Earth caches developped on sofas

[cezanne]

I am wondering whether Earthcaches that are set up without a visit to the location and rely only on photographs and written material taken from the internet or from books are ok.

I would have guessed that the answer is no, but some recently published Earthcaches make me believe that this is not the case. I can provide links per personal mail if requested. I am refraining from posting links here as this the way preferred in this forum.

 

I could not find a clear statement in the EC guidelines on whether the developper of an EC needs to visit the location. Maybe an EC reviewer can provide some clarification.

 

Thank you

 

Cezanne

Edited March 21, 2011 by cezanne

[+Lostby7]

Can this be done...yes. However, the guidelines state that a recent visit to the site is required in order to verify that the coords are accurate and that the location is safe.

 

4. EarthCache sites can be a single site, or a multiple site. No items, box, or physical cache can be left at the site. You must have visited the site recently (within two months), checked that the site is safe and have taken multiple GPS readings to ensure accuracy of coordinates. You are responsible for disabling an EarthCache if conditions regarding access, safety or other issues, change.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Lostby7

[cezanne]

Can this be done...yes. However, the guidelines state that a recent visit to the site is required in order to verify that the coords are accurate and that the location is safe.

 

The coordinate issue only applies in case if a very specific location has to be visited. There are, for example, many Earthcaches dedicated to a gorge, a cave etc where no specific location has to be visited - often not even the gorge or the cave need to be visited. In such cases taking some coordinates from a map or a waypoint from another cache can easily be done. The safety aspect also makes only sense if applied to a very specific location. A visitor's trail through a gorge should be safe, if you leave it it may get very dangerous anyway.

 

Even in those cases where a very specific location (e.g. a signboard) has to be visited: Who is checking whether the creator of an EC visited the location and when? I guess this should be hard to do.

 

Cezanne

Edited March 21, 2011 by cezanne

[+Lostby7]

Like I said, it can be done (and likely has been). If someone chooses dishonesty in regard to number 4 in the guidelines, there is little that can be done.

[cezanne]

Like I said, it can be done (and likely has been). If someone chooses dishonesty in regard to number 4 in the guidelines, there is little that can be done.

 

There are ways to discover many, but of course not all of such Earthcaches. If all photographs are from the internet and do not correspond to the local season,

additional questions might be asked during the review process. (Note that I wrote might and not should or must - I am not a reviewer.)

 

Cezanne

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Like I said, it can be done (and likely has been). If someone chooses dishonesty in regard to number 4 in the guidelines, there is little that can be done.

I agree. We know as a fact, it is being done. There is a 'somewhat' local cacher who we know hasn't visited a lot of the sites that he submitted as ECs. It is physically impossible for him to do it! It's sad, but don't blame the reviewers. They have limited time and even with all the tools available to them, cheating does occur and little to nothing can be done about it.

We have a series of traditional waterfall caches in Virginia. It came to our attention that someone was using some of the falls to establish ECs. Well with Geoaware and I putting our heads together, we found out the fraud.

That was some time ago with a lot fewer ECs to review. I don't know if it would happen now (new review process through GS), but the "cacher" got a ban from developing ECs.

In my first paragraph i used the term 'somewhat'. By that I mean the person is not quite local and certainly not quite a cacher or in other words a 'somewhat'!

Regarding the requirement, "You must have visited the site recently (within two months)" the only allowance I think is being made is to deal with some of the approving authorities. As some of you know, sometimes it takes months from the visit to finally get approval.

Thanks.

P.S. One funny story related to the 'fraud' case. The 'would be' EC developer placed one of the waterfall caches a mile or two away on a very dry hillside! He was too dumb to use our coordinates and just tweak them a little. I guess his Google Earth wasn't working well!

Sorry for the long story, but I thought it would contribute to the understanding of the problem. Other fraudulent EC developers are more clever!

Thanks.

[+Flintstone5611]

I have to agree that #4 bares a lot of importance depending on the locale. If you were working on an EC in Japan, Haiti, Australia or New Zealand (last year at least) then things (unfortunately) may have drastically changed and the location may no longer support that earth science lesson.

