Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
cachensfun

What do you think of the new system?

Recommended Posts

Just wanting to know what everybody thought of the new system. It looks like it will speed stuff up. Please leave your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post

I just submitted my first ever EC to the new system. I recieved a helpful reviewer reply in less than 6 hours directing me to a few things to tweak. So I am very happy with the new system from what I have seen. My reviewer was geoawareCA.

Share this post


Link to post

I submitted a new EC listing yesterday evening and as of now have not heard anything from anyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanting to know what everybody thought of the new system. It looks like it will speed stuff up. Please leave your thoughts.

 

I have not yet used it. I am, however, a bit concerned by the fact that a separate reviewer will handle

earthcache submissions from Austria, Germany and Switzerland. While the guidelines still ask for an English description, I am concerned that the decision on rejection or approval will be done on the basis of the non-English version and that as a consequence thereof the quality of the English version will deteriorate considerably on average. Given the huge workload of the reviewers and the fact that geoawarede most probably will not be a native speaker of English, the chances that the English version will be looked at carefully will decrease. I am concerned that a large number of automatic translations will slip through in the future. This would do away with the strongest asset of Earth caches from my point of view, namely their internationality in contrast to most other caches where it gets more and more popular to offer the cache descriptions only in the local language.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Published <_<

 

I submitted a new EC listing yesterday evening and as of now have not heard anything from anyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanting to know what everybody thought of the new system. It looks like it will speed stuff up. Please leave your thoughts.

 

I have not yet used it. I am, however, a bit concerned by the fact that a separate reviewer will handle

earthcache submissions from Austria, Germany and Switzerland. While the guidelines still ask for an English description, I am concerned that the decision on rejection or approval will be done on the basis of the non-English version and that as a consequence thereof the quality of the English version will deteriorate considerably on average. Given the huge workload of the reviewers and the fact that geoawarede most probably will not be a native speaker of English, the chances that the English version will be looked at carefully will decrease. I am concerned that a large number of automatic translations will slip through in the future. This would do away with the strongest asset of Earth caches from my point of view, namely their internationality in contrast to most other caches where it gets more and more popular to offer the cache descriptions only in the local language.

 

Cezanne

Seems like a valid concern - but then again - I am sure that geoawarede is an experienced EC'er and geologist. So that should help.

 

Keep us informed.

Share this post


Link to post

My experiences:

 

I submitted 3 that I had typed up in MS Word.

 

Too about 8 hours (probably due to tie differences between USA and Middle East).

 

Geoaware published them. I liked the fact that I could add the attributes and photos etc. while awaiting approval.

 

I noticed no difference between this syste and a normal cache submission.

 

So a seamless sucess for my first attempts.

 

Well done guys - from GS and GSA side. Job appears to have been handled very well (delays notwithstanding - and these I'm sure were not EC related alone - but also related to the large list of changes made - and the holiday season).

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanting to know what everybody thought of the new system. It looks like it will speed stuff up. Please leave your thoughts.

 

I have not yet used it. I am, however, a bit concerned by the fact that a separate reviewer will handle

earthcache submissions from Austria, Germany and Switzerland. While the guidelines still ask for an English description, I am concerned that the decision on rejection or approval will be done on the basis of the non-English version and that as a consequence thereof the quality of the English version will deteriorate considerably on average. Given the huge workload of the reviewers and the fact that geoawarede most probably will not be a native speaker of English, the chances that the English version will be looked at carefully will decrease. I am concerned that a large number of automatic translations will slip through in the future. This would do away with the strongest asset of Earth caches from my point of view, namely their internationality in contrast to most other caches where it gets more and more popular to offer the cache descriptions only in the local language.

 

Cezanne

Seems like a valid concern - but then again - I am sure that geoawarede is an experienced EC'er and geologist. So that should help.

 

Keep us informed.

 

I must confess my english is not the best but i'm convinced that checking of english spelling and grammer was never part of the review process. We visited EC's in other countries and therefore we rely on the english description. What we could read in some cases was haar-raising and sometimes we did not had any idea what to expect before reaching the site. I think in this way the new system is as good as the old one and i'm not sure if geoawareDE will review on the local language description. Her / his profile contains a picture from anywhere in norway so i guess he / her comes from there.

 

btw: I submitted 2 EC's yesterday morning and I've heard nothing until this morning. Well, reviewing a couple of days is still much faster than a couple of weeks. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I must confess my english is not the best but i'm convinced that checking of english spelling and grammer was never part of the review process.

