Groundspeak Forums: Bring Virtuals back - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

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

Bring Virtuals back

#1 User is offline   MrPirateCat 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 15-October 09

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:43 PM

With the demise of "challenges" it's time to bring Virtuals back.

#2 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38087
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:52 PM

Please no.

#3 User is offline   Semper Questio 

  • Hunters of feral Tupperware.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2568
  • Joined: 21-January 04

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:08 PM

Please yes.

#4 User is offline   niraD 

  • rehcacoeG
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6904
  • Joined: 24-January 06

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:18 PM

As soon as Groundspeak figures out a solution to the problems that killed virtual caches in the first place, sure.

Until then, no.

#5 User is offline   Docgeo* 

  • Platinum Earthcache Master, Vietnam Veteran.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 28-October 09

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:33 PM

View PostMrPirateCat, on 04 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

With the demise of "challenges" it's time to bring Virtuals back.

Yes Bring Virtuals back!

#6 User is offline   Semper Questio 

  • Hunters of feral Tupperware.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2568
  • Joined: 21-January 04

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:42 PM

View PostniraD, on 04 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

As soon as Groundspeak figures out a solution to the problems that killed virtual caches in the first place, sure.

Until then, no.


I understand your point, but the problems really aren't that big of a deal.

Rules can be put in place to restrict placements, questions can be asked on the listing form, and some cachers would help by reporting violations as they do now.

Ultimately, even when some bad apples squeak through, so what? There are no rules saying everyone has to go after every cache. It just isn't that big of a deal. Yeah, just like lame micros some people will want to list a bunch of lame virts and others will want to claim them all for the sake of numbers. But again, so what? That affects my game in no way whatsoever.

#7 User is offline   Treknschmidt 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 19-August 07

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:55 PM

View PostniraD, on 04 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

As soon as Groundspeak figures out a solution to the problems that killed virtual caches in the first place, sure.


What exactly was the problem?

#8 User is online   steben6 

  • It is what it is
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1439
  • Joined: 08-March 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:56 PM

View PostMrPirateCat, on 04 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

With the demise of "challenges" it's time to bring Virtuals back.

+1

#9 User is offline   niraD 

  • rehcacoeG
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6904
  • Joined: 24-January 06

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:07 PM

View PostTreknschmidt, on 04 December 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

View PostniraD, on 04 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

As soon as Groundspeak figures out a solution to the problems that killed virtual caches in the first place, sure.
What exactly was the problem?
Here you go: What were the issues with virtuals? (according to tozainamboku)

#10 User is offline   Treknschmidt 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 19-August 07

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:14 PM

View PostniraD, on 04 December 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Here you go: What were the issues with virtuals? (according to tozainamboku)


Interesting read, Thank You niraD

#11 User is offline   ZSandmann 

  • I Am eTrex Legend!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 822
  • Joined: 19-June 05

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:28 PM

Bring em back!

#12 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38087
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?

#13 User is offline   Team OPJim 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 20-January 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:40 PM

I agree it is time to bring them back. Yes I've heard all the complaints, etc, but the fact is that virtuals really can be fun. Challenges were virtual-lite caches that no one ever bothered with (and yes I've read the entire account of all the problems and why they went away).

#14 User is offline   Treknschmidt 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 151
  • Joined: 19-August 07

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:50 PM

View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?


WoW factor or leave em dead!!!

#15 User is offline   Manville Possum Hunters 

  • Sic Semper Tyrannis
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2358
  • Joined: 26-July 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:50 PM

View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?

Wow factor, limit where they may be placed so not to take the place of a real physical geocache. Add a code phrase system similar to what some other geocache listing services offer and limit them to PMO. Allow them to be added/counted as finds. Assign Virtual reviewers similar to GSA with EarthCaches. I like good virtuals. Just my idea, I was fine with Challanges but saw them abused. I wish the faults could have been worked out. I just don't think Challanges replaced Virtuals, but a couple of mine did well. It was fun while it lasted. :laughing:

#16 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38087
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:00 PM

View PostTreknschmidt, on 04 December 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?


WoW factor or leave em dead!!!


Do you have any idea how many virtuals were published after the wow factor was introduced? Very few. If they come back under the wow factor, guess what, they in effect won't be back.

