Earthcache not up to standard.

[+Carbon Hunter]

Just a question.

 

A "hypothetical" new earthcache in the regiopn was placed by a visiting tourist (I have no problem with that) - but this particular earthcache can be done via armchair - using google alone.

 

So my question is:

 

Should there be a review process whereby earthcaches can be reported to the reviewers to ensure that exisitng EC's have not been altered by the CO to ensure that they are glorified virtuals - or are really not asking for any in situ observations?

 

Just trying to keep the standard.

[+cincol]

Good question - I have come across a couple myself in various parts of the world. What, if any, recourse is there should one encounter such a cache? EarthCaches tend receive a lot of criticism on these forums and we certainly do not need any additional ammunition lying around for people to pick up and shoot us with.

[+geodarts]

I have come across a wide range of earthcaches where the logging requirements seem to be questionable.

 

In one of my favorite geological spots the EC asked for only a picture at a particular numbered marker. But others face the problem of how to develop an appropriate geological task without relying on pictures to ensure the logger has actually visited the site.

 

With some I am sure the answers could be googled - even many observations can be googled these days. Where there is a will, there is often a way. To avoid this, some have imposed artificial restrictions - the most recent that comes to mind is one where a EC asked me to take an elevation reading with my gpsr, which was fine as far as that goes, but my answer was not accepted because my unit gave me a reading that was more than a 25 foot margin from the reading the owner took with his unit (the dreaded photo saved my log, but not without some discussion). So the problem that many face is how to develop appropriate tasks to limit armchair logs without requiring a personal photo - people have answered that with varying degrees of success.

 

There is a certain subjective component to many earthcaches. If the earthcache makes me question whether it is geologically focused or if the answers could have been googled, then I usually think that the earthcache passed review and that is enough. My standards might be different - or the "risk" of googling might be unavoidable - but the call was up to the reviewers.

 

If the owner is imposing artificial restrictions that can't be worked out, I would let Groundspeak make the call about whether my log should stand. I have avoided having to do this but it could be a problem that would affect people's participation in earthcaching.

 

But if it appears the earthcache description is, on its face, so far out of guidelines that it appears to have been altered, that is another issue. Looking back upon the one that only required a picture of a marker, I probably should have flagged it at the time and brought it to the GSA's attention - I will check to see if someone else did so.

Edited September 26, 2010 by mulvaney

[+Touchstone]

Should there be a review process whereby earthcaches can be reported to the reviewers to ensure that exisitng EC's have not been altered by the CO to ensure that they are glorified virtuals - or are really not asking for any in situ observations?

 

I think a polite email to the Reviewer would be appropriate. Community involvement in the process is essential to the Earthcache program in my opinion.

[+Manville Possum]

Just a question.

 

A "hypothetical" new earthcache in the regiopn was placed by a visiting tourist (I have no problem with that) - but this particular earthcache can be done via armchair - using google alone.

 

So my question is:

 

Should there be a review process whereby earthcaches can be reported to the reviewers to ensure that exisitng EC's have not been altered by the CO to ensure that they are glorified virtuals - or are really not asking for any in situ observations?

 

Just trying to keep the standard.

I ran across one recently that is just a glorifyed virtual, what upset me is that it is a PMO cache in a National Historic Park. How it ever got published as an EarthCache I don't know. The site is also a waymark, and Park visitors pass by it everyday to view it, so traffic is not a problem.

[+TerryDad2]

In the past, i've sent a message to the reviewer and left it at that.

[+Corfmania]

Sort of off topic, but I just submitted one for publication. It is urban, and it was extremely difficult to come up with logging requirements that prove it was visited because of the utility of google and bing street view.

[+narcissa]

The Earthcache review team seems pretty diligent about upholding the submission guidelines, so I wonder how some of these bad ones slip through. It seems unlikely that someone would do the work to create an acceptable Earthcache and then strip it down after the fact.

