Jump to content


Photo

Vote to bring back virtual caches!


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 ggmorton

ggmorton

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • LocationMissouri City, TX

Posted 30 June 2010 - 01:29 PM

While  messing around on the waymaking site the other day, I noticed that you had made a sizable contribution to some good categories.  It made me think about starting to find them.


I had marked the most Texas Historical markers in the category a while back. I'm not sure if I am still at the top. I know a lot of people are marking new ones all of the time.

History got me interested in waymarking in the beginning. I still try to stop, mark, and take pictures of the Texas markers when feasible, but I am not as obsessed with it as I once was. :) I know I have a backlog of pictures / coordinates that I'm not sure if I will ever get around to posting.

Posted Image

#22 HoustonControl

HoustonControl

    Charter Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,944 posts
  • LocationBaytown

Posted 30 June 2010 - 02:13 PM

I'm on the review board for the Waymarking Category of Space Flight Memorials and Exhibits, along with Thot and John Charles.  I've helped approve lots of waymarks to that category, yet I've only logged one waymark in my life.  I think (because of my caching name) they thought I was somehow associated with NASA when they asked me to participate -- LOL.

BTW, I noticed there is also a vote on the GC feedback page entitled "Don't bring back virtual caches".  ;D
img.aspx?txt=What+in+the+Hell?&uid=1dd8c

#23 agtitan

agtitan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • LocationAtascocita, TX

Posted 01 July 2010 - 07:33 PM

To address the problem of people making virtual caches at McDonalds or other questionable locations, they could implement something like you have to have at least 500 cache finds to place a virtual...and in order to place one virtual, you must have at least 10 virtual cache finds, and you can only place one virtual cache for every 25 other cache types you've placed.

#24 Muddy Buddies

Muddy Buddies

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,390 posts
  • LocationAlief

Posted 02 July 2010 - 06:24 AM

To address the problem of people making virtual caches at McDonalds or other questionable locations, they could implement something like you have to have at least 500 cache finds to place a virtual...and in order to place one virtual, you must have at least 10 virtual cache finds, and you can only place one virtual cache for every 25 other cache types you've placed.


Something like that probably would help out with the problem, but it would be sort of a pain for the reviewers to have to look up a person's stats before they could approve a cache.  Thinking outside of the box like this though is probably what needs to happen to come up with an idea that takes care of quality, if they were brought back. 
Posted Image

#25 agtitan

agtitan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • LocationAtascocita, TX

Posted 02 July 2010 - 08:08 PM


To address the problem of people making virtual caches at McDonalds or other questionable locations, they could implement something like you have to have at least 500 cache finds to place a virtual...and in order to place one virtual, you must have at least 10 virtual cache finds, and you can only place one virtual cache for every 25 other cache types you've placed.


Something like that probably would help out with the problem, but it would be sort of a pain for the reviewers to have to look up a person's stats before they could approve a cache.  Thinking outside of the box like this though is probably what needs to happen to come up with an idea that takes care of quality, if they were brought back.


I was thinking it could be more of an automated process...the system will know people's stat's so it simply won't let some one submit one if they don't meet the requirements.  Then again, a lot of the cache publishing guidelines could be approved or rejected automatically...i guess it is just a matter of them programming it into the approval process.

#26 TravelingGeek

TravelingGeek

    TravelingGeek

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,486 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:42 PM

OK, lets compromise.... Allow victuals where traditionals are not allowed by NON-COMMERCIAL land managers or other rules of cache placement.

I think that lets in national monuments and parks and airports but leaves out the McDonalds and Starbucks.  Maybe up the minimum distance to two miles.... Those would be easy rules to enforce (thus reducing the review burden) yet would give a good result, I think.
Posted Image

#27 OneStepCloser

OneStepCloser

    TeamOSC

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,008 posts
  • LocationHouston and Chicago

Posted 08 July 2010 - 04:29 AM

OK, lets compromise.... Allow victuals where traditionals are not allowed by NON-COMMERCIAL land managers or other rules of cache placement.

I think that lets in national monuments and parks and airports but leaves out the McDonalds and Starbucks.  Maybe up the minimum distance to two miles.... Those would be easy rules to enforce (thus reducing the review burden) yet would give a good result, I think.