 

I doubt that a person could make a decent (much less good quality) EC without ever having visited the site itself. In reality the location becomes your muse and you draw inspiration from what you can perceive there and later what you learn in your research! I would imagine that the people going to your EC would find that to be true, since they might wonder why you focused on certain things and perhaps missed the key elements of something that was interesting, but may not be famous or well known about the location.

 

It becomes hard to mask your ignorance when you are asked to teach a subject.

[Sandy]

I am wondering whether Earthcaches that are set up without a visit to the location and rely only on photographs and written material taken from the internet or from books are ok.

I would have guessed that the answer is no, but some recently published Earthcaches make me believe that this is not the case. I can provide links per personal mail if requested. I am refraining from posting links here as this the way preferred in this forum.

 

I could not find a clear statement in the EC guidelines on whether the developper of an EC needs to visit the location. Maybe an EC reviewer can provide some clarification.

 

Thank you

 

Cezanne

 

Quite clearly stated in Guideline #4 is this:

4. EarthCache sites can be a single site, or a multiple site. No items, box, or physical cache can be left at the site. You must have visited the site recently (within two months), checked that the site is safe and have taken multiple GPS readings to ensure accuracy of coordinates. You are responsible for disabling an EarthCache if conditions regarding access, safety or other issues, change.

 

In addition EarthCaches must meet the current Geocaching.com guidelines which state, "You must visit the geocache site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS device."

 

Yes, we expect that all cache owners of EarthCaches have actually been to the site of the EarthCache, and based on that visit develop the logging requirements. I understand that you have discovered caches about which you are doubtful. I suggest that you email contact@Groundspeak.com to explain your concerns, so that we can look into this matter further. We will of course address any caches that we deem to be problematic. A reminder from our Geocaching.com guidelines, "If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it."

[+GeoawareUSA4]

I am wondering whether Earthcaches that are set up without a visit to the location and rely only on photographs and written material taken from the internet or from books are ok.

EarthCache Guideline #4 quoted by Sandy addresses this. Due to the seasonal access issues for some locations, some latitude is shown for the two-month guideline. For example, some locations are accessible only in the summer and fall due to snow and ice, but the cacher may not develop the cache page until winter. For EarthCaches that fall into this situation, the cache owner is asked to add attributes to his cache page reflecting winter availability and to clearly state on the cache page when access is permitted and at what cost. Sometimes reviewers forget to check the attributes, but we’re always able to circle back if a problem is brought to our attention.

 

The coordinate issue only applies in case if a very specific location has to be visited. There are, for example, many Earthcaches dedicated to a gorge, a cave etc where no specific location has to be visited - often not even the gorge or the cave need to be visited. In such cases taking some coordinates from a map or a waypoint from another cache can easily be done.

Yes, this could be done, but that’is where the site-specific logging task requirements come in. Some Earth Science/geology related logging tasks may appear vague on the surface, but when a cacher is on site, s/he may be in for a surprise at what they find. The cache owner must provide the answers to the logging tasks in a Reviewer Note that gets archived when the cache is published, so there is a quality assurance check of logging tasks. Coordinate checking is done only superficially. For example, if a cache page description talks about a walk in the park, yet the coordinates are on an apartment building roof, a verfication is requested.

 

The safety aspect also makes only sense if applied to a very specific location. A visitor's trail through a gorge should be safe, if you leave it it may get very dangerous anyway.

Neither Groundspeak nor the Reviewers take accountability for the safety of a cache. Conditions always change and what is safe one day may not be safe the next. For example, a terrain 1 flat parking lot in summer can become treacherous terrain 4.5 when glazed with ice in the winter.

 

Even in those cases where a very specific location (e.g. a signboard) has to be visited: Who is checking whether the creator of an EC visited the location and when? I guess this should be hard to do.

Frankly, no one. Similarly, there is no official process to verify logs on traditional caches. The vast majority of cachers comply with the guidelines and there is always the presumption of fair play and honesty unless there is a good reason to think otherwise.

 

There are ways to discover many, but of course not all of such Earthcaches. If all photographs are from the internet and do not correspond to the local season,

additional questions might be asked during the review process.

EarthCache Guideline #3 requires that plagiarism be avoided and information sources be provided. I will not publish an EarthCache without source attribution unless the cacher states they are the subject matter expert. I do not verify every source or run every string of text through a search engine, so a presumption of honesty is made until proven otherwise.

