Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
PaneledZero

Removing Logs

Recommended Posts

Hey Guys/Gals,

 

I have not seen this answered yet and I hope I am not copying another topic.

 

My question is, when is okay to delete a cachers log for not following the requirements?

 

The reason I ask is I have an Earthcache (GC2DND1) and I had a cacher who gave me a description of the wrong Geological formation that I was asking for. They didn't even answer the question the cache was based on.

 

I don't want to be known as the cache owner who deletes cachers logs. That is not what I am asking for, but if they don't do it correct and answer the questions incorrectly, when is it acceptable to remove their log? Can you?

 

I would assume I am not the first but I would like to hear what you all have to say.

 

Thanks!

 

Kaleb

PaneledZero <_<

Edited by PaneledZero

Share this post


Link to post

It is ok to delete a log when the finder does not meet the logging requirements (provided the logging requirements are valid). That said, I have had on several occasions gotten answers for someone elses EarthCache mailed to me by mistake; I direct the finder to email the correct person...perhaps this happened?

 

In the end though if they totally missed the point and lesson you put forth then they failed to meet the most basic requirements of an EarthCache find. I have deleted several logs for many reasons...normally though if a reasonable attempt is made the log will stand.

 

I find very often that folks are just plain lazy...and being lazy on the logging requirements show that they likely did not bother reading the information you put fourth and that they came to the site for the sole purpose of a smiley....well ECs are not the place to look for an easy smile on your stats page.

Share this post


Link to post

Lostby7 is correct. You are entitled as the cache owner to delete any logs that do not meet the logging requirements. That said, it is good practice to contact the cacher first via their profile page and explain why you will be deleting their log. It may be that they just sent the wrong set of answers - or can provide better answers, and will therefore be able to log the cache.

 

If not, then go ahead and delete the log.

Share this post


Link to post

I try to give people a chance to revise their responses before deleting, but as long as your logging requirements are within the guidelines, you can delete logs that don't meet them.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with what everyone above has said. When you get right down to it though, there've been a lot of logs I could have deleted for answers that weren't quite right. Instead I have my own rule of thumb (and this is just me personally, I'm not speaking for anyone else) - if the cachers give me enough info between their log entries and their e-mailed answers for me to know that they were on site and put some effort into it, I'll let the log stand, even if the answers are wrong. In fact, I've never deleted a log entry for bad answers (although I've come very close on a couple occasions). I have deleted many logs though for no answers.

 

Whatever the case, I think it would be polite, as suggested above, to give the cachers a warning before you delete their log and give them a chance to correct their answers.

Share this post


Link to post

Frequently I get logs for some of my EC's with no supporting info & no pic. I usually give cachers a few weeks to get me the info because I realize that people are on vacation etc and also like to log things in order. I will also send a friendly e-mail reminding them that they still have to supply me the info. that usually is enough. I also am not too picky about the answers, especially if estimating height, width, size is involved.

If I get no response, I delete the log

Share this post


Link to post

I am experiencing much the similar situation. In this case, the person logged a find at the end of August and still has not posted a pic or sent the answers. I emailed the person and he said he had not forgotten to email me, but hadn't because he's been busy "playing"...however, he said they'd get the info to me by the end of the week.

 

Well, I think I have been patient...no log by midnight tonight? Deleted.

Edited by Arthur & Trillian

Share this post


Link to post

I am experiencing much the similar situation. In this case, the person logged a find at the end of August and still has not posted a pic or sent the answers. I emailed the person and he said he had not forgotten to email me, but hadn't because he's been busy "playing"...however, he said they'd get the info to me by the end of the week.

 

Well, I think I have been patient...no log by midnight tonight? Deleted.

I don't know about other users, but I upload an image and email the answers to the CO when I log the find. Some CO's require this. I have an EC and people post a photo of another geographic feature (which is a waymark) nearby.

In your case I think that you should delete the log, you have made a very good attempt to get the finder to comply.

Edited by Manville Possum Hunters

Share this post


Link to post

I am experiencing much the similar situation. In this case, the person logged a find at the end of August and still has not posted a pic or sent the answers. I emailed the person and he said he had not forgotten to email me, but hadn't because he's been busy "playing"...however, he said they'd get the info to me by the end of the week.

 

Well, I think I have been patient...no log by midnight tonight? Deleted.

 

I would agree as well..

Share this post


Link to post

I am experiencing much the similar situation. In this case, the person logged a find at the end of August and still has not posted a pic or sent the answers. I emailed the person and he said he had not forgotten to email me, but hadn't because he's been busy "playing"...however, he said they'd get the info to me by the end of the week.

 

Well, I think I have been patient...no log by midnight tonight? Deleted.

 

I think that's fair. You've given them plenty of time.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand not wanting to be a jerk about it. But at the same time, geocaching.com and the Geological Society of America have standards that they expect us to uphold. Be overly nice in explaining why their log doesn't fit, and if you want even apologize for having to delete their log. I had to delete one tonight. About a week ago, someone logged my EC saying they "had to do a drive-by" because there was too much traffic and no place to pull off. They didn't answer any of the questions, nor did they include the required photo with their log. I gave them a week, to see if they would try and fix any of this. They didn't, so I sent them a nice email, explained what an EC was (they had only logged 2, so perhaps didn't understand?), and that I had to uphold the standards of geocaching & GSA. I also asked them to try and log it correctly in the future, and offered to help if they had questions.

 

I agree with what some others have said about not wanting to be all tough about it - some people will try their best, but still get the answers wrong. And if I think they've tried, then I'll usually respond and see if I can lead them to the correct answers.

 

But we've got to uphold some basic standards.

Share this post


Link to post

oh, and as to timing, I expect people to send in the logging requirements before, or at least at the same time, as logging the find. I always send the requirement email in before logging the find. Someone who logs the find but then waits more than a day or two to send in the requirements is asking to be deleted. I would not give them more than a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Someone who logs the find but then waits more than a day or two to send in the requirements is asking to be deleted.

 

Harsh! At least if there's a photo requirement. Some people still use film cameras, you know. Or they may be traveling, away from home.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Harsh! At least if there's a photo requirement. Some people still use film cameras, you know. Or they may be traveling, away from home.

 

I don't buy that as an excuse. If you're logging the cache as found, you should send your answers immediately, or, at the very least, explain to the cache owner why you aren't and ask if you can log in the meantime.

