Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
brendan714

Cachers not answering questions

Recommended Posts

Looking for opinions...

 

I have several ECs that are in areas frequented by tourists from all over the globe.  One requires what I thought was some easy math:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6271J_why-is-lake-louise-colourful

A good number of cachers simply refuse to answer questions 6 and 7, usually with the response "I am not good at math" or similar.  I recently deleted such a pair of logs and said they should at least TRY to answer all the questions as part of the EC.  They messaged back saying they are "incapable" of answering the questions as they are "very bad at physics" and they re-posted their finds.

 

Would you re-delete?  Or just shrug it off?

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

The math seems to be integral part of the lesson. Ask advice from your reviewer. If the question is irrelevant then consider removing that part. :mad:

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, arisoft said:

The math seems to be integral part of the lesson. Ask advice from your reviewer. If the question is irrelevant then consider removing that part. :mad:

 

I think the math is interesting and very relevant to the EC so I'd rather not remove it.  I think this math piece actually gives this EC a very unique feel from many other ECs in the area.  Many cachers enjoy those 2 questions very much. (I thought the math would be doable by everyone but clearly this is not the case)

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

I thought the math would be doable by everyone but clearly this is not the case

 

The math part didn't come as a surprise for the geocachers. They must have known that it is too difficult for them before visiting the site.

 

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

The EC is rated at D 4.5. Cachers KNOW in advance that it is a very difficult EC, and the description even states such.  Delete the logs of those that don't attempt every question.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

I have several ECs that are in areas frequented by tourists from all over the globe.  One requires what I thought was some easy math:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6271J_why-is-lake-louise-colourful

A good number of cachers simply refuse to answer questions 6 and 7, usually with the response "I am not good at math" or similar.  I recently deleted such a pair of logs and said they should at least TRY to answer all the questions as part of the EC.  They messaged back saying they are "incapable" of answering the questions as they are "very bad at physics" and they re-posted their finds.

Would you re-delete?  Or just shrug it off?

 

Unfortunately, folks realized I was dyslexic many years after my college days, where I didn't have all the options of others today to get by.

I looked at that "some mathematics of rock flour" section, and went outside to have a smoke.

 - So I'd simply skip it.     Maybe if in the area I'd stop there,  but for the uniqueness of it,  not for a smiley.   :)

I'd expect an earthcache owner would delete a log if not meeting the tasks required.  I've simply skipped by those caches  ...

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

I recently deleted such a pair of logs and said they should at least TRY to answer all the questions as part of the EC.

 

Answering all the questions of an Earthcache is tantamount to signing the log.  They didn't do that, so it's reasonable and you were well within your rights to delete those logs for not completing the questions.

 

1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

Would you re-delete?  Or just shrug it off?

 

I would urge you not to allow a few shirkers to cause you to change what you feel is important; however, it's what you think and how you feel doing it that matters.

 

If you are concerned about seeming "difficult", you could either 1)let them know that answering the questions is required to log and invite them to appeal your deletion if they wish, and give the link for doing that, or 2) do as Arisoft suggests and get your Reviewer's take on it before taking another action.  (Frankly, I would expect the Reviewer to uphold your decision if it's the same as when he/she published the cache.)

Edited by VAVAPAM
none whatsoever
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

It could be that the stumbling block is they just don't understand mathematical notation. Maybe respond to them by explaining how to use that equation, in other words express in words what that equation is saying - multiply the radius by itself then multiply that by 0.612 to get your answer.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It could be that the stumbling block is they just don't understand mathematical notation. Maybe respond to them by explaining how to use that equation, in other words express in words what that equation is saying - multiply the radius by itself then multiply that by 0.612 to get your answer.

I typically do exactly that :) Most who respond seem to be insistent that they are incapable of doing the math.  

The responses I sometimes get from deleting logs and "stealing their smiley" can sometimes be quite hostile.  All I can think is "you never earned your smiley"...

