[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

15 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

That new or inexperienced cache owner will still fall into one of the two categories - maintainer or non-maintainer.  The email isn't going to radically change what type they're going to be.  There's a slim chance of that happening, but by the time most are ready to hide their first cache, their maintenance instincts are mostly formed, based on the caches they've found to that point.  If they find wet logs, pill bottles and film cans, and broken containers, that's what they're going to hide and maintenance isn't much of a priority.  If they find dry-ish logs, good containers and interesting caches, that's what they will think geocaching is about and will hide something similar in nature and maintain it as such.  To think that an email is going to influence them more than what their current influences are is a bit naive, IMO.  That's like someone getting one of those emails from Nigeria and going from skeptic to believer in the get rich quick scheme that was so popular a few years ago.  "They sound so sincere and honest.  If I pay their bank fees to allow them to access the money in their tied up account, they're going to send me my initial payment and interest for helping them with their troubles.  All I need to do is send them my bank account information.  What could go wrong?"

 

I can still remember my first hide and what I was expected to do as it pertained to maintenance.  Had this email been around, I can tell you that it wouldn't have changed my opinion about my responsibilities, one way or the other.  Those that care will continue to care until they don't at which time they'll archive their caches, remove their containers and move on.  Those that don't care, will never care, even with repeated emails.  

 

When one thinks of caches that most likely need maintenance, are they caches  being maintained or caches NOT being maintained?  The answer is pretty obvious, isn't it - NOT being maintained.  If they're not maintaining their caches, then this email and the CHS score don't even matter to those COs.  Those unmaintained caches will continue to remain unmaintained, so no good has come out of the email.  The ONLY good that might happen is that it might get put onto the road to archival.  That road, however, was already in place, per the options for cachers to post NM logs and/or NA logs.  However, I, as what I would consider a good maintainer (not great, but good), get an email saying that my cache isn't being maintained properly.  Do you see how that could rankle good maintainers and get them a bit upset?  We all realize that in the larger scope of things, this is supposed to improve maintenance and can deal with the emails as they come, but I'm being told I'm part of the problem, rather than the solution.  

You set the tone early so they develop the right work ethic and skills.   I assume from your name you're a coach so I'd think this would resonate.   Like a coach you need to personally set an example for them to follow.   This is where we all can contribute.   If your a cache owner maintain your caches so that others know how it's suppose to be done.   If your a cache finder,   be respectful of the land and the cache.  Be fair and post the correct logs.  

 

I'm sure at some time someone has encountered one of my cache that was not up to par.   Did they think I was a bad cache owner.   Maybe.   Unexpected things happen in life.  It's how you handle them that matters.  I know I'm a good cache owner so what others think really doesn't bother me.   

 

I doubt this e-mail will spur bad cache owners to do anything.   What it will do is build a case for archival.   It's sort of like a bad employee.   There are verbal warnings, written warnings and suspensions.   All are documented to build a case for dismissal and avoid any backlash.   When the employee says I've been fired unjustly you can pull out the file which documents all the reasons why they were.   

 

Nowhere in the e-mail dose it say your cache isn't being maintained properly.   It asks you to simply take a look at it to make sure it's ok.  If after a quick review you think all well than ignore the e-mail.         

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

Just now, coachstahly said:

 

You've already pointed out that there are primarily two types of COs out there - those that take their maintenance seriously and those who don't care.  The CHS email isn't going to spur either of those types of COs to any action they don't already do.  Skirkers (to borrow the term from T.M.) will continue to shirk and the ones who maintain them will continue to maintain.  I fail to see how the email will affect either of those types of COs.  The only segment of cachers it might spur into action are those who placed them and then don't want them archived.  They'll do one of two things - log an armchair OM or actually maintain it.  I would venture to guess that this segment of the CO population is a much smaller segment than the two mentioned above, so it's only going to benefit a small portion of caches.  

 

With only two types of COs, one type already gets the importance of maintaining their caches and the other one doesn't care. An email isn't suddenly going to get that latter group to say, "Hey!  You know what?  This email I got from GS about my cache possibly needing maintenance has really changed my mind about how I view maintenance.  I'm going to go out right now and fix up all my caches."  However, those, like myself and others on here, who maintain their caches regularly, are getting emails from GS saying that their caches are, in essence, not being maintained properly.

