Groundspeak Forums: Virtual Caches - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Virtual Caches What's going on?

#1 User is offline   Bear5719 

  • Bear5719
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 24-December 05

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:20 AM

Hi, folks. DH and I have been caching for a while, love the game and all the neat things to see. Recently I took my mother (72 years young) across the country to see my new airman stationed in Ohio. We covered 8 states in as many days, 3000 miles and several virtuals along the way. Turns out she got a kick out of the virtuals and honestly so do I.
So while we were out, spouse and I are looking for virtuals and getting some bad feelings about them. Like there were precious few in the north, some are abandonded (?) by owners and not allowed to be adopted, etc, etc. And we know that there are no new ones allowed.

So, last week I searched this forum trying to figure out their status-no luck.

I would like to know what is going on with them. I love them and think they belong to caching. Yes, I know some people want to Arm-chair cache, and I think that is their problem, not mine. I just love going to the various places. It's all part of the fun-going to new and interesting locations, finding area history, etc, etc. I hate the idea that they are being left in the dust and lost.

So, what's up with them?

#2 User is offline   TomToad 

  • Time Traveler of the Year 2080, 2081, and 2082
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 460
  • Joined: 25-February 09

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:36 AM

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

#3 User is offline   Gushoneybun 

  • So many caches so little time!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1101
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:43 AM

Hi

Virtuals are "grandfathered" meaning that those in existance are all that is left, no new ones will appear, over time these will gradually whitle away until there are virtually :laughing: none left. :(

Owners are supposed to log in every now and then and verify emails sent to them as many virtuals require you to answer a question whilst others maybe along the lines of take a photo next to an item. Virtuals will be archived if the owner does not log in for a while or the item the virtual was taking you to has gone, or where there are lots of armchair logs and the owner is ignoring them. In addition they can not be transferred to a new owner so if someone looses interest this will acelerate their demise as the owner will stop logging in.

Waymarks replaced virtuals see Waymarking.com (also run by Groundspeak) more lately Challenges (not challenge caches which are something else) on the geocaching.com site were rolled out as a means of having a more modern virtual, the latter do not seem to have really caught on :ph34r: .

I know there are expections but many cachers do not find lots of challenges or waymarks and no doubt there are lots of waymarkers who do not find caches in any great numbers.

#4 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9071
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:23 AM

View PostGushoneybun, on 28 November 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

Hi

Virtuals are "grandfathered" meaning that those in existance are all that is left, no new ones will appear, over time these will gradually whitle away until there are virtually :laughing: none left. :(

Owners are supposed to log in every now and then and verify emails sent to them as many virtuals require you to answer a question whilst others maybe along the lines of take a photo next to an item. Virtuals will be archived if the owner does not log in for a while or the item the virtual was taking you to has gone, or where there are lots of armchair logs and the owner is ignoring them. In addition they can not be transferred to a new owner so if someone looses interest this will acelerate their demise as the owner will stop logging in.

Waymarks replaced virtuals see Waymarking.com (also run by Groundspeak) more lately Challenges (not challenge caches which are something else) on the geocaching.com site were rolled out as a means of having a more modern virtual, the latter do not seem to have really caught on :ph34r: .

I know there are expections but many cachers do not find lots of challenges or waymarks and no doubt there are lots of waymarkers who do not find caches in any great numbers.


I love this post. Except for the very last sentence. Go ahead and doubt that there are lots of Waymarkers who do not find caches in great numbers. :laughing: People have been screaming for virtuals to return since 2003, and both Waymarking(2005) and Challenges(2011) were touted as replacements for them. NEITHER of them caught on, although one could say Waymarking developed a small cult following (most of whom have since lost interest) but that it developed into a "placer's" game, where people created lots of them, sometimes hundreds or thousands, but no one, in any significant numbers ever visited.

By the way Bear, the last ever virtual was accepted about a week after you joined, but there had been a "wow factor" period from May 2003 until Jan. 2006, where in some cases it was almost impossible to get one published. It depended on your particular reviewer, but it was difficult pretty much anywhere in the world.

I don't care one way or another, I'm one of the few people who play on Alternative Geocaching sites, and I can create or find them there. But I always tell the vocal majority like yourself who want old-school virtuals back to keep being vocal. They've tried replacements twice, and neither one worked. Whose to say they won't give in some day? :D

#5 User is offline   dprovan 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1835
  • Joined: 05-May 10

Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:33 AM

View PostTomToad, on 28 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

Just for the record: every time someone brings up Virtuals and how much fun they are, someone else brings up that they've been replaced by Challenges or Waymarks. Then there's a debate about Challenges and Waymarks that eventually comes to a point where the advocates of Challenges and Waymarks complain bitterly about people thinking Challenges and Waymarks are replacements for Virtuals.

Suggesting the OP look at Challenges and Waymarks is a good idea, don't get me wrong. There are certainly similarities. But through repeated debates I've learned that it is simply wrong to call either of them replacements for Virtuals. Although it's also true that Virtuals will never come back.

#6 User is online   Pup Patrol 

  • Ontario, Canada
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4208
  • Joined: 09-April 05

Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:01 AM

View PostBear5719, on 28 November 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Hi, folks. DH and I have been caching for a while, love the game and all the neat things to see. Recently I took my mother (72 years young) across the country to see my new airman stationed in Ohio. We covered 8 states in as many days, 3000 miles and several virtuals along the way. Turns out she got a kick out of the virtuals and honestly so do I.
So while we were out, spouse and I are looking for virtuals and getting some bad feelings about them. Like there were precious few in the north, some are abandonded (?) by owners and not allowed to be adopted, etc, etc. And we know that there are no new ones allowed.

I would like to know what is going on with them. I love them and think they belong to caching. Yes, I know some people want to Arm-chair cache, and I think that is their problem, not mine. I just love going to the various places. It's all part of the fun-going to new and interesting locations, finding area history, etc, etc. I hate the idea that they are being left in the dust and lost.

So, what's up with them?


New ones haven't been allowed to be published here for at least 7 years. The ones you found were "grandfathered".

What more could be "up with them"?

Here's the link to the Guidelines, where the grandfathering of Virtuals and Webcams is noted in a specific section:

http://www.geocachin...guidelines.aspx

Quote

So, last week I searched this forum trying to figure out their status-no luck.


A search for "virtuals" in this particular forum, the Getting Started forum, yielded lots of results. Here's a few samples:

http://forums.Ground...howtopic=294453
http://forums.Ground...howtopic=293622
http://forums.Ground...howtopic=288703
http://forums.Ground...howtopic=279290

I'm sure that a search of all forums would be very productive.



B.