But instead of the weekly "bring back virtuals" threads in the forums we'll be back to the weekly "Waaah, the reviewer didn't think my virtual was wow" threads.

#17 User is offline   Semper Questio 

  • Hunters of feral Tupperware.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2568
  • Joined: 21-January 04

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:09 PM

Wow factor is far too subjective and not necessary. There are other rules-based criteria that can be used to help control them.

#18 User is offline   Team OPJim 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 20-January 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:19 PM

Instead of the subjective wow factor, how about the simple rule that they can only be placed where a regular geocache cannot? I don't particularly see the value of a virtual at walmart. However, I would like a virtual in a national park, state park, or some similar area. I thoroughly enjoyed geocaching Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. The problem is that only earthcaches can be placed there now, and sometimes it would be nice to have a non-geologic cache.

#19 User is offline   Mockingbird559 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 20-November 07

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:40 PM

Like the idea. Maybe do something to keep the wow factor high. Maybe national parks, great views, places where an actual cache would have been difficult or not possible at all.

Never been disappointed in a virtual I have found.

#20 User is online   tozainamboku 

  • geoyokozuna
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7563
  • Joined: 21-February 03

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:43 PM

View PostTeam OPJim, on 04 December 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Instead of the subjective wow factor, how about the simple rule that they can only be placed where a regular geocache cannot?

How would you know if a regular cache cannot be placed? Would you have to ask permission to place a regular cache first and could only place a virtual cache if you were turned down?

Quote

I don't particularly see the value of a virtual at walmart.

Cause that's where you'd find them after people say "I asked the manager but he didn't think a container in the parking lot was good idea."

Quote

However, I would like a virtual in a national park, state park, or some similar area.

Since the grandfathering of virtual caches there has been some success getting limited geocaches into some National Parks areas, and several states and regional parks have adopted geocaching policies. While not perfect, this is better than the old response "If you want to cache here, place a virtual"

#21 User is offline   DonB 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1417
  • Joined: 31-May 01

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:06 AM

View PostniraD, on 04 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

As soon as Groundspeak figures out a solution to the problems that killed virtual caches in the first place, sure.

Until then, no.

I don't think there were problems that couldn't be corrected without too much effort. One problem TPTB mentioned was a cache owner had cachers looking for a tennis shoe in the woods. Couldn't that have been fixed by the reviewer just refusing the cache? Another problem mentioned was cachers were doing armchair caching. I have never done a virtual that there wasn't something that could be required as part of the answer that was impossible to find on the internet. I remember there was some talk about caches in national parks, I don't know if all, but some of the parks would allow virtuals but not regular caches and this is just my opinion, and I may be wrong, but I think this was one of the main reasons that virtuals were doomed. I think the theory was that if virtuals were dropped it would give regular caches a better chance of being allowed in the parks.

#22 User is offline   cezanne 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5383
  • Joined: 09-September 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:29 AM

View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?


Do you really think that the "wow" factor would be needed if virtuals do not contribute to the find and hidden counts?
I never understood why instead of coming up with challenges they had not introduced virtuals with no reviewing by the reviewers
and no contribution to the find and hide counts, but all the other properties of geocaches.
Such a system would not required any new resources at all (in contrast to challenges) and would have appealed to considerably more
people.

I'm sure that something like history caches could have been established in a reasonably well working manner without needing a historical association
supporting the project. I'm sure that for the majority of virtuals already the description tells you whether your expectations will be met.

I do not know for example a single EC where I cannot decide from the description whether or not I like the EC.


Cezanne

#23 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38087
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:40 AM

View PostTeam OPJim, on 04 December 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Instead of the subjective wow factor, how about the simple rule that they can only be placed where a regular geocache cannot? I don't particularly see the value of a virtual at walmart. However, I would like a virtual in a national park, state park, or some similar area. I thoroughly enjoyed geocaching Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. The problem is that only earthcaches can be placed there now, and sometimes it would be nice to have a non-geologic cache.


Problem with that is it significantly reduces our chances of ever getting real caches in those places. We've slowly been making headway with the NPS and other reluctant park systems. The fact that virtuals are off the table helps keep the focus on real caches.

#24 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38087
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:42 AM

View Postcezanne, on 05 December 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?


