+pantadeusz Posted August 15 Share Posted August 15 I want to start by saying I worked with many reviewers (probably something like 12) and I generally find them amazing people doing great work. If anyone starts digging after reading this, I want to also state explicitly that it is not about my usual local reviewer, who I find to be extremely professional and helpful. I am trying to publish an earthcache and I am finding the way the particular reviewer who's looking at the cache approaches the process unacceptable. The process has been going for way over a month already and hasn't really moved forward during that period. It's generally been going something like this: - the guy asks me a question - I answer somewhat extensively - the guy takes over a week to answer and asks me another question, not at all related to what he asked before. If he does expand on his previous question, he seems to not have read my answer at all, at best having skimmed it In his most recent response, today, he asked me to change the cache entirely, dropping 4/5 questions. He didn't provide any good reasons, his reasons were twofold: 1. "This is not interesting to anyone" - I find that to be purely offensive and not really professional in any way. It is interesting, at the very least, to me, which is why I am trying to publish a cache about it. 2. "This is not geology" - In one case, he used that argument when he was talking about a question which says, literally. "How does this [high concentration of heavy metals] affect the geology of the soil?". In the other case, he said this because the cache talks about a river which was regulated by humans - but the fact that the river was regulated has nothing to do with the subject of the cache, I only mention it once, just so that people are aware, and I only talk about actual geological aspects of the river, not it being regulated. Needless to say, I do not ask any questions about the regulation or human interference in the river at all. I believe the guy to be completely wrong. But even if he were right about the crux of the matter, I find the way he doesn't address what I said to him and changes his mind about what the problem is constantly, to be unbearable. My question to you is, if he continues to be so difficult, is there anything I can do about it? Can I ask for the cache to be handled by a different reviewer? Can I ask Groundspeak to double-check our messages and ask him to be more reasonable? Are there any other steps, formal or informal, that I can take? I am asking this here, not in the earthcache forum, as I believe the actual question may be relevant to people outside of earthcaching, but facing problems with reviewers more generally. Thanks in advance for any advice! 2 4 Quote Link to comment
+MartyBartfast Posted August 15 Share Posted August 15 https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=476 1 1 Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted August 15 Share Posted August 15 Maybe I'm having a dyslexic moment, but I didn't think Geoawares were on the same "guidelines" as Reviewers... Quote Link to comment
+pantadeusz Posted August 15 Author Share Posted August 15 I guess I am not asking about the guidelines (I read and I believe I understand the earthcache guidelines), I am just asking about what I can do if the reviewer refuses to cooperate. Thanks for the link! If his next reply is equally unhelpful as the previous ones, I will probably use it. 1 1 Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted August 15 Share Posted August 15 (edited) I am moving your thread to the Earthcaching forum, as the process and guidelines for Earthcaches are distinctly different than those followed for Geocaches. It's not unusual for Earthcaches to take far longer between initial submission and publication, due to their specialized focus on geology lessons. There are two principles, however, that are true for both Geocache and Earthcache Reviews. The first is that a cache owner isn't entitled to select their own Reviewer or GeoAware. We are assigned by geographic area and all our workflows follow that. The second principle is that any complaints about any Reviewer or GeoAware can be escalated to Geocaching HQ, who supervises the timeliness, quality and other aspects of the site's volunteers. To raise such a complaint, write a message to Geocaching HQ through the Help Center. Be sure to select "Appeals" as the category for your inquiry, so that it routes to the correct team, and include the name and GC Code of the cache you're writing about. Edited August 15 by Keystone 2 6 Quote Link to comment
Neos2 Posted August 17 Share Posted August 17 (edited) I'll begin by asking if you are familiar with the newest suggestions for writing Earthcaches? That is a likely reason you were asked to delete some of the questions. Secondly, I would ask if you are keeping you learning focus tight. By that I mean asking one or two key questions that lead the visitor to learn the one key thing you want them to know. If you have several unrelated questions, sometimes that is because you have too many focal points. It helps to keep the focus on the geology. (For example, I am not sure what answer you are looking for about how heavy metals impact the geology of the soil. I can tell you how they impact its ability to support plants but I don't know what you mean by your question. If I were doing your EarthCache, I would have to write you to ask for more information). And lastly, I would encourage you to think of this other reviewer not as "bad" but as someone who you don't yet know how to communicate with effectively. As people respond here, I'd like to remind everyone to respect all the parties involved in this attempt to create a new EarthCache. Please follow the forum guidelines, especially 2 and 4. Edited August 17 by Neos2 edited for clarity 3 2 Quote Link to comment
+pantadeusz Posted August 17 Author Share Posted August 17 (edited) I was aware of the new suggestions, and I did not actually apply either of them in my listing (I have 5 questions which are in the middle of the listing, I believe for good reasons that are specific to the cache). However, had the reviewer asked me to apply those suggestions, I would have almost certainly agreed to do that without problems. That has not been what the conversation was about. I believe I am keeping the focus fairly tight. However, my cache has two main subjects, as opposed to only one subject. The questions are still few and simple though and I am attached to connecting both those subjects in a single cache. I don't think it's unreasonable and I've seen many caches like that. Speaking of the heavy metals specifically, I don't want to reveal too much here publicly, because I don't know whether that question will end up being included in the final version of the cache. However, I did provide the reviewer with 3 example answers to those questions immediately on submission of the listing. I received no comment on those suggestions and I do have the impression they were not even read. To your final point, it is certainly fair to say I don't know how to communicate with the guy. However, given my repeated successful communication with other reviewers, including in 3 earthcaches I own, he simply doesn't strike me as a good reviewer. I am doing my best to be respectful to him, in private and on this forum, for example by making it difficult to establish his identity, and I am certainly not making any comments on him as a person (why would I?). But it has become clear to me that he is carrying out the reviewer tasks inappropriately. And, by the way, I genuinely hope to be proven wrong by his next message. Edited August 17 by pantadeusz Quote Link to comment
