geoaware

What level EarthCache Master are you? When did you reach that level? We also know that some peoples spam filters kill off the emails.....you need to make sure that the @geosociety.org domain is not blocked. We would hate to think people did not get emails about EarthCache related matters - and also want to allow people to stop getting emails if that is their wish.

We have sent out only a few (four I believe) about: EarthTrek (twice) inviting you to become involved. A general newsletter last December This cruise. You are automatically subscribed when you become an EarthCache Master. You can unsubscribe from the emails using a link at the bottom of the emails.

Me too cry - tantrum - all for nothing Are you EarthCache Masters? Maybe you 'opted out' or 'unsubscribed' some time in the past. Geoaware

When do you think the news will break on this? I'm very curious about what's in store.. Soon We are still working on our Platinum level, but have fallen behind in developing any EC's. Are EC's not as popular anymore? Are less people submitting them for review? My son and I need to get to working on some new ones for our area. We don't have many EC's or Virtuals. Quite the opposite - we are getting more submissions for EC than ever before! And as summer approaches in the northern hemisphere, that will get even better!

When do you think the news will break on this? I'm very curious about what's in store.. Soon

Sure.. As of today the numbers are.... Bronze 9255 Silver 2479 Gold 1315 Platinum 982

As a matter of interest, there are now 982 Platinum EarthCache Masters and we have awarded over 14,000 EarthCache Master awards at all levels. Congratulations to everyone who has reached Platinum (in fact any) level!

There is no issue at all about people developing EarthCaches on sites that have have a previous EarthCache archived! It is just a matter of following the guidelines....including those that cover permission and plagiarism. For example: 3. EarthCache sites must be educational. They provide accurate, but simple explanations of what visitors will experience at the site. Cache page text must assume no previous knowledge of the relevant Earth Science. The educational notes must be written to a reading age of an upper middle school (14 year old) student. Additional technical or scientific notes can be provided for the scientific community at the end of the listing. All notes must be submitted in the local language. Additional languages are encouraged. You may be requested to provide the notes in English to assist with the reviewing process. Respect trademarks and copyright and only use images or logos in your description if you have permission. Avoid direct plagiarism and quote sources of information where appropriate. 8. All EarthCache sites developed must have prior approval of the landowners before submission (depending on local country laws and customs). The developed text should be sent to the landholder/manager for approval. When applicable the cache owner must have written permission from the owner or appropriate land-managing agency. The name, title and contact details of the person that authorized this EarthCache MUST be given at the time of submission in a "Reviewer Note". If permission is not required, please provide the reason, i.e. public road pull-off in a " Reviewer Note". If information about permission is not provided, the submission may not be published.

Really it is pretty simple. It is about ensuring that bringing people to the site does not cause a conflict with the management of that site - many sites have multiple management issues, such as the protection of rare and endangered fauna, the protection of archeological artifacts and the protection of a geological phenomenon. That protection has been in many cases, obscurity (i.e. because people don't know about it, they don't visit). By placing an EarthCache we may cause a management issue and so the land manager needs to make sure that the EarthCache fits into their management plan. On a second level, seeking permission has raised the positive profile of caching in the eyes of land managers, opening the way of all types of geocaching on those lands. We realize that it seems a step in the process that to many seems superfluous, but it is as important as developing great logging tasks!

All EarthCache developers are asked to check a box that they have read the current guidelines. Currently those guidelines exist in English and German. The 'recent' (two month) statement has been in the guidelines for over two years now and should be well understood. I am always disappointed that some cachers will attempt to find ways to work around these guidelines...but as already stated, it is almost impossible for a reviewer to find each and every case that this happens. You do have a way to report these issues through Groundspeak and I encourage you to do so. I think in this case the issue has been well stated and your concerns addressed.

Good questions. In the process of reviewing EarthCache submissions the review team looks at the submission against all of the guidelines. Obviously there are some local geological aspects that are impossible for a reviewer to check unless they visit the site – and for those we take into consideration the accuracy of the explanation as it appears based on current and accepted geological thought. It is not the role of the reviewer to correct language, spelling and typos. If a submission has too many of these, it may be rejected. It is very much to the advantage of all if a developer runs a spell checker and reviews and edits their own work. We may request that the submission be provided in English when the reviewer is not fluent in the language of the submission. In those cases, the concepts are checked and a it is assumed that the native language will be more elegant than the translation. It is never out our intention that the English translation be left as part of the cache...and if the developer cache owner feels it should be removed, then we would happily back that decision (unless English happens to be the local language as per the guidelines). We have a very enthusiastic, dedicated and skilled EarthCache review team who work hard to maintain standards and work with developers.

I thought a while what went wrong in this thread which apparently caused at least you and me to become angry. I am sure that I would not have written several postings in this thread in case you once had acknowledged that the masters program does not have only positive effects and that it is well conceivable that apart from the positive effects that exist for sure there are also negative ones (not necessarily distributed in the same away all over the world). I guess that I simply have a problem with the sort of attitude that everything is wonderful and everyone is (should be) happy. I am sorry for having caused you inconveniences. The best (for me and you and others) will probably be that I stop looking at EC pages at all and start to ignore ECs at all (as some of my friends already do). This will save me from too many disappointments and you from debates you do not like to be involved into. Cezanne At no time have I suggested that you are not allowed to spell out your opinion on any issue...and I would be the first to admit that any program has a negative side, and maybe, in the case of the Masters program it has been an increase in submissions that do not meet the guidelines. This topic is, however, about the program and NOT about the review team!

