Groundspeak Portal

Our live chat the other night got me thinking about why people aren't visiting waymarks more often. My guess is that one likely reason for the lack of visit activity is that visits don't feel like they are worth anything.

What I mean is that there's nothing to a visit. There's no big challenge in locating the waymark. There's no challenge in claiming a visit. There's really not much that you are doing that the average non-waymarking person isn't doing every single day when they walk by the waymark. So why bother to log it?

(I know that some waymarks have photo requirements, but is it really a requirement? Does anyone actually delete visits when no photo is provided?)

I'm not offering up anything radically new (much of this comes from the old GC.com Virtual  model), but here's what I suggest:

Add an (optional) "answer the question" variable to waymarks, and allow people who visit waymarks whose owners have set up this variable to log a special type of visit that would allow them to provide the answer and get 'credit' for the special visit.

Category officers should get to decide whether or not the 'answer the question' variable will be available for waymarks placed in that category. Owners of waymarks in the categories that allow it would have the option of including the variable to their waymark. Visitors to the waymark would have the option of logging their visit with the extra information, but they'd only get credit for the special type of visit if they were able to provide the right answer.

The question for the 'answer the question' variable should be something that a visitor would have to seek out while at the site of the waymark (something that couldn't be Googled or wouldn't normally be visible in the pictures). Even if the answer was readily available at the site, there would still be the sense of putting some effort into your visit that would make the visit feel like it was more worthwhile and personal.

Such a feature would provide a number of benefits to waymarking:
1) More incentive to visit
2) Gives waymark owners a tool to drive visits to their waymarks
3) Captures some of the feeling of the old virtuals
4) Adds another stat category (waymarks posted, waymarks visited, waymarks solved (or maybe researched to borrow OpinioNate's term)
5) Would help bridge the gap between the 'photos should be required' and the 'photos should be optional' crowds.

There are many, many waymarks in my area. Some I walk or drive by every day. And I have never logged visits on the vast majority of them, because there is nothing special about my visit. But if there was a bit of an extra challenge, and if I could log my visit that way, I know I'd do more visiting.

I really think it would be great to differentiate between the casual 'drive by' visit and something that you had to get out of your car and put some effort into.

What about allowing Travel Bugs and Geocoins to "visit" waymarks?

Another one, what about a system generated notice regarding new waymarks near your home cooridnates (kind of like what is done for geocaching).  Maybe it could even be added to the geocaching website.

cache_test_dummies:

Our live chat the other night got me thinking about why people aren't visiting waymarks more often.

Sorry I missed the chat (live in a different time zone). Some of my waymarks actually get quite a few visits (those in Paris for example).  I think it partly depends on the "attraction" of the site. Some waymarking categories are highly specialized and the pool of potential visitors will probably always be small. For these categories the enjoyment is probably more in creating the waymark than in collecting visits.  Its a bit like acquiring "real estate" wherever you go.

rakeinthecache:

What about allowing Travel Bugs and Geocoins to "visit" waymarks?

While you've made some interesting suggestions, I really intended for this topic to be about my specific suggestion, rather than being a general topic about ways to improve visit activity.

A general suggestion list might be a good idea for another topic, though!

I am wondering about the denisty of waymarkers being part of the issue.  I like the idea of the question.  I know that I have a few hundred waymarks here in town but there are only 2 or 3 geocachers that might look at them.

A question might help.

Perhaps Groundspeak should flag waymarks that are very close to geocaches on the cache page.  (e.g. Alert - Waymark within 100 feet).

KE

This is similar to a request I made awhile back. I suggested there be a Found It log type in addition to a Visited log type. The category managers would decide if their category would allow this new kind of log. To log a Found It they visitor would have to meet specific requirements that could be verified by the waymark owner. Generally this would be a verification question to answer but it could be use for photo requirements as well. Anyone could post a Visited to share a visit to a waymark but to claim a find you would have to do something extra. I agree this would help capture the feel of the old virtuals.

If visits are so low now, why would they go up by making the visitor answering a question. What kind of question would you ask for a neon sign waymark? Visiting should be about enjoying and learning (IMHO)

tozainamboku:

Generally this would be a verification question to answer but it could be use for photo requirements as well.

