cezanne
-
Posts
6753 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cezanne
-
-
I don't search for caches with NM on them, and they can be filtered out easily. Hopefully this new health score will filter some out for good.
Actually many cachers do not search for caches with the last log being a DNF. I will not change however my approach of logging DNFs in the described cases.
I don't search for caches that the last log was a DNF, and filter them as well.
Then be glad that you do not live in my area as it makes not much sense to filter out a cache because I was not able to climb a tree, find the trail access, open a normal lock 99% of the people around me can open with ease etc.
When I see 3 DNF's in a row with no OM, then all of a sudden a mega numbers cacher with a canned log finds it, I suspect a Throwdown.
I hope you have a look at what the DNF loggers wrote. If they were all together and wrote that their car broke down, it's some unfair to suspect the next cacher to be mega numbers cacher who left a throwdown. It would also quite silly for the CO to post an OM log if I did not dare to climb a tree or the car of some cachers broke down.
-
I do see a NM that has not been cleared a problem even if the cache was repaired. If it's a simple matter of educating cache owners on how and why they need to post OML than lets push that. How is anyone including reviewers suppose to know if an owner is truly active if OML's aren't being issued?
First, I care about caches and not whether cachers are truly active.
Second, clearing NM attributes is not a reliable sign of the sort of activity that you probably care about.
There are cachers out there who log into gc.com each day, find hundreds of cache per year but do not take care of their caches.
There are cachers out there who log into gc.com only very infrequently, stopped to search for caches, but visit their caches with a reasonable frequency and only own active caches that are in good condition.
Fighting to get ownerless caches removed regardless of condition.
That's certainly a very controversial topic in the community.
I would not join in at all in such a fight.
I also rather have a muggle find a nice cache by chance than abandoned junk. As long as cachers visit a cache in good condition and report on the condition, the local community receives feedback on the condition and has some kind of control of what happens that will never be available for geolitter.
-
I don't search for caches with NM on them, and they can be filtered out easily. Hopefully this new health score will filter some out for good.
Actually many cachers do not search for caches with the last log being a DNF. I will not change however my approach of logging DNFs in the described cases.
Moreover I know that many cachers do not search for my caches as the description often sounds more complicated than the cache is - that's actually sometimes even intended by me. Whoever wants to filter out my caches is welcome to do so. Those for whom I hide my caches will not filter them out and that's fine.
-
I'm sensing some very strong feelings in support of throwdowns/litter and abandoned listings. But it's just a feeling I'm getting, I could be wrong.
No - I think you're dead right - we do have people here overtly coming out in support of wet boxes of filth because the smiley is more important.
I'm shocked and saddened
Certainly neither fizzymagic, nor barefootjeff nor myself do belong to that group. So who else who participated here?
Our lines of arguments were never about the smiley is more important for us.
When I mentioned that many care about the find, I did it to explain why I think that what you assume to be the main reason for the existence of many unmaintained caches that stay in that state over many months without anyone taking action is wrong - at least it is wrong in my area. I do not know yours.
What I wrote might be irrelevant for you as might be my recommendation: Do not expect too much from a health score system. It will not change how many in the community feel and act (and here I do not mean minority groups interested into remote caches etc), but mainstream cachers).
-
Sorry I stopped reading. Skimmed and saw my name. I don't think that a cache in perfect condition should be archived.
But you seem to insist that a NM attribute that does not get cleared is a serious issue that warrants a NA or reviewer intervention.
It begs the question....why are there 2 NM logs on a cache in perfect condition?
There could be many reasons. In my area for example it happens often that CO fix problems but do not bother to clear NM attributes and I do not have a problem with it.
It also could be that the NM log happened as a mistake and the cache owner did not want to react with OM before visiting the cache which is not really necessary if there is no issue. Personally I would not log OM for example only to neutralize a wrong NM log without having visited my cache.
