narcissa
-
Posts
7386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by narcissa
-
-
On 04/08/2017 at 5:51 PM, K13 said:
Drives, who owns Drives Cache Closet, has hundreds of caches in play. None violate the listing guideline regarding advertising.
I wonder if I told you that I thought he has great products and service if it would be a violation of the guidelines?
Yes, if you used a cache page to to do that, it probably would be.
-
10 hours ago, WarNinjas said:
Yea that would be a good way to set it up so you were already out doing it and not just for one cache at a time. But if someone never plans on checking on it then they shouldn't probibly hide it. I was thinking more of a I don't feel like hiking to that cache this month, Maybe I should just pay someone to do it this time. Not that I would ever use this service but if I was to use it then it wouldn't be for regular maintenance just a occasional I don't feel like going there right now but still want it fixed up.
Philosophically, I agree that geocachers really ought to maintain their own caches, but that's not really relevant to the topic.
-
11 hours ago, WarNinjas said:
My question is still what does everyone think the cost would be to make it profitable for the person doing it? Figuring that they say min wage will soon be $15 a hour. You couldn't just do a 10 mile radius around your house and expect many customers so it would have to be a wide area. The time it would take to get the request, Get the container together, even a basic container might take some thought at times to get. Then drive there and possibility hike a bit or climb a tree or kayak. Take pictures of it as others have mentioned. Send them over. Figure out how to get the payment.
Then I would also factor in that maybe 1 out of every 10 jobs done there might be a unhappy customer because the cache had the same original problem and went missing before someone found it and you might have to give there money back.
My guess would be around 2 hours per cache serviced. Plus container and gas and all. I think that would put the average cacher out of wanting to use the service. Not that I think this would work for many other reasons. If someone wanted to just do it for fun but I can't see it being done for profit.
I think the only remotely feasible option would be an annual or seasonal subscription, with the hope of building a client base that would make it worthwhile. It would make the most sense to have a schedule of days devoted to maintenance runs, say three days a month to start. Guarantee something like four visits a year for routine check and maintenance, and then put all of your client caches on your watch list and add them to the schedule when things come. You would need to also guarantee that NM logs and other issues get dealt with in a specific time frame.
-
.png)
1
-
-
4 hours ago, RufusClupea said:
???
Isn't that what we're talking about?
? Could you please clarify; that appears self-contradictory with the previous statement.
I believe that, but that doesn't necessarily mean such a need doesn't exist, nor a desire. I think the issue might be volume--is there enough of a need/desire within a geographical area/range to make such a venture feasible.
Spoze... (I'm big on "spozin'"
) there were a person/persons who desired to concoct various types of caches--standard, mystery , gadget/puzzle caches, multi-s, etc.--but was/were unable to maintain (or possibly even place) them as they would care to, yet had the resources to pay someone else to perform those tasks for them? Granted, even with several million geocachers worldwide, I'd be surprised (delighted, but surprised) if there were enough people who fall into that category (especially the last part) within a geographical area to support/warrant such an endeavor.
I am not sure what is unclear. The service that is proposed in this thread seems to be aimed at other geocachers. The services that I have seen, that failed, placed caches on behalf of small businesses, not other geocachers. Perhaps that is a small distinction to you, but I felt it was worth noting.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, RufusClupea said:
So this is nothing new? Please elucidate!
There have been some attempts at businesses that place and maintain caches on behalf of others, but now that I think about it they have all been in conjunction with outside businesses and organizations. It just never seems to take off. I can think of three off the top of my head. There was one around here that sold subscriptions to small businesses all over the region. They just kind of disappeared one day, their website went dark, and the caches got archived. I recall another group trying to organize meetings for a similar venture. I think they were looking for other geocachers to get involved in placing and maintaining. Again I think they were trying to get small businesses and organizations to subscribe and it just wasn't feasible. And there's a small community a couple of hours away from here that tried to arrange some sort of non-profit geocaching project to boost local tourism and last time I looked, it wasn't doing very well either. The cache placement guidelines make it pretty much impossible to really link a business to a geocache, and most geocache visitors just grab the cache and keep moving.
I don't think I have seen anyone with a business that attempted to sell maintenance to other geocachers. I don't think I have ever heard another geocacher earnestly express a need for such a service, either.
