justintim1999
-
Posts
2427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by justintim1999
-
-
14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
As I've said many times, I got one as a result of just one DNF. Nothing else; the cache was only 7 weeks old. Max and 99 just reported getting one after one DNF that was followed by a find. I don't know why it's picking out certain caches that just have one DNF, but it's happened and is still happening.
If that's true than obviously something needs to be fixed. Has anyone contacted their reviewer or GS for clarification?
-
16 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
Turning this around, you indicated earlier that you've never received one of the "friendly reminder" email message from the CHS, yet are perfectly willing to characterized those the may have received CHS email messages that are false positive, and merely wish that GS could improve the contents of the message and/or improve their algorithm to reduce the number of false positives as "going off the deep end".
How many were not false positives? The e-mail is obviously automatically triggered when a cache has reached some set of criteria right? So there has to be something about the cache that should be looked at. That's basically all the e-mail is asking the cache owner to do. We can debate tweaking those criteria but the idea of the reminder e-mail isn't what some are making it out to be. In other words it's not that big of a deal.
-
8 minutes ago, niraD said:
I'm surprised that you still think it's just about those two emails that coachstahly received.
What else is it about. Big brother? Power to the people? If that's the argument than spare me. This is a game and they make the rules. If I don't like it I can pack up my things and go home. I'm willing to live within their guidelines and I'm happy. We all have a choice, unfortunately some choose to complain.
-
4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
What? Seriously? If issues arise and it attracts the attention of a reviewer, it can still go through the archival process, just like all the rest of the caches out there. I'm not saying that higher D/T caches don't have problems. What I am saying is that there are FAR less of them to deal with so starting with a MUCH larger subset of caches with the likelihood of more problems seems to be the quickest way to address cache quality for the majority of the cachers that cache.
The only difference is that the majority of cache owners can take a leisurely stroll and check up on their cache. High D/T caches not so much. In turn anything that may increase the chance of having to potentially visit the cache site (like the CHS) is a bad thing. I get it but we can't simply ignore potential cache issues just because it's inconvenient to check up on them. That doesn't send the right message either. So what else can be done?
-
4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
I have yet to see the vast majority of caches that would benefit from this email actually benefit the cachers who find them. In that regard, I believe it's not working as hoped. Why should owners of higher D/T caches, who are usually, but not always, cachers who are invested in the game, bear a disproportionate amount of the issues and probably a large majority of the false positives, with no recourse to send an email to TPTB saying it was sent erroneously?
As to what to do, I believe niraD posted the most logical solution. How about we start off with the vast majority of caches (1.5/1.5 or something close) as the ones to target with this and exclude caches above a certain D/T. Once that large majority of caches gets cleaned up or archived, then we can worry about the higher D/T caches.
Just because you haven't' noticed it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Have you ever been a reviewer? We've had a few reviewers chime in on the subject and from what I gather it helps them do their job. But I guess their testimony doesn't count because you personally haven't seen a benefit. In fact you've been a victim of the negative aspect of the activity so it must be all bad right?
-
2 minutes ago, niraD said:
Do you really think that there have been only two false positives where the "friendly" email reminder was sent when the logs indicated nothing wrong with the cache?
Not at all. You're just admitting that there is a difference between properly maintaining a cache and appeasing the CHS algorithm.
I don't think owners of caches visible to basic members should be expected to pop over just because someone logged a DNF either, but at least its easy for the owners of such caches to do so. The fact that it is non-trivial for owners of challenging caches to pop over just because someone logged a DNF illustrates the foolishness of expecting this behavior as part of proper cache maintenance.
If I had to guess I'd say there were many of these e-mails sent out and I'm sure some of them were false positives. I'm just surprised that Coachstahly has only received two and that seems to be enough to send him/her off the deep end on the subject. You keep talking as if just one dnf causes all this to happen. Believe it or not I've had two dnf's on one of my caches at some point and never received anything from GS.
-
2 hours ago, niraD said:
Hmm... Maybe that would be a solution. What if the "friendly" reminder were sent only to caches visible to basic members in Groundspeak's Geocaching app? Caches with a difficulty/terrain rating greater than 1.5 (or is it 2.0 now?) would be exempt. That way, the "friendly" reminder could improve things for the vast majority, where it is "necessary", and the owners of the more rare and endangered challenging caches could be left alone.
Although I'm not going to laugh at that suggestion because I think there are things like this that could be done, I have to say all cache owners should be considered equal . Therefor the rules and guidelines should apply to all.
