Groundspeak Portal

"Bring back virtuals!" is the subject of one of the regularly started topics over in the Geocaching forums. Each time someone starts such a topic, a standard pattern of discussion follows. Normally a link to the Waymarking site is added within the first couple of responses to the new topic, followed by a pattern of posts by those critical of waymarking and those who defend it.

While some of the issues raised by critics have merit (lack of PQs, lack of integration with the Geocaching site, confusion regarding operation and navigation), there is another class of criticisms that I believe unfairly characterize Waymarking. These criticisms seem to be more emotional in nature and are frequently based on misunderstanding. They also seem nearly impossible to overcome with logical arguments, despite repeated attempts by many people to do so. Examples of the second class of criticisms include:

• Waymarking is all about McDonalds
• Virtuals used to bring me to interesting places, there is nothing interesting on the Waymarking site
• Nobody visits Waymarks
• Waymarking sucks!

In the past, I used to defend Waymarking - both the site and the philosophical nature of the activity - when these topics would get started on the Geocaching site. But after some time, I came to believe that such efforts were wasted. No matter what explanations were given, no matter how carefully the story of Virtuals, Locationless Caches, and the evolution of Waymarking is explained, critics continue to raise the same issues over and over again.

This month's version of the "Bring back virtuals" topic seems to be carrying on a bit longer than some of the others have. TheBeanTeam, Dinoprophet, tozainamboku and a few other supporters of Waymarking are once again doing a fine job of explaining Waymarking and working to overcome the objections of the critics.

But having seen dozens of these topics, I have to wonder if it makes sense to try to defend Waymarking to what could arguably be characterized as a 'hostile crowd'. Members of Groundspeak's Waymarking staff don't even normally participate in those discussions.

I certainly don't object to anyone participating in those discussions - in fact, I like to see it. I suppose there is some general value in defending and discussing Waymarking in the Geocaching forms. But I really wonder, in the long run, how much of a positive impact we'll ever have in those discussions.

Well, I have had my doubts about waymarking for about the past year and even more so during the last few months - so the anti-waymarking crowd is not completely wrong.

I have noticed the proposed ideas have been more towards providing a service.  I always envisioned using waymarking to add to my To-Do list when I visit someplace.

Say for instance I want to visit the Quad Cities area of Iowa and Illinois.  I just typed in the zip code for Moline and now I can find all the John Deere history stuff I want as provided by our intrepid S10.

Visit... Visit... Visit!  That is what I look at when I vote.  Will it be interesting to visit, and that is what the anti-waymarkers (or are they pro-Virtuals?) are calling for.

I don't go to the GC.com forums. If I did, I would defend to the end.

Many of the "lamer" waymarking categories seem to have roots in geocaching.

For example, The "Always" series, you can go to a wal-mart and get a smiley, but you don't know anything about hours, type of store, etc. They aren't even allowed to say the word Wal-Mart. With a Wal-Mart waymark you actually get valuable information. I was once driving across Missouri. I absolutely HAD to have a new CD to listen to. The Wal-marts along I-40 didn't have highway signs, and all seemed to be on the West side of the exit, so I couldn't see them until I was past. If it were today, I could pull up the info on my Blackberry.

I can think of about 20 commericial geocaching series that are better on waymarking.

And thats just the bottom of the barrell.

The cream of the crop is the veterans memorials (IMHO).

If TheBeanTeam, Dinoprophet, tozainamboku and others are doing a fine job, then let 'em and more power to 'em!

The GC forums are full of posts that follow this general pattern: "I don't like -this- so -this- should be banned/eliminated/wiped from the face of the earth".

Usually this is followed by a chorus of "if you don't like it, ignore it".

And I'm applying that strategy to the actual forum posts. I just ignore those posts or replies where someone says that micros should be banned, and those posts that denigrate waymarking.

I have fun with it. I have fun with micros. Those other people apparently have fun griping and trying to eliminate stuff they don't like.

