[TheAlabamaRambler]

briansnat, on 18 July 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:

jholly, on 18 July 2011 - 12:51 PM, said:

GroveBird, on 18 July 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Strict rules for placing one...yes! Not letting them count as a find....Noooo!

If they don't count as a find then they will be as dead as whatmarks.

I thought it was all about the cool and educational places that virtuals brought people to? At least that is the argument I hear so often.

Quote

...And the whole wow factor thing was ridiculous. We don't evaluate geocaches by some sort of wow factor, so why did we do it with virts?

If you saw some of the ones rejected you might not say that.

The people who like virtuals and are clamoring for their return are essentially seeing the cream of the crop in the remaining grandfathered virts. I don't think the idea of virtuals would be nearly as popular if when people get there the "surprise" object is often something like a fence post, discarded tire, dirty sock or a rotting animal carcass.

How is this different than any other cache in such a place? Not that I am for such bad locations, but if it's okay for physical caches it should be okay for virts.

[GOF and Bacall]

Pure lowest common denominator huh?

[Dinoprophet]

TheAlabamaRambler, on 19 July 2011 - 06:44 AM, said:

briansnat, on 18 July 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:

jholly, on 18 July 2011 - 12:51 PM, said:

GroveBird, on 18 July 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Strict rules for placing one...yes! Not letting them count as a find....Noooo!

If they don't count as a find then they will be as dead as whatmarks.

I thought it was all about the cool and educational places that virtuals brought people to? At least that is the argument I hear so often.

Quote

...And the whole wow factor thing was ridiculous. We don't evaluate geocaches by some sort of wow factor, so why did we do it with virts?

If you saw some of the ones rejected you might not say that.

The people who like virtuals and are clamoring for their return are essentially seeing the cream of the crop in the remaining grandfathered virts. I don't think the idea of virtuals would be nearly as popular if when people get there the "surprise" object is often something like a fence post, discarded tire, dirty sock or a rotting animal carcass.

How is this different than any other cache in such a place? Not that I am for such bad locations, but if it's okay for physical caches it should be okay for virts.

It's the difference between looking at a lamppost in a parking lot and having to find a container on that lamppost.

[tozainamboku]

Dinoprophet, on 19 July 2011 - 08:50 AM, said:

It's the difference between looking at a lamppost in a parking lot and having to find a container on that lamppost.

Not really that much difference. The lamppost is a object the can be located with a GPSr using the posted coordinates. (Certainly much larger than the film can and in plain site rather than hidden under the skirt; no one complains about the giant ammo can someone has sitting on their front lawn). If there is some identification on the lamppost that can be used to verify it was found, that would be analogous to a log sheet.

Look at the thread about Munzee. If you were to stick a QR code on the lamppost it would be somewhere between a cache under the skirt and a lamppost virtual. Virtual caches are simply a specific object which can be found with a GPSr using the coordinates and which can be verified either by answering a question that can only be answered by someone who finds the object or by a picture of the object perhaps with the GPSr or cacher in the view.

The reason for a "wow" requirement is that is much simpler to list a lamppost as virtual cache than to hide a film can in one. Without some limitation, more people would be hiding virtual caches than physical caches, or at least the ratio of virtuals would go way up. My guess is that people who enjoy virtuals now do so because they are something different from the everyday find. True that some people will be happy to tons more easy finds they can log. But others will bemoan the disapperance of the physical cache (just as now people complain of too many micros).

[briansnat]

TheAlabamaRambler, on 19 July 2011 - 06:44 AM, said:

briansnat, on 18 July 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:

jholly, on 18 July 2011 - 12:51 PM, said:

GroveBird, on 18 July 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Strict rules for placing one...yes! Not letting them count as a find....Noooo!

If they don't count as a find then they will be as dead as whatmarks.

I thought it was all about the cool and educational places that virtuals brought people to? At least that is the argument I hear so often.

Quote

...And the whole wow factor thing was ridiculous. We don't evaluate geocaches by some sort of wow factor, so why did we do it with virts?

If you saw some of the ones rejected you might not say that.

The people who like virtuals and are clamoring for their return are essentially seeing the cream of the crop in the remaining grandfathered virts. I don't think the idea of virtuals would be nearly as popular if when people get there the "surprise" object is often something like a fence post, discarded tire, dirty sock or a rotting animal carcass.

How is this different than any other cache in such a place? Not that I am for such bad locations, but if it's okay for physical caches it should be okay for virts.

