Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
funkymunkyzone

Earthcache quality control

Recommended Posts

I hope I'm not breaking some unwritten (or even written) rule here, but I just came across this earthcache and seriously, I question whether the reviewer even looked at it. There's absolutely zero earthscience. I've been to the location - it's a man-made dam, and the earthcache seems to focus on transmission delays in mobile phones...

 

http://www.geocachin...whispering-call

 

So to our experiment. Does sound travel faster than the speed of your phone?

 

:blink:

Edited by funkymunkyzone

Share this post


Link to post

While it may not be "earth" related, the science (if everything on the cache page is true) is still valid-

I suspect if you were to have one person on each end, and talked on the phone, you would hear what they say twice. This effect, if I'm understanding it right, is similar to how you can communicate with radio, around the world by using the atmosphere to guide the radio waves to where you want them.

 

The cache focuses on sound- but for an Earthcache you can be required to answer a question to prove you really visited the location. This experiment will do just that, and it is not an obvious answer you can find by looking at Google Earth, or something easily faked, like how deep is the Grand Canyon.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe transmission delays and acoustics are geologic in nature and it doesn't really reinforce any earth science lesson. I have to agree with the OP on this one.

Share this post


Link to post

Hhhhmmm - perhaps not geological - but probably not "earth" science related either.

 

However perhaps a similar concept in the Grand Canyon - or another naturally occurring area (cavern, canyon, mountain pass, natural amphitheater etc.) may be able to point towards an acoustic lesson that occurs naturally?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe transmission delays and acoustics are geologic in nature and it doesn't really reinforce any earth science lesson. I have to agree with the OP on this one.

 

Precisely.

 

It's not even a valid experiment. Try this at home in your bedroom: Call your partner's cell phone from your own, speak into one and hear your voice come out of the other delayed by maybe 1/4 of a second or more. (Incidentally, you can get some wicked feedback sound effects if you put the phones together - Jimi Hendrix would love it)

 

Funnily enough, the very same reviewer that deemed that earthcache to be a valid earthscience lesson under the current rules told me that this earthcache had "no earthscience" and asked me to change it. It changed very little (I literally changed a couple of words in the questions and pointed out it was nothing but earthscience) and it was published.... but still....

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4X2RX_macraes-gold-otago?guid=4e3d5fe9-1a26-40cc-a2ea-9d00c48a86a6

 

BTW - I have absolutely no axe to grind with this reviewer in particular. This is just an interesting case of a total non-earthcache, effectively just a virtual, getting published and I wanted to raise the issue of consistency as this is now the worst example of an earthcache I've ever seen, trumping the one about volcanoes where GZ was a water fountain in the middle of a city that had nothing whatsoever to do with volcanoes.

Share this post


Link to post

Hhhhmmm - perhaps not geological - but probably not "earth" science related either.

 

However perhaps a similar concept in the Grand Canyon - or another naturally occurring area (cavern, canyon, mountain pass, natural amphitheater etc.) may be able to point towards an acoustic lesson that occurs naturally?

 

Would that even be valid? I thought earthcaching was about the earthscience and geology... What does acoustics have to do with that?

Share this post


Link to post

"and I wanted to raise the issue of consistency as this is now the worst example of an earthcache I've ever seen"

 

Perhaps a more effective way to accomplish this, instead of calling out an individual reviewer about an individual cache in a public forum, might be to contact GSA (earthcache@geosociety.org) or Groundspeak, the folks who help coordinate the team of volunteer EarthCache Reviewers?

 

--Matt Dawson (mdawson@geosociety.org) [GeoawareHQ]

Share this post


Link to post

"and I wanted to raise the issue of consistency as this is now the worst example of an earthcache I've ever seen"

 

Perhaps a more effective way to accomplish this, instead of calling out an individual reviewer about an individual cache in a public forum, might be to contact GSA (earthcache@geosociety.org) or Groundspeak, the folks who help coordinate the team of volunteer EarthCache Reviewers?

