Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
pantadeusz

logging an earthcache late?

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I recently created my first Earthcache. Someone has just logged it, claiming that he had been there a few years ago. Leaving aside the fact that not all of his answers are correct (which is fine, I can help get him on the right track), should I allow such a log at all? I don't want to spoil the fun for him or anything, I was just wondering what everyone's feelings about this are. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, pantadeusz said:

Hi,

 

I recently created my first Earthcache. Someone has just logged it, claiming that he had been there a few years ago. Leaving aside the fact that not all of his answers are correct (which is fine, I can help get him on the right track), should I allow such a log at all? I don't want to spoil the fun for him or anything, I was just wondering what everyone's feelings about this are. Thanks.

I'm sure you'll get a wide range of opinions on the subject, but personally I wouldn't.  I would invite the User to change their Find to a Note and share their experience, but leave the FTF to someone that visits the site after the Publication date.

Share this post


Link to post

Funny, someone just bumped an older thread on this exact subject.

Here's what I said last time; I feel about the same today -- bottom line, what I allow as an earthcache owner is not the same as what I practice for earthcaches, but I've highlighted a key part below that applies here.

Quote

Usually the only time I find out about someone logging one of our ECs is when they either date their log prior to the publication date or flat out say so in their log.

I've not deleted the handful of finds from folks who have done this, because they were able to answer the logging questions.

There are several areas I've gotten to know well enough that I could do this for earthcaches that were published after my visit there. For the reasons discussed above, I've not done so. It's the same as logging a virtual cache with a photo from my pre-caching days. Was I at the site? Yes, but not as a geocacher and not while geocaching, so it wasn't a find.

I get that it's more tempting to do this for places one is unlikely to revisit. I would argue that this gives just one more reason to go back and see a great location once again, but I only control my personal actions and ethics. (And sometimes those of my toddler, but not very often.)

The point of an earthcache isn't just to give someone a smiley at a given location, but also to teach an earth science lesson.  The important question is this: since they didn't have the answers to the logging questions, did they really learn what your earthcache was designed to teach?  Or are they just trying to get a smiley because they'd been there before? 

If that affects how you feel about allowing their log, then perhaps you shouldn't allow it.  But as the cache owner, ultimately it's up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, pantadeusz said:

Hi,

 

I recently created my first Earthcache. Someone has just logged it, claiming that he had been there a few years ago. Leaving aside the fact that not all of his answers are correct (which is fine, I can help get him on the right track), should I allow such a log at all? I don't want to spoil the fun for him or anything, I was just wondering what everyone's feelings about this are. Thanks.

Sorry. Feelings shouldn't matter. If he was there on or after the cache was published and made good (to your standard) on the logging requirement, it should obviously stand. If it was anything other than that and he's playing the system, I would not let it stand. I don't understand why something as black and white as this needs the involvement of feelings.

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I know, so long as the logger satisfies the logging requirements by providing acceptable logging task responses they can log a find based on visiting GZ at a point in time prior to publication of the Earthcache.

 

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, pantadeusz said:

I recently created my first Earthcache. Someone has just logged it, claiming that he had been there a few years ago. Leaving aside the fact that not all of his answers are correct (which is fine, I can help get him on the right track), should I allow such a log at all? I don't want to spoil the fun for him or anything, I was just wondering what everyone's feelings about this are. Thanks.

I would not  "Leave aside the fact that not all of his answers are correct " (emphasis mine).  Since answering questions (correctly, to me, is implied) is part of the logging process - I would be hesitant to call this a qualified "find".  The logger has not visited it recently and didn't get the answers correct.  He (or she) didn't complete the Earthcache.  I mean, what's the point of having questions to answer if "anything goes" and it doesn't matter if you get them right or not??

I recently made a trek to the East Coast, and discovered there was an Earthcache at a caverns attraction I have visited multi[ple times over the years.  The CO is someone I met at an event, and she suggested I log it.  I did actually go to the caverns site, and snapped a selfie on the grounds of the site which I submitted with my answers to the CO; I did not take the caverns tour this time, but I did know most of the answers from growing up nearby and taking the tour numerous times over the years.  I did claim it as a find, but then, I actually visited GZ, took the pic, and answered the questions.

Your logger did not visit the site (recently anyway) and didn't answer the questions correctly.  To me, that's not a "find" as he (or she) didn't fulfill the requirements you specified.  But you are the CO, and as such, you make the determination as to whether the logger fulfilled your requirements.