 

A found log with no email is asking to be deleted. I think most of us would probably send an email before deleting, but we really don't have to.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Harsh! At least if there's a photo requirement. Some people still use film cameras, you know. Or they may be traveling, away from home.

 

I don't buy that as an excuse. If you're logging the cache as found, you should send your answers immediately, or, at the very least, explain to the cache owner why you aren't and ask if you can log in the meantime.

 

A found log with no email is asking to be deleted. I think most of us would probably send an email before deleting, but we really don't have to.

 

Depending on the EC, this can be asking for a lot. I completed a very difficult EC this past weekend.

The cache required the weekend to complete (camped out so I could enjoy the area).

After returning home, I logged the cache find, uploaded the few photos I had (camera and GPS failed me on this trip), then proceeded to unpack.

I send the email the following day with the answers to the CO.

In the case of this EC Ishpatina Ridge, some reasearch was required. In my case, I had the cache info and questions stored on my Oregon 300, which had failed me during the trip. Some of my answers where a bit off (needed to look for key items while there).

 

Long story short, a couple days grace (specially on more difficult ECs) should be allowed. Some incorrect info should also be permitted, provided the point of the earth cache was met.

Answers that are totally out there, or no response after some time (totally subjective) is not worthy of the smilie.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Depending on the EC, this can be asking for a lot. I completed a very difficult EC this past weekend.

The cache required the weekend to complete (camped out so I could enjoy the area).

After returning home, I logged the cache find, uploaded the few photos I had (camera and GPS failed me on this trip), then proceeded to unpack.

I send the email the following day with the answers to the CO.

In the case of this EC Ishpatina Ridge, some reasearch was required. In my case, I had the cache info and questions stored on my Oregon 300, which had failed me during the trip. Some of my answers where a bit off (needed to look for key items while there).

 

Long story short, a couple days grace (specially on more difficult ECs) should be allowed. Some incorrect info should also be permitted, provided the point of the earth cache was met.

Answers that are totally out there, or no response after some time (totally subjective) is not worthy of the smilie.

 

I don't understand why you couldn't wait to post the log. When I don't have everything in order to submit to an Earthcache owner, I make a note of it in my geocaching notebook and I don't log the cache until I can submit the required materials at the same time.

 

As for incorrect answers, I think most Earthcache owners are flexible about answers as long as the responses demonstrate effort and learning. When the answers are flippant (eg. answering simply "Water." when asked to explain the formation of a waterfall) or excessively incorrect, then the Earthcache owner may rightly question the legitimacy of the find. I've had a couple of Earthcache owners write back to tell me the correct answer when I was off, which I appreciated, but I've never had a log deleted over it. The point of the Earthcache logging requirements is to show learning - they're not meant to be an exam.

 

I've only ever denied ONE log due to incorrect responses. I have very open-ended questions, and it was pretty clear that this person had skimmed the cache page and had no clue what the Earthcache was even about. I still gave them a nudge in the right direction and asked them to try again, but never heard back.

Share this post


Link to post

Please no flames.

With that being said, we find it interesting when Groundspeak's and the Geological Society's standards are mentioned as to acceptable logging requirements. Yes, there are certain requirements for the educational experience (questions and/or tasks to be performed) but as to what the cache owner deems as acceptable for the finder's log...............................there is no such standard! It's up to the cache owner as to what is allowed!

 

Here is as close as you can get to these so-called standards:(from the guidelines)

 

"1. EarthCache sites must provide Earth science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions or reveal how scientists understand our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.)

2. EarthCache sites must be educational. They provide accurate but simple explanations of what visitors will experience at the site. Cache text must assume no previous knowledge of earth science. The educational notes must be written to a reading age of an upper middle school (14 year old) student. Avoid direct plagiarism from web sources and quote sources of information where appropriate. 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. You may be requested to provide the notes in English to assist with the reviewing process."

 

With all due respect to all geologists and would-be geologists, our opinion (note the word "our"), most folks seek out ECs for many other reasons beside the questions and answers! As a matter of fact, we will go as far as saying that that dreaded WOW factor plays as an important role as any thing else in the finding of an EC. Just adding to the caches found number also enters into the picture!

Now to those of you who feel like you need to grade a Geology 101 student's paper or reading and giving feedback on a Master's thesis, may we ask, absent real standards for this review of acceptability of logs, what is important to you?

Is it providing fun and a little learning for geocachers, providing a wonder of nature which would have otherwise gone unseen (part of the dreaded WOW factor) or turning folks off from earthcaching? Please make allowances for folks like us who are not professionals. Go ahead and gently suggest the "right" answer if you must, but try to turn cachers on to earthcaches and yes, let them have an educational experience but don't flunk them! While a basalt pillar may be rigid, I plea with you to not be so rigid with your standards of allowing found logs.

Don't forget that "middle school (14 year old) student." standard! That is not what you would expect from a 22 year old graduate student in earth science!

Thanks. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

Please no flames.

With that being said, we find it interesting when Groundspeak's and the Geological Society's standards are mentioned as to acceptable logging requirements. Yes, there are certain requirements for the educational experience (questions and/or tasks to be performed) but as to what the cache owner deems as acceptable for the finder's log...............................there is no such standard! It's up to the cache owner as to what is allowed!

 

Here is as close as you can get to these so-called standards:(from the guidelines)

 

"1. EarthCache sites must provide Earth science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions or reveal how scientists understand our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.)

2. EarthCache sites must be educational. They provide accurate but simple explanations of what visitors will experience at the site. Cache text must assume no previous knowledge of earth science. The educational notes must be written to a reading age of an upper middle school (14 year old) student. Avoid direct plagiarism from web sources and quote sources of information where appropriate. 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. You may be requested to provide the notes in English to assist with the reviewing process."

 

With all due respect to all geologists and would-be geologists, our opinion (note the word "our"), most folks seek out ECs for many other reasons beside the questions and answers! As a matter of fact, we will go as far as saying that that dreaded WOW factor plays as an important role as any thing else in the finding of an EC. Just adding to the caches found number also enters into the picture!

Now to those of you who feel like you need to grade a Geology 101 student's paper or reading and giving feedback on a Master's thesis, may we ask, absent real standards for this review of acceptability of logs, what is important to you?