 

I did not refer to checking spelling and grammar. In my country more than 30% of the cache listings in German language contain serious linguistic mistakes.

 

What was, however, definitely, important for the old review system was that there existed an understandable version of the Earth cache description. Automatic google translations do not serve this purpose and I am worried that in the future a larger number of such bad English versions that cannot be used to finish the cache successfully will slip through. I do not care about the linguistic beauty of cache descriptions. The descriptions should be understandable, however. I agree with you that already with the old system some English versions were very weak. This happened particularly in the last year when the workload for geoaware's team definitely was too weak. In any case, one positive effect of the old system was that the majority of Earth cache developers with a very weak English asked someone else to do the translation and did not dare to come up with a Google translation. I do not know what will happen if cachers realize that the Earth cache reviewer in charge of their submission understands German very well.

 

I think in this way the new system is as good as the old one and i'm not sure if geoawareDE will review on the local language description. Her / his profile contains a picture from anywhere in norway so i guess he / her comes from there.

 

Like you I do not know which language version will be used. The future will show how the quality of the English versions will evolve. The few new Earthcaches that have already shown up in Germany and Austria look ok from the linguistic point of view. If it will stay that way, it is ok for me.

 

In case it is still the English version that is relevant for the publishing process (and not just perhaps for looking up some technical terms), it would have made no sense to reformulate the guidelines since of course also with the old version it was not forbidden to provide further language versions apart from the mandatory English one.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

I love the new submittal process. It was simple, I could add text and photos as I awaited approval, review was quick, suggestions were helpful, and the follow-up publishing of the EC was quick. In all, only about 4 hours.

 

However, I'm concerned with the fact that there was not categories for the earth cache (i.e. igneous, geomorphic, etc). These are similiar to micro, small, large, etc. for a traditional cache. If one is trying to complete Earth Cache Challenge (GC1Z4PZ) how will we or geoware know which category to list the EC under?

Share this post


Link to post

I love the new submittal process. It was simple, I could add text and photos as I awaited approval, review was quick, suggestions were helpful, and the follow-up publishing of the EC was quick. In all, only about 4 hours.

 

However, I'm concerned with the fact that there was not categories for the earth cache (i.e. igneous, geomorphic, etc). These are similiar to micro, small, large, etc. for a traditional cache. If one is trying to complete Earth Cache Challenge (GC1Z4PZ) how will we or geoware know which category to list the EC under?

 

Good question you have. I have checked the listings on earthcache.org and all the new EC's [Jan 2010 publications] are not featured in the listings at all. Is this because there is no category mentioned as you rightly point out?

 

OTOH this means that I no longer have to spend hours thinking aout which category I need to place my EC under! :) I quite frankly did not notice the lack of category when I submitted my EC yesterday. ;)

 

It will be interesting to see if geoaware has an explanation for us on this point.

Share this post


Link to post

I love the new submittal process. It was simple, I could add text and photos as I awaited approval, review was quick, suggestions were helpful, and the follow-up publishing of the EC was quick. In all, only about 4 hours.

 

However, I'm concerned with the fact that there was not categories for the earth cache (i.e. igneous, geomorphic, etc). These are similiar to micro, small, large, etc. for a traditional cache. If one is trying to complete Earth Cache Challenge (GC1Z4PZ) how will we or geoware know which category to list the EC under?

 

Good question you have. I have checked the listings on earthcache.org and all the new EC's [Jan 2010 publications] are not featured in the listings at all. Is this because there is no category mentioned as you rightly point out?

 

OTOH this means that I no longer have to spend hours thinking aout which category I need to place my EC under! :) I quite frankly did not notice the lack of category when I submitted my EC yesterday. ;)

 

It will be interesting to see if geoaware has an explanation for us on this point.

 

The instructions listed on the www.earthcache.org are very clear about this point:

 

The listing on this site will be updated each month. At that time your EarthCache will be assigned a classification (river feature , fossil site, mineral site etc).

Share this post


Link to post

 

The listing on this site will be updated each month. At that time your EarthCache will be assigned a classification (river feature , fossil site, mineral site etc).