Just my 2¢.

Share this post


Link to post

I advise deleting it.  They didn't actually do your Earthcache because you hadn't even created it yet.  Letting someone log an EC even if they missed a question or two after making an honest effort after visiting is one thing, allowing someone to give only half the answers based on a visit from years ago is totally different.  Apples and oranges.  It isn't truly ONLY about the lesson--perhaps the lesson is 90-95% of it.  But it isn't geocaching if folks can just log any virtual or EC they like because they visited the spot years before.  That's sort of a farce.  Folks can cheat, but if they flat out say they're cheating, then delete their log.  You worked hard to create that EarthCache, folks who want to claim it as a find should also put the effort in to visit and answer your questions.

Edited by Dame Deco

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I would not  "Leave aside the fact that not all of his answers are correct " (emphasis mine).  Since answering questions (correctly, to me, is implied) is part of the logging process - I would be hesitant to call this a qualified "find".  The logger has not visited it recently and didn't get the answers correct.  He (or she) didn't complete the Earthcache.  I mean, what's the point of having questions to answer if "anything goes" and it doesn't matter if you get them right or not??

I recently made a trek to the East Coast, and discovered there was an Earthcache at a caverns attraction I have visited multi[ple times over the years.  The CO is someone I met at an event, and she suggested I log it.  I did actually go to the caverns site, and snapped a selfie on the grounds of the site which I submitted with my answers to the CO; I did not take the caverns tour this time, but I did know most of the answers from growing up nearby and taking the tour numerous times over the years.  I did claim it as a find, but then, I actually visited GZ, took the pic, and answered the questions.

Your logger did not visit the site (recently anyway) and didn't answer the questions correctly.  To me, that's not a "find" as he (or she) didn't fulfill the requirements you specified.  But you are the CO, and as such, you make the determination as to whether the logger fulfilled your requirements.

Just my 2¢.

1 hour ago, Dame Deco said:

I advise deleting it.  They didn't actually do your Earthcache because you hadn't even created it yet.  Letting someone log an EC even if they missed a question or two after making an honest effort after visiting is one thing, allowing someone to give only half the answers based on a visit from years ago is totally different.  Apples and oranges.  It isn't truly ONLY about the lesson--perhaps the lesson is 90-95% of it.  But it isn't geocaching if folks can just log any virtual or EC they like because they visited the spot years before.  That's sort of a farce.  Folks can cheat, but if they flat out say they're cheating, then delete their log.  You worked hard to create that EarthCache, folks who want to claim it as a find should also put the effort in to visit and answer your questions.

Just to clarify - his answers aren't terrible. He got something wrong. If I were to accept the fact he logged it without visiting the site after the cache was created, I would then say "your answer here is wrong, please correct it" and maybe give a hint. But I would like to ask the two of you and anyone else who comments to consider the issue without taking into account whether the answers are right or wrong - because this is not what my question was about and it is a separate issue. I would just like to know what you think about logging an earthcache whose site you have visited before it was published AND you are able to answer the questions correctly. Thanks in advance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Dame Deco said:

I advise deleting it.  They didn't actually do your Earthcache because you hadn't even created it yet.  Letting someone log an EC even if they missed a question or two after making an honest effort after visiting is one thing, allowing someone to give only half the answers based on a visit from years ago is totally different.  Apples and oranges.  It isn't truly ONLY about the lesson--perhaps the lesson is 90-95% of it.  But it isn't geocaching if folks can just log any virtual or EC they like because they visited the spot years before.  That's sort of a farce.  Folks can cheat, but if they flat out say they're cheating, then delete their log.  You worked hard to create that EarthCache, folks who want to claim it as a find should also put the effort in to visit and answer your questions.

Speaking as an EC owner myself...

I took a look at what the help center had to say about this and it confirmed my suspicions - there's nothing in there in black and white about requiring a visit to the cache location. Rather entitlement to logging a Found It centers on  Geocachers must complete the tasks before they log the EarthCache as found. Although there's nothing to stop the CO making 'visit the site' one of the requirements...

Also referenced there is the concept of Questions that can only be answered by visiting the site. EC owners can utilise this in the hope that people wishing to log a Found It will actually visit the site but even then there's nothing to stop cachers sharing answers.

So - if the logger in question can satisfy the logging task requirements - the log stands - the end.