 

As to the concerted effort, I'm not disputing the effort.  I'm disputing the results of this effort, as it pertains to my primary caching area.

There's actually a third type.   The new or inexperienced cache owner.   This is the one that will benefit most from this e-mail.  

 

The experienced cache owner will find a way to work with it.

 

The negligent cache owner will either ignore it or try to find ways around it.  Both choices make it more likely the system and a reviewer will notice.      

[Make a Multicache that Requires you to Find Existing Caches]

Check out this cache.  It may give you some ideas.    GC1W2YY

[CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

With some people, this is not accidental. They choose to only rate their caches 1.5 stars. I see it as sort of a (empty) statement/protest.

If some people are artificially keeping the T/D low for what ever reason you're inviting more dnf's.   They shouldn't be outraged by receiving "the e-mail"  they should be expecting it.

[CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.]

2 minutes ago, niraD said:

Where is the rule that says that the CO has to check on a cache every time a DNF is logged?

 

When the "friendly" reminder sent by the CHS is clearly in error, I don't think it's belligerent or presumptuous to think that visiting the cache location is pointless. And since the only other option offered by the "friendly" reminder is to archive the cache...

 

If that is not the message that Groundspeak intended to communicate, then perhaps the fault lies in Groundspeak's communication.

There is no rule other than your own conscience.   I wouldn't expect this owner to run out and check up on the cache over one dnf.  I would expect them to handle the situation responsibly.  Why wait to archive?  I'd rather they just did it rather than threaten me with the idea.  I find the mind set more troubling than the e-mail.      

[Swag cheaters]

I tend to see this with new cachers.   At first they don't quite get the concept of swag.  They come unprepared and think they need to trade something so they leave the only thing they have.   When you think of it this is actually admirable.   They could leave nothing at all.   They're actually trying to uphold the tradition of swapping swag,  just not in way we've come to expect.   Since swag was one of the founding ideas in Geocaching I, as a cache owner, want to continue the practice.   Therefor I have resigned myself to always carry good swag with me to replenish my caches.  My hope is if people see a bunch of good swag in a cache they'll up their game and those who are into the swag game will be able to enjoy trading.

 

Don't get too down on it.  Often it's not as malicious as it looks.           
 

[CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.]

14 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

 

Let me make sure I understand you:  you consider archival of perfectly good caches with no maintenance issues "working just fine."

I consider archiving a cache by an owner that's clearly belligerent and thinks that the rules don't apply to them is a good thing. 

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

52 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

So can I.   What happens of the CO does nothing?  The CHS score doesn't change.  If the email as triggered by a DNF,  is subsequently found, the cache most likely doesn't require a visit.   If the CO doesn't nothing and the cache gets more DNFs, and/or NM logs as well, CHS score gets worse.    A reviewer might allow a "no response" from the first  CHS email but a second or third and they'll definitely take action. 

That's it in a nutshell.  So the e-mail is proactive.  It's says "Hey,  you may want to take a look at this cache and possibly avoid any issues down the road." 

 

The problem is how effective would that e-mail be if you include an option to do nothing?

 

 

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

6 hours ago, niraD said:

I can live with that.

 

I can live with that too. But I'm not a volunteer reviewer.

 

And ultimately, the volunteer reviewers aren't the ones who need to know about the false positives. Ultimately, the lackeys in charge of the CHS algorithm are the ones who need to know about the false positives.

I'm sure you could live with that as I'm also sure the dead beat cache owner would be just fine with it too.   I disagree with your third point.  The volunteers are the first ones who need to know about the false positives.  Who else is going to correct the initial problem and then pass along the information to the lackeys?           

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So if you owned a T4.5 cache that would take you four hours of driving plus another two of hiking through rugged terrain just to check on, and it got pinged by the CHS in the middle of summer because someone logged a DNF saying it was too hot for them and they weren't carrying enough water, how would you react? Would you do what the email says, that is go and check on the cache, disable it until you can or archive it? Or would you log an armchair OM? Or would you ignore it and wait for the reviewer to post a note like the one Max and 99 got?