 

Thanks for that geoaware. I missed that when I read through the site. Perhaps I was too excited about the system being up and running and didn't absorb what I was reading. :P

 

So here is your answer trailhound1. earthcache.org will apply a category and not the CO when submitting. I have no problem with this at all as a number of times I have pulled my hair out trying to decide which is the correct category as some EC's could fall into any of a number of categories. :D

 

;):huh::blink:;) Now all we are waiting for is that we can dip our coins into EC's!! :):huh::blink::D We can only hope that it will happen - eventually. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I submitted mine Saturday night and it was approved Sunday morning. It went quite smoothly. I didn't see all the text noting the added requirements though.

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanting to know what everybody thought of the new system. It looks like it will speed stuff up. Please leave your thoughts.

I submitted one on 12 Jan, but no word yet.

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanting to know what everybody thought of the new system. It looks like it will speed stuff up. Please leave your thoughts.

I submitted one on 12 Jan, but no word yet.

 

You certainly would be better off from that point of view when your Earth cache were in Germany, Austria or Switzerland. geoawareDE is publishing Earth caches at an incredibly fast rate at the moment (already more than 80 published Earth caches just by him - however at the apparent expense of not being able to read all the text in detail).

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

I posted my first earthcache for review on January 13th and have not heard anything yet. Was just a simple as placing a traditional cache, but not sure how long it will take with the new system--my "traditional caches" have always been posted in a day or two tops....I

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanting to know what everybody thought of the new system. It looks like it will speed stuff up. Please leave your thoughts.

I submitted one on 12 Jan, but no word yet.

 

You certainly would be better off from that point of view when your Earth cache were in Germany, Austria or Switzerland. geoawareDE is publishing Earth caches at an incredibly fast rate at the moment (already more than 80 published Earth caches just by him - however at the apparent expense of not being able to read all the text in detail).

 

Cezanne

Not a big deal, just anxious to get going. I have another one for which the permission will be issued this week. A third one should be ready in a couple of weeks. Just thought of two new ones on Monday. I am excited that the process is going again.

Share this post


Link to post

Since the new system has started, there has been a little over 40 new EC listings approved in the entire USA. I expected more new listings than that.

Edited by Cav Scout

Share this post


Link to post

Since the new system has started, there has been a little over 40 new EC listings approved in the entire USA. I expected more new listings than that.

 

That is kind of suprising :lol:

 

No doubt it takes a bit more effort to fashion a well thought out EC vs. an LPC, so maybe that has something to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the note touchstone, you always come through when least expected :lol: .

 

However, considering the number of active EarthCachers prior to the change I was expecting to see more ECs especially in my home state of Kentucky. I then took a look across the entire lower 48, Alaska, and Hawaii.

 

Not much happening now it seems. I do know things where active before the new changes took place.

 

Since the new system has started, there has been a little over 40 new EC listings approved in the entire USA. I expected more new listings than that.

 

That is kind of suprising :lol:

 

No doubt it takes a bit more effort to fashion a well thought out EC vs. an LPC, so maybe that has something to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post

Since the new system has started, there has been a little over 40 new EC listings approved in the entire USA. I expected more new listings than that.

 

I feel that this number is quite reasonable taking into account that the new system has been available only since a little bit more than one week. I rather think that the rate with which new ECs show up in Germany is crazy. When watching the comments made in the Earth cache subforum here, it also appears to me that the review process in the US takes longer, but with a tendency of investing more time on the individual descriptions (checking whether enough educational material has been offered and as to whether the logging requirements are reasonable and fulfill the new guideline).

 

I think that the main goal should not be to end up with as many ECs as possible (in the worst case one at every location where potentially one could be), but to get the largest possible number of interesting and outstanding ones that offer a special experience and not just lead you to a pretty arbitrary place of which hundreds of the same type exist in the vicinity. The development of good EC descriptions certainly does take time. So 40 does not seem to be that bad from my point of view.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

I know you mean well and you have said that your intention was not to criticize geoawareDE, but that is exactly what you are doing with this prolonged discourse. I took the time to find and read some of the new ECs in Germany and they look fine to this inexperienced EarthCacher.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, and this is what the forum is all about, but please remember no one pays him and his approach doesn't look any different than what happens in the USA with the exception of needing to wrestle with two languages.

Thanks. B)

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanting to know what everybody thought of the new system. It looks like it will speed stuff up. Please leave your thoughts.

I submitted one on 12 Jan, but no word yet.

 

You certainly would be better off from that point of view when your Earth cache were in Germany, Austria or Switzerland. geoawareDE is publishing Earth caches at an incredibly fast rate at the moment (already more than 80 published Earth caches just by him - however at the apparent expense of not being able to read all the text in detail).