-
Unfortunately, any time I have seen someone running a cache placement or maintenance business, it's come to a bad end.
-
1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:
I'm quite sure that this was an attempt to be rude and insulting. If so, it didn't work.
Really, there's no need in trying to belittle other participants just because their opinions differ from yours.
What opinion? The reviewer simply asked someone not to put posted coordinates in someone's yard.
-
8 hours ago, niraD said:
It's even mentioned in the guidelines: "At times a geocache may meet the requirements for publication on the site but the reviewers, as experienced geocachers, may see additional concerns not listed in these guidelines that you as a geocache placer may not have noticed. The reviewer may bring these additional concerns to your attention and offer suggestions so that the geocache can be published."
I guess accepting that it's a one-off request from a reviewer regarding a particular cache doesn't provide much of a springboard for conspiracy theories and irrelevant rambling about the good old days.
-
4
-
-
Reviewers often point out specific things that are cause for concern with a particular cache listing. That doesn't mean there is a new secret rule or that Groundspeak is deliberately trying to ruin things out of malice. Moving posted coordinates out of someone's yard is a reasonable request.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Mudfrog said:
Narcissa, i've been reading your posts for a while now. We've agreed on many topics and we've had a few disagreements as well. One thing for certain is that you've always stood your ground when participating in a debate. The majority of cachers know darn well that DNF doesn't automatically mean a cache has a problem or is missing. You're in this majority so i'm just surprised to see you letting a couple or three forum posters influence you this way.
I suppose one of your DNF logs could cause grief for a CO but the circumstances would have to be just right. I figure the thin skin of that particular CO would be the main contributing factor.
I am not sure why your perception of our past interaction is supposed to be relevant as I don't really bother to differentiate between individual forum users.
My main concern is the nag email, which, to me, is very problematic. The forum's insistence on denigrating those who take exception to it is not interesting or persuasive.
There have always been forum users with silly ideas about the way people should user certain logs. Unfortunately, now, those silly ideas are being reinforced by Groundspeak's recent site changes.
I have spent years trying to be patient with the TFTC people, the power trail people, and the number hound people, i the belief that there was value in letting the game expand and change. I could keep playing my way, which included the relatively benign practice of logging DNFs quite liberally.
Now those logs are being used against others in a way that I find very upsetting. There is no getting around that for me. You forum people can be as dismissive and insulting as you like, but calling me names won't change my valid perception of the email. I see there is now a thread devoted to re-writing it, so surely my perception is not complete lunacy if some others are similarly dismayed by the email.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
They aren't.
If that was true, then there wouldn't be endless threads discussing the false positive issue. The system only sees DNF and is incapable of determining context.
I write DNFs largely for my own benefit as a record of unsuccessful attempts, and yet the forum assures me that I have no business posting DNFs unless I believe a cache is missing. That means that it is nearly impossible for me to qualify to log a DNF by the standards repeatedly underscored by other forum users, since I would never presume a cache to be missing just because I didn't find it.
Since I don't want to cause hassle for cache owners by triggering the email, and since the forum assures me that I was using DNFs incorrectly anyway, I see no point in logging them.
The new logging system also seems to be designed to discourage detail in logs in general, so I think I should take the hint.
-
2 hours ago, kunarion said:
I have two "Warning Points". So I'm developing a reputation!
Oh, I didn't even look at anything closely enough to see what I have. I shut down all the notifications and intend to thoroughly ignore it. I can tell if someone's comment is valuable by reading it myself.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
1. You're being chided for withholding potentailly valuable information from community and owners simply because you think someone won't like getting a notification email based on the faulty assumption that merely posting a DNF will cause them to receive one. Posting a DNF will not cause a CO to receive a notificatoin email. It will be considered, to some arbitrary degree, towards determining a cache health, which may or may not trigger an email that helpfully alerts the owner to a potential problem with a cache, compounded by any number of issues. And it's an email that can be ignored.
2. IF you are in fact being chided, then chide people who say you're using DNFs wrong. It's your opinion against theirs, when there is no strict rule for how you are to use DNFs. They are helpful when relevant. Use them relevantly.
3. Your gut instant is extreme. Do not give in to it. Take people's understanding of DNFs into consideration, adjust your usage if you must, but please do not withhold every single DNF from public display, especially if it's relevant to the public's interests!
