looking for waymarks. My guess is that as Waymarking grows, it will attract people who simply want to be taken to interesting places and don't care the least about having to find something to earn a point. Many may never log their visits online, but they will still have enjoyed the visit.

Edited April 7, 2010 by tozainamboku

[Clan Riffster]

Perhaps geocachers avoid Waymarking in droves because they were never that interested in finding virtuals in the first place.

Not sure that's true, Toz. It seems that whenever the topic comes up, folks who love virts are the loudest detractors of WMs.

[+Semper Questio]

Perhaps geocachers avoid Waymarking in droves because they were never that interested in finding virtuals in the first place.

Not sure that's true, Toz. It seems that whenever the topic comes up, folks who love virts are the loudest detractors of WMs.

 

I cited my main reasons for not liking Waymarking previously and nowhere in there did I say it was because I don't like virtuals. Quite the contrary. We LOVE virtuals. They are usually at the top of our "must get" list when we head out. How virtuals are done in the Waymarking model is just not the same to us and it is too much of a pain to deal with.

[+Semper Questio]

 

Waymarking allows people to share information (including the GPS coordinates) of interesting places and things.

 

 

And that's part of the problem. I can get that information by looking at the waymark page or other internet resources. I prefer the GC virutal model where I go there and discover for myself what is there.

 

For instance, there is a mural in a small town nearby that has some interesting information about the town that I did not know before going after the virtual.

 

Sure, I could have found that online and read the same info,maybe even gotten a pic of the mural. Using a waymark, I could then go and visit it for myself. But by that time I'd already know what I was going to see and I would already know the story. It detracts much from the experience.

 

However, as a GC virtual, I just knew we were looking fro some info. When we got there we saw the mural for the first time and it was a fun surprise. We also saw other things nearby for the first time that added to the experience.

[+Semper Questio]

 

Waymarking allows people to share information (including the GPS coordinates) of interesting places and things.

 

 

And that's part of the problem. I can get that information by looking at the waymark page or other internet resources. I prefer the GC virutal model where I go there and discover for myself what is there.

 

For instance, there is a mural in a small town nearby that has some interesting information about the town that I did not know before going after the virtual.

 

Sure, I could have found that online and read the same info,maybe even gotten a pic of the mural. Using a waymark, I could then go and visit it for myself. But by that time I'd already know what I was going to see and I would already know the story. It detracts much from the experience.

 

However, as a GC virtual, I just knew we were looking fro some info. When we got there we saw the mural for the first time and it was a fun surprise. We also saw other things nearby for the first time that added to the experience.

[Dinoprophet]

Perhaps geocachers avoid Waymarking in droves because they were never that interested in finding virtuals in the first place.

Not sure that's true, Toz. It seems that whenever the topic comes up, folks who love virts are the loudest detractors of WMs.

I would expect folks who love virts to be the loudest detractors. Who else would be a detractor, especially in a thread about bringing back virts?

 

I think Toz's point is that if someone doesn't use Waymarking, you can't assume it's because they think it's an insufficient replacement for virts. It may be that they didn't care about virts to begin with.

 

Me, I never cared much for virts. Too much extra hassle, keeping track of the information needed for each one. But I love Waymarking.

And that's part of the problem. I can get that information by looking at the waymark page or other internet resources. I prefer the GC virutal model where I go there and discover for myself what is there.

 

For instance, there is a mural in a small town nearby that has some interesting information about the town that I did not know before going after the virtual.

 

Sure, I could have found that online and read the same info,maybe even gotten a pic of the mural. Using a waymark, I could then go and visit it for myself. But by that time I'd already know what I was going to see and I would already know the story. It detracts much from the experience.

 

However, as a GC virtual, I just knew we were looking fro some info. When we got there we saw the mural for the first time and it was a fun surprise. We also saw other things nearby for the first time that added to the experience.

Of course, you don't *have* to look ahead of time at what you're going to see. Just load up the points and go. With your filters set, you'll always go someplace interesting to you (Really, while you can just avert your gaze, I 'd like to see wm.com implement blind downloads for this reason).

Edited April 7, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+Semper Questio]

Of course, you don't *have* to look ahead of time at what you're going to see. Just load up the points and go. With your filters set, you'll always go someplace interesting to you (Really, while you can just avert your gaze, I 'd like to see wm.com implement blind downloads for this reason).