 

--Matt Dawson (mdawson@geosociety.org) [GeoawareHQ]

Even more effective might be to both contact GSA/Groundspeak and post on this forum. I'm sure there are plenty of forum readers who haven't really thought much about the earth science guideline. Raising this issue publicly might result in more reports of inconsistent applications of that requirement.

 

By the way, the cache listing is inaccurate when it describes the dam's wall as "one sector of a perfect circle." It's much closer to being a parabola, as in: "Voices were heard so clearly because of a parabola effect."

Share this post


Link to post

Since Groundspeak lets GSA take care of Earthcaches, will they do anything other than archive them?

 

Precisely.

 

It's not even a valid experiment. Try this at home in your bedroom: Call your partner's cell phone from your own, speak into one and hear your voice come out of the other delayed by maybe 1/4 of a second or more.

 

Umm.... You just said it is not a valid experiment, then you said it could be replicated. If the experiment is the delay, then by replicating the experiment is what makes it valid. If the hypothesis is that the shape of the dam causes the delay, but the delay will happen anywhere, the experiment successful. It may not get the desired results, but having replicable results is what makes it valid. If the hypothesis is the the shape of the dam affects the length of the delay, and a delay of the same time is not present at another location, then not only is the experiment valid, but the results are valid as well.

 

Not saying it should be an Earthcache-I don't see any natural environmental science in it, but the experiment, as an experiment in general is valid.

Share this post


Link to post

My goal has always been to have this forum remain a place where people can help each other to make EarthCaching an enjoyable experience.

 

There are two forum guidelines I would urge everyone to consider if this conversation is to continue:

 

2. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests in these forums with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, everyone should be treated respectfully.

 

4. Personal attacks and inflammatory or antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to post criticism, please do so constructively. Generalized, vicious or veiled attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

It's all too easy to appear to be disrespectful in this kind of thread, it's also easy to cause hurt feelings. There is a distinction between giving a valid critique and laying down mere criticism. A valid critique involves saying "this lacks a, b, or c" and mere criticism involves saying along the lines of "this is bad". Hyperbole has no place in a well constructed analysis, either; words such as greatest, worst, always tend to be subjective and only open the conversation for derailing.

 

Is the ultimate goal to create better EarthCaches? Then stay constructive; offer positive suggestions for improvement and remember there are real people behind the creation and publication of these EarthCaches.

Share this post


Link to post

Umm.... You just said it is not a valid experiment, then you said it could be replicated. If the experiment is the delay, then by replicating the experiment is what makes it valid. If the hypothesis is that the shape of the dam causes the delay, but the delay will happen anywhere, the experiment successful. It may not get the desired results, but having replicable results is what makes it valid. If the hypothesis is the the shape of the dam affects the length of the delay, and a delay of the same time is not present at another location, then not only is the experiment valid, but the results are valid as well.

 

Not saying it should be an Earthcache-I don't see any natural environmental science in it, but the experiment, as an experiment in general is valid.

No, perhaps I didn't explain myself as clearly as I intended. This experiment is apparently to see if: "Does sound travel faster than the speed of your phone?"

 

Now to get voice data from one mobile phone to another, digital packets of data pass through various hardware and software and are pieced back together in pseudo real time at the phone at the other end. It's never instant, and can vary depending on a number of factors. Standing some arbitrary distance apart and using the whispering wall to hear when the other person actually speaks (plus some delay for the speed of sound over that distance) instead of next to each other in your bedroom is amusing but irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post

"and I wanted to raise the issue of consistency as this is now the worst example of an earthcache I've ever seen"

 

Perhaps a more effective way to accomplish this, instead of calling out an individual reviewer about an individual cache in a public forum, might be to contact GSA (earthcache@geosociety.org) or Groundspeak, the folks who help coordinate the team of volunteer EarthCache Reviewers?