Honestly I don't care at all if they get it exactly right, I'd just like to see them give it an honest attempt!

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

Honestly I don't care at all if they get it exactly right, I'd just like to see them give it an honest attempt!

That's pretty much my approach with my EC as well. I'm very lenient with wrong answers. I'm less forgiving with no answers at all.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, niraD said:

That's pretty much my approach with my EC as well. I'm very lenient with wrong answers. I'm less forgiving with no answers at all.

Yes, exactly.  There's something about saying "I am incapable of answering" that leads me to think they need to try again. 

Give it a shot, get it wildly wrong, and you will likely receive an "ok!" message from me followed by the appropriate corrections.

Edited by brendan714
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, brendan714 said:

Most who respond seem to be insistent that they are incapable of doing the math. 

 

Well then, they're incapable of solving a D4.5.

 

Letting it slide just devalues the smiley for those who correctly solve it.  Sorta like, dunno, logging a top-of-the-watershed glacier EC from the tourist lot, or with 25-year-old pictures, and getting away with it.  (That EC owner wasn't interested in my suggestion they enforce their own rules, and I resisted the temptation to scan an old negative and log it myself...)

 

BTW, how do these people save for retirement?  They won't have a clue.  It's hardly something to brag about, not "doing math"...

 

Edited by Viajero Perdido
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

In my personal opinion, and to put in context, I am pretty au fait with maths so it's no problem for me, if this was my EC, I would dispense with question 6 but instead walk the EC visitor through the maths about how quickly the rock flour particles would settle in still, unfreezing, water, and then follow up by asking what you have in question 7.

 

I do get where you are coming from with question 6, but the reality is that the EC is about the real geology, and while question 6 is interesting from the point of view of thinking about rock flour settling to the bottom of the lake, you've specified some ideal conditions that don't play out in reality anyway - the fact is the lake is not still, and it does freeze, so arguing that question 6 provides a geology lesson about Lake Louise is *slightly* dubious.

 

Don't get me wrong, looks like a great EC, but as I said, my opinion would be explain question 6 as a statement - walk through the maths and come up with the settling rate, and then ask the finder to work out how long it takes as per question 7.  You end up with the same geology lesson, in fact even better because everyone will get right through to the end.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post

I had to read the description several times before getting it through my skull.  But it seems doable.  There is no requirement that the answers be correct but I am in favor of the suggestion by funkymunkyzone. I think the geocacher should provide some type of answer even if it is wrong.

 

56 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

In my personal opinion, and to put in context, I am pretty au fait with maths so it's no problem for me, if this was my EC, I would dispense with question 6 but instead walk the EC visitor through the maths about how quickly the rock flour particles would settle in still, unfreezing, water, and then follow up by asking what you have in question 7.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

In my personal opinion, and to put in context, I am pretty au fait with maths so it's no problem for me, if this was my EC, I would dispense with question 6 but instead walk the EC visitor through the maths about how quickly the rock flour particles would settle in still, unfreezing, water, and then follow up by asking what you have in question 7.

 

You end up with the same geology lesson, in fact even better because everyone will get right through to the end.

I'm not interested in doing away with the math equation.  As I mentioned above I think the math section makes this EC unique from others in the area.

I'm also not necessarily interested in having "everyone get through to the end".  The majority of my caches are intended to be a unique physical or mental challenge.  That in turn means that not everyone will be able to do them.

The issue here is moreso having geocachers who log finds who do not answer / refuse to answer all the required questions.

 

2 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Sorta like, dunno, logging a top-of-the-watershed glacier EC from the tourist lot, or with 25-year-old pictures, and getting away with it.  (That EC owner wasn't interested in my suggestion they enforce their own rules, and I resisted the temptation to scan an old negative and log it myself...)

LOL ;) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, brendan714 said:

I'm not interested in doing away with the math equation.  As I mentioned above I think the math section makes this EC unique from others in the area.