Do you really think that the "wow" factor would be needed if virtuals do not contribute to the find and hidden counts?
I never understood why instead of coming up with challenges they had not introduced virtuals with no reviewing by the reviewers
and no contribution to the find and hide counts, but all the other properties of geocaches.
Such a system would not required any new resources at all (in contrast to challenges) and would have appealed to considerably more
people.

I'm sure that something like history caches could have been established in a reasonably well working manner without needing a historical association
supporting the project. I'm sure that for the majority of virtuals already the description tells you whether your expectations will be met.

I do not know for example a single EC where I cannot decide from the description whether or not I like the EC.


Cezanne


If they don't contribute to the find and hidden count they'll be about as popular as waymarks and challenges. I'm good with bringing them back that way.

#25 User is offline   cezanne 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5383
  • Joined: 09-September 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:38 AM

View Postbriansnat, on 05 December 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

If they don't contribute to the find and hidden count they'll be about as popular as waymarks and challenges.


Which yet has to be proved. I certainly agree that all containerless concepts will only appeal to a certain group of geocachers.
Neither Waymarking nor challenges, however, provided a decent offer to that target group.
There also has not been a single attempt to improve on challenges and to listen what those interested suggested. It appeared to me that
after the first days, no one from Groundspeak did even read what was written in the challenge subsection of the forum. They also never came along
with the discovery challenge type announced early on which might have had more potential to appeal those lovers of virtual caches who prefer
logging requirements other than taking photos. (Also Waymarking mainly appeals to the photo taking fans if any visit verification method exists at all.)

I have many ideas for virtuals which are not just the result of pointing to location X and not bothering to hide a container there.
None of them could be set up as waymark or challenge.

There are situations where placing a container is the best solution in my eyes and others where placing a container just distracts from what
is really important. For example, placing a container is a good decision if one just wants to bring people to a nice canyon, but not if you wish
to teach the visitors something about the geology that cannot easily learnt by reading texts from the internet.



Cezanne

#26 User is offline   Johnny Rango 

  • Bona fide member of the Pack
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 70
  • Joined: 12-June 09

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:58 AM

I did one challenge, when I realized they didn't count towards my finds I circular filed them just like I did waymarks.

(rant warning, if you decide to get offended that's your decision, I am just choosing to say what I think for once)

With the cost of gas and the price of everything going up and only so much time to devote; caches and cache runs have to count for me. I understand there are those (very vociferous) cachers who insist on having fewer caches with some sort of wow factor and that is cool for them. For me I enjoy a good power trail as much as I do the "trophy" caches but on my own terms. I certainly don't see why what a few want one way or another should preclude the rest of the group from doing what they would like to do. I enjoy the virtuals and my vote would be to bring them back. But it's been my experience GS only listens to what they want to listen too and logic has little to nothing to do with it.

SFAIK, it really boils down to this, if you don't like power trails then don't cache them, if you don't like virtuals don't cache them. For me, I don't like Challenges and Waymarks and I don't cache them but I don't ask for them to be banned because I think they stink. And I think it should be the same for Virtuals, many of us like them so why should we not be able to have more? And don't use the tired worn out argument of "WOW", "LamePoleLightCaces", and so one. We have all those problems right now with traditionals let alone Earth, Puzzle and other caches. If we can find solutions for those then surely the Lackey's and Management can figure out how solve it for virtuals. If we applied the "WOW" logic to traditionals then we should just ban all traditionals because of the requirements surrounding political, not being asked to respect someone or something (after all we might offend someone and how terrible would that be), no commerce and etc. My point is the criteria is already hugely subjective and varies from one reviewer to another and is often ignored when the reviewer knows the CO personally. We have seen it locally and partiality does exist in the reviewer ranks. With that how do you then make the argument that it's ok for traditionals but not for virtuals? You can't and you shouldn't. There's no logic to it at all. The decision is purely subjective as is most decisions on the part of GS.

The chances of GS actually doing something a large part of the membership wants is null to zero so this is all an effort in futility but I do feel better for having vented.

#27 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9539
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:11 AM

View PostManville Possum Hunters, on 04 December 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?