This post has been edited by Pup Patrol: 28 November 2012 - 11:02 AM


#7 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9071
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:29 AM

View Postdprovan, on 28 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

View PostTomToad, on 28 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

Just for the record: every time someone brings up Virtuals and how much fun they are, someone else brings up that they've been replaced by Challenges or Waymarks. Then there's a debate about Challenges and Waymarks that eventually comes to a point where the advocates of Challenges and Waymarks complain bitterly about people thinking Challenges and Waymarks are replacements for Virtuals.

Suggesting the OP look at Challenges and Waymarks is a good idea, don't get me wrong. There are certainly similarities. But through repeated debates I've learned that it is simply wrong to call either of them replacements for Virtuals. Although it's also true that Virtuals will never come back.


Oh, I agree with you 100%!! You Pre-date Challenges (August 2011), but not Waymarking (August 2005). See a trend there? I predict in August 2017, they will allow Virtuals. :lol:

However much I agree with you though, that's not what we were told in the time period leading up to Waymarking and later Challenges. They were advertised as a replacement for virtuals. I'm quite sure for months in 2005 we were told THE SOLUTION TO THE VIRTUAL AND LOCATIONLESS "PROBLEM" IS COMING SOON. The solution being the then unnamed Waymarking website.

#8 User is offline   Bear5719 

  • Bear5719
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 24-December 05

Posted 28 November 2012 - 12:50 PM

I appreciate all the comments, honest. I'm not trying to start a tempest in a teacup!

I know the history, I know their status, I know their future. I just have to say I don’t agree with just “leaving them to die out”.
I don’t understand the apparent logic as to "why" they are not allowed.
I also know about waymarks and Wherigo's and I just learned about Challenges, but I just don't find them to be the same kinda fun.

I would like to know if I can maybe address my desire to bring back the opinion to have more virtuals. Many cachers leave small mircos at Histroy markers, just to get cachers in the area. I love visiting these locations, and I could write a string of caches in those locations, However, sometimes I think a physical cache may not be the proper treatment (aka-respect). We went to one site call "Robber Baron's" in San Antonio that was a GREAT place-but to get us there involved a phyiscal cache. I think it would be served just as well by a Virtual.
Would the owners/operaters consider opening the Virtual placement for short times before 2017? That seems a long long time! I was surprised that up north, land of the Civil War sites there were so few virtuals. I guess they had been archived.

Sad to think that people like this one element of geocaching and it would be allowed to dry up.

This post has been edited by Bear5719: 28 November 2012 - 12:51 PM


#9 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9071
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:03 PM

For the record, I was totally joking when I said they would come back by 2017. Pretty much Groundspeak has publicly said they are not coming back. Is there a knowledge books article on why they got rid of them? I know Toz, if he ever see's this, has an old (long) post of his explaining the situation.

#10 User is offline   Bear5719 

  • Bear5719
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 24-December 05

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:07 PM

View PostMr.Yuck, on 28 November 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

For the record, I was totally joking when I said they would come back by 2017. Pretty much Groundspeak has publicly said they are not coming back. Is there a knowledge books article on why they got rid of them? I know Toz, if he ever see's this, has an old (long) post of his explaining the situation.


I know you were! :)

For the record I went though the other post and read the long "Toz" explaination of why we don't have a choice in this--I'm soooo confused, LOL.
Oh, well, it is just something that I like about caching. Thought I would ask. :D

#11 User is online   Harry Dolphin 

  • Major Porpoise
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7750
  • Joined: 03-July 04

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:47 PM

View Postdprovan, on 28 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

View PostTomToad, on 28 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

Just for the record: every time someone brings up Virtuals and how much fun they are, someone else brings up that they've been replaced by Challenges or Waymarks. Then there's a debate about Challenges and Waymarks that eventually comes to a point where the advocates of Challenges and Waymarks complain bitterly about people thinking Challenges and Waymarks are replacements for Virtuals.

Suggesting the OP look at Challenges and Waymarks is a good idea, don't get me wrong. There are certainly similarities. But through repeated debates I've learned that it is simply wrong to call either of them replacements for Virtuals. Although it's also true that Virtuals will never come back.


Challenges and Whybothermarks are not a replacement for Virtuals and Locationlesses. They are not caches. Whybother? I guess some people are easily amused. Vist the local curch and log three whybothers! Why bother?
Yes. There were mounting probles with Locationless and virtuals. They are gone, or grandfathered. Sorry that there was no resolution how to solve the problems.
I guess that I do not miss them that badly. But I could care less about the alternatives.

#12 User is offline   dprovan 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1835
  • Joined: 05-May 10

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:09 PM

View PostMr.Yuck, on 28 November 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

However much I agree with you though, that's not what we were told in the time period leading up to Waymarking and later Challenges. They were advertised as a replacement for virtuals. I'm quite sure for months in 2005 we were told THE SOLUTION TO THE VIRTUAL AND LOCATIONLESS "PROBLEM" IS COMING SOON. The solution being the then unnamed Waymarking website.

I have to admit I know nothing of either introduction, but my impression has always been exactly what you say: that they were both created and presented as replacements for Virtuals. It definitely came as a surprise to me when I found out from the people that like them that they're nothing like Virtuals and that that's a good thing, but I continued to suspect that while that was the result, it wasn't the intention.

I was kinda disappointed to hear you were just kidding about the possibility of Virtuals coming back. When I read your post that came out while I was writing mine, I found hope in your optimistic suggestion that the evidence showed that in their hearts, they want to have Virtuals, so perhaps if we keep asking for them, they'll actually happen. I almost felt ashamed for being such a pessimist. Alas, now I know my hopelessness was really quite well founded. :(

#13 User is offline   DonB 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 31-May 01

Posted 29 November 2012 - 03:59 AM

View Postdprovan, on 28 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

View PostTomToad, on 28 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

Just for the record: every time someone brings up Virtuals and how much fun they are, someone else brings up that they've been replaced by Challenges or Waymarks. Then there's a debate about Challenges and Waymarks that eventually comes to a point where the advocates of Challenges and Waymarks complain bitterly about people thinking Challenges and Waymarks are replacements for Virtuals.

Suggesting the OP look at Challenges and Waymarks is a good idea, don't get me wrong. There are certainly similarities. But through repeated debates I've learned that it is simply wrong to call either of them replacements for Virtuals. Although it's also true that Virtuals will never come back.

Why wouldn't most people think challenges weren't a replacement for virtuals? For several months TPTB talked about bringing virtuals back in some form or another, and instead came up with a poor excuse for virtuals in the form of challenges.

#14 User is offline   Straight-Cache-Homey 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 08-April 12

Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:19 AM

I like the Worldwide Challenges and think they're pretty cool. The regular Challenges are pretty weak and I'm just not a fan. I came aboard way after the whole virtual thing went down and understand what happened but... I just think there could be a way to bring them back in a limited capacity. But I agree... virtuals are definitely pretty neat.