I'd say the dnf was bogus and shouldn't have been posted.    In that situation a note would have saved everyone a lot of aggravation. 

 

I would have contacted my reviewer and pointed this out.   In this case, If I were the reviewer,  I would have told you to post an arm chair OM.

 

The above action would solve the issue but not the problem.   How do we streamline the process to make it easier on the owner and the reviewer?

 

Meanwhile why aren't we looking to fix the underlying issue of defining when a dnf should be posted?  

  

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It depends entirely on the context of the DNFs. If they say in their DNF that it was the last cache for the day and getting dark so they called it quits and will try again next time, there's little point checking on the cache. If it's a difficult one for me to get to, like the T5 that was pinged by the CHS, I'll have a chat with the DNFer to try to figure it out, and in that case it became immediately obvious from the photo she sent me that she was looking in the wrong place. My visiting the cache won't fix that.

 

On the other hand, I'll often log DNFs on a cache that I know isn't missing, in one case someone else had found it straight after my unsuccessful search, or it's a nemesis cache that everyone else can find except me, or I was put off my muggles, or my search was thwarted by the terrain or something as mundane as dead batteries in the GPSr. On one of the caches I did on Monday, I came very close to DNFing it. My GPSr led me to the base of a waterfall but the hint suggested it was higher up. Just finding a way up was tough, then when I got to the top I realised I'd gone too high. I could see a ledge below that my GPSr was pointing to but couldn't see an obvious safe way to reach it. I started trying a way down but ended up too low again. The day was getting on and I was about to walk away and log it as a DNF when I spotted something that resonated with the hint so, after going in, up, over, around, down and back, I finally got there and made the find. The point I'm making is that it was within a hair's breadth of being a DNF but whether it was or not had nothing to do with the health of the cache. It was all down to my own caching ability. Most of my DNFs fall into that category - the cache is fine, I just couldn't find it on the day. If I do think there's a likelihood the cache is missing or misplaced and would like the CO to check on it, I'll log an NM, and that system works pretty well around here.

I think the key here is having a basic definition of what a dnf is.   It's amazing how many of the issues we discuss here all seem to mesh together as part of a problem or solution.   If were going to try to solve one particular issue we must first address the underlying problems.   Dnf's are one of those underlining problems.    It's easy to see that fewer dnf's would translate into fewer e-mails.  Before we get ourselves in a tizzy let me confirm that I'm all for cachers posting dnf's.    IMO a dnf should only be posted when you reach gz and have actually looked for the cache.    Here is where the bickering starts.  What's considered gz?   What constitutes a search?   For every cacher the answers to those questions will be different but I'd hope we could all agree that there are many instances where a dnf is posted that clearly wouldn't qualify as reaching gz and searching. .   

 

If we use dnfs wisely.  Post NM judiciously.  Up the level of our maintenance.  Post NA's where appropriate and generally play the game by the golden rule  I think the system would run quite well.   In fact if everyone did all these things we probably wouldn't need a system at all.  

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

16 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

Didn't you advocate for doing nothing if you felt the cache was just fine? " If I thought the cache was fine I'd simply ignore it."  Based on the email Max provided, that will only delay the process, meaning you still need to go check on it, even if you think the cache is just fine.

 

 

Now you want to add more to the possible workload of a volunteer reviewer?  You can't agree that a false positive is a possibility and should be something stated in the email sent out?  Why must your compromise involve the reviewer?  Wasn't this automated program supposed to curtail some of the workload of our reviewers?  If you want to involve discussion between the reviewer and the CO, then we already have that process in place.  It's the "old" way of doing things.  We've come full circle but added a step and made it more complicated than it was originally.