Wow factor, limit where they may be placed so not to take the place of a real physical geocache. Add a code phrase system similar to what some other geocache listing services offer and limit them to PMO. Allow them to be added/counted as finds. Assign Virtual reviewers similar to GSA with EarthCaches. I like good virtuals. Just my idea, I was fine with Challanges but saw them abused. I wish the faults could have been worked out. I just don't think Challanges replaced Virtuals, but a couple of mine did well. It was fun while it lasted. :laughing:


Some good ideas, although they should never, ever, emulate anything Garmin does. :laughing: I did like the Premium Member's can create them only aspect of the challenges. I myself have suggested dedicated Virtual Reviewer's, although I was generally ridiculed. :lol: Allowing Keywords would be OK, but it's not all it's cracked up to be. Like you, I use alternative sites (but never Garmin's), and just last summer I visited a pretty well-known monument I intended to make a virtual on another site, and darned if I could come up with anything for a code word that couldn't be found on the Internet. And I even wracked my brain for items in the vicinity that could be used for one, and still couldn't come up with any. I ended up just logging the Waymark and the Geocaching Challenge in place there, which will be wiped from existence in 6 days.

#28 User is offline   Packanack 

  • Back in the Day
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1744
  • Joined: 21-December 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:33 AM

View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?

Who cares, just bring em back and charge 50 bucks for a virtual hiders listing fee for 10 virtual cache hide licenses. That will weed em out pretty fast.

#29 User is offline   Packanack 

  • Back in the Day
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1744
  • Joined: 21-December 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:37 AM

View Postbriansnat, on 05 December 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

View PostTeam OPJim, on 04 December 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Instead of the subjective wow factor, how about the simple rule that they can only be placed where a regular geocache cannot? I don't particularly see the value of a virtual at walmart. However, I would like a virtual in a national park, state park, or some similar area. I thoroughly enjoyed geocaching Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. The problem is that only earthcaches can be placed there now, and sometimes it would be nice to have a non-geologic cache.


Problem with that is it significantly reduces our chances of ever getting real caches in those places. We've slowly been making headway with the NPS and other reluctant park systems. The fact that virtuals are off the table helps keep the focus on real caches.



And in NJ , there is currently State Park discussion about going solely over to another type of geolocation gizmoid, whose name may not be spoken of on these forums, and getting rid of containers entirely. Which talk is being promoted by that geolocation game and has caught the ear of some park officials, while we argue the merits of real caches over virtual caches.

#30 User is offline   Straight-Cache-Homey 

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

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:14 AM

I believe the best argument was already made above, ie, if you allow virtuals, you may end up eliminating traditionals from many state/county/town parks as they may require non-container caches only in their parks.

I like virtuals and would like to see them come back in some capacity. I'm sure there's some middle ground somewhere, just not sure where.

I do know one thing, the elimination of challenges will create quite a large virtual buzz for a while now.

#31 User is offline   Don_J 

  • Chatsworth, CA - The view is the treasure!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4994
  • Joined: 08-May 05

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:24 AM

View PostPackanack, on 05 December 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 05 December 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

View PostTeam OPJim, on 04 December 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Instead of the subjective wow factor, how about the simple rule that they can only be placed where a regular geocache cannot? I don't particularly see the value of a virtual at walmart. However, I would like a virtual in a national park, state park, or some similar area. I thoroughly enjoyed geocaching Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. The problem is that only earthcaches can be placed there now, and sometimes it would be nice to have a non-geologic cache.


Problem with that is it significantly reduces our chances of ever getting real caches in those places. We've slowly been making headway with the NPS and other reluctant park systems. The fact that virtuals are off the table helps keep the focus on real caches.



And in NJ , there is currently State Park discussion about going solely over to another type of geolocation gizmoid, whose name may not be spoken of on these forums, and getting rid of containers entirely. Which talk is being promoted by that geolocation game and has caught the ear of some park officials, while we argue the merits of real caches over virtual caches.


You mean that site that Groundspeaks's going to buy to replace Challenges?

Just thinking out loud here...
:unsure:

This post has been edited by Don_J: 05 December 2012 - 11:24 AM


#32 User is offline   ertyu 

  • PONI
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 22-July 03

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:41 AM

Leave them dead.

#33 User is offline   cezanne 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5383
  • Joined: 09-September 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:47 AM

View PostStraight-Cache-Homey, on 05 December 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

I believe the best argument was already made above, ie, if you allow virtuals, you may end up eliminating traditionals from many state/county/town parks as they may require non-container caches only in their parks.


