thebruce0

Absolutely. It's the ideal. Not a guarantee. You're projecting what you believe to be the standard. And you're effectively limiting 'all relevant knowledge' purely to the existence of 2 dnfs. I've shown why that's far too limited for what reviewers have access to and all that can influence decision-making. You and I do not have access to reviewer insight. A decision they make on a cache with 2 dnfs could be based on anywhere from solely as you say, to a whole lot of private communications with multiple people over years about whoever's involved. If you were a reviewer, you would know. But neither of us are, so you can't say that a decision to archive a cache is based solely on 2 DNFs, unless the reviewer has told you so. I don't want to get into that email wording again because it was well fleshed out in prior threads, including the fact that the written words are not clear that a talking with a reviewer is an option, so that it is not disabled and/or archived. Provide a reasonable maintenance plan. That is all that's needed, as many reviewers have repeatedly mentioned. Again, that's not the "goal" of the CHS. That result only happens if reviewers take action, by choice, on the flagged caches. The CHS is a tool the reviewers can use to carry out their duties more easily, and if they're told that their current job is to move towards refreshing the gameboard, then they will apply their actions more strictly as the CHS open the door for them.

I don't know if you realize what you're saying. Reviewers absolutely have access to information we don't, historic activity we don't, opinions we may not share, and more. Anything from past interactions with geocachers and owners that will influence their judgment on matters with them - yes, it happens, and it has been admitted - we all know you don't get on a reviewer's naughty list. Lenience is subjective. What we're not "privy to" could be anything from a word in passing in person that clarifies an issue, to notes that have been taken about prior incidents and interactions, to private communications, to simply a matter of their personal opinion. And every call is a judgment call. "No precedent" is there for a reason - one reviewer judgment may differ from another, for whatever reason, and that clause allows them to carry out their given authority without constant bickering and tattle tailing, unless a strict guideline has been broken. One can hope. But if the rule is you must be a responsive cache owner, then they are under no obligation to any geocacher to allow a listing to remain active if the owner is non-responsive. If they do, they're being lenient if they aren't convinced there's good reason to let it remain active. The objective standard is based on the reports fed to the reviewer and the agreed-upon owner responsibilities - non-responsive owner means potential archival after the typical period of ensuring the CO can respond or check on the listing, regardless of the what anyone might say about the cache itself. That's the baseline. Everything else is subjective. Exceptions. Leniency. Human judgment. Or, potentially stricter still if there are further mitigating circumstances that the public may or may not know about (and which reviewers are under no obligation to make known) that could warrant more immediate action. In any case, now we're arguing over reviewer methodology, rather than the CHS. If the CHS were to flag every cache with one DNF for reviewer attention, we could make an argument that the CHS is too strict; but I would be shocked if reviewers then disabled all those caches merely because the CHS flagged them. Which is another great example as to why the CHS does nothing actively. It's all reviewer judgment. The thread could be more accurately titled "Reviewers are too strict taking action on CHS flags needlessly"

Sure, your point? Not sure how that was addressing my comment. Not necessarily. Also any interactions behind the scenes we're not privy to, any information they are aware of that we are not, any past events and actions that paint a different picture. Reviewers are not limited to what we are.

Maybe it's just my experience playing (American) football in school, but to me, a "flag" and a "violation" and a "penalty" are all pretty synonymous. Well, this ain't (American) football In practicality in this context the terms may be synonymous (a listing is flagged for violating a programmatically limiting rule), but by inference one is FAR more negative even though the resulting outcomes are identical. ETA: A violation, especially in (American) football, comes with a consequence to the team (even if it's 1 of 3 warnings before a hard consequence). The CHS does not execute consequences; if a reviewer does nothing, the CHS only flags once until it's reset to 'good', and then it can keep flagging as long as it's active and goes below the threshold - and nothing further will ever happen if a reviewer never does a thing. No, CHS in practicality merely flags a listing for attention by the reviewer. After that, it's entirely human judgment.

I would never auto-exclude a cache just because the last two logs are DNF. Only if a cache needs a non-trivial walk (> 30 minutes) and I'd go there just because of the cache (i.e. the walk itself is likely dull), I check the last logs beforehand, and refrain from it if a DNF seems likely. Otherwise, I just give it a try. Also, I know that I am "blind" quite often and DNF caches, which are perfectly fine - so I usually don't assume "DNF = Cache is probably missing" . Likewise, I'd never auto-exclude merely on 2 DNFs; I'd rather read the reasons. Quite often those two are low-finders, new cachers. But if they're experienced cachers, I'd likely skip the cache. That said, if I'm just browsing in Cachly, say, and I see 2 red dots as the latest on a listing, I'm not likely to make that cache a priority if I'm just out for a handful of finds and some fresh air. So, if I'm on a big trip and there's a cache I want but it's got 2 red dots, I'm almost certainly not going to add it to my itinerary, depending on how badly I wanted it (I might otherwise attempt to contact the owner). But, if I did just want a nice hike and fresh air, I may decide to make the effort and take a long hike risking a potential DNF given 2 red dots, but at least give the cache a shot and maybe save the cache owner a maintenance trip if I can confirm it IS there; and if not I'd very clearly explain my reasoning and experience attaining that DNF to help the owner better decide if it's worth the maintenance trip (yet). Each of those examples I have experienced in my caching career. Ontario reviewers wouldn't disable a remote cache with 2 DNFs merely for their existence if they seemed like inexperienced cachers, for example - even if the CHS happened to flag it for possibly needing attention. Reviewers make the call to disable, not the CHS. Reviewers can be wrong, or convinced against archival, regardless of the CHS report. The CHS algorithm is ever-evolving and is never claimed to be perfect.

What's a CHS "violation"? (that's rhetorical to make a point) There's no "violation". There's a flag that reviewers receive that there may be an issue worth looking at. There's an email the owner receives that there may be an issue and it should be checked. "Violation" is way too strong a word for what's happening. And this conversation consistently gets raised ad nauseum in the forums. This whole process has been discussed so many times. Some people don't like the CHS system; that's fine. The CHS does nothing. Reviewers and HQ do everything. And who knows, it could very well be that the algorithm measures your region to the same average standard as many other regions, depending on how their statistics pan out. We know your region is quite an exception for many any 'norm' in the geocaching community, mainly by your regular anecdotal posts explaining your experiences. So who knows, maybe they can adjust the algorithm to be more lenient in your region (knock on wood). Complain or send feedback to HQ if you feel the CHS algorithm doesn't fairly consider your region's relative lack of geocaching activity... Just to point out again - the CHS doesn't do the disabling - reviewers do. So in those cases, for whatever reason, the reviewers felt that the caches with DNFs warranted owner checkups, but the ones with multiple NMs didn't (or they are just not being active against them for whatever other reasons). We have similar observations here in Ontario. In more active areas of the province, caches may see reviewer action taken for seemingly simple causes, while more remote caches visited a handful of times a year with DNFs or NM still remain untouched. One might say there's no rhyme or reason, but ultimately it's the reviewers that should be talked to, to see if they'll enlighten you as to their reasons for tending to one listing and not to another. Exactly. And, the CHS is just for flagging.

Since when is it an age-old question to archive caches potentially in good shape? Whether or not they have an active owner? It's age old because it's been talked about often here in the forums. Disagree, there are plenty of caches in Provincial Parks near me that have inactive owners. If the cache is still there in good shape, what's the worry? Because you said: Which is what I replied to. That is not an active responsive owner, and the container is being considered geotrash (ie reported, and abandoned), not "in good shape" (in good condition, being found, zero issues or reports). If the reviewer felt it needed archival and the owner was non-responsive. Owners who list on this service agree to responsibilities or the listing will be archived. It is NOT any fault but the owner's if their cache is archived because they are non-responsive. If it hurts the community, it is only the owner's fault for being non-responsive. Not if it's still there. If the owner is non-responsive, and the listing is archived, people can still go and find it. Or is it about the active listing statistics and numbers people are concerned about? I very much doubt that in the most recent case. The reviewer explicitly says "This cache has been flagged by Geocaching HQ as one that may need attention as it has not been found for a long time." Since when is 1 year with 1 DNF considered "a long time"? Why is the CHS even flagging that? Because algorithm. No one believes the algorithm is "perfect" and undoubtedly it's constantly being adjusted. That's why reviewers do the archiving if they feel the listing warrants archiving. Community - but primarily the cache owner - can convince them otherwise. CHS can go fly a kite. Focus on the reviewer doing the archiving. Strawman. No one here said that 1 or 2 DNFs warrants archiving. "Assuming no obvious issues" is the fallacious assumptions. Reviewers know if there are other issues we do not know about, and they are the arbiters of whether something IS an issue, even if we think it's not. If they can be shown wrong, they can be convinced otherwise - by the owner, by community, or by HQ themselves.

It's the age-old question... That would be an issue regardless of whether the listing was archived or not, if the owner is non-responsive. Better to not have any connection back to gc, ya? And #1 is a great example of a reviewer changing their mind because they were convinced otherwise. As we're often reminded, in those cases that people raise in the forum, there's almost certainly something else amiss about the situation that's not readily apparent to us. Well, that's for them to decide, ya? Or appeals

Well, considering it's reviewers who took action, it's not the CHS that's of issue here which only provides reviewers flags for possible checking, it's your opinion of the judgment of the reviewers' call. Keep in mind, we don't know any further communications or issues happening behind the scenes that can affect a reviewer's judgment, especially by private communications. So on those grounds, here are my thoughts: 1. The reviewer was convinced by community feedback to reverse their judgment and the cache was saved from archival. Yay! The system can work. 2. Nov 2012 publish. [+3y] Sep 2015 owner checkup. [+3y] Aug 2018 FTF. 3 DNFs (2 attempts) [+4y] until Dec 2022 reviewer disable. No owner check or response in 30 days. Reviewer archives. 3. "Yes, the CO appears to be inactive or at least intermittently active" - that's enough to justify disabling on any concern for many reviewers. The CO should be responsive and at least ping the cache or reviewer with the intent to keep it alive. Once again, 30 days is really no excuse for a cache owner to not provide any response to a reviewer disable log. Even so, reviewers can be convinced to not archive; they are human, but also following reviewer guidelines and have no obligation to be lenient on non-responsive owners... It's sad when great caches get archived from inactivity, but really the only one to blame there if the reviewer isn't convinced otherwise is the non-responsive cache owner.

Yes, sometimes that's all that's needed, sometimes it pops up with the secondary verification task. That's not just on GC, that's fairly standard any place with the "I'm not a robot" captcha. I think their algorithm on the back end (captcha's) makes the determination as to whether the task popup is required or not. If it's popping up every time, then it must be thinking that the user has a high 'spam' score, as it were, and must verify humanness. (and who knows what factors all contribute to their algorithm thinking you're not human any particular time the captcha test is loaded) There could also be a touch of randomness involved. Like ticket-checkers on some rail transit. You can get on without a ticket, but if you're asked to show your ticket you could get fined hefty without one. ... check the box to say you're human. But if you get checked with the task, you'd better be human or you get zero access.

RFID can use the attribute, for sure. You'd need to have a device that can receive a wireless signal; that is a good way to think of it. I've even seen that attribute used for radio-tuning geocaches. I think it's an appropriate definition today, while it used to really only represent the chirp requirement. Lots of applications today.

I think, in such a case, if some daring individual is aware of the blissfully-ignored cache listing, they could simply email a reviewer and point out the issue with it. Then at least you know the reviewer has seen the listing and should receive some sort of response or defence of its persistent state. At worst, email HQ. There's no mechanism to have a cache-listing-with-issue remain unavoidably untouched and undealtwith, at least without reason. If right to the top TPTB still do nothing, then they must have their reasons.

Age old argument about browser compatibility (one I've had to wrestle with professionally since the 20th century). Two sides to the coin: On one hand, HQ is using a technique that Safari does not support; on the other hand, Safari is not supporting a technique that all browsers should support. Who's at fault? Ultimately if HQ felt it was worth the R&D they would find a way to code a method that does work with Safari, regardless of who's fault the problem is. So, the answer is still, for now - use Chrome or Firefox and it'll be fine. eta: that is to say, there's "no excuse" for not having it work with Safari, it's plenty capable to do the task. So there's likely a mitigating reason as to why HQ has still chosen not to invest in making it work in Safari.

And more often these days around here I see logs with people mentioning when coordinates are way off, but never providing their coordinates. That does help! If I find a cache and it's at least 10-15m off, I often add coordinates if it's really not all that clear (as opposed to, like, a cache in a lone tree in a field but the coordinates are 20m off - no bid deal). I really miss the option add coordinates to a log.