 

Another issue that has been brought up is US-based reviewers publishing caches written only in German. This happens when the review queue gets long and caches sit unpublished for several weeks. Some reviewers, while not brazen enough to claim fluency in one or more foreign languages, are proficient enough to read foreign language cache pages. Failing that, especially when the technical content gets heavy, Google Translate or other online translators are relied upon. Those translators sometimes return laughable results and that’s when I pull the dictionary off the shelf and translate content the old fashioned way.

Edited March 22, 2011 by GeoawareUSA4

[cezanne]

Part 1 of my reply

 

I am wondering whether Earthcaches that are set up without a visit to the location and rely only on photographs and written material taken from the internet or from books are ok.

EarthCache Guideline #4 quoted by Sandy addresses this. Due to the seasonal access issues for some locations, some latitude is shown for the two-month guideline. For example, some locations are accessible only in the summer and fall due to snow and ice, but the cacher may not develop the cache page until winter.

 

First, thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

As your Winter comment is regarded, I am wondering whether it would not be better to wait with submitting and publishing such caches until they are accesible again.

Some trails get damaged during the Winter and I do not think that it is a good idea to change the general two months policy in such cases.

Moreover, there are examples where someone started to become a cacher only in Winter. So he cannot have visited a certain location for an EC with the intent to come up with an EC in Summer time.

 

For EarthCaches that fall into this situation, the cache owner is asked to add attributes to his cache page reflecting winter availability and to clearly state on the cache page when access is permitted and at what cost. Sometimes reviewers forget to check the attributes, but we’re always able to circle back if a problem is brought to our attention.

 

The attributes are certainly helpful, but in the case of many locations I have in mind mentioning when access to the area is allowed is more important.

For example, many gorges in Austria are open only from May 1-October 31, while nobody would associate April with the snowflake icon.

 

The coordinate issue only applies in case if a very specific location has to be visited. There are, for example, many Earthcaches dedicated to a gorge, a cave etc where no specific location has to be visited - often not even the gorge or the cave need to be visited. In such cases taking some coordinates from a map or a waypoint from another cache can easily be done.

Yes, this could be done, but that’is where the site-specific logging task requirements come in. Some Earth Science/geology related logging tasks may appear vague on the surface, but when a cacher is on site, s/he may be in for a surprise at what they find. The cache owner must provide the answers to the logging tasks in a Reviewer Note that gets archived when the cache is published, so there is a quality assurance check of logging tasks.

 

I agree only to some extent. There are many logging tasks that make sense and are site-specific that someone who is knowledgeable in geology can ask without having been at the location or having visited it maybe five or even more years ago.

 

Do not misunderstand me. The issue here is not about the quality of the logging tasks. They can be of high quality, but still can be asked and answered without paying a (new) visit to the location.

 

As I have pointed out two caches you have published to you by private mail, you know some of the examples I have in mind. Let me stress that my opinion on those and the other new ECs of the same creator is somehow ambigious. The geological explanations are well done (it appears to me that the creator of the cache pages has an interest into geology far above the average) and the logging tasks I have looked at do have a clear focus on geology and most cachers will learn something if they visit these ECs. As the cacher is a newcomer, I do not think that his intent was to cheat or to be dishonest. I think he was simply not aware of the guidelines.

 

When I started this thread I was not even sure myself whether or not sofa ECs are ok, and that's why I opened this thread apart from asking you about two specific caches (and some more specific topic). I need to admit that I am somehow hesitating whether I would prefer an EC with boring logging tasks (copying some letters from a signboard) developped by someone who has recently visited the site, but has no love for geology, to an EC with more interesting logging tasks developped by someone with a love for geology, but who has not been at the location recently or has not been there at all. It's not that simple.

 

 

 

Coordinate checking is done only superficially. For example, if a cache page description talks about a walk in the park, yet the coordinates are on an apartment building roof, a verfication is requested.

 

That confirms what I have guessed and means that it is easy to get sofa caches through the review process.

By the way, I think that it is extremely hard for a reviewer to check whether the coordinates makes sense if he does not have access to reasonable maps of the area.

For Austria, e.g., it is in my opinion indispensable to use maps like AMAP or maps of the regional GIS (if available)

Any reviewer who has not access to such maps, will have a serious handicap. Google maps are useful in urban areas, but not in the mountains. (AMAP would have shown you

that the coordinates in one of the caches published by you are bogus as there is no water nearby.)