 

Cezanne

Not a big deal, just anxious to get going. I have another one for which the permission will be issued this week. A third one should be ready in a couple of weeks. Just thought of two new ones on Monday. I am excited that the process is going again.

 

Submitted one approved yesterday without incident. This allowed me to request Gold status. I completed the on-line form and the approval was returned instantly. Too cool.

Share this post


Link to post

I know you mean well and you have said that your intention was not to criticize geoawareDE, but that is exactly what you are doing with this prolonged discourse.

 

No, certainly not. I am sure that geoawareDE is just doing what he was told to do by someone else.

Whoever would it be at the place of geoawareDE, he/she could not do any better given the circumstances.

 

Actually, I even admire geoawareDE for his apparent enthusiasm that makes him invest more time in the review work than most "normal" geocaching reviewers I know of (at least in the current situation - maybe the number of submissions will go down again) as reading Earth cache descriptions on average takes more time than reading the descriptions of most non Earth caches. The bad quality of many English versions of newly published Earth caches is Germany is certainly not the fault of geoaware. (BTW: Refraining from moving away all potential hurdles for submitting Earth caches, including the language barrier, certainly encourages an unhealthy increase rate with respect to the number of submissions and thus causes an

unreasonable high working load for a volunteer.)

 

 

I took the time to find and read some of the new ECs in Germany and they look fine to this inexperienced EarthCacher.

 

Of course it depends on which ones you look at (some have excellent English versions and many have at least reasonable one) and what part of the description you look at. What I was saying is that in at least 50% of the cases one or more logging questions are formulated in the English version in a completely incomprehensible way (maybe in some cases it is necessary to understand the German version to see that the English version cannot be used to answer the questions - I checked not only the English version, but always also the German one).

 

Sometimes parts of the geologic description can be found somewhere in the internet, what almost never is true for the logging questions. So special attention needs to be paid to the formulation of the logging questions. I feel that the minimum requirement should be that the logging questions are understandable in the English version. Did you look at the Earth caches pages in your sample from that point of view and did you read the logging questions and did you think about whether their meaning was clear to you? It makes a difference if the English description is just required to quickly check whether the cache has some geology contents or whether it is required to allow cachers who do not understand the local version to visit the cache and answer the questions successfully.

(BTW: Any Earth cache creator either needs to have at least some basic knowledge of English or should be willing to ask someone for help because according to the current guidelines it is allowed to send the answers to the logging questions in English and it is not the task of the logger to translate his answers to German even if some German Earth cachers would appreciate it that way.)

 

with the exception of needing to wrestle with two languages.

 

That's exactly what I am questioning.

 

And here again comes in why I am not critizicing geoawareDE. What's wrong from my point of view is to hassle around with any other language than English. In my opinion, the guidelines should not invite local language versions. (They might be added to the cache description, but should not looked at during the review process.) Currently the role of the English version for submissions in the area of geoawareDE is just an alibi role (e.g. for the case that someone else need to help geoawareDE).

 

Moreover, note that my suggestion (see the other thread) is to ignore any language versions other than the English one in the review process for Earthcaches. I am not expecting geoawareDE to suggest changes and improvements to the English version from the language point of view and in that way doing the work that ought to be done by the submitters of Earth caches (or someone else they ask for help, but certainly not the reviewer). I am blaming the cachers for the weak English versions and not geoaware and I am blaming the current guidelines for allowing local language version.

 

In my opinion, there are only two ways to deal with the issue that are fair. (The first one is my clear preference.)

 

Either

 

(1) Continue to base any decision on the English version and do not even look at further language versions - just ignore them.

 

or

 

(2) Drop the requirement that an English version needs to be included and just require a version in a language that is understood by the reviewer (reviewer team in charge). (BTW: Note that in the moment someone could submit a Slovenian version - even in Austria as it is an official language there - and the reviewer team will not be able to handle it - so the current approach to serve German speaking cachers in a different way and to pamper them is also unfair from this point of view.)

 

While I would not be happy about (2), it still would be better than the current situation where some cachers invest enormously much effort in preparing a reasonable English version (either for themselves or for other cachers as I have done several times) while others just think that they can outsmart the system and just submit a lousy automatic translation and are fine off as they do not need to invest precious time or ask others to do so (laughing up their sleeves).