Hey, I'm not a fan of caches in those locations either, but there is a difference between hunting a container and just looking at an object.

Anyway, if that became the standard it certainly would dampen the enthusiasm for virtuals among most geocachers, with the exception of those would gladly find a pile of horse manure as long as it got them a smiley.

This post has been edited by briansnat: 19 July 2011 - 10:49 AM

[cx1]

Isn't there some sort of guideline for a virtual cache that it should only be used for a location that would not support a physical container? I would think that in most cases that would eliminate the lamppost and horse manure being listed as a virtual since a container could be hidden in both. That is if all other listing requirements (such as permission from the land owner for the cache hunter to be there) were met.

[Semper Questio]

cx1, on 19 July 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

Isn't there some sort of guideline for a virtual cache that it should only be used for a location that would not support a physical container? I would think that in most cases that would eliminate the lamppost and horse manure being listed as a virtual since a container could be hidden in both. That is if all other listing requirements (such as permission from the land owner for the cache hunter to be there) were met.

There is no such guideline...yet. We are all waiting to see what rules TPTB have come up with for the relaunch of virtuals.

[geodarts]

briansnat, on 18 July 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:

Virtuals were not widely loved in the day, nor were they all that rare, or necessarily interesting.

I guess it depends on by whom. When I started caching new virtuals were subject to the wow factor, but existing virtuals were still rare compared to traditionals in my area. Some were more interesting than others; some traditionals were more interesting than others. Some people have always liked them - my list of favorites indicate that they are important to me. Some people do not like them.

Quote

I don't think the idea of virtuals would be nearly as popular if when people get there the "surprise" object is often something like a fence post, discarded tire, dirty sock or a rotting animal carcass.

It might depend on the fence post. I doubt that most discarded tires, dirty socks, or rotting animal carcasses would meet the permanency guideline, although I have found traditionals using two of these types of objects (and near a third).

Still, virtuals without limitation would be as interesting as traditionals without limitation, and there is no reason to add to that. So short of an organization who could step in and administer a program using the earthcache model, or a Czar whose decisions are final and irrevocable (my taste is of course impeccable so I could qualify), I suppose I would give every PM an opportunity to place a single virtual. I could easily place 10 virtuals in some of my favorite historical/cultural/aesthetic sites where land managers have already stated that they will never allow traditional caching on their watch. So if I did one, I would have to think long about it to be sure that it is as good as I could get. If limitation creates quality, that would solve the problem. I am sure that better proposals could have emerged if there had been a real discussion with Groundspeak on the issue.

But it is Groundspeak's business; they get to make the rules; and they have chosen to surprise us (with apparently a few leaks here and there).

This post has been edited by mulvaney: 19 July 2011 - 11:39 AM

[cx1]

Semper Questio, on 19 July 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

cx1, on 19 July 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

Isn't there some sort of guideline for a virtual cache that it should only be used for a location that would not support a physical container? I would think that in most cases that would eliminate the lamppost and horse manure being listed as a virtual since a container could be hidden in both. That is if all other listing requirements (such as permission from the land owner for the cache hunter to be there) were met.

There is no such guideline...yet. We are all waiting to see what rules TPTB have come up with for the relaunch of virtuals.

I was referring to back when they could be listed, not future listings. But you may very well be correct since I can't find the old listing guidelines. It seems like I've seen it mentioned in older discussions about virtuals but I may be mistaken and cannot find evidence to support this idea.
Toz will know, maybe he will add insight.

[briansnat]

cx1, on 19 July 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Semper Questio, on 19 July 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

cx1, on 19 July 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

Isn't there some sort of guideline for a virtual cache that it should only be used for a location that would not support a physical container? I would think that in most cases that would eliminate the lamppost and horse manure being listed as a virtual since a container could be hidden in both. That is if all other listing requirements (such as permission from the land owner for the cache hunter to be there) were met.

There is no such guideline...yet. We are all waiting to see what rules TPTB have come up with for the relaunch of virtuals.

I was referring to back when they could be listed, not future listings. But you may very well be correct since I can't find the old listing guidelines. It seems like I've seen it mentioned in older discussions about virtuals but I may be mistaken and cannot find evidence to support this idea.
Toz will know, maybe he will add insight.

That was indeed part of the guideline for virtuals that came in with the "wow factor". You had to somehow demonstrate that you couldn't place a cache at that location AND the location itself would have to make you say "wow!"

It's why probably fewer than 100 virtuals (my estimate) were published in the few years that the "wow factor" was in use.