 

--Matt Dawson (mdawson@geosociety.org) [GeoawareHQ]

I've tried contacting earthcache reviewers in the past, even yourself and geoaware himself. To my recollection, of the dozens of examples I brought up, I've had only one or two responses. Now in case anyone thinks there's a back story here, I will openly explain: I have highlighted, in private to various earthcache reviewers, examples of poor earthcaches clearly flouting the guidelines in place when they were published and I have done this during the process of discussing getting one of my earthcaches published, and *also* when I have had no earthcache in the review queue. Whether or not I've had an earthcache in the review queue however, I feel should not affect whether a concern is taken seriously - fact is I have contacted the GSA/earthcache team dozens of times and it has been ineffective.

 

Even more effective might be to both contact GSA/Groundspeak and post on this forum. I'm sure there are plenty of forum readers who haven't really thought much about the earth science guideline. Raising this issue publicly might result in more reports of inconsistent applications of that requirement.

That's where we are now, but apparently I'm doing the wrong thing again... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

I definitely would like to reiterate that I have no beef at all with the reviewer involved. My understanding is that they are relatively new to earthcache reviewing. I've had a couple of earthcaches published by them and the process has been largely smoother than it has in the past, aside from the one cache of mine I referred to earlier where I was rather oddly told there wasn't any earthscience.

 

Anyway, I do understand that across the world there will be inconsistencies in the application of the guidelines for various reasons. I know that in Africa, and Carbon Hunter will be able to attest to this, there is a *slight* relaxing of some guidelines in order that more earthcaches get published where there are exceedingly few in existence. I know I have one published there that I freely admit wouldn't be published elsewhere without a little more substance to it.

 

I'm totally happy to have you all go through my earthcaches and call me out on my crappier ones - heck, I know there are some crappy ones in there, mostly older ones when I had less experience, but there are also some examples that I'm super proud of. Criticise away! :)

Share this post


Link to post

Funnily enough, the very same reviewer that deemed that earthcache to be a valid earthscience lesson under the current rules told me that this earthcache had "no earthscience" and asked me to change it.

I guess he considers you worthy of being kept to a higher standard. I suggest you proudly take that as a complement and move on.

 

I've tried contacting earthcache reviewers in the past, even yourself and geoaware himself. To my recollection, of the dozens of examples I brought up, I've had only one or two responses.

I'm sure they appreciated your input, even if they forgot to thank you for it. Who knows why these EarthCaches were let through, but you've done what you can to educate the reviewer about why you don't think they live up to the standards. I don't see the harm done in a reviewer being capricious as long as he generally follows the standards.

Share this post


Link to post

Dam (no pun intended), I also forgot to say the other thing I wanted to make clear - my aim in bringing this up was not to have this earthcache archived. After all, it was reviewed and published, so it would not be fair to go back now and pull the rug from under that cache owner.

 

Is the ultimate goal to create better EarthCaches? Then stay constructive; offer positive suggestions for improvement and remember there are real people behind the creation and publication of these EarthCaches.

 

The updating of the earthcache guidelines over the years has had the goal of creating better Earthcaches. BUT, they need to be applied consistently, or at least with some semblance of consistency. Perhaps "quality control" was the wrong term to use in the topic heading, perhaps "reviewing consistency" would have been more relevant - sorry about that, but we're here now, so let's figure out what to do about it...?

Share this post


Link to post

Funnily enough, the very same reviewer that deemed that earthcache to be a valid earthscience lesson under the current rules told me that this earthcache had "no earthscience" and asked me to change it.

I guess he considers you worthy of being kept to a higher standard. I suggest you proudly take that as a complement and move on.

I'd love to believe that, honestly, but I'm not a geologist or a scientist. I try and put a bit of effort into my earthcaches, and occasionally I think I produce a good one, but this isn't kindergarten and we don't all get gold stars just for turning up - an earthscience lesson needs to be, within a limited amount of wiggle room, judged on its own merits, and not on whether the submitter is young, old, smart, or not.