The best we can do is to try to put together an interesting Earth Science lesson at an interesting location with logging tasks that, in the absence of getting the answers from somebody else, can only be completed by visiting the site.

Decisions on whether or not a log should stand, for me, center on the correctness of the logging task responses. If they are close I might steer people back to the cache page and encourage them to try again or I might offer a little hint. If they are way off I'm inclined to not accept the log because - as has been said above - they didn't satisfy the most important requirement which is the learning part.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, pantadeusz said:

I would just like to know what you think about logging an earthcache whose site you have visited before it was published AND you are able to answer the questions correctly. Thanks in advance.

Personally, I wouldn't .  Case in point:

https://coord.info/GC3RQEW

I've been to the location on four occasions, but the Listing was Published after my last visit, and I haven't been back.  I even submitted a Listing for the summit area myself, but couldn't secure permission from the NPS at the time I submitted it for their approval.  I've also encountered this situation on several Virtuals as well.  I'll just wait until I can properly document the visit and claim the Find in a way that is consistent with the way I personally play the game.

TM makes a good point, but I think it's important to point out that their argument is based on Groundspeak Policy, which doesn't seem to be the point of your question.

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

TM makes a good point, but I think it's important to point out that their argument is based on Groundspeak Policy, which doesn't seem to be the point of your question.

The OP seems to want to know about our feelings about this situation.

I thought I'd expressed my feelings while at the same time pointing out what TPTB think about this sort of situation - if for no other reason than that's what will matter should a disgruntled cacher take their deleted log to appeals.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I recently made a trek to the East Coast, and discovered there was an Earthcache at a caverns attraction I have visited multi[ple times over the years.  The CO is someone I met at an event, and she suggested I log it.  I did actually go to the caverns site, and snapped a selfie on the grounds of the site which I submitted with my answers to the CO; I did not take the caverns tour this time, but I did know most of the answers from growing up nearby and taking the tour numerous times over the years.  I did claim it as a find, but then, I actually visited GZ, took the pic, and answered the questions.

Just as an aside, you may want to let the CO know that they can't require a photo anymore -- the rules retroactively changed back in January 2011, but apparently word is still not getting out to cache owners who published earthcaches before the rule change.

 

8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I took a look at what the help center had to say about this and it confirmed my suspicions - there's nothing in there in black and white about requiring a visit to the cache location. Rather entitlement to logging a Found It centers on  Geocachers must complete the tasks before they log the EarthCache as found. Although there's nothing to stop the CO making 'visit the site' one of the requirements...

Sure there is.  Keep in mind the bit about earthcaches comes well after the bit about caches in general, and the topic of discussion is hiding an earthcache, not finding an earthcache.  Just because the tax code doesn't prohibit murder doesn't mean you can kill a tax collector in lieu of submitting your payment -- the part that prohibits murder might be in a different section, but it still applies.

Quote
 
Under 3.1, Log Types, there's this guidance on "Found It" log.
Quote

Found It

Use a “Found It” log after you visit the cache and sign the logbook. You can also add a photo or a Favorite point to your online log.

Please take time to write at least a few sentences when you log your find — this is how you say “thank you” to the cache owner for creating and placing the geocache.

Webcam Caches are a rare exception. Learn how to log a Webcam Cache.

I suppose they could spell out the requirements on virtuals and earthcaches here, but since the guidelines are supposed to be taken as a whole and not as individual checklists, I think it's fine.

Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Just as an aside, you may want to let the CO know that they can't require a photo anymore -- the rules retroactively changed back in January 2011, but apparently word is still not getting out to cache owners who published earthcaches before the rule change.

 

Sure there is.  Keep in mind the bit about earthcaches comes well after the bit about caches in general.  Just because the tax code doesn't prohibit murder doesn't mean you can kill a tax collector in lieu of submitting your payment -- the part that prohibits murder might be in a different section, but it still applies.

 
Under 3.1, Log Types, there's this guidance on "Found It" log.

I suppose they could spell out the requirements on virtuals and earthcaches here, but since the guidelines are supposed to be taken as a whole and not as individual checklists, I think it's fine.

Where's the logbook to sign on an Earthcache?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

Where's the logbook to sign on an Earthcache?

Yes, I knew that'd be coming -- your pendantry does not disappoint.  We take the time to explain that up front in our earthcaches.