[TheAlabamaRambler]

tozainamboku, on 19 July 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

...Look at the thread about Munzee. If you were to stick a QR code on the lamppost it would be somewhere between a cache under the skirt and a lamppost virtual.

But put the QR code in the logbook and it becomes just another way to log the cache.

[Semper Questio]

briansnat, on 19 July 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

cx1, on 19 July 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Semper Questio, on 19 July 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

cx1, on 19 July 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

Isn't there some sort of guideline for a virtual cache that it should only be used for a location that would not support a physical container? I would think that in most cases that would eliminate the lamppost and horse manure being listed as a virtual since a container could be hidden in both. That is if all other listing requirements (such as permission from the land owner for the cache hunter to be there) were met.

There is no such guideline...yet. We are all waiting to see what rules TPTB have come up with for the relaunch of virtuals.

I was referring to back when they could be listed, not future listings. But you may very well be correct since I can't find the old listing guidelines. It seems like I've seen it mentioned in older discussions about virtuals but I may be mistaken and cannot find evidence to support this idea.
Toz will know, maybe he will add insight.

That was indeed part of the guideline for virtuals that came in with the "wow factor". You had to somehow demonstrate that you couldn't place a cache at that location AND the location itself would have to make you say "wow!"

It's why probably fewer than 100 virtuals (my estimate) were published in the few years that the "wow factor" was in use.

Sorry, cx1. I read present tense into your post.

I don't remember a mention of that requirement in the old guidelines, but then I've slept since then so about anything could have been in there as far as I know.

[cx1]

Semper Questio, on 19 July 2011 - 02:20 PM, said:

Sorry, cx1. I read present tense into your post.

I don't remember a mention of that requirement in the old guidelines, but then I've slept since then so about anything could have been in there as far as I know.

Present tense is probably there so I can understand my post being misunderstood, grammar is not really a strong suit of mine and get me without a spell-checker...ouch

[edscott]

jholly, on 18 July 2011 - 12:51 PM, said:

GroveBird, on 18 July 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Strict rules for placing one...yes! Not letting them count as a find....Noooo!

If they don't count as a find then they will be as dead as whatmarks.

I thought they were wheymarks.

[tozainamboku]

cx1, on 19 July 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Toz will know, maybe he will add insight.

Checking the guidelines in the Internet Archive

Quote

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?” Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

IIRC, most reviewers would question whether or not a physical cache could have been placed there. But this was a difficult requirement to enforce. Sure if you wanted to hide a virtual cache in a National Park, the reviewers knew that physical caches were not allowed there. But people could claim almost any location couldn't support a physical cache. Either a property owner says they didn't want a cache left on site (but a virtual was okay); or, especially in the days before nano caches, any physical cache would be muggled so you had to make it a virtual. In fact at one time cache owners could change the cache type after a cache was published. Often after a cache was muggled, the owners would change it to a virtual saying that the location couldn't support a physical cache. Unfortunately, grandfathering virtuals has not stopped some cache owners from posting virtual cache logging instructions on the pages of traditional caches that have gone missing and they no longer want to maintain.

[SixDogTeam]

bring back virts

[bflentje]

hzoi, on 18 July 2011 - 12:35 PM, said:

All the speculation on this makes me wish that Groundspeak was more open about their deliberative process.

Every time a change comes to the game, it's treated like a Christmas present. "We've got a big surprise for you! We think you're going to love it! But, no peeking!"

I get that this is a company, not a democracy. But it'd be nice to have a little more transparency. "We're looking to do this, we're working out some of the details, but here's the plan so far." And then maybe give folks a chance to comment.

You know, treat me a little more like a customer.

I agree 100%. I mean, if Groundspeak had any real competition I could understand the secrecy. But they have no competition. None. So the secret approach is complete bunk and annoying. It borders on arrogance.

[GeoGerms]

bflentje, on 21 July 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

hzoi, on 18 July 2011 - 12:35 PM, said:

All the speculation on this makes me wish that Groundspeak was more open about their deliberative process.

Every time a change comes to the game, it's treated like a Christmas present. "We've got a big surprise for you! We think you're going to love it! But, no peeking!"

I get that this is a company, not a democracy. But it'd be nice to have a little more transparency. "We're looking to do this, we're working out some of the details, but here's the plan so far." And then maybe give folks a chance to comment.

You know, treat me a little more like a customer.

I agree 100%. I mean, if Groundspeak had any real competition I could understand the secrecy. But they have no competition. None. So the secret approach is complete bunk and annoying. It borders on arrogance.