That did not keep Groundspeak from introducing challenges last year. I do not see in which manner something more cache-like (e.g. ownership, unlimited description length, other types than photo challenges) would have changed anything for the acceptance of caches with containers.

Cezanne

#34 User is offline   cezanne 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5383
  • Joined: 09-September 02

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:52 AM

View PostPackanack, on 05 December 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

while we argue the merits of real caches over virtual caches.


It depends on the situation and the goal of a cache. I cannot see any argument that a container adds to the educational value of a cache. Earthcaches are much better suited to teach about geology than are container caches. There are so many other interesting subjects, however, not covered by Earthcaches. Clearly such educational virtuals are not the right choice for those who just want to visit a wow location and not be bothered by anything else, but these people are not the target audience of educational caches and are relatively well served by Waymarking or by caches with a container.


Cezanne

#35 User is offline   Manville Possum Hunters 

  • Sic Semper Tyrannis
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2358
  • Joined: 26-July 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:27 PM

View PostMr.Yuck, on 05 December 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

View PostManville Possum Hunters, on 04 December 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?

Wow factor, limit where they may be placed so not to take the place of a real physical geocache. Add a code phrase system similar to what some other geocache listing services offer and limit them to PMO. Allow them to be added/counted as finds. Assign Virtual reviewers similar to GSA with EarthCaches. I like good virtuals. Just my idea, I was fine with Challanges but saw them abused. I wish the faults could have been worked out. I just don't think Challanges replaced Virtuals, but a couple of mine did well. It was fun while it lasted. :laughing:

I visited a pretty well-known monument I intended to make a virtual on another site, and darned if I could come up with anything for a code word that couldn't be found on the Internet. And I even wracked my brain for items in the vicinity that could be used for one, and still couldn't come up with any. I ended up just logging the Waymark and the Geocaching Challenge in place there, which will be wiped from existence in 6 days.

I use other sites as well, and you are very correct about code phrases. There is where I use the Waymarking site for my listing. I have not listed a EarthCache in some time, it's all about geology now and I'm not very interested in the subject and they seem of little interst that is limited to a small group of geocachers in my area. Same for Virtuals and Waymarks, I just don't think Virtuals will ever be brought back, but yes, a few of us would like them. :)

#36 User is offline   cache_n_out 

  • cache_n_out
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 29-September 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:41 PM

View PostniraD, on 04 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

As soon as Groundspeak figures out a solution to the problems that killed virtual caches in the first place, sure.

Until then, no.



And those problems were?

#37 User is offline   cache_n_out 

  • cache_n_out
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 29-September 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:44 PM

View PostPackanack, on 05 December 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 05 December 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

View PostTeam OPJim, on 04 December 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Instead of the subjective wow factor, how about the simple rule that they can only be placed where a regular geocache cannot? I don't particularly see the value of a virtual at walmart. However, I would like a virtual in a national park, state park, or some similar area. I thoroughly enjoyed geocaching Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. The problem is that only earthcaches can be placed there now, and sometimes it would be nice to have a non-geologic cache.


Problem with that is it significantly reduces our chances of ever getting real caches in those places. We've slowly been making headway with the NPS and other reluctant park systems. The fact that virtuals are off the table helps keep the focus on real caches.



And in NJ , there is currently State Park discussion about going solely over to another type of geolocation gizmoid, whose name may not be spoken of on these forums, and getting rid of containers entirely. Which talk is being promoted by that geolocation game and has caught the ear of some park officials, while we argue the merits of real caches over virtual caches.


I do that other game and I think GC.COM ought to adopt that as an optional logging method.

#38 User is offline   cache_n_out 

  • cache_n_out
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 29-September 08

Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:51 PM

I'm not sure what the previous issues with virtual were: here's some suggestions.

- More reviewers. Waypoints have a whole other group of reviewers to spread out the load. Why not do the same for virtuals?

- Charge a nominal fee. A cache container isn't free. $1-5 per listing seems reasonable - it IS forever. How much would it cost to maintain a actual cache for a few years? Compensate the reviewers from the fund maybe

- Virtual ONLY when a traditional cache is not allowed or impractical. Must have something of interest there - not like waypoints at McDonalds. Lister with have to plead case.

