Earth Science Cache

[geono.]

Tilted, like on an axis, gets my vote.

[Now_To_Morrow]

I don't suppose the tilt of axis could be less like 45 degrees and more like 23.4? If yes, I'd choose tilt. But if only 45 degrees I'd stick with the flat one.
Also, am I right that the correct way to demonstrate the tilt the earth is to the right instead of left?

[caughtatwork]

I'm not sure one way or the other is better or worse. It depends on which season you're in
Either way, 22.5 degrees.

earthscience_#g469_right.png (869 Bytes) Viewed 18565 times

earthscience_#g338_left.png (878 Bytes) Viewed 18565 times

[Now_To_Morrow]

Yeah, I like 338 at 22.5 degrees.

[caughtatwork]

A question based on a thought.

Currently we are proposing that ESC's are "validated" by the response to a set of Q&A that the CO sets on the cache listing. i.e. You answer 3 or 4 questions with multi-choice answers to prove you were at the location. Of course this sets up a situation where you can brute force the codeword. We do have a rate limiter which is designed to be annoying rather than frustrating, but patience can get past that.

As another thought, we could allow for Q&A where the response is text entered by the seeker which is much harder to brute force.

e.g.
Q: At the published co-ordinates, what if the 3rd word on the 2nd line of the plaque.
A: towards

But that means Q&A can't be subjective.

e.g.
Q: What colour is the sign at GZ?
A: red, scarlet, cherry, rose, etc
You would need to be both not colour blind AND type the actual colour that the CO saw.

or
Q: In the line of trees at GZ, what direction would you be facing if you stood at the first and looked at the last?
A: North, N, S, E, South East, etc

I'd suggest that at a lot of locations which we would be looking at for an ESC there would be no plaque, sign, other specific information available. It would be based on earth sciences which are likely to be rather subjective or even different spelling answers.

Is it worth considering allowing a set of questions with answers that are typed by the seeker (rather than a selection of answers to choose from) or is the risk that we end up in a situation where >>>Five / 5<<< are answered with one being right and one not passing the validation?

I'd be interested in the discussion around this being too hard, too subjective, "rules, rules, rules", and people simple not doing an ESC because they can't guess what word the CO was thinking of.

[mattyrx]

I think using a text answer rather than multiple choice is good in theory, but as you say the Q&A cant be subjective and spelling may be a problem.

If we do choose to use a Q&A word/s, we could have a ‘hint’, provided after the question that guides the finder to write the correct answer. This could be appended to the end of the question automatically by the system. It will still allow for a word, but may help the finder narrow an answer down if there’s a few options they are considering.

e.g.
Q: At the published co-ordinates, what if the 3rd word on the 2nd line of the plaque. (7 letter word)
A: towards

Q: Q: What colour is the sign at GZ? (3 letter word)
A: red

Q: In the line of trees at GZ, what direction would you be facing if you stood at the first and looked at the last? (5 letter word, 4 letter word):
A: South East

We discussed the possibility of allowing a cache owner to delete a log once before on a specific cache type. Maybe we could allow the regular multiple choice Q&A, and also require photo evidence. Of course you could upload a photo of anything and not visit the ES Cache site, but what if we allowed a finder to be able to delete a ‘found’ log that is 7 days or less old on an ES Cache. We’d need to check the time the log was submitted, not the actual log date. This way, if someone obviously hasn’t visited the ES Cache site, they CO can delete the log shortly after it’s received. It also means that a CO can’t decide to delete old logs just because they have the ability to do so in a years time.

Just something else to consider. Personally, I would prefer to leave the Q&A as multiple choice, and add a photo as a logging requirement for ES Caches.

[Now_To_Morrow]

Does anyone know why Groundspeak changed their EC rules from having correct answers to allowing incorrect answers a few years back? Was it because less people were bothering to find them because they caused trouble?

Would capitalization, spell checkers, or just simple spelling misstakes on the COs part become an issue if we let them type the words? See what I did there <---

I have a couple of ECs and make it really easy to answer my questions. They are even allowed to answer with something really creative and not based on facts or science at all. So they could brute force them easily. I think I've only ever seen cheating possibly (unconfirmed) twice in the logs. And in those cases they tried to answer correctly scientifically but the photo requirement didn't match what I know of the specimens/area. I just ignored them and shook my head. Their loss, I figured.

Also, I've done a few AL caches and sworn at my phone because of the hiders choice of what they see at GZ being different than me.

So I wouldn't have a problem with multiple choice. A photo requirement would be a good addition I think, but that could be a CO's choice for an added requirement.

Prior to submitting this response I chose tu preview it. Lucky I did because I found errors from swiping on my phone keyboard. Like tu just showed up now for some stupid reason. So, yeah, multiple choice would make it easier and therefore less troublesome/more fun to find.

[Now_To_Morrow]

Any news on this cache type?

[caughtatwork]

No progress at the moment. Your devs have been busy with Cacheopoly, a mid-year game for 2024 and an end of year game for 2024 as well as some technical debt tidy up and revamping some of our statistics.

This, along with the EcoCaches is on the boards for work when time permits.