Keeping things secret is one of the ways companies keep from getting any "real competition". Don't get me wrong I would love more transparency, but I completely understand why.

[Ambrosia]

As has been mentioned before, one of the reasons that Groundspeak keeps things secretive is because in the early days they were more transparent, and then when things didn't always turn out how people expected, there would be a lot of complaints in the forums. So, they're dadgumed if they do, and dadgumed if they don't. Because no matter what, people are going to grumble.

[GeoGerms]

Ambrosia, on 21 July 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

As has been mentioned before, one of the reasons that Groundspeak keeps things secretive is because in the early days they were more transparent, and then when things didn't always turn out how people expected, there would be a lot of complaints in the forums. So, they're dadgumed if they do, and dadgumed if they don't. Because no matter what, people are going to grumble.

This may play a minor role in their decision, but they are a business and are probably more concerned with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. So if a rival company gets wind of something and implements it first they can sue them. If they were to just come out and say "Hey we are thinking about doing This and then doing That!" and a company comes along and does "This and That" first, I believe they now have little or no grounds to sue. I am not a lawyer and may be wrong, but this is how I understand it.

[Ambrosia]

GeoGerms, on 21 July 2011 - 01:54 PM, said:

Ambrosia, on 21 July 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

As has been mentioned before, one of the reasons that Groundspeak keeps things secretive is because in the early days they were more transparent, and then when things didn't always turn out how people expected, there would be a lot of complaints in the forums. So, they're dadgumed if they do, and dadgumed if they don't. Because no matter what, people are going to grumble.

This may play a minor role in their decision, but they are a business and are probably more concerned with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. So if a rival company gets wind of something and implements it first they can sue them. If they were to just come out and say "Hey we are thinking about doing This and then doing That!" and a company comes along and does "This and That" first, I believe they now have little or no grounds to sue. I am not a lawyer and may be wrong, but this is how I understand it.

Yup, I have no idea what percentage of each reason goes into their decisions, but I feel that it should be taken as a whole to know why they do what they do. I'm sure there are some reasons that we have no clue about. Another reason to bring up is personality. I know it sounds weird, but businesses have a personality, partly because of regionality (is that a word?), partly because of the makeup of the owners, and partly because of all the employees as a whole, and probably influenced by what they market.

[geodarts]

GeoGerms, on 21 July 2011 - 01:54 PM, said:

Ambrosia, on 21 July 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

As has been mentioned before, one of the reasons that Groundspeak keeps things secretive is because in the early days they were more transparent, and then when things didn't always turn out how people expected, there would be a lot of complaints in the forums. So, they're dadgumed if they do, and dadgumed if they don't. Because no matter what, people are going to grumble.

This may play a minor role in their decision, but they are a business and are probably more concerned with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. So if a rival company gets wind of something and implements it first they can sue them. If they were to just come out and say "Hey we are thinking about doing This and then doing That!" and a company comes along and does "This and That" first, I believe they now have little or no grounds to sue. I am not a lawyer and may be wrong, but this is how I understand it.

I do not see much a concern with this in terms of how Groundspeak will implement virtuals. Garmin began to allow virtuals earlier this year. Other caching sites have continued to allow both virtuals and locationless. Of course it is possible that Groundspeak is about to introduce something so unique that it will revolutionize location-based games - like Waymarking. So I tend to think that the secrecy is to allow them to present a completed concept and reduce the grumbling to after the fact. Perhaps it is more related to the lack of competition rather than trying to keep important secrets from their competitors.

This post has been edited by mulvaney: 21 July 2011 - 02:13 PM

[hydnsek]

mulvaney, on 21 July 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

GeoGerms, on 21 July 2011 - 01:54 PM, said:

Ambrosia, on 21 July 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

As has been mentioned before, one of the reasons that Groundspeak keeps things secretive is because in the early days they were more transparent, and then when things didn't always turn out how people expected, there would be a lot of complaints in the forums. So, they're dadgumed if they do, and dadgumed if they don't. Because no matter what, people are going to grumble.

This may play a minor role in their decision, but they are a business and are probably more concerned with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. So if a rival company gets wind of something and implements it first they can sue them. If they were to just come out and say "Hey we are thinking about doing This and then doing That!" and a company comes along and does "This and That" first, I believe they now have little or no grounds to sue. I am not a lawyer and may be wrong, but this is how I understand it.