I'm also not necessarily interested in having "everyone get through to the end".  The majority of my caches are intended to be a unique physical or mental challenge.  That in turn means that not everyone will be able to do them.

The issue here is moreso having geocachers who log finds who do not answer / refuse to answer all the required questions.

 

10 hours ago, brendan714 said:

Looking for opinions...

 

Um, ok.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest, I could complete your entire earthcache from the other side of the world (where I am right now).  Barring the question about colour (which I could easily say turqoise and milky, from every picture I have ever seen of the lake when it's not iced over), is there anything that a visitor has to do at the site?  Just out of curiosity.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, brendan714 said:

I think the math is interesting and very relevant to the EC so I'd rather not remove it.  I think this math piece actually gives this EC a very unique feel from many other ECs in the area.  Many cachers enjoy those 2 questions very much. (I thought the math would be doable by everyone but clearly this is not the case)

 

I am giving my opinion, based on the fact that more than half the people in my family have math degrees. We have a lot of combined experience with students' and the public's math skills.

 

This is just MY opinion:

 

If you feel strongly that the math is an integral part of the geology lesson, then I'd keep it and require the questions be answered.

I have skipped ECs because they seemed too hard. I wouldn't attempt to log an EC if I couldn't figure out the answers. I may ask the ECO for clarification or assistance, but that's as far as I'd go.

At first glance the math looked way too difficult for the average person (based on MY experience). But then I saw that you summarized the formula/constants and gave all the information needed.

 

Question #6 is a very easy math problem. On paper, it shouldn't take more than a minute even for those who hate math!

Question #7 is a little harder, and at first I missed that you do provide them with the formula. That math is a little more challenging than #6, but certainly doable by most within 5 minutes.

 

So in summary, I think if you keep the math, require that the questions be answered. I think you are exactly right that with very little effort the math is doable by almost everyone! Certainly by everyone, with a little help if needed. My son enjoyed figuring out the answers to the two math questions, and even more so when he understood how it related to the geology of the lake. Nicely done!

 

This is an interesting EarthCache. I can see why it gets so many visitors!

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, brendan714 said:

Most who respond seem to be insistent that they are incapable of doing the math.

That's fine. I can't rock climb, so I don't do those caches, either. But I don't pretend that me not being able to rock climb is a good reason for the CO to let me claim the find.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'll be honest here. I did okay at school with maths (likely better than most in my class, but I wasn't one of the top students, but better than average) and it was my favourite subject, but it was so long ago, I doubt I could do that maths now. My solution would be to ignore that Earth cache and not do it. If I couldn't answer the question I wouldn't make a claim to find it; or if I really wanted to log it, I would get help from someone with the maths. But then Earth caches are not a favourite of mine and if there are plenty of other caches, I don't bother to do them, or in many cases, even to look at them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I´d handle it like a bogus find log --> delete.

With earth caches there is no cache to find, but answers. Answers not found = Cache not found.

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Unfortunately, folks realized I was dyslexic many years after my college days, where I didn't have all the options of others today to get by.

I looked at that "some mathematics of rock flour" section, and went outside to have a smoke.

 - So I'd simply skip it.     Maybe if in the area I'd stop there,  but for the uniqueness of it,  not for a smiley.   :)

I'd expect an earthcache owner would delete a log if not meeting the tasks required.  I've simply skipped by those caches  ...

 

That's the right answer! If people think they can't do it then they should not attempt it to start with. If you can't climb a tree don't post a photo of the cache from the bottom. If you can't dive then don't log with 'I swam above the approximate location'. If you can't do maths to answer all the questions then don't do this cache. I just looked at it, and I think this one fits very well within average 14 year olds can understand it. Of course there are people with understanding below this within certain areas (dyscalculia, colourblindness, etc), but not every cache needs to be attainable by everyone.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

So it sounds like you (the OP) are asking for opinions about whether or not the second attempt to log as found should be deleted, not about the requirements. Right?