Also by doing something like this you're basically admitting that It's just too much of a pain to maintain caches with a high D/T, and by owning one you're somehow exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us. Unfortunately in some cases it may just be the case and that dose make me sad.
So what do we do about it?
-
.png)
2
-
-
3 hours ago, niraD said:
Too bad that isn't presented as an option in the text of the "friendly" reminder itself.
I think It's kind of like the ignore button. If there is one most will opt to use it instead of actually looking into the possible issues.
-
4 hours ago, coachstahly said:
Yes, two. Both times were false positives, the most recent being the one I've referenced on the other thread. Most of the time the cachers in my area email or text me with any issues they might be having on one of my caches. Most of my OM logs are due to that rather than a NM log.
Again I ask, why should I be asked to perform maintenance on a cache solely on the basis that it hasn't been found? Aren't cachers encouraged to log their DNFs? Why does a DNF detract from the overall score of a cache? If it's solely to alleviate the possibility that it's missing, then why isn't every cache pinged in the same manner? As I've mentioned before, there are plenty of 1.5/1.5 caches with DNFs AND NM logs that are still limping along while my 2.5/2, which has never had a NM log, is pinged for something possibly being wrong, without any means to let GS know that it was a false positive.
I realize that there's no way for us to know who has or hasn't received one of these emails, so that's a moot point. However, I've yet to see, at least in my area, a decline in caches that are probably MIA or in rough shape, that have been disabled and/or archived by a reviewer. Perhaps our reviewer (we have one for the entire state) has too much on his plate and just doesn't have time for this. I fully understand that (he's been great so no complaints from me on that front), but to claim that this should improve cache quality is something I've yet to see.
So we're all up in arms about two e-mails?
The answer to why is because I believe the vast majority of caches that would benefit from this e-mail are owned by people who may not be as dedicated to the activity as you and I.
I think that the CHS was implemented to help the woefully understaffed review department as a way to try to increase cache quality and deal with the millions of caches now out there.
For the most part I'm on your side. Owners with high D/T caches are having to absorb a disproportionate amount of the issues caused by the CHS but that doesn't mean it's not making a positive impact.
The question is do we trash it because it may negatively effect some caches or do we try to look at the bigger picture?
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, coachstahly said:
Really? A change in D/T rating will magically increase finds and reduce DNFs? The only way it will reduce DNFs is if it "scares" more cachers away from trying.
It may stop some new caches from trying to find caches that are beyond they're abilities. Some caches that are available on the free app probably shouldn't be.
-
On 9/8/2018 at 3:15 PM, coachstahly said:
Why should your first thought be that you should take a look at what's going on with your cache if you placed it in such a manner that would preclude any possible issues? I received one of these emails recently and KNEW that the stage everyone was missing was there in place and still waiting to be found. The ONLY reason it could be missing was rain of a biblical proportion, and that hasn't happened. Sure enough, there it was, right where I had placed it, just a little bit more difficult due to some natural camouflage creep. I never had any intention to archive it but if I keep getting these reminders (sorry, they're not friendly but I don't think they're un-friendly either), particularly on this cache, I'll consider it. Why should I be required to take action on a cache I've placed to be as muggle proof as possible and has existed in one form or another (it's the same location I had for another cache of mine that I ended up archiving as the series wound to an end) for over 6 years and has NEVER gone missing, even though I couldn't find the original stage on a maintenance visit, put out a replacement, and then subsequently found the original when another cacher mentioned finding two containers at the location in a private email?
Nowhere did anyone say that they weren't going to maintain them. The issue appears to be that it's increasing maintenance, to some extent, for those with higher D/T rated caches, when there are countless 1/1s and 1.5/1.5s that appear to limp along for much longer than can be explained. You even admit, in the next paragraph, that the CHS could be a "greater burden" on higher D/T caches than others. Higher D rated caches, are, by their very rating, HARDER to find and will incur more DNFs than lower rated D caches. Why does that mean there should be a bigger maintenance burden on the higher D cache than the lower one? How does that equally "apply to all"? We obviously don't know which COs and which caches have been sent the automated email, so there's no real way to know, but with all the 1.5/1.5 caches in my area that have NM logs and/or multiple DNFs that are still limping along, I find it odd that I'm being asked to do something to my perfectly fine cache that's a 2.5/2 while there are 6 1.5/1.5 caches with red wrenches (30% on the very first page of my PQ of 1.5/1.5 caches) that haven't been attended to and that have multiple finds and multiple DNFs and are still in play.