I do not see much a concern with this in terms of how Groundspeak will implement virtuals. Garmin began to allow virtuals earlier this year. Other caching sites have continued to allow both virtuals and locationless. Of course it is possible that Groundspeak is about to introduce something so unique that it will revolutionize location-based games - like Waymarking. So I tend to think that the secrecy is to allow them to present a completed concept and reduce the grumbling to after the fact. Perhaps it is more related to the lack of competition rather than trying to keep important secrets from their competitors.

This. The new 'virtuals' will not be like the old ones.

[dfx]

At GC2GA1J, Jeremy explained that the "new" virtuals would be implemented as "challenges". Not challenge caches (or caching challenges) obviously, but he explained that he and his team saw virtuals as a "go somewhere and do something" kinda thing, and that's what the new "challenges" will be. The first released type will be a photo challenge: go somewhere and take a picture. He also explained that there will be no review system, but rather some kind of rating system, with good challenges rising to the top and bad ones falling to the bottom and (maybe?) eventually disappearing, and that the whole system was seen as an experiment on their part.

[Chokecherry]

dfx, on 21 July 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

At GC2GA1J, Jeremy explained that the "new" virtuals would be implemented as "challenges". Not challenge caches (or caching challenges) obviously, but he explained that he and his team saw virtuals as a "go somewhere and do something" kinda thing, and that's what the new "challenges" will be. The first released type will be a photo challenge: go somewhere and take a picture. He also explained that there will be no review system, but rather some kind of rating system, with good challenges rising to the top and bad ones falling to the bottom and (maybe?) eventually disappearing, and that the whole system was seen as an experiment on their part.

So basically locationless caches then?

[dfx]

Chokecherry, on 21 July 2011 - 02:31 PM, said:

dfx, on 21 July 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

At GC2GA1J, Jeremy explained that the "new" virtuals would be implemented as "challenges". Not challenge caches (or caching challenges) obviously, but he explained that he and his team saw virtuals as a "go somewhere and do something" kinda thing, and that's what the new "challenges" will be. The first released type will be a photo challenge: go somewhere and take a picture. He also explained that there will be no review system, but rather some kind of rating system, with good challenges rising to the top and bad ones falling to the bottom and (maybe?) eventually disappearing, and that the whole system was seen as an experiment on their part.

So basically locationless caches then?

I'd say he meant "go somewhere specific and do something specific", which I think is an accurate summary of what virtuals are/were.

This post has been edited by dfx: 21 July 2011 - 02:44 PM

[releasethedogs]

As long as these count as a find i think they sound alright. If they don't count as a find then again I say why bother?

[hydnsek]

releasethedogs, on 21 July 2011 - 07:13 PM, said:

As long as these count as a find i think they sound alright. If they don't count as a find then again I say why bother?

Based on dfx's comment, I guess the cat's out of the bag. Yep, I've also heard the new virtuals will be called "Challenges," and that there will be two types at first, Photo and Activity (or something like that). They won't count as Finds but will be more like the benchmark treatment, as I understand it (yah, I'm disappointed too). And the plan is apparently for them to be peer-reviewed rather than going through the reviewer system, just as dfx reported.

From my conversations, Groundspeak doesn't view them as a replacement for virtuals so much as a new category, greatly expanding on the concept and possibly having appeal beyond geocachers. There are additional facets, but I'm under NDA so can't say more. I was skeptical at first, but now that I understand the bigger picture, it sounds promising, albeit not so much from a traditional geocaching perspective.

This post has been edited by hydnsek: 21 July 2011 - 11:31 PM

[tozainamboku]

Sounds like something they should have done with Waymarking (in fact is sounds like several of the suggestions that were made in the Waymarking forum about how to make Waymarking more appealing to those who want more of a game playing quality. Wayback I suggested that Waymarking categories could have a "Found" log in addition to the "Visit" log. If you completed some task you could log a find in addition to or instead of a visit.

If Groundspeak wants to try these as caches its their prerogative. Sounds like they've just created a new can of worms for themselves.

[releasethedogs]

If they don't count as a then no one will bother doing them and they just wasted all the time making them that they could have been working on other things that matter. No I am not talking about souvenirs; I am talking about the PQ redesign they have been talking about for ever, Making challenge caches their own type, releasing an API, updating Wherigo, making mystery caches appear in the right place if solved ect ect.

[TheAlabamaRambler]

releasethedogs, on 22 July 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

If they don't count as a then no one will bother doing them...