 

I've tried contacting earthcache reviewers in the past, even yourself and geoaware himself. To my recollection, of the dozens of examples I brought up, I've had only one or two responses.

I'm sure they appreciated your input, even if they forgot to thank you for it. Who knows why these EarthCaches were let through, but you've done what you can to educate the reviewer about why you don't think they live up to the standards. I don't see the harm done in a reviewer being capricious as long as he generally follows the standards.

Perhaps, but I've mostly been either ignored entirely, or been actively told that there's no point in bringing up those caches to the reviewer. I could probably go back and quote directly from an email. But, this is not a case of sour grapes, what I'm really trying to instigate is "We are where we are - how can we move forward with better consistency and quality?"

Share this post


Link to post

The updating of the earthcache guidelines over the years has had the goal of creating better Earthcaches. BUT, they need to be applied consistently, or at least with some semblance of consistency. Perhaps "quality control" was the wrong term to use in the topic heading, perhaps "reviewing consistency" would have been more relevant - sorry about that, but we're here now, so let's figure out what to do about it...?

Mod Hat OFF; player hat ON

I'm not convinced there is a problem with the overall consistency of the reviews on EarthCaches. Sure, there are differences between the reviewers, just as there are in traditional geocaches. The reviewers are human, they get to be individuals. Some may value the interactive learning lesson most, others may be sticklers for the background science, still others will have other primary criteria. It might even be fair if they expect more from someone with 30 published EarthCaches than they would from someone creating their first or third EarthCache.

 

I'm not a reviewer, but personally, I value EarthCaches with solid background information and a related interactive activity. My ideal activity is one that relates directly to the geologic feature and makes the visitor analyze some component of the physical feature or explore the physics behind how it formed.

 

Still, I'd rather see any interactive activity with a science theme than no interactive activity. I'm not fond of EarthCaches that have you read a sign and get information as the "learning activity". I can understand that might be an easy way to provide the proof the visitor actually went to the location. (Yes, ignoring that people can "share" answers).

 

Being completely honest, I'd rather visit a cool geologic feature even if the only requirements were to read a sign than to miss out on the spot altogether. I can learn as much as I want about the geology no matter what is asked of me just to log the visit.

Edited by Neos2

Share this post


Link to post

Still, I'd rather see any interactive activity with a science theme than no interactive activity.

If there's no earthscience then it doesn't matter how fun the interactive activity is, it's just a virtual in disguise, and I'm afraid a concrete dam, the speed of sound, and the intricacies of mobile phone technology just aren't earthscience.

 

I'm not fond of EarthCaches that have you read a sign and get information as the "learning activity". I can understand that might be an easy way to provide the proof the visitor actually went to the location. (Yes, ignoring that people can "share" answers).

Sometimes, as in the case of my earthcache I brought up, that's all you can do at a particular site. Perhaps the geological feature, while quite special and unique/interesting, needs to be explained on a sign, and that a visitor without a Phd in geology needs to get their earthscience lesson from that information.

 

Being completely honest, I'd rather visit a cool geologic feature even if the only requirements were to read a sign than to miss out on the spot altogether. I can learn as much as I want about the geology no matter what is asked of me just to log the visit.

Me too.

 

I'm not convinced there is a problem with the overall consistency of the reviews on EarthCaches.

I travel quite a bit and earthcaches are of interest to me when travelling, so I do tend to look around at a lot of them all over the world... and I have to respectfully disagree - there are massive differences in the reviewing consistency, even earthcaches by the same reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes, as in the case of my earthcache I brought up, that's all you can do at a particular site. Perhaps the geological feature, while quite special and unique/interesting, needs to be explained on a sign, and that a visitor without a Phd in geology needs to get their earthscience lesson from that information.

 

Hey, no PhD required! I think sometimes, if we really want to create an interesting and educational EarthCache, it's our task to distill that special level knowledge down to the point where the average visitor could understand it. Then ask them to tell us how they know that is true.