A photo requirement option is a great idea!

saopaulo1:

If visits are so low now, why would they go up by making the visitor answering a question.

I believe that by providing an incentive (a special log type), people will be more compelled to visit  waymarks. I think the extra bit of effort required to find the answer will appeal to people.

What kind of question would you ask for a neon sign waymark?

First, not all categories would allow the question/answer option on waymarks in that category. Second, adding the question/answer would be at the option of the waymark owner. So only waymark owners who wanted to add a question/answer would do so. If they were motivated enough, I'm sure they could come up with a question.

Visiting should be about enjoying and learning (IMHO)

In it's present form, waymarking is primarily about creating an inventory of places. I enjoy this part of waymarking, and I think many of us do. But there isn't much visiting accompanying the inventory-ing. With the addition of the question/answer option, I think we'd be able to open up some fun opportunities for people who might enjoy a more game-like aspect to visiting our waymarks.

I think there's plenty of room in waymarking for both those who want to learn, and those who want a bit of something else. We just need to add a few tools/options to the current structure to make the 'something else' work, in order to give people an incentive to do more visiting.

Sorry for the negative reply, but I like the visit system how it is.  When I am out and about I don't have much time to spend at locations.  Digging for answers and having to remember or write them down and email them only takes up more time.  It would also increase the time I have to manage my visit logs that are for my own waymarks.  I would just end up disregarding  them.  It would also make me skip the ones that require answers.  Visits from me would dramatically decrease if waymarks started requiring responses. The games categories are the ones that I would expect to have these kinds of systems in place, not regular wayamrks.

 

I say "keep it simple" so that people with very little time can enjoy the game also. 

I would not want to have the question answer to become the norm for few reasons.  With 2700+ waymarks submitted I would not want to have to remember that many answers just for my own waymarks    Many locations do not lend themselves to questions but are great photo oportunities.  I found with the question & answers as used in virtual caches that most people sought out the answers to the questions and did not take in the enjoyment of the site itself.  As for the "added challenge", I think that has limited impact... I never found there to be any challenge in virtual cache questions and answers... many could be answered using a web search if desired except for the totally random questions like "what name is engraved in 3 board from the north end" etc.  (And then the 3rd board gets replaced and there is no engraving at all)

For a few limited waymarks the question and answer format may be appropriate.  I would not view it as a way to increase visits to waymarks though.

coinsandpins:

Sorry for the negative reply, but I like the visit system how it is.  When I am out and about I don't have much time to spend at locations.  Digging for answers and having to remember or write them down and email them only takes up more time.  It would also increase the time I have to manage my visit logs that are for my own waymarks.  I would just end up disregarding  them.  It would also make me skip the ones that require answers.  Visits from me would dramatically decrease if waymarks started requiring responses. The games categories are the ones that I would expect to have these kinds of systems in place, not regular wayamrks.

 

I say "keep it simple" so that people with very little time can enjoy the game also. 

The question/answer feature, if added to a particular waymark, would be completely optional. You could continue to log your visits exactly as you do today, on every waymark you encounter. You could just ignore the question/answer part, and get credit for a visit.

But without answering the question, you wouldn't be able to log the additional 'extra credit' log type.

The idea is to allow both traditional visits and 'answer the question' visits to coexist, even on the same waymark.

I guess I don't agree with "extra credit" log types... you are there or your weren't...  .  All waymarks would have this option which would require everyone to go back and put some kind of question on every waymark and then keep track of this for every waymark.  If this didn't happen there would be another complexity in the game.... waymarks that can be visited and waymarks that can be visited hmmmm.

BruceS:

I guess I don't agree with "extra credit" log types... you are there or your weren't...  .  All waymarks would have this option which would require everyone to go back and put some kind of question on every waymark and then keep track of this for every waymark.  If this didn't happen there would be another complexity in the game.... waymarks that can be visited and waymarks that can be visited hmmmm.