 

If someone feels that an automatic translation is enough for him/her, he/she can certainly produce their own trash. If no English version is available, I know right away that I need to deal with the non-English version and I will not waste time by starting to read a text which just can serve as an example that automatic translation does not work fine. (It might be funny to encounter translations like "direction wise man" for "Richtungswegweiser" when a signpost is meant, but not very helpful.)

 

Let me add a comment/question on the philosophy behind the new Earthcache review process.

After some discussions with some other cachers, I am not sure any longer whether it is still the intent of the GSA that Earth caches are something special and that the Earth cache review process tries to accomplish some sort of quality control process. Maybe the move of the Earth cache submission system to the normal submission system on gc.com means that it is no longer intended to assure a certain quality level (that would of course also include the linguistic aspect). If that were the case, any further discussions about the language issue would end up to be obsolete as the normal cache review process for non Earth caches only checks whether the guidelines are fulfilled and does not take into account the quality aspect.

So maybe a clarification on that aspect might be helpful to avoid some misunderstandings and wrong expectations. All my comments with respect to the language issue have been based on my assumption that quality control for Earth caches is still a target also under the new system.

 

In closing I would like to stress that I am aware of that it is not me or any other cacher who decides how Earth cache are to be handled. That's the task of the GSA and of Groundspeak. My intent is not to complain. If those who are in charge, change their policy with respect to Earth caches and clearly communicate it, I am more than willing to accept the outcome (this does not necessarily mean that I would appreciate it).

What I am missing currently are clear statements with respect to the language issue. The requirement that an English version must be there, but that it apparently does not matter of it is a reasonable version or just some garbage, is giving way to discussions like this one.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

 

Thanks for that geoaware. I missed that when I read through the site. Perhaps I was too excited about the system being up and running and didn't absorb what I was reading. :P

 

So here is your answer trailhound1. earthcache.org will apply a category and not the CO when submitting. I have no problem with this at all as a number of times I have pulled my hair out trying to decide which is the correct category as some EC's could fall into any of a number of categories. :D

 

:(:D:D:D Now all we are waiting for is that we can dip our coins into EC's!! :P:huh::D:) We can only hope that it will happen - eventually. :D

 

Yeah - I keep on hoping (and checking) to see if we can dip goecoins and travellers into EarthCaches. No news or change (yet)!

Share this post


Link to post

Since the new system has started, there has been a little over 40 new EC listings approved in the entire USA. I expected more new listings than that.

We are looking at mid-winter. It is possible that people aren't getting out as much and snow is covering the exposures. Me, I continue waiting for manager approval.

Share this post


Link to post

I see geocachers the same as the "Day after Thanksgiving" shopper; weather never stops them from getting out of the house :mellow: .

 

Since the new system has started, there has been a little over 40 new EC listings approved in the entire USA. I expected more new listings than that.

We are looking at mid-winter. It is possible that people aren't getting out as much and snow is covering the exposures. Me, I continue waiting for manager approval.

Share this post


Link to post

We are waiting until spring to submit the on we whant.

 

Since the new system has started, there has been a little over 40 new EC listings approved in the entire USA. I expected more new listings than that.

We are looking at mid-winter. It is possible that people aren't getting out as much and snow is covering the exposures. Me, I continue waiting for manager approval.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow! Imagine that. Not bad compared to the old system taking up to 6 weeks.

 

Hopefully the new EC I submitted on Jan 27th will be activated soon.

 

I submitted mine Saturday night and it was approved Sunday morning. It went quite smoothly. I didn't see all the text noting the added requirements though.

Edited by Cav Scout

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanting to know what everybody thought of the new system. It looks like it will speed stuff up. Please leave your thoughts.

I am totally impressed. I submitted one early this morning when I got up. I was approved before I had completed adding the diagrams. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

After waiting months to get approval, I've finally got the chance to do some more submittals. Each one has gone through Geoaware's approval very quickly. Thanks. That part works great. :o

 

The Groundspeak interface is a downgrade. The description box is far to narrow to handle even rudimentary html coding. It also tries to be too smart. After pasting in my text from a word processor, I add the html coding. When I update it, Groundspeak adds line breaks all over and splits up the hyperlinks in weird places. I spend more time fixing what it "fixed" than I did adding in my html code B)

Share this post


Link to post

After waiting months to get approval, I've finally got the chance to do some more submittals. Each one has gone through Geoaware's approval very quickly. Thanks. That part works great. :)

 