4. You may not be asking anyone else to change how they do things, but your change does affect other people and can affect decisions and experiences around attempting to find caches or deciding to maintain them. Use them relevantly.
5. "There is no need to insult people who are just trying to do their best." (minor pet peeve: when someone says someone is "acting like" something, that's not calling a person such a thing, it's a call to more thoughtfully consider what a person is doing) Again, your response (no longer posting any DNFs), I'm saying, is hurting other people more than it's helping other people. It's hurting other people because you are wilfully holding useful information back from other cachers and owners merely because you don't want theoreticaly owners to be offended by receiving an innocuous email because you logged a DNF. There's so much misunderstanding in that thought process, and it's been described repeatedly and clearly in this thread.
Finally, please, just keep logging your DNFs if they are relevant and informational, as if the CHS doesn't even exist! If that means adjusting content or reducing logs or increasing logs, then that's fine - but if you legitimately cannot find a cache and that would prompt you to log a DNF -- don't hold it back on principal! please.
Also, more usage of anything that the CHS considers means a better pool of activity from which the devs and better hone the algorithm.
There's that "legitimately" word again. I am not going to complicate things by trying to categorize my cache attempts as potentially relevant / legitimate or not. That's too much work and I won't get it right anyway.
If DNFs are important for the content, then Groundspeak shouldn't treat them in a manner that makes the content irrelevant.
-
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
I said "almost". And it was in reference to taking action by "being offended" on the behest of someone else, in this case, no one who has specifically come out as actually being offended at getting a notification email because of DNFs to the point of wishing the DNFs hadn't been posted.
So just keep posting your DNFs as they are relevant to you, as you always have.
If you believe some person has told you that your DNFs are not wanted (rather, that YOU shouldn't post them) because they don't like why you post them, then why listen to them when the vast majority of everyone else finds value in relevant DNFs - whether for the CO or the cacher? Seriously, again, it's overkill to withhold every DNF you would ever want to post just because you think someone might get triggered by receiving an innocuous email they can (even if they don't know it yet) simply ignore if there is no actual problem.
Yes, as do I.
And one step further, I agree that the algorithm can always be improved. That's the nature of the algorithm. Its flexibility for adjustment as more experience rolls in.
They're not sent on DNFs alone (as far as we understand the algorithm, which has not been described to us in great detail except that it takes factors into consideration to determine whether or not a notification email of a potential problem may be warranted).
Irrelevant. The system cannot possibly know if 2 DNFs indicates a problem or not. And so the email does just that - indicates that there may be a problem.
Clearly it doesn't do that for every single cache worldwide with 2 consecutive DNFs, so there must be other factors at play in the algorithm. Amount of time between finds? Ratio of Finds to DNFs? Responsiveness of the CO to previous NM/NA logs? Who knows. The point is that the algorithm felt that, in the cases where it's sent an email, there was enough evidence to warrant a notification of a potential problem, even if it's a false positive. If it is, then ignore it. Or, take the extra step *gasp* of posting a note or OM confirming that everything's fine. If it actually is.
And so that has nothing to do with this notification system which was enacted to help with the period of time before potential problems ever get placed in front of a human face. A NM that's unaddressed IS a problem, and a reviewer will - should - be addressing it at some point if the CO doesn't. That's not what the notification system was built to address. It's out of its scope. It's a different problem, and irrelevant to the CHS outside of possibly affecting the score as it pertains to the CO's responsiveness to actual reported problems. If a reviewer doesn't eventually take care of caches that are clearly not being maintained, that's a problem with the local reviewer (because clearly it's a problem with the cache's CO which is also not being addressed - not the notification email).
And they should keep on doing so! That is a good community ethic. If the community does it. And once the NM is posted, it's out of the CHS notification email's hands, because now it's reported as an actual problem which the CO will have to actively fix, or intentionally confirm as not a problem, in order to avert any consequential reviewer attention. The score - while the reviewer can use it to judge whether action is necessary in cases of non-proactive community, is NOT an indicator that there IS a problem.
Another way to look at it is like the email being a response to activity as if the glass is half full (or, there might be a problem, but you're innocent until proven guilty - it does not itself require reviewer attention).