At the peril of incurring rancor, I think it's important to note that education systems are not created equally. My idea and your idea of what a tenth grader should be able to handle may vary considerably from what the Geological Society of America has in mind. I agree with you. I think, however, that what the Geological Society of America has in mind does not play a big role in this matter for two reasons. The first is the one I have mentioned already before, namely that the reviewers do not have the time to have a detailed look on the write-up and to discuss the level of the used language with the creator of the description. The second is that with the introduction of a diverse teams of reviewers, many of whom do not have any connection to geology and the GSA, even in theory it would not be possible any longer to follow a consistent approach. In any case I think that an EC that is at the level that it, for example, appeals also to a functional analphabet will get boring for almost all other cachers. If the main idea about a cache is just to show a nice location which appeals to the eyes, then a normal cache or a virtual cache are the better alternative than an EC. From an EC I expect a learning experience. BTW: I looked at your ECs. They look fine to me. In general, I have the feeling that the US and Canada do not get that many EC submissions which are mainly created for statistics reasons (including the masters program) than some countries in Europe. Most people writing here have no idea how the situation in Europe (e.g. in countries like Germany) looks like. The fact that the new EC there are almost exclusively in German only makes the issue even more complicated. From my personal point of view, not only the adequate level of the description should be checked by the EC reviewers, but also the correctness. The scenario that EC descriptions contain bogus information and that the majority of the visitors thank for the learning experience is nothing utopic with the current system. Cezanne I wish this thread was kept on topic rather than being dragged into your debate about the qualities of the EarthCache reviewer team (which, BTW, I take offense to your remarks as you continue to spread the amazing misconception that they have no connection to geology etc etc. For the record, you are incorrect....and I think maybe an apology is in order.....but in another thread!).

While I understand the opinion that people put forward, the joy of EarthCaches comes from many varied directions. Some people like to visit and learn. Some people like to develop and teach Some people like to get awards and icons Some people like a combination of all three... And some people like it for reasons beyond these... ...and each is valid and each is important. The EarthCache Masters program and the new program will be fun for those who like that aspect of the game. For those who don't, there is no impact on them whatsoever. So everyone wins.

Ok, so tell us what's the idea behind introducing new levels. (Other than just making some people happy). Cezanne The new program is to reward people who enjoy visiting EarthCaches for reaching some EarthCache milestones....milestones which are way beyond the 'finds' in the EarthCache Masters program. The EarthCache Master program will continue to reward people for both finds and development. Geoaware

ok...we are way off topic! Lets get back to the original thread idea

Actually that is NOT the case. The guidelines do not 'force' high quality - but provide guidance on what the minimum acceptable standard should be. "high quality" involves going far beyond the minimum standards.

I would prefer a bonus for high quality EarthCache placements and not for any sort of numbers. Cezanne I agree that a bonus for high quality would be great. However, we did the "top ten EarthCaches"....I huge task for a dedicated group of volunteers and all we got was loads of negative flack in these forums! I doubt that we will attempt that very thankless task again. Geoaware

News ...snippet... Four new levels based on EarthCache finds only. No state/country specifications. More information coming soon....

You have to apply for each level to be sent the icons. We are planning to release some new levels during 2011 More news on that in a few months.

I believe it has been published Sorry for the delay!

I can't remember another.....maybe TerryDads is the only one!

I just want to let you all know that read each and every post in these forums and consider the arguments that are put forward. Many of the comments and discussions lead us to make adjustments to the way we deal with the review process and how we have adjusted guidelines. That said, I do not necessarily respond to every comment or even every thread...but that does not mean they are not read. Your should also know that I will not respond to "demands for geoaware" to respond as I personally find such demands rude (even if you don't). I also feel that I or the EarthCache team have no obligation to respond to individual issues in these forums when you can take those up with us through the channels all mentioned in this thread. That is not an attempt to stifle good and robust discussions - it is just the correct mechanism to get things done at an individual case-by-case basis. So, just because your point of view does not solicit a response from me does not mean you are being ignored so please don't be offended. We do respond when we feel it clarifies the discussions...but once we do, we will not comment again in multiple threads about the same issue. But I also offer this pearl of wisdom.....you are just a few people out of a massive amount of people who are involved in EarthCaching. Your comments and suggestions - the vast majority being constructive - are never taken in isolation, but we consider the large number of people who we deal with on a daily basis. I often ask the advice of respected long-time EarthCachers. We do this to be fair to the vast majority rather than seen just to pandering to those who use and enjoy the forums. Please do not think that your voice is not heard....but also realize that you are not the vast majority of people involved in this great game. This thread was asking people to be respectful of each other (and also of us) as personal attacks really does not add to the discussion. Think before you type...and remember that we are all working together to make EarthCaches better. That is not a request for you not to voice concerns or not to disagree with each others points of view....but you can do that with respect for each other. The so called "TPTB" love this game as much as you do...and we want to see it move forward with your considered and respectful input (positive or negative).

The classification will only exist on the listings on earthcache.org....and that is where the work will need to be done. Thanks for the offers....I will work on a system to try and get things moving.

Is this information still available in a previous database (maybe a back up somewhere?) If the old classification is still available, it would make it much easier to get the GC.com caches updated, even if it was in the description or title (as in VOL-Hawaii Volcanoes N.P-Calder and Crater or SPR-Thermal Spring) or some such thing. I've updated databases this way, and while not the best choice, sometimes it's better than creating a new table column, sometimes not. Just a suggestion. Its a good suggestion....but we still have 5000 not classiflied...a huge number! Maybe we can get some volunteers (hint, hint) to help? Geoaware