I'm glad that I did not have the case that happened to others that someone posted a NM log saying that the bicycled allowed attribute should be removed because reaching the cache involves climbing a tree which was not possible to him with his bicycle shoes.
And then of course there are caches with a cache owner which is not currently reachable (could be illness, longer vacation or really left the game) where a minor issue showed up was posted like the log book is full when all backsides are still available. In such cases no intervention of anyone else is needed and certainly not a throwdown.
I'm against throwdowns but do not have an issue with things like if someone adds an additional log book in a container with ample space available.
If one archives a cache in perfect condition noone wins. The container is still out there and will not get removed. There is noone you could be annoyed or disappointed by a cache in good condition. So why do fight so fervently for getting rid of such caches?
I look at caches and try to judge them on the basis of their individual merit.
When real problems show up, it is early enough to take care about a cache. I cannot understand why I should bother about a cache that should also be a nice experience for a very selective cacher. It just seems that you do that out of principle.
-
You claim that a person not posting NA on a cache that's been nothing more than a box of wet filth is because they don't want the cache archived.
No I wrote "neither posted a NA nor contacted a reviewer" which makes a difference. Moreover I happened to have questioned cachers I know
and I often get the reply that any cache in any condition is better than no cache - in particular that holds true for the majority of streakers (not all) I'm familiar with.
-
I have a question for you: Would you also log NA if you encountered a cache in perfect condition which carried the NM attribute since say 2 years?
No - I wouldn't. Could you quit with the pointless questions now?
Lone.R apparently thinks that this a reason for archival too. That's why I wanted to know your opinion.
Which is why humans are still an integral part of the system. Could you quit repeatedly stating the obvious now?
They are but at a point where it might already be too late. If a cache owner decided to archive his/her cache and not to hide any new ones, it does not help that at a later stage human reviewers would have been involved.
Flawed logic. False equivalence. Just because a person doesn't pull the trigger does not mean they would not welcome the cache being archived - it just means they chose not to be the person who pulled the trigger.
I do not think so as when writing to the reviewer noone except the reviewer will ever learn who pulled the trigger.
Moreover when I talk to people I often get the reply that a find is a find. It is also supported by the fact that at least in my country cachers start to rush out to a cache that is in danger of getting archived due to its bad condition. They do not act along the lines "I want to avoid caches in a bad condition and I welcome if this cache disappears soon and will not visit it now". Instead they act like "Oh this cache could become unavailable soon. So let's hurry up, change our plans and log this cache as later it will be too late". You can also observe the same pattern if a cache gets published that violates the guidelines and people know that sooner or later it will disappear.
-
Dnfs are one of the things that would need to be tweaked. Doesn't mean the idea is a bad one.
I just cannot think of a reasonable way to do it.
So far noone has argued why the mere presence of DNFs should say something about the cache health.
The same message is sent by some cachers as note - why take it more seriously and take it into account when someone else uses the DNF log type?
I think everyone can understand your arguments but caches like yours are in the minority and don't represent the bulk of the caches that are out there.
When I wrote about the effects on myself I had cachers and not caches in mind. I'm much more concerned about the caches hidden by others than my own caches.
I do not think that the number of cachers who use DNF for every sort of failure during their search is that small. That said it implies that it is not just about tweaking a threshold for the number of DNFs. There is a whole lot more involved and as long DNF has not a well defined meaning which is the same for everyone automatic approaches will not be very successful.
-
Me too. That's exactly what I would do.
What happened though is that several people over the two years it was a state logged NM and added photographs until EVENTUALLY someone pulled the NA trigger - but two years is a long time.
I have a question for you: Would you also log NA if you encountered a cache in perfect condition which carried the NM attribute since say 2 years?
Human intelligence can easily distinguish between the cases.
I rather would want to wait until someone logs NA for your example mentioned above (if noone logs NA and noone alerts a reviewer privately it is apparently because the involved people did not want the cache to be archived) than ending up with an automatic procedure which also affects caches that are in good condition.