 

There is almost always another way to tackle the same site. For example, at your site (and I only just barely glanced at some of the reference materials, so I may have some of this wrong) you could have focused on why that top site is better suited to alluvial mining than hard rock mining. You could have focused having them figure out why there is gold there--taught them about shear zones, up-thrust, alluvial exposures, etc. You could even have taken this person's thesis paper and after informing the visitor, asked them to weigh in on whether the area is a "result of continental extension or shortening" based on what they see in the rocks there.

Edited by Neos2

Share this post


Link to post

There is almost always another way to tackle the same site. For example, at your site (and I only just barely glanced at some of the reference materials, so I may have some of this wrong) you could have focused on why that top site is better suited to alluvial mining than hard rock mining. You could have focused having them figure out why there is gold there--taught them about shear zones, up-thrust, alluvial exposures, etc. You could even have taken this person's thesis paper and after informing the visitor, asked them to weigh in on whether the area is a "result of continental extension or shortening" based on what they see in the rocks there.

Feedback definitely appreciated. None of it is actually suited to alluvial mining - historically yes as it was low hanging fruit, but it has been all but mined out. This is giving away one of the answers, but the alluvial gold is only there because erosion of the surface includes erosion of the part of the surface where the shear zone intersects it, therefore amongst a lot of eroded non-gold-bearing rock, there is some gold-bearing rock, and it washes down into streams. There is almost none of it left now though. That paper you found is interesting, but it's pretty heavy reading, and there really isn't much that is noticeable in the rock at the site - as I mentioned on the cache page, the actual mineralised shear zone is almost imperceptible from the surrounding rock and that they can't tell the difference under lights, so they only mine it during the day time.

Share this post


Link to post

It might even be fair if they expect more from someone with 30 published EarthCaches than they would from someone creating their first or third EarthCache.

Having reflected on this for a couple of hours, I'm not so sure about this. What this means, in effect, is that someone that has contributed a significant amount of time and effort to the earthcache program, setting up and maintaining an earthcache, and responding to answers submitted, has their time wasted trying to get new earthcaches published when someone else can get potentially sub par earthcaches published with relative ease.

 

Now obviously this is hypothetical because there's no firm evidence to suggest this actually happens in the review process, but if it did, then it would only serve to promote lower quality earthcaches by discouraging experienced earthcache creators. My partner does ask me why I bother, but my answer is because I get a kick out of providing the earthcache for the enjoyment of geocachers who will visit, certainly not for the review process, which can at times be very frustrating and nit-picky.

Share this post


Link to post

As an EarthCache Reviewer (aka GeoawareUSA2) I will toss my hat in there as well.

 

There are Earthcaches that are older that do not meet the guidelines. There is no desire to go back and force those cachers to change their caches. We have a lot of work normally. Caches that are extreme problems get addressed, but I usually only address them when someone points them out. I can spend many hours working with people to get their Earthcaches published. However, people do bring items to my attention. I may address them quickly or in a few weeks, when I have some free time.

 

As a reviewer I see many caches (Earthcaches, traditionals, puzzles, etc) that another reviewer has published and I do not believe meets the guidelines. There are some that I look at a year later, that I wish I would have had them work on a little more.

 

A good discussion can be had by saying

It seems like there are different standards, and problems with the Geoaware reviewers being on the same page.

That can start a discussion that starts on a level footing.

 

By tossing statments out like.

This is the worst cache I have ever seen
Reviewer X is publishing dumb caches
I dislike BlueRajah's hair and his shiny forks

These tend to start on a more adversarial level. The core of the discussion is more personal rather than issue related. These tend to make people upset first, rather than deal with problems that may exist.

 

Please be civil, and think twice before hitting post. No need for anyone to get upset.

Edited by BlueRajah

Share this post


Link to post

There are Earthcaches that are older that do not meet the guidelines. There is no desire to go back and force those cachers to change their caches.