 

I'd advocate for the ability to do nothing if, after a discussion with your reviewer, it's agreed upon.   We're not talking about the people who really believe that there is nothing wrong with their cache.  We're talking about the ones that go out of their way to avoid maintenance.    I'd say the majority of people who receive the e-mail actually take a look at the cache and take the appropriate action.   There is a segment of cache owners that will simply ignore it.  Most of these will be owners that are out of the game or simply don't care.  A small percentage will be good cache owners who genuinely don't think there's an issue.  Of this last group I'd guess that 90% of the time there is not an issue.  There has to be checks and balances.   You can't give a segment of cache owners carte blanche. 

 

So I see the e-mail as a positive thing for two reasons.  First I believe it will, buy it's very nature, spur more cache owners to fix problems before a reviewer actually has to get involved.  Which will ultimately save time and increases cache condition.   Second it sends an over all message of the importance of watching and maintaining your caches.   The fact that it even exists shows a concerted effort by GS to emphasize cache maintenance.               

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

1 minute ago, niraD said:

So why can't you live with a compromise that adds an option for false positives to the "friendly" reminder email?

Like I said before if you offer a way for people to do nothing, some will do just that.   Why take the time to actually check up on a caches condition when you can push a button and make it all go away?   If the option involved some discussion between the owner and the reviewer,  I'd support that.  

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

40 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

Tell that to some of my more stubborn clients.

I also have clients like that and 25 years of dealing with them has taught me that there's always common ground.  You just have to be willing to dig down to it and be ready to compromise when you get there.  I want them as a client and they want me as their vendor.  If that's the case we'll find a way to work it out.   It's probably the reason they've been clients for 25 years.         

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

32 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

How many false positives?  There is no way for me (or you) to know that.

 

You're missing the point that reaching the criteria may be solely due to events which *don't* require anything to be looked at.

 

"It's not a big deal."   That's sort of like a rich person telling a poor person, that doesn't have enough money to put food on the table,  to stop complaining about being hungry.  If you've never received the automatically triggered email message how can you possible claim, with any authority, whether or not it's a big deal.

 

I know what the e-mail says and I know what it's intended to do.  I don't need to get one to know how I'd react to it.     

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

5 minutes ago, niraD said:

Aye, there's the rub. There isn't one true answer for what is reasonable.

 

And as long as that is the case, there needs to be better accommodation for false positives produced by the system.

I don't believe that.  There's always a compromise that everyone can live with.

[Halloween Caching]

19 hours ago, Gabeman26 said:

Would anyone be interested in doing some caching at some cemeteries during the month of October?

 

Or go to other haunted places that have caches nearby?

Looks to be a few night caches in your area like this one  GC7ETAY.   Set up an event and have at it.   

[Etiquette question regarding the replacement of an abandoned cache]

On ‎9‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 12:20 AM, Max and 99 said:

One problem I've encountered from  maintaining an old friend's cache is that even though I perform maintenance  quickly,  anytime there's a  DNF or NM posted, I cannot make the red wrench go away. The CO hasn't logged anything in years! I'm happy to help my old friend, but I'm quite limited in what I can do. It's frustrating seeing the red wrench always there, knowing I fix any issues within 2  days. If the reviewer steps in, I will place my own cache there.

I've never fully agreed with the whole idea of the "property of the cache owner" thing.  Most of the concept is fine but in some cases transfer of a cache should be allowed.  This is one of those situations. 

 

I assume you have no contact with your friend.   Would be nice if they would just let you adopt this cache.

[CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.]

17 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

I read this argument several times in this thread and I just think that it isn't true. I have several caches that are not easy and by no means quick grabs - so I do get that many found logs (and so many DNF logs at the same time). I have never had problems with the CHS.

 

Don't forget that the CHS also takes the difficulty and terrain rating into account. My caches are usually hard to do - and the rating does tell that. If you put a cache with 1.5 difficulty stars out and some people do not find it - then it might be missing or perhaps the rating is not approriate?! In each cache you should take action! If you put a traditional with 4 difficulty stars out and some people do not find it - smile and relax, it's just a D4! And the system knows it.

 

Usually cache owners get another month or more before a cache is archived by the system (or by a system error, who knows). In fact I do not want to have to visit any of my caches immediately now or tomorrow but one whole month should be enough to take a look, or, if someone else finds it, contact that cacher and find out about the current state to be able to log  a real "The cache is there."-OM-log.