Quote

There is no physical cache container to find; to log this earthcache, you will need to email or message us the answers to the questions below. The questions are repeated in the unencrypted hint for your convenience.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Yes, I knew that'd be coming -- your pendantry does not disappoint.  We take the time to explain that up front in our earthcaches.

 

Pedantry?

How rude!

Just trying to interpret the guidelines appropriately to context.

Sorry if that undermines your assertion.

Share this post


Link to post

FWIW, here is the first paragraph of my EarthCache listing:

"This is an EarthCache, so there is no container to find. To log this EarthCache, you must read the information below, visit and observe the location, and send me your answers to 3 questions about the location's geology. Additional internet research is not needed; you need only the text and images below, and the signs at the site."

I'm not sure where I got the "visit and observe the location" bit, but I don't think it was original to me. Most of this paragraph is copied/adapted from the various EarthCache information that was available at the time I wrote the listing. Although not all of that information was on the geocaching.com or Groundspeak.com site. Some of it was on the geosociety.org site.

Share this post


Link to post

Just to answer a few points that appeared here:

 

Don't get too attached to the word "feelings" I used. I am wondering what your thoughts are on the issue. You and I are all the geocaching community, and I want to be in touch with the rest of the world when I do something.

Also I think in the found log description you quote, the point to argue over is whether if the person visited a place BEFORE it had a cache, did he/she visit the cache?

Also, I personally wouldn't take offence from an accusation of pedantry. But I would from an accusation of rudeness.

 

Please keep this conversation going - it is really helping me shape my view of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, niraD said:

I'm not sure where I got the "visit and observe the location" bit, but I don't think it was original to me. Most of this paragraph is copied/adapted from the various EarthCache information that was available at the time I wrote the listing. Although not all of that information was on the geocaching.com or Groundspeak.com site. Some of it was on the geosociety.org site.

Hadn't really thought about specifying it, but that makes sense.  I'm not feeling motivated to go edit 27 cache descriptions at the moment, but if the issue presents itself again, I may.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Sorry if that undermines your assertion.

No, but the fact that you completely ignored this bit, even though you quoted it

4 hours ago, hzoi said:

I suppose they could spell out the requirements on virtuals and earthcaches here, but since the guidelines are supposed to be taken as a whole and not as individual checklists, I think it's fine.

undermines your outrage.

Although I suppose your inattention to detail in this respect does undermine my labeling of your behavior as pedantic.  Contrarian, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, hzoi said:

No, but the fact that you completely ignored this bit, even though you quoted it

undermines your outrage.

Although I suppose your inattention to detail in this respect does undermine my labeling of your behavior as pedantic.  Contrarian, perhaps?

One needs to visit GZ to find and post a valid Found It log on a Traditional geocache.

That's not the case for an Earthcache.

It wasn't a lack of attention to detail that led me to believe your claim that the guidlines say something else is mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, pantadeusz said:

Also I think in the found log description you quote, the point to argue over is whether if the person visited a place BEFORE it had a cache, did he/she visit the cache?

No - they didn't visit the cache - because the cache didn't exist at that point.

And that, in the context of any desire to reject their log, is entirely moot so long as they can satisfy the logging requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
2 hours ago, pantadeusz said:

Also I think in the found log description you quote, the point to argue over is whether if the person visited a place BEFORE it had a cache, did he/she visit the cache?

No - they didn't visit the cache - because the cache didn't exist at that point.

And that, in the context of any desire to reject their log, is entirely moot so long as they can satisfy the logging requirements.

I agree.  So it turns on designing the logging questions in a way that applies the lesson you want to teach to what someone can observe at the site.  Not just requiring someone to estimate distances or parrot information off a sign, but interpreting facts in order to demonstrate learning. 

If someone has a good enough memory that they can think back to their visit and do that, or even supplement what they observed then with subsequent research, then arguably they've still met the intent of the earthcache, which is that learning take place.

That doesn't change the fact that I won't practice this to find a cache, but it affects what I'll allow as a CO.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, hzoi said:

I agree.  So it turns on designing the logging questions in a way that applies the lesson you want to teach to what someone can observe at the site.  Not just requiring someone to estimate distances or parrot information off a sign, but interpreting facts in order to demonstrate learning. 

If someone has a good enough memory that they can think back to their visit and do that, or even supplement what they observed then with subsequent research, then arguably they've still met the intent of the earthcache, which is that learning take place.

That doesn't change the fact that I won't practice this to find a cache, but it affects what I'll allow as a CO.