Is it providing fun and a little learning for geocachers, providing a wonder of nature which would have otherwise gone unseen (part of the dreaded WOW factor) or turning folks off from earthcaching? Please make allowances for folks like us who are not professionals. Go ahead and gently suggest the "right" answer if you must, but try to turn cachers on to earthcaches and yes, let them have an educational experience but don't flunk them! While a basalt pillar may be rigid, I plea with you to not be so rigid with your standards of allowing found logs.

Don't forget that "middle school (14 year old) student." standard! That is not what you would expect from a 22 year old graduate student in earth science!

Thanks. :P

 

KK&M - I think we're actually in pretty good agreement here. You quoted the standards - the caches are to take people to specific sites and be educational. And that's good enough for me. If someone tries to log a find and yet hasn't really tried to understand the EC, or even really visited the site, then they haven't fulfilled the standards. I'm not talking about flunking someone who's actually tried to log the cache - that would be ridiculous! I've had some who got pretty awful answers to what is a pretty simple field measurement - but it seems like they at least visited the site, and probably tried to measure the item, so I let it pass. I only own one EC, and it has only had 6-10 log it. But even with those small numbers, one person, however, admitted they "had to do a drive by", and didn't bother answering any of the questions! I can't in good conscience allow someone who just drove by the site log it as a find - they can't have possibly learned much, and that's not in keeping with the goals of taking people to a great site and having it be an educational experience. I think geocaching.com & GSA would agree with me on that one. It would be nice to find out for sure, but I think I'm being pretty reasonable here. I would agree that there are some EC owners who are too hard core and delete things they shouldn't, because they want too much "proof". And that does turn some people off - which I really want to avoid! I think changing the photo requirement will help with that, if owners understand what the changes mean, and what they don't mean, and follow through with the changes in requirements. We need to take the "found it" logs in good faith - if someone insists they visited the site and tried to accomplish the goals, then there's no harm in allowing them to log, even if they've missed something. But at the same time, cachers should not attempt to log a find when they haven't even really tried to accomplish the goals - they have to log in good faith also, or I think we lose some integrity of the game. my two cents (with no accompanying flames!) :-)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm fairly flexible on answers as I feel it's more important to have learned something. Sounds like the finder may have sent you answers for a different EC.

 

On my newest EC, a somewhat new cacher found it. Their first EC. They posted the photo but I have not received an email with the answers. I've written twice and even added the questions in the second email. Today I'm going to delete their log. I hate to do it but they didn't meet the requirements. I'm sure that on my other placed ECs there's an online log for someone that didn't send me the answers. The one that I'm going to delete is by the first finder and there's been only three finds so far.

Share this post


Link to post

Please no flames.

With that being said, we find it interesting when Groundspeak's and the Geological Society's standards are mentioned as to acceptable logging requirements. Yes, there are certain requirements for the educational experience (questions and/or tasks to be performed) but as to what the cache owner deems as acceptable for the finder's log...............................there is no such standard! It's up to the cache owner as to what is allowed!

 

Here is as close as you can get to these so-called standards:(from the guidelines)

 

"1. EarthCache sites must provide Earth science lessons. They take people to sites that can help explain the formation of landscapes or to sites of interesting phenomena such as folds, faults, intrusions or reveal how scientists understand our Earth (such as fossil sites etc.)

2. EarthCache sites must be educational. They provide accurate but simple explanations of what visitors will experience at the site. Cache text must assume no previous knowledge of earth science. The educational notes must be written to a reading age of an upper middle school (14 year old) student. Avoid direct plagiarism from web sources and quote sources of information where appropriate. 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. You may be requested to provide the notes in English to assist with the reviewing process."

 

With all due respect to all geologists and would-be geologists, our opinion (note the word "our"), most folks seek out ECs for many other reasons beside the questions and answers! As a matter of fact, we will go as far as saying that that dreaded WOW factor plays as an important role as any thing else in the finding of an EC. Just adding to the caches found number also enters into the picture!

Now to those of you who feel like you need to grade a Geology 101 student's paper or reading and giving feedback on a Master's thesis, may we ask, absent real standards for this review of acceptability of logs, what is important to you?

Is it providing fun and a little learning for geocachers, providing a wonder of nature which would have otherwise gone unseen (part of the dreaded WOW factor) or turning folks off from earthcaching? Please make allowances for folks like us who are not professionals. Go ahead and gently suggest the "right" answer if you must, but try to turn cachers on to earthcaches and yes, let them have an educational experience but don't flunk them! While a basalt pillar may be rigid, I plea with you to not be so rigid with your standards of allowing found logs.

Don't forget that "middle school (14 year old) student." standard! That is not what you would expect from a 22 year old graduate student in earth science!

Thanks. :blink:

 

KK&M - I think we're actually in pretty good agreement here. You quoted the standards - the caches are to take people to specific sites and be educational. And that's good enough for me. If someone tries to log a find and yet hasn't really tried to understand the EC, or even really visited the site, then they haven't fulfilled the standards. I'm not talking about flunking someone who's actually tried to log the cache - that would be ridiculous! I've had some who got pretty awful answers to what is a pretty simple field measurement - but it seems like they at least visited the site, and probably tried to measure the item, so I let it pass. I only own one EC, and it has only had 6-10 log it. But even with those small numbers, one person, however, admitted they "had to do a drive by", and didn't bother answering any of the questions! I can't in good conscience allow someone who just drove by the site log it as a find - they can't have possibly learned much, and that's not in keeping with the goals of taking people to a great site and having it be an educational experience. I think geocaching.com & GSA would agree with me on that one. It would be nice to find out for sure, but I think I'm being pretty reasonable here. I would agree that there are some EC owners who are too hard core and delete things they shouldn't, because they want too much "proof". And that does turn some people off - which I really want to avoid! I think changing the photo requirement will help with that, if owners understand what the changes mean, and what they don't mean, and follow through with the changes in requirements. We need to take the "found it" logs in good faith - if someone insists they visited the site and tried to accomplish the goals, then there's no harm in allowing them to log, even if they've missed something. But at the same time, cachers should not attempt to log a find when they haven't even really tried to accomplish the goals - they have to log in good faith also, or I think we lose some integrity of the game. my two cents (with no accompanying flames!) :-)

 

I believe we are in total agreement.