- Allow alternate logging if the pictures of virtuals are chewing up band width. An answer box on the web listing would be easy enough. (why not for traditional caches too?)

OR treat waypoints like caches. Have then show up in PQ, in third party software and on my gps without any extra effort.

#39 User is offline   niraD 

  • rehcacoeG
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6904
  • Joined: 24-January 06

Posted 05 December 2012 - 05:50 PM

View Postcache_n_out, on 05 December 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

View PostniraD, on 04 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

As soon as Groundspeak figures out a solution to the problems that killed virtual caches in the first place, sure.

Until then, no.
And those problems were?
It's déjà vu all over again...

Here you go: What were the issues with virtuals? (according to tozainamboku)

#40 User is online   tozainamboku 

  • geoyokozuna
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7563
  • Joined: 21-February 03

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:30 PM

View PostniraD, on 05 December 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

View Postcache_n_out, on 05 December 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

View PostniraD, on 04 December 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

As soon as Groundspeak figures out a solution to the problems that killed virtual caches in the first place, sure.

Until then, no.
And those problems were?
It's déjà vu all over again...

Here you go: What were the issues with virtuals? (according to tozainamboku)

Here's the video for those who find the post too long to read. ;)

This post has been edited by tozainamboku: 05 December 2012 - 08:30 PM


#41 User is offline   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 06 December 2012 - 04:06 AM

View Postcezanne, on 05 December 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?


Do you really think that the "wow" factor would be needed if virtuals do not contribute to the find and hidden counts?
I never understood why instead of coming up with challenges they had not introduced virtuals with no reviewing by the reviewers
and no contribution to the find and hide counts, but all the other properties of geocaches.
Such a system would not required any new resources at all (in contrast to challenges) and would have appealed to considerably more
people.


I just don't see some sort of virtual cache without any sort of review process at all. Another recent thread is discussing the notion of elected reviewers. Most of the objections to the idea state that the reviewer process is not broken. Since one of the major factor for the demise of new virtuals was from reviewers having to arbitrate whether or not a submission met the "wow" factor, it was pretty clear that they don't want to be put into that position again.

Instead of burdening current reviewers with the task of reviewing virtuals, suppose a new system for reviewers was put in place only for virtual caches. Virtual reviewers could be more anonymous, by using a single account name for all the publish logs. Virtual cache submissions could be reviewed by committee using a voting process (i.e. at least 3 +1 votes required to have it published, only one -1 vote necessary to reject it). Virtual cache reviewers wouldn't require the same skill set as our current reviewers and would only have to consider "virtual cache guidelines" (which would have to be written).

Quote


I'm sure that something like history caches could have been established in a reasonably well working manner without needing a historical association
supporting the project. I'm sure that for the majority of virtuals already the description tells you whether your expectations will be met.

I do not know for example a single EC where I cannot decide from the description whether or not I like the EC.


Cezanne


I've often suggested that one of the reasons that a earth-cache like historical cache type has never been created is because, unlike earth caches, a historical association hasn't stepped up to the plate and proposed historical cache guidelines and volunteer to serve as reviewers to ensure compliance for a history cache submission.

#42 User is offline   DonB 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1417
  • Joined: 31-May 01

Posted 06 December 2012 - 04:07 AM

View Postbriansnat, on 05 December 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

View PostTeam OPJim, on 04 December 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Instead of the subjective wow factor, how about the simple rule that they can only be placed where a regular geocache cannot? I don't particularly see the value of a virtual at walmart. However, I would like a virtual in a national park, state park, or some similar area. I thoroughly enjoyed geocaching Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. The problem is that only earthcaches can be placed there now, and sometimes it would be nice to have a non-geologic cache.


Problem with that is it significantly reduces our chances of ever getting real caches in those places. We've slowly been making headway with the NPS and other reluctant park systems. The fact that virtuals are off the table helps keep the focus on real caches.

I realize that Groundspeak isn't ran on a democratic basis but just because you and TPTB don't like virtuals it doesn't mean that they aren't as important to many cachers as a so called real cache. While traveling the country I have gotten as much pleasure from doing virtuals as any so called real cache. While in the parks in Utah I found the virtuals both interesting and educational, much more then a pill bottle under a bush or a nano stuck on a road sign.