Unfortunately, not even the German reviewers do use Austrian maps for their review process.

 

 

The safety aspect also makes only sense if applied to a very specific location. A visitor's trail through a gorge should be safe, if you leave it it may get very dangerous anyway.

Neither Groundspeak nor the Reviewers take accountability for the safety of a cache. Conditions always change and what is safe one day may not be safe the next. For example, a terrain 1 flat parking lot in summer can become treacherous terrain 4.5 when glazed with ice in the winter.

 

I do know that. It was not me coming up with the safety aspect. I only replied to another post. The safety issue is, however, indeed, mentioned in the guidelines (I could not remember that part of the guidelines before it has been pointed out here again). My interpretation of that aspect would be Earth caches in areas that are closed in Winter should not be published before they are reopened again and the trails have been checked (not by the cache owner, but by the authorities).

 

 

Even in those cases where a very specific location (e.g. a signboard) has to be visited: Who is checking whether the creator of an EC visited the location and when? I guess this should be hard to do.

Frankly, no one. Similarly, there is no official process to verify logs on traditional caches. The vast majority of cachers comply with the guidelines and there is always the presumption of fair play and honesty unless there is a good reason to think otherwise.

 

Actually, according to my personal experience the majority of the cachers has not even read the guidelines. I am sure that 99% of the cachers in my country are not familiar with the two months rule. I need to admit that even I have not noticed it actively though I am following this forum regularly and though I have looked at the earthcache.org page several times.

[cezanne]

There are ways to discover many, but of course not all of such Earthcaches. If all photographs are from the internet and do not correspond to the local season,

additional questions might be asked during the review process.

EarthCache Guideline #3 requires that plagiarism be avoided and information sources be provided. I will not publish an EarthCache without source attribution unless the cacher states they are the subject matter expert. I do not verify every source or run every string of text through a search engine, so a presumption of honesty is made until proven otherwise.

 

Pictures are even much more often taken from other sources than texts without mentioning the sources, and they are even more difficult to find. (Reverse image search tools do exist like TinEye, but they only have a small rate of hits.)

 

It appears to me that copying texts and pictures from other sources without explicit mention is something that is considered quite normal in German speaking countries.

It concerns the majority of the EC pages in German speaking countries (and not only ECs), and the underlying attitude is a general attitute of the society not related to geocaching.

Hopefully, the recent case of the former German minister for defence will at least lead to some changes to the positive, though I am not very optimistic.

To sum up, trusting cache owners about the sources of their pictures and texts in German speaking countries might not be the best idea as many of these cachers are not even aware of that what they are doing is not ok and so they are not intending to be dishonest. The cultures in different countries are quite different. In the US and in Canada e.g. cheating at university is a big issue and not something considered to be ok by most people, and it appears to me that the cheating rate there is thus lower (the consequences are also much more drastic there if cheating discovered). Do not misunderstand me - I neither think that the reviewers can be asked to check for plagiarism (their work burden is high enough) nor that caches are to be handled with the same degree of seriosity than work done at universities. Geocaching is considered as a fun activity. Still I think that the culture in German speaking countries in this respect is a bad one and that this issue should receive a little bit more attention than it currently receives. (That's however somehow off-topic here as most Ecs in German speaking countries are reviewed by reviewers who are not following this forum anyway.) In general, I think that plagiarism is more easily detected by local people and native speakers of the language in which the description is provided. For you as an outsider, it is almost impossible to discover even if you had invested much more time which is not realistic.

 

Part 2 (the forum software forced me to split my reply into two parts).

 

 

 

Another issue that has been brought up is US-based reviewers publishing caches written only in German. This happens when the review queue gets long and caches sit unpublished for several weeks. Some reviewers, while not brazen enough to claim fluency in one or more foreign languages, are proficient enough to read foreign language cache pages.

Failing that, especially when the technical content gets heavy, Google Translate or other online translators are relied upon. Those translators sometimes return laughable results and that’s when I pull the dictionary off the shelf and translate content the old fashioned way.

 

First, I appreciate that reviewers from other areas help out when the queue gets too long. Second, I still think that it would have better not to remove the requirement for a mandatory English version. This also had the side-effect of keeping the queues a bit shorter.

