An open letter to Groundspeak about Virtuals

[+nthacker66]

Someone made a good point in another forum - why not form a virtuals review committee similar to earthcaches?

[+nthacker66]

Again the idea of bringing virtuals back at GW got a warm reception. I think this is something GC should ask per member in an email vote.

Were there any reviewers in the group? In particular, any reviewers that were reviewing when virts were allowed? I'm betting there were not.

 

You would lose your bet. All of the reviewers there were reviewers when there were virts.

 

"All"? That means that there were more than one reviewer present, and agreeing with bringing back virts? I don't doubt you, but that sure comes as a surprise to me, given what I've seen in this forum over the years!

 

Ok wow. I must remember that I am dealing with people who will take everything said as literal. Not EVERY SINGLE reviewer from all over the world was there. But every reivewer up on stage at that moment were reviewers form the era of virts. I will be more careful as to point these things out, but be prepared for longer posts then necessary so I can be concise as to not leave anything up for improper interpretation. Sheesh!

Settle down, there...

 

I wasn't implying that I thought you literally meant "all reviewers"! I simply said that by the use of the word "all" that you must have meant more than one, or you would have probably said "the reviewer". Probably more than two, also, or you would have said "both reviewers". "ALL reviewers" would imply at least three. I'd say its a little early for you to be getting so defensive.

 

You are assuming there was just one reviewer there. I was at GWX. I sat watching the reveiwers forum. I wouldn't be so contrite as to say "all reviewers" if there was just one or two. There happen to be 7 or 8 up there plsu Kathy from Groundspeak. This is why I decided to bring this topic to discussion because it isn't an "nthacker66 loves virtuals so bring them back" I don;t subject myself to being cooked ib the forums here (because personally, I hate these forums for the fact that it gives the fickle cachers easier room to let their hair down and get insulting). I brought it up because a good contingency of reviewers, a lackey and a large number of cachers who let out a large hoorah when someone mentioned virtuals was let out. Again I am not saying just reneact it as it was - but lets have a serious mature, intelligent discussions based on a community consensus" to do something to bring back the spirit of the virtual outside of a rather lazy attempt in challenges and beyond the "offset multi" That is all. I am really not looking to get into the "virts are dead, can it" or semantics here. Althought I should have known better, I won't give up on trying to hold Groundspeak up to their own words.

 

I apologize if I got defensive. I really hoped this would be a more adult like relaxed discussion.

Edited May 30, 2012 by nthacker66

[4wheelin_fool]

Virtuals are cumbersome to review and high maintenance, as they require an e-mail to the CO. I am aware of one in which the CO created a sock account and sent the virtual through the adoption process to it (at the time it was possible). Then he just stopped answering e-mails. He was tired of the daily e-mails clogging up his inbox, so they went to the sock e-mail address. After a few years he came into the forum and bragged about how his virtual was so popular.

 

I'd say that that the Waymarking site would be a good replacement for them. However, the smileys do not count on geocaching.com, making it a completely separate game. Next, the listings are heavily watered down with useless places that are not intended to draw any visits. Not many people want to start playing a separate game in which you are instructed to ignore the majority of listings. There also is no "surprise" factor, which was present on many virts. You do know exactly what is there in all cases, which makes it even more boring.

 

What they COULD do, is to import virtuals that have been a "success" on Waymarking. Only the ones that are popular, and the ones that most of the waymarkers have marked as a favorite. But that will never happen either. So far you have had about 20 people respond to this thread, out of an active 1 million or so cachers, and many already have told you they don't want them back. There are also a few hundred past threads in which this has already been discussed.

[+CanadianRockies]

The core of this lies in Kathy words to "let the community decide" - Again, Groundspeak - if you are true to that - than let the community decide - lets have an up or down vote on it membership wide. What say you?

At times you claim Kathy said "let the community decide." Other times, you claim "Kathy from Groundspeak said they listen to the community." It's important to realize that these two concepts aren't the same.

 

I suspect Kathy said Groundspeak listens to the community. If she said Groundspeak lets the community decide, then she probably misspoke. I very much doubt that it's Groundspeak's policy to let the community decide how the company operates, since that would be a rather silly business model.

 

If they held an up-or-down membership vote on whether to drop Premium Membership fees to $5 per year, should Groundspeak follow the majority's preferences even if it might bankrupt the company? If the members voted to have Groundspeak give an airplane ticket to any member who wanted to visit Seattle, then should they do so? Of course not.

 

As someone else already pointed out, businesses aren't democracies. And the customer isn't always right.

 

Feel free to make your case about why virtuals should return. I'm guessing Groundspeak will indeed listen to what you have to say. They have in the past, and they've decided not to bring virtuals back. But if you have a convincing reason why they should, then perhaps we'll soon see their return. It's just that I haven't seen anything convincing in your arguments so far.

Edited May 30, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+jellis]

But, not McDonald's ice cream...

Come on....... that's Dreyer's.....

[+JesandTodd]

Oops!! My bad!!!

In that case, I like ice cream.

[+nthacker66]

Virtuals are cumbersome to review and high maintenance, as they require an e-mail to the CO. I am aware of one in which the CO created a sock account and sent the virtual through the adoption process to it (at the time it was possible). Then he just stopped answering e-mails. He was tired of the daily e-mails clogging up his inbox, so they went to the sock e-mail address. After a few years he came into the forum and bragged about how his virtual was so popular.

 

Thus why a review committee not too unlike earth caches could help with that. And a like any cache a CO has to decide if they are able to naintain it. Dont nix a cache simply because it is "hard to maintain" A CO should know his or her limitations and ability to maintain. Most cachers are honest enough to do the work - same goes for earth caches. If we go by the same standards "its hard to review and maintain" the logic can apply to eartch cachers as well, why have them than?

 

 

I'd say that that the Waymarking site would be a good replacement for them. However, the smileys do not count on geocaching.com, making it a completely separate game. Next, the listings are heavily watered down with useless places that are not intended to draw any visits. Not many people want to start playing a separate game in which you are instructed to ignore the majority of listings. There also is no "surprise" factor, which was present on many virts. You do know exactly what is there in all cases, which makes it even more boring.

I hoped you read my orignal post about Waymarking. Plus yes, they dont count towards numbers so people generally wont pay attention to them, plus Waymarking is too cluttered with boring places. Again virts can be subject to that which is why I said, make the guidlines for a virt listing more restrictive - again a review committee - same way earthcaches are done.

 

 

What they COULD do, is to import virtuals that have been a "success" on Waymarking. Only the ones that are popular, and the ones that most of the waymarkers have marked as a favorite. But that will never happen either. So far you have had about 20 people respond to this thread, out of an active 1 million or so cachers, and many already have told you they don't want them back. There are also a few hundred past threads in which this has already been discussed.