I've never logged a find on an Earthcache that I haven't visited - I don't see the point.

I have though, more than once, managed to satisfy logging requirements and get a green light to log the EC all without leaving my armchair, purely for a giggle.

Share this post


Link to post

Having studied the OP's EC I reckon I could cobble together adequate logging task responses from a short spell of Internet research.

In fact I reckon Internet research would be essential to achieving adequate answers as there are questions for which the requisite supporting knowledge is absent from the earth science lesson on the cache page.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would personally delete the log.  The person could appeal to Groundspeak, Groundspeak could reinstate it, and then I would just let it go and forget about it.  Deleting it would satisfy my understanding of geocaching--visit, then log.  If the powers that be reinstated it, I would shrug and try to forget about it.  But at least I would be true to myself.  I have had 12 EarthCaches published.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Having studied the OP's EC I reckon I could cobble together adequate logging task responses from a short spell of Internet research.

In fact I reckon Internet research would be essential to achieving adequate answers as there are questions for which the requisite supporting knowledge is absent from the earth science lesson on the cache page.

Excuse me? Which question requires Internet reserach?

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, pantadeusz said:

Excuse me? Which question requires Internet reserach?

I think that TM was referring to the photo requirement of the gps. You don't describe how to do that in your Description ;)

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, pantadeusz said:

... But I would like to ask the two of you and anyone else who comments to consider the issue without taking into account whether the answers are right or wrong - because this is not what my question was about and it is a separate issue. I would just like to know what you think about logging an earthcache whose site you have visited before it was published AND you are able to answer the questions correctly. Thanks in advance.

IMHO, it's totally up to you as the cache owner what you will allow.  It's your cache....

If someone doesn't state when their visit occurs, and provides correct answers, you will likely assume it's a visit on or near their log date, but they could be "armchair logging" and you have no way of knowing that.  Someone who TELLS you their visit was years ago is kind of putting YOU on the spot as to whether you accept their log or not.  

My thinking (feeling - thoughts - whatever) is that if your logger didn't visit the Earthcache recently, close to the time of his log, but years prior to, then it did not exist at the time of his visit (although reading his log, it doesn't explicitly state that he was not there recently, just that he was there years ago ... leaving it up to interpretation).  If it did not exist when he visited, then he didn't visit the Earthcache.  But that's just my opinion, which you asked for...

In the case of my logging the Earthcache near my childhood home on a visit, I did feel obligated to actually go to the site, the coordinates, in order to log the Earthcache - I suppose I could have just answered the questions, and put the CO in the same kind of bind you are in, saying I grew up and visited this site multiple times (and probably several AFTER it was an Earthcache but before I was geocaching, so I didn't know it was an Earthcache).  As a geocacher, I feel I need to visit the site with the intent of finding the cache and logging it - Earthcache, Virtual, traditional ... to find it I have to be looking for it, seeking it.  That's me though; what you accept as a CO is up to you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, pantadeusz said:

Excuse me? Which question requires Internet reserach?

Q4 asks - Is the glacier retreating or advancing? How can you tell?

Which part of your Earth Science Lesson teaches me what to look for in order to be able to answer that question correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Dame Deco said:

I would personally delete the log.  The person could appeal to Groundspeak, Groundspeak could reinstate it, and then I would just let it go and forget about it.  Deleting it would satisfy my understanding of geocaching--visit, then log.  If the powers that be reinstated it, I would shrug and try to forget about it.  But at least I would be true to myself.  I have had 12 EarthCaches published.

Forgive me - that does sound to me like a pointless exercise.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

My thinking (feeling - thoughts - whatever) is that if your logger didn't visit the Earthcache recently, close to the time of his log, but years prior to, then it did not exist at the time of his visit (although reading his log, it doesn't explicitly state that he was not there recently, just that he was there years ago ... leaving it up to interpretation).  If it did not exist when he visited, then he didn't visit the Earthcache.  But that's just my opinion, which you asked for...

This is also keeping in line with guidance from the GSA (or if you prefer, the GSA's "feelings"):

Quote

Somebody logged my EarthCache, but it appears they visited the location before my EarthCache was published. Should I allow the log, or delete it?