I haven't even addressed your positive log comment. I wish I had all positive logs, but that's far from the truth. The most recent CHS email regarding the cache in question, while not a great cache, uses public art at the first stage, a moderately difficult second stage hide, with a higher T than the other two stages, and a themed final container. 2 favorite points in 18 finds, generally neutral logs, and a few one or two sentence comments with not much substance.
Multiple DNFs are expected for higher D/T rated caches. Even if you adjust it, you're still going to get DNFs, which in turn lower the CHS, which in turn could spit out more automated CHS emails. I fail to see how doing what you suggest will create less DNFs. Changing a D/T rating won't suddenly create more finds on a difficult cache. Are you implying that a higher D rating, due to the CO adjusting the rating because of the DNFs, will decrease the traffic to the cache in question, reducing the possible DNFs and then reducing the possible CHS automated emails? If so, then this point supports the notion that geocaching doesn't want these higher D/T types of caches around.
Multiple DNFs don't irritate me as a CO, especially on the harder caches I've placed. I expect DNFs. NM logs don't irritate me as I expect to get those from time to time and have replacement containers ready to go, in most cases. What I don't expect are emails that let me know something might be wrong, based on people logging DNFs (as they should when they can't find the cache), when I'm pretty sure that there's nothing wrong with the cache. I've received two of the emails and both times there was nothing wrong with the cache, as I expected.
Hello Max and 99,
Your geocache, Mrs. Wiggins, Secratary to Mr. Tudball (GC6X5M7), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:- Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find.
- Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing. Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an “Owner Maintenance” log.
-
Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.
For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.
Thanks,
Geocaching HQI hide and place my caches so I have to do as little maintenance as possible. I use good containers. I place them where muggles are unlikely to venture and those that are muggled get archived or moved as I have no intention of providing containers for non-geocachers. I hide them in a manner that will hopefully ensure that they stay in place regardless of what mother nature throws at them. I expect DNFs and the occasional NM logs. I don't expect to receive emails from GS, implying that something might be wrong with my cache, and that maintenance is needed. For those of you who wholeheartedly believe that you don't have to do anything, please show me in the above letter, which was exactly like mine, except with a different CO name and a different cache, where it says you don't need to do anything. "might" is the only word in there that hints at the idea nothing could be done because there's nothing wrong. However, the entire rest of the email is about what you as the CO could do and no mention that you also have the option to do absolutely nothing and everything will be just fine. Their assumption is that something is, indeed, wrong with the cache. Adding insult to injury, at least in my situation, is that I haven't had ANY NM logs on the cache in question, only DNFs on a stage that was designed to be harder, yet remain secure in place. Therefore, the previous logs only show that it wasn't found. Why should I be asked to perform maintenance solely on the basis that a cache hasn't been found?
Preclude any possible issue? If you've been around a while you know there's no such thing. Have you ever received on of these e-mails?
-
On 9/7/2018 at 10:41 PM, 321geocache said:
I posted an OM log.
Looks like the cache was found two days ago, so that's good. Probably will keep the D/T rating the same.
Will watch the debate in this topic.
Nice work. OM logs are a cache owners (and finders) best friend.
-
On 9/7/2018 at 4:00 PM, niraD said:
Everyone reads that e-mail based on their own personal experience. If so many people are "definitely not taking it at face value", then perhaps it needs to be edited so that its "face value" is more clear to people with varying personal experience.
Or maybe all these people are indeed "taking it at face value", and the "just a friendly reminder" crowd is the one reading into it based on their own personal experience.
I've read the e-mail and unless it has changed I still don't see what the outrage is all about. There is nothing in that message that makes me feel like I'm being harassed. If problem is constantly receiving the e-mail then we can discuss.
-
On 9/7/2018 at 3:34 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:
You're making a lot of assumptions. No where did I suggest that placing a high d/t cache mitigates ones responsibility to maintain their cache. A high terrain rating (based on distance/elevation) does make it more difficult to maintain (or, more accurately, visit the cache location after receiving that friendly email), and a higher difficulty rating does, by definition, lead to a higher number of DNFs (which is a factor in the CHS). The annoyance that some CO's may have is *not* that they have to maintain their caches, it's the repeated friendly reminders, which they can't ignore, that they must take some sort of action on caches that do *not* require maintenance.