 

I think that is a good idea expecpt again, it goes against your very logic of high maint. And again waymerker, not many people pay attention to it, so something that has a high WOW factor, may simply not have it.

And again all 1 million active cachers dont visit the forums, nor did they go to geowoodstock. And again, Groundspeak stated their words "let the community decide" so I amn throwinf the guantlet down - let the community decide - how about an email vote?

[+nthacker66]

The core of this lies in Kathy words to "let the community decide" - Again, Groundspeak - if you are true to that - than let the community decide - lets have an up or down vote on it membership wide. What say you?

At times you claim Kathy said "let the community decide." Other times, you claim "Kathy from Groundspeak said they listen to the community." It's important to realize that these two concepts aren't the same.

 

I suspect Kathy said Groundspeak listens to the community. If she said Groundspeak lets the community decide, then she probably misspoke. I very much doubt that it's Groundspeak's policy to let the community decide how the company operates, since that would be a rather silly business model.

 

If they held an up-or-down membership vote on whether to drop Premium Membership fees to $5 per year, should Groundspeak follow the majority's preferences even if it might bankrupt the company? If the members voted to have Groundspeak give an airplane ticket to any member who wanted to visit Seattle, then should they do so? Of course not.

 

As someone else already pointed out, businesses aren't democracies. And the customer isn't always right.

 

Feel free to make your case about why virtuals should return. I'm guessing Groundspeak will indeed listen to what you have to say. They have in the past, and they've decided not to bring virtuals back. But if you have a convincing reason why they should, then perhaps we'll soon see their return. It's just that I haven't seen anything convincing in your arguments so far.

Oh my gosh, really? Are we areally going to play grammar and interpretation wars here. Please, as I said earlier I am not getting into this type of discussions. Kathy was the one who said on stage that Groundspeak listens to the community and the community gets to decide. My bad for not having my camera rolling to get the EXACT words. But those who were there when she said it knows that the CONTEXT of what she said was there - if Groundspeak is true to that SENTIMENT, then lets have a vote on it. It doesnt havr to be EXACTLY how it was in the past, redraft the virts, have a review like earthcaches, etc. And then vote if that is what people want.

[+geodarts]

I would love to see virtuals return, but it seems to me that Groundspeak's response to our requests was challenges, which missed the mark about what many of us were seeking and the ways in which it could be implemented. To me, it is not a matter of logistics -- there are ways that virtuals could be allowed as part of this game without posing a burden on reviewers or filling the map with the latest McDonald's sighting. However,the decision was made to grandfather existing virtuals until they slowly disappeared, and that is unlikely to be revisited.

 

Still, I am glad for the ones that remain. I just returned from a recent trip and as I have slowly begun to log some of the caches, I again realized how it was the virtuals and earthcaches that really stood out for me.

[+nthacker66]

The core of this lies in Kathy words to "let the community decide" - Again, Groundspeak - if you are true to that - than let the community decide - lets have an up or down vote on it membership wide. What say you?

At times you claim Kathy said "let the community decide." Other times, you claim "Kathy from Groundspeak said they listen to the community." It's important to realize that these two concepts aren't the same.

 

I suspect Kathy said Groundspeak listens to the community. If she said Groundspeak lets the community decide, then she probably misspoke. I very much doubt that it's Groundspeak's policy to let the community decide how the company operates, since that would be a rather silly business model.

 

If they held an up-or-down membership vote on whether to drop Premium Membership fees to $5 per year, should Groundspeak follow the majority's preferences even if it might bankrupt the company? If the members voted to have Groundspeak give an airplane ticket to any member who wanted to visit Seattle, then should they do so? Of course not.

 

As someone else already pointed out, businesses aren't democracies. And the customer isn't always right.

 

Feel free to make your case about why virtuals should return. I'm guessing Groundspeak will indeed listen to what you have to say. They have in the past, and they've decided not to bring virtuals back. But if you have a convincing reason why they should, then perhaps we'll soon see their return. It's just that I haven't seen anything convincing in your arguments so far.

Oh my gosh, really? Are we areally going to play grammar and interpretation wars here. Please, as I said earlier I am not getting into this type of discussions. Kathy was the one who said on stage that Groundspeak listens to the community and the community gets to decide. My bad for not having my camera rolling to get the EXACT words. But those who were there when she said it knows that the CONTEXT of what she said was there - if Groundspeak is true to that SENTIMENT, then lets have a vote on it. It doesnt havr to be EXACTLY how it was in the past, redraft the virts, have a review like earthcaches, etc. And then vote if that is what people want.

Again I would be more than willing to propose a draft but it would be more than flawed. So I would point to how earth cachesa are done, and apply virtuals to that review process.

Edited May 30, 2012 by nthacker66

[+JesandTodd]

Do you remember the user forums? Because the "bring back virtuals" thread over there had thousands of votes. Thousands. And usually popular threads only had a few hundred.

 

Again-challenges were the answer to our request. GS *already* listened to us, and *already* implemented their response.

 

Were you around when they challenges hit the forums? The response....was...overwhelming to say the least. I don't know if you remember how GS reacted to us on the forums

 

Here's what I learned: when the lily pad puts its foot down, it's down.

When we say this horse is dead, it's dead.

[+CanadianRockies]

The core of this lies in Kathy words to "let the community decide" - Again, Groundspeak - if you are true to that - than let the community decide - lets have an up or down vote on it membership wide. What say you?

At times you claim Kathy said "let the community decide." Other times, you claim "Kathy from Groundspeak said they listen to the community." It's important to realize that these two concepts aren't the same.

 

I suspect Kathy said Groundspeak listens to the community. If she said Groundspeak lets the community decide, then she probably misspoke. I very much doubt that it's Groundspeak's policy to let the community decide how the company operates, since that would be a rather silly business model.

 

If they held an up-or-down membership vote on whether to drop Premium Membership fees to $5 per year, should Groundspeak follow the majority's preferences even if it might bankrupt the company? If the members voted to have Groundspeak give an airplane ticket to any member who wanted to visit Seattle, then should they do so? Of course not.

 

As someone else already pointed out, businesses aren't democracies. And the customer isn't always right.

 

Feel free to make your case about why virtuals should return. I'm guessing Groundspeak will indeed listen to what you have to say. They have in the past, and they've decided not to bring virtuals back. But if you have a convincing reason why they should, then perhaps we'll soon see their return. It's just that I haven't seen anything convincing in your arguments so far.