1. There is no rule that says somebody has to visit the location after publication in order to make a log.
2. HOWEVER, in GSA’s 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 cache owner. 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. The cache owner can be the judge of that.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Touchstone said:
8 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

My thinking (feeling - thoughts - whatever) is that if your logger didn't visit the Earthcache recently, close to the time of his log, but years prior to, then it did not exist at the time of his visit (although reading his log, it doesn't explicitly state that he was not there recently, just that he was there years ago ... leaving it up to interpretation).  If it did not exist when he visited, then he didn't visit the Earthcache.  But that's just my opinion, which you asked for...

This is also keeping in line with guidance from the GSA (or if you prefer, the GSA's "feelings"):

Quote

Somebody logged my EarthCache, but it appears they visited the location before my EarthCache was published. Should I allow the log, or delete it?

1. There is no rule that says somebody has to visit the location after publication in order to make a log.
2. HOWEVER, in GSA’s 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 cache owner. 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. The cache owner can be the judge of that.)

 

I stand corrected.

Of course the person who had their log rejected would never dream of re-submitting the day after, confirming that they 'had now visited the location'...

So again - if the logging task responses are satisfactory there's really no point deleting the log.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Q4 asks - Is the glacier retreating or advancing? How can you tell?

Which part of your Earth Science Lesson teaches me what to look for in order to be able to answer that question correctly?

I could answer this, but then I would give away the answer. This is the only question in the listing for which you actually have to look at the glacier and think while you're there.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, pantadeusz said:

I could answer this, but then I would give away the answer. This is the only question in the listing for which you actually have to look at the glacier and think while you're there.

Then your Earth Science lesson is inadequate 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, hzoi said:

If someone has a good enough memory that they can think back to their visit and do that, or even supplement what they observed then with subsequent research, then arguably they've still met the intent of the earthcache, which is that learning take place.

 

1 hour ago, Touchstone said:

4. If a cache owner wants to allow such logs to stand, that's fine too. (That's up to the cache owner. 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. The cache owner can be the judge of that.)

Hey, those look similar.  :bad:  Thanks, Touchstone, for the additional research.  I keep forgetting to go back to the earthcaching website, for a while it was blocked by my net nanny at work, and then for a while it was down.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Then your Earth Science lesson is inadequate 

What? How? Are you saying solving an earthcache shouldn't involve thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, pantadeusz said:

What? How? Are you saying solving an earthcache shouldn't involve thinking?

No. Not at all.

I'm saying that you're asking someone to arrive at a correct conclusion without teaching them, via your Earth Science lesson, how through their observations at GZ they can go about doing so.

On the basis that an Earthcache must assume no prior knowledge you are in effect asking people to guess then classing their answers as wrong despite missing the essential information in the lesson you've provided.

I really don't know how I can make it any clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Forgive me - that does sound to me like a pointless exercise.

 

much like geocaching?  According to my mother, anyway-- lol!  It's not really pointless--I don't think GS would reinstate it.  I'm not sure the person would even appeal the deletion.  It just seems like common sense that you log caches after you find them.  Anything else is a farce.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, pantadeusz said:

I am sorry, but no prior knowledge is needed here. You can't make it clearer I'm afraid as it makes no sense at all :D

It doesn't surprise me much that you would pretend to not understand.

What does surprise me is that a reviewer actually published your Earthcache which such a massive hole in the Earth Science lesson.

Fact is that as Q4 is a binary question it doesn't get in the way of anyone logging it anyway. If I got it wrong first time I'd just come back a second time with the only available alternative and you'd have to accept my answer. The sad part of course is that I won't have actually learned anything and thus the entire Earthcache will be rendered pointless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Dame Deco said:
8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Forgive me - that does sound to me like a pointless exercise.

 

much like geocaching?  According to my mother, anyway-- lol!  It's not really pointless--I don't think GS would reinstate it.  I'm not sure the person would even appeal the deletion.  It just seems like common sense that you log caches after you find them.  Anything else is a farce.

GIven the number who will react violently to a deleted EC log which they've laid claim to on the basis of merely being at GZ, I'm not so sure that a logger who knew they had satisfied all the logging requirements would just quietly accept it.

They'll just claim they've since visited and relog and you'll have to accept it. That's why I reckon you'd be wasting your time, farce or no - but it's your time to waste as you see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

It doesn't surprise me much that you would pretend to not understand.

What does surprise me is that a reviewer actually published your Earthcache which such a massive hole in the Earth Science lesson.