I fully understand that an old earthcache may have complied at the time and is effectively grandfathered. That's not being debated here.

 

A good discussion can be had by saying

It seems like there are different standards, and problems with the Geoaware reviewers being on the same page.

That can start a discussion that starts on a level footing.

Agreed. The guidelines are the same for the whole world, so I believe it's about time the issue of the application of those guidelines being the same or at least similar, with noted exceptions such as Africa mentioned earlier.

 

By tossing statments out like.

This is the worst cache I have ever seen

Guilty, but misquoted. I said the worst earthcache. Looks like a fun virtual, which would be great if virtuals were still allowed to be published, but they're not.

 

Reviewer X is publishing dumb caches
I dislike BlueRajah's hair and his shiny forks

These tend to start on a more adversarial level. The core of the discussion is more personal rather than issue related. These tend to make people upset first, rather than deal with problems that may exist.

 

Please be civil, and think twice before hitting post. No need for anyone to get upset.

No one said any of those. Certainly no one with any sense would diss your shiny forks anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Now that we have established the need for consideration and decorum, may I politely shift the focus back to the original question -- how is this earthcache related to earth science?

 

I've seen virtual caches that dealt with this, but I have to agree with funkymunkyzone here. There is no earth science here.

 

EarthCaches focus on the solid earth and the processes that shape it.

 

Acceptable:

 

Geological materials - Rocks, minerals, fossils, sands, soils, etc.

Geological processes - erosion, weathering, deposition, volcanic activity, glacial action, etc.

Geological land form evolution - glacial valleys, reverse topography due to rock properties, waterfalls with geological explanations, use of geological materials - building stones, etc.

Geological phenomena (not included above) - impact craters, geysers, mineral springs, etc.

Tools used by geologists - index fossils, rocks, historical geology sites.

 

Not Acceptable:

 

Biology, Botany, Zoology, Ecology, Atmospheric observations, Oceanographic observations, Geodesy (unless specifically linked to the location), Archeology, History (unless it has a geological theme), a building (unless it has a geological lesson), Engineering (unless it has a geological theme).

 

The cache deals with echoes caused by a parabolic, man-made dam. Acoustic study isn't a geological lesson. This would appear to fall into the two "unacceptable" categories above.

 

I'm no

, so if I'm missing something, please let me know. Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post

it's a man-made dam, and the earthcache seems to focus on transmission delays in mobile phones...

 

Just as an aside, I've seen several EC's based on man-made structures, such as buildings and such. The fact that there's a dam there, doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of an EC IMO.

 

The Logging Requirement is rather unique, and one I'm not sure I've ever seen before, but I could see something similar being done with a more natural setting.

 

I question whether the reviewer even looked at it.

 

I have no doubt the EC Reviewer looked at it, but how they applied the Guidelines in this situation might be a better question. If your intent is to create a similar EC, you might be best served by contacting the Reviewer to see how you could fashion a Listing along the same lines.

 

If your intent is to merely get the Listing Archive/Retracted, then you will probably have to submit your question to EC Reviewer or the GSA for interpretation and a final resolution (i.e. geoaware or geoaware HQ). Very little progress will be made by posting this subject in the Forums IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post

Just another friendly reminder: There is the "no precedent" clause in the guidelines.

 

EarthCaching guidelines adhere to general geocaching guidelines. See #10:

 

10. EarthCaches are submitted through geocaching.com and must meet these guidelines and adhere to the Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines and geocaching.com Site Terms of Use Agreement.

And the "no precedent" clause

 

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is.

Share this post


Link to post

it's a man-made dam, and the earthcache seems to focus on transmission delays in mobile phones...

 

Just as an aside, I've seen several EC's based on man-made structures, such as buildings and such. The fact that there's a dam there, doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of an EC IMO.

Totally, if there's some earthscience, like looking at the "grain in the granite blocks", "presence of fossils in the limestone columns", etc. Not the case here - it's a concrete dam and the shape of it has nothing to do with geology/earthscience.