Oh my gosh, really? Are we areally going to play grammar and interpretation wars here. Please, as I said earlier I am not getting into this type of discussions. Kathy was the one who said on stage that Groundspeak listens to the community and the community gets to decide. My bad for not having my camera rolling to get the EXACT words. But those who were there when she said it knows that the CONTEXT of what she said was there - if Groundspeak is true to that SENTIMENT, then lets have a vote on it. It doesnt havr to be EXACTLY how it was in the past, redraft the virts, have a review like earthcaches, etc. And then vote if that is what people want.

You're believing that "we listen to the community" and "we let the community decide" are grammatical issues indicates that you missed my point entirely. It's important to realize that these two concepts aren't just a matter of semantics. They have hugely different implications on how a company operates and whether it succeeds.

 

If Groundspeak allowed its members to operate the company, then it very likely wouldn't exist much longer. On the other hand, if Groundspeak failed to listen to its members, then it very likely wouldn't exist much longer.

Edited May 30, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+nikcap]

Sometimes I feel that the term "community" is used to reference the vocal minority and not the majority.

 

Conceptually, I like virtuals, but in reality, they don't work that well.

 

What do you feel doesn't work well?

 

The whole WOW factor thing. What was the WOW factor in this cache. Yes, I cherry picked this, but seriously, while some virtual are very interesting, every time this topic comes up, I see a new link to a 'lame' virtual cache.

 

Plus missing CO's and missing verification objects, yet the cache people still log it, even though they can't complete the requirements. I can think of at least three VC near me that fall into this scenario. I'll refrain from posting them for fear of those getting archived. (and yes, this attitude, that seems pretty common, doesn't help)

 

If you really want a community based approval system, I suggest that you look at the Geocaching Challenges.

 

Not to put words in Kathy's mouth, but I believe that by the same token, if the "community" embraces Geocaching Challenges and starts requesting features for that aspect of the gc.com website, we can build it into something that will make the majority happy. Perhaps working to build something around a better frame work is better than trying to resurrect the dead.

 

The horse is dead. If I was GS, I would ban all virtuals and get it over with. The cream of the crops of virtuals is blinding alot of cachers now a day. Its making them think all virutals are awesome when it wasnt the case when virtual was allowed. most of the lame virtuals are gone now.

 

I am one of those cachers that DONT want them back. And to Groundspeak, thank you for listening to us that don't want them back.

 

... or do what they did with locationless and allow active users to move their virts to Geocaching Challenges, or even better, just change the name of the Geocaching Challenges to Geocaching Virtuals.

[+SwineFlew]

Virtuals are cumbersome to review and high maintenance, as they require an e-mail to the CO. I am aware of one in which the CO created a sock account and sent the virtual through the adoption process to it (at the time it was possible). Then he just stopped answering e-mails. He was tired of the daily e-mails clogging up his inbox, so they went to the sock e-mail address. After a few years he came into the forum and bragged about how his virtual was so popular.

 

Thus why a review committee not too unlike earth caches could help with that. And a like any cache a CO has to decide if they are able to naintain it. Dont nix a cache simply because it is "hard to maintain" A CO should know his or her limitations and ability to maintain. Most cachers are honest enough to do the work - same goes for earth caches. If we go by the same standards "its hard to review and maintain" the logic can apply to eartch cachers as well, why have them than?

 

 

I'd say that that the Waymarking site would be a good replacement for them. However, the smileys do not count on geocaching.com, making it a completely separate game. Next, the listings are heavily watered down with useless places that are not intended to draw any visits. Not many people want to start playing a separate game in which you are instructed to ignore the majority of listings. There also is no "surprise" factor, which was present on many virts. You do know exactly what is there in all cases, which makes it even more boring.

I hoped you read my orignal post about Waymarking. Plus yes, they dont count towards numbers so people generally wont pay attention to them, plus Waymarking is too cluttered with boring places. Again virts can be subject to that which is why I said, make the guidlines for a virt listing more restrictive - again a review committee - same way earthcaches are done.

 

 

What they COULD do, is to import virtuals that have been a "success" on Waymarking. Only the ones that are popular, and the ones that most of the waymarkers have marked as a favorite. But that will never happen either. So far you have had about 20 people respond to this thread, out of an active 1 million or so cachers, and many already have told you they don't want them back. There are also a few hundred past threads in which this has already been discussed.

 

I think that is a good idea expecpt again, it goes against your very logic of high maint. And again waymerker, not many people pay attention to it, so something that has a high WOW factor, may simply not have it.

And again all 1 million active cachers dont visit the forums, nor did they go to geowoodstock. And again, Groundspeak stated their words "let the community decide" so I amn throwinf the guantlet down - let the community decide - how about an email vote?

Groundspeak is private owned company and last I checked they arent a co-op company.

[Mr.Yuck]

Someone made a good point in another forum - why not form a virtuals review committee similar to earthcaches?

 

That is an idea that could possibly work. But you'll have to fill me in, I'm not aware, (pun intended, because all the Earthcache reviewers are Geoaware with a country abbreviation after them; GeoawareCA, GeoawareUK etc..) of a earthcache review committee, I thought the were just like the regular reviewers, and they work indepentently by territory. I don't know how many of them there are, but it's not very many.

 

So basically, this is all born out of you or someone else bringing up bring back virtuals at the meet the reviewer forum at GW? Unlike others, I do believe if they took a poll of all premium members worldwide, a good majority would say "bring 'em back". I could go either way, and won't even bother getting into the debate about how to do it though.

[+Cathy]

I was one of two lackeys representing Groundspeak at GeoWoodstock this past weekend and I believe I can clear some of this up.

 

nthacker66, I see you began geocaching in 2008, long after virtuals were no longer accepted for publication. Virtuals seem like they're all at great locations now and many of them were back then too, but a lot of the poor quality ones have been weeded out over the years so what you see now is not what it looked like when virtuals were still being published. It is easy to think the "good old days" were better than they actually were if you weren't there to see them for yourself. Along with some great locations, there were submissions for dog poop, decaying animal carcasses, stop signs, and shoes tossed up into trees, among other things. Groundspeak tried to limit the publishable submissions to "quality" locations with a "wow" factor, but that quickly became a slippery slope that caused tremendous stress for the reviewers. It was not fair to them to have to arbitrarily decide where the line would be for every virtual cache submission and have to deal with the inevitable argument that would come from the owner of every cache that was not published.

 

Groundspeak has been hearing the calls to bring them back, but the problem was how to do it without bringing back all the problems that made them go away. They couldn't come back the same way. That is why Challenges were created. Virtual locations can be published without a review process, and the community over time determines the "wow" factor. Challenges that the community likes will filter to the top of the list, and those that are not well-received by the community will filter to the bottom and eventually disappear. They are tracked on Geocaching.com, so you don't need to go to another website. Challenges are still evolving - don't assume they're always going to have the limitations they do now.