Fact is that as Q4 is a binary question it doesn't get in the way of anyone logging it anyway. If I got it wrong first time I'd just come back a second time with the only available alternative and you'd have to accept my answer. The sad part of course is that I won't have actually learned anything and thus the entire Earthcache will be rendered pointless.

 

I am sorry but I take accusations of dishonesty seriously. I am not pretending anything and you seem to be jumping to conclusions based on no evidence to support them.

I do want to take part in the thought experiment you propose here though. You get the answer wrong. I say it's wrong. You come back with the opposite answer. There is still no way I will accept it without an argument, which is explicitly required by the question. And if you don't give me an argument that works, I will delete your log.

I get that you don't like this question in my Earthcache. It's sad but I will survive without your approval. But I thought your problem was that it can't be answered based solely on the information provided in the listing and I just told you that if you add some thought to it, you can, with absolutely no knowledge of geology. So what is the problem?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, pantadeusz said:

I do want to take part in the thought experiment you propose here though. You get the answer wrong. I say it's wrong. You come back with the opposite answer. There is still no way I will accept it without an argument, which is explicitly required by the question. And if you don't give me an argument that works, I will delete your log.

I get that you don't like this question in my Earthcache. It's sad but I will survive without your approval. But I thought your problem was that it can't be answered based solely on the information provided in the listing and I just told you that if you add some thought to it, you can, with absolutely no knowledge of geology. So what is the problem?

 I must be communicating very poorly indeed.

Let's look at the question:

Quote

4. Is the glacier retreating or advancing? How can you tell?

You cannot assume that I have prior knowledge in this regard.

You cannot expect me to know how to tell if a glacier is advancing or retreating.

Your Earth Science lesson is supposed to educate me in that regard - and it doesn't.

Your question is a binary question - the glacier is either moving or it's not - one of those answers has to be correct - ergo, if forced to, I can just guess until I get it right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 I must be communicating very poorly indeed.

I think you are communicating your own thoughts well but your problems lie in reading what others write and understanding it...

6 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

You cannot assume that I have prior knowledge in this regard.

You cannot expect me to know how to tell if a glacier is advancing or retreating.

I told you in the listing what it means for a glacier to advance or retreat. When you're there, you need to look around you for evidence of one or the other. No prior knowledge is needed for this, all you need to have for this is a pair of eyes.

7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Your Earth Science lesson is supposed to educate me in that regard - and it doesn't.

The cache is supposed to educate you in this regard. The cache consists of the listing and the experience of caching. I don't explicitly tell you what the answer is in the listing. This is why you need to use your eyes.

6 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Your question is a binary question - the glacier is either moving or it's not - one of those answers has to be correct - ergo, if forced to, I can just guess until I get it right.

It's not about whether the glacier is moving (all glaciers move...) but about the direction in which it is moving. But yes, you can guess until you get it right. As I said, this will not help you get your answers accepted, as the question specifically asks for an argument to support your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, pantadeusz said:

I think you are communicating your own thoughts well but your problems lie in reading what others write and understanding it...

I told you in the listing what it means for a glacier to advance or retreat. When you're there, you need to look around you for evidence of one or the other. No prior knowledge is needed for this, all you need to have for this is a pair of eyes.

The cache is supposed to educate you in this regard. The cache consists of the listing and the experience of caching. I don't explicitly tell you what the answer is in the listing. This is why you need to use your eyes.

It's not about whether the glacier is moving (all glaciers move...) but about the direction in which it is moving. But yes, you can guess until you get it right. As I said, this will not help you get your answers accepted, as the question specifically asks for an argument to support your answer.

I don't usually struggle with reading comprehension but some texts are inherently better than others.

I am familiar with the concepts of advance and retreat.

What I'm not familiar with is the specific types of evidence which would allow me to know whether, at the precise time of my visit, the glacier was advancing or retreating - or indeed stagnant.

I've looked again on your cache page for descriptions of the types of evidence that would allow me to arrive at the correct answer and still don't see it.

Perhaps you could point out just what I seem to be missing?

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, I understand now where our disagreement lies. I believe not everything needs to be laid out step by step in a lesson - sometimes you can expect the student to think for himself or herself a bit. I get that you disagree and believe that if I want the cacher to do something I should explicitly explain how to do it. In my listing this is purposefully not done.

 

I would be happy to move back to the original question about logging an Earthcache whose site you visited before it was published. People have been making some points in this conversation that I haven't thought about before and I am finding them instructive.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×