-
I don't remember anyone suggesting the need to run out and check on a cache because of a single dnf.
The mails that are sent to people like Barefootjeff do that where of course archive is another option mentioned.
I would consider myself a typical run of the mill cache owner. How would this rating system inconvenience me?
Are you only a cache owner? Don't you search for caches too? It very heavily would affect me even if I did not own a single cache.
-
This has already been mentioned and accepted.
There is no need to clog the thread with multiple repetitions of this information.
Your points have been duly noted.
Noone has however suggested anything that could help to take this into account in an automatic approach (not surprising to me) and the discussion is about the latter.
-
It may inconvenience a select few, you being one of them, but in the grand scheme of things it could do more good than bad.
That's our claim which is not backed up by any proof or evidence.
I know many cachers who write DNF logs which have no implication in the cache health.
And all owners of caches that are harder to get to I know would be inconvenienced.
All all owners of really difficult caches.
And then to add, I'm not at all convinced about the positive effects of an automatic system like that for the cachers out there on a large scale. Cache health is improved by cache owners who take care (=humans) and not by electronic stuff.
-
So if the NM was valid you'd disable the cache and post a note as to when you think you could fix it.
I would disable the cache if required. Certainly not if the log book is wet for example and can be signed anyway.
The request for assistance is also a good idea for a cache like this.
All this is in line with being an active cache owner. The cache score seems to be designed to address this very behavior, or lack of.
So now we are back at my main point. In my opinion the cache score does not do a good job - it will inconvenience and affect the wrong cachers.
It does not make sense for example to discourage cachers to log DNFs or to force them to change their habits when they log a DNF.
A human can easily judge the case depending on what is logged - a machine can't.
As asking if someone could help out or the situation that a cacher out there decides on his/her own to e.g. provide a new log book is regarded, that's something cachers like Lone.R apparently frown upon. I mentioned the case because I think that while some rules obviously make sense for all caches, we cannot handle an urban nano with 10 visits per week in the same way than a remote hiking cache with 2 visits a year. The maintenance requirements are different not in the sense that for one cache no maintenance is necessary but just the time schedule is different and also the willingness of other cachers to help out depends on the cache.
-
Would you run out and check on a mountain cache if someone posted a Needs Maintanance?
No. Depending on the contents of the log I first would ask for details and then I would write a note with a contents depending on the situation.
If a visit were required I would mention that I would try to visit the cache as soon as it fits into my schedule or the conditions allow it.
I own caches which I cannot reach under all conditions (e.g. ice and snow) - some physically more able people could reach it all year long but not myself.
In such a case I might even add to the note that if someone feels comfortable with a winter visit and could help me out, I would be grateful.
I try to react quickly and not to ignore any log or mail sent to me. However this does not mean that I regard rushing out to visit a cache as something urgent except under very special circumstances. If someone decides to archive a cache it is lost forever - if this person needs 1 month in addition to fix the cache, I have nothing to lose and it's pretty much clear what I prefer.
-
Completely agree as well, but I think it misses the point of this thread, which is to talk about our *feelings* on the subject, and not based on any actual facts. So let's get back on topic and talk about how we feel about this new tool
So you do not regard it as fact that there are many cachers out there who feel that this sort of algorithm threatens their habit to log DNFs in cases where it is obvious that no maintenance is required?
What puzzles me is how you know no maintenance is required if you didn't find the cache
There are even quite a number of cases when I saw the container but could not reach it or did not dare to go there.
Moreover, I think that it's quite absurd if the owner of a cache would use a DNF by me caused by me not finding the right trail to the cache or me ending up at bogus coordinates due to stupidity as reason to pay a visit to his/her cache. Of course a cache could go missing at any time but my DNF logs are more often than not something which is not to be thought as a good trigger for a cache check.