#15 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9071
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 29 November 2012 - 06:42 AM

View PostStraight-Cache-Homey, on 29 November 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

I like the Worldwide Challenges and think they're pretty cool. The regular Challenges are pretty weak and I'm just not a fan. I came aboard way after the whole virtual thing went down and understand what happened but... I just think there could be a way to bring them back in a limited capacity. But I agree... virtuals are definitely pretty neat.


The Worldwide challenges, for all practical purposes, are Locationless caches. These were not Grandfathered, they were all locked forever on January 2nd or 3rd, 2006. There was a Moratorium on new ones in place however, since late 2002 or early 2003. Sorry, despite me being a wealth of information, I don't have the exact date of the beginning of the moratorium. :o There were less than 400 Locationless caches ever created.

I have done one worldwide challenge, the Town "welcome to" sign, for a partiularly nice brand new one for a town in my area. I'm glad to see they still sporadically come out with new worldwide challenges, since I personally pretty much consider the challenge concept to be abandoned. :ph34r:

#16 User is offline   BAMBOOZLE 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1766
  • Joined: 24-February 03

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:00 AM

View PostBear5719, on 28 November 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Hi, folks. DH and I have been caching for a while, love the game and all the neat things to see. Recently I took my mother (72 years young) across the country to see my new airman stationed in Ohio. We covered 8 states in as many days, 3000 miles and several virtuals along the way. Turns out she got a kick out of the virtuals and honestly so do I.
So while we were out, spouse and I are looking for virtuals and getting some bad feelings about them. Like there were precious few in the north, some are abandonded (?) by owners and not allowed to be adopted, etc, etc. And we know that there are no new ones allowed.

So, last week I searched this forum trying to figure out their status-no luck.

I would like to know what is going on with them. I love them and think they belong to caching. Yes, I know some people want to Arm-chair cache, and I think that is their problem, not mine. I just love going to the various places. It's all part of the fun-going to new and interesting locations, finding area history, etc, etc. I hate the idea that they are being left in the dust and lost.

So, what's up with them?


Virtuals have really never been replaced.....many of us wish they would come back.

#17 User is offline   uxorious 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1243
  • Joined: 17-December 05

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:45 AM

View PostBear5719, on 28 November 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:


I don’t understand the apparent logic as to "why" they are not allowed.




I hope you really meant to say you don't "agree" with the apparent logic as to why they are not allowed. I cannot imagine anyone reading all the posts that have been made on this subject, and still saying they don't understand why Groundspeak took the stand they did on virtuals. B)

#18 User is online   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7856
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:48 AM

View PostMr.Yuck, on 29 November 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:


I have done one worldwide challenge, the Town "welcome to" sign, for a partiularly nice brand new one for a town in my area. I'm glad to see they still sporadically come out with new worldwide challenges, since I personally pretty much consider the challenge concept to be abandoned. :ph34r:


Despite the fact that they've mostly been abandoned, I created a file which has a list off all worldwide challenges and am going to start to attempt to complete every one on the list. There are currently about 45 WW challenges (and a couple are essentially duplicates) so it would be pretty doable. The one that I'll have the most difficulty completing is probably the "Meet a Lackey" challenge.

#19 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9071
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:50 AM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on 29 November 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

View PostMr.Yuck, on 29 November 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:


I have done one worldwide challenge, the Town "welcome to" sign, for a partiularly nice brand new one for a town in my area. I'm glad to see they still sporadically come out with new worldwide challenges, since I personally pretty much consider the challenge concept to be abandoned. :ph34r:


Despite the fact that they've mostly been abandoned, I created a file which has a list off all worldwide challenges and am going to start to attempt to complete every one on the list. There are currently about 45 WW challenges (and a couple are essentially duplicates) so it would be pretty doable. The one that I'll have the most difficulty completing is probably the "Meet a Lackey" challenge.


A Lackey could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 2 Lackey's attend every Mega Event that occurs in the U.S.; you know, sort of a goodwill gesture. And a great job perk if you're a Lackey. :P

#20 User is online   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 37922
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 30 November 2012 - 10:44 PM

Not a getting started issue. Moving to the appropriate forum

#21 User is offline   Isonzo Karst 

  • 10% platinum
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5309
  • Joined: 08-March 03

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:32 AM

Quote

A Lackey could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 2 Lackey's attend every Mega Event that occurs in the U.S


I've been to a mega in the US (its second year too, not the year it earned the mega) with no Lackey in attendance, and as megas become more common, I'd expect this (no lackey) to be more common as well.

Worldwide challenges are a good substitute for the old Locationless, and photo challenges are a good substitute for virtuals. EXCEPT, you can't download a gpx, see them on searches or maps, PQ them, and there's no smiley. That EXCEPT part is big.

If they ever fix those things (even if doesn't include +smiley) I think that would go a long way to quell the "bring back virts" chorus. EXCEPT, that one of the reasons people like virts is that many of them were reviewed to the wow factor standard. Challenges are self published, and will run to junk just like early virts.

#22 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9071
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:14 AM

View PostIsonzo Karst, on 01 December 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

Quote

A Lackey could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe at least 2 Lackey's attend every Mega Event that occurs in the U.S


I've been to a mega in the US (its second year too, not the year it earned the mega) with no Lackey in attendance, and as megas become more common, I'd expect this (no lackey) to be more common as well.

Worldwide challenges are a good substitute for the old Locationless, and photo challenges are a good substitute for virtuals. EXCEPT, you can't download a gpx, see them on searches or maps, PQ them, and there's no smiley. That EXCEPT part is big.

If they ever fix those things (even if doesn't include +smiley) I think that would go a long way to quell the "bring back virts" chorus. EXCEPT, that one of the reasons people like virts is that many of them were reviewed to the wow factor standard. Challenges are self published, and will run to junk just like early virts.


This thread was almost dead, I'm surprised it was moved after a couple days. Well, I'm sure there will be some discussion now.

Maybe that's already happening, that there's too many Mega's for the Lackeys. Still a nice perk. :lol:

I agree with everything else you said. Except maybe to add that the junk challenges can be voted down and into archival. I've seen it done once in my area. That was when people created a lot in the beginning though, everyone around here has lost interest already. :blink:

#23 User is offline   geodarts 

  • Not Roy or Aura
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3010
  • Joined: 08-February 04

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:42 AM

View PostMr.Yuck, on 01 December 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

I agree with everything else you said. Except maybe to add that the junk challenges can be voted down and into archival. I've seen it done once in my area. That was when people created a lot in the beginning though, everyone around here has lost interest already. :blink:


The last time that I looked the challenges nearby that want you to eat ice cream at a store, swim in cold water, or or go to a general area and do something silly (no gpsr required!) still survive. In the beginning almost every challenge received a batch of negative votes (I am still not sure why three or four people did not like one that I created that takes people to a beautiful little known unmarked waterfall on NPS land where traditional caching is not permitted), but people no longer have the interest even to vote against a challenge on general principles. It was immediately apparent that challenges bore little or no resemblance to virtuals and that Groundspeak completely misunderstood why people wanted virtuals to return -- many of us who enjoy virtuals lost interest in challenges very quickly.