I think that you would be quite surprised at how many of us could care less about smilies and stats, and in fact quite a number of us think that doing away with their public display would be a good thing.

I know quite a few geocachers; I don't know any who play just for the numbers.

[Castle Mischief]

hydnsek, on 21 July 2011 - 07:47 PM, said:

CAT OUT OF THE BAG. CAN OPEN WORMS EVERYWHERE.

Wow. Thanks Groundspeak for not once, but twice giving us something that we didn't ask for but a whole new thing that isn't what anybody asked for but is somehow supposed to appease the people that want the thing.

Thanks also for not discussing with the user base the concept and allowing us the opportunity to, while in the planning stages, to tell you "this isn't what we want" but again putting the effort and resources into what sounds like, on the surface, another attempt at Waymarking.


Large Portion of Users: Bring back bananas!
Groundspeak: We have something coming up that will make the banana lovers happy while not interfering with the apple lovers activities!
Large Portion of Users: What is it?
Groundspeak: It's top secret and we can't tell you!
Large Portion of Users: Okay, but it had better not be plums, because last time we got plums and we don’t like plums.

Months later...

Large Portion of Users: So how is this banana-replacement thing coming?
Groundspeak: It's top secret and we can't tell you!
hydnsek: Here let me give you a trickle of information: it's not bananas. It's not apples. It's a pluot.

I know look forward the months of threads and Feedback entries where we tell you that we didn't really want pluots and how pluots are really a lot like plums and Groundspeak assures us that pluots are not plums.



ARGH, Groundspeak. ARGH and double ARGH. I love you and yet sometimes you seem so determined to just ignore us and do what you want and what will result in less Reviewer fatigue without deputizing more Reviewers.

[Castle Mischief]

TheAlabamaRambler, on 22 July 2011 - 04:41 AM, said:

releasethedogs, on 22 July 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

If they don't count as a then no one will bother doing them...

I think that you would be quite surprised at how many of us could care less about smilies and stats, and in fact quite a number of us think that doing away with their public display would be a good thing.

I know quite a few geocachers; I don't know any who play just for the numbers.

I play for all the other things AND the numbers. I don't care what anybody else derives from my numbers, but I want my numbers.

[GeoGeeBee]

What has been described here sounds like it might be fun. But it's not Geocaching. I wouldn't bother with it.

[dfx]

GeoGeeBee, on 22 July 2011 - 06:57 AM, said:

What has been described here sounds like it might be fun. But it's not Geocaching. I wouldn't bother with it.

Virtuals aren't geocaching either and have never been. Neither are earthcaches or events.

[NYPaddleCacher]

TheAlabamaRambler, on 22 July 2011 - 04:41 AM, said:

releasethedogs, on 22 July 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

If they don't count as a then no one will bother doing them...

I think that you would be quite surprised at how many of us could care less about smilies and stats, and in fact quite a number of us think that doing away with their public display would be a good thing.

I know quite a few geocachers; I don't know any who play just for the numbers.

You're talking about two different things here. There have been more than a few geocachers in the forums that have indicated that they don't care all that much about the number of smilies they get but they do like looking at their stats.

So if these "challenges" are added and won't count as a find, will there be anyway to keep track of challenges that have been completed, how many challenges they've done, where they've completed challenges, etc? It seems to me that an "event cache" is somewhat like a challenges except that one is "going somewhere and doing something" at a specific date/time. In the case of an event, all one as to do is "go somewhere", and although many events have a visitors log, it's not a requirement and just showing up, and posting an attended log counts as a find.

[Team Taran]

A few less than 1600 people have requested the return of virtuals. Of those who have bothered to comment they have described a wide variety of requirements and variations as to what they want. At least 300 people have currently expressed the opinion that they do not want them brought back. I know that before it was announced that they were coming back, there were more votes on that but once it was going to happen I expect many people withdrew their votes to use them for something else. I know all the forum regulars think that they are the most important users and deserve special consideration but lets face it, this is a worldwide game with millions of people who play for lots of different reasons. Exactly how would you like them to consult them. People were consulted you just didn't happen to be one of them. After observing the forums for several years before I posted I think it would be the worse possible venue for developing and tweaking a new approach to just about anything, It works well for sharing experiences, passing on traditions (at least those held most dearly by those who frequent the forum) and for answering specific questions but for creating something new or introducing change not so much.

[CanadianRockies]

Team Taran, on 22 July 2011 - 07:24 AM, said:

I know all the forum regulars think that they are the most important users...