 

The waymarks I have looked at "always" seem to have some kind of logging requirements so you have to look all that up before you go out so you can get the required info, pictures, or whatever. It's been my (ok, rather limited) experience that the waymark listing usually has a picture with a rather full narrative of what's there and embedded in there somewhere is what you need to get to log your visit so it's has been rather difficult to avoid the info. Perhaps some things have changed a bit since I was on it last a few months back. If it weren't so cumbersome to move about, I'd probably have another look at it. But in the meantime...cache on!

[+tozainamboku]

Perhaps geocachers avoid Waymarking in droves because they were never that interested in finding virtuals in the first place.

Not sure that's true, Toz. It seems that whenever the topic comes up, folks who love virts are the loudest detractors of WMs.

You didn't quote the whole paragraph.

 

I fully understand that some geoachers prefer caches that take them to places they find interesting. The see many physical caches that are in parking lots, newsracks, and other so-called boring places. They see power trails that might be in a nice rural area but find that having to stop every 528 feet for another cache spoils the drive. These people often claim they prefer virtuals because they are usually someplace interesting and sometimes are in places where you can't place physical caches. My is that while they say that visit an interesting place is more important than finding a cache (and, for some, getting a smiley) this is not really true.

 

Waymarking is setup for people to share interesting places without worry about hiding something to find. To be sure, there are issues with using Waymarking. The biggest probably being the lack of a PQ counterpart. But also the need to do some initial research to find the categories you are interested in and set up the site filters may be a barier for some. Virtual caches are preselected by the tireless reviewers who decided which were Wow enough. There is nothing similar with Waymarking. It is basically assumed that if you like historical markers, then all historical markers are Wow enough. If the effort spent asking for virtual caches to be brought back were spent on asking for improvements in Waymarking , you might see some issues resolved and at least get help from the Waymarkers on how to get around on that site.

[+narcissa]

More than I miss virtuals, I object to TPTB telling us to go to Waymarking if we want them.

 

Fine, GC.com doesn't do them anymore. That's too bad. But Waymarking is not a replacement. It's something very different, on a site that doesn't work the same way, isn't well integrated with Geocaching.com, and has different rules for publication.

 

If I was interested in the sort of thing that Waymarking does offer - and I understand that some people are - there are several other sites that do it better.

[+Semper Questio]

OK, just for giggles I went back over there. Last time I was there was in December. I saw a few new things near me so I checked a few out. The visit logging requirements were separate from the waymark description. Cool. So I downloaded a GPX to see what was in it. And in there is the description, but nothing about the logging requirements. So what good is that gonna do me out on the road? Using my previous example, If it just told me I was looking for a mural and here's what you need to get to log the visit, that's fine. But telling me all about it without the logging requirements just ain't gonna cut it.

 

I also explored the searches for nearby waymarks from caches and that seemed to work well enough except it has no option that I could find to filter out previously visited waymarks although it did seem to ignore the two categories I ignored.

 

It is a lot farther along than it used to be to make it a viable site. Give it tighter integration between geocaching and Waymarking (combined PQs would be fantastic) and include the visiting requirements in the WM GPX and I think I'd give it a real shot. As it is now, there is still just too much computer time across multiple sites to get what I want...unless, of course, I'm missing something. It's been known to happen.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

It is a lot farther along than it used to be to make it a viable site. Give it tighter integration between geocaching and Waymarking (combined PQs would be fantastic) ...

 

That's my biggest gripe about the Waymarking site. Whenever I take a vacation (when I'm driving) I create pocket queries using the "caches along a route" feature. I'll often create several of them based on the possible routes I might take. I typically exclude unknown and multi caches for these queries but *always* include virtuals and earthcaches. Although it's certainly not always the case many of the virts and earthcaches are at locations where, for one reason or another, a physical container can't be placed. Perhaps it's on private property where the owner doesn't want a physical container or in a sensitive area where searching for a container could cause environmental damage. In any case, during a 3-4 hour drive it might be nice to know that just off the next exit on an interstate there is an interesting private museum that would be a good place to stop to stretch our legs. Because waymarks can't be included in pocket queries discovering some interesting places that might be very close to my travel route are a pain to find.

[+Car54]

We LOVE virtuals. They are usually at the top of our "must get" list when we head out. How virtuals are done in the Waymarking model is just not the same to us and it is too much of a pain to deal with.

 

Times 2.

[+Castle Mischief]

Virtual caches are preselected by the tireless reviewers who decided which were Wow enough.