 

False logging is poor form.  From what you've posted, it sounds like your response, suggesting they at least try to answer the questions, was appropriate.

 

Logging a second false find encourages the interpretation that they think they're entitled to it, whether they complete the tasks - and whether the CO thinks so - or not.

You would be doing no one any good by letting the second log stand.  Neither they nor future ECOs with whom they might attempt this maneuver will benefit from their continued misconception that they can log whatever, however they want.  Including a note that they are welcome to log a find when they've attempted to answer all the questions might be nice, but entirely up to you.  Adding a link to the appeals process would give your action the weight of your [perceived] knowledge that your decision would be upheld.  I suspect that they wouldn't take it further ... or they would learn from a "more authoritative" entity that their logs are not in keeping with the spirit of the game.

 

If they were to log a third time (or more) without at least attempting to answer the questions, that is edging away from simple poor form and closer to bullying/harrassment just to get a smiley, IMHO. Perhaps they wouldn't, but if they did, you might want to explore options other than letting it escalate into a "logging war" of FI, delete; FI, delete. (For example, contact the Reviewer and give him/her a heads-up on the situation.)

Edited by VAVAPAM
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Um, ok.

 

18 hours ago, brendan714 said:

Looking for opinions...

 

Would you re-delete?  Or just shrug it off?

 

6 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

This is an interesting EarthCache. I can see why it gets so many visitors!

Thanks for the kind words and your opinion on the logging. 

 

3 hours ago, VAVAPAM said:

So it sounds like you (the OP) are asking for opinions about whether or not the second attempt to log as found should be deleted, not about the requirements. Right?

Yes, you got it. Thanks for your opinion. 

 

Well, partly based on the responses I received here I deleted a few logs. One already responded (their 2nd deleted log now) and said they will re-calculate the math and send it again (which is interesting because they've never sent me any calculations at all). Let's see what happens. If they log an illegitimate find again I suppose I'll have to go to the reviewer. 

 

Since this EC is in quite literally one of the most popular tourist locations in our country I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the variety of cachers and their caching habits. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

HQ, not the Reviewer, would be the proper channel to resolve the issue.  Link to relevant Help Center article:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=112&pgid=482

That link seems to be information for a logger disputing a CO.

Is the process the same if I'm a CO disputing a logger?

Edited by brendan714

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

That link seems to be information for a logger disputing a CO.

Is the process the same if I'm a CO disputing a logger?

 

My nephew has an EarthCache.  A cacher logged it without answering any questions.  He was warned, but did nothing.  Log deleted.  Relogged.  Redeleted.  Relogged with an insulting e-mail.  Referred to Groundspeak.  The cacher was blocked from logging the cache.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

That link seems to be information for a logger disputing a CO.

Is the process the same if I'm a CO disputing a logger?

Yes, the process would be the same, not matter who initiates the issue with HQ.   Reviewers do not have any administrative privileges on the site, other than to Publish/Disable/Archive and Lock a Listing page.   Disputes between Users can sometimes go beyond just what's on the Listing page, and may require action on a User Account, which Reviewers have no control over (i.e. Suspension or Locking an Account).  In addition, HQ has an issue tracking method, so they can develop a history of an issue over time, something a Reviewer would not have access to necessarily.

 

So other than "talking" to someone, Reviewers don't really have a means of stopping someone's behavior, other than to refer the issue to HQ, so it makes sense in certain situations just to cut out the middle person and go directly to the people who have the authority and control to actually back up what they say with action.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Yes, the process would be the same, not matter who initiates the issue with HQ.   Reviewers do not have any administrative privileges on the site, other than to Publish/Disable/Archive and Lock a Listing page.   Disputes between Users can sometimes go beyond just what's on the Listing page, and may require action on a User Account, which Reviewers have no control over (i.e. Suspension or Locking an Account).  In addition, HQ has an issue tracking method, so they can develop a history of an issue over time, something a Reviewer would not have access to necessarily.