#43 User is offline   AZcachemeister 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 8035
  • Joined: 09-December 02

Posted 06 December 2012 - 04:50 AM

I'm not particularly anxious to see them come back again, but I would think the quality could be increased by limiting the quantity. (Hey, this concept is supposedly working for Favorite Points, eh?)

Regular Account= Sorry, no virt for you...but find all you want.

Premium Member= OK, you may place 1-2 (5?) per calendar year. They may not be PMO caches.

Platinum Member= OK, you may place 5-10 (20?) per calendar year. No more than 5 can be PMO, and only one PtMO.

The only bad side-effect I can see is the glut of Virtuals getting placed around Christmas time as people rush to 'use up' their allotments of Virtuals. :lol:

#44 User is offline   cache_n_out 

  • cache_n_out
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 29-September 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:11 AM

View PostAZcachemeister, on 06 December 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

I'm not particularly anxious to see them come back again, but I would think the quality could be increased by limiting the quantity. (Hey, this concept is supposedly working for Favorite Points, eh?)

Regular Account= Sorry, no virt for you...but find all you want.

Premium Member= OK, you may place 1-2 (5?) per calendar year. They may not be PMO caches.

Platinum Member= OK, you may place 5-10 (20?) per calendar year. No more than 5 can be PMO, and only one PtMO.

The only bad side-effect I can see is the glut of Virtuals getting placed around Christmas time as people rush to 'use up' their allotments of Virtuals. :lol:

platinum member? New level I haven't heard of??

#45 User is offline   cezanne 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5383
  • Joined: 09-September 02

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:32 AM

View PostAZcachemeister, on 06 December 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

I'm not particularly anxious to see them come back again, but I would think the quality could be increased by limiting the quantity. (Hey, this concept is supposedly working for Favorite Points, eh?)

Regular Account= Sorry, no virt for you...but find all you want.

Premium Member= OK, you may place 1-2 (5?) per calendar year. They may not be PMO caches.

Platinum Member= OK, you may place 5-10 (20?) per calendar year. No more than 5 can be PMO, and only one PtMO.


Actually, I do not think that this concept would ensure a high average quality. If virtuals did not count for the find and hide count, but were open to everyone, I'd expect a higher average quality.

The ideas for virtuals I have in mind, would need about 30-50 hours of work per virtual to implement it (and further hours for replying to e-mails by the visitors over the whole life cycle such as in Earthcaches). This is considerably more time than the amount of time invested into the average traditional around here.

I certainly would not be willing to pay to be allowed to invest this amoung of work for others. It is way easier just to be a consumer.
Good quality caches cannot be bought. PM-ship fees and other income sources are certainly of importance to Groundspeak, but the work of cache owners is of the utmost importance.
Setting up caches is a service to other cachers, not a privilege.


Cezanne

#46 User is offline   ZSandmann 

  • I Am eTrex Legend!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 822
  • Joined: 19-June 05

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:28 AM

View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?



View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

View PostTreknschmidt, on 04 December 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 04 December 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

For everybody who wants them back, do they want virtuals back under the "wow factor" rule, or pre "wow factor"?


WoW factor or leave em dead!!!


Do you have any idea how many virtuals were published after the wow factor was introduced? Very few. If they come back under the wow factor, guess what, they in effect won't be back.

But instead of the weekly "bring back virtuals" threads in the forums we'll be back to the weekly "Waaah, the reviewer didn't think my virtual was wow" threads.


Wow factor, but instead of that "wow" being determined by the reviewer I would like to see it done by the community with some sort of thumbs up, thumbs down system like what the Challenges had. If a virtual received a certain number of thumbs downs it would then go to the reviewer. I'm not sure on the particulars but there has to be a way to leverage the community that is finding the virtuals and relieve the strain of reviewers having to decide "wow" on each one.

And in regard to the National Park arguement. I may be in the minority but I don't beleive physical caches need to be in National Parks unless placed and maintained by the rangers. They just ask for too many vacation caches with poor maintenece being left uncared for in the wild. Virtuals and earthcaches more than satisfy my cache craving in NPs along with the occasinal park sanctioned cache.