Certainly those who seemingly try to log an EC with a 'drive by' don't deserve the smiley. I have a dear friend who I believe is much too rigid with his logging standards and certainly I didn't mean you. The only thing that would really disturb us is if GSA and/or Groundspeak really did establish some sort of Acceptable Log Guidelines. They are much too smart for that and I am sure they know such standards would pose endless appeals and arguments. Heck, there is too much subjectivity as to what is an acceptable EC in the first place much less what are acceptable logs! We sort of take the same approach as you. If it smells like and feels like and looks like there was no actual visit or attempt at completing the requirements, then delete. Of course, the deletion would occur after a gentle email to the 'alleged' visitor. Thank goodness, Marge and I have had very, very few of them.

Thanks and do some more! ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm fairly flexible on answers as I feel it's more important to have learned something. Sounds like the finder may have sent you answers for a different EC.

 

On my newest EC, a somewhat new cacher found it. Their first EC. They posted the photo but I have not received an email with the answers. I've written twice and even added the questions in the second email. Today I'm going to delete their log. I hate to do it but they didn't meet the requirements. I'm sure that on my other placed ECs there's an online log for someone that didn't send me the answers. The one that I'm going to delete is by the first finder and there's been only three finds so far.

 

Sounds like you've done your part to get the answers from them. I've only deleted logs on two, maybe three occasions, but it's always a last resort. Don't feel bad.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a case of a local cacher who fancies himself as an "expert" in Earthcaches and in geology. Ironically, he was the "guest speaker" at a 10-10-10 event that we had in our area about EarthCaches. He posted a find on one of my EarthCaches (GC1F5X4) in North Carolina with an incorrect answer and no photos. While I have been fairly liberal in allowing finds, even with a wrong answer, when I am confident that the finder had actually been to the location, this guy's answers were odd. I sent him an email reaffirming the requirement for a photo and telling him that one of his answers was incorrect. A few days later he posted 2 photos. They struck me as strange because they were very tightly cropped. Upon a closer review, I figured out that he had taken the photos from the logs of other finders of this and a nearby regular cache.

 

Based on this I sent him a note telling him I was disallowing the find. In response he proceeded to try to convince me that I was being difficult and he was in possession of superior information based on his trips previously to the area with a local Virginia uiversity. If that wasn't bad enough, proceeded to insult me because I am retired from the military.

 

I consider the issue closed and the log disallowed. I am not sure I want to engage this chucklehead because I Geocache for fun and I have enough drama in my real job and life. On the other hand he is representing himself as an EarthCache "expert" and is pretty critical of others who have placed EarthCaches in the region that don't meet his high standards. Funny, this guy is phoning it in and giving us grief.

 

Any recommendations?

Share this post


Link to post

Keep deleting his finds and if he escalates turn him into Groundspeak. They will provide him a nice vacation from the game if need be.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't engage with him. Report it to Groundspeak and ask them to deal with him.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a case of a local cacher who fancies himself as an "expert" in Earthcaches and in geology. Ironically, he was the "guest speaker" at a 10-10-10 event that we had in our area about EarthCaches. He posted a find on one of my EarthCaches (GC1F5X4) in North Carolina with an incorrect answer and no photos. While I have been fairly liberal in allowing finds, even with a wrong answer, when I am confident that the finder had actually been to the location, this guy's answers were odd. I sent him an email reaffirming the requirement for a photo and telling him that one of his answers was incorrect. A few days later he posted 2 photos. They struck me as strange because they were very tightly cropped. Upon a closer review, I figured out that he had taken the photos from the logs of other finders of this and a nearby regular cache.

 

Based on this I sent him a note telling him I was disallowing the find. In response he proceeded to try to convince me that I was being difficult and he was in possession of superior information based on his trips previously to the area with a local Virginia uiversity. If that wasn't bad enough, proceeded to insult me because I am retired from the military.

 

I consider the issue closed and the log disallowed. I am not sure I want to engage this chucklehead because I Geocache for fun and I have enough drama in my real job and life. On the other hand he is representing himself as an EarthCache "expert" and is pretty critical of others who have placed EarthCaches in the region that don't meet his high standards. Funny, this guy is phoning it in and giving us grief.

 

Any recommendations?

 

There's an Earthcache here in Minneapolis where the CO insisted my answer was wrong because I did not answer using some verbatim text from a plaque, even though, by geological standards, my answer was MORE than correct. This EC and one other where I was accused of not providing a photo, where I noted I was in the photo of my caching partner in the next log down, are the only issues I've ever run into. Never had issues logging virtual caches.

 

I understand the need to enforce requirements. But I think being so stringent where you don't even offer a reasonable amount of time to process notes or where there is no room for the EC owner to be wrong or reasonably flexible in answers is contrary to the whole point of geocaching and earthcaching.

Share this post


Link to post

I might offer up another instance for being gentle.

 

Sometimes cachers from other lands might not have a full grasp of our lingo and it's nuances, therefore they might stumble a bit in attempting to comply with the requirements.

 

I would be inclined to cut those folks some slack.

 

I know, I know, I know ... lowering the bar for one is not " right / fair / etc. etc. "

 

If the cacher is a local forget it - beat them, whip them, make them do it over and over and over, flog them into submission, have them grovel until they have earned the smiley.

 

JUST KIDDING

Share this post


Link to post

 

There's an Earthcache here in Minneapolis where the CO insisted my answer was wrong because I did not answer using some verbatim text from a plaque, even though, by geological standards, my answer was MORE than correct. This EC and one other where I was accused of not providing a photo, where I noted I was in the photo of my caching partner in the next log down, are the only issues I've ever run into. Never had issues logging virtual caches.

 

I understand the need to enforce requirements. But I think being so stringent where you don't even offer a reasonable amount of time to process notes or where there is no room for the EC owner to be wrong or reasonably flexible in answers is contrary to the whole point of geocaching and earthcaching.

 

Refusing to accept an answer *because* it was in your own words is asinine and completely contrary to the aims of Earthcaching. That kind of owner response would get an NA log from me.

Share this post


Link to post

 

There's an Earthcache here in Minneapolis where the CO insisted my answer was wrong because I did not answer using some verbatim text from a plaque, even though, by geological standards, my answer was MORE than correct. This EC and one other where I was accused of not providing a photo, where I noted I was in the photo of my caching partner in the next log down, are the only issues I've ever run into. Never had issues logging virtual caches.

