Reviewing process of Earthcaches (What are the tasks of the reviewers)

[cezanne]

I'd like to start with a disclaimer: This thread is not intended in any way to critize the work of the Earthcache team. The only intent is that I would like to obtain a better understanding of the review process of Earthcaches. If one is well aware of what one has to expect, the probability for being disappointed will be considerably decreased.

My personal disappointment about the development of the Earthcache program (that is shared by many of my fellow cachers from Europe) might have the main reason in

a wrong expectation towards the program caused by missing information.

 

I guess there is no doubt about that one of the tasks of the Earthcache reviewers is checking whether the logging tasks fulfill the Earthcache guidelines. There are many examples that the reviewers dealing with this aspect.

 

I have also encountered examples where Earthcaches got denied due to the saturation rule or because there was no or not enough focus on geology. So this is another aspect which for sure plays a role in the work of the Earthcache reviewer team.

 

No let me come to the aspects I am not sure about:

 

Does it belong to the tasks of the Earthcache reviewer team to read the cache description in detail and to check whether the provided information and explanations are (1) correct (that sometimes appears to be a very challenging job even for a professional geologist) and (2) that the description is written using the appropriate level of language (i.e. not overly complicated)? Narcissa and others stated in other threads that (2) should be checked during the review process. So an answer to this question might be of interest to many among us.

 

 

Please note that the GSA is free to set up their policy. I do not come up with any requests. In case none of the reviewers wants to answer to these questions, that's fine with me as well. You can then close the thread if you wish to do so.

 

 

 

Thank you very much in advance for your time and consideration.

 

Cezanne

[+geoaware]

Good questions.

 

In the process of reviewing EarthCache submissions the review team looks at the submission against all of the guidelines. Obviously there are some local geological aspects that are impossible for a reviewer to check unless they visit the site – and for those we take into consideration the accuracy of the explanation as it appears based on current and accepted geological thought.

 

It is not the role of the reviewer to correct language, spelling and typos. If a submission has too many of these, it may be rejected. It is very much to the advantage of all if a developer runs a spell checker and reviews and edits their own work.

 

We may request that the submission be provided in English when the reviewer is not fluent in the language of the submission. In those cases, the concepts are checked and a it is assumed that the native language will be more elegant than the translation. It is never out our intention that the English translation be left as part of the cache...and if the developer cache owner feels it should be removed, then we would happily back that decision (unless English happens to be the local language as per the guidelines).

 

We have a very enthusiastic, dedicated and skilled EarthCache review team who work hard to maintain standards and work with developers.

[+Lostby7]

It is never out our intention that the English translation be left as part of the cache...and if the developer cache owner feels it should be removed, then we would happily back that decision (unless English happens to be the local language as per the guidelines).

I was not aware of this tidbit. Having looked at scores of ECs outside the US, I have seen only a couple which delete the English language after posting. Based on what I saw, I would have thought this action was not allowed. It's nice to see this is an option. I for one am very particular about the looks of my pages (for the most part) and this offers a bit more control over the page appearance. That said, leaving the additional language(s) on the page does allow more people to attempt (and enjoy) the EC.

 

*Edit for spelling.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Lostby7

[cezanne]

In the process of reviewing EarthCache submissions the review team looks at the submission against all of the guidelines.

Obviously there are some local geological aspects that are impossible for a reviewer to check unless they visit the site – and for those we take into consideration the accuracy of the explanation as it appears based on current and accepted geological thought.

 

First, thank you for your helpful reply.

 

I am wondering whether the reviewers who deal with many submissions really have the time to do what you write above. Moreover, I have noted numerous times that the answers to the questions are available in the internet and the reviewer has not noted this. I assumed the only reason could be that the reviewers do not have the time to perform an internet search on the location. Am I right?

 

So let's assume that the reviewers are able to invest that much time into each submission. Then I am still asking myself why it happens that quite a number of ECs have extremely complicated descriptions (which in many cases the creators of the concerned caches do not understand themselves, but just have copied the text one to one from webpages or books) which certainly are not at the level as mentioned in the cache description (also not from my personal point of view what an average 15-yr old should be able to do and believe me my expectations are quite high).

 

Moreover, let me raise another question. I have looked at a number of EC pages in several countries. I noticed that the pages from countries like the US and Canada are most of time not one to one copies of material from the Internet and typically many parts of the text create the

impression that they have been written in the own words of the creator of the cache. If external sources are used, they are also quoted much more often and even for pictures often sources are provided.

For the majority of ECs I have encountered in some

European countries, the situation is completely different. Up to now I thought that one of the reasons (apart from a different culture in the countries - copying without proper references is still considered quite normal in too many countries) is that there are fewer submissions in the US/Canada than e.g. in Germany and that the cachers there are also more patient. In Germany cachers prefer to have their caches published very quickly. But maybe the reason for my observations are completely different ones.

 

 

 

It is not the role of the reviewer to correct language, spelling and typos.

 

I was aware of that and it's ok with me. When English descriptions were mandatory, I only put forward my wish that those English versions that just contain gargabe would be rejected. (Any 4 yr old can produce a gargabe version by Google - if an English version is available I'm expecting that a human being with intelligence and not a dull machine has produced the translation. Maybe you cannot understand that I felt seriously offended when I invested hours in translating ECs for others and then I came across Google translations in other caches. That hurted me a lot.)

