geoawareUSA1

For the record, the following is not found anywhere in the Help Center or FAQ: Per your original statement, this was part of the original instructions. I'm not saying your a bad person, or that you would even carry through on such a threat, but it's likely this single sentence that got the attention of the EC Reviewer. Since Logging Requirements are backed up by documentation in the Guidelines and Help Center, such threats of deletion are pointless, and by no means improve the chances of people actually following your instructions.

You can submit a Listing for a Coordinate Check, without going to the trouble of placing the cache first, but your Reviewer will only *see* the Listing page if it is Enabled, or if you contact them privately (assuming they respond). In my area, Listings can be submitted for a Coordinate Check, but it must be made clear on the page that the submission is just to check the coordinates. Changing the Title of the Listing to "Coordinate Check Only", or something along those lines, is sufficient to get the Reviewers attention so that the Listing isn't accidentally Published.

I couldn't agree more, but the vast majority of Finders on your Listings have no idea who you are, or how you manage the Find Logs on your Listing pages. The expectation is clearly spelled out in the Guidelines and in several articles in the Help Center. Why do you feel the need to put yourself in the middle of such debates? When I'm faced with someone disputing a Log Deletion (extremely rare), I direct them to the Help Center for clarification. If that is not successful, I direct them to HQ. There's no need to state any expectations on the Listing page, other than to say that Finders must send answers to some questions. No need to set deadlines. No need to threaten them with log deletions. To go back to one of barefootjeff's concerns, which geoawareUSA9 covered pretty well, but I wanted to add one salient point: When I'm Reviewing, I'm only Reviewing what's in front of me. How you manage your Listing page is your business, not mine. If there are Log disputes that can't be resolved between the Finder and the CO, those disputes end up at HQ. They don't go to me. My only concern is the wording on the Listing page, and it's the same process for the Logging instructions on the Listing page, Commercial content and Agenda's. If you set a personal timeline for answers to arrive, that is totally up to you, you just can't state such restrictions on the cache page.

Thanks for asking barefootjeff, and quite frankly I can sympathize with the predicament you've outlined. When I raised this concern with HQ, they said it was up to the CO to keep track of this type of thing, and I admit, it's not easy. I must admit, you are being exceptionally patient and kind in emailing the reminder. My tendency is to delete the log entry, and to email the User to let them know that I have not received the answers to the Logging Requirements. The terse replies don't bother me so much, but occasionally I'll get the shocked reply from a User that was traveling, and was waiting for an internet connection before replying. I feel bad that I might have thrown a wet towel on what was otherwise a great vacation

My apologies for the confusion, but apparently my meager understanding of the original issue was not sufficient to clarify things to anyone's satisfaction. At the risk of further confusion and alienation of everyone involved, the issue, as my scant intellect will permit, can be boiled down to two points that have been communicated to me via the Staff and HQ: 1. You are not allowed to dictate the order in which the Logging a Find, and the emailing/MC the answers to the CO takes place. 2. You are not allowed to dictate a time frame in which the answers to the Logging Requirements must be sent (although I'll concede the EC Reviewer in this case may have been given the 7-10 day window timeframe, but I was not). Both of these conditions appear to be in conflict of the originally worded instructions to the Logging Requirements: As stated, it sounds like I MUST send the email BEFORE I can log my Find, which is in violation of the first point. The second sentence does not appear to allow for any time to pass, in which I can send the email at some later time, which sounds as if it's in conflict with the second point. I should add, that a third point was communicated to me from HQ at the same time, which I similarly enforce: 3. the CO is not allowed to require separate emails from individuals of a group caching together, if they prefer sending their answers to the CO under one User Account for the entire group. The CO is allowed to ask for the email to include the Usernames of everyone in the group, in order to cross reference them to the online Log Entries. My apologies in advance if this hopelessly muddles things for you even further.

Sorry if I misunderstood and for any offense I may have made. Glad to to hear that the OP's Listing was Published.

So I'm guessing from that response that you have nothing further to add to the discussion.

