Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
releasethedogs

Prepublication "finds"

Recommended Posts

If some one logs my earthcache and has las been there before the cache was published am I within my rights to delete the find?

The person's answers appear to me to be copied and pasted from a website and don't even answer the questions really.

Share this post


Link to post

Delete the find, especially since they don't even answer the questions correctly.

Share this post


Link to post

YES... How on earth, [pardon the pun] can one "find" an EC prior to it's existence?

I suspect the logic may be that they were at the site on the back date (which you can set any date in the log) they choose. They then see the Earthcache listed and say "well I was there on XYZ date, so all I need to do is find the answers (via google, bing, etc.) and I can log the cache".

 

While I don't think it is technically against the rules (I haven't read them for Earth caches specifically) but I'm sure the cache owners can set the requirement and delete as they feel is the correct form. My personal opinion is that a logs must meet the min. requirement of presence while the cache is ACTIVE. Not before, not after (if archived).

Edited by TheWeatherWarrior

Share this post


Link to post

YES... How on earth, [pardon the pun] can one "find" an EC prior to it's existence?

I suspect the logic may be that they were at the site on the back date (which you can set any date in the log) they choose. They then see the Earthcache listed and say "well I was there on XYZ date, so all I need to do is find the answers (via google, bing, etc.) and I can log the cache".

 

While I don't think it is technically against the rules (I haven't read them for Earth caches specifically) but I'm sure the cache owners can set the requirement and delete as they feel is the correct form. My personal opinion is that a logs must meet the min. requirement of presence while the cache is ACTIVE. Not before, not after (if archived).

 

While the "logic" may be assumed that "I was there", so all I have to do is backdate my entry, just where are the professional "ethics and standards" in this situation? Keep in mind that EC's are supported by a group of "professional geologist". At the risk of bringing up an old arguement, this is the type of situation where the old photo requirement would put and end to this practice.

Share this post


Link to post

Dunno. It there a requirement that the visit must be made during the active life of the cache? (After publication, and before archival?) If so, I have not seen it. That does rather leave it open. Then I guess, the question is whether the cacher has answered the unique geological task required. If the answer can be Googled, then perhaps, the task is not sufficient. Would you like to see photos (from about 1975) at Devils Tower, Crater Lake, Hawaii Volcanoes? (I enjoy visiting those sorts of places.) Not that I would try to log EarthCaches like those, without visiting during the EarthCache lifetime.

But, if it is not in the requirements, and the answers are correct, then I do not see how one could delete the find.

If the answers are incorrect, then you are within the guidelines for deleting the find. Though there are a few EarthCaches where I seemed to have missed the proper answer, yet the owner has permitted my find, and explained what I missed. Photos probably helped there, but you cannot require them.

Dunno. I think that a change requiring the find be after the EarthCache was published would be a good idea. But it does not exist at this point.

Dunno.

Share this post


Link to post

At the risk of bringing up an old arguement, this is the type of situation where the old photo requirement would put and end to this practice.

No, it doesn't as I'm guessing a lot of people will have pictures of being on-site even if the EC wasn't published yet.

 

However, creating logging tasks which require specific observation at the location will go a long way in preventing logs from 'before the Earthcache was published', as imo most people enjoy sites and are not particularly paying attention to details required to answer logging tasks.

 

Cheers,

 

Mr. Terratin

Share this post


Link to post

If the answer can be Googled, then perhaps, the task is not sufficient.

 

However, creating logging tasks which require specific observation at the location will go a long way in preventing logs from 'before the Earthcache was published', as imo most people enjoy sites and are not particularly paying attention to details required to answer logging tasks.

 

Agree with both of these.

 

One of the biggest changes in earthcaches since they started is the emphasis on applying lessons and making observations/measurements on site. Our first couple earthcaches relied pretty much on signs and were pretty much virtuals with an earth science twist. We've worked to revamp our older ones and design our newer ones to make sure that they're not just regurgitating what they read on signs and actually making observations.

 

But as I was discussing with a National Park Service ranger yesterday, there's got to be a balance. I try to keep the observations simple enough that, while the cacher is still applying a lesson, they're not putting on a lab coat or anything. Because the more complicated it becomes, the more I see the average cacher taking a tl;dr attitude and either doing the least possible or skipping the earthcache entirely. I'm not trying to bring our earthcaches down to the lowest common denominator -- I figure they'll be skipping it anyay -- but I do want to keep them open to as many cachers as possible.

Share this post


Link to post

1. There is no rule that says somebody has to visit the location after publication in order to make a log.

2. HOWEVER, in our view, somebody has not actually visited an EarthCache if there was no EarthCache there at the time of their visit!

3. GSA has no problem with a cache owner deleting a log from somebody who has clearly not visited the EarthCache after its publication date.

4. If a cache owner wants to allow such logs to stand, that's fine too. (That's up to the CO. Maybe in some cases they would feel as though the person logging the cache did get a good lesson, by combining an earlier visit with solving the cache's logging tasks after the fact. They can be the judge of that.)

 

If somebody were to approach us with a complaint about a log being deleted because it was before publication, GSA would support the cache owner's deletion decision.

 

--Matt

Share this post


Link to post

1. There is no rule that says somebody has to visit the location after publication in order to make a log.

2. HOWEVER, in our view, somebody has not actually visited an EarthCache if there was no EarthCache there at the time of their visit!

3. GSA has no problem with a cache owner deleting a log from somebody who has clearly not visited the EarthCache after its publication date.

4. If a cache owner wants to allow such logs to stand, that's fine too. (That's up to the CO. Maybe in some cases they would feel as though the person logging the cache did get a good lesson, by combining an earlier visit with solving the cache's logging tasks after the fact. They can be the judge of that.)

 

If somebody were to approach us with a complaint about a log being deleted because it was before publication, GSA would support the cache owner's deletion decision.

 

--Matt

Thanks for the clarification...

Edited by GEO WALKER

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 1

×
×
  • Create New...