Don't feel like you need to defend waymarking. But feel free to defend it if you want to. Don't expect to change anyone's mind. You can show support by saying you like waymarking. Better yet, just show your support by continuing to play!

gt.us:

I was once driving across Missouri. I absolutely HAD to have a new CD to listen to. The Wal-marts along I-40 didn't have highway signs, and all seemed to be on the West side of the exit, so I couldn't see them until I was past. (IMHO).

The problem is that you were lost if you were on I-40 and thought you were in Missouri You were really in Arkansas and didn't know if if you were on  I-40. 

But back on topic.  I used to respond to the threads over in the other forums but have found it always the same respondents on each side.  The same people come in with same responses.   The ones that I do occasionally respond to are those that say the only thing in their area are fast food waymarks.   I then usually take the location of their first placed cache (usually a good indicator of where they live) and check what is really in the area and then respond with statistics usually showing that less than 10% are really at fast food or commercial locations and usually it is about 35% that are historical etc.

cache_test_dummies:

"Bring back virtuals!"

  I have noticed that most who call for this are users who cam into caching after virtuals had run their course. They see the cool ghost icon and want one for themselves.

cache_test_dummies:

While some of the issues raised by critics have merit (lack of PQs, lack of integration with the Geocaching site, confusion regarding operation and navigation)....

There have been a few good point made. I too think the site is cluttered. PQ's don't bother me. Stacking waymarks at a multiple location should be a priority. When people see the same thing on a search page over and over it just gets overwhelming.

cache_test_dummies:

.....there is another class of criticisms that I believe unfairly characterize Waymarking. These criticisms seem to be more emotional in nature and are frequently based on misunderstanding. They also seem nearly impossible to overcome with logical arguments, despite repeated attempts by many people to do so.

Boy that is the truth. It is the misunderstanding and false statements that really bother me. I could care less if someone likes Waymarking or not but don't misrepresent it.

cache_test_dummies:

In the past, I used to defend Waymarking .... But after some time, I came to believe that such efforts were wasted. No matter what explanations were given, no matter how carefully the story of Virtuals, Locationless Caches, and the evolution of Waymarking is explained, critics continue to raise the same issues over and over again.........But having seen dozens of these topics, I have to wonder if it makes sense to try to defend Waymarking to what could arguably be characterized as a 'hostile crowd'.

I have seen this as well and have stayed clear of most of these discussions. After I got into this one I thought "is this even worth it?  It is obvious that some just like to argue.

cache_test_dummies:

I certainly don't object to anyone participating in those discussions - in fact, I like to see it. I suppose there is some general value in defending and discussing Waymarking in the Geocaching forms. But I really wonder, in the long run, how much of a positive impact we'll ever have in those discussions.

I wonder too. Hopefully some newer cacher will see through the sillyness and make up their own mind. I guess if none of us bothered to poke our nose in ever so often they would run off unchecked with no one to balance the discussion. Maybe we are doing a service by providing a balance.

BruceS:

   I then usually take the location of their first placed cache (usually a good indicator of where they live) and check what is really in the area and then respond with statistics usually showing that less than 10% are really at fast food or commercial locations and usually it is about 35% that are historical etc.

Can you give me some percentages for this area.  I am still arguing the point over there.

BruceS:

The problem is that you were lost if you were on I-40 and thought you were in Missouri You were really in Arkansas and didn't know if if you were on  I-40. 

