This topic contains 19 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
Sounds like fun ❓ I hope you don’t give up, I’ve had fun getting to and exploring a few ec’s that have your name tagged on them.
i have heard and read much of the same experiences you speak of. frankly, it has spooked me enough that i haven’t pursued the single EC that would get me my platinum status (it’s the only one i have left on the hide or find side) because it just seems like too much of a hassle just to get that last pin. I have a few great places up north for it, but being more than 100 miles away will just make it even more difficult.
Regarding the third listing I’m attempting to get published, I got this response from a different EC reviewer (the names are withheld to protect the super secret identities of those involved).
“The bottom line for us is that is that is is harder now to get published….we are insisting that people have good logging tasks. So I guess you have to be prepared for some questions to be asked…and some to and fro between reviewers to get the process right.”
So clearly it is not just my perception that it is harder to get published recently.
…and after some wrangling, I got the following response:
“I have consulted with (approver X) on this one and we feel that if you just add a sentence explaining…..then it shoud be ok and can be published.”
I’m happy about the outcome but bummed about the added difficulty of getting published…in particular the difference in views as to what constitutes a publishable listing.
Saw that this one got published as an EC just a bit ago. Congrats on that, LB7. Hope any others of yours go a bit smoother. It’s not like you’re a newbie on this and need to be told what to do to make a god earth cache, but if tougher standards keep some of the poorer quality ECs from getting published, maybe that’s a silver lining.
Thanks for hanging in there!
NOTICE: Disclaimer… The text below is NOT referring to any specific individual or cache owner. OR earth cache listing. This is only my humble opinion.
I am ecstatic that the rules for earth cache placement have been tightened up. I feel it is long overdue. I have noticed that the quality seems to be sacrificed for quantity. Ever since they came out with the earth cache owner pins ever one thinks that they need to place enough earth caches to earn a platinum pin. When I first started doing earth caches they were something special to do. But now there seems to be one or two on ever block corner. Not very far from where I live there is a small county park (75 acres). In that park there are two earth caches (.1 miles apart). Talk about over kill.
Wisconsin is a very beautiful state with many natural wonders. But do we need nearly 200 earth caches to show it off? The answer is NO. The example that I will use is the Water Fall series that Lil Otter used to have. To show these off she would place a traditional cache near the falls or the path to the falls. You got to see one of Wisconsin’s wonders and a smiley to boot.
Let’s look at our neighboring states for comparison. To see how we as a state would rank.
Minnesota 88 Earth Caches
Iowa 83 Earth Caches
Illinois 97 Earth Caches
Wisconsin 175 Active and 9 Archived
As Sandlanders said in a previous post may be there is a silver lining to the tough new standards. I sure hope that they are correct. Wisconsin does have some great quality earth caches. BUT also some that are pure junk!@benny7210 wrote:
Wisconsin does have some great quality earth caches. BUT also some that are pure junk!
You’d PM me if one (or many) of mine was on the junk list right…..I’d honestly appreciate the feedback particularly from you as you have 281 EC finds…I’d love to know what you think of them and would certainly respect your honest opinion. I sure don’t want to add to the excess if I’m putting out crap…and yes I read the part where you stated this was not aimed at anyone in particular and I don’t take it to mean you in any way referred to me.
I will say this about my newest listing though, if you come to the site and expect to see something truly amazing you will be disappointed as the feature is only 24 feet long and not in the public view. If you come to learn about the area and it’s geology you will more than likely learn something new…at my most current EC you will stand on an 80 mile long fault.
Not all ECs are about the amazing view, some are simply about learning. I have a mix of both kinds but my favorites are those which show you some thing truly spectacular….and there are some cool things to see…just not all the time.
First and foremost EarthCaches are about education…
“Visiting an EarthCache site is a great way to learn more about our wonderful world. It can take you to many places that you would not normally visit, and teach you about why those places are special or unique.”
-from the EC site.If the site is also awesome to look at we’re talkin bonus.