 

Just a minor point- not all virtuals were published during the "wow" period.

 

If the effort spent asking for virtual caches to be brought back were spent on asking for improvements in Waymarking , you might see some issues resolved and at least get help from the Waymarkers on how to get around on that site.

 

What effort? People posting on the forums? Aside from the Google Earth .kml, when did that ever change anything? Has there even been talk of providing a PQ function for Waymarking? That's probably the single most common cited reason for not Waymarking I've seen.

[+narcissa]

We LOVE virtuals. They are usually at the top of our "must get" list when we head out. How virtuals are done in the Waymarking model is just not the same to us and it is too much of a pain to deal with.

 

Times 2.

 

Times 3.

[+briansnat]

More than I miss virtuals, I object to TPTB telling us to go to Waymarking if we want them.

 

Fine, GC.com doesn't do them anymore. That's too bad. But Waymarking is not a replacement. It's something very different, on a site that doesn't work the same way, isn't well integrated with Geocaching.com, and has different rules for publication.

 

If I was interested in the sort of thing that Waymarking does offer - and I understand that some people are - there are several other sites that do it better.

 

The fact of the matter is that Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals. Because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so.

 

Waymarks are actually very similar in most respects to virtual caches and Waymarking categories are similar to locationless caches.

 

Seriously can someone tell me how this is that much different than this, or how this is so incredibly different from this?

 

Indeed the rules for publication are different. The community decides what categories are worthy of inclusion and the officers of each category decide whether submissions meet the criteria set for the category. That is actually better in many ways than a reviewer who is told that he has to use the very subjective "wow factor". If the community thinks its worthy and it fits the criteria the waymark gets published, whereas very few virtuals were published after the "wow factor" was introduced in 2003.

 

The site indeed works differently than this one and I think that's a good thing. I wish there was a good way on this site to filter out the kinds of caches that don't interest me. On Waymarking it's a simple process to filter out unwanted categories.

[+Team Cotati]

I Beleive I am kicking a dead horse here, but I tried to set up a virtual cache and could not. Then went to waymaking, and had an even harder time doing it. What's up with that?!

 

I believe the problem is that TPTB don't care what the paying members want.

 

It is obvious that this issue has caused a lot of heartburn with the members, but all we get back is advice telling us to go to the other site they're trying to promote. I'm not interested in what they're selling.

 

I have been away for a few years while the military put me out of reach of this site. I was a premium member when I left, but I refuse to upgrade while these elitists ignore and even insult members who voice there displeasure at this decision.

 

There are paying members who never cared much for virtuals and were happy to see them go. Perhaps TPTB were listening to paying members when they got rid of them.

 

I sure would like to see the vote count on that.

[+sseegars]

 

Indeed the rules for publication are different. The community decides what categories are worthy of inclusion and the officers of each category decide whether submissions meet the criteria set for the category. That is actually better in many ways than a reviewer who is told that he has to use the very subjective "wow factor". If the community thinks its worthy and it fits the criteria the waymark gets published, whereas very few virtuals were published after the "wow factor" was introduced in 2003.

 

I believe that this is what is being asked for, a community decision. I would vote a yes on virtuals. I find Alabama Ramblers idea intriguing. Why is it community on Waymarking and when it comes to Geocaching we have to take what we can get? I realize that this is a business but, as has been stated before, we are members. A lot of us paying members which help this site run. (Not a threat or anything of the sort, just statement of fact.)

 

It was said further up the thread that this comes up once a month in the forums, this is the second thread this week about this.

 

I have met new cachers and veteran cachers within the last two months and we have discussed the absence of virtuals. Believe me, they are missed.

 

Now bring on that email poll.

[+briansnat]

I have met new cachers and veteran cachers within the last two months and we have discussed the absence of virtuals. Believe me, they are missed.

 

I don't see how they are missed so much when the overwhelming majority of geocachers never were able to submit one. Anybody who started geocaching after the middle of 2003 (and that is the vast majority of geocachers) likely never had a virtual published. How can you miss something you never got to do in the first place?

 

And for those who like to find them, there are still thousands of grandfathered virtuals out there.

Edited April 7, 2010 by briansnat

[Clan Riffster]

You didn't quote the whole paragraph.

I didn't need to.

You tried explaining why Waymarking has been such a dud, while avoiding the opinions of the customers.