The Earthcache Reviewer for the Southeastern U.S. already beat me to the punch, so done! The original thread is about a 1 1/2 years old now, but the original question regarding the time restrictions was answered by one of the Lackey's that oversees the worldwide geoware's, that the intent is to be "reasonable" with the Logging Requirements. As far as the assertion that it's easy to send in answers from the field if you can post a Find, I would dispute that assertion based on some of the EC's I've done, that require long responses, and trying to type all that out on a phone is very painful to say the least. It's a bit surprising that a couple of old timers on the Forum don't seem to recall the incident that provoked this guidance, nor the 100+ EC's that were Archived as a result. So I think it has been pretty well established that the wording in the FAQ is not perfect, and besides, this sort of guidance belongs in the Help Center IMO. What exactly would everyone suggest in terms of bringing the wording of the guidance more in line with what is practiced?

Unfortunately, Appeals sees it differently from my experience, and it's usually at this point that I direct people to HQ to discuss the nuances of the language used. The guidance given to me and other EC Reviewers is to remove such time restriction, as outlined by the OP, so that is what I follow. All further discussions end up at Appeals, as I don't have unlimited time to debate the issue.

Sounds like your Additional Logging Requirement was in conflict with the following guidance on the GSA site and your EC Reviewer was correct in asking your to remove the logging restriction: If I remember correctly, this was added to the GSA FAQ many years ago over a particularly annoying incident. Since then, there have been a handful of similar instances with wording such that you had, where the behavior basically continued, which basically resulted in arguments with HQ over control of the Listing page. I was contacted by HQ in my area, after a few people complained of one such incident and was asked to have such restrictions removed from the Listing pages going forward. The above FAQ was thought to encompass the intent of the guidance, so no changes were made at that time. I was never told of any "7-10 day" window of opportunity, so I've always asked for all such restrictions be removed, and that it was up to the CO to keep track, regardless of how onerous that may seem.

Thanks for offering! Yes, I do cover the entire State of CA, as well as OR, and WA, along with 6 or 7 other States. Currently there are zero submissions in my territory awaiting a Review, and zero submissions awaiting a second look after corrections. Of your 4 currently active Earthcaches, it appears I Reviewed all of them. All were Published on the same day that they were submitted. There are two additional Listings that you submitted and later Archived after I requested changes to bring them more in line with the Guidelines. I check the Earthcache Queue at least once a day, and more often twice a day. Looking just now, there are about a dozen Listings awaiting Review for the entire U.S., and just judging from the Titles I see, about 4 of those will need some work, or appear to have nothing to do with geology. Just based on my experience, the hold up of the Reviewing process is usually on the cache owner end of things. If it's a simple revision, like some minor wording issues, like you had in your case, it's usually pretty quick. If it's a rewriting issue, or permission from a land owner/manager issue, it can take longer. Of the Listings I have to reject, I usually only see about 1/3 come back with corrections and/or clarification. Thanks for contributing to Earthcaching!

....as well as obtain permission from the Land Manager. The Listing submitted by the OP is located within Yosemite National Park. For reference, Dr. Greg Stock is the Parks official Geologist, and has been vetting the Earthcaches in the Park for several years now. I'm pretty sure he will tell you the same thing that I did in my Reviewer Note (i.e. there's no geology discussion on your Listing page). Here are some additional links regarding Earthcache submissions, which you might find helpful: Create an Earthcache Earthcache Guidelines

Or you could just Enable your Listing. I don't put Listings pending Review on a Watchlist, so posting a Note on the Listing page without Enabling it won't get my attention. I will post a reply on your Listing page. Just an FYI, I'm also available via email and message center.

See previous post: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=340647&view=findpost&p=5601565 As mentioned previously, probably best to contact the Publishing geoaware, geoawareHQ, or Groundspeak.