What I am suggestion is the addition of another, additional logging option which would be available as a posting type on some waymarks (only those whose owners had set the waymark up that way would have them). Right now, when you post a log on a waymark, you have two options: 'Visited' and 'Write Note'. I'm talking about another option, like 'Found It' (tozainamboku's suggestion), or 'Researched' or 'Answered' or something - I don't know what the best word would be.

You wouldn't have to go back and log anything on the waymarks you had already visited - nothing about your prior visits would change. Your old visit logs would still be there. But you would have the option, on waymarks that supported it, to go back again and add a second 'Answered' log as long as you were able to provide the answer to the question. If you did so, you'd have both a 'Visited' stat and an 'Answered' stat for that particular waymark.

cache_test_dummies:

You wouldn't have to go back and log anything on the waymarks you had already visited - nothing about your prior visits would change. Your old visit logs would still be there. But you would have the option, on waymarks that supported it, to go back again and add a second 'Answered' log as long as you were able to provide the answer to the question. If you did so, you'd have both a 'Visited' stat and an 'Answered' stat for that particular waymark.

I was not referring to the old visit logs being modified.  I was referring to previously submitted waymarks... implementing this would require all previous waymarks to be updated with some question.  I understand that you will say that this will not be required... however if it is not done it will cause even greater confusion as some waymarks will be "only" be able to be visited and other will have some other option which will still mean that the person visited the location.   From what I have seen in the forums the number one "complaint" from newcomers is how confusing waymarking is... do we need to add to this confusion?

Answering some question does not seem to increase the  number of visits... if  it did then  the Best Kept Secrets waymarks would have substantial visit numbers however this is not the case.

If the visit requirements are to take a photo and the other option is to answer some question, what do you propose when a person answers the question but does not post the picture?   (I guess they didn't visit thus they couldn't do the research?)

Maybe the problem is that there isnt a generalized requirement for logging a visit. It's hard enough to remember 100 plus requirements for posting a waymark, let alone visiting one.

BruceS:

From what I have seen in the forums the number one "complaint" from newcomers is how confusing waymarking is... do we need to add to this confusion?

Implemented correctly, I don't think it would add any confusion. In any case, I don't see lots of  reports of confusion about the waymark logging process, I think the confusion comes from elsewhere, like waymark filtering and category creation.

Answering some question does not seem to increase the  number of visits... if  it did then  the Best Kept Secrets waymarks would have substantial visit numbers however this is not the case.

The benefit to the finder is not just having a question to answer. The benefit is in answering a question in order to be able to post a special type of log. I think in its present form, waymarking completely lacks any form of incentive to motivate people in general to go to previously waymarked spots - its more about creating inventories of places, and I think the 'fun' part of the Best Kept Secrets category is somehwat lost in that form.

The question/answer special log feature would add a new dimension to waymarking that would create a more game-like atmosphere that would co-exist with the current model. I think it would create opportunities for people to enjoy it in a different way than most people do today.

If the visit requirements are to take a photo and the other option is to answer some question, what do you propose when a person answers the question but does not post the picture?   (I guess they didn't visit thus they couldn't do the research?)

The intent would be for the two log types to operate independently of each other on the same waymark. If someone wants to post a Visit log type, they'd have to meet the visit log requirements (photo, in your example). If they wanted to also (or instead) answer the question, they could log an 'Answer' log type, and submit the answer. As I mentioned before, this would also help bridge the gap between the 'photo required' and 'photo shouldn't be required' positions.

Bruce, I'm sure there are plenty of issues to work through with my proposal. But I really believe we need to implement some type of feature set that will get people, in larger numbers, participating in the visiting part of waymarking. Right now waymarking is very much a 'placers only' hobby, and I think it could be so much more. I see my idea as a way to get there.

saopaulo1:

Maybe the problem is that there isnt a generalized requirement for logging a visit. It's hard enough to remember 100 plus requirements for posting a waymark, let alone visiting one.

I don't doubt that there may be more than one reason that people in general don't bother to visit waymarks. My suggestion is to address what I see as being the main one: lack of incentive.