You're also assuming that a CO that has put a lot of time, energy, and creativity in their hides is getting "all the positive logs". One of the factors that might lead to a CO archiving their logs is that they're *not* getting "all the positive logs". I do know how this game works (I've been playing it for 11 years) and have watched the big picture change. Geocaching for quantity has become the trend, logs have just become an obligatory step to get credit for a find, practices such three cache monty and divide and conquer have become an acceptable way to play the game, as long is it's in the pursuit of a high daily find count. Large areas are saturated with easy fungible finds, making it impossible to geocache in some areas for those that prefer a focus on quality instead of quantity.
A CO with a cache with a high number of DNF may already have a D/T rating which accurately reflects the cache. Adjusting the D/T ratings isn't going to change the number of DNFs, and the result may be that the caches is overrated (IMHO, a D3 cache *should* have a small percentage of DNFs) One can, however reduce the number of DNFs they receive on their caches by placing caches that are easy to find. DNF's and even NMs could also be reduced by allowing others to drop a throwdown or accept a photo log, or a Found It when the cache is actually missing. A CO that takes pride in the quality of their hides is unlikely someone that want's to see the game dumbed down to the point that everyone gets a find on every cache.
Maybe part of the problem is a disconnect with your local reviewer. If it did have a high D/T cache and was receiving this reminder e-mail I'd look at the logs and determine whether or not a visit was required. If I thought the cache was fine I'd simply ignore it. If my reviewer disagreed we'd have a discussion about it. If they still thought a check was in order I'd go out and do that. Point is regardless of what I may think, my reviewer has the final say and if they're convinced I should check up on it I will.
I don't spend hours upon hours of my time designing caches with the primary goal of self aggrandizement. In other words I don't need constant praise to continue doing what I'm doing. To me find counts are much more important than favorite points.
If your D/T accurately reflects the cache than by all means don't change it. I know of a few that are rated much too low and probably receive more dnfs than they should. Adjusting the D/T on these caches would help reduce dnfs.
I get this type of response mainly from long timers who either can't or won't change their perception of what they think Geocaching is today. Instead of changing with the times they choose to cling to the past. Geocaching will never be like it was 15 years ago. It's not possible. Technology and the sheer number of players has seen to that. This automated e-mail is a direct result of those changes and IMO necessary in dealing with the vast majority of caches that are out there today, the majority of them being low D/T.
The Geocaching app is a perfect example. I think it was a good idea because it opened up Geocaching to many more people. I think it was a bad idea for the same reason. The difference is I'm willing to deal with the issues the app has created and change how I operate within the system. I'm willing to endure a couple of e-mails because overall I think they have a positive effect on a much bigger segment of the cache owner community.
I wonder how many people have actually received this e-mail? I'd also like to know of those who have, how many were justified?
So to bring this full circle I'd first like to apologize to the OP for derailing yet another post. I'd also like to congratulate them on placing the cache and actually caring about people finding it. Continue keeping an eye on your cache and if you think there's a problem check it out and make a few changes. Also, don't be afraid to contact your reviewer if the need arises. Regardless of how they are portrayed here in the forums they are Geocaching fans as well and are there to help.
-
2 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
Since you haven't received one of those "friendly reminders" you haven't received any for a cache which you know has no issues. I see that your highest rated caches have a D3 rating, and one has no DNFs. Now a imagine a responsible CO that maintains their caches well, but has several D3 or higher caches that rack up DNFs (as a higher difficulty rating should) that lead numerous "friendly reminders" on caches that need no maintenance. Now imagine that you also put a lot of time and effort to create unique caches, and due the increasing emphasis on numbers caching, you get a lot of logs that consist only of a TFTC or an emoji, and a general impression that the effort that you've put in creating high quality caches just isn't appreciated. There may be numerous incidents that add up. Even though you agree that the email may just be a contributing factor (which assumes that there may be other factors), you're still claiming that it's the email that has caused an archived, and for that the CO should be insulted.
I disagree with the notion that they're simply friendly reminders. A simple reminder can be ignored. Ignoring email messages which suggest that they should take some action is likely going get a reviewer response of some kind. Ignoring reviewer requests will get ones caches archived.
I know it's a tough pill to swallow but here it is. If you're going to place high d/t caches than be prepared to maintain them like any other cache. You do understand that the rules and guidelines need to apply to all right? Dose that little, probably automated, e-mail reminder really outweigh all the positive logs I'm sure your caches receive?
Most of what we're seeing from GS was not intended to target your type of caches although I agree it could put a greater burden on those owners. Most of you are big boys and girls. You know how this game works and should be able to understand the bigger picture here.