The world wides bore some resemblance to locationless -- but to me locationless were fun because most required a unique find (which took a bit of research for those of us who came to them later than others). In the end, neither Waymarking or challenges were part of this game and I did not have the time or interest to take up yet another location-based activity. It is the same reason why I have never done the virtuals or locationless that are on other sites. But yes, they will not return here.

This post has been edited by geodarts: 01 December 2012 - 11:45 AM


#24 User is offline   tozainamboku 

  • geoyokozuna
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7261
  • Joined: 21-February 03

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:37 PM

View PostMr.Yuck, on 28 November 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

For the record, I was totally joking when I said they would come back by 2017. Pretty much Groundspeak has publicly said they are not coming back. Is there a knowledge books article on why they got rid of them? I know Toz, if he ever see's this, has an old (long) post of his explaining the situation.


View Postbriansnat, on 30 November 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Not a getting started issue. Moving to the appropriate forum

View PostMr.Yuck, on 01 December 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

This thread was almost dead, I'm surprised it was moved after a couple days. Well, I'm sure there will be some discussion now.

:D



View Postuxorious, on 29 November 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

View PostBear5719, on 28 November 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:


I don’t understand the apparent logic as to "why" they are not allowed.




I hope you really meant to say you don't "agree" with the apparent logic as to why they are not allowed. I cannot imagine anyone reading all the posts that have been made on this subject, and still saying they don't understand why Groundspeak took the stand they did on virtuals. B)


The OP makes a statement that is fundamental in understanding why virtuals were grandfathered as well as why the many reasons given for this are so hard for them to understand:

View PostBear5719, on 28 November 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

I just love going to the various places. It's all part of the fun-going to new and interesting locations, finding area history, etc, etc.


There are many people who when asked why they like geocaching will respond with something like this. The problem is that describes many activities, not just geocaching. Aside from Waymarking and challenges you can find many websites with lists of interesting places to visit. If you belong to the AAA you can download TourBooks and I think you can still get a physical book from the local office. You can stop at local chambers of commerce and grab a bunch of pamphlets from attractions that want your business. You can look for signs along the highway that say "Historical Marker Next Exit"...

Virtual caches were certainly another very effective way to share these places, but Groundspeak found that this almost hid another aspect of geocaching - that is to use your GPS to locate and find a cache that someone has hidden. Virtual caches started as a way to allow geocaching where a physical container could not be be hidden. Instead of signing the log, you would post a photo or answer a question to show you "found" the cache. What happened however is that many people began using virtual caches simply to point out an interesting place. Either owners allowed arm chair logs for people who could answer the question without ever using their GPS, or the virtual was not a specific enough object to find and to verify the find some way. The link to geocaching was lost.

Groundspeak is unlikely to every bring virtual caches back because they are no longer necessary for geocaching to grow. However they do recognize that in addition to geocaching, "the language of location" includes ways to use a GPS for sharing interesting locations. None of their attempts (Waymarking, Wherigo, or Challenges) has been as successful as Geocaching. There are various reasons for this. It seems far more productive to me to explore what can be done to improve Waymarking or Challenges (or something else), than it does to explore how to bring back virtuals to Geocaching.

#25 User is offline   OZ2CPU 

  • Thomas & Heidi, Denmark
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1090
  • Joined: 10-September 06

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:57 PM

The cool thing about MANY old caches, Virtuals too,
are they are placed/made after the owner spend alot of brain power into the place,
and the page, and the whole idea,
now you know why you like them.. they are old (not really important)
but made using brain power..
ok, you can if you seek harder, also find new caches that are made good,
and will show you spectacular locations and even educate you.

Virtuals who do not require picture or question only possible to answer if you actually been on location
I dont really like, since so many good googlers exist out there.
Howver you do offcourse only see the location breathtaking nature or other special things
if you actually go there, exactly as you say, else what is the whole point in this game.

#26 User is offline   Bear5719 

  • Bear5719
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 24-December 05

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:11 PM

My research seems to indicate that the main reason for discontinuing virtuals was lack of a “wow” factor; either the cache was poorly placed, or someone replaced a “lost” container with a virtual.
All caches, even physical caches, have rules, and with very few exceptions we all know and observe those rules. Virtual caches had rules, too. A great deal of the public credibility of the whole Geocache community is a result of our adherence to the rules of placing and finding caches. If disregarding the rules of placing virtual caches was the main reason for discontinuing them, as my research seems to indicate, then simply throwing out the category seems a drastic measure for solving the problem. It’s also unfair to those of us who go by the rules—the majority being deprived for the infractions of the few. Since it is done for those who transgress the rules of conventional caches, the transgressors of virtual cache propriety should be reproved and not those who observe and promote the rules.

Another indication that my research revealed was that the hard-working and dedicated staff of the fledgling geocache organization were just overwhelmed with processing virtuals. Granted, most virtuals are a lot easier to design, develop and submit than “traditional” caches, and the flood of virtuals being submitted probably resulted in many both traditional and virtual caches being delayed because many people didn’t go by the rules and submitted sub-par or downright illegal cache proposals. But we are now virtually (sorry) 10 years down the road, and the organization has become a professionally managed, efficient, world-wide entity with the capability of managing millions of caches all over the earth. With that in mind, I think virtual caches could be reinstated, controlled and managed just as well and just as effectively as traditional caches.
Finally, I think it is important to point out that virtual caches are still being developed and placed, albeit in a limited number and by another name: Earth Caches. Granted, these are very limited and very specific, but they are still there. It would be a small step to reinstate traditional virtual caches (sorry again) for those of us who have always enjoyed a really good history or geography lesson.

#27 User is offline   Bear5719 

  • Bear5719
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 24-December 05

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:17 PM

Virtual caches are the most eco- and earth-friendly of all caches; they require no paper, no containers, no trash (the ultimate CITO!). '
Also Ground Speak main page says geocaching is a “family outdoor adventure, …we explore the world and share our adventures online with others,… an outdoor treasure hunt!” I believe that virtuals fit right in with this philosophy. We explore the great outdoors, we take our pictures in front of historical monuments (see my post at the Alchemy II, lighter than air, or Cadillac Ranch-both too cool for words!)

Historical sites are our national treasures and we should encourage others to see these great outdoor treasures.
I propose we rename them “Green Caches”, and tighten the guidelines for submission.

Further, in an effort to prevent arm chair caching, if that is another primary problem, I have noticed many people use a program called Fact Checker. I don't know much about it, but I have encountered it and it would seem like an effective way to prevent Arm Chair Caching.