Not liking the non-commercial part.  We have several in pocket parks in business areas that should be virtuals but they would fail your test.  Also, the two mile rule would kill two of the three (Emily Morgan/Faith, Charity & Hope, R U TXN)

No, bring them back with more stringent review rules....even if it means providing pictures to the reviewer of the area and justification of why you think it's a spot for a virtual.

GC should quit penalizing the community for their own shortsightedness and shortcomings.  >:(

Posted Image

Lead By Example.

Hide Great Caches in Great Locations!

Just Say NO to Cut-n-Paste!

Friends don't let friends mark coords with iPhones. Be kind, use a GPSr.


#28 agtitan

agtitan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • LocationAtascocita, TX

Posted 08 July 2010 - 08:35 AM


OK, lets compromise.... Allow victuals where traditionals are not allowed by NON-COMMERCIAL land managers or other rules of cache placement.

I think that lets in national monuments and parks and airports but leaves out the McDonalds and Starbucks.  Maybe up the minimum distance to two miles.... Those would be easy rules to enforce (thus reducing the review burden) yet would give a good result, I think.


Not liking the non-commercial part.  We have several in pocket parks in business areas that should be virtuals but they would fail your test.  Also, the two mile rule would kill two of the three (Emily Morgan/Faith, Charity & Hope, R U TXN)

No, bring them back with more stringent review rules....even if it means providing pictures to the reviewer of the area and justification of why you think it's a spot for a virtual.

GC should quit penalizing the community for their own shortsightedness and shortcomings.  >:(


I did those 3 caches a couple weeks ago.. They were AWESOME!!  But I agree, a virtual would be more fitting for those areas.

#29 teamCull

teamCull

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 27 July 2010 - 01:24 PM

I'm not really in favor of bringing back virtuals.  I have found over 135 of them and to be honest, some of them were really lame.  The only requirement for a couple was just to go to the site and you could log it as a find.  Perhaps there could be some firm restrictions or even have them as categories.  Earthcaches are a find example.  They must have some geological purpose before they are allowed.  Maybe they could comprise new categories like a Histo-cache (a history virtual), where you would have to learn something historical.  I am just afraid that if virtuals returned, willy nilly, there would be a flood of new virtuals that do nothing but give someone a smiley.

#30 agtitan

agtitan

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • LocationAtascocita, TX

Posted 25 September 2010 - 12:54 PM

Virtuals are coming back folks!  The details haven't been announced, but Jeremy said  "we have been discussing this in-house and plan to work on a solution that should support those interested in virtuals and not upset those who don't want them back."

http://feedback.geoc....geocaching.com

#31 Nov64

Nov64

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,395 posts
  • LocationWillis, Texas

Posted 25 September 2010 - 01:03 PM

Virtuals are coming back folks!  The details haven't been announced, but Jeremy said  "we have been discussing this in-house and plan to work on a solution that should support those interested in virtuals and not upset those who don't want them back."

http://feedback.geoc....geocaching.com


YEA O0
Posted Image

#32 Maxwell's Hammer

Maxwell's Hammer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 168 posts
  • LocationHouston, Texas

Posted 25 September 2010 - 02:31 PM

Hooray!  I love virtuals, and look forward to getting my first one published.  ::)

#33 Muddy Buddies

Muddy Buddies

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,390 posts
  • LocationAlief

Posted 27 September 2010 - 06:44 AM

Virtuals are coming back folks!  The details haven't been announced, but Jeremy said  "we have been discussing this in-house and plan to work on a solution that should support those interested in virtuals and not upset those who don't want them back."

http://feedback.geoc....geocaching.com


I wonder if it means that they will be putting back virtuals but keeping them on a separate site like waymarking.  We did a a ton of virtuals and earthcaches in Yellowstone NP because that was all that was allowed, and we were glad to have them as an option.  However, both the virtuals and earthcaches really took a long time to log because of all of the extra email requirements.  The logging was the part that we didn't enjoy. 
Posted Image

#34 OneStepCloser

OneStepCloser

    TeamOSC

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,008 posts
  • LocationHouston and Chicago

Posted 27 September 2010 - 11:07 AM

They ought to bring them back the way they were instead of trying to port them over to Waymarking.  Waymarking is a mess with their less stringent listing requirements....aside from the fact that they really are mostly Locationless and as most know a Locationless cache did not a Virtual make.