 

In my experience (I have translated several Ec pages from German into English), neither Google translate nor a normal dictionary will be able to replace knowledge of the technical geological terms in the target language, but that's only a side comment.

 

Cezanne

[+geoaware]

 

Actually, according to my personal experience the majority of the cachers has not even read the guidelines. I am sure that 99% of the cachers in my country are not familiar with the two months rule. I need to admit that even I have not noticed it actively though I am following this forum regularly and though I have looked at the earthcache.org page several times.

 

All EarthCache developers are asked to check a box that they have read the current guidelines. Currently those guidelines exist in English and German. The 'recent' (two month) statement has been in the guidelines for over two years now and should be well understood.

 

I am always disappointed that some cachers will attempt to find ways to work around these guidelines...but as already stated, it is almost impossible for a reviewer to find each and every case that this happens. You do have a way to report these issues through Groundspeak and I encourage you to do so.

 

I think in this case the issue has been well stated and your concerns addressed.

[+GeoawareUSA4]

As your Winter comment is regarded, I am wondering whether it would not be better to wait with submitting and publishing such caches until they are accessible again.

Some trails get damaged during the Winter and I do not think that it is a good idea to change the general two months policy in such cases.

That may work for the first year, but wouldn’t help in subsequent years. Also, the review team is dependent on local knowledge provided by the cache owner, so if the cache owner doesn’t mention seasonal access, the reviewer won’t know about it. Here in Alaska, we don’t have what I’ll call developed gorges with controlled seasonal access, but we certainly have terrain that is as or more extreme, doesn’t have a trail, and yet people visit. It’s up the individual to assess whether an area is safe to access. The local authorities won’t accept that liability. So, with that regional difference in mind, that’s why seasonal access never crossed my mind until you brought it to my attention.

 

For EarthCaches that fall into this situation, the cache owner is asked to add attributes to his cache page reflecting winter availability and to clearly state on the cache page when access is permitted and at what cost. Sometimes reviewers forget to check the attributes, but we’re always able to circle back if a problem is brought to our attention.

The attributes are certainly helpful, but in the case of many locations I have in mind mentioning when access to the area is allowed is more important.

For example, many gorges in Austria are open only from May 1-October 31, while nobody would associate April with the snowflake icon.

In those cases, it’s up to the cache owner to provide specific seasonal access information in addition to the proper cache page attributes. “Winter” is a function of snow cover, elevation, sun exposure, etc., that can be very location specific.

 

When I started this thread I was not even sure myself whether or not sofa ECs are ok, and that's why I opened this thread apart from asking you about two specific caches (and some more specific topic). I need to admit that I am somehow hesitating whether I would prefer an EC with boring logging tasks (copying some letters from a signboard) developped by someone who has recently visited the site, but has no love for geology, to an EC with more interesting logging tasks developped by someone with a love for geology, but who has not been at the location recently or has not been there at all. It's not that simple.

Interesting corundum, isn’t it? Wearing my player hat, I certainly prefer the latter. In the case of the caches you brought to my attention, I have every reason to believe the cacher has been to the locations because some of the original logging tasks were very specific. I requested those logging tasks to be removed because they were not Earth Science/geology related (e.g. color of fire hydrant, number of benches, etc.)

 

Coordinate checking is done only superficially. For example, if a cache page description talks about a walk in the park, yet the coordinates are on an apartment building roof, a verfication is requested.

That confirms what I have guessed and means that it is easy to get sofa caches through the review process.

By the way, I think that it is extremely hard for a reviewer to check whether the coordinates makes sense if he does not have access to reasonable maps of the area.

For Austria, e.g., it is in my opinion indispensable to use maps like AMAP or maps of the regional GIS (if available)

Any reviewer who has not access to such maps, will have a serious handicap. Google maps are useful in urban areas, but not in the mountains. (AMAP would have shown you

that the coordinates in one of the caches published by you are bogus as there is no water nearby.)

Unfortunately, not even the German reviewers do use Austrian maps for their review process.

Based on one of your e-mails and a subsequent check of a terrain map, the cache owner has been asked to verify the coordinates of one of his caches. Coordinates errors happen with traditional caches as well, and are easy to correct.