[+Cyclops]

If an Earthcache page has been modified, I feel it should be reviewed again. It sounds like you feel the page as been modified. As narcissa stated, why would someone strip down the page.

 

Some changes could be expected if the site has changed somehow. I agree with a note to the reviewer. Perhaps an email should be sent to the reviewer automatically after a change has been made. I wonder if GC.com keeps old revisions?

[cezanne]

Just a question.

 

A "hypothetical" new earthcache in the regiopn was placed by a visiting tourist (I have no problem with that) - but this particular earthcache can be done via armchair - using google alone.

 

So my question is:

 

Should there be a review process whereby earthcaches can be reported to the reviewers to ensure that exisitng EC's have not been altered by the CO to ensure that they are glorified virtuals - or are really not asking for any in situ observations?

 

 

Do you have any evidence that the cache page has been changed? In my experience, a considerable number of Earth caches slips through where all questions can be answered by using books and/or the internet.

 

I am quite sure that the reviewers do not the have the time to try to find the answers in the internet. They typically have just a short look at the questions and will only object if it straightforward to see that common knowledge in geology suffices to answer the questions. Some of the reviewers ask for the inclusion of measuring/estimation questions, but those are also often answerable in a satisfactory way without visiting the site (at least if one is not that strict as cache owner resulting in many failures also for cachers who visited the location and invested some effort).

 

Nowadays an incredibly large amount of information can be found on the internet. For example, I am aware of geological trails where the text of all signs of the trail is available in the internet. Those pages are however not always easy to find, not even for native speakers of the language in which the pages are written. I am convinced that the reviewers do not invest that much time into the review process to check for the existence of such pages.

 

Cezanne

[+Carbon Hunter]

The Earthcache review team seems pretty diligent about upholding the submission guidelines, so I wonder how some of these bad ones slip through. It seems unlikely that someone would do the work to create an acceptable Earthcache and then strip it down after the fact.

 

Just a question.

 

A "hypothetical" new earthcache in the regiopn was placed by a visiting tourist (I have no problem with that) - but this particular earthcache can be done via armchair - using google alone.

 

So my question is:

 

Should there be a review process whereby earthcaches can be reported to the reviewers to ensure that exisitng EC's have not been altered by the CO to ensure that they are glorified virtuals - or are really not asking for any in situ observations?

 

 

Do you have any evidence that the cache page has been changed? In my experience, a considerable number of Earth caches slips through where all questions can be answered by using books and/or the internet.

 

I am quite sure that the reviewers do not the have the time to try to find the answers in the internet. They typically have just a short look at the questions and will only object if it straightforward to see that common knowledge in geology suffices to answer the questions. Some of the reviewers ask for the inclusion of measuring/estimation questions, but those are also often answerable in a satisfactory way without visiting the site (at least if one is not that strict as cache owner resulting in many failures also for cachers who visited the location and invested some effort).

 

Nowadays an incredibly large amount of information can be found on the internet. For example, I am aware of geological trails where the text of all signs of the trail is available in the internet. Those pages are however not always easy to find, not even for native speakers of the language in which the pages are written. I am convinced that the reviewers do not invest that much time into the review process to check for the existence of such pages.

 

Cezanne

 

I think you both capture the essence.

 

1) I dont think anyone willingly creates a EC to make it poor quality

 

2) Reviewers do the best they can - but the internet can give "too" much info to make it a non-armchaior cache.

 

I guess what I would like is that cache owners prevent arm chair logging (if you feel unsure - just check if the cacher has even found another cache in the same province/country/state recently) - or ask another question in the email. One of the reasons I like the optional photo - it makes it so much easier - but hey - I guess some cachers can even photoshop those :* ????

[+Carbon Hunter]

[

Edited October 2, 2010 by Carbon Hunter

[+Carbon Hunter]

The Earthcache review team seems pretty diligent about upholding the submission guidelines, so I wonder how some of these bad ones slip through. It seems unlikely that someone would do the work to create an acceptable Earthcache and then strip it down after the fact.