 

So other than "talking" to someone, Reviewers don't really have a means of stopping someone's behavior, other than to refer the issue to HQ, so it makes sense in certain situations just to cut out the middle person and go directly to the people who have the authority and control to actually back up what they say with action.

Good to know, thanks.  Hopefully it doesn't come to that!

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think a math problem is off limits here.  And I don't think that requiring folks to at least attempt a math problem is unreasonable.

 

I will admit, though, that I was a little intimidated by reading through the cache description and seeing this:

 

Quote

Following a few assumptions, here is a simplified formula to determine the sedimentation rate of rock flour:

 

7ce3ba7b-eb3f-4e2f-a2e5-24b2fc55cbde_l.j

 

If that's the simplified formula, I can only guess what the more complex version looks like.  I wonder how many cachers are intimidated by this first equation and miss that you break down the math problem more simply in the text and the next image:

 

Quote

Given that the density of rock flour (1089 kg/m3), the density of water (1000 kg/m3), the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2), and the viscosity of water (0.01 Pascal second) can all be generalized as constants, we can obtain an equation for the sedimentation rate of rock flour as a function of particle size:

 

e1a0ddc2-cfc6-4523-afb0-db415f679e5e_l.j

 

I sent a forum message to see if I got the math right.  I'm pretty sure I did - but that's from the comfort of my computer.  I don't know that I'd be as confident in the field.

 

It's also worth noting that the text in the cache description can be translated on a phone using text recognition software - but the text in your formula images cannot.  Google Translate has image recognition that might work, I haven't tried it.  But international cachers without cell data may not have the ability to test this in the field.

 

Have you considered clarifying the cache description to reassure cachers that they only need to do the bit at the end, and perhaps spelling out the final formula in text to aid in translation? That could possibly clear up some confusion.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, hzoi said:

It's also worth noting that the text in the cache description can be translated on a phone using text recognition software - but the text in your formula images cannot.

 

Just to add to this - as an English speaker living in Europe, I often have to rely on Google to help out with cache descriptions.  I have run across more than a few caches that have all of the text embedded in images.  I need to try a field test to see if Google translate can handle translating those images - but so far I've either tried translating the caches ahead of time, or just skipped those and gone with caches that have text only. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, hzoi said:

It's also worth noting that the text in the cache description can be translated on a phone using text recognition software - but the text in your formula images cannot.  Google Translate has image recognition that might work, I haven't tried it.  But international cachers without cell data may not have the ability to test this in the field.

 

Have you considered clarifying the cache description to reassure cachers that they only need to do the bit at the end, and perhaps spelling out the final formula in text to aid in translation? That could possibly clear up some confusion.

Again, I'm not at all interested in changing the page or the logging requirements.  This is moreso a discussion about how to handle the 1/30 loggers who post a find and email me responses with something along the lines of "I don't know how to do question 6 & 7".  

Edited by brendan714
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Update: one cacher (whose found log was deleted twice) responded with a complete response to all the questions today.

Their answer was 9 orders of magnitude away from the correct answer.

They still received permission to log (with an explanation of corrections) for giving the EC an actual honest attempt this time.

I think this was the ideal outcome for this particular cacher - thanks to all who voiced their opinion.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think the problem here is that logging tasks 6 and 7 are way beyond the 14-year age level that EarthCaches should be written for.  If they were at that level, there wouldn't be any problem with people being overwhelmed by the math.  I recommend you modify those two tasks to something that a 14-year-old can do.

 

 

Quote

 

EarthCache page

Assume no prior knowledge of geology, and write at age 14 reading level. Some geocachers use GPS devices with a limited amount of text. If your cache page is long, place the logging tasks near the top.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, CathyH said:

I think the problem here is that logging tasks 6 and 7 are way beyond the 14-year age level that EarthCaches should be written for.