 

Waymarking can be used to highlight virtual locations, but its primary purpose was to replace the Locationless Caches. Locationless caches were more of a scavenger hunt and they were moved to their own site so that geocaching could stay true to bringing people to specific locations. We acknowledge that scurrying about to find examples of various categories is fun too, and that is why we created Waymarking instead of archiving the locationless caches and never looking back.

[+gpicard]

I don't recall ever giving an opinion on virtual caches so here I go....

 

I like them. I think we should be able to create new ones.

 

There is no 'WOW' factor for other cache types and I don't think we need that requirement for virtual caches.

 

There are lame caches of every type. I choose which caches I want to seek.

 

If the listing or location looks lame I won't seek the cache.

 

There are locations where I won't place a physical cache but I would place a virtual.

 

I don't think there should be special requirements that make a reviewer's job any harder than it already is.

 

We can make cache listing very complicated of keep it simple. The cream will rise to the top. The less desirable caches will fade away.

 

Thanks for listening!

[jholly]

I was one of two lackeys representing Groundspeak at GeoWoodstock this past weekend and I believe I can clear some of this up.

 

nthacker66, I see you began geocaching in 2008, long after virtuals were no longer accepted for publication. Virtuals seem like they're all at great locations now and many of them were back then too, but a lot of the poor quality ones have been weeded out over the years so what you see now is not what it looked like when virtuals were still being published. ... <snip>

 

[inserting babelfish]

 

virtuals are dead and are not coming back.

[knowschad]

Again the idea of bringing virtuals back at GW got a warm reception. I think this is something GC should ask per member in an email vote.

Were there any reviewers in the group? In particular, any reviewers that were reviewing when virts were allowed? I'm betting there were not.

 

You would lose your bet. All of the reviewers there were reviewers when there were virts.

 

"All"? That means that there were more than one reviewer present, and agreeing with bringing back virts? I don't doubt you, but that sure comes as a surprise to me, given what I've seen in this forum over the years!

 

Ok wow. I must remember that I am dealing with people who will take everything said as literal. Not EVERY SINGLE reviewer from all over the world was there. But every reivewer up on stage at that moment were reviewers form the era of virts. I will be more careful as to point these things out, but be prepared for longer posts then necessary so I can be concise as to not leave anything up for improper interpretation. Sheesh!

Settle down, there...

 

I wasn't implying that I thought you literally meant "all reviewers"! I simply said that by the use of the word "all" that you must have meant more than one, or you would have probably said "the reviewer". Probably more than two, also, or you would have said "both reviewers". "ALL reviewers" would imply at least three. I'd say its a little early for you to be getting so defensive.

 

You are assuming there was just one reviewer there. I was at GWX. I sat watching the reveiwers forum. I wouldn't be so contrite as to say "all reviewers" if there was just one or two. There happen to be 7 or 8 up there plsu Kathy from Groundspeak. This is why I decided to bring this topic to discussion because it isn't an "nthacker66 loves virtuals so bring them back" I don;t subject myself to being cooked ib the forums here (because personally, I hate these forums for the fact that it gives the fickle cachers easier room to let their hair down and get insulting). I brought it up because a good contingency of reviewers, a lackey and a large number of cachers who let out a large hoorah when someone mentioned virtuals was let out. Again I am not saying just reneact it as it was - but lets have a serious mature, intelligent discussions based on a community consensus" to do something to bring back the spirit of the virtual outside of a rather lazy attempt in challenges and beyond the "offset multi" That is all. I am really not looking to get into the "virts are dead, can it" or semantics here. Althought I should have known better, I won't give up on trying to hold Groundspeak up to their own words.

 

I apologize if I got defensive. I really hoped this would be a more adult like relaxed discussion.

 

No, I am NOT assuming that! Would you please read what I said? I said that there must have been at least three reviewers there! I am not trying to pick a fight with you.

[+SwineFlew]

I don't recall ever giving an opinion on virtual caches so here I go....

 

I like them. I think we should be able to create new ones.

 

There is no 'WOW' factor for other cache types and I don't think we need that requirement for virtual caches.

 

There are lame caches of every type. I choose which caches I want to seek.

 

If the listing or location looks lame I won't seek the cache.

 

There are locations where I won't place a physical cache but I would place a virtual.

 

I don't think there should be special requirements that make a reviewer's job any harder than it already is.

 

We can make cache listing very complicated of keep it simple. The cream will rise to the top. The less desirable caches will fade away.

 

Thanks for listening!

You arent getting it, if they allow all virtual like geocaches, everybody will do it since its cheap way to do it and not have to worry about their caches getting muggled. GS had their reasons of WHY they put a limit on virtual with the "wow" factor in place, but it didnt work really well since it put the reviewers in a bad place when they deny anyone "perfect" virtual.

[+B+L]

Here's what I learned: when the lily pad puts its foot down, it's down.

Usually. But here's two counter-examples: the Off-Topic forum and Google Maps. Here's another: when the Hiking forum got canned, one person complained loudly about it and it was reinstated, even though hiking has about as much to do with geocaching as automobiles do (less actually). Since it worked once before, maybe they think they can achieve a similar result with virtuals.

[+briansnat]

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

 

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

[+The A-Team]

I like them. I think we should be able to create new ones.

 

There is no 'WOW' factor for other cache types and I don't think we need that requirement for virtual caches.

No, but there is a proximity guideline that limits how many caches can be in an area. Virtuals have no such limitation, so there are an infinite number of places they could go. Without ANY kind of limitation on virtuals, they'd end up everywhere, filling the map and making it hard to find the physical caches. And don't think there wouldn't be a massive number of lame virtuals. Just look at all the LPCs and guardrail caches. If there were an even lazier way of "placing" caches, the lazy would jump all over it.

 

Hey, I just thought of something: If virtuals came back with no limitation, we could have armchair logs AND armchair hides! We'd never have to leave the house!

[+briansnat]

Again the idea of bringing virtuals back at GW got a warm reception. I think this is something GC should ask per member in an email vote.

Were there any reviewers in the group? In particular, any reviewers that were reviewing when virts were allowed? I'm betting there were not.

 

You would lose your bet. All of the reviewers there were reviewers when there were virts.

 

"All"? That means that there were more than one reviewer present, and agreeing with bringing back virts? I don't doubt you, but that sure comes as a surprise to me, given what I've seen in this forum over the years!

 

This reviewer was on the stage when the question was brought up, this reviewer was reviewing when they were allowed and this reviewer does not care for their return.

[+JesandTodd]

Hey, I just thought of something: If virtuals came back with no limitation, we could have armchair logs AND armchair hides! We'd never have to leave the house!