+JL_HSTRE Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 On 8/16/2024 at 10:37 PM, Neos2 said: I'll begin by asking if you are familiar with the newest suggestions for writing Earthcaches? That is a likely reason you were asked to delete some of the questions. I had not heard about these. That they're dated April 1 may have contributed to them being overlooked. Personally, I'd rather have one EC that covers several aspects of geology at one location rather than 3 focused ECs at the same location or in close proximity covering three different aspects of geology. I like Earthcaches in theory, but the hiding Guidelines for them have gotten so restrictive I found it very difficult to create one. That's not the fault of the Reviewers. With the OP's heavy metals question and with the obvious caveat that we have no context about the overall cache page: this seems like a difficult question to meet Guidelines and be answerable by a visitor. The cache page needs to explain the potential impacts heavy metals. Then the seeker needs to be able to observe one of those impacts on the rocks or soil (not the water) at GZ. The answer must not rely on signage at GZ and the answer shouldn't just be regurgitation (i.e. copy & paste) of a sentence from the cache description. Hopefully it's something straightforward such as the page says discoloration can result and the rocks at GZ are stained bright orange by the water. But it can be a really hard tightrope to walk. Sometimes it feels like you need to be a professional geology teacher to be able to translate a site to an EC. Quote Link to comment
+pantadeusz Posted August 19 Author Share Posted August 19 4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said: Then the seeker needs to be able to observe one of those impacts on the rocks or soil (not the water) at GZ. Are you sure about this? As long as I ask some (most) questions, the answers to which can be observed at GZ, am I not allowed to ask some which are purely theoretical (but tightly connected to GZ)? Quote Link to comment
Neos2 Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 (edited) On 8/19/2024 at 1:07 PM, pantadeusz said: Are you sure about this? As long as I ask some (most) questions, the answers to which can be observed at GZ, am I not allowed to ask some which are purely theoretical (but tightly connected to GZ)? I think it is fine to ask the visitor to speculate on some outcome based on what they know from the observations. It's one of the higher levels of learning, and some leeway should be given to what answers you accept because of that aspect. In teaching. I often asked one high level question during class discussion. Along the lines of "based on what you have observed, what do you think will happen if ...? And then I guided students to reasonable answers that were likely given the parameters. So, for instance, it would be fine to ask what might happen to crystal formation if the pH of the water changed. BUT I wouldn't make that the only question. I wouldn't want the visitor to have to get that smilie based solely on a difficult to answer question. I'd have another question that would leave them feeling more assured--or I would ask it as a hypothetical question they really didn't have to answer at all. Edited August 21 by Neos2 Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 11 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said: The answer must not rely on signage at GZ The Help Center article EarthCache logging tasks says that you can't ask geocachers "to quote information from a sign." That isn't quite the same thing as "must not rely on signage". 1 Quote Link to comment
+brcross95 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 On 8/15/2024 at 3:35 PM, pantadeusz said: the guy asks me a question - I answer somewhat extensively - the guy takes over a week to answer and asks me another question I have had this happen. I assume it's to make sure the main concern is validated before the reviewer continues with the process. The initial concern could have stopped the entire process. On 8/15/2024 at 3:35 PM, pantadeusz said: "This is not interesting to anyone" What was this in context to? How was it exactly worded? maybe it was misunderstood by the reviewer or yourself? On 8/15/2024 at 3:35 PM, pantadeusz said: "How does this [high concentration of heavy metals] affect the geology of the soil?" How would an average geocacher determine the concentration? Without seeing the lesson, it might be explained already. On 8/15/2024 at 3:35 PM, pantadeusz said: cache talks about a river which was regulated by humans if it is man-made, it may not qualify as geology. On 8/15/2024 at 3:35 PM, pantadeusz said: I only talk about actual geological aspects of the river I think this would work talking about the deposition and erosion caused by the river. But talking about the water would be hydrology and may not work. regardless, I hope that you and your reviewer can get the EarthCache published together. Good luck! 1 1 Quote Link to comment
+JL_HSTRE Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 18 hours ago, pantadeusz said: As long as I ask some (most) questions, the answers to which can be observed at GZ, am I not allowed to ask some which are purely theoretical (but tightly connected to GZ)? I'm not a EC Reviewer, but as a seeker it's really frustrating to encounter a question where you have no idea what the CO is expecting as an answer. It feels like you're trying to solve one of those "mind reader" puzzle caches. If you're going to ask a "what do you think would happen if..." it should really straightforward deduction. 11 hours ago, niraD said: The Help Center article EarthCache logging tasks says that you can't ask geocachers "to quote information from a sign." That isn't quite the same thing as "must not rely on signage". Close enough for practical purposes IMO, except basic identification signage. I was under the impression the signage guideline wasn't simply about cheating, but also to minimize the number of ECs rendered unsolvable due to signage being altered, damaged, or renoved. 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.