The Groundspeak interface is a downgrade. The description box is far to narrow to handle even rudimentary html coding. It also tries to be too smart. After pasting in my text from a word processor, I add the html coding. When I update it, Groundspeak adds line breaks all over and splits up the hyperlinks in weird places. I spend more time fixing what it "fixed" than I did adding in my html code :o

 

Agreed, but that applies to all the cache listings. Once pasted in I also spend "hours" re-editing to get the breaks and spaces, etc all in the correct places. I initially thought it was me that was the problem due to using "MsFrontPage" but later I realized it wasn't me. :oB):o

Share this post


Link to post

After waiting months to get approval, I've finally got the chance to do some more submittals. Each one has gone through Geoaware's approval very quickly. Thanks. That part works great. :o

 

The Groundspeak interface is a downgrade. The description box is far to narrow to handle even rudimentary html coding. It also tries to be too smart. After pasting in my text from a word processor, I add the html coding. When I update it, Groundspeak adds line breaks all over and splits up the hyperlinks in weird places. I spend more time fixing what it "fixed" than I did adding in my html code B)

 

I haven't had the same problem. I agree with your assessment regarding approval..........it went QUICK! I don't know if it makes a difference or not, but I use Word and then add the html coding when finished typing the body of the cache page. I then just copy and paste. I have had no unusual breaks or any other problems.

The fact that we can add photos, diagrams, etc. plus producing a 'final' product before actually submitting the EC is great. Maybe some of you did, but I never did figure out the photo upload on the old system.The new GS system is far better than the old, 'get an email and see your mistakes' approach. I love it! :o

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

I found the interface to be all right, once I figured out how to optimize it. There are instructions somewhere in one of the forums on how to add photos. I followed the instructions and it worked fine. The body of the text was done in MS Word and then just pasted in. I went back later and added the HTML codes that I needed for extra lines, spaces, etc. (It had been years since I had used the codes and I had to relearn them.) I will experiment some more later, but it all seemed pretty easy, once I got going.

 

The approval was so fast. It arrived while I was still adding the photos into the text at the right spots. i was very surprised and pleased.

Share this post


Link to post

It also tries to be too smart.

 

I do the same thing as KK&M, although I use Frontpage for editing. I suspect that the HTML Tidy utility on the site is messing with you.

 

Just curious, but did you have the same problems with the old system? I know that on one of my submissions, I had to go back and reconfigure the page after geoaware did the copy/paste from the GSA site over to GC.

Share this post


Link to post

It also tries to be too smart.

 

I do the same thing as KK&M, although I use Frontpage for editing. I suspect that the HTML Tidy utility on the site is messing with you.

 

Just curious, but did you have the same problems with the old system? I know that on one of my submissions, I had to go back and reconfigure the page after geoaware did the copy/paste from the GSA site over to GC.

In the old system I just copied the text out of Word into the EarthCache submittal page, then added the html once it got published.

 

This way, I copied the text from Word into the Groundspeak submittal page, add the html, and got the screwey added page breaks.

 

I figured out that I should do one submittal without the html, then edit the page adding the html.

Share this post


Link to post

I submitted my first Earthcache last night...no word yet.

 

Yeah man, as your avatar says - Don't Panic! :) Give it about 48 hours, depending on your region. Generally I have not had to wait longer than 2 days.

Share this post


Link to post

I submitted my first Earthcache last night...no word yet.

 

Yeah man, as your avatar says - Don't Panic! :( Give it about 48 hours, depending on your region. Generally I have not had to wait longer than 2 days.

 

True...I suppose that I am so used to having a reviewer get to publishing within a couple hours that I got spoiled. I will wait a day or two more before asking. :)

Share this post


Link to post

YIPPIE!!!! :(:o:blink:

 

My first Earthcache was published a few minutes ago!

 

(GC24FZD) "Highway 54 Filled Sinkhole"

 

I am so stoked!

 

My third was cleared for re-enabling yesterday, after permission had been given and then withdrawn, and then re-given. I'm on the track to Platinum now! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I'm putting my first earhcache together and noticed something unexpected in the guidelines. In the latter part of guideling #6

 

"Requests for specific content in the photograph (must include the visitor's face, for example) will be considered an additional logging requirement and must be optional."

 

Has this always been the case? Most of the earthcaches that I have found required a picture showing my face and a feature at the cache site. I always felt that it was justified because the photo proved that I had actually been there. But this guideline seems to take that assurance away.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...