Not me. I think I'm the fifth most important user.

[geodarts]

GeoGeeBee, on 22 July 2011 - 06:57 AM, said:

What has been described here sounds like it might be fun. But it's not Geocaching. I wouldn't bother with it.

It sounds better than Waymarking; if it had been released back in the day I might have given it a second look. It sounds better than Groundspeak's (defunct) Mighty Egg Hunt game; if it had been released as a smartphone app a few years ago, I might have seen what it was about. But at this point, I play iSpy. I geocache. I do things that have nothing to do with location based games. So I really did not need one more thing to do.

There are Wherigo cartridges that may be be fun, but unless they are associated with a cache, I probably will not do them. There are caches listed outside of Groundspeak that might be fun, but if they are not part of this game, I will never do them. Sometimes I enjoy noticing a benchmark, but that is about as far as it gets because they are not a part of this game. Earthcaches are among my favorites, but I did not do any that were not listed on this site, when new ones had been moved to Waymarking. I keep meaning to do more letterboxes, but my wife thinks I am pushing it as it is.

I like virtuals (including earthcaches) for the way that they extend this game. I like virtuals for the way that they have enriched this game. I appreciate those who have included my earthcaches among their list of favorites that are a part of this game. A good percentage, if not the majority, of the caches on my list of favorites for this game are virtuals and earthcaches.

When people state that their interest will be diminished if it is not a number, I understand because the number is what defines it as part of this game. So, after many of us had been asking for virtuals to return to caching, and Groundspeak's response turns out to be that we can play something else instead, . . . I am probably already booked.

This post has been edited by justacacher: 22 July 2011 - 09:28 AM

[Semper Questio]

When they said they were bringing back virtuals, that's what I expected. What's being described doesn't sound like that. It sounds like another game. That's not what was asked for and not what I am interested in. I'll be patient and see what actually comes out, but so far I'm giving it a mild "meh".

[Team Taran]

I don't think that we were ever told that virtual caches were coming back. I believe what was said was they were going to try and come up with a substitute that would please both those who want virtuals again and those that didn't. Obviously bringing them back in the original form would not do that.

[Jeremy]

Team Taran, on 22 July 2011 - 09:06 AM, said:

I don't think that we were ever told that virtual caches were coming back. I believe what was said was they were going to try and come up with a substitute that would please both those who want virtuals again and those that didn't. Obviously bringing them back in the original form would not do that.

In the UserVoice updates I never said that virtuals were coming back in their previous form, but instead something would be available that should capture the interest in virtuals without the baggage (such as the subjective review process).

To me, this is the most exciting project that we've worked on in years, but it will take some time to iterate through the idea and I know we'll get some things wrong, but the framework is solid. We'll be investing a substantial amount of effort with this project moving forward.

Some points:

• It will be on Geocaching.com, not a new web site. It will be a separate section in the beta, but I expect it to be integrated into a joined search at some point.
  
• Currently they will not go towards your find count, but it might at some point. It won't at the beginning though.
  
• It will be a visible statistic, so you will see them on the profile, on the logs, etc.
  
• We'll be hopefully launching with mobile applications to compliment the activity. I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones, but we will have components (Pocket Queries, GPX file downloads, etc) for traditional GPS devices.

For the comments that we should involve the community more, we do. We don't have a public discussion about it, instead working with a smaller sampling of geocachers.

[GOF and Bacall]

Well, if the speculation that they were gonna be unchanged wasn't already dead it is now. I knew it wouldn't come back as it was. The reviewers would have vacated their positions and then where would Groundspeak be?

[cb82]

[jholly]

GOF and Bacall, on 22 July 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

Well, if the speculation that they were gonna be unchanged wasn't already dead it is now. I knew it wouldn't come back as it was. The reviewers would have vacated their positions and then where would Groundspeak be?

But I love that they will be in beta. Maps are in beta, API is vaporware, souvenirs are dead, PQ's are waiting a redesign, someday we'll fix Wherigo, ....

Will we ever see a completed project?

[tozainamboku]

Jeremy, on 22 July 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:

To me, this is the most exciting project that we've worked on in years, but it will take some time to iterate through the idea and I know we'll get some things wrong, but the framework is solid. We'll be investing a substantial amount of effort with this project moving forward.

Some points:

• It will be on Geocaching.com, not a new web site. It will be a separate section in the beta, but I expect it to be integrated into a joined search at some point.
  
• Currently they will not go towards your find count, but it might at some point. It won't at the beginning though.
  
