cezanne

If that one cache happens to be like my recent caches then it can get very tiresome. And yes, my recent caches are well eligible to be done by beginners if they are used to hiking. I also enter waypoints manually relatively frequently but for caches with many waypoints it's already quite some work for a single cache. I'm relying on the send to gps method even when it comes to submitting my caches to this site and doublechecking that my waypoints are correct. When I cannot download any longer what I entered myself (after all my own data and work I invested from which GS profits in some way) that's increasing the risk that others will have to cope with mistakes - certainly not something which should appeal to GS.

I do not think at all that the described logging approach of fizzymagic influences your caching when on travel. I'm convinced that you do not go on the type of remote caches he has mentioned when on travel. It does not even seem to me that you often go for such hikes in your home region. In addition noone is saying that there needs to be a way to select caches only on the basis of attributes. You can be sure that someone would mention the condition of the container in a case as shown in the photo also when it were the most remote cache of the world. As such caches do not receive many logs it's possible to read all the logs and then it is very easy for you to avoid such caches. It is certainly harder to find out when the tenth cache out of 500 of a power series is in bad condition but then again you can avoid power series at all. Filtering them out can be tiresome except when GSAK or something of that type is used but a health score will not change that. A health score will also not change that we all have different expectations on what makes up a reasonably good experience for us. For many of those who love hiking caches that are either remote or where one needs to invest many hours to finally get to the destination it is far more important that such caches exist than whether the container is in perfect condition. The alternative would ultimately be no such caches. Who then has won anything? Not even those who never would go for such caches had won anything and neither you. I tried to defend some of your wishes in another discussion and also tried to come up with an idea what could help cachers like you without harming other cachers which is something which I regard as very important. While I do understand where you come from and why you are frustrated, please accept that there are many other approaches to geocaching too and that not your approach is better or more valuable than the approach of others.

I understand how you feel as my approach to logging DNFs is very similar´and I do share your concerns. My personal DNF rate for caches which are fine is higher than what you described for you. A very small minority of my DNF logs is for caches that are not any longer there. My DNF logs should not have any effect on any type of health score whatsoever and it would become even worse if they tried to factor in something like how many caches one has already found or for how many years one has already been into geocaching. There are some relatively new cachers with very few finds where when they log a DNF the probability that no cache is there is much higher. In my case DNF just means that I tried and failed - this includes many cases where I even saw the container or ended up at clearly wrong places in case of multi caches. I definitely do not want to have to change my way of logging DNFs after so many years. It just does not feel right to me. Along the same lines I also feel that health score algorithms of the type discussed here will not in the long run motivate more cachers to log NM - rather more cachers will proceed like what fizzymagic described in an attempt to not to risk that caches get lost that they rather want to have in the game. There is already too much pressure on owners of caches that are difficult to get. It's one thing that cache owners are required to maintain their caches and it's another to come up with rigorous rules and time schedules. If a remote cache that is visited say twice a year needs a new container, it does not need to be fixed immediately. One needs to think on another time line than for urban caches that get 20 visits per months and where a nano log book needs to be exchanged. I would prefer a system where one can honestly log and log as it fits to one's personal geocaching philosophy without endangering other caches and without contributing indirectly to demotivating those cachers who hide cache types that one likes.

Wait... Is that the definition of a "real" DNF now? I thought a DNF merely meant that "you looked for a geocache and you couldn't find it". Silly me... Semantics....you know what I mean. A DNF posted because there's a good chance, given the finder's description that the cache could actually be missing. There have been a few times that one DNF on one of our caches was 'real' in the sense that the cache was really missing. But that is the sort of interpretation a CO can make but no algorithm will ever be able to do. I do not want that my at least say 95 out of 100 DNFs where everything is alright are used in an inappropriate manner.

I see Armchair Maintenance on caches all the time. It will weed out ownerless listings with DNF's or NM. But you probably do not see the armchair maintenance logs coming from the typical owner of the type of hiking caches we are talking about here.

All my DNFs are real and the chance that the cache is gone is small. I intentionally do not leave a good description of where I looked. If I'm concerned about a cache, I might inform the cache owner where I looked and of course I would reply to questions of the cache owner.

(4) one also can sign up for being notified about new blog posts, then one does not need to pay active attention to the blog.