I think that GS has room in their bag of tricks for something as old school, but fun as virtuals. For me the "Wow" factor has always been to collect the Smiley!
:lol:

#28 User is offline   cache_test_dummies 

  • Already gone
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3294
  • Joined: 17-January 03

Posted 01 December 2012 - 04:44 PM

View PostBear5719, on 01 December 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

My research seems to indicate that the main reason for discontinuing virtuals was lack of a “wow” factor; either the cache was poorly placed, or someone replaced a “lost” container with a virtual.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the main reason for discontinuing the listing of new virtual caches was the lack of a workable definition of "wow".

#29 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9071
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 01 December 2012 - 05:53 PM

View Postcache_test_dummies, on 01 December 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

View PostBear5719, on 01 December 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

My research seems to indicate that the main reason for discontinuing virtuals was lack of a “wow” factor; either the cache was poorly placed, or someone replaced a “lost” container with a virtual.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the main reason for discontinuing the listing of new virtual caches was the lack of a workable definition of "wow".


The Wow factor couldn't be defined. So "THEY" said, so the decision was to just kill them forever? Perhaps they didn't try hard enough? Or some would say, they never really wanted to anyways. :ph34r:

#30 User is offline   cache_test_dummies 

  • Already gone
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3294
  • Joined: 17-January 03

Posted 01 December 2012 - 08:33 PM

View PostMr.Yuck, on 01 December 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

View Postcache_test_dummies, on 01 December 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

View PostBear5719, on 01 December 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

My research seems to indicate that the main reason for discontinuing virtuals was lack of a “wow” factor; either the cache was poorly placed, or someone replaced a “lost” container with a virtual.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the main reason for discontinuing the listing of new virtual caches was the lack of a workable definition of "wow".


The Wow factor couldn't be defined. So "THEY" said, so the decision was to just kill them forever? Perhaps they didn't try hard enough? Or some would say, they never really wanted to anyways. :ph34r:

They didn't 'kill them forever' - there are still many virtual caches that you can find and log. You just can't list new ones on this site.

I've never bought into the theory that Groundspeak didn't want virtual caches. I think they really tried to find a solution that would allow new virtual listings to continue. Jeremy very publicly solicited input, but no one was ever able to provide an adequate (by any reasonable standard) definition of "wow".

Because it couldn't be done. The very concept of such a subjective concept as "wow" as a listing requirement could never realistically be achieved.

When this whole thing was reaching a boiling point there were certainly other options worth considering (like allowing anything to be considered a virtual, but putting a minimum distance between virtuals guideline in place), but for better or worse, Groundspeak took a different approach, broke away from the idea of "wow", and created the Waymarking concept. And when that didn't turn out they way they planned, they tried Challenges.

#31 User is offline   tozainamboku 

  • geoyokozuna
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7261
  • Joined: 21-February 03

Posted 01 December 2012 - 08:48 PM

View PostMr.Yuck, on 01 December 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

View Postcache_test_dummies, on 01 December 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

View PostBear5719, on 01 December 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

My research seems to indicate that the main reason for discontinuing virtuals was lack of a “wow” factor; either the cache was poorly placed, or someone replaced a “lost” container with a virtual.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the main reason for discontinuing the listing of new virtual caches was the lack of a workable definition of "wow".


The Wow factor couldn't be defined. So "THEY" said, so the decision was to just kill them forever? Perhaps they didn't try hard enough? Or some would say, they never really wanted to anyways. :ph34r:

I'm beginning to believe the issues with "Wow" requirement were not the main reason for grandfathering virtuals.

The initial idea of virtual caches was to allow geocaching in places where a physical cache couldn't be placed. There was no wow requirement. The reviewers had to accept most every virtual cache - it was assumed that you submitted a virtual instead of a physical because there was some reason this couldn't be a physical cache.

When that didn't work too well, the guideline was added that a virtual cache had to "be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects." No longer was this an issue of whether a place could support a physical cache or not, but whether a place was so cool that it deserved a virtual cache.

I think this muddled the issue. Virtuals were now seen as a way to share interesting location and any geocaching aspect was lost.

Most people concentrate on the "wow" requirement and don't look a lot at the guideline that a virtual cache be a unique physical object that can be referenced through latitude and longitude coordinates. The idea being that you find this object just as you find a physical cache. You could take a picture of the object - but often the object would be a plaque that you would find the answer on.

Now the OP has a point in saying that the real "wow" factor has always been to collect the smiley. And if you are really finding a virtual as originally intended I would have no problem. Call me a puritan but I think the online Find log should be about finding a physical object, not answering a question about it, and not for visiting some place just because someone posted coordinates for it.

There is another site now for listing locations that may be interesting and worth sharing, and while it would be nice if it was integrated better with Geocaching, I don't see any reason to duplicate this on Geoaching.com.

#32 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9071
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 01 December 2012 - 08:50 PM

There would be no "Wow factor" to define, if TPTB didn't put the "Wow factor" in place in the first place. Why was there a Wow factor? Too many lame ones were being submitted? A quarter million or so, and growing daily, parking lot micros on private property without permission tells me they couldn't give a hoot about "lame ones being submitted". :P

#33 User is offline   tozainamboku 

  • geoyokozuna
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7261
  • Joined: 21-February 03

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:14 PM

View PostMr.Yuck, on 01 December 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

There would be no "Wow factor" to define, if TPTB didn't put the "Wow factor" in place in the first place. Why was there a Wow factor? Too many lame ones were being submitted? A quarter million or so, and growing daily, parking lot micros on private property without permission tells me they couldn't give a hoot about "lame ones being submitted". :P

True. But would the OP have been so excited about the virtual caches he "found" while crossing the country if half of them were in behind big box stores with write ups like

Quote

At the posted coordinates you will find a green box with a yellow caution sign and some white numbers. To post a find on this cache Email me the last three numbers in the sequence CB97_ _ _.

P.S. I couldn't hide a physical cache here because the big box corporation has stated physical caches are not allowed in their parking lots. Have fun.

The "Wow" requirement and its enforcement by the volunteer reviewers means that nearly all the grandfathered virtuals are "wow" and that people who find these virtuals are more likely to want to have them back.

#34 User is offline   geodarts 

  • Not Roy or Aura
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3010
  • Joined: 08-February 04

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:23 PM

View Posttozainamboku, on 01 December 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:


Now the OP has a point in saying that the real "wow" factor has always been to collect the smiley. And if you are really finding a virtual as originally intended I would have no problem. Call me a puritan but I think the online Find log should be about finding a physical object, not answering a question about it, and not for visiting some place just because someone posted coordinates for it.



Virtuals to me have always been about enhancing and extending the game. These days I am far less likely to want to look for a film canister or nano just because someone posted coordinates for it. Call me idealistic, but the joy of caching has always been in the discovery and less about the search. And while I agree that a Find log should be about finding something, I am not sure what I have found under a lamp post skirt or guard rail opening. Although I realize that my perspective lost, what I seek to discover right now, through this game, has even less to do with finding most physical objects than it did when virtuals were still a direct part of the game.