 

Even in those cases where a very specific location (e.g. a signboard) has to be visited: Who is checking whether the creator of an EC visited the location and when? I guess this should be hard to do.

Frankly, no one. Similarly, there is no official process to verify logs on traditional caches. The vast majority of cachers comply with the guidelines and there is always the presumption of fair play and honesty unless there is a good reason to think otherwise.

Actually, according to my personal experience the majority of the cachers has not even read the guidelines. I am sure that 99% of the cachers in my country are not familiar with the two months rule. I need to admit that even I have not noticed it actively though I am following this forum regularly and though I have looked at the earthcache.org page several times.

That and other guidelines which is why the majority of earthcaches are not published upon their first submittal. Education of cachers will be an ongoing process requiring consistent application of the guidelines by the review team. From my personal reviewing experience, a cacher rarely makes the same mistake twice.

[+GeoawareUSA4]

trusting cache owners about the sources of their pictures and texts in German speaking countries might not be the best idea as many of these cachers are not even aware of that what they are doing is not ok and so they are not intending to be dishonest.

Regardless of where the EC I'm reviewing is located, I always request source attribution to be added to the cache page before I hit the publish button. In very rare cases, the cache owner will reply that they are the subject matter expert and not provide additional sources.

 

I will most certainly be more diligent about pursuing photographic attribution as well as content attribution in the future. Use of others' photographic and content materials from the internet without attribution is a worldwide problem.

Edited March 22, 2011 by GeoawareUSA4

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

"When I started this thread I was not even sure myself whether or not sofa ECs are ok".

Just why in the World would you assume that sofa ECs are OK? Isn't it kind of fundamental that the cacher, unless he/she is a cheat, visit the site to either log a find or create a cache listing? This whole discussion is laborious because the question was answered with post number 2!

If you will pardon me for using a non geological term, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill!

Thanks.

[cezanne]

Just why in the World would you assume that sofa ECs are OK? Isn't it kind of fundamental that the cacher, unless he/she is a cheat, visit the site to either log a find or create a cache listing?

 

Actually, I did not assume anything. That's why I asked a quiestion. I have not had thought about the issue before. If I came up with an EC, then I certainly would make sure to visit the location again even if know it extremely well and moreover I would try to find questions that can only answered with a visit. You apparently have the same attitude than me, but that does not imply that this has to hold in general.

 

What I tried to say is that without having the two months rule in mind, it was not apparent to me whether or not it suffices just to know the location (maybe from having been there 20 years ago) (of course provided that the coordinates are ok, the logging requirements are fine etc). I would not automatically use the term "cheating" - that depends on the case and what is claimed.

 

 

This whole discussion is laborious because the question was answered with post number 2!

If you will pardon me for using a non geological term, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill!

 

I do understand that it creates this impression to you as you are not aware of all details.

The reason why one reviewer answered in a very detailed way and why I then replied in a similar way

does not become apparent if one only knows this thread.

 

I agree, however, with you that the answers provided in this thread by sandy and an EC reviewer

have fully answered my question and were really helpful for me. Thanks again. Also the second posting in this thread

was helpful for me as I have not been aware of the two months period.

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

trusting cache owners about the sources of their pictures and texts in German speaking countries might not be the best idea as many of these cachers are not even aware of that what they are doing is not ok and so they are not intending to be dishonest.

Regardless of where the EC I'm reviewing is located, I always request source attribution to be added to the cache page before I hit the publish button. In very rare cases, the cache owner will reply that they are the subject matter expert and not provide additional sources.

 

I really appreciate your efforts. I already noticed that the few ECs I encountered that have been published by you indeed contained some source attributions which is something relatively uncommon for most Earthcaches in my area. It appears that the source attribution is not of the same importance to all (please do not regard this as a critique of the practice of others, but as a statement of appreciation for what you are doing since it is time-consuming.)

 

Cezanne

[Neos2]

I'm closing this topic now since the OP has had their original question answered.

 

I think we all appreciate the reminders to attribute information to the sources and to feel free to contact Groundspeak if we have concerns about an EarthCache. I would remind everyone that we have a rich resource of fellow developers here in the forums if we ever need help writing up an EarthCache or choosing interactive learning activities for our visitors.

 

Thanks to all who contributed!