 

I understand the need to enforce requirements. But I think being so stringent where you don't even offer a reasonable amount of time to process notes or where there is no room for the EC owner to be wrong or reasonably flexible in answers is contrary to the whole point of geocaching and earthcaching.

 

Refusing to accept an answer *because* it was in your own words is asinine and completely contrary to the aims of Earthcaching. That kind of owner response would get an NA log from me.

 

I understand your point, but allow me to play devil's advocate -- there could be a case where capturing and then submitting something verbatim from a sign is part of the logging requirement which proves that you were actually at the site. I'm not saying that the above sounds like that to be the case in this situation, just suggesting that there could well be a very valid reason that an EC CO wants something exactly as it is on the sign as a way of preventing armchair logging based on other online research. I'm just trying to suggest that it isn't going to be as black 'n white in all cases and consider that before submitting an NA on that alone.

 

I have in fact had one log like that though -- where someone didn't answer any of the questions correctly as they were listed on the sign (and you can check my ECs to see that this isn't a case of not answering one question alone) and it seemed pretty obvious that they didn't actually go to the EC and instead pulled what they hoped would pass for the answers from online.

 

I'm just saying..... :)

Share this post


Link to post

I understand the need to enforce requirements. But I think being so stringent where you don't even offer a reasonable amount of time to process notes or where there is no room for the EC owner to be wrong or reasonably flexible in answers is contrary to the whole point of geocaching and earthcaching.

 

The only cache where my log has been questioned is an earthcache where the owner asks visitors to take elevation readings with their gpsr. My unit disagreed with his and he accepted only a 25 foot difference. So I could have completed the earthcache task and still had my log deleted if not for the "optional" photo of myself at the cache location.

 

The developer said he has to be strict because he gets a number of armchair loggers. Although I suppose that I might have been considered an armchair logger if I had objected to the photo. It took some of the fun out of that particular cache - and I thought there were other things that could have been asked that would have been more objective.

 

I have deleted a small number of logs where no answers were given. But between strict standards and letting an occasional cacher improperly log, I lean on the side of inclusion.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand your point, but allow me to play devil's advocate -- there could be a case where capturing and then submitting something verbatim from a sign is part of the logging requirement which proves that you were actually at the site.

 

Then it's an issue of poor planning. If an Earthcache owner insists of having a specific proof of visit task, it shouldn't be rolled into an educational task. Copying text from a sign doesn't demonstrate learning.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey folks, I'll now really upset the sensibilities of some of you purists. If we believe the cacher has been there and made some reasonable attempt at the questions.... we allow! After all, most earthcachers aren't really looking for a geology lecture. We believe most earthcachers are looking for the WOW factor!

P.S. To us, a little learnin' is just a bonus and no before the usual remark is made about speaking for all earthcachers, we aren't! But the ones we know and love are out there to see something!

Yes, we follow the usual requirements of providing questions for our ECs, but isn't it about time we admitted the truth and acted accordingly?

Don't get me wrong, I even agree with the above posts and the logs should have been deleted, but let's not turn the game into a life or death situation! Thanks. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Hey folks, I'll now really upset the sensibilities of some of you purists. If we believe the cacher has been there and made some reasonable attempt at the questions.... we allow! . . . let's not turn the game into a life or death situation!

 

There have been times when I have been grateful that most earthcache owners seem to think this way. While not all earthcaches need to have the "wow factor," I would have lost interest if earthcaching was simply a geology exam with a pass/fail grade. Or even worse, if the grade was based on complicated mathematical formulas for estimating the weight or the volume of certain things.

Edited by mulvaney

Share this post


Link to post

There have been times when I have been grateful that most earthcache owners seem to think this way. While not all earthcaches need to have the "wow factor," I would have lost interest if earthcaching was simply a geology exam with a pass/fail grade. Or even worse, if the grade was based on complicated mathematical formulas for estimating the weight or the volume of certain things.

 

There's a happy medium to be found here. Earthcache owners should try to be sensitive to the fact that people have varying levels of ability, and not penalize those cachers who happen to be a little less eloquent than others. If you can tell that a cacher was at the site and made an attempt to engage with it, that should be enough.

 

On the other hand, allowing an Earthcache to become a de facto Virtual reflects very poorly on the cache owner, and Earthcaches in general. One of the biggest criticisms of Earthcaching is that they're just Virtuals by another name. That shouldn't be the case, but in too many instances, it is.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand your point, but allow me to play devil's advocate -- there could be a case where capturing and then submitting something verbatim from a sign is part of the logging requirement which proves that you were actually at the site.

 

Then it's an issue of poor planning. If an Earthcache owner insists of having a specific proof of visit task, it shouldn't be rolled into an educational task. Copying text from a sign doesn't demonstrate learning.

 

I'm having a real hard time seeing the basis of your point -- nobody said that the act of copying text from a sign demonstrated learning. Learning takes place at the cache site and there are many ways to state something which would demonstrate that learning has happened, and being able to identify the specific things from a sign which relate to the desired learning is certainly demonstrating that learning has taken place.

 

But more to the point, if I'm understanding you, you seem to be saying that the EC approval process is flawed because Geoaware approves ECs (using that as an example because he approved that EC of mine) that are poorly planned and which don't meet your personal standards of what constitutes demonstration of learning?

Share this post


Link to post

drdan01, don't worry about it. There are some who would rather turn off potential earthcachers than make the ECs more fun and far less academic! It's been a very long time since I took The Psychology of Learning 101, but we are constantly learning and seem to remember best what our minds say is more important.

As an example, look back at some distant EC that you have visited. What do you first remember about it? Venturing a guess, what "pops up" is what you saw i.e. the mountain, cave or waterfall. Way down on the memory list are the questions and answers. If you remember the questions at all it is probably because they (the questions) were so esoteric or so way out in academia left field they were like a bad dream! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Hey folks, I'll now really upset the sensibilities of some of you purists. If we believe the cacher has been there and made some reasonable attempt at the questions.... we allow! After all, most earthcachers aren't really looking for a geology lecture. We believe most earthcachers are looking for the WOW factor!

P.S. To us, a little learnin' is just a bonus and no before the usual remark is made about speaking for all earthcachers, we aren't! But the ones we know and love are out there to see something!