The goal of the system is to allow people impacted by bad caches to eliminated them when they want to. A bad cache tells us that, for whatever reason, they didn't want to, not that the system failed. Again, you need to think holistically and when you do and you remember that those people are part of the system you'll see that the system failed. One can interpret holistically in different ways. In many communities the community right now gets exactly what they want. A problem cache is only a problem cache if cachers regard it as problematic enough to report it with the means that are available (which also includes mails to the reviewers). I do not think that the main reason not many NA logs are written is a concern for being called cache cop but rather that for many cachers (in my area most) a cache that can be logged as find is more valuable as an archived cache. It's also amusing to see how many cachers rush out for a cache in terrible condition if they realize that there is a danger that the cache gets archived. They are not thinking along the lines "I'm looking forward that the cache gets archived soon and I do not waste my time to visit that cache. They visit the cache on purpose quickly in order to still be able to log a find."

And you view the idea of a rare automated email from Groundspeak as too much fuss? Not the e-mail in itself, but its contents (and in particular the way how it is formulated) and the reasons such e-mails are triggered (which will make DNF logs and DNF loggers even more unpopular). Moreover along the lines of what dprovan wrote I'm also thinking some steps ahead of what currently exists as this kind of health score system will not solve some of the systematic issues which come from the stance of many cachers and instead of accepting that GS will likely proceed on their way trying to automate what cannot be automated.

Maybe this will help weed out those that just place a geocache and expect not to have to maintain them? It will weed out many others. Take for example myself. I think I have proved that up to now I have been willing to maintain my caches. I contact every single cacher who logs a DNF for my one of my caches and I often also ask finders for more details on the condition of my caches. If I find out that a cacher has not even been at the right place but 1km from my final, then a DNF or 10 DNFs for a group of 10 people are completely harmless. There is no maintenance need. I'm willing to maintain my active caches but I'm not willing to deal with the negative effects of silly algorithms for which I have no demand. I rather think that the system will weed out more jewels than junk. DNFs for example for more complex or remote caches are posted in good faith and might lead to perfectly well maintained caches being affected. Many caches with problems will not be affected, at least not in my area. There are many caches out there where there is no container any longer and which are not disabled and are not flagged by NM or NA logs. The finders go there and log a found it after getting a log permission by the cache owners which still react to e-mails. Typically it happens for caches I have found long ago and so I will not interfere. I just happen to become aware of such incidents when looking through logs of some cachers in my area. GS's algorithm will never identify those caches. I'm sure that this approach works much better and has no negative effects.

Yes if implemented that way (not necessarily by the reviewers, often by the cache owners) and in the long run it will also further decrease the number of newly hidden such caches. While there might exist workarounds not every cache hider wishes to deal with this sort of fuss.

That guess would be wrong, unless there is additional "news" not yet posted to this thread. I did not mention anything religious here and I won't do as it does not fit here in this forum. I thought it would make sense to guess that the offensive part did not happen intentionally from GS's side but of course this was just speculation.

If it's not an exhaustive list, the mail is ill-formulated. This is my main point here. They do not mention that there other options as well which is very bad. My arguments are based on taking the options they offer as an exhaustive list and having to choose one of the options they list to be a complying cacher. The reviewers come into play much later.

First a single DNF does not mean there is necessarily something not quite right with the cache. Out of my last 20 DNFs only one cache was missing, all others were fine. Second, if GS wants me to consider contacting a reviewer or to write a note explaining the situation, they need to list another option in the mail they sent out and not only list archive, visit the cache within 14 days. If 3 DNFs come from me or cachers like me or a group, I would not start to be worried. As a cache owner I ask the logger of a DNF for details if not enough details are contained in the log. Recently I had a group of 12 people find a cache of mine - they just as well could have made a small mistake and I would have ended up with 12 DNFs and yet would know after having talked to them that they have not been at the right location. Of course 12 independent DNFs is a different thing. A human being can check that all 12 visits happened together - a computer cannot do that.

I think you must have confused something. Of course there are events at Doener places in Germany outside of the Doenerstag series. BTW: Are you familiar with the full story behind the 2007 Doenerstag events? The organizers tried to achieve the mega event status by trying to take together the participants of all Doenerstag events in Germany and some neighbouring countries (somehow a kind of virtual participation