#35 User is offline   geodarts 

  • Not Roy or Aura
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3010
  • Joined: 08-February 04

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:30 PM

View Posttozainamboku, on 01 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

True. But would the OP have been so excited about the virtual caches he "found" while crossing the country if half of them were in behind big box stores with write ups like

Quote

At the posted coordinates you will find a green box with a yellow caution sign and some white numbers. To post a find on this cache Email me the last three numbers in the sequence CB97_ _ _.

P.S. I couldn't hide a physical cache here because the big box corporation has stated physical caches are not allowed in their parking lots. Have fun.

The "Wow" requirement and its enforcement by the volunteer reviewers means that nearly all the grandfathered virtuals are "wow" and that people who find these virtuals are more likely to want to have them back.


Yes, it is sort of like all the descriptions I read where the CO states that the parking lot did not have a cache - permission from the big box corporation does not seem to be much of an issue. I think both outcomes could have been avoided had Groundspeak chosen to do so. I am not sure how many virtuals among my favorites -- or even those that I have found -- were published under Wow factor guidelines. I suspect not the majority although it does not really matter. It certainly was not the only way of addressing the issue.

This post has been edited by geodarts: 01 December 2012 - 10:00 PM


#36 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9071
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:49 AM

View Posttozainamboku, on 01 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

View PostMr.Yuck, on 01 December 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

There would be no "Wow factor" to define, if TPTB didn't put the "Wow factor" in place in the first place. Why was there a Wow factor? Too many lame ones were being submitted? A quarter million or so, and growing daily, parking lot micros on private property without permission tells me they couldn't give a hoot about "lame ones being submitted". :P

True. But would the OP have been so excited about the virtual caches he "found" while crossing the country if half of them were in behind big box stores with write ups like

Quote

At the posted coordinates you will find a green box with a yellow caution sign and some white numbers. To post a find on this cache Email me the last three numbers in the sequence CB97_ _ _.

P.S. I couldn't hide a physical cache here because the big box corporation has stated physical caches are not allowed in their parking lots. Have fun.

The "Wow" requirement and its enforcement by the volunteer reviewers means that nearly all the grandfathered virtuals are "wow" and that people who find these virtuals are more likely to want to have them back.


Well, you (maybe not everyone else reading this) knows that the fact that almost all parking lot micros are on private property without permission is probably my biggest pet peeve in Geocaching, so I just have a natural tendency to throw that line in. It's almost like doing so muddied the waters in this case. OK then, I'm just talking lame. Could you imagine TPTB, in this day and age of Geocaching, proclaiming a certain type of hide to be lame, then slap a de-facto moratorium on them, and eventually phase them out? All while throwing out "we're sorry, we really, really tried"?

Honestly, I find it almost laughable when they cite quality control issues as a reason for implementing the wow factor, and they're still rolling with that line 9 years later, and people are still buying it. :)

EDIT: By the way, if nothing had happened, and they just rolled along accepting all virtuals all these years, absolutely people would be using numbers off transformers in store parking lots as a virtual. Is that any lamer than lifting a skirt in the parking lot, or grabbing identically hidden film canisters every 528 feet? Not really, in my opinion. Would virtuals have taken over, and become the dominant cache type in the world? Maybe. That one, we'll never know.

This post has been edited by Mr.Yuck: 02 December 2012 - 04:53 AM


#37 User is offline   Bear5719 

  • Bear5719
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 24-December 05

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:46 AM


"Well, you (maybe not everyone else reading this) knows that the fact that almost all parking lot micros are on private property without permission is probably my biggest pet peeve in Geocaching, so I just have a natural tendency to throw that line in. It's almost like doing so muddied the waters in this case. OK then, I'm just talking lame. Could you imagine TPTB, in this day and age of Geocaching, proclaiming a certain type of hide to be lame, then slap a de-facto moratorium on them, and eventually phase them out? All while throwing out "we're sorry, we really, really tried"?



Side note and completely off topic: I hate parking lot, lift the skirt finds. One time my daughter and I were caching, we lifted the skirt, out fell Momma Black Widow, tons of babies and at our feet> ants, ants everywhere. I don't believe I have done a lamp shade since! :anitongue:





Honestly, I find it almost laughable when they cite quality control issues as a reason for implementing the wow factor, and they're still rolling with that line 9 years later, and people are still buying it. :)

EDIT: By the way, if nothing had happened, and they just rolled along accepting all virtuals all these years, absolutely people would be using numbers off transformers in store parking lots as a virtual. Is that any lamer than lifting a skirt in the parking lot, or grabbing identically hidden film canisters every 528 feet? Not really, in my opinion. Would virtuals have taken over, and become the dominant cache type in the world? Maybe. That one, we'll never know.
[/quote]

This is totally my point! I can't honestly believe that this issue has been dealt with in a fair manner. I think the issue was hard to grapple with and the easiest solution was to abandon them.

I'm sorry if I have trouble placing your comments in quotes correctly. I just couldn't get it going.
Thanks

This post has been edited by Bear5719: 02 December 2012 - 09:48 AM


#38 User is offline   tozainamboku 

  • geoyokozuna
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7261
  • Joined: 21-February 03

Posted 02 December 2012 - 12:37 PM

I'm failing to grasp the argument that Virtual caches can be brought back without a "wow" requirement.

I keep hearing that people want to bring back virtuals because this would allow caches to be placed at interesting or historic places where you couldn't place a physical cache. But they agree that without a "Wow" requirement virtual caches could be placed in parking lots and use the numbers on transformers. So if you bring back virtuals without a "Wow" requirement you are really saying we should bring back virtuals to allow caches to be placed at interesting or historic places where you couldn't place a physical cache.

I would argue that there are are far more "unworthy" places where you can't put a physical cache than there are cool places. Sure if you brought back virtuals you might get some caches in National Parks or other cool locations where physical caches can't be placed. But you would get far more caches in parking lots and the like. The argument that people are already hiding physical caches in parking lots without permission, IMO, only strengthens my argument. The person who is not hiding in parking lots just because they are worried about permission, may feel that a virtual in that same location is not a problem. And the person who is already hiding a physical cache there may just decide that a virtual won't require any maintenance so it may be a better idea for this type of hide anyway. And once the maintenance free virtual is there - well at least physical caches in parking lots get archived after a while.

The Wow requirement is a statement that geocaching is about finding physical caches hidden by others, but there are some locations that are so deserving of a cache that this basic rule can be relaxed. In these special places, if a physical cache can't be hidden, then a virtual replacement is allowed.

The issue is that the "wow" virtuals have been grandfathered and many people see that the exception made to allow virtual caches in special places results in some of the most memorable caching experiences, and these caches often get many favorite points. But when pressed on how to decide what places deserve this exemption from physical caches, some people will argue that no "wow" requirement is needed.