I think the response to this wasn't that the cache itself required archival, but moreso that it's owned by an inactive owner. You may come with a repair, but the next cacher may not and the geocache experience will have degraded - that in itself may be unavoidable, but in a case like this it's unavoidable because the owner is not responding. And the owner should be. It's not a perfect system, but archival isn't just a granular act on 'bad' geocaches; the 'greater good' is have the game board filled with geocaches owned by active geocache owners who maintain their geocaches, for greater chance of increasing the general experience of geocaching.

Yeah that's the workflow I'd expect; I was thinking more about gift cards a person needs to redeem. But if the option is there to renew someone else's membership at their current rate, then that solves that question

Perhaps the auto-renew is set to the legacy rate, and gift cards are linked to a sku that assumes a 'new' membership (and rate) even though the purchase is being applied to an existing membership? ETA: Makes me wonder - is it possible to buy someone with the legacy rate a 1 year extension at their legacy rate, and not the 'new' rate? Seems like a slightly different workflow; someone would only be able to buy a $40US renewal gift to apply to someone with the legacy $30 rate, if I'm understanding this correctly...

Obviously DNF or NM is a judgment call in the context of the cache. a 4D with 4 DNFs likely won't warrant a NM. But a 1.5D with 10 DNFs is more likely to prompt someone to post a NM/OAR without having found the cache. The action makes more sense in the latter case than the former.

Agreed, except for "in good faith" as that's extremely subjective. One person's good faith is another person's unsolved puzzle or shared coordinates or leap frog or team caching or couch caching or or or...... This is why HQ made the guideline that a find is valid if the name under which the geocacher is geocaching is written on the log sheet - not that it's written in their own hand or any other extenuating circumstance; their first stance is to avoid the he-said/she-said, and first recommend to cachers in disagreement to resolve it themselves, or to take the higher ground and decide when to just step back. Again in this case, judging the motivation of the finders of said cache(s) is beyond the guidelines. At most it's up to HQ, not us, to render a verdict outside of what we know per guidelines, and that's that their names are on the log sheet (purportedly) and so they are valid find logs, and "good faith" motivation for signing the logs isn't relevant.

Let's calm it down here. Strictly speaking, unless there is more to the story about the finders than what we know here, then yes it can be defended that the reviewer overstepped by deleting the FINDERS logs if their signatures are in the logbook - if they found the geocache, their find log stands, and it matters not one iota what country they're based in. Regardless of anyone's opinion of their motivation for signing the log book; statistics are not a competition and statistics don't affect anyone but their own users. There is precedent for logs being reinstated for merely ink-on-log, on good and bad cache listings, whatever the means it happened. However we all know that 'no precedent' rule applies to reviewer actions. So, ultimately, a higher authority will need to judge - seeing more of the story than we do - whether the reviewer's actions were appropriate or not. We can scream and shout in here all we want but these arguments are based on what-ifs and theories. Until there's more details about the full story here (and there may never be), this will continue to be merely a shouting match.

Oh just look at the oodles of forum threads already discussing/debating this... it's deep

Yeah it happens when you guote a sub-quote, attributing the top author, not the sub-author. Annoying

Deleting find logs though? If they found the container, signed the sheet, and logged the find, that is - by HQ's own definition - sufficient to lock in the find for the cache, regardless of the nature of the cache or opinions. So, either there's more here than merely archiving a cheeky cache and deleting valid find logs (such as perhaps someone else signed the names on the logs for everyone who logged it found?), or the reviewer went too far in deleting the logs. I've never seen a reviewer delete legitimate find logs merely because they didn't like the reason for which the cache was published (even if the cache deserved archival). Reviewers recommend COs not to delete logs of people who legitimately found a throwdown... HQ will reinstate logs of people who've had them deleted despite signing the logsheet... this action here seems to go against everything HQ promotes. So, there must be something else at play that invalidated all the find logs, or the reviewer went too far.

I have no question about whether the cache could be archived, as that's a reason the reviewer would know. To me the big question is why all the find logs were deleted. Unless there was something nefarious or coordinated going on with the finders, if they're a bunch of essentially unconnected and unrelated geocachers whose names are in the logbook (supposedly), then that seems wrong; can't think of a (publicly known) reasoning why that might happen... but the reviewer's under no obligation to explain why either.

Think of the number next to the smiles as "Smilies", not physical geocache 'finds' as implied by, well, "finds". The smiley count consists of multiple things, as Hugh mentions above. I stopped calling them finds some time back because of this confusion...