I don't think the math required to answer the question should be beyond a 14 year old (8th or 9th grade). The math needed is basically

 

 

v = 0.612 * r²

 

(which is given), and

 

d = v * t

t = d / v

 

which should be covered in middle school math.

 

The notation may be a little unfamiliar, and maybe that could be simplified. But the math itself looks pretty straight-forward.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Illogical.

 

I ran the text of questions 6 and 7 through an analyzer. 

 

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level = 4.46.   :grin:

 

Clearly, it's worded well to express a complex idea in a simple way.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CathyH said:

I think the problem here is that logging tasks 6 and 7 are way beyond the 14-year age level that EarthCaches should be written for.  If they were at that level, there wouldn't be any problem with people being overwhelmed by the math.  I recommend you modify those two tasks to something that a 14-year-old can do.

The issue at hand here is not with the writing.  I believe the task is clearly understood (essentially, "solve this equation").  The issue is with cachers who claim they are incapable of doing the math equation.  Here are some verbatim responses I have received as excuses for not answering 6/7:

 

"Sorry WE ARE very Bad in physics"

"I'm not a math major, I can't do the equation"

"I'm sorry I'm not smart enough to figure this out"

"we are not scientists"

"We're not so sure and not experts in mathematics."

 

And actually, I even refute your claim that the writing in this EC is "way beyond a 14-year age level". 

 

Using inspiration from Viajero Perdido, I used this online tool to find the writing in my cache page is rated as in the middle of an 8th-9th Grade level - which just so happens to be 14 years old!

 

Using the same tool, I analyzed the writing in the Earth/geology lessons in the following ECs.  They were all rated as "college level" reading:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC111XM_pamukkale-turkey

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2PFGZ_fallas-do-iguacu-iguazu-fault

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC14W63_namib-desert-namibia

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC25643_blaa-lonio-blue-lagoon-blaue-lagune

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4CNMG_kooling-off-in-karijini

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC13D90_cruziana-penha-garcia

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCPCPX_the-giants-causeway-earthcache

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1JY47_rainbows-end-grand-prismatic-spring

 

Now, what's interesting about these caches? 

They all form part of a list of Geocaching HQ's 11 Stunning Earthcaches!

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2015/06/11-stunning-earthcaches-and-how-to-find-them/

Actually, although I didn't check TOO hard, I don't think a single EC in this list has writing that ranks at a lower level than my EC! (Some may be close)

 

So, as they say in the field of mathematics and engineering, Q.E.D. :)

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

If that's the simplified formula, I can only guess what the more complex version looks like.  I wonder how many cachers are intimidated by this first equation and miss that you break down the math problem more simply in the text and the next image:

I think this needs to be read again, very carefully! It is an excellent view that I share, and offers a way to help those who are intimidated by the math equations shown.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I think this needs to be read again, very carefully! It is an excellent view that I share, and offers a way to help those who are intimidated by the math equations shown.

I thought the OP did a great job of walking a person through the problem, if you read the cache page. From the answers he received I suspect what the cachers in question are actually saying is "I'm too important to put any time or effort into this but I want credit regardless". I applaud the OP's decision not to remove the questions as this game as been dumbed down enough as it is, just curious where GS would stand if it went that far.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

Using the same tool, I analyzed the writing in the Earth/geology lessons in the following ECs.  They were all rated as "college level" reading:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC111XM_pamukkale-turkey

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2PFGZ_fallas-do-iguacu-iguazu-fault

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC14W63_namib-desert-namibia

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC25643_blaa-lonio-blue-lagoon-blaue-lagune

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4CNMG_kooling-off-in-karijini

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC13D90_cruziana-penha-garcia

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCPCPX_the-giants-causeway-earthcache

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1JY47_rainbows-end-grand-prismatic-spring

 

Now, what's interesting about these caches? 

They all form part of a list of Geocaching HQ's 11 Stunning Earthcaches!