What are these numerous incidents you speak of? Multiple dnfs? Adjust your D/T. Multiple NMs? Upgrade the container, hide it better or put in a bigger log.
If any of these things irritate you than you should archive your caches because this is all part of being a cache owner. What else would cause you to archive your caches other than you don't want to be bothered with them anymore?
-
9 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:
The email is not friendly. It lists possible actions, one of which (it is implied) you MUST take. But we've been over this a thousand times. It appears that you would be happy if there were no difficult, hard to reach caches, as long as you don't have to deal with the trauma of a wet log. Others disagree.
Now now. You know that's not true. I'd like to see as many caches out there as can be properly maintained. I'm surprised you used the example of a wet log. That's a perfectly good reason for a NM as well as an owner visit.
Maybe your reading into that e-mail based on your own personal experience. You're definitely not taking it at face value.
-
17 minutes ago, niraD said:
I don't think the "nasty e-mail" was the sole reason, but it definitely was the straw that broke the camel's back.
There have been many developments over the years that have given these cache owners the impression that Groundspeak and/or the geocaching community no longer support their kind of caches. Then they get an email from Groundspeak telling them to fix the cache (when they see no reason for the cache to need fixing) or to archive the cache. They decide to stop "fighting city hall" and archive the cache.
And the geocaching community is poorer for the loss.
I'm not saying it couldn't have been a contributing factor, It very well may have been. My view is this. If that particular e-mail (which is really nothing more than a friendly reminder) would cause you archive your caches you're probably not cut out to be a cache owner. What's going to happen when the real maintenance work needs to be done?
I applaud the OP for checking up on the cache at the first hint of an issue. I just hope they posted an owners maintenance log each time they did.
If I received one of these friendly e-mail reminders my first thought would be "I should take a look at what's going on with my cache" not "This is too much, I need to archive it".
To me the former is the mindset of someone who wants to be a cache owner. The latter is someone who likes the idea of being one.
-
39 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
That's BS. There seems to be this prevailing attitude that once some starts geocaching and in this case becoming a CO, that'll be a life long obsession. I've been avidly engaged in a lot of activities, and eventually my interest has waned. I'm pretty sure that I'm not unique in this regard.
If a cache owner isn't enjoying being a cache owner for *any* reason they are under no obligation to continue to be a cache owner nor explain to anyone why they've decided to bow out. When their interest was high they may have been an excellent cache owner, and to claim that "you're not cut out to be a cache owner" is just rude.
This was in response to fizzymagic intimating that the reason the cache was archived was because of the "nasty e-mail". I think that's BS.
-
On 9/2/2018 at 9:15 PM, learn2mine said:
I would love to keep them around because we don't have that many around our area.... And there carefully laid out.... How can you tell they live close around tho... And that they will keep them up. Some people lay Caches like a chicken lays eggs... And they don't keep them up...
Free range Geocaches
-
.png)
1
-
-
On 9/5/2018 at 3:52 PM, The A-Team said:
If someone chooses to overreact, they have every right to do so.
To me, this sounds like someone who doesn't enjoy being a CO anymore and has been looking for an excuse to bow out.
That's how I see it. If at the first sign of trouble you pack up your things and walk away, maybe you're not cut out to be a cache owner. You need a little more chutzpah than that.
-
You can't stop those who choose to cheat the game so the question becomes, are the future cachers who will play the game right worth it?
-
I'd love to go caching with ya but I live in Massachusetts. By the time I get to Utah you'll be a seasoned veteran.
Have fun and be safe.
-
I've only found one cache that contained decoys and I didn't mind them at all. In fact, for me, it added to the overall enjoyment of the cache.
-
22 hours ago, hzoi said:
Earthcaches and virtuals are more welcome, though. I own two ECs on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. It took a couple weeks for the first one to get approved; second one was much quicker. All it took was a phone call to the right person and a professional follow-up email with a print-to-PDF of the draft cache description.
This is the route I'd go. If you do receive permission and are dead set on placing a physical cache there, please take the time to understand and accept the limitations involved. The idea of keeping the cache simple and within close proximity of a trail will go a long way toward protecting the natural habitat. It will also win you points with the powers to be and possibly make hiding additional caches in that location possible. Good luck.
.png)
.png)
DNFs on a simple park and grab
in General geocaching topics
Posted
IMO a dnfs should be included in calculating the overall health of a cache. How much should they be counted is up for debate. I think what gets lost here is that multiple dnf have always been a red flag. Their original intent was to help determine if a cache was indeed missing. If used properly it's useful information that shouldn't be dismissed.