A large percentage of the customers say it sucks. For any business, that's a recipe for disaster.

Whatever brings a person to like virts apparently does not exist at WM.

[+narcissa]

 

The fact of the matter is that Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals. Because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so...

 

(cut for tl;dr)

 

...The site indeed works differently than this one and I think that's a good thing. I wish there was a good way on this site to filter out the kinds of caches that don't interest me. On Waymarking it's a simple process to filter out unwanted categories.

 

Waymarking is touted by Groundspeak as the "replacement" for virtual geocaches. This is really just a line Groundspeak is using to try to get its customers from Geocaching.com to also use Waymarking.com. Yes, they're similar, but since they aren't in any way integrated with Geocaching.com, they aren't really a replacement. They're just something else that's sort of similar, on a site owned by the same company.

 

I've tried to use Waymarking.com several times, and there's nothing simple about it. It's disorganized, hard to use, and the "community" moderation seems more like tyranny (judging from the numerous complaints I've seen by people who have tried to participate by submitting their own waymarks).

 

I don't like that virtuals were discontinued from Geocaching.com. I accept that they probably aren't coming back. But I've tried to use Waymarking.com - because I like virtuals -, and it suuuuuuuuuuuucks. No amount of grumpy, snarky comments from Groundspeak's reps will change that.

 

A drastic overhaul of the site might.

[Dinoprophet]

 

The fact of the matter is that Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals. Because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't so...

 

(cut for tl;dr)

 

...The site indeed works differently than this one and I think that's a good thing. I wish there was a good way on this site to filter out the kinds of caches that don't interest me. On Waymarking it's a simple process to filter out unwanted categories.

 

Waymarking is touted by Groundspeak as the "replacement" for virtual geocaches. This is really just a line Groundspeak is using to try to get its customers from Geocaching.com to also use Waymarking.com. Yes, they're similar, but since they aren't in any way integrated with Geocaching.com, they aren't really a replacement. They're just something else that's sort of similar, on a site owned by the same company.

 

I've tried to use Waymarking.com several times, and there's nothing simple about it. It's disorganized, hard to use, and the "community" moderation seems more like tyranny (judging from the numerous complaints I've seen by people who have tried to participate by submitting their own waymarks).

 

I don't like that virtuals were discontinued from Geocaching.com. I accept that they probably aren't coming back. But I've tried to use Waymarking.com - because I like virtuals -, and it suuuuuuuuuuuucks. No amount of grumpy, snarky comments from Groundspeak's reps will change that.

 

A drastic overhaul of the site might.

Specifically addressing, the "tyranny" part, it's just like here: follow the guidelines, you'll get listed.

 

Ironically, the most recent stir over heavy-handed enforcement was due to a well-known geocacher who'd been away from Waymarking for some years and decided to check back in. He retroactively declined some long-approved waymarks, feeling that his guidelines hadn't been enforced strongly enough in his absence.

 

Whether he was right to do so or not, the point is waymarkers are no more tyrannical than geocachers (don't make me dig up the posts of people who will delete logs if they don't find your signature in your unique handwriting. Because I can if I must). And you know how it goes when a gc.com approver gets accused of petty tyranny.

[+narcissa]

 

Whether he was right to do so or not, the point is waymarkers are no more tyrannical than geocachers (don't make me dig up the posts of people who will delete logs if they don't find your signature in your unique handwriting. Because I can if I must). And you know how it goes when a gc.com approver gets accused of petty tyranny.

 

I really don't know the ins-and-outs of Waymarking drama. The site is far too complicated for me to bother with, so I've never tried to submit anything. It just seems that Waymarking fans are always writing these tl;dr diatribes about how nobody gives Waymarking a chance, but then when someone DOES give it a chance, they get turned down because their Waymark didn't have the right punctuation in its title.

 

Say what you will about Geocaching.com reviewers (for the record, I think the vast majority of them do a terrific job), they don't look for petty reasons to turn people away.

 

Geocaching.com, at this point, doesn't need to solicit people from other sites in order to get people to participate. Apparently, Waymarking does. Hence the proselytizing, hence the end of virtual geocaches. It just seems that if they're so hard up for new users, they should be taking down some of the barriers to new participation.

[+sseegars]

I have met new cachers and veteran cachers within the last two months and we have discussed the absence of virtuals. Believe me, they are missed.