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2015/06/11-stunning-earthcaches-and-how-to-find-them/

Actually, although I didn't check TOO hard, I don't think a single EC in this list has writing that ranks at a lower level than my EC! (Some may be close)

 

So, as they say in the field of mathematics and engineering, Q.E.D. :)

 

Except that none of those have complex mathematical equations in the text that *appear* to be needed to be understood by the visitor in order to complete the earthcache.  Noting of course that those equations are in images that the online tool can't analyse.  So, no, not Q.E.D.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, brendan714 said:
14 hours ago, hzoi said:

It's also worth noting that the text in the cache description can be translated on a phone using text recognition software - but the text in your formula images cannot.  Google Translate has image recognition that might work, I haven't tried it.  But international cachers without cell data may not have the ability to test this in the field.

 

Have you considered clarifying the cache description to reassure cachers that they only need to do the bit at the end, and perhaps spelling out the final formula in text to aid in translation? That could possibly clear up some confusion.

Again, I'm not at all interested in changing the page or the logging requirements.  This is moreso a discussion about how to handle the 1/30 loggers who post a find and email me responses with something along the lines of "I don't know how to do question 6 & 7".  

 

Understood, but I was going to the point in your original post:

 

On 9/15/2019 at 8:51 PM, brendan714 said:

I have several ECs that are in areas frequented by tourists from all over the globe.

 

and pointing out some effects that folks who need to translate the cache description may be seeing that you may not have anticipated, and that may be feeding into the issue of cachers not feeling able to answer the questions at hand. 

 

What you do with that feedback, if anything, is up to you; I am a geoaware, but not your local geoaware.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, hzoi said:
  14 hours ago, brendan714 said:
15 hours ago, hzoi said:

It's also worth noting that the text in the cache description can be translated on a phone using text recognition software - but the text in your formula images cannot.  Google Translate has image recognition that might work, I haven't tried it.  But international cachers without cell data may not have the ability to test this in the field.

 

Have you considered clarifying the cache description to reassure cachers that they only need to do the bit at the end, and perhaps spelling out the final formula in text to aid in translation? That could possibly clear up some confusion.

Again, I'm not at all interested in changing the page or the logging requirements.  This is moreso a discussion about how to handle the 1/30 loggers who post a find and email me responses with something along the lines of "I don't know how to do question 6 & 7".  

Hzoi´s suggestion is not about changing the content of your cache listing, but only the formatation. The forulas are pictures enbeded in the listing and cacn not be copied into any translator.

If you you just remove the pictures an replace theyre contents by text, it´s more convinient for your international visitors and might help to solve the questions.

Why are you not interested in that change? Is it just more convinient for you to snip shop the formula as a picture? Or are you computer skills rated below as in the middle of an 8th-9th Grade level - which just so happens to be 14 years ol? Can´t you find the Symbols for the formula on your keyboard?

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, niraD said:

I don't think the math required to answer the question should be beyond a 14 year old (8th or 9th grade). The math needed is basically

 

 

v = 0.612 * r²

 

(which is given), and

 

d = v * t

t = d / v

 

which should be covered in middle school math.

 

The notation may be a little unfamiliar, and maybe that could be simplified. But the math itself looks pretty straight-forward.

 

Exactly, that's what I think as well.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, terratin said:
13 hours ago, niraD said:

The notation may be a little unfamiliar, and maybe that could be simplified. But the math itself looks pretty straight-forward.

 

Exactly, that's what I think as well.

 

I ran through the math, and brendan714 confirmed I got it right.  It's so easy even a lawyer can do it.  :laughing:  But that first formula would look pretty daunting in the field.  (I know this has a high difficulty and warrants looking at before arrival at ground zero.  But I fall into the trap often of neglecting to read through ahead of time, and I know I'm not the only one.)

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

Why are you not interested in that change? Is it just more convinient for you to snip shop the formula as a picture? Or are you computer skills rated below as in the middle of an 8th-9th Grade level - which just so happens to be 14 years ol? Can´t you find the Symbols for the formula on your keyboard?