You could also decide to take a DNF log by someone who pressed go on his GPS and then the car broke down 10km from the cache as trigger for a maintenance visit like you could visit your cache every time when there is a full moon.
It would be a bad idea to use such DNFs as triggers for automatic tools like you would not use the moon condition for such an algorithm.
You need to take into account that some of us use DNF for writing about failures. Like I do not log a find if I actually found the container but only if I signed the log, I log DNF if I did not manage to sign the log and explain why.
-
Completely agree as well, but I think it misses the point of this thread, which is to talk about our *feelings* on the subject, and not based on any actual facts. So let's get back on topic and talk about how we feel about this new tool
So you do not regard it as fact that there are many cachers out there who feel that this sort of algorithm threatens their habit to log DNFs in cases where it is obvious that no maintenance is required?
-
If your a responsible cache owner why would any of this threaten you at all?
I have already explained that I also feel affected when I search for caches and write my logs.
My way of logging makes it absolutely necessary to read what I wrote. I do not want to change my logging approach.
I still want to write a DNF log whenever I have done that up to now.
I also defend the right of a group of 12 people to log each a DNF if they made a mistake when caching as a group.
Noone would ask them to issue only one found it log and ask the others to write a note or do not log at all.
To me this is about cache maintenance. I admit, hiking caches are a special situation and require a little more tact when dealing with them. On the flip side the owners of these caches should be held to the same standard as everyone else.
It may reduce these types of hides but only because cache owners might stop and think. "If I hide this, will I be able to maintain it properly?" It's all about getting people to take maintenance seriously.
There are apparently different understandings what it means to maintain a cache properly.
If the owner of a hiking cache places a reasonable container and is willing to visit the cache when it fits into their schedule and when weather conditions and personal safety conditions allow it and a visit is necessary, then that's I regard as proper maintenance. I'm fully ok with someone leaving a new pencil, a new log book and even a new container to replace the old one (upon agreement with the cache hider) and I do not think that in such cases the owner did a bad maintenance job.
If proper maintenance means for you to rush out for the cache a few hours or at most two days after a DNF log comes in, then that's your own idea of proper maintenance.
If done right, simply maintaining my caches should result in a high cache score, which is something I should be doing anyway.
So you would run out to check a cache on a mountain which requires you to spend a full day whenever a cacher like me logs a DNF?
I appreciate if cache owners take care about their caches but rushing to check a cache after I wrote a DNF is a waste of time exceppt in certain cases where I contact the CO separately. It would also absurd to log an armchair OM log after each DNF of a cacher like myself. So what is a reasonable approach in your opinion?
-
1488452948[/url]' post='5639133']1488447462[/url]' post='5639120']
As long as cache owners check on their caches regularly, I don't see the problem. I don't know how the algorithm works, but I'm assuming that 10 DNFs on a 1/1 cache will lose a lot more points than 5 DNFs on a 5/5 cache. And a cache with that many DNFs needs attention, simple as that.
No, it's not simple. One of my caches (a 2.5/2) had 11 DNFs over its lifetime and not one of them had anything to do with the cache needing attention. It was well-camouflaged, that's all. And doing frequent checks on high-terrain caches isn't trivial either and is hardly warranted when the DNF log says "I could see it in its hiding place out over the edge of the cliff but wasn't game to climb down there."
2.5/2? Sounds like it may be at least a 3.5/3.5.
Have you been there?
I often end up with DNFs for cache which do not have a high D rating and where I fully agree with the rating.
Last year I had a DNF for a TB hotel because I could find the right access on foot in the dark without a map. Once at GZ the next day it was a find within seconds.
-
As you mention character flaws: Writing a NM log for a cache that requires say a 8 hours hike back and forth and mentioning that the log book is full and doing nothing about it would seem pretty harsh and unfriendly to me.
I tend to agree.
If I were going to hike 8 hours to get to a cache (which has never and I highly doubt will ever happen - and I suspect this to be true for the vast majority of cachers) I would definitely take spare logbooks.