#47 User is offline   Manville Possum Hunters 

  • Sic Semper Tyrannis
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2358
  • Joined: 26-July 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:09 AM

View Postbriansnat, on 05 December 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

View PostTeam OPJim, on 04 December 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Instead of the subjective wow factor, how about the simple rule that they can only be placed where a regular geocache cannot? I don't particularly see the value of a virtual at walmart. However, I would like a virtual in a national park, state park, or some similar area. I thoroughly enjoyed geocaching Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. The problem is that only earthcaches can be placed there now, and sometimes it would be nice to have a non-geologic cache.


Problem with that is it significantly reduces our chances of ever getting real caches in those places. We've slowly been making headway with the NPS and other reluctant park systems. The fact that virtuals are off the table helps keep the focus on real caches.


That is another reason that I support this site by being a PM. I know that it is in Groundspeaks best interests to keep geocaching as a recreation alive and growing, they can't stay in business without us, and we as geocachers need someone in our corner to speak for us. I think that is Groundspeak. I have permission by permit in some State Parks and I also was permitted to list virtuals on NPS property. I have saw geocaching being more restricted in the last year or so, more permits required. If you are not a PM then you may want to consider what Groundspeak does for you that you may not know about.
If I were Jeremy Irish, and I'm not, I'm just a fan. I would post that all "new" Virtual listings must be submitted to the Waymarking.com site for review, that's where all the new ones are listed now. :)

#48 User is offline   bflentje 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2451
  • Joined: 06-March 05

Posted 06 December 2012 - 10:31 AM

I love finding virtuals but am not in favor of them coming back because I think they'd lose their allure. But if they did, instead of a Wow-Factor, how about a Lame-Factor? In other words, don't put the burden on someone to prove it's wowwiness, but put the burden on them to prove it ain't lame. We'd eliminate virtuals that point out inverted-v-shaped gas pipeline vents but we'd still allow them on every historical marker in the land.

#49 User is offline   nthacker66 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 607
  • Joined: 28-February 08

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:15 AM

View PostManville Possum Hunters, on 06 December 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 05 December 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

View PostTeam OPJim, on 04 December 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

Instead of the subjective wow factor, how about the simple rule that they can only be placed where a regular geocache cannot? I don't particularly see the value of a virtual at walmart. However, I would like a virtual in a national park, state park, or some similar area. I thoroughly enjoyed geocaching Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. The problem is that only earthcaches can be placed there now, and sometimes it would be nice to have a non-geologic cache.


Problem with that is it significantly reduces our chances of ever getting real caches in those places. We've slowly been making headway with the NPS and other reluctant park systems. The fact that virtuals are off the table helps keep the focus on real caches.


That is another reason that I support this site by being a PM. I know that it is in Groundspeaks best interests to keep geocaching as a recreation alive and growing, they can't stay in business without us, and we as geocachers need someone in our corner to speak for us. I think that is Groundspeak. I have permission by permit in some State Parks and I also was permitted to list virtuals on NPS property. I have saw geocaching being more restricted in the last year or so, more permits required. If you are not a PM then you may want to consider what Groundspeak does for you that you may not know about.
If I were Jeremy Irish, and I'm not, I'm just a fan. I would post that all "new" Virtual listings must be submitted to the Waymarking.com site for review, that's where all the new ones are listed now. :)


I have been saying the same things for a long time now - Groundspeak needs t get profesionally involved in promoting this game to state entities. They give me the same canned response every time - "we are just a listing service, its up to the indiidual volunteers in your region to speak to the land managers" - if the individual volunteers do not take the initiative or simply do not know who to seak to or how to speak to these people, then what good is it? At the very least, can Groundspeak not put together a packet of some sort to help land managers understand the game better and how it can benefit them? Seriousy, for being "just a listing service" what is Sandy's job then?

#50 User is offline   The A-Team 

  • Oh snap! ...now in HTML!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4222
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:31 AM

View Postnthacker66, on 06 December 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

I have been saying the same things for a long time now - Groundspeak needs t get profesionally involved in promoting this game to state entities. They give me the same canned response every time - "we are just a listing service, its up to the indiidual volunteers in your region to speak to the land managers" - if the individual volunteers do not take the initiative or simply do not know who to seak to or how to speak to these people, then what good is it?

It's usually regional geocaching organizations that would be negotiating with land managers and other entities, not individual cachers. In your area, this would be the North Carolina Geocachers Organization.

Share this topic:


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