Why are you trolling me? Seriously, these forums are a dark cesspool with some trolls who overshadow the good people on here.  Is this sort of behaviour regularly accepted on here? 

 

This EC has existed just fine for 2 years. It was approved by a geoaware. There is no need for change. 

 

I simply was looking for opinions on the logging habits of those who logged my EC and didn't answer all the questions - a simple request, no? 

 

Thank you to the kind cachers who expressed their opinions on the logging habits without personally attacking me. Now that I have received the answer to my question I'm done and hope to never return here. 

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

@brendan714

I´m not trolling you. I just want to hold a mirror up to you self. Why are you implying, that the people who can´t answer your math questions right away have an education level below a 14 year old? Maybe the are just a bit rusty?  That´s not nice of you.

 

You have asked for opinions. You got some. Even some more as you wanted. Why so caustic about good suggestions to improve your listing, like the one from hzoi? Even a cache existing just fine for years can be improfed. One should never quit getting smarter ;) 

 

I have the impression, you simply can not handle criticism like any confident adult should. Even if it´s just a little suggestion for a improvement.

 

Beside that I´m on your page, see my post from yesterday 10:04 am. 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

For some cachers this is a really interesting earthcache. Not for the cache itself but for the rare rating. That is probably the main (or only?) reason why they want to log it at all costs.

 

Probably they think when they are at the location they have the right to claim the earthcache found. The rest is just an add-on.

For me being there is one big part, of course. But trying (!) to solve the questions as best as possible (!) is another important one. And if I am not able to answer them I am interested in the owners solution and ask for help. I couldn't solve everything in the past but were able to almost log any earthcache I visited - and had some nice comversations with owners.

 

So they should at least try to earn the rating (which they desire).

 

Why not try this? If again someone logs without giving any answer to these questions tell them that the difficulty rating comes from the questions - and that you had to reduce the difficulty level to 1 if the answers were not needed (any earthcache would be in that case, wouldn't it?). Let's see if they want to have another 1/1 earthcache in their statistics or not. I am sure they do not want to.... but they can't claim to be able to log the find and the cache begin difficulty 4.5 at the same time. :-)

 

By the way: That looks like a great earthcache to me with a great location.

 

Best wishes

Jochen

 

PS: We had a difficulty 1 (!!) earthcache once and didn't understand half of the questions (no language problem). We did our best and logged the cache without any further answer by the owners. :-(

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Folk, please remember to follow the forum guidelines. I am particularly referring to guidelines, 2 and 4.

 

2. Forum courtesy: Please treat Geocaching HQ, its employees, geocaching community 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.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

I ran through the math, and brendan714 confirmed I got it right.  It's so easy even a lawyer can do it.  :laughing:  But that first formula would look pretty daunting in the field.  (I know this has a high difficulty and warrants looking at before arrival at ground zero.  But I fall into the trap often of neglecting to read through ahead of time, and I know I'm not the only one.)

 

I might be a techie, but I'm a wee bit math blind. The biggest issue with this cache is having to read through the whole description. Which actually is very short and free of unnecessary waffle. I think Brandon did a very good job here, and my opinions continues to stand: the calculation does fit here.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hm, when I read the listing my brain just went somewhere outside, when is comes to the math. Maybe it is also a bit the language barrier, but this often happens for this kind of listings.

I think I would get in it, because I love ECs and would also like to have a smilie at Lake Louise (a shame, that the EC was created after my visit). But I would have no fun as a visitor.

That visitors have fun at the location, is one central goal of my ECs.

For me, it would be great to have the effect just explained or if possible experienced in an experiment.

 

brandon714 is not interessted in changing the questions, he created an EC with high difficulty rate, which is attractive for a lot of cachers. The consequences are, that there is a lot of work to deal with unsatisfying answers...

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

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 2

×
×
  • Create New...