Yes, we follow the usual requirements of providing questions for our ECs, but isn't it about time we admitted the truth and acted accordingly?

Don't get me wrong, I even agree with the above posts and the logs should have been deleted, but let's not turn the game into a life or death situation! Thanks. :o

I have NEVER visited an EarthCache to get educated, but for the "WoW" factor only. However I have became more educated in earth science by accident, answering the questions to log a find. B) I have also learned that SOME EarthCache owners are mean and nasty to others, and will delete your log, knowing darn well that you visited the site, uploaded a photo, and TRYED to answer their logging requirements. I deleted a users log after a week on one of our EarthCaches because the answer was totally off, possibly Googled, and no photo uploaded. A few days later the user re-posted their log with a photo of them holding a GPS unit. They were just passing through the area and did not know the logging requirements I think. It would have been nice if they would have tryed to explain this, instead of just sending a one word answer. :huh: Looks like they tryed, and that is good enough for me. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I visit for the wow factor and learn some stuff in the process. I hated science with a passion all the way through highschool and college. Hated it absolutely. Hated geology a lot. So basically anytime I get to an earth cache I'm on a wing and a prayer that I can answer the questions correctly.

 

And some people put SO much information on the cache page and want such detailed answers that I lose some enjoyment of where the actual cache is trying to find these detailed answers or wading through pages of scientific stuff I don't understand at all to get some explanation of what exactly I'm looking for answer wise. I have attempted at least a few earth caches only to abandoned them because I couldn't understand them and it was seriously detracting my from my enjoyment of the site. I even wasted energy at one trying to get a required photograph of my GPS (which became quite the conundrum for a friend of mine because we shared the GPS so could we both log it?)

Share this post


Link to post

I visit for the wow factor and learn some stuff in the process. I hated science with a passion all the way through highschool and college. Hated it absolutely. Hated geology a lot. So basically anytime I get to an earth cache I'm on a wing and a prayer that I can answer the questions correctly.

 

And some people put SO much information on the cache page and want such detailed answers that I lose some enjoyment of where the actual cache is trying to find these detailed answers or wading through pages of scientific stuff I don't understand at all to get some explanation of what exactly I'm looking for answer wise. I have attempted at least a few earth caches only to abandoned them because I couldn't understand them and it was seriously detracting my from my enjoyment of the site. I even wasted energy at one trying to get a required photograph of my GPS (which became quite the conundrum for a friend of mine because we shared the GPS so could we both log it?)

I understand what you mean. I like earth science, but lack education about it. Most EC's that I have encountered have not been REAL tough to answer, but seems the photo has always been the main issue anytime that we have had any problems with an EC owner. Alot of EC's are also listed on the Waymarking site, and you can learn the same thing without all the logging tasks/hassle stuff. I think this is why I started Waymarking instead of attempting to get anymore EC's approved, they are not easy to develop unless you are quite educated in geology, and I am not. But I can Google......... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

The earth caches I've actually logged I have been able to both understand what was being told to me and do the logging requirements. Ok reasonably understand. I could not grasp what one of them was and why I was looking at it until I go the simple definition elsewhere. With most of the ones I've logged I have really enjoyed them and enjoyed them more because the lessons were short and to the point and not not a huge vocabulary lesson nor filled with a lot of ancillary information. If you want me to learn keep it simple basically. Especially for those of us out there that failed in science miserably. I would like to learn and am interested but overwhelmed with both the pages and some of the logging requirements.

 

That being said I understand that are stringent guidelines for developing an earth cache and that some of the issues I have experienced here and there are due to those guidelines and people trying to get their earth cache through them.

 

I just avoid any/all caches with a mandatory picture requirement. Until that is addressed with the cache owners en masse I refuse to get into individual arguments with owners about it.

 

And I feel that developing an earth cache is just not an option for me really. I have some ideas sometimes. Come here to see that some of those ideas aren't allowed (something about waterfalls apparently) and I lack the formal education in science to toss one together. I can give the simple explanation but not the 3 pages worth of vocab etc.

 

I do enjoy finding them though. And love the wow factor with most of the ones I've found.

Share this post


Link to post

The earth caches I've actually logged I have been able to both understand what was being told to me and do the logging requirements. Ok reasonably understand. I could not grasp what one of them was and why I was looking at it until I go the simple definition elsewhere. With most of the ones I've logged I have really enjoyed them and enjoyed them more because the lessons were short and to the point and not not a huge vocabulary lesson nor filled with a lot of ancillary information. If you want me to learn keep it simple basically. Especially for those of us out there that failed in science miserably. I would like to learn and am interested but overwhelmed with both the pages and some of the logging requirements.

 

That being said I understand that are stringent guidelines for developing an earth cache and that some of the issues I have experienced here and there are due to those guidelines and people trying to get their earth cache through them.

 

I just avoid any/all caches with a mandatory picture requirement. Until that is addressed with the cache owners en masse I refuse to get into individual arguments with owners about it.

 

And I feel that developing an earth cache is just not an option for me really. I have some ideas sometimes. Come here to see that some of those ideas aren't allowed (something about waterfalls apparently) and I lack the formal education in science to toss one together. I can give the simple explanation but not the 3 pages worth of vocab etc.

 

I do enjoy finding them though. And love the wow factor with most of the ones I've found.

I have only avoided one or two EC's near me, one you have to pay to take a guided cave tour, other than shelling out the $'s the questions are simple enough. Guidelines may have changed, but they were once supposed to be written to where a 14 YO school kid could understand. But like you say, "I just avoid any/all caches with a mandatory picture requirement. Until that is addressed with the cache owners en masse I refuse to get into individual arguments with owners about it", I agree. I just contact GC and let them sort it out, some CO's are real cranky about their ALR photos. I also send myself a copy of my answers to a EC owner, sometimes they come in handy. It really sucks to be on vacation and visit a site and try real hard to meet the logging requirements just to have a CO delete your log and be uncooperative with helping you meet the EXACT answers that they are looking for, even with a photo of you standing at the site with a GPS unit! So you can imagine that avoiding EC owners is a issue with me, not EC's in general. Thankfully, we have good EC owners in the area that I live in.