Hopefully that can draw this additional tangent to a close and we can get on with the discussion proper.
The 8 hours were meant for the whole hike, not only to the cache in the nowhere. With that sort of scenario the group of cachers doing such caches is reasonable large and too large to ignore that group.
As to the above "the logbook full" was just an example. What fizzymagic wrote was more of an expression how it seems appropriate to him to deal with remote caches than an expression of supporting cachers who are not willing to maintain their caches. That's not a tangent but a key issue here.
-
I have a feeling this has just been introduced to help the reviewers. I read a post written by a Spanish reviewer the other day which said that he had 500 pages of caches that needed maintenance in his area. Perhaps this system is just to help them prioritise which caches need attention first.
Not very logical as the mails are sent out to the COs.
Has anyone had a cache archived that was actually in perfectly good condition?
Maybe better ask: How many cachers have archived caches in perfectly good condition?
As long as cache owners check on their caches regularly, I don't see the problem. I don't know how the algorithm works, but I'm assuming that 10 DNFs on a 1/1 cache will lose a lot more points than 5 DNFs on a 5/5 cache. And a cache with that many DNFs needs attention, simple as that.
It would be quite absurd asking a cache owner to check their cache because I did not manage to get to the cache, could not open it or something else happening on my side.
We get lots of people who obviously read about caching somewhere, sign up, hide a cache, and then disappear. As they aren't well hidden, they disappear within a week. So they rack up numerous DNFs, but few people post a NA (I normally end up doing it). Once it has a NA, there are certain cachers from Madrid who post a found log when they haven't been anywhere near it, knowing that will end up getting archived. Hopefully this system will stop that from happening.
Typically that tends to happen in pretty urban areas. Why affect remote hiking caches by something which goes wrong in a completely different area with different participants?
-
I might be wrong but I have the feeling that the guidelines arise from ideas originally discussed and agreed by community members and I don't see any of the guidelines as representative of character flaws at all - quite the opposite in fact. I see them as a natural response to the desire to be involved in a hobby with standards we can all be proud of
I guess you are pretty much wrong.
I'm wrong about the guidelines having arisen from ideas originally discussed and agreed by community members?
Many parts of the guidelines are based on what plays a role for GS.
Other parts of course relate to issues that have been brought forward by cachers but the more geocaching expanded and the more heteregenous the community became the less agreement could be reached on nearly anything.
You will find noone who loves remote hiking caches who will agree that such caches and urban nano caches to have an example on the other line of the scale should be subject to the same time schedule and expectation with regard to maintenance works.
-
I might be wrong but I have the feeling that the guidelines arise from ideas originally discussed and agreed by community members and I don't see any of the guidelines as representative of character flaws at all - quite the opposite in fact. I see them as a natural response to the desire to be involved in a hobby with standards we can all be proud of
I guess you are pretty much wrong. The attitude that fizzymagic described that in case of a remote cache that needs help that he would try to do his best to improve the situation and would not log NM is pretty common among early time cachers and it's definitely not due to flawed character or due to not wanting to be proud of the development of geocaching.
There is a difference between not being willing to maintain a cache as a cache owner and building up some expectation about response times and cache container conditions which do not make sense for the type of cache fizzymagic talked about. Back then we did not have NM logs but still things worked out reasonably and it was more common that cachers tried to help out each other because they were cache owners too. Now one group of cachers is not willing to offer a helping hand at all in trying to improve the condition of a cache and one other large group is leaving throwdowns or new log sheets just to log a find but not to be help the cache owner.
I'm maintaining my active caches and I expect others to do the same. However I'm also trying to help other cache owners when I can and I received support from others several times which I appreciated. In my opinion the community as a whole is winning. It's a better caching world in my opinion than if anyone is strictly restricting his/her attention to the caches owned by them or is not owning caches at all (which becomes pretty common also among those who would well be able to hide nice caches but who just do not want to be bothered).
