Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
thatdarndane

Earthcache inconsistent reviews

Recommended Posts

It would seem that reviews for potential earthcaches are as inconsistent as they are for traditional and for waymarks. I tried to publish an earthcache that require you identify the soil type and other things at the site so that I could make sure that finder actually was there. It was disabled, not enough thinking or research included. The guidelines clearly state that earthcaches that require internet research were not allowed and that the questions had to relate to things at the site. The guidelines also state they have to be GEOLOGY based, that any information quoted from another source had to be quoted and attributed to the source, yet one just published in Galveston not only doesn't apply to geology at all, but to hydrology and plants AND MANMADE marshes. And the text is word for word from someone else's information. Getting really worn out with the capriciousness of Groundspeak and their failure to hold reviewers to guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

It would seem that reviews for potential earthcaches are as inconsistent as they are for traditional and for waymarks. I tried to publish an earthcache that require you identify the soil type and other things at the site so that I could make sure that finder actually was there. It was disabled, not enough thinking or research included. The guidelines clearly state that earthcaches that require internet research were not allowed and that the questions had to relate to things at the site. The guidelines also state they have to be GEOLOGY based, that any information quoted from another source had to be quoted and attributed to the source, yet one just published in Galveston not only doesn't apply to geology at all, but to hydrology and plants AND MANMADE marshes. And the text is word for word from someone else's information. Getting really worn out with the capriciousness of Groundspeak and their failure to hold reviewers to guidelines.

 

I think newer Earthcaches are held to a higher standard than they might have been in the past.

 

Good geocachers always remember to review the guidelines before placing any type of cache. If you had done so, you would have noticed this important paragraph:

 

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.

 

Instead of fussing about what has been published in the past, why not follow the advice given to you by the reviewer and get your own Earthcache ready for publication? Do you really want to own a sub-standard Earthcache just because others have in the past?

Share this post


Link to post

It would seem that reviews for potential earthcaches are as inconsistent as they are for traditional and for waymarks. I tried to publish an earthcache that require you identify the soil type and other things at the site so that I could make sure that finder actually was there. It was disabled, not enough thinking or research included. The guidelines clearly state that earthcaches that require internet research were not allowed and that the questions had to relate to things at the site. The guidelines also state they have to be GEOLOGY based, that any information quoted from another source had to be quoted and attributed to the source, yet one just published in Galveston not only doesn't apply to geology at all, but to hydrology and plants AND MANMADE marshes. And the text is word for word from someone else's information. Getting really worn out with the capriciousness of Groundspeak and their failure to hold reviewers to guidelines.

 

Not seeing the ones in Galveston that you're referring to, but there are several to the North of Galveston that kind of refer to what you're talking about. Most of those Listings are at least 5 years old. Keep in mind that the Earthcache Guidelines have undergone several revisions in that time frame.

Share this post


Link to post

It was disabled, not enough thinking or research included. The guidelines clearly state that earthcaches that require internet research were not allowed and that the questions had to relate to things at the site.

The second sentence makes it sound like you think the objection was that seekers wouldn't have to do enough thinking or research, but my guess is that the reviewer actually meant that you didn't do enough thinking and research. Have you considered that?

 

The guidelines also state they have to be GEOLOGY based, that any information quoted from another source had to be quoted and attributed to the source, yet one just published in Galveston...

What's Galveston have to do with it? The problem's with your submission, so just focus on working with the reviewer to fix that and don't worry about Galveston.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I suggest you work with your reviewer. When someone gets stuck with an EarthCache, we usually give the following advise:

1) Choose a suitable topic (related to the location or alternatively find a location which illustrates your topic)

2) Create a general write up of the earth science regarding this topic.

3) Go into details on how this is applied/visible/etc. at the location.

4) Create a (few) logging task(s) which invites the visitors to apply (some of) the information of your listing to what they actually see at the location.

 

In your case the problem seem to be logging tasks. Geology is something best studied in the field, thus your logging tasks should work along the same line: bring people to a location, show them something geologically interesting and ask questions about what people can see there. These questions should not be about the number of benches at the location but really focus on the feature you describe. Also simple measurements are hardly ever related to the geology: an outcrop would be still be the same if it was 30m wide or 50m. Also, biology or ecology is generally not a part of EarthScience, though I can imagine a few ocasions where it might actually work. For example, as a student I've done a mapping course in Spain. All the rocks in the area where clastic (sandstones and such) with the exception of one thin limestone layer, which often wasn't visible. I could still map it because a type of wild roses was growing only where the limestone layer was present underneath the soil, and nowhere else. Before everyone rushes out now to create EarthCaches on invisible geology: Mind you, for an EarthCache, this limestone layer should still have an outcrop somewhere. We need something that people can actually see. :)

 

Nina, GeoawareGBL - Global EarthCache Reviewer

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 0

×
×
  • Create New...