I tend to look through the worldwide NA log entries about once a month. In all likelihood, I saw your NA/NM logs at that time (I seem to only recall one of them). If I remember correctly, the gist of your concern had to do with the "lesson" involved in the Description. In cases of like that, I typically leave it to the appropriate geoaware that originally Published the Listing. You are correct that most/all of the Local Reviewers will not deal with NA log notifications on Earthcache Listings. In a few cases, I have been contacted directly, and that is what I would suggest that you do. You can scroll down to bottom of the Listing, and usually the first or second log entry will be the Published log. Providing the original Reviewer is still active, you can email them through their Profile with your concerns. If that doesn't satisfy your concerns, then contacting Groundspeak would be the next step. In all likelihood, they would pass along your concerns to the GSA representative that oversees the Earthcache program on the site for a final ruling. edit spelling.

Definitely allow for more time. First time Earthcache submissions can seem a bit difficult at times. Although you have found a pretty good number of Earthcaches, a number of them are older submissions, and the Earthcache Guidelines have had a few revisions since some of them were Published. I recommend looking over the following Help Center articles in addition to the Earthcache Guidelines: Creating an Earthcache Additional Tips Limiting Some Earthcache Topics Probably the top reasons I have to reject an Earthcache submission are: 1. It's not focused on the geology (or the geology is totally absent). 2. Permission from the Land Owner/Manager is missing. 3. Logging Requirements are either inadequate, not pertaining to the geology, or not allowed (i.e. I still see a few picture requirements submitted). Don't base your submission on what you may have Found in the past. If you must use an active Listing as a guide, try and find one that has been Published within the last year. That would more realistically represent the current standard and expectation. The following is just my 2 Euros, but if it were me, I'd post a request to the Local Earthcache Reviewer on the Listing page, if it would be OK for your regular Local Reviewer to handle the actual Publication, after the official Review is complete. Having one person do the actual mechanics of Publishing all the Listings together sounds like less things could go wrong to me.

I think the "laziness" aspect of the OP's post has been addressed adequately, so I'll just stick to addressing the Community Controlled Publication idea. The process for submitting EC's was updated several years ago, but it used to be the case that Listings were submitted on the GSA website, Reviewed by a single Reviewer, and when approved, the Reviewer would copy/paste the material submitted, to geocaching.com, through the usual process we are all familiar with. Since the Listing was still under the Reviewer's account, they would have to send an Adoption Request to the CO that submitted the Listing on the GSA site, in order to transfer the Listing back to their account. Kind of a crazy process. It astonishes me how many of these Listings I find out there, that were never picked up by the CO, after passing Review on the GSA site. So right off, if history is any indicator, I suspect you'd see a lot more of these languishing Listings that people forget about, and never get Published. In the end, the EC Reviewer ended up Archiving these orphaned Listings, and I suspect the same fate would befall such Listings in which Publication is relied upon by the CO.

Thanks for asking Jadenegro01. Based on the Listing that you own, I'm guessing that you'll probably submit a Listing in my Reviewing Territory, so I'll just let you know the types of things I expect to see on a submission. Looking at your responses I get the feeling that you're making it more difficult than it needs to be. First off , I'd recommend looking at the Guidelines posted on the GSA site. That's the document I reference a lot when I'm Reviewing. The Help Center article that has been mentioned is a great resource when putting together a submission. A "lesson plan" is a bit misleading. It really just boils down to what topic you choose to discuss in your Description, and if it's related to some nearby geologic feature. There are a multitude of State and Federal websites that discuss local geology, as well as various books that can be purchased or checked out from your local library (i.e. Roadside Geology series for instance). After looking at the Description and determining that it is geology based, I look through the Logging Requirements, to make sure they meet the educational intent of the Guidelines, and are related to the topic in the Description. Finally I check for permission from the Land Manager, which in the majority of cases will be required. Let me know if you need anymore clarification.

I took a look, and your Listing is properly Enabled and waiting in the Queue for the Reviewer. I would recommend that you move ahead with your Traditional Listings, and not wait for your Earthcache Listing to get Published. Thanks for you patience and good luck with your submission!