 

And therein lies the whole problem. It's the opposite of what GS wants..."go outside and do something"...

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Challenges are still evolving - don't assume they're always going to have the limitations they do now.

 

How about opening up the search radius, so that challenges can be found?

 

We "placed" some challenges early on and NO ONE knows there are out there since they are NOT near any city! They have never been done!

 

They have become the same as whybother,marking!

 

John

[cezanne]

Hey, I just thought of something: If virtuals came back with no limitation, we could have armchair logs AND armchair hides! We'd never have to leave the house!

 

That's the case for many challenges and waymarks as well and yet they exist.

 

There is space for a more cache-like product offering something between the old virtual caches and challenges and without the classification mania of Waymarking.

It would not harm those who do not want to see these objects together with caches which end up with a container as there should be

a different category for them and it would not harm the reviewers if done similarly to challenges with respect to the publication process.

 

Cezanne

[+geodarts]

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

 

I also am a geocacher, but to me that means using this game to explore the world. I find containers, but I also attend a few geocaching events, visit earthcaches whenever I can, and appreciate how virtuals have extended the reach of this particular game, into places where I doubt that I will ever be able to find a container or where containers might not be appropriate.

 

I am a geocacher, but I made it my goal to go several hundred miles out of my way (and 60 miles down a treacherous dirt road in the middle of nowhere) to visit a Grand Canyon overlook because a virtual cache brought it to my attention -- and I am glad I could log it as part of geocaching. I am a geocacher, but on my last trip I drove two hundred miles (round trip) to a site because a virtual cache took me there, and when I have to the time to log it, I will be happy I could do so as part of geocaching.

 

Virtuals can be more than memorials or historic signs. And there might have been ways to continue to incorporate new virtuals as part of this game -- allowing premium members to place a single virtual, setting up a separate virtual review process, developing guidelines to create an educational focus. But we asked for virtuals and got challenges. I would be surprised if Groundspeak did anything more.

Edited May 30, 2012 by geodarts

[+Snoogans]

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

 

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

 

I'm a geocacher. I like all of the different cache types. One of my top geocaching and life experiences was Stingray City in Grand Caymen. A virtual.

 

I don't care much for Waymarking, but mostly because I have to log in to a different site. I don't get that. It's a location based Groundspeak listing service. Why does it need to be separate? It never did get the crossover appeal they were hoping for. Time to merge it.

 

I already mentioned that I'm a geocacher right? Well, I gave up on other geocaching sites and some of them offer the types of caches that I miss having here. I just don't have time for them. I'm happy here. I've never been unhappy here. If Groundspeak is happy with the B+ to A- I give them, then yay, we're all winners.

 

Oh, and to end the argument that is going on between the OP and Chad person... I give you the Reviewer Forum:

 

Edited May 30, 2012 by Snoogans

[+Maingray]

A well thought out puzzle / offset / letterbox hybrid utilizing this fantastic OMG YOU GOTTA SEE site would garner more fave points from me than "take a picture with your GPS".

[+uxorious]

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

 

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

 

+2 I couldn't have said it better myself.

[knowschad]

Oh, and to end the argument that is going on between the OP and Chad person... I give you the Reviewer Forum:

There's no argument here from me. I'm not arguing a thing... I was simply asking a question, and my question was misunderstood by the OP as a challenged. But thanks for the picture.

Edited May 30, 2012 by knowschad

[jholly]

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

 

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

 

I'm a geocacher. I like all of the different cache types. One of my top geocaching and life experiences was Stingray City in Grand Caymen. A virtual.

 

I don't care much for Waymarking, but mostly because I have to log in to a different site. I don't get that. It's a location based Groundspeak listing service. Why does it need to be separate? It never did get the crossover appeal they were hoping for. Time to merge it.

 

I already mentioned that I'm a geocacher right? Well, I gave up on other geocaching sites and some of them offer the types of caches that I miss having here. I just don't have time for them. I'm happy here. I've never been unhappy here. If Groundspeak is happy with the B+ to A- I give them, then yay, we're all winners.

 

Oh, and to end the argument that is going on between the OP and Chad person... I give you the Reviewer Forum:

 

I recognize some of them, mind putting names with them? Player names would be cool also.

[+nthacker66]

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

 

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

 

I'm a geocacher. I like all of the different cache types. One of my top geocaching and life experiences was Stingray City in Grand Caymen. A virtual.

 

I don't care much for Waymarking, but mostly because I have to log in to a different site. I don't get that. It's a location based Groundspeak listing service. Why does it need to be separate? It never did get the crossover appeal they were hoping for. Time to merge it.

 

I already mentioned that I'm a geocacher right? Well, I gave up on other geocaching sites and some of them offer the types of caches that I miss having here. I just don't have time for them. I'm happy here. I've never been unhappy here. If Groundspeak is happy with the B+ to A- I give them, then yay, we're all winners.

 

Oh, and to end the argument that is going on between the OP and Chad person... I give you the Reviewer Forum:

 

I recognize some of them, mind putting names with them? Player names would be cool also.

I didnt recognize or see brian up there...perhaps my eyesight wasnt too great lol.

[+DragonsWest]

I was one of two lackeys representing Groundspeak at GeoWoodstock this past weekend and I believe I can clear some of this up.

 

nthacker66, I see you began geocaching in 2008, long after virtuals were no longer accepted for publication. Virtuals seem like they're all at great locations now and many of them were back then too, but a lot of the poor quality ones have been weeded out over the years so what you see now is not what it looked like when virtuals were still being published. It is easy to think the "good old days" were better than they actually were if you weren't there to see them for yourself. Along with some great locations, there were submissions for dog poop, decaying animal carcasses, stop signs, and shoes tossed up into trees, among other things. Groundspeak tried to limit the publishable submissions to "quality" locations with a "wow" factor, but that quickly became a slippery slope that caused tremendous stress for the reviewers. It was not fair to them to have to arbitrarily decide where the line would be for every virtual cache submission and have to deal with the inevitable argument that would come from the owner of every cache that was not published.

 

And again we sidestep the possiblity of asking for volunteers or a body of volunteers to screen these before a present rewiewer has to see it. Why are is this idea so overlooked? Why not ask who among us well step up and volunteer, to ensure each Virtual has quality, like the guidelines for Earthcaches expect?

 

Somewhere in the past I read something about History caches, which seem to have never got off the ground. Virtuals are all encompassing - some overlap and preceded Earthcaches in the same location, but if you want to bring the subject up, in these forums, about Geocaching being Educational, we must break from this embargo which prevents the creation of a cache which highlights some location for its history or architecture or natural beauty. We just can't get something into National Parks and other protected areas, no matter how willing the rangers and management are to have us do so -- they'd love it. But certainly not Challenges... these things are like watered down water. Sorry. But most existing Virtuals have a lot of merit and we're stuck there.