 

I don't see how they are missed so much when the overwhelming majority of geocachers never were able to submit one. Anybody who started geocaching after the middle of 2003 (and that is the vast majority of geocachers) likely never had a virtual published. How can you miss something you never got to do in the first place?

 

And for those who like to find them, there are still thousands of grandfathered virtuals out there.

 

Resepctfully thousands of grandfathered virtuals don't do a whole lot for folks that like to find them when we just passed the millionth published cache. The numbers don't pan out and not all cachers get to travel the country. A lot don't get to go much further than their state and the neighboring states. We are not all caching for a living.

[+sseegars]

With my last post I will hit the hay. Join us next week (or tomorrow) for another Virtual Cache thread!

[+cx1]

Virtual caches show up on my map page, Waymarks don't

Virtual caches show up in my PQs, Waymarks don't

Virtual caches show up on my iphone app, Waymarks don't

Virtual caches allow uploading field notes from my gps, Waymarks don't

 

When I search for Virtual caches near-by each entry is a unique location whereas on Waymarks the first 17 are all the same place. Don't believe me, do a search on both sites for zip code 47801 .

 

For those that are fans of Waymarking, I have a question. Right now Premium membership is free on Waymarking if you are a Premium member of Geocaching.com. Would you be willing to continue to support Waymarking if you had to pay $30/yr for it as well?

 

I also wonder how many Premium members the Waymarking site has that are not geocachers, or in other words how many Premium members just paid for Waymarking.

[4wheelin_fool]

The "other" sites will list virtuals, so why don't you guys list (and find them) there?

 

No, I'm not talking about Waymarking, I'm talking about the other geocaching sites.

 

But NOOOOO, thats not good enough. Why, pray tell?

 

It's because of the SMILEYS isn't it? It's ALL because of the friggen SMILEYS?

 

If Waymarks uploaded the smileys there would be a boost... and people won't visit the other sites because the SMILEYS won't carry over.

 

You people have a one track mind, ALWAYS thinking about SMILEYS nothing else..

 

PERVERTS !!!

[4wheelin_fool]

Now how about a new Waymarking category: "Virtual Caches".

 

You won't know what is there until you find it, and you just answer a few verification questions.

 

Hmmm. How about it?

[+saopaulo1]

The "other" sites will list virtuals, so why don't you guys list (and find them) there?

 

No, I'm not talking about Waymarking, I'm talking about the other geocaching sites.

 

But NOOOOO, thats not good enough. Why, pray tell?

 

It's because of the SMILEYS isn't it? It's ALL because of the friggen SMILEYS?

 

If Waymarks uploaded the smileys there would be a boost... and people won't visit the other sites because the SMILEYS won't carry over.

 

You people have a one track mind, ALWAYS thinking about SMILEYS nothing else..

 

PERVERTS !!!

 

Check out the Best Kept Secrets Category.

[+tozainamboku]

You didn't quote the whole paragraph.

I didn't need to.

You tried explaining why Waymarking has been such a dud, while avoiding the opinions of the customers.

A large percentage of the customers say it sucks. For any business, that's a recipe for disaster.

Whatever brings a person to like virts apparently does not exist at WM.

So do what I did. I proposed the Best Kept Secrets category that saopaulo1 links to above. I tried to create a category that replicated what I liked about virtuals. I suspect that other people liked virtuals for ohter reasons. I really expected that other people would propose other categories to emphasize what they thought made a good virtual cache. But no one else tried. If whatever brings a person to like virts (other that they get a geocaching smiley and that can get a PQ that has both virts and physical caches in it) doesn't exist at WM its because the people who miss virts would rather complain instead of taking advantage of what is available to make some categories they would find appealing.

[+cx1]

 

Check out the Best Kept Secrets Category.

 

Thanks, that provided another example.

Virtual Caches I can sort by distance, Waymarks don't have that either.

 

The other caching sites? *YAWN* You know how many caches on TC that are within 50 miles of me? Zero

 

And if someone likes to collect smileys what is wrong with that?

[+cx1]

Yippie my 1st double post, I hope I get a smiley

Edited April 8, 2010 by cx1

[+cx1]

. If whatever brings a person to like virts (other that they get a geocaching smiley and that can get a PQ that has both virts and physical caches in it) doesn't exist at WM its because the people who miss virts would rather complain instead of taking advantage of what is available to make some categories they would find appealing.

 

No, some of us 'complaining' don't feel we should have to use a different website with different rules and a different interface to do what used to be done here.