It was probably I-70. All those even numbered highways blur together into one big 'visor down". Except, of course, Route 66, which is always standout and memorable, and the sun never gets in my eyes there.

but, if they really wanted the ghost icon, they would go find one before it disappears....they seem to be dropping like flies.....

the trick would be to get one of those snazzy LC icons .

if they cant learn to look past McDs, then just let them continue to sit in the drivethru....

how about this stat bruce: how many 'chain places' do NOT have a 'historical item' [NRHP, Historic Marker, cemetery, etc] within 'viewing distance' [.1 mi?] from the parking lot.

arent we coming up on more 'active' waymarks than 'active' geocaches?

what about these stats:
waymarkers with 5,000+ posts?
4,000+
3,000+
2,500+
1,000+
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
50?

and visits (both combined and to those posted by others)?

what about a nice scatter plot, with an average, for account creation (date first mark posted or visited) and stat #s.....

gt.us:

BruceS:

The problem is that you were lost if you were on I-40 and thought you were in Missouri You were really in Arkansas and didn't know if if you were on  I-40. 

It was probably I-70. All those even numbered highways blur together into one big 'visor down". Except, of course, Route 66, which is always standout and memorable, and the sun never gets in my eyes there.

I knew what you meant... I was just messing with you.... The excitement of driving on I-70 would drive the best of us to memory loss

chapterhouseinc:

arent we coming up on more 'active' waymarks than 'active' geocaches?

The issue for the other side is regarding visits so comparing raw numbers is not a reasonable argument.  One geocache (even the most difficult ones) can generate a lot of visits, but very few waymarks garner multiple visits. 

I could post 20 or more new waymarks per day if I wanted to, but it doesn't mean anybody will want to visit them.

To make matters worse, we have locationless waymarks.  My most visited waymark is in the Photo Goal category.

 

TheBeanTeam:

BruceS:

   I then usually take the location of their first placed cache (usually a good indicator of where they live) and check what is really in the area and then respond with statistics usually showing that less than 10% are really at fast food or commercial locations and usually it is about 35% that are historical etc.

Can you give me some percentages for this area.  I am still arguing the point over there.

This area is a little higher in businesses than most areas. (Which is the case in many areas of California for some reason )

But here are the stats for a 50 mile radius.

Total Waymarks	1541
Business	270	18%
Culture	223	14%
Technology	204	13%
History	200	13%
Monuments	119	8%
Buildings	109	7%
Structures	98	6%

The other 21% are spread across there remaining 8 departments

Until Groundspeak decides to have a merged statistics aspect to your Groundspeak account, people will continue to view it as their "Geocaching Account".

Groundspeak has a long standing stance of "the numbers don't matter", and that is fine. Trouble is that most players like seeing their numbers and seeing them grow. I still think that:

GC: 2085/101 WM: 1682/915 WC: 3/0

Would be more enjoyable. Of course, with pretty icons

BQ

I haven't been on the Waymarking forums in awhile, but I got a nice note from cache_test_dummies letting me know you can log a visit more than once now (though it only counts one in your stats). I thought I come over here and give my thoughts.

I sometimes feel I am arguing with both sides. In the thread on the geocaching forums, TheBeanTeam mentioned trying to put a optional verification question on one of his categories and had one person threaten to quite the group because "waymarking is not geocaching" and didn't think it was right to try to integrate them. I'm bothered by such a narrow view of waymarking.

One reason that new virtual caches are not accepted on Geoaching.com is because it became increasing hard to define the guidelines for a virtual cache. People made every sign or marker a virtual cache, so the "wow" requirement was added to limit virtuals to novel locations with special interest to geocachers. People submitted virtual caches without any verification, so that requirement was strengthened. People allowed armchair logs, the guidelines were changed to emphasize you must visit the site.And every time the guidelines changed, people complained that the reviewers were unfairly denying the cache. I suspect the reviewers saw quite a lot of submission that frankly were the equivalent of the McDonalds category. Was there really a need to list every historic marker as a geocache? Many people had a favorite location to share. Either they couldn't or they didn't want to hide a physical cache so they submitted it as a virtual. But in reality there was no virtual geocache to find only the "waymark" they wanted you to visit.

Waymarking was setup to give the power of what is a waymark to the community. Each of you who belong to a group that manages a category has the responsibility now of defining what is a waymark in your category.