 

 

We may request that the submission be provided in English when the reviewer is not fluent in the language of the submission.

 

That's ok. But why in the world do you force someone to use a language other than English and why do you force developpers to work with reviewers in another language than English? Any expert in geology should be sufficiently fluent to deal with English submissions.

I think it's impolite to force me to use a language I do not want to use when I wish to use the international language number 1 instead.

I will never be able to understand that policy and I feel annoyed by the fact that Austria and Switzerland are assigned to the German reviewers by default, but that's off-topic in this thread (but one source of great anger on my side).

 

Cezanne

Edited February 17, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

I forgot to ask a question: I do know that for physical cache it is not uncommon that a reviewer publishes his own cache. I was astonished, however, to encounter this practice also for Earthcaches and in areas where several reviewers exist. Does that make sense? Even among experts it is usual to have a peer review and not to publish something based on one's own judgement.

(NB: It is just a question - not a complaint or piece of criticism.)

 

Cezanne

[+GeoawareUSA4]

I'll step out and expand some on geoaware's post:

 

I spend a considerable amount of time reviewing each EarthCache in my queue, oftentimes an order of magnitude or more time than it takes me to review a traditional cache. Most EarthCaches that I have published did not get published upon the first submittal and some have required as many as a half-dozen iterations to reach the point of meeting the current guidelines. I do really try to help each cache owner submit a quality EarthCache.

 

Here's what I look for while verifying a submittal meets the EarthCaching guidelines:

 

1. Does the cache page offer an Earth Science lesson, or is it more like a virtual cache? If the latter, I will encourage the cache owner to perform more research on their topic, view the top ten EarthCaches listed on the GSA EarthCache website for inspiration, and resubmit their cache. Sometimes, the original focus of a cache page was about biological, ecological, or archeological features, which, while interesting, did not provide an Earth Science lesson. I will make recommendations on how to weave the original information into an Earth Science lesson which sometimes requires me to do some of my own research on the area.

 

2. I consider the reading level of the text with eye toward the target of upper-middle school reading level (14 years old). Most EarthCaches are written at a level at or below that level which is less a concern for me than the cache pages that are written at a much higher level and need to be simplified (I've come across only one of those in my relatively short tenure as an EarthCache reviewer). If the source of the text and graphics is not appropriately annotated, I will hold up publication until that is done. Since most of the information cachers use comes from the internet, it usually takes only a few text string searches via Google and other search engines to turn up the source(s) of the original text and I'll flag the plagiarism.

 

3. I look very carefully at the logging tasks and provided answers to see if they have the cacher interacting with the environment or having a virtual experience (read the sign, count the steps, measure the height, etc.). If the logging tasks lack this specific, local interaction, I'll recommend logging tasks that will take the cacher beyond the virtual cache experience, even it it's as simple as measure the crystal size, describe the texture, measure and describe the observed fossils, etc. Because of this, I'm not a fan of the autologgers some cache owners are using because by their nature, the answers to the logging tasks usually have to be way too simple to meet the intended spirit of EarthCaching. That said, I will not hold up publishing a cache if an autologger is used unless the cache owner does not allow logging of the cache prior to a response.

 

4. I still sometimes have to request the cache owner to remove the requirement that a photo be submitted with one's log unless it's a requirement to log a transient phenomenon such a tidal bore.

 

5. Finally, I look for verification of Land Manager/owner approval. The EarthCache requirements for this are more stringent than those for traditional caches with a specific name, title, and contact details required. When I have knowledge about how to obtain such approval, I will provide that information to the cache owner to help them out.

 

In the end, not every EarthCache I publish meets the standards of all cachers, but it does, at a minimum, meet the standards defined by the GSA EarthCache guidelines. I really do like to push the "publish" button, and I've had lots of positive experiences with cachers that have worked with me to upgrade their cache pages and who have thanked me for the support and guidance. I've also really enjoyed learning more about the geology in the areas I review. I'm a chemical engineer by education, but have always been an Earth Science lover, and the learning never stops.

 

With respect to publishing my own EarthCaches, I would choose to have another reviewer to that for the very reasons cited by cezanne.

Edited February 19, 2011 by GeoawareUSA4

[cezanne]

I'll step out and expand some on geoaware's post:

 

Thank you for your very interesting and helpful reply. I am deeply impressed by the amount of work you invest, and I can well imagine that working with you on an EC submission will be a positive experience.

 

Somehow I more and more get the feeling that different countries have different EC cultures which might not be too surprising after all as they also have different philosophies and attitudes towards education, rules of conduct, cheating etc. E.g. in German speaking countries, cheating in school and at university level is regarded as kind of cool by the majority. It will also still take a lot of time to get into people's brains that proper citing is something important - cases as the one around the Ph.D thesis of the German Defence minister are nothing exceptional.

(Note to geoware: I am not critizing members of the Earthcache reviewing team - I am criticizing the society I am part of.)

 

 

Cezanne

Edited February 19, 2011 by cezanne