As you mention character flaws: Writing a NM log for a cache that requires say a 8 hours hike back and forth and mentioning that the log book is full and doing nothing about it would seem pretty harsh and unfriendly to me. I certainly would inform the CO of the situation but not via a NM log and even less when I did nothing to remedy the situation. For me it feels like telling an old lady that she dropped some items and then moving along and not helping her to pick up the items. I'm not saying that anyone who logs NM should feel that way - I describe how it feels in certain situations to me and I do not believe that this is due to a character flaw on my side.
The guidelines in the form they exist now have developped over many years and they are not the result of what the community agreed upon but rather a tribute to the mass development and exponential growth with which GS tried to cope with.
-
From your own example and others I've seen, it is clear to me the DNF algorithm is too "sensitive". But if the goal of the health score is to flag caches which are likely needing some attention, DNFs probably need to be part of it.
If some task is not ready for being automated, don't automate it.
If I see a cache with a single DNF, I think it could be missing. I'll look closer and read the log. If it is high difficulty, then 1 DNF doesn't say much to me, and would not put me off. If the hint says it is on the back of a sign, and there is only one sign within 500 feet, there had been many finds before without a DNF, and the DNF is from an experienced cacher, I'll think the cache is likely missing.
I hope you would read the logs. In my case it could be that I'm not tall enough and could not reach the cache or even could not see it. In both cases I would log a DNF. It also could be that I overlooked the cache which was easy for almost everyone else. It also could be that I made a mistake earlier and therefore not even searched at the right place and or realized mid way that my next stage coordinates or final coordinates could not be true.
It also could be that I failed to find the access to the next stage or the final and logged DNF for that reason.
It even could be that I stood in front of the container and had in my hands for more than 30 minutes but could not get to the log book. That could be for a gadget cache but it also happened for normal locks which were functional and not special tricky locks but I just was too stupid to open them as I'm not familiar with all sorts of locks and have two left hands so to say.
It is a very bad idea to let experience come in to the play. My DNFs should have a much lower significance than those of most cachers in my area with much less finds and considerably fewer years into geocaching.
Likewise if I see 10 straight DNFs by different people spread out over months on a cache which is low difficulty, that likely has an issue too. 10 DNFs on a a high difficulty cache with a history of many DNFs means something else.
A sequence of 10 DNFs spread over months for an easy cache is the only scenario where I agree with you. However that case is not too common and normally at least one NM then haws got logged.
So again why use the DNFs?
You can still use them on your personal level - that's perfectly ok.
You can decide to avoid a cache because it got 12 DNFs at the same day by a group of 12 people who looked at the wrong final coordinates of a multi or puzzle cache (with no checker).
You can decide to avoid a cache that got 3 DNFs in a row by me.
But by all means avoid to factor in such things into an algorithm which affects us all.
-
Was ist Eure Meinung bezüglich dem Publish?
1. Publish aller Dosen zum selben Zeitpunkt in Absprache mit dem Reviewer
2. Publish Dose für Dose so wie ich die Dosen nach und nach auslege
Ich persoenlich bevorzuge auch einen Multicache aber darum geht es hier nicht. Es gibt viele, die solche Serien gerne besuchen und Multicaches vorziehen. Dieses Zielpublikum hat aber definitiv keine Freude wenn es fuer insgesamt 10 Caches mehrfach in die Gegend kommen muss. Daher wuerde ich von Variante 2 abraten - sie wird nicht wirklich jemand erfreuen. Jene, die die Caches aufteilen wollen, koennen das auch tun wenn alle 10 auf einmal veroeffentlicht werden. In die andere Richtung funktioniert es aber nicht.
Geocache Health Score
in General geocaching topics
Posted
But if you read past logs, then why do you systematically filter out caches with the last log being a DNF or with 3 DNFs in a row regardless of what the logs say?