Most categories are simply lists of locations in that category. And perhaps that is how it should be. These categories are simple to understand. Unless you have a lot of category variables that someone needs to provide, submitting a waymark is simple and straight forward. They get reviewed quickly and are either published or denied. Vistors generally have to do no more than submit a photo - often that isn't required.

But why can't some categories be more. To some who want to bring back virtual caches, the whole idea was to go to a location, find an object, and answer some questions about the object that could only be answered by a visitor. Or if that wasn't possible, you might be asked to take a picture with your GPSr in it to prove you were there. Why not have few categories that are specifically set up to work this way. Then people who miss virtual caches could be directed to these categories.

Furthermore these categories could have other requirement to emphasize what people say they miss in virtual caches. You could have mysteries where the description doesn't give away what you would find. You could have an educational component where the visit to the site must teach about history, geology, or other subject. If a group wanted to take a stab at defining "wow" they could try a definition for that as well. This is what I tried with Best Kept Secrets. But I really had expected to see a few more categories like that.

I also noticed that the Waymarking Games department has been replaced by Waymarking Multifarious. I wasn't here for that discussion. I'm a little concerned because Multifarious sound a bit like miscellaneous. It looks like a catchall for categories that don't fit elsewhere. I kinda liked Games, because I could identify this idea of a virtual cache like category as a game to play that lacked some of the seriousness of a category whose purpose was to make a list of things. I suppose it doesn't matter too much, except that it might be an easier sell to some waymarkers if the categories with verification requirements were called games.

I've been geocaching for 2 years and 11 months. Been Waymarking for 2 days.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time I am under the impression that locationless caches were archived at the same time Virtuals were grandfathered.

I think the negative perception of Waymarking stems from the angst felt after Virtuals were grandfathered. In my experience, cachers don't trumpet for the return of locationless caches as much as virtuals. I hear "Bring back the Virtuals" far more than I ever hear "Bring back the Locationless caches". I was once in a conversation with someone who was trumpeting for the return of virtuals and I said "I wish they'd bring back locationless caches so I could get one". He said "Oh thats never gunna happen" and gave me a look like I was being naiive. However when I said that they'd never bring back virtuals, he seemed convinced that it was a possibility. Why is this?

Here's what I think the issue is. Groundspeak made a BIG mistake by grandfathering Virtuals instead of just archiving them all like they did with locationless caches. With locationless caches, Groundspeak slammed the door shut on them. With virtuals, Groundspeak hardly slammed the door shut. Instead they are carefully closing the door at an agonizingly slow pace. As long as the door is ajar, cachers will be convinced that the door can be swung back open and the closer the door gets to being closed, the more cachers will fight for that cause. One of the tactics that cachers have developed to try to get the door back open is to try and show groundspeak that their idea of Waymarking was a bad idea. The cachers that put down Waymarking are doing so blindly (as the four examples the OP listed clearly show). In the door analogy, you can't convince someone to try to use door B (waymarking) when they are fightening to keep door A (virtuals) open. Wether door B is better or not, they'll blindy say "I don't want to use door B, I want to use door A"! The more engrained they are in one option the less likely they'll be willing to try a new option. It's just human nature.

In a sentence: Waymarking will never be 'accepted' by the many cachers who cling to the virtuals.

This is not to say it will never be accepted. Once the virtuals door is finally closed, slowly people will be willing to try a new door and find that it's not so bad afterall. Quite possibly, some people might say "wow, I shoulda gave up the virtuals fight long ago".

So to address the question: Is defending Waymarking in the GC.com forums worthwhile?, I would say no. The people who are putting down or attacking Waymarking are interested in getting virtuals back. Let them fight the losing battle to their hearts content. You won't be able to change their minds. HOWEVER, I would say that you should support Waymarking and answer questions that are asked of Waymarking (as someone did to a question I asked in that thread). But don't try to defend it from the blind attacks of people bent on saving virtuals.