It gets back to the question I asked in my original post: why bother to log a visit to a waymark? The way it works today, with few exceptions (i.e. Best Kept Secrets) there's nothing to a visit. There's nothing to accomplish. There's no big challenge in locating the waymark, in most cases you don't even need a GPSr. There's no challenge in claiming a visit. As I said, there's really not much that you are doing that the average non-waymarking person isn't doing every single day when they walk by the waymark.

I believe that the question/answer and special log type feature would provide enough incentive to get more people out to the waymarks.

What kind of question are you going to ask about a McDonalds or a post office?  Something like "How many windows at the post office?" would not entice me to visit it. There's already a handy link on geocaching that allows you to see all the nearby waymarks.

saopaulo1:

What kind of question are you going to ask about a McDonalds or a post office?  Something like "How many windows at the post office?" would not entice me to visit it.

Again, it's not the specific question that's the motivator. It's the ability to do something extra in order to record a special type of log. The question itself wouldn't necessarily be meant to increase your appreciation for the the waymark (although I think many waymark owners would see to do it that way), but would rather serve a special extra task that needed to be performed in order to be able to get credit for the special log type.

Not being one myself, I don't know how many McDonald's waymark owners would even want to add the question/answer option to their waymarks, so I don't know if that's a good example or not. But I have seen some rather interesting post offices in my life, and can imagine any number of creative questions to ask.

cache_test_dummies:

saopaulo1:

What kind of question are you going to ask about a McDonalds or a post office?  Something like "How many windows at the post office?" would not entice me to visit it.

Again, it's not the specific question that's the motivator. It's the ability to do something extra in order to record a special type of log. The question itself wouldn't necessarily be meant to increase your appreciation for the the waymark (although I think many waymark owners would see to do it that way), but would rather serve a special extra task that needed to be performed in order to be able to get credit for the special log type.

Not being one myself, I don't know how many McDonald's waymark owners would even want to add the question/answer option to their waymarks, so I don't know if that's a good example or not. But I have seen some rather interesting post offices in my life, and can imagine any number of creative questions to ask.

I've incorporated some of my waymarks as stages in multiple stage geocaches.

cache_test_dummies:

I don't doubt that there may be more than one reason that people in general don't bother to visit waymarks. My suggestion is to address what I see as being the main one: lack of incentive.

It gets back to the question I asked in my original post: why bother to log a visit to a waymark? The way it works today, with few exceptions (i.e. Best Kept Secrets) there's nothing to a visit. There's nothing to accomplish. There's no big challenge in locating the waymark, in most cases you don't even need a GPSr. There's no challenge in claiming a visit. As I said, there's really not much that you are doing that the average non-waymarking person isn't doing every single day when they walk by the waymark.

I believe that the question/answer and special log type feature would provide enough incentive to get more people out to the waymarks.

What I'm seeing is that most categories are simply informational tools to allow you to find what you want to find.  If you like historic buildings, you can find them.  If you're into historic markers, you can find them.  If you have to have your Starbucks, you can find it.  There really is no reason to mark a 'visit' log.  Maybe just a note or a comment on the place, but why log a visit?  Already I just post note logs because of the gps'r picture requirement.  Make the general requirements more difficult and you'll get even less visits.

That being said, there are a handful of categories that are games in and of themselves. There's a reason to log a visit log on a Best Kept Secret, you found the Best Kept Secret.  Perhaps if you want visits, you'd have to design a category that presents a challenge to log a visit, not just a challenge to post a waymark.  Right now most of the challenge lies in making the waymark, and that's what people are doing.

JimmyEv:

What I'm seeing is that most categories are simply informational tools to allow you to find what you want to find.  If you like historic buildings, you can find them.  If you're into historic markers, you can find them.  If you have to have your Starbucks, you can find it.  There really is no reason to mark a 'visit' log.  Maybe just a note or a comment on the place, but why log a visit?

I agree. And this is why I am suggesting a feature that would give waymark owners a way do something different that might get more people to visit their waymarks.

Make the general requirements more difficult and you'll get even less visits.

My suggestion does not make the general requirements more difficult. It provides for an optional  additional log type for those who are motivated to take on the small extra challenge.

If you made a new type of visit that would mean that people would have to go back and make questions for everything.