A NM log is like the glass if half empty (or, a problem is reported which might be incorrect, but you're guilty until proven innocent - in time it will directly require reviewer attention).
To which I say, as I've consistently said, an adjustment to the wording of the email would be wonderful to help assuage any inferred misconceptions; but whether or not that happens, this is such a minor point of education - just let people know just how actually innocent the email is! If there's a problem, deal with it. If there isn't, then forget you ever got it, if you don't want to be bothered with posting a note confirming there's no problem (which is not even a requirement).
I see no majority or consensus of opinion here. On one hand I am being chided for changing my logging process to something that alleviates my personal distaste with the new system. On the other hand I am being chided for the way I logged DNFs to begin with. Since I'm going to be personally criticized either way, I may as well go with my gut instinct on this. I don't like the new system and I don't wish to contribute to it. I am not asking anyone else to change what they are doing, so this nonsense about me being any kind of warrior is completely needless. We are all just trying to make sense of things and keep up with the moving goalposts. I don't think everyone will land on the same conclusions and processes. There is no need to insult people who are just trying to do their best.
-
52 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
I'm almost, almost getting a sense of a social justice warrior mindset, setting out to make sure no one is ever, ever triggered about anything, rather than educating people how not to get triggered about something.
It's as simple as: "Hey, don't worry about that email if there's nothing wrong with your cache." "Really? Ok."
But let's assume no one tells them, and there's nothing wrong with the cache.. What responses might there be?
* Archival. If they archive their perfectly fine cache because an email gave it as an option and they didn't feel that any other options were any more relevant, they really don't know much about cache ownership and should likely hold off a while or do some research (and further reading about ownership) before accepting responsibility for another geocache.
* Cache maintenance. Even though it may not be needed (even if not known until it's done), at least it has been done, and whatever reason triggered the notification has been shown to be a false positive, and a note to that effect by the CO on the listing will help to avert any other concern by anyone else (including any curious reviewer).
* Angst. If they merely go bonkers (sorry, become alarmed or distressed) because they don't know what to do, since no followup response that's mentioned is relevant in their case, they probably need to step back from cache ownership, take a deep breath, and do some research (and further reading about ownership) before accepting responsibility for another geocache.
* Ask someone else, or a reviewer. That's a rational response. And then, what? "Hey, don't worry about that email of there's nothing wrong with your cache." "Really? Ok."
This isn't relevant to me. I don't know when or if I have triggered the email and it isn't my place to counsel other geocachers to ignore missives from Groundspeak.
Social justice warrior? There is no need for this nasty, political name-calling in a thread about geocaching. I am quite certain the world won't stop turning just because my DNFs are going away. I am assured by several others in the forum that I had no business writing DNFs at all anyway because they are only to be used when a cache is missing.
-
4 hours ago, mvhayes1982 said:
What you have to say in a DNF is absolutely important to:
You - If you track your DNFs and use them to keep a record of your searching
Me (and many other cachers)- If I come behind you searching for a cache and you've included relevant information in your DNF log that will help me decide a) should I search for this cache b ) where should I start my search c) are there areas I need to take a closer look/possibly not spend as much time on.
Just because the algorithm doesn't take into account the content of your DNF log, does not mean that said content is not important. It just means that the now-known-to-be-fairly-harmless CHS email doesn't take into account the content of your log. I know, for me personally, being able to relive my "failures" in geocaching and to share those trials with other members of our community are worth far too much to simply abandon logging my DNFs.
The email isn't harmless if it causes undo alarm or distress in other geocachers. Most geocachers don't read the forums and the email is not worded in a manner that suggests it can or should be taken lightly, even when it is sent in error. Since the system now reduces my DNFs to DNF = bad, I just don't feel comfortable with an action that might trigger that email. I can track my own DNFs. The potentially useful information in them may, unfortunately, be a loss to some other geocachers (though many voices in this thread have indicated that it's wrong to post useful, yet non-dire DNFs anyway). For me, weighing these consequences, the thought of triggering these emails for other geocachers makes me too uncomfortable and I see nothing to indicate that Groundspeak cares about false positives.
-
The email doesn't address a major issue of concern that people keep bringing up, which is the issue of so-called false positives where the context of a DNF is being totally ignored by the new system. It just underscores this false notion that DNF = problem. Since what I have to say in a DNF is clearly unimportant, why bother logging them?