I always find it funny how people so much just love virtual caches now.  I can remember so many threads back in 2002-2003 when virtuals cast almost as the spawn of the devil with the loathing of now attached to micros and specifically lpc's.  My feeling is that one of the reasons there more discussions about bringing virtual back rather than locationless caches is that the old locationless caches were archived and virtuals were grandfathered.   This resulted sending a mixed message about virtual caches and giving a constant reminder to even new geocachers that virtual caches used to be allowed and for those grandfathered ones they seem be working.

tozainamboku:

But why can't some categories be more. To some who want to bring back virtual caches, the whole idea was to go to a location, find an object, and answer some questions about the object that could only be answered by a visitor. Or if that wasn't possible, you might be asked to take a picture with your GPSr in it to prove you were there. Why not have few categories that are specifically set up to work this way. Then people who miss virtual caches could be directed to these categories.

Furthermore these categories could have other requirement to emphasize what people say they miss in virtual caches. You could have mysteries where the description doesn't give away what you would find. You could have an educational component where the visit to the site must teach about history, geology, or other subject. If a group wanted to take a stab at defining "wow" they could try a definition for that as well. This is what I tried with Best Kept Secrets. But I really had expected to see a few more categories like that.

I agree that one would think that categories would like Best Kept Secrets would draw in the people that like virtual caches and you have promoted that category in nearly every bring back virtual thread but it does not seem to be the case.   The category is one of the older categories and yet has only 49 waymarks and most are from the more active waymarkers and not from the larger geocaching community and it does not appear they are visited any more than other waymarks. 

cache_test_dummies:

This month's version of the "Bring back virtuals" topic seems to be carrying on a bit longer than some of the others have. TheBeanTeam, Dinoprophet, tozainamboku and a few other supporters of Waymarking are once again doing a fine job of explaining Waymarking and working to overcome the objections of the critics.

Thanks!

Honestly, I don't know why I bother sometimes.  Really, I prefer the much lower level of angst here and worry that too many converts could spoil that.  But it seems that each time, at least a few people come and take another look, and some of them have become quite avid. 

It wasn't a virtuals thread that got me into waymarking, but it was a thread on gc.com -- El Diablo posted to say he was excited about waymarking having rediscovered it.

I do see a significant difference between virtuals and waymarking as it is today.  It boggles my mind when people say they preferred locationless there (which doesn't happen as often, true).  Often they'll openly admit that it's because they can no longer get that icon now.

So to address the question: Is defending Waymarking in the GC.com forums worthwhile?, I would say no. The people who are putting down or attacking Waymarking are interested in getting virtuals back. Let them fight the losing battle to their hearts content. You won't be able to change their minds. HOWEVER, I would say that you should support Waymarking and answer questions that are asked of Waymarking (as someone did to a question I asked in that thread). But don't try to defend it from the blind attacks of people bent on saving virtuals.

Yeah, that's probably the best advice.  Maybe I'm thin skinned, but I feel like I have to jump in when it does beyond "I don't like it" to name-calling.

BruceS:

tozainamboku:

But why can't some categories be more. To some who want to bring back virtual caches, the whole idea was to go to a location, find an object, and answer some questions about the object that could only be answered by a visitor. Or if that wasn't possible, you might be asked to take a picture with your GPSr in it to prove you were there. Why not have few categories that are specifically set up to work this way. Then people who miss virtual caches could be directed to these categories.

Furthermore these categories could have other requirement to emphasize what people say they miss in virtual caches. You could have mysteries where the description doesn't give away what you would find. You could have an educational component where the visit to the site must teach about history, geology, or other subject. If a group wanted to take a stab at defining "wow" they could try a definition for that as well. This is what I tried with Best Kept Secrets. But I really had expected to see a few more categories like that.

I agree that one would think that categories would like Best Kept Secrets would draw in the people that like virtual caches and you have promoted that category in nearly every bring back virtual thread but it does not seem to be the case.   The category is one of the older categories and yet has only 49 waymarks and most are from the more active waymarkers and not from the larger geocaching community and it does not appear they are visited any more than other waymarks. 