Virtual caching without a Wow requirement is Waymarking. You need the complexity of Waymarking categories just to allow people to filter the places they find interesting or those they prefer to ignore. I'd argue that trying to make Geocaching handle both geocaches and waymarks would destroy it for the majority of geocachers who simple prefer a simple game of hide and seek rather than turn it into a tour guide that only brings you to interesting places.

#39 User is offline   geodarts 

  • Not Roy or Aura
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3010
  • Joined: 08-February 04

Posted 02 December 2012 - 08:20 PM

View Posttozainamboku, on 02 December 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I'm failing to grasp the argument that Virtual caches can be brought back without a "wow" requirement.



The Wow requirement was formulated shortly before I started caching -- Keystone once wrote that it was added in November 2003. Yet, 557 out of the 600+ virtuals I have found were placed before the wow requirement took effect. These include most of my favorites. So the wow requirement was not a factor in most of the virtuals I have found. However, I assume that it was added for a valid reason.

As far as I know, the problem with the "wow" requirement was that it could not be administered under the present system of cache approval. There may have been other ways of approaching it. I do not think that there is any particular need to discuss how virtuals could be brought back since there is no serious proposal or consideration being given to that. But I also do not think that the system that was used was the only means of going about it. Off the top of my head, I might have explored some form of peer review (relying on our collective judgment); providing objective guidelines or an educational focus (the earthcache model); limitations on the number of virtuals a member may place (if I could only place one, I would try to make it special); and/or guidelines relating to proximity, property type, or other factors.


Nobody who appreciates virtuals would want to see one at every McDonalds or at every plaque. But the underlying question is whether they should be part of this game. For me they have expanded and enhanced the game that is played here. Groundspeak disagreed and that decision is not going to change.

#40 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9071
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 02 December 2012 - 08:43 PM

View Postgeodarts, on 02 December 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

View Posttozainamboku, on 02 December 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I'm failing to grasp the argument that Virtual caches can be brought back without a "wow" requirement.



The Wow requirement was formulated shortly before I started caching -- Keystone once wrote that it was added in November 2003. Yet, 557 out of the 600+ virtuals I have found were placed before the wow requirement took effect. These include most of my favorites. So the wow requirement was not a factor in most of the virtuals I have found. However, I assume that it was added for a valid reason.

As far as I know, the problem with the "wow" requirement was that it could not be administered under the present system of cache approval. There may have been other ways of approaching it. I do not think that there is any particular need to discuss how virtuals could be brought back since there is no serious proposal or consideration being given to that. But I also do not think that the system that was used was the only means of going about it. Off the top of my head, I might have explored some form of peer review (relying on our collective judgment); providing objective guidelines or an educational focus (the earthcache model); limitations on the number of virtuals a member may place (if I could only place one, I would try to make it special); and/or guidelines relating to proximity, property type, or other factors.


Nobody who appreciates virtuals would want to see one at every McDonalds or at every plaque. But the underlying question is whether they should be part of this game. For me they have expanded and enhanced the game that is played here. Groundspeak disagreed and that decision is not going to change.


I really like this post! My join date is to the left though, and I'm still going to swear by the fact that the Wow factor pre-dated myself, even as long as I've been around, and was implemented in May 2003, as far as I can tell. Yes, I agree, there are so many things they could have tried, but they didn't. I don't want to say the guy who went out and bought the domain name Geocaching.com all those years ago just flat out doesn't like virtuals, but some have argued that point in the past. :P Toz brings up some good points too, but I have to digest them, and it's bedtime on the east coast here.

#41 User is offline   geodarts 

  • Not Roy or Aura
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3010
  • Joined: 08-February 04

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:03 PM

View PostMr.Yuck, on 02 December 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

I really like this post! My join date is to the left though, and I'm still going to swear by the fact that the Wow factor pre-dated myself, even as long as I've been around, and was implemented in May 2003, as far as I can tell.


I went with Keystone's timeline but even May 2003 would mean that over 2/3 of the virtuals I have found were published without Wowing. These include some ones that indeed have no wow factor, and some that rank at the top of my caching experiences. But according to the timeline cited above, by the time the wow requirement was added, high level planning for Waymarking had begun. So it appears the question was not one of how virtuals could be administered, but when they could be replaced by Waymarking (and what to do in the meantime).

I would not want to see Waymarking incorporated into this site, just as I would not want to see challenges as a direct part of this game. But even virtuals that have not been reviewed under the wow factor go beyond the Waymarking framework.

This post has been edited by geodarts: 02 December 2012 - 10:22 PM


#42 User is offline   SwineFlew 

  • Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2772
  • Joined: 23-September 09

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:36 PM

Why GS just shut down all the virtual and get it over with. I hear LESS about locationless caches than virtual on the forms.

#43 User is offline   BlueDeuce 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 21903
  • Joined: 14-May 03

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:47 PM

View PostSwineFlew, on 02 December 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Why GS just shut down all the virtual and get it over with. I hear LESS about locationless caches than virtual on the forms.


23 vitual caches logged and you never appreciated a single one.

This post has been edited by BlueDeuce: 02 December 2012 - 09:48 PM


#44 User is offline   SwineFlew 

  • Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2772
  • Joined: 23-September 09

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:51 PM

View PostBlueDeuce, on 02 December 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

View PostSwineFlew, on 02 December 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Why GS just shut down all the virtual and get it over with. I hear LESS about locationless caches than virtual on the forms.


23 vitual caches logged and you never appreciated a single one.

Well, check my fav point list. <_<

#45 User is offline   BlueDeuce 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 21903
  • Joined: 14-May 03

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:52 PM

View PostSwineFlew, on 02 December 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

View PostBlueDeuce, on 02 December 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

View PostSwineFlew, on 02 December 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Why GS just shut down all the virtual and get it over with. I hear LESS about locationless caches than virtual on the forms.


23 vitual caches logged and you never appreciated a single one.

Well, check my fav point list. <_<


I ain't the one trying to get over it.

#46 User is offline   Manville Possum Hunters 

  • Sic Semper Tyrannis
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2188
  • Joined: 26-July 08

Posted 02 December 2012 - 09:53 PM

I enjoy Virtual listings and make use of the Waymarking site and the new Challanges. Waymarking has a nice peer review system with category managers, and I can imagine what the volunteer reviewers here would see submitted as virtual listings. :anibad: I think that many reviewers and moderators are against virtual geocaches, but they are also Waymarkers. :laughing: It was a moderator here that helped me understand Waymarking, I really disliked the site t first glance. :unsure:

#47 User is offline   Bear5719 

  • Bear5719
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 24-December 05

Posted 03 December 2012 - 11:12 AM

View Posttozainamboku, on 02 December 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I'm failing to grasp the argument that Virtual caches can be brought back without a "wow" requirement.