Share this post


Link to post

It really sucks to be on vacation and visit a site and try real hard to meet the logging requirements just to have a CO delete your log and be uncooperative with helping you meet the EXACT answers that they are looking for, even with a photo of you standing at the site with a GPS unit!

 

Its too bad that there is not a special attribute to identify such cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm having a real hard time seeing the basis of your point -- nobody said that the act of copying text from a sign demonstrated learning. Learning takes place at the cache site and there are many ways to state something which would demonstrate that learning has happened, and being able to identify the specific things from a sign which relate to the desired learning is certainly demonstrating that learning has taken place.

 

But more to the point, if I'm understanding you, you seem to be saying that the EC approval process is flawed because Geoaware approves ECs (using that as an example because he approved that EC of mine) that are poorly planned and which don't meet your personal standards of what constitutes demonstration of learning?

 

The point is that people should not have their logs deleted for putting things in their own words instead of just copying the plaque.

 

If copying the plaque is important to the cache owner for verification purposes, that should be a separate task. If the only task you have involves getting information off the plaque, it's ridiculous to penalize someone for putting that information into their own words.

 

It's right in the submission guidelines: "Logging of an EarthCache must involve visitors undertaking some educational task that relates to the Earth science at the site."

 

And yes, I think that in some cases, EC reviewers have really dropped the ball.

Share this post


Link to post

I visit for the wow factor and learn some stuff in the process. I hated science with a passion all the way through highschool and college. Hated it absolutely. Hated geology a lot. So basically anytime I get to an earth cache I'm on a wing and a prayer that I can answer the questions correctly.

 

And some people put SO much information on the cache page and want such detailed answers that I lose some enjoyment of where the actual cache is trying to find these detailed answers or wading through pages of scientific stuff I don't understand at all to get some explanation of what exactly I'm looking for answer wise. I have attempted at least a few earth caches only to abandoned them because I couldn't understand them and it was seriously detracting my from my enjoyment of the site. I even wasted energy at one trying to get a required photograph of my GPS (which became quite the conundrum for a friend of mine because we shared the GPS so could we both log it?)

 

I had the most wonderful email from an Earthcache visitor the other day. A family with an 8-y-o son had visited one of my eskers just after he had learned about glaciers in school. I guess he was really excited to tie his visit to the site with what he had learned in class. Their email made my day.

 

I wouldn't ever want to put my Earthcaches out of reach to families like that, but at the same time I sympathize with other Earthcache developers who want to convey interesting, yet detailed and challenging information in an Earthcache.

 

A lot of the time, Earthcache developers get sent back to the drawing board and told to put more information into their description. The submission guidelines ask us to assume no previous knowledge, so it can be very tricky to keep a cache page concise, interesting, AND informative. Sometimes Earthcache sites don't have the WOW factor of an amazing waterfall or a gaping canyon, and getting visitors to see and understand what makes the site important involves a more detailed and nuanced cache description.

 

I try to make a habit of reading Earthcache descriptions before I go to the site. I've had to skip some neat Earthcaches while I was travelling because I simply wasn't prepared for them. That's just the way it goes with this highly specialized cache type.

Share this post


Link to post

I make a habit of reading before hand and bringing a paper copy with me to earth caches (or use the information on my phone). So it's not like I'm going there unprepared and unable to meet the requirements due to being unprepared.

 

I'm talking about caches where there's literally 5 pages of information about the cache site in great scientific detail. And it might be written at the literacy level of a 14 year old but the number of vocabularly lessons and the variety of information is obviously beyond what a 14 year old would be able to comprehend. I'm not a stupid person. I just never got into science that heavily.

 

So you get to the sight have your 5 pages of information and a general idea of the logging tasks only to discover that really what you're looking for is one sentence or paragraph on that 5 pages of paperwork to answer the scientific question but because the ENTIRE thing is written in what is basically esoteric scientific language it becomes very difficult to find that one thing you were supposed to learn because it's surrounded by all that fluff which is not relevant and that I learned basically nothing from because I couldn't understand the page in the first place because it's written in "science" instead of "English."

 

It's very possible to make concise pages. Every single geological detail does not need to be mentioned on the page however interesting it is. But the relevant information does need to be put there. And I agree that the problem is that the reviewers are rigorous and demanding all this information and then turning around saying it should be at a 14 year old's level.

Share this post


Link to post

I make a habit of reading before hand and bringing a paper copy with me to earth caches (or use the information on my phone). So it's not like I'm going there unprepared and unable to meet the requirements due to being unprepared.

 

I'm talking about caches where there's literally 5 pages of information about the cache site in great scientific detail. And it might be written at the literacy level of a 14 year old but the number of vocabularly lessons and the variety of information is obviously beyond what a 14 year old would be able to comprehend. I'm not a stupid person. I just never got into science that heavily.

 

So you get to the sight have your 5 pages of information and a general idea of the logging tasks only to discover that really what you're looking for is one sentence or paragraph on that 5 pages of paperwork to answer the scientific question but because the ENTIRE thing is written in what is basically esoteric scientific language it becomes very difficult to find that one thing you were supposed to learn because it's surrounded by all that fluff which is not relevant and that I learned basically nothing from because I couldn't understand the page in the first place because it's written in "science" instead of "English."

 

It's very possible to make concise pages. Every single geological detail does not need to be mentioned on the page however interesting it is. But the relevant information does need to be put there. And I agree that the problem is that the reviewers are rigorous and demanding all this information and then turning around saying it should be at a 14 year old's level.

You make excellent points.

There are those who want to admire their writing and there are those who want to admire logs which say, "what a beautiful spot, thanks for bringing us here." We prefer the latter!

Again, earthcaching probably had its origins in presenting geological lessons for those interested in geology or wanting to heighten interests in geology, but we feel it has evolved into something far different. Like is or not, MOST folks visit ECs to see something, not to become budding geologists.

While Marge and I are not geologists and really love the science, we don't know many 14 year old geologists.

For those who quote the guidelines, don't forget that one! Thanks. :angry:

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

I'm having a real hard time seeing the basis of your point -- nobody said that the act of copying text from a sign demonstrated learning. Learning takes place at the cache site and there are many ways to state something which would demonstrate that learning has happened, and being able to identify the specific things from a sign which relate to the desired learning is certainly demonstrating that learning has taken place.