I was all set to submit one, then I found out the door has been locked to the public since I was there last.

tozainamboku:

I haven't been on the Waymarking forums...

Welcome, I always enjoy your well thought out viewpoints.

tozainamboku:

I sometimes feel I am arguing with both sides......

Ha Ha, This reminded me for some reason of a time I was trying to cross a four lane highway when I was in Jr High.  Two cars each traveling in the opposite direction each in the far outside lane giving me a nice two lane buffer between the vehicles. For some reason both cars decided to change lanes at the same time leaving me running down the double yellow line screaming at the top of my lungs while they passed me by on both sides. 

Waymarking and Geocaching are like two magnets. Both are made up of the same components but are pushing away from each other. The two sides will never connect until someone turns one side around somehow and you Toz are stuck in the middle.

tozainamboku:

But why can't some categories be more.... .

  Good question. I think they could be and your category is a good example but the waymarking model makes it difficult. I'll give an example using a Best Kept Secrets waymark I visited. The item waymarked as a Best Kept Secret could be placed in at least three other categories. I chose not to because of the existing waymark but eventually it will be waymarked in the other cats and then the secret is out.

tozainamboku:

Why not have few categories that are specifically set up to work this way. Then people who miss virtual caches could be directed to these categories.

It appears that while some geocachers say they want the virtual experience most are unwilling to actually do it if it is combined with an alternate site and if it doesn't affect their stats on the geocaching site. I doubt they would be interested even if it duplicated the experience exactly.  So my interpretation is that most only want it there and if it isn't there then they don't really want it at all. 

tozainamboku:

I also noticed that the Waymarking Games department has been replaced by Waymarking Multifarious.

Hmm. Wasn't in on that discussion either. I didn't know there was a change. I think I prefer games also. Multifarious. Good grief does anyone really know what that means off the top of their head. Sounds like the place they put the really evil waymarks.

simpjkee:

I've been geocaching for 2 years and 11 months. Been Waymarking for 2 days.

Welcome. Hope you find something you like here and I appreciate your comments.

simpjkee:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at this time I am under the impression that locationless caches were archived at the same time Virtuals were grandfathered.

This is correct.

simpjkee:

In a sentence: Waymarking will never be 'accepted' by the many cachers who cling to the virtuals.

This is not to say it will never be accepted. Once the virtuals door is finally closed, slowly people will be willing to try a new door and find that it's not so bad afterall. Quite possibly, some people might say "wow, I shoulda gave up the virtuals fight long ago".

I think you are right here as well and can only hope that at some point either through an integration of the profiles or an elimination of the grandfathered virtuals that people will "find that waymarking isn't that bad".

simpjkee:

So to address the question: Is defending Waymarking in the GC.com forums worthwhile?, I would say no. The people who are putting down or attacking Waymarking are interested in getting virtuals back. Let them fight the losing battle to their hearts content. You won't be able to change their minds. HOWEVER, I would say that you should support Waymarking and answer questions that are asked of Waymarking (as someone did to a question I asked in that thread). But don't try to defend it from the blind attacks of people bent on saving virtuals.

I rarely step into the fights over in the other forum but couldn't help myself on this one. Just to much misinformation and as Dinoprophet indicated "name calling". I wonder if you would have asked the question that ultimately led you here if we hadn't stuck our nose under the geocaching forum tent for a few postings? If not maybe it was worth it to get a few to delve into waymarking a bit deeper to make up their own minds about waymarking and all of its faults and merits.

I'll admit on day one when I started to look into waymarking it was baffling. I really enjoy it now but know it isn't for everyone. As stated above I hope you can find something you enjoy about the activity.