I keep hearing that people want to bring back virtuals because this would allow caches to be placed at interesting or historic places where you couldn't place a physical cache. But they agree that without a "Wow" requirement virtual caches could be placed in parking lots and use the numbers on transformers. So if you bring back virtuals without a "Wow" requirement you are really saying we should bring back virtuals to allow caches to be placed at interesting or historic places where you couldn't place a physical cache.

I would argue that there are are far more "unworthy" places where you can't put a physical cache than there are cool places. Sure if you brought back virtuals you might get some caches in National Parks or other cool locations where physical caches can't be placed. But you would get far more caches in parking lots and the like. The argument that people are already hiding physical caches in parking lots without permission, IMO, only strengthens my argument. The person who is not hiding in parking lots just because they are worried about permission, may feel that a virtual in that same location is not a problem. And the person who is already hiding a physical cache there may just decide that a virtual won't require any maintenance so it may be a better idea for this type of hide anyway. And once the maintenance free virtual is there - well at least physical caches in parking lots get archived after a while.

The Wow requirement is a statement that geocaching is about finding physical caches hidden by others, but there are some locations that are so deserving of a cache that this basic rule can be relaxed. In these special places, if a physical cache can't be hidden, then a virtual replacement is allowed.

The issue is that the "wow" virtuals have been grandfathered and many people see that the exception made to allow virtual caches in special places results in some of the most memorable caching experiences, and these caches often get many favorite points. But when pressed on how to decide what places deserve this exemption from physical caches, some people will argue that no "wow" requirement is needed.

Virtual caching without a Wow requirement is Waymarking. You need the complexity of Waymarking categories just to allow people to filter the places they find interesting or those they prefer to ignore. I'd argue that trying to make Geocaching handle both geocaches and waymarks would destroy it for the majority of geocachers who simple prefer a simple game of hide and seek rather than turn it into a tour guide that only brings you to interesting places.



I never said I didn't think Virtuals didn't or shouldn't have a Wow Factor. I have done several virtuals and have been WOW'ed by their location. I have also thought they made for an interesting addition to caching. Sort of like--Well, while you are in the area picking up this physical cache container there is also this cool virtual in the same neighborhood.
If and only if they only reason they were discontinued was because people were not placing them in appropriate locations(such as a lamp skirt) then I find that failed logic and believe they deserve a second chance.
Further I would like to point out they are already doing such "caches" anyway-event caches, CITO caches, Earth Caches, World Challenges to name a few.

#48 User is offline   Bear5719 

  • Bear5719
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 24-December 05

Posted 03 December 2012 - 11:13 AM

View PostManville Possum Hunters, on 02 December 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

I enjoy Virtual listings and make use of the Waymarking site and the new Challanges. Waymarking has a nice peer review system with category managers, and I can imagine what the volunteer reviewers here would see submitted as virtual listings. :anibad: I think that many reviewers and moderators are against virtual geocaches, but they are also Waymarkers. :laughing: It was a moderator here that helped me understand Waymarking, I really disliked the site t first glance. :unsure:



I will make a extra effort to look into Waymarking again! Thanks:)

#49 User is offline   Snoogans 

  • The Snoog Abides
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8643
  • Joined: 02-March 03

Posted 03 December 2012 - 11:42 AM

View PostHarry Dolphin, on 28 November 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

View Postdprovan, on 28 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

View PostTomToad, on 28 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

Just for the record: every time someone brings up Virtuals and how much fun they are, someone else brings up that they've been replaced by Challenges or Waymarks. Then there's a debate about Challenges and Waymarks that eventually comes to a point where the advocates of Challenges and Waymarks complain bitterly about people thinking Challenges and Waymarks are replacements for Virtuals.

Suggesting the OP look at Challenges and Waymarks is a good idea, don't get me wrong. There are certainly similarities. But through repeated debates I've learned that it is simply wrong to call either of them replacements for Virtuals. Although it's also true that Virtuals will never come back.


Challenges and Whybothermarks are not a replacement for Virtuals and Locationlesses. They are not caches. Whybother? I guess some people are easily amused. Vist the local curch and log three whybothers! Why bother?
Yes. There were mounting probles with Locationless and virtuals. They are gone, or grandfathered. Sorry that there was no resolution how to solve the problems.
I guess that I do not miss them that badly. But I could care less about the alternatives.


Okay I love love love the term Whybothermarks. Gonna use that from now on.... The whole system and my experience with utterly failed to blow my skirt up. Sorta like Notveryfunzees. :anibad:

It took me awhile to warm up to Challenges and while they are not technically replacements for virts and locationless caches if you choose to view it thataway they are a great innovation on the concept of both. I like 'em. I think it shows a willingness on the part of Groundspeak to try to meet customer demand to bring back virts and locationless caches.

#50 User is offline   Manville Possum Hunters 

  • Sic Semper Tyrannis
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2188
  • Joined: 26-July 08

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:13 PM

View PostSnoogans, on 03 December 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

View PostHarry Dolphin, on 28 November 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

View Postdprovan, on 28 November 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

View PostTomToad, on 28 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Virtuals have been replaced by challenges. Check out here.

Just for the record: every time someone brings up Virtuals and how much fun they are, someone else brings up that they've been replaced by Challenges or Waymarks. Then there's a debate about Challenges and Waymarks that eventually comes to a point where the advocates of Challenges and Waymarks complain bitterly about people thinking Challenges and Waymarks are replacements for Virtuals.

Suggesting the OP look at Challenges and Waymarks is a good idea, don't get me wrong. There are certainly similarities. But through repeated debates I've learned that it is simply wrong to call either of them replacements for Virtuals. Although it's also true that Virtuals will never come back.


Challenges and Whybothermarks are not a replacement for Virtuals and Locationlesses. They are not caches. Whybother? I guess some people are easily amused. Vist the local curch and log three whybothers! Why bother?
Yes. There were mounting probles with Locationless and virtuals. They are gone, or grandfathered. Sorry that there was no resolution how to solve the problems.
I guess that I do not miss them that badly. But I could care less about the alternatives.


Okay I love love love the term Whybothermarks. Gonna use that from now on.... The whole system and my experience with utterly failed to blow my skirt up. Sorta like Notveryfunzees. :anibad:

It took me awhile to warm up to Challenges and while they are not technically replacements for virts and locationless caches if you choose to view it thataway they are a great innovation on the concept of both. I like 'em. I think it shows a willingness on the part of Groundspeak to try to meet customer demand to bring back virts and locationless caches.

If Waymarks were combined and counted as finds, I think it would attract more users. I'm not the kind of Waymarker that would log or submit a McD's, but I did log a KFC in Corbin, Ky. :laughing: Too bad the geocache was missing, I would have logged that too. The orginal KFC, WoW! :)

Share this topic:


  • (6 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic