'Finder' Not Meeting Earthcache Requirements

[+Sagefox]

[i suspect this is also partially why we no longer have virts...too many were "cheating" to score the smiley!

 

I think this is a different issue. With a virtual cache the intent was to bring us to something with a bit of "wow" factor. As long as you visited the site and saw or read the wow then the intent should have been met. Any questions for virtuals should be only to prove we visited the wow. All virtual cache owners should accept any alternative form of proof of the visit as long as it is clear that the cacher did see or read the wow.

 

Cheating at a virtual would be NOT visiting the site and then answering the ALR's and claiming a Found It.

 

Earthcaches REQUIRE specific ALR's which are reviewed by geologists to confirm that an educational experience will take place.

 

In my opinion, Earthcache owners should also accept alternative proof if it is clear that the intended educational experience took place. This could include a finder adding an extra-credit report if they did not find all the required information. The important part is that the site was visited and the geological significance of the site was understood by the finder.

 

So: FF clearly is correct in deleting those find logs because the finder is ignoring the requests to prove that they visited the site and received an appropriate education.

[+Harriet the Spy]

Off Topic: The indian/native american preference may be a regional thing. Around here I believe they prefer to be called Indians. The Tulalips whose land borders Marysville where Flutey is from call themselves a Tribe of Indians. Also the people who border my town of Arlington The Stillaguamish do the same.

 

On Topic: I believe Flutey has done all she can in dealing with the matter of the repeat logger. And I applaud her for her patience in dealing with him.

[+FluteFace]

I agree with you, Flutey. Keep deleting this character's logs until all the requirements are met.

That's the plan for now.

And, please don't turn all PC on us.....

That'll be the day!! After a bit of very interesting research, 'Indian' will remain as is on the cache page. You can find more about 'Indian' vs 'Native American' here, and also a bit on the history of PC there, as well as here.

[+Rockin Roddy]

[i suspect this is also partially why we no longer have virts...too many were "cheating" to score the smiley!

 

I think this is a different issue. With a virtual cache the intent was to bring us to something with a bit of "wow" factor. As long as you visited the site and saw or read the wow then the intent should have been met. Any questions for virtuals should be only to prove we visited the wow. All virtual cache owners should accept any alternative form of proof of the visit as long as it is clear that the cacher did see or read the wow.

 

Cheating at a virtual would be NOT visiting the site and then answering the ALR's and claiming a Found It.

 

Earthcaches REQUIRE specific ALR's which are reviewed by geologists to confirm that an educational experience will take place.

 

In my opinion, Earthcache owners should also accept alternative proof if it is clear that the intended educational experience took place. This could include a finder adding an extra-credit report if they did not find all the required information. The important part is that the site was visited and the geological significance of the site was understood by the finder.

 

So: FF clearly is correct in deleting those find logs because the finder is ignoring the requests to prove that they visited the site and received an appropriate education.

 

I didn't say exactly like, I said this is how (cheating) the virts were bannished.

 

Also. how about if the teachers at school just let you slide on a test. You told the teacher you knew the answers, you OBVIOUSLY were there, so you must have learned the educational info...why bother with the test? I know, a jump, but think about it. The requirement is you answer the questions. NOT answering the question doesn't earn you anything but possibly a nice view if you DID visit the location...if you don't read and follow the instructions, you don't get the smiley!

 

The boldened part is what I'm responding to now...really? What geologists?? Are they a special group commissioned by GC to do just this?? We did an EC the other day...I sent my answers to the cache owner, who said "good to go". There's was a team of geologists waiting to assure the owner I had the info??

Edited January 14, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+Kit Fox]

 

The boldened part is what I'm responding to now...really? What geologists?? Are they a special group commissioned by GC to do just this?? We did an EC the other day...I sent my answers to the cache owner, who said "good to go". There's was a team of geologists waiting to assure the owner I had the info??

 

Try submitting an Earthcache for approval, you'll see. I've hidden over 100 caches and the only cache that was a pain to get approved was an Earthcache. There are three Geologist who scrutinize the listing to make sure it meets their standards. My first earthcache didn't have enough geology references, and they archived it. They told me, "Earthcaches are about geology, not earth science." I had to re-write the narrative to contain at least two geological references.

 

They also retain control of your cache after it has been published.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+Hobo2]

...' He 'found' it and logged it with the required photo roughly a month and a half ago (the date keeps changing) but has never sent the answers to the required questions....

 

... Will/can the powers that be take any action?

 

A) He gave you a picture to prove he was there. If you do not dispute the validity of the picture, then he was there. Does the date matter?

 

and

 

2) Why should they? You created a cache to be visited, his picture proves he visited it, mission accomplished! There's no action for them to take.

 

My guess is that he didn't read the page thoroughly, visited the site, took a picture and moved on.

 

Now he can prove he was there with the picture, but he can't pass your exam because he didn't write that stuff down.

 

If your mission was to introduce him to an interesting place, you did so.

 

If his mission was to see that interesting place, he did so.

 

What do the additional logging requirements add to that?

 

Let the man log his visit.

Lets all just drive by traditional caches and take pictures of the caches site... no reason to actually find the cache or sign the log, after all it's just a game, right?

 

Games have rules for a reason, if the rules aren't fallowed and players can do what they want, it's not much of a game now is it? Frankly it's cheating. I now it is fine for some to cheat, but I agree with the owner not to let this cheater score anything!

Edited January 14, 2008 by Hobo2

[+KJcachers]

Here is a tradtional cache that could be considered an Earth cache I guess.

 

GCW79V Nelson County Rocks

 

great rock garden with descriptions of all the rocks found in Nelson County, VA

 

I just thought I would share something nice.

 

BTW, I rethought my position on this issue and agree to keep deleting until requirements are met.

Edited January 14, 2008 by KJcachers

[Mushtang]

If you ever go to my EC at Devils Tower and have a picture, I would'ntt care if you said the tower was made of playdoh to log a find.

This may explain why you listed the picture requirement and the questions to answer in the hints section instead of in the description.

[+Cav Scout]

Do you think its necessary to put that link in here? So are you saying its ok to use those other names?

 

 

I agree with you, Flutey. Keep deleting this character's logs until all the requirements are met.

That's the plan for now.

And, please don't turn all PC on us.....

That'll be the day!! After a bit of very interesting research, 'Indian' will remain as is on the cache page. You can find more about 'Indian' vs 'Native American' here, and also a bit on the history of PC there, as well as here.

[+Renegade Knight]

...And to be politically correct, you should refer to the local indians as native Americans or mention the tribe they are from. I have EC deicated to the Native American tribes in WY....

 

Your a Celtic are you not? That word has greek roots. You should no more be insulted as a Celt as an Indian would be to be called an Indian. The words come with the English Language, neither is deragatory.

 

I swear, some Celtic Americans.

[+Cav Scout]

No. You're thinking of someone else.

 

...And to be politically correct, you should refer to the local indians as native Americans or mention the tribe they are from. I have EC deicated to the Native American tribes in WY....

 

Your a Celtic are you not? That word has greek roots. You should no more be insulted as a Celt as an Indian would be to be called an Indian. The words come with the English Language, neither is deragatory.

 

I swear, some Celtic Americans.

[+joranda]

So what is the point of this topic now. I think it has gone way off base.

[+Kit Fox]

Do you think its necessary to put that link in here? So are you saying its ok to use those other names?

 

 

Where were you when the thread about the Red Jeep TB called "Squaw Tit" was posted?

[+Cav Scout]

Iraq.

 

Do you think its necessary to put that link in here? So are you saying its ok to use those other names?

 

 

Where were you when the thread about the Red Jeep TB called "Squaw Tit" was posted?

[+FluteFace]

Do you think its necessary to put that link in here? So are you saying its ok to use those other names?

I'm not saying what's ok to use or not for anybody else. I'm saying I made up my mind about what I will use on the cache's page based on what I found at those links. I included them in case somebody was interested in finding out what motivated my wording choice, and/or if they were interested in an educational experience . . . . . . and somebody's seeming lack of an educational experience is part of what motivated this thread in the first place.

[+Renegade Knight]

No. You're thinking of someone else.

 

...And to be politically correct, you should refer to the local indians as native Americans or mention the tribe they are from. I have EC deicated to the Native American tribes in WY....

 

Your a Celtic are you not? That word has greek roots. You should no more be insulted as a Celt as an Indian would be to be called an Indian. The words come with the English Language, neither is deragatory.

 

I swear, some Celtic Americans.

Must of confused Celtic designs with you actually being celtic. My bad.

[+hydnsek]

Do you think its necessary to put that link in here? So are you saying its ok to use those other names?

I'm not saying what's ok to use or not for anybody else. I'm saying I made up my mind about what I will use on the cache's page based on what I found at those links. I included them in case somebody was interested in finding out what motivated my wording choice, and/or if they were interested in an educational experience . . . . . . and somebody's seeming lack of an educational experience is part of what motivated this thread in the first place.

I appreciate the links and visited them. The PC lexicon was interesting. However, the Indian link went to the same article (e.g., two links went to same place); not sure that's what you intended.

[+FluteFace]

I appreciate the links and visited them. The PC lexicon was interesting. However, the Indian link went to the same article (e.g., two links went to same place); not sure that's what you intended.

I didn't make that very clear. What I intended was that one site had info on the Native American/Indian terms and the possible origins of the term PC, in addition to more about PC elsewhere. I worded that poorly.

Edited January 15, 2008 by FluteFace

[+Renegade Knight]

Do you think its necessary to put that link in here? So are you saying its ok to use those other names?

I'm not saying what's ok to use or not for anybody else. I'm saying I made up my mind about what I will use on the cache's page based on what I found at those links. I included them in case somebody was interested in finding out what motivated my wording choice, and/or if they were interested in an educational experience . . . . . . and somebody's seeming lack of an educational experience is part of what motivated this thread in the first place.

The PC Lexicon was a good read.

[+sunburykids]

Finder must meet all requirements for logging a Found. If not, they must contact the owner for approval, otherwise delete entry. See, it's not that tough!

[+geoaware]

Developers might not care what people learn at an EarthCache site...but we certainly do (we being the approvers of EarthCaches)

 

The whole reason EarthCaches were developed was to teach people about our wonderful Earth. It was not to just take them to cool places (although in many cases an EarthCache will do just that) but for people to get a better understanding of what what process led to the formation of what people were seeing. Having people undertake the educational task is such an important part of that. If you let people log without doing the task, or even log with an incorrect answer, we feel you are not really helping those people to learn about anything. If people want to visit an EarthCache 'just to get the number' you should make them do the task...its your right and responsibility. However, at the end of the day, the decision is always yours.

 

However, we expect developers/owners of EarthCaches to do the right thing - to get the correct permissions, do do the research so they have the right information and then to respond to people who log if the visitor missed the point...and help them to get back on track. Maybe, if they find that lots of visitors are drawing the same wrong conclusion, they will redevelop their notes so that the misconception is not perpetuated.

 

At the end of the day, this is a game and EarthCaches are a great way for people to learn (both by developing and visiting). However, we know some people just can't play the game by the rules. Its human nature...and we either all have to cope with those people, deal with the issues they raise or move on. For our part, we deal with the issues when its about meeting the guidelines. For your part, its dealing with the logging issues as you feel is fair and appropriate. All we ask is that you keep the nature and the spirit of EarthCaches alive.

[+VirginiaGator]

I had a similar experience not long after we first started caching. I think it was a locationless cache. I took a picture of my son in front of the bridge we'd found. Got the coordinates. I wasn't even given the opportunity to post an updated picture. All I got was a blatant e-mail saying my log was deleted because there wasn't a GPS in the picture. Not a good impression on a fairly new person. Had they said I needed to post a picture with a GPS in it, I would have gone back and retaken a picture.

 

I had a log of mine for an earthcache deleted. I visited the site, found the answers to the questions, but never thought about taking the picture. I emailed the answers and thought all was ok, until the log was deleted. I emailed the cache owner asking why the log was deleted. He told me I didn't send the picture. He was right. I failed to comply with the cache's guidelines, even though I did physically visit the cache. I don't have a problem with cache owners expecting all finders to follow the requirements for logging the find.

 

The next time I found an earthcache, I carefully read the requirements, answered the questions, and took a picture.

[+FluteFace]

Oh . . . look what popped up! Well, the issue that prompted this posting in the first place has been resolved. The poster finally figured it out and sent me answers to the questions. They were less than I had hoped, but I allowed them and his logged find stands . . . finally!