 

Groundspeak has been hearing the calls to bring them back, but the problem was how to do it without bringing back all the problems that made them go away. They couldn't come back the same way. That is why Challenges were created. Virtual locations can be published without a review process, and the community over time determines the "wow" factor. Challenges that the community likes will filter to the top of the list, and those that are not well-received by the community will filter to the bottom and eventually disappear. They are tracked on Geocaching.com, so you don't need to go to another website. Challenges are still evolving - don't assume they're always going to have the limitations they do now.

 

Honestly, I've looked at Challenges and it needs a lot of improvement to be as good as the lowliest Virtual I have found. To be heard, throught he vote and believe Groundspeak was bringing back Virtuals was exhilarating. To see what was finally rolled out of that "promise" was like finding half a maggot in my apple.

 

Waymarking can be used to highlight virtual locations, but its primary purpose was to replace the Locationless Caches. Locationless caches were more of a scavenger hunt and they were moved to their own site so that geocaching could stay true to bringing people to specific locations. We acknowledge that scurrying about to find examples of various categories is fun too, and that is why we created Waymarking instead of archiving the locationless caches and never looking back.

 

Waymarking does highlight some interesting Locations but, as Snoogans put it, there's a separate login and no visibility on our Cache Stats. That in itself effectively makes Waymarking something else just as something else as any other non-GS Geocaching site. It's going nowhere.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Someone made a good point in another forum - why not form a virtuals review committee similar to earthcaches?

 

That is an idea that could possibly work. But you'll have to fill me in, I'm not aware, (pun intended, because all the Earthcache reviewers are Geoaware with a country abbreviation after them; GeoawareCA, GeoawareUK etc..) of a earthcache review committee, I thought the were just like the regular reviewers, and they work indepentently by territory. I don't know how many of them there are, but it's not very many.

 

I think that the idea has merit as we'll but there is a portion of Cathy's post which I think bears repeating.

 

"Groundspeak has been hearing the calls to bring them back, but the problem was how to do it without bringing back all the problems that made them go away. They couldn't come back the same way. That is why Challenges were created. Virtual locations can be published without a review process, and the community over time determines the "wow" factor. Challenges that the community likes will filter to the top of the list, and those that are not well-received by the community will filter to the bottom and eventually disappear. They are tracked on Geocaching.com, so you don't need to go to another website. Challenges are still evolving - don't assume they're always going to have the limitations they do now."

 

My interpretation of that paragraph is that the "bring back virtuals" issue is dead. If there is any chance to have something like the Virtual caches it's going be through the evolution of Challenges.

 

One of the biggest complaints about Challenges is that they can be published without a review process. So instead of a virtual review committee, why not a Challenges review committee?

 

I'd also like to go back to something that nthacker66 wrote in the first post:

 

"To paraphrase the general consensus bluntly – challenges are stupid. In fact, they go against just about everything Groundspeak has spoken out about virtuals. There is no real logging ability, no stories to tell, and they simply serve no purpose. Waymarking, again as stated above, just gets overloaded with garbage (and doesn’t apply to our numbers) nor does anyone really do it."

 

I'm curious to know who the "general consensus" is because I don't recall being polled on the issue. What is meant by "no real logging ability"? I don't understand the "no stories to tell" comment either. There's nothing inherent in the Challenge completion log form that prevents someone from telling a story about how the challenge was completed.

 

And this one is my favorite.."they simply serve no purpose". In response I have to ask, what purpose does a virtual cache serve that can not be served with a Challenge? I might even ask, what purpose does a traditional geocache serve? Geocaching is just a game. It's a recreational activity with no winners or losers that we all engage in simply because it's fun.

 

There a couple of things that people have criticized about Challenge that I agree with.

 

First, there are a lot of really lame challenges. I'd suggest that the reason that there are a lot of lame challenges is because a lot of *people* create lame challenges. There isn't anything inherent in the Challenges system which prevents someone from creating an awesome challenge, although as I'm sure Cezanne will point out there are limitations in the system which prevent creating certain types of challenges (i.e. Challenges with multiple stages).

 

Secondly, there are a lot of problems with how Challenges have been implemented. Lots of people of complained about the inability to search for Challenges, create pockets queries, or view Challenges on a map. There are a lot of areas where they can be improved but as Cathy wrote earlier in the thread, "Challenges are still evolving - don't assume they're always going to have the limitations they do now."

 

We can continue to beat the "bring back virtuals" dead horse and we can continue to write things like "challenge are stupid" or if we want to play a game which involves finding virtual objects we can do something more constructive and figure out what it's going to take to evolve Challenges into something that more people are going to enjoy.

[+dprovan]

I really like virtuals, but I recognize that that's because of the review process that led to them...from my point of view: let other people consider them for a few years and decide which ones are good, then start geocaching and visiting the quality virtuals that survived. As much as I wish it were otherwise, I cannot imagine any other process which would lead to a reasonable result. So thanks for all the people that lived through terrible virtuals to help weed them out, and thanks to all the reviewers that had to deal with them being proposed, but I wouldn't wish either of those tasks on anyone going forward.

[+nthacker66]

I am now sorry I broached this subject to be honest. And I knew better, shame on me.

 

My final thoughts on this really boil down to recognizing Groundspeak has probably done this as a pure business decision - virtual simply have no return on investment value much like the currently active ones. Traditionals = containers at the very least and swag at the most. Products that can get the official trademark - therefore can be sold and Groundspeak makes a profit. Events bring cachers together, some events are big and that means more products can be showcased. Earthcaches, well http://www.earthcache.org/ and you will see Groundspeak all over there.

 

Is any of this a bad thing? 1000% no it is not. Groundspeak has brought all of us countless hours of enjoyment. Their membership is more than worth the price considering all of the work they put into maintaining such a huge database. Their products are great the support is great, the involvement and care of their employees is fantastic, so I would never fault them for business decisions that trumps what the community wants. But I am also a believer in John Nash's theory of equilibrium - governing dynamics - where a decisions can be made to benefit everyone. As I stated throughout this thread - I never wanted virtuals to be raised from the dead in their very form - all I wanted was a discussion on how the spirit of the virtual, while maintaining quality could be achieved.

 

That being said, using that equilibrium theory - instead of just a common offset multi/puzzle - why not call it an offset virtual - the ghost comes back holding a container and the requirement being that you visit the actual virtual, use what information is on the virtual to get the final (or next stage) and then the final being a real container somewhere - that way those interested in something with historical or unique value get what they like and Groundspeak has a potential income off of it in the form of a container. Heck, even make a special container and/or sticker with the virtual ghost icon hold the container icon. I could even see approaching national parks and pitching this as an idea so they can be involved - print these types of things in brochures "take a gps tour of historical Philadelphia, come rent a gps, find these clues, and in the end find this container and get a trinket" There is a lot of potential there. And again, it makes everyone happy in the end.