No, they ought to bring them back As Is and force more stringent listing requirements much like Earthcaches.  They're worth it and it'll weed out the lame ones.

Also, they should NOT under any circumstances limit people by the number of finds as this would negate people who live in more remote places from meeting requirements.  Some people on the feedback site mentioned having a time limit like three or six months which seems the most reasonable way to weed out the casual one-and-done iPhone/Android/Gadget cachers.  (And by that we mean the ones who get the app and try it, and with limited experience hide a cache that has....issues.)

Posted Image

Lead By Example.

Hide Great Caches in Great Locations!

Just Say NO to Cut-n-Paste!

Friends don't let friends mark coords with iPhones. Be kind, use a GPSr.


#35 jimjoandcourt

jimjoandcourt

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • LocationLeague City, TX

Posted 27 September 2010 - 12:39 PM

Sweet!  I just hope people who make new ones make the logging requirements stringent enough to actually require people to visit the site.  Too much armchair logging goes on now which may be the very reason that virtuals disappeared to begin with...

#36 Mr Muddy Buddy

Mr Muddy Buddy

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,197 posts
  • LocationThe Middle of Nowhere, in the Great State of Confusion

Posted 27 September 2010 - 05:04 PM

Also, I think the quality of virtuals was going downhill.
We did a few out in Utah along IH-80, that were pretty lame.  The title on the cache page leads you to believe it was a film set for a movie....
When we get there, it's just a regular old gas station. 

Sweet!  I just hope people who make new ones make the logging requirements stringent enough to actually require people to visit the site.  Too much armchair logging goes on now which may be the very reason that virtuals disappeared to begin with...


Posted Image

#37 Kirbydox

Kirbydox

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 731 posts
  • LocationWest Houston

Posted 23 July 2011 - 10:39 AM

I couldn't find the other thread about bringing back virtuals so I'm posting this here. I was cruising the forums and found this posted by Jeremy:

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

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

Some points:

It will be on Geocaching.com, not a new web site. It will be a separate section in the beta, but I expect it to be integrated into a joined search at some point.

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

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



For those who want to read the entire thread, you can find it here:
http://forums.ground...ic=269023&st=50


#38 HoustonControl

HoustonControl

    Charter Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,944 posts
  • LocationBaytown

Posted 23 July 2011 - 11:59 AM

Sounds like the Groundspeak version of Munzee.  Hmmmmm.... :o
img.aspx?txt=What+in+the+Hell?&uid=1dd8c

#39 kianlo

kianlo

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 687 posts
  • LocationSugar Land

Posted 12 September 2011 - 12:29 PM

Just found this old thread which seems to say to me, the challenges are the new virtuals.  Yes, many of you already figured that out.  IF that is the case, I'd have to say, we've gotten all of the bad that was anticipated and very little, if any, of the good that was desired by those that wanted virtuals back.

How to fix it?  I'd vote for virtuals as they were with a review process.  I've like ALMOST all the virtuals I've done but can think of a few that are pretty worthless, Big Mega House (near Pearland), or whatever it's called comes to mind.

#40 OneStepCloser

OneStepCloser

    TeamOSC

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,008 posts
  • LocationHouston and Chicago

Posted 13 September 2011 - 03:54 AM

I couldn't find the other thread about bringing back virtuals so I'm posting this here. I was cruising the forums and found this posted by Jeremy:

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


He's a perfect candidate for Washington....

On the site where it said "Bring Back Virtuals"  It said, first, "Planned" and then something like "In Progress"  and not ONCE did it say, "Oh, and by the way?  We don't really mean it like it used to be, but rather, this new fangled thingy that'll surely be a 6 for a 9"

What a joke.


Posted Image

Lead By Example.

Hide Great Caches in Great Locations!

Just Say NO to Cut-n-Paste!

Friends don't let friends mark coords with iPhones. Be kind, use a GPSr.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users