Peer-reviewed earthcaches

[+shearzone]

As a big fan of earthcaches, I have noticed that many more earthcaches have been developed (earthcache fans rejoice!) since their reintroduction to geocaching. However, I have noticed a marked decline in the quality of earthcaches, perhaps because too many people want an earthcache icon under their hides column. As the most scientifically-related of all caches, should earthcaches be upheld to a certain level of quality? Shouldn't the facts be verified before the cache is published? I have visited a few earthcaches that I know are wrong, and I have no where to report the misinformation to. I am in full support of the work that geoaware is doing for earthcaching, but I think that there should be some quality control on earthcaches to help geoaware, since there is no way for one person to know everything there is about geology. I propose two levels of quality control, though more may come to light given this discussion. First, I think that newly developed earthcaches should be reviewed on a regional level. For instance, I live in Alberta Canada, if I develope an earthcache, a non-biased Albertan geologist cacher can review my submitted earthcache for any glarring inconsitences. Second, perhaps earthcache specialists can be nominated for every category of earthcaches to review earthcaches. For example, if I submit a fold feature for an earthcache, a structural geologist can review my earthcache and approve it before it is published. If the earthcache does not meet the standards of both the regional and specialist geologist, then the earthcache is returned to the peroson that submitted it with suggested edits that need to be incorporated before it is approved. I would be more than happy to help out with such a process! Geoaware, if you are interested in such a process, please contact me and I can let you know what I am good at and help you out with. Finally, I think that all earthcaches should be published with a list of references, even if part of the information is from an interpretive panel or wikipedia so that the inofrmation can be verified if there is any dispute or disagreement. However, no plagiarism should be allowed because this is stealing intellectual property and unethical. Please be aware that these suggestions have been made with the intention on preserving the integrity of earthcaches. I say this because I am a fan.

[+Accordiongal]

The idea of additional approval levels to verify content sound great. The issue will be finding volunteer reviewers, determinging minimum level of criteria for explanation, tasks. THen not to mention needing english/writting majors for content formation.

 

So if additional levels of review are to be added, what would be the minimun level of professional preparation be required? High school earthscience teacher, DRN geologists, PhD prepared, very knowledgable non-geology professional, platinum level earthcache masters, list can go on and on.

 

There are enough issues with state by state geocache reviews and consistency, then to add additional layers will create issues for placers and reviewers.

 

How many reviewers make up geoaware?

 

Looking at the numbers of published ec, there has to be more than one person involved in the review process.

 

My two cents for now.

[+genegene]

I agree that there should be a quality check as well.

 

I have spent countless hours trying to get my first 2 earthcaches up to MY standards. I have seen some that are OK and to the point, and others that are done very well and quite informative.

 

My second earthcache required a lot of changes, and additions to it because all of the info that I wanted in it.

It was scattered all over the place and needed to be put into the right order. It also did not fit into the 8,000 letter limit that is on earthcache.org

 

Another earthcache I am working on will have to be split into two earthcaches just to fit it all in. I will end up taking it to an expert in the field of this type of earthcache to make sure that it is right, and everything is the truth.

I do not want to have false or misleading info on any earthcache I set up.

 

I have been finding that EarthCacheing is more of a challenge then regular Geocacheing. Anyone can hide a container very good but it takes someone with a Kean eye for detail and the need to do something right, to make a very good earthcache placer.

[+genegene]

 

How many reviewers make up geoaware?

 

 

As of right now, I think there are two. (This is my personal thought, NOT fact)

In the future there could be more if earthcache.org becomes bombarded with listings and they become overwhelmed.

 

If they do add more reviewers, I hope they are very knowledgeable on anything that may come there way.

[South Surrey Scavengers]

There was a concept in place in the beginning to have several peers review from different countries or at least provide feedback to Geoaware. That concept seemed to fade away. Then EC's got moved to Waymarking which almost killed EC's in my opinion as an educational tool. Perhaps in the long run Waymarking will become more popular than geocaching. As it stands now I dont know who reviews other than Geoaware. And I don't know if he needs help. Perhaps he can answer this. I know I was available in the beginning to help on this sort of thing had it been needed.

[+Cav Scout]

There are two along with a office of other geologists working in the same building.

 

 

How many reviewers make up geoaware?

 

 

As of right now, I think there are two. (This is my personal thought, NOT fact)

In the future there could be more if earthcache.org becomes bombarded with listings and they become overwhelmed.

 

If they do add more reviewers, I hope they are very knowledgeable on anything that may come there way.

[+shearzone]

There are two along with a office of other geologists working in the same building.

 

Perhaps they can use the help of network of people around the world that can do some groundtruthing on earthcaches before they are published. I've seen a few earthcaches out there that were published with incorrect information, but without going to these places or having pre-existing knowledge of the geology in the area, geoaware and co. would not be know the statements made in the listing were incorrect.

Edited July 20, 2008 by shearzone

[+catsnfish]

There are two along with a office of other geologists working in the same building.

 

Perhaps they can use the help of network of people around the world that can do some groundtruthing on earthcaches before they are published.

There is a process for groundtruthing post publication. Contacting the cache owner in a private message, establishing your credentials, explain the corrections needed, and give references documenting your position and sincerely offering further help if needed.

I am not even an amateur geologist, but became interested in it due to Earthcaches. I have 3 published EC's and I feel that they are "quality." If contacted in a respectful manner with the object of improving or correcting my work. I would definitely appreciate it. My EC's have references but to avoid plagiarism and explain to the reading level of a 14 yr old, I must paraphrase, interpret and try to explain in my own words. there is a lot of room for error or misinterpretation in that process.

Also my reputation as a cache owner is important to me, and I would want to know the credentials of the person suggesting the change. I would pull the cited references and do the research. Ultimately, changes to the EC page would be made if warranted in my (further informed) opinion.

I realize there are those out for just the icon and those that do not take criticsm. I would imagine that there are many more like me who would appreciate the help to make a quality page.

[+wesleykey]

I agree that there should be a quality check as well.

 

 

They are getting to be like virtuals were years ago. There is a lame one on every corner, and no container in sight.