-
Did you apply any tests to see if the difference is statistically significant?
-
7 hours ago, Mudfrog said:
I have no idea whether it's a one time email with no follow up or something that is monitored closely by Groundspeak.
But say GS was monitoring the situation closely,,, what might happen if i did nothing? Would they send a follow email 30 days later? maybe give me a slap on the wrist? dispatch a cache cop to set me straight? disable my cache? or heaven fordbid, archive my cache?
I'll say with confidence, neither GS nor a reviewer is going the archive route without following up first..
It is nice that you are confident about that, but I am not and that's why I am changing my logging process.
-
It's fine visually, but I was hoping to see more useful features added. The notifications are a nuisance and I have no interest in the reputation system.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Mineral2 said:
- Go to the notification icon (the bell at the top of the page), click on it. Then select "Notification settings"
- Uncheck "automatically follow...." both boxes.
- Select "Do not send me notifications"
- scroll down to the list of specific notification settings. Turn all of the e-mail options to "off"; Toggle the notification list options to whatever you want, but you may not get them anyway in the list since you chose "Do not send me notifications" above.
Already did this. I still receive notifications for quotes and the reputation thing. It's quite distracting.
-
I would like an option to entirely disable all notifications of any kind. I have shut them down as much as I can but I am still receiving intrusive messages about being quoted and this repuration system that I have no interest in.
Does anyone know if the new software offers better protection in terms of blocking problem users? Ignoring low quality commenters isn't very useful when they can still see my comments.
-
1
-
-
One can infer from the docile grammar in the email, well directly from the words themselves, that just because it's not mentioned does not mean it is disallowed.
Read "a few options" again.
Did someone at Groundspeak tell you that it's okay to ignore it? I am just trying to connect the dots here, since several forum users have indicated that ignoring it is an option.
If an email came my way, i'd read it then look at all the facts i had at hand. I'd check the logs to make sure i didn't miss anything, note the difficulty of the cache, and think about how it was hidden. With the info i had, i'd make a decision as to whether any action was required at the time. If i had a good inkling the cache was fine, then ignoring the email would be the option i would use. If something else came up later, maybe a reviewer post to the cache page, then i would look into it further. Pretty much the way things work now...
That's very nice, but I still can't find where a regular, non-forum reading geocacher could verify with TPTB that it's okay to just ignore the email.
I understand that approximately half of the forum mob thinks that the email is no big deal and that it can be ignored, but some geocachers are bothered by it and others will be bothered by it in the future. Frankly, I am not convinced that ignoring it doesn't have consequences even if it is the result of a false positive.
Now it's just dandy to go around denigrating others for finding the nag email kind of rude and confusing, but that likely won't stop some people from perceiving it that way some of the time.
Since I happen to find the email pretty bothersome (in theory, though my personal cache ownership is minimal), I think my best course of action is to avoid participating in the actions that trigger it, i.e. DNFs. I wouldn't want to receive it and I don't want to inflict it on others.
Since the forum assures me that my DNFs are stupid anyway, I am not really certain as to why the forum is now shouting at me for not logging them anymore.
-
One can infer from the docile grammar in the email, well directly from the words themselves, that just because it's not mentioned does not mean it is disallowed.
Read "a few options" again.
Did someone at Groundspeak tell you that it's okay to ignore it? I am just trying to connect the dots here, since several forum users have indicated that ignoring it is an option.
.png)
Isn't that what we're talking about?
) there were a person/persons who desired to concoct various types of caches--standard, mystery , gadget/puzzle caches, multi-s, etc.--but was/were unable to maintain (or possibly even place) them as they would care to, yet had the resources to pay someone else to perform those tasks for them? Granted, even with several million geocachers worldwide, I'd be surprised (delighted, but surprised) if there were enough people who fall into that category (especially the last part) within a geographical area to support/warrant such an endeavor.
What do you consider to be good swag?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
No. Caches are exposed to unlimited amounts of moisture every time the cache is opened and exposed to water vapour in the air. Also, most caches are not airtight. The silica is quickly saturated. After a while the packets can get soggy and worn out. Then they tear open and make a mess inside the cache.