 

If you are not able to visit your caches if it was necessary then perhaps you own to many caches? Or the caches are too distant to maintain them?

One should nor forget that creating a geocache is not only putting the container out but to do the upcoming maintenance. Some people tend to forget...

 

Jochen

Right on!   And a simple note on the cache page outlining your intentions usually buys you even more time if you need it.

 

Sometimes I get the feeling that people think GS and reviewers are out to get them.

 

Mushrooms like the dark.  Reviewers don't.

 

At least I don't think they do???? 

[CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.]

1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I hadn't even looked at the cache in question but having now done so I think we can draw this thread to a tidy close on the basis of these words from the CO:

 

 

In this case I think the system worked just fine.    

[CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.]

The other thing that stuck out to me about this cache was the number of dnf's.   133 finds, 51 dnf's.  This on a D2/T1 cache.   IMO somethings not right here.  Maybe the cache owner should have re-evaluated the D/T or the location.  May have avoided all this drama.  

[CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.]

Disgruntled cacher who archived their own cache.  I'm wondering if the "contact" the owner references is the automated e-mail we've been hearing so much about.   If that's what pushed them over the cliff than I'd say they we're planning on jumping anyway.     I wish I could reference instances where the friendly e-mail reminder prompted owner action and actually saved a cache.  There has to be at least one instance out there.

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So how many DNFs is a D5 allowed to have? It's an open book as the D rating can't go any higher. There are some that have hundreds of DNFs and have yet to be found, but they're not broken or missing, they're HARD CACHES by design. Even at lower ratings, there are other factors that come into it that won't affect DNF rates, like puzzle difficulty. And even then, no two D3 traditionals are likely to be the same or produce the same pattern of DNFs.

 

Take my own hides as an example. They're mostly T2.5 or higher and a fair number are D2 or higher. I've had something like 60 DNFs across them all, but only one was due to a missing cache. Another was technically still there but buried under a rockfall. For the rest, the cache was fine, it was just that the searcher didn't find it for whatever reason. Some have cited approaching storms, failing light, the presence of muggles, tired kids, no internet access, terrain too tough, others have just not seen it on their first attempt. DNFs are part of the game. We have an NM log for reporting that a cache might be missing, why can't that be used for its intended purpose?

I don't know.  Since you have a high D/T cache you tell me?   For me three dnfs prompts me to go take a look but again mine aren't overly difficult.   I also try to check up on my caches at least twice a year so I have a point of reference when someone posts a MN or DNF.  I realize that's not feasible for some of your caches and I wouldn't expect you to go running out for every dnf.     There has to be accountability for all caches and I do agree that it needs to be determined using a sliding scale.   Question is what's reasonable?        

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

No, multiple DNFs should only be a red flag on very easy caches. Difficult caches should be getting multiple DNFs. A D5 traditional should almost only get DNFs.

I understand what your saying but giving D5 caches a pass isn't the right way to go.   Although I don't see why the D/T rating can't figure into how many dnfs a cache is allowed to have.     

[DNFs on a simple park and grab]

13 hours ago, niraD said:

Just maybe, it's about the system that generated those two "friendly" reminder emails.

 

Sure. And when they make rules and develop systems that hurt the game, we need to let them know what's broken, otherwise there is no chance that they'll fix anything.

I don't see the system as broken.  maybe I've just been lucky or maybe it's something else.   In the past year I've received one piece of correspondence from GS and that was an e-mail telling me my premium membership was due to expire.   We can continue to complain and GS can tweak this thing until it's completely useless.  We can remove it from the game and go on complaining about how GS isn't doing anything about bad cache owners.  Or we can give it a chance to develop and see what happens.    It doesn't surprise me when someone says "I haven't seen any improvements" as if any one thing could effect something this big overnight.    There's nothing wrong with trying to improve ones one situation but at what cost?  

 

If you were telling me that your were receiving e-mails daily and GS was archiving caches based on one dnf I'd say we had a problem.  If your telling me we need to scrap the whole project because a few people received an e-mail or two they should have.....