• It will be a visible statistic, so you will see them on the profile, on the logs, etc.
  
• We'll be hopefully launching with mobile applications to compliment the activity. I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones, but we will have components (Pocket Queries, GPX file downloads, etc) for traditional GPS devices.

For the comments that we should involve the community more, we do. We don't have a public discussion about it, instead working with a smaller sampling of geocachers.

Wow. This is the most exciting project in years. What happened to Waymarking? WHat happened with Wherigo? How long till Groundspeak abandons this one?

I see this as a slap to those who have been suggesting something like this in Waymarking from the start. Even you (or perhaps it was Nate) had a suggestion for "bounties" that would make Waymarking more game like and attract more people. Instead we got Wayboring. The site attracts a few people who are into make lists of places in boring categories and little attempt has been made to expand the market particular to include smartphone users. I expected at least more categories like Best Kept Secrets and Photo Goals. Instead roundspeak bureaucrats changed Waymarking Games to Waymarking Multifarious with no input from the Waymarking community. You could have been fixing Waymarking to make it appeal to more people. I've even suggested ways to integrated certain Waymarking categories with Geocaching to provide a new kind of virtual cache (that IMO is much more like what the bring back virtual crowd wants).

My guess is that Groundspeak has decided to ignore Waymarking (which I hsve always thought as the better platform to expand to other location based games and services) and is instead adding using its successful geocaching.com site to launch these new "projects".

Here's the problem. Whatever you do will detract from Geocaching. There will be people who will complain these new features are not geocaches. They will demand an opt out switch so they don't even have to look at them. Meanwhile, those who want the opportunity to create a virtual cache will not find these satisfactory, since they will be treated differently than the grandfathered virtuals.

If you want to grow Groundspeak's business by providing new location based games and services, use the Waymarking platform or create new domains for these. You certainly can promote these activities on Geocaching.com and when appropriate provide a degree of integrations (such as Groundspeak stats page with a players stats from all the sites). IMO, Geocaching.com is not the place for doing these "experiments".

[geodarts]

GOF and Bacall, on 22 July 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

Well, if the speculation that they were gonna be unchanged wasn't already dead it is now. I knew it wouldn't come back as it was. The reviewers would have vacated their positions and then where would Groundspeak be?

It was always clear that virtuals would not be brought back unchanged. Although I enjoy virtual caches, I did not expect or want that -- although certainly there were many options available to Groundspeak without taking an all or nothing approach or going back to the WOW factor.

As Jeremy points out, he "never said that virtuals were coming back in their previous form." I always thought what was said left a lot of room for interpretation: "We have been discussing this in-house and plan to work on a solution that should support those interested in virtuals and not upset those who don’t want them back."

It seemed like a task that was virtually guaranteed to disappoint one faction or the other. But people were inclined to read "support" in the context of a thread asking that virtuals be brought back to caching.

Jeremy has said that this could happen in the future. Groundspeak defines its listings as they see fit.. We'll see what happens with this one.

This post has been edited by justacacher: 22 July 2011 - 11:04 AM

[GOF and Bacall]

jholly, on 22 July 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

GOF and Bacall, on 22 July 2011 - 10:05 AM, said:

Well, if the speculation that they were gonna be unchanged wasn't already dead it is now. I knew it wouldn't come back as it was. The reviewers would have vacated their positions and then where would Groundspeak be?

But I love that they will be in beta. Maps are in beta, API is vaporware, souvenirs are dead, PQ's are waiting a redesign, someday we'll fix Wherigo, ....

Will we ever see a completed project?

Or at least an admission that an idea isn't working and won't be continued?

[Jeremy]

jholly, on 22 July 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

Will we ever see a completed project?

No. Is Geocaching "done?"

[Jeremy]

tozainamboku, on 22 July 2011 - 10:35 AM, said:

If you want to grow Groundspeak's business by providing new location based games and services, use the Waymarking platform or create new domains for these. You certainly can promote these activities on Geocaching.com and when appropriate provide a degree of integrations (such as Groundspeak stats page with a players stats from all the sites). IMO, Geocaching.com is not the place for doing these "experiments".

I think it is precisely the place where we should be experimenting, so we'll have to disagree on this point.

As for Waymarking and Wherigo, I am equally (if not more) frustrated with the lack of evolution in these areas. However, as priorities go internally, the core geocaching experience is and has been the focus, so the "bringing back of virtuals" is a higher priority than the Waymarking and Wherigo projects at this time.