 

The Logging Requirement is rather unique, and one I'm not sure I've ever seen before, but I could see something similar being done with a more natural setting.

Would the science of acoustics be allowed then? In my experience no, nothing but earthscience is allowed...

 

I have no doubt the EC Reviewer looked at it, but how they applied the Guidelines in this situation might be a better question. If your intent is to create a similar EC, you might be best served by contacting the Reviewer to see how you could fashion a Listing along the same lines.

No, all of my earthcaches are about earthscience, as per the guidelines.

 

If your intent is to merely get the Listing Archive/Retracted, then you will probably have to submit your question to EC Reviewer or the GSA for interpretation and a final resolution (i.e. geoaware or geoaware HQ). Very little progress will be made by posting this subject in the Forums IMHO.

No, I don't want to get that listing archived or retracted - as I said earlier:

I also forgot to say the other thing I wanted to make clear - my aim in bringing this up was not to have this earthcache archived. After all, it was reviewed and published, so it would not be fair to go back now and pull the rug from under that cache owner.

I've brought up huge inconsistencies in reviewing of earthcaches before, privately with reviewers, but aside from one or two, I've been knocked back and told it's not appropriate to raise such concerns, or I've been completely ignored. So now I've publicly brought it up and cited an example, what now...?

Share this post


Link to post

...as I said earlier:

 

My apologies. I didn't read the entire thread before responding.

 

I've brought up huge inconsistencies in reviewing of earthcaches before, privately with reviewers, but aside from one or two, I've been knocked back and told it's not appropriate to raise such concerns, or I've been completely ignored. So now I've publicly brought it up and cited an example, what now...?

 

As everyone is aware, most Reviewers are dogs. On the rare occasions human Reviewing is required, I think it's inevitable that inconsistency creeps into the process. In addition, the EC Guidelines have had some significant updates over the past few years (i.e. no photo requirements for instance), which compounds the impression of more inconsistency than actually exists.

 

In contrast, I would characterize the updates over the same time period to the Geocaching Guidelines to be *tweeks* at the most, so I could understand, if a comparison was being made.

 

Would the science of acoustics be allowed then?

 

I've done EC's that require vinegar to demonstrate a concept, yet I would not call it chemistry, per se. I would not put it past the realm of possibilities that a well constructed EC Listing could use such a Logging Requirement to demonstrate some geologic principal. Plus it sounds like the goofy type of fun that I enjoy about the sport.

 

...what now...?

 

I'd go log it, if it were me :)

Share this post


Link to post

On the rare occasions human Reviewing is required, I think it's inevitable that inconsistency creeps into the process. In addition, the EC Guidelines have had some significant updates over the past few years (i.e. no photo requirements for instance), which compounds the impression of more inconsistency than actually exists.

We're not talking minor inconsistencies, we're talking total disregard for the core requirement of an earthcache being about earthscience.

 

Regarding changes to the earthcache guidelines, please understand I am more than capable of distinguishing between earthcaches of certain publishing ages and appreciating the differences in the guidelines at the time. I've been earthcaching for a while, and I've created earthcaches under every regime of the guidelines right from back when they were submitted on the earthcache site and the cache page was drawn up by geoaware and then adopted to us.

 

I've done EC's that require vinegar to demonstrate a concept, yet I would not call it chemistry, per se.

Yep, probably something along the lines of observing the vinegar eat into some limestone or something like that. See, there's earthscience in there. I've considered creating an earthcache like that myself. Testing some limestone with a mobile phone or shouting at it? Not so much.

 

...what now...?

I'd go log it, if it were me :)

I was rather hoping for a "what now" scenario that involved accepting the emperor has no clothes and perhaps seeing if we can find a tunic in his size.... but yeah, we'll see, I'll be in the area of that earthcache in a couple of weeks...

Share this post


Link to post

After consultation with other forum moderators, I'm closing this thread. The OP is not carrying on a respectful conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...