@benny7210 wrote:
The text below is NOT referring to any specific individual or cache owner. OR earth cache listing.
Well, of course except that:
@benny7210 wrote:
Not very far from where I live there is a small county park (75 acres). In that park there are two earth caches (.1 miles apart). Talk about over kill.
I’m going to assume you are speaking of the Maribel Caves GC1DH1H
earthcaches because although there are other nearby places with multiple earthcaches, Cherney is a Manitowoc county park listed at 75 acres and the next-nearest two-fer is in Kewaunee. Perhaps I’m wrong.In this case, these were the result of an unintentional simultaneous submission highlighting different caves in the park. As a result of discussions between the cache owners and geoaware whether one or the other should be withdrawn, it was decided at the time that–since they focused on different caves in the park–to publish two caches rather than force them together somehow.
This is the first complaint I’ve heard about there being two caches there and, speaking for our cache, the logs I’ve received on it are overwhelmingly positive.
On the Left Side of the Road...I think benny’s more worried about this, again.
http://www.wi-geocaching.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7209&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=earthcachePerhaps, but why single out our and Wiskey33’s caches to make the point? Unless there’s another 75-acre Manitowoc county park with two earthcaches .1 miles apart that I missed.
On the Left Side of the Road...He did post a DISCLAIMER so he could inform us of his opinion, and show us an example that he was aware of. I have gleened the info. Where the ECs are, I really don’t care! And who owns them, I really don’t care.
But his opinion has been shared.
I’m sorry, but there was no need to single out these caches in such an explicit way that anyone could figure out what they are, and then denigrate them as “overkill.”
Putting a “disclaimer” on something doesn’t give you license to hide behind it–especially when you go and do exactly what you said you weren’t going to do in the disclaimer! The point could have, and should have, been made without singling out specific caches.
To Bob’s point specifically, I say the more earthcaches the merrier. What’s junk to one person is a gem to another. They’re not taking up any valuable caching real estate because proximity guidelines don’t come into play (or at least didn’t the last time I checked). And that’s just my opinion.
On the Left Side of the Road...@gotta run wrote:
They’re not taking up any valuable caching real estate because proximity guidelines don’t come into play (or at least didn’t the last time I checked). And that’s just my opinion.
There has been one “change” to the EC rules. Now the EC review team has the option to deny EC listings if another EC listing is “too close” and shares the same subject matter. I was under the impression that this ruling always existed but apparently not as they (the EC rule-making folks) pointed it out as a new rule. The two listings in question would today be harder to get published so close together (assuming they share the same topic; I didn’t look to see if that was the case).
And no the ECs will not come into play against any physical caches proximity rules.
Ah found the written new rule:
EarthCaches should highlight a unique feature. EarthCaches that duplicate existing EarthCache information about the site or related sites may be rejected. EarthCaches should be developed to provide a unique experience to the visitor to the region. Multiple EarthCaches on the same feature should be avoided and content rather than proximity will be the guiding principle.
Yeah, it doesn’t look like those two caches would be published as is today. As I mentioned it was a case where geoaware had two submissions at the same time and we and Wiskey33 didn’t really know what was going on until they had published both and then tried to sort it out.
I’ve actually thought about archiving ours in the past because of the subject overlap, but just decided why bother? And, based on the supportive PM’s I’ve received from past finders about the cache, received since this thread took a rather unexpected turn, I certainly going to keep it active now! 😀
On the Left Side of the Road...@gotta run wrote:
Yeah, it doesn’t look like those two caches would be published as is today. As I mentioned it was a case where geoaware had two submissions at the same time and we and Wiskey33 didn’t really know what was going on until they had published both and then tried to sort it out.
I’ve actually thought about archiving ours in the past because of the subject overlap, but just decided why bother? And, based on the supportive PM’s I’ve received from past finders about the cache, received since this thread took a rather unexpected turn, I certainly going to keep it active now! 😀
I plan to do those caches (Maribel Caves) this July….woot.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.