TheBeanTeam:

simpjkee:

So to address the question: Is defending Waymarking in the GC.com forums worthwhile?, I would say no. The people who are putting down or attacking Waymarking are interested in getting virtuals back. Let them fight the losing battle to their hearts content. You won't be able to change their minds. HOWEVER, I would say that you should support Waymarking and answer questions that are asked of Waymarking (as someone did to a question I asked in that thread). But don't try to defend it from the blind attacks of people bent on saving virtuals.

I rarely step into the fights over in the other forum but couldn't help myself on this one. Just to much misinformation and as Dinoprophet indicated "name calling". I wonder if you would have asked the question that ultimately led you here if we hadn't stuck our nose under the geocaching forum tent for a few postings? If not maybe it was worth it to get a few to delve into waymarking a bit deeper to make up their own minds about waymarking and all of its faults and merits.

It helped. I admit that I'm a bit of a follower type and have always gone along with what the more experienced cachers have told me. Most typically that: "Virtuals are awesome. Waymarking sucks because it's just a directory of fast food spots." I guess I always figured it to be true if the more experienced cachers said so. Lately, I've been thinking a little more for myself and checking them out on my own.

tozainamboku's comments (post #7) on the "Wow" guideline about virtuals was a real eye opener and impacted my view of Waymarking.

The recent virtual I found (described in post #9) was a situation that helped lead me to Waymarking

Post #23 just made me lol, roll eyes, face palm, etc.

I like the suggestion in post #37, though I'm really getting more and more turned off by all the "my stats this and my stats that" talk.

Post #45 is hilarious if you read it like a caveman. Is that the poster intended? I dunno, but its funny.

It's unrelated, but I'm really curious to know what exactly the poster in post #90 is talking about.

BeanTeam's response to my question in Post #124 was very helpful. Dinoprophet's response in #126 not so much. : ) Trust me, I was all over the "lets get started" button. Again, tozainamboku's response to my question in post #129 was very helpful. The problem I had was that I went to "submit waymark" to see if it would give me a link to the guidelines like in geocaching. It didn't, but since I wasn't really placing a waymark, I did not pick a category or anything which is where the guidelines then show up.

I still think what I posted in post #137 is insane. This nonsense should really be edited. If anyone goes to the website with the preconception that they think Waymarking is a fast food directory and then sees that, they'll most definitely be turned off. Going to a McDonalds parking lot is bad enough, actually eating there is absolutely out of the question. Its insulting that the big wigs would shamelessly use us to financially support a disgrace of a "restaurant".

the blue quasar:

Until Groundspeak decides to have a merged statistics aspect to your Groundspeak account, people will continue to view it as their "Geocaching Account".

I agree. And perhaps the separation of stats is one of the bigger issues fueling the divisiveness between these two activities.

I seem to remember that in either a forum discussion or (more likely) one of the Town Meeting chats that we were told specifically that there were plans to someday bring the stats together somehow. Not that waymarks-created or waymark visits would count towards your geocaching 'found' count, but that the stats would appear on a common page.

I'm still hoping that we get to see this someday.

TheBeanTeam:

Hopefully some newer cacher will see through the sillyness and make up their own mind. I guess if none of us bothered to poke our nose in ever so often they would run off unchecked with no one to balance the discussion. Maybe we are doing a service by providing a balance.

This makes sense, of course.

We have seen people giving waymarking a chance after participating in a "Bring back virtuals!" topic in the past. And I'm sure there have been cases where others who read, but don't participate in the forums have wandered over here with new understanding.

tozainamboku:

I sometimes feel I am arguing with both sides. In the thread on the geocaching forums, TheBeanTeam mentioned trying to put a optional verification question on one of his categories and had one person threaten to quite the group because "waymarking is not geocaching" and didn't think it was right to try to integrate them. I'm bothered by such a narrow view of waymarking.

Yes- there has been resistance to the idea of expanding waymarking to allow for broader playing field. Remember my Suggestion for Increasing Visits topic a few years ago? I just went back and read the whole thing - quite a few posts in there are related to this current discussion.