 

Feel free to blast me from here on in, I went beyond what I promised myself what I wouldn't do and am done getting worked up over this. This was just my thoughts on how to bring something back so many love and in the end provide Groundspeak with a potential income source. Take it for what you thinks its worth.

Edited May 30, 2012 by nthacker66

[cezanne]

Challenges are still evolving - don't assume they're always going to have the limitations they do now.

 

It is conceivable for me that new types of challenges will be added and that maybe the search process will be improved somewhere in the future.

From what I understood from postings by Jeremy and others is that challenges do not have owners and that the descriptions are short and cannot be changed later on are intended features and will not be changed.

 

If it had been planned to set up challenges in a cache-like manner and open them up to be displayed in the same type of searches on maps and PQs than geocaches (if desired, not be default!) and to be logged using the same interface than geocaches, the chosen set up would have been completely different. Actually, it would have caused less work as the same data base and software as for geocaches could have been used for the major part (except the review process).

 

I simply do not believe that the idea with challenges was to offer the community a replacement for virtuals, but rather to come up with an activity that some people at Groundspeak thought that it might be cool, innovative and attractive to the smartphone generation.

 

 

Cezanne

[+uxorious]

My final thoughts on this really boil down to recognizing Groundspeak has probably done this as a pure business decision - virtual simply have no return on investment value much like the currently active ones. Traditionals = containers at the very least and swag at the most. Products that can get the official trademark - therefore can be sold and Groundspeak makes a profit.

 

Of all the reasons given for Groundspeak's stand on virtuals, this has to be the most naive.

 

There is no way product sales and promotions have anything to do with the companies stand on any type of cache. To think otherwise smacks of someone who is a little upset and not thinking clearly.

[+Maingray]

That being said, using that equilibrium theory - instead of just a common offset multi/puzzle - why not call it an offset virtual - the ghost comes back holding a container and the requirement being that you visit the actual virtual, use what information is on the virtual to get the final (or next stage) and then the final being a real container somewhere - that way those interested in something with historical or unique value get what they like and Groundspeak has a potential income off of it in the form of a container.

 

Why? I let fave points guide a lot of trip planning now. If it's awesome good, it will be on my list regardless of the icon. Which I think is your point...let caching show us Super Awesome Places . I'd rather the community pick Super Awesome Places by the fave point method.

[+JesandTodd]

 

...I simply do not believe that the idea with challenges was to offer the community a replacement for virtuals.....

 

Cezanne

 

Believe it. I wish we could access the user voice forums because it was explicitly stated as such over there...

Edited May 30, 2012 by JesandTodd

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Challenges are still evolving - don't assume they're always going to have the limitations they do now.

 

It is conceivable for me that new types of challenges will be added and that maybe the search process will be improved somewhere in the future.

From what I understood from postings by Jeremy and others is that challenges do not have owners and that the descriptions are short and cannot be changed later on are intended features and will not be changed.

 

Jeremy also wrote that one of the features that they *were* considering was the ability for the community to "favorite" completion logs. He also indicated that the the addition of a "disputed" option might be added for flagging completion logs. One of the reasons that we might be seeing some many bogus completions is that the community has not engaged in flagging bogus completions and a "disputed" option might make that a bit easier. In fact, perhaps 3 "disputed" logs on a completion could delete the completion log and reduce the Challenges Completed count by 1.

 

Since Challenge completions don't count toward our find total, IMHO, the emphasis should be on how we complete challenges and not just the fact that a challenge was completed accompanied by an obligatory photo upload as evidence. Something else that I suggested just after Challenges were released was the ability to be notified of new challenges (within a specified proximity) and to be able to put Challenges on our watch list. If the community is expected to act as quality control for challenges that are created and flag "bogus" completions, we're going to need better tools to do so.

 

I simply do not believe that the idea with challenges was to offer the community a replacement for virtuals, but rather to come up with an activity that some people at Groundspeak thought that it might be cool, innovative and attractive to the smartphone generation.

 

Cezanne

 

I think you may be onto to something there. I've often contended that one of the reasons that Challenges have been so unpopular is that many don't see the game as a cool, innovative game for the smartphone generation, but as a type of caches that is going to replace virtuals and has all the processes and rewards that we associate with other cache types (review process, ownership, CO verification of logs, etc.). Perhaps if people didn't think of as a type of geocache there wouldn't be the expectation that they should be just like a virtual cache.

[cezanne]

There isn't anything inherent in the Challenges system which prevents someone from creating an awesome challenge, although as I'm sure Cezanne will point out there are limitations in the system which prevent creating certain types of challenges (i.e. Challenges with multiple stages).

 

While I personally miss multi and mystery elements as I have explained in other threads, I think there are many aspects inherent in the system that prevent many people from coming up with challenges that I'd find interesting. Having no control over the description (I'm not talking about the completion logs) and the very rigid length limit serve as a constant source of demotivation for coming up with challenges other than go to location X and take a photo of it.

I have many geocaches with virtual stages and once in a while I need to change something. This is not possible for challenges and this is inherent in the system. The concept there is to archive the challenge and come up with a new one. The concept of challenges as it is serves well the purpose of more or less short life cycle ideas or rather simple ideas like take a photo of a 100 old fountain which probably will exist also in 100 years from now on.

 

Even in case they come up with something like educational challenges, the set up simply does not fit. It would be way easier to accomodate e.g. Earthcaches in Waymarking (it has been there anyway for a short period of time) than in the challenge system which is so different from all what is available for geocaches.

 

I agree with you that the system allows to come up with awesome challenges, but not with the type of objects many fans of virtual geocaches are missing.

You have mentioned several times that challenges are different than geocaches and I agree. This can be seen as a vice and as a virtue. It depends on one's point of view.

 

Let me provide you with two examples of local challenges to further explain my point.

 

Take this challenge

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/CX3F55_Shared_Space_Graz

It points to the centre of a so called shared space near the University of Graz. Until last year there has been a roundabout there and everyone had to respect the normal traffic rules. Now there is anarchy there and each time when I pass the area by bicycle my anger about this stupid project and the huge amount of money that has been invested wakens up again.

I think that the challenge who asks people to take a chair, put it in the middle of the area, sit down there and take a photo of it, is a good example of what Jeremy had in mind when he wrote about a fun activity and about the room for people to come up with creative and funny completion photos/logs.