 

But more to the point, if I'm understanding you, you seem to be saying that the EC approval process is flawed because Geoaware approves ECs (using that as an example because he approved that EC of mine) that are poorly planned and which don't meet your personal standards of what constitutes demonstration of learning?

 

The point is that people should not have their logs deleted for putting things in their own words instead of just copying the plaque.

 

If copying the plaque is important to the cache owner for verification purposes, that should be a separate task. If the only task you have involves getting information off the plaque, it's ridiculous to penalize someone for putting that information into their own words.

 

It's right in the submission guidelines: "Logging of an EarthCache must involve visitors undertaking some educational task that relates to the Earth science at the site."

 

And yes, I think that in some cases, EC reviewers have really dropped the ball.

 

Your above doesn't actually address my comment and certainly doesn't refute the points that I'm presenting. And I think that you're continuing to make sweeping assumptions and offering opinions that have no basis in fact.

 

The point that I was making was that asking for "something verbatim" should be okay. You seem to be making the assumption that this means copying the entire sign, and I never said that. "Something" clearly has a different meaning than the word "everything" and I didn't say copying "everything." I said to answer questions as they were listed on the sign and referred to my own EC as my example where they only need cite a couple of words or use figures given there. That's "something" and not "everything."

 

You also make the assumption that someone is penalized for putting information into their own words. I've never said that they couldn't in addition also put that required information into their own words. And in my EC example that I was referring to you can answer one of the questions in several ways...and probably would if you Googled it...but only one of those answers is on the sign.

 

And you're also assuming that getting information from a sign to answer a question about the earth science of the site is somehow not an educational task, or that it is the only task. And that's simply not so. That's a silly assumption -- you're implying that your knowledge (which I'll presume came from books you read while in school, or from a teacher who got it from a book, either way....words) is better obtained than someone reading specific words from a sign that are in support of the educational task. Can I assume that when you were learning what you know and had a quiz that called for an answer to a fill in the blank question, that you gave as an answer "the" word(s) that your teacher had said was "the" answer? That's no different than here in that the point of asking logging questions is to allow the cacher to demonstrate that they learned what was the intent of the earth science lesson. And again, I never said that was the only task.

 

My point was and is, that your statement about something being "asinine and completely contrary to the aims of Earthcaching" is unsupported.

 

That might be your personal opinion, but you stating it as having factual basis is wrong (and frankly pretty vulgar). And the same for your personal opinion that there was somehow "poor planning" involved, simply because you don't personally approve of how an EC CO chooses to approach an educational task. And the same for your personal opinion that a CO asking for something specific from a sign that relates to the educational task of the EC "shouldn't be rolled into an educational task" -- that has no basis, because you don't set the rules for that.

 

In responding to your post I tried to politely offer another viewpoint from yours, which was an attempt to point out that you are stating as factual what is only your opinion. Unless I've missed something and you are a EC reviewer stating GS/GSA policy or requirements, then your opinion is no better than other opinions here. I think that it would be helpful for you to stop stating your opinions as matters of fact.

 

On the other hand, the points that I've made seem to be well founded, given that Geoaware himself approved the EC that I was using as an example to support my point. So clearly he found it to be acceptable enough to approve the EC. So if as you stated you believe that the reviewers have "really dropped the ball" because they've allowed something that is counter to your personal opinion, perhaps you should take that up with them directly.

 

I think that your claiming that EC CO's are "asinine" because they don't conform to your personal opinion or beliefs is rude, crude and uncalled for.

Share this post


Link to post

It really sucks to be on vacation and visit a site and try real hard to meet the logging requirements just to have a CO delete your log and be uncooperative with helping you meet the EXACT answers that they are looking for, even with a photo of you standing at the site with a GPS unit!

 

Its too bad that there is not a special attribute to identify such cache.

Yeah, that's too bad we don't have an attribute for such caches. Maybe the difficulty rating could be rasied to a 5, and use the "watch for livestock" attribute. Some EC owners are real Horses behinds. :angry: I think that most EC owners dislike to have to delete a log, but some hold grudges against accounts and just set and wait for the user to log one of their EC's so they can "Nit-pick" and delete the users log. This is not just my opinion, but from my experiences EarthCaching. :grin:

Edited by Manville Possum Hunters

Share this post


Link to post

I think that your claiming that EC CO's are "asinine" because they don't conform to your personal opinion or beliefs is rude, crude and uncalled for.

 

Deleting an honest log is rude, crude, and uncalled for.

 

BTW, sincerely disagreeing with somebody isn't playing the Devil's Advocate.

Edited by narcissa

Share this post


Link to post

I make a habit of reading before hand and bringing a paper copy with me to earth caches (or use the information on my phone). So it's not like I'm going there unprepared and unable to meet the requirements due to being unprepared.

 

I'm talking about caches where there's literally 5 pages of information about the cache site in great scientific detail. And it might be written at the literacy level of a 14 year old but the number of vocabularly lessons and the variety of information is obviously beyond what a 14 year old would be able to comprehend. I'm not a stupid person. I just never got into science that heavily.

 

So you get to the sight have your 5 pages of information and a general idea of the logging tasks only to discover that really what you're looking for is one sentence or paragraph on that 5 pages of paperwork to answer the scientific question but because the ENTIRE thing is written in what is basically esoteric scientific language it becomes very difficult to find that one thing you were supposed to learn because it's surrounded by all that fluff which is not relevant and that I learned basically nothing from because I couldn't understand the page in the first place because it's written in "science" instead of "English."

 

It's very possible to make concise pages. Every single geological detail does not need to be mentioned on the page however interesting it is. But the relevant information does need to be put there. And I agree that the problem is that the reviewers are rigorous and demanding all this information and then turning around saying it should be at a 14 year old's level.

 

I see your point, and I think that Earthcache reviewers need to address this in both directions. Publishing Earthcaches that are obtuse is just as problematic as publishing the excessively simplistic ones.

 

I think it's tricky for someone with a very strong background in science to take a step back and write for a less-experienced audience. The reviewers seem keen to send people back to the drawing board when an Earthcache doesn't have enough details, but I wonder if they ever ask people to cut them back?s

 

Assuming no previous knowledge of Earth Science AND writing at a 14-y-o level is a little contradictory. I'm not sure what other jurisdictions are like, but in Ontario, students are certainly introduced to some basic geology and geography long before they start high school.

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 5

×
×
  • Create New...