 

Just a question.

 

A "hypothetical" new earthcache in the regiopn was placed by a visiting tourist (I have no problem with that) - but this particular earthcache can be done via armchair - using google alone.

 

So my question is:

 

Should there be a review process whereby earthcaches can be reported to the reviewers to ensure that exisitng EC's have not been altered by the CO to ensure that they are glorified virtuals - or are really not asking for any in situ observations?

 

 

Do you have any evidence that the cache page has been changed? In my experience, a considerable number of Earth caches slips through where all questions can be answered by using books and/or the internet.

 

I am quite sure that the reviewers do not the have the time to try to find the answers in the internet. They typically have just a short look at the questions and will only object if it straightforward to see that common knowledge in geology suffices to answer the questions. Some of the reviewers ask for the inclusion of measuring/estimation questions, but those are also often answerable in a satisfactory way without visiting the site (at least if one is not that strict as cache owner resulting in many failures also for cachers who visited the location and invested some effort).

 

Nowadays an incredibly large amount of information can be found on the internet. For example, I am aware of geological trails where the text of all signs of the trail is available in the internet. Those pages are however not always easy to find, not even for native speakers of the language in which the pages are written. I am convinced that the reviewers do not invest that much time into the review process to check for the existence of such pages.

 

Cezanne

 

I think you both capture the essence.

 

1) I dont think anyone willingly creates a EC to make it poor quality

 

2) Reviewers do the best they can - but the internet can give "too" much info to make it a non-armchaior cache.

 

I guess what I would like is that cache owners prevent arm chair logging (if you feel unsure - just check if the cacher has even found another cache in the same province/country/state recently) - or ask another question in the email. One of the reasons I like the optional photo - it makes it so much easier - but hey - I guess some cachers can even photoshop those :* ????

[+cincol]

Since photos of caches at GZ are only optional I also ask for either a measurement or description of something on-site that cannot be Googled or otherwise. if you were not there then you wouldn't know about the object / number / word. etc.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Since photos of caches at GZ are only optional I also ask for either a measurement or description of something on-site that cannot be Googled or otherwise. if you were not there then you wouldn't know about the object / number / word. etc.

Sorry cincol, but I have no idea where the idea that photos cannot be required seems to get life. It is simply not true that photos cannot be required. Once again, here is Geoaware's response to the question if properly done, can photos be required and the can the failure to post the required photo result in log deletion?

 

Geoaware

 

You are correct. That is exactly what the guidelines mean.

 

If you are not asking for specific non-site related content you can ask for a photo.

 

If you ask for something in the photo that is NOT related to the educational logging task or the site, the photo must be optional and you can't delete a log based on the lack of photo alone."

 

If your photo meets the above it can be a requirement. Requirement means the absence thereof equals deletion! Go ahead and ask for the measurement or description of something but add a photo if desired!

Edited October 3, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+cincol]

Since photos of caches at GZ are only optional I also ask for either a measurement or description of something on-site that cannot be Googled or otherwise. if you were not there then you wouldn't know about the object / number / word. etc.

Sorry cincol, but I have no idea where the idea that photos cannot be required seems to get life. It is simply not true that photos cannot be required. Once again, here is Geoaware's response to the question if properly done, can photos be required and the can the failure to post the required photo result in log deletion?

 

Geoaware

 

You are correct. That is exactly what the guidelines mean.

 

If you are not asking for specific non-site related content you can ask for a photo.

 

If you ask for something in the photo that is NOT related to the educational logging task or the site, the photo must be optional and you can't delete a log based on the lack of photo alone."

 

If your photo meets the above it can be a requirement. Requirement means the absence thereof equals deletion! Go ahead and ask for the measurement or description of something but add a photo if desired!

 

KK&M - let me re-phrase that - since photos of cacheRs........ It was a typo!!!!