 

Another example of that type is that one here

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/CX47DF_Wnsche_an_die_steirische_Politik

There you have to visit the building of the regional government and take a photo of yourself there with a sign stating one of your wishes directed to the

local politicians. (There are no security concerns and there would not be any troubles for people complying with this wish).

 

While both challenges lead to a point of interest and also ask for something which deviates from the standard "Go there, take a picture of yourself" pattern, neither of them (and actually also not other local challenge) has anything to offer for me that would attract my attention (not in my home town and even less in a foreign town). I also would not enjoy reading completion logs for such challenges while I love e.g. to read the experience reports of people having went for a multi day hike. I like to read about what they experienced on their hike and what needs to be taken into account when going on the same hike. I'm interested in the serious part and in photographs of the scenery and not in creativity, jokes and cool ideas. I simply feel that challenges are directed to a different audience.

 

For example, I'd love to learn more than I already know about locations in my area that played a role in the NS time where this connection is hardly known as many efforts have been made to forget these parts of history as soon as possible. My own virtual cache and an associated physical cache also deal with this period (not exclusively) and I managed to teach others several facts that are hardly known and are not to found on signboards or generally available books. Yes, I know this does not match well with the idea of a light fun activity, but it matches well with my interests. My claim is that the setup of geocaching offers however more flexibility to accomodate also ideas that are not mainstream have fun and go for a round of laughing activities. Challenges do not fit into that concept that well and I have serious doubts that they will ever be changed in such a dramatic way to turn what I wrote into a wrong statement.

 

 

Cezanne

[+nthacker66]

My final thoughts on this really boil down to recognizing Groundspeak has probably done this as a pure business decision - virtual simply have no return on investment value much like the currently active ones. Traditionals = containers at the very least and swag at the most. Products that can get the official trademark - therefore can be sold and Groundspeak makes a profit.

 

Of all the reasons given for Groundspeak's stand on virtuals, this has to be the most naive.

 

There is no way product sales and promotions have anything to do with the companies stand on any type of cache. To think otherwise smacks of someone who is a little upset and not thinking clearly.

 

Earthcaches were going the way of Waymarking too - until GSA screamed about. So yes, very much a business decisions.

 

Let me clairfy - I am not upset. Especially not at Groundspeak for any decision they make business or not. I respect them for what they do. I give them an A+ for providing a quality product. I admire Jeremy for his creativity, innovation and business accumen and love for his hobby into such a great venture. I trust Groundspeak to make those decisions that both satisfy their customer base but continues to keep them operating in the black so we continue to have such a great hobby. I am not upset at all at what they have done in the past (even if I wasnt around) and what they continue to do. Their employees are fantasic, the reviewers they vetted are fantastic. The people who volunteer are fantastic. ALl I ever want to do is offer up potential ways to add more joy to the game as well as a possible business venture for Groundspeak - all with the knowledge that I am bound to be flamed, bashed and chided for it.

[cezanne]

I think you may be onto to something there. I've often contended that one of the reasons that Challenges have been so unpopular is that many don't see the game as a cool, innovative game for the smartphone generation, but as a type of caches that is going to replace virtuals and has all the processes and rewards that we associate with other cache types (review process, ownership, CO verification of logs, etc.). Perhaps if people didn't think of as a type of geocache there wouldn't be the expectation that they should be just like a virtual cache.

 

I fully agree with you. Note that I'm not belonging to those who state that all challenges are bad or that the concept is necessarily bad. I only think that challenges do bad as replacement for virtuals. On the more personal side, they do not offer what I'm missing since virtuals have been abolished. My reasons for missing virtuals will be different from the reasons of others, but it appears to me that many cachers are missing something which challenges will never be able to offer and are not interested into what challenges have to offer on the positive side.

 

Another evidence for my belief that challenges are intended for a different audience is what I read about the plans to come up with QR challenges which most probably will come before challenges were a question needs to be answered even though the latter type has been promoted from very early onwards. QR challenges are targeted at the smartphoners for whom the location is not the number one priority to visit a location/geocache. QR challenges will end up like Munzees - a terribly boring activity at terribly boring places from my personal point of view. (Vienna e.g. has over 1000 Munzees which is quite a lot, but I have not heard about a single one I would want to visit.)

 

 

Cezanne

Edited May 30, 2012 by cezanne

[+Isonzo Karst]

why not form a virtuals review committee similar to earthcaches?

Thus why a review committee not too unlike earth caches could help with that.

So I would point to how earth cachesa are done,

 

Just skimming this thread, and I grabbed these statements by nthacker66, the original poster.

 

Earthcaches aren't reviewed by committee, they're reviewed by individual Earthcache reviewers.

 

Earthcache reviewers may discuss a cache submission in their forum, just as regular reviewers do with physical caches. However, Earthcaches are reviewed by the same process as other cache types.

 

A bit late in this thread, but I wanted to clarify that.

 

While I'm at it, I see 9 people in the reviewer forum picture posted by Snoogans. 4 of them were reviewing during the virtual era (prior to Nov 2005) and 5 of them were not.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Isonzo Karst

[+GeoBain]

You arent getting it, if they allow all virtual like geocaches, everybody will do it since its cheap way to do it and not have to worry about their caches getting muggled.

 

Isn't that what a very high percentage of caches have devolved to? There are tons of micros out there with NM flags or that the community has been maintaining due to absentee owners.

[+Teach2Learn]

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

 

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

 

+2 I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

+3 or more...

 

As others have chimed in, I'm a member of the geocaching "community" since 2003 and I don't want virtuals back. I was sitting on the left-side corner of the stage throughout the reviewer forum at GW, including when you raised the issue. I disagreed with your position at the time and still do. To base my perspective on anecdotal evidence of those around me, they also disagreed with you, but I don't think just chatting at that time/place provides a true indicator of the community. Though the pro-virtual argument is frequently raised, so is the "no virtuals" view.

[+Teach2Learn]

You can only speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. I do not want virtuals back.

 

+1. I'm a geocacher, I find geocaches. If I wanted to look at memorials and read historic signs I'd go over to Waymarking or one of the sites that list the coords of historic markers.

 

+2 I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

+3 or more...

 

As others have chimed in, I'm a member of the geocaching "community" since 2003 and I don't want virtuals back. I was sitting on the left-side corner of the stage throughout the reviewer forum at GW, including when you raised the issue. I disagreed with your position at the time and still do. To base my perspective on anecdotal evidence of those around me, they also disagreed with you, but I don't think just chatting at that time/place provides a true indicator of the community. Though the pro-virtual argument is frequently raised, so is the "no virtuals" view.

 

I should add that unlike briansnat I enjoy caches related to memorials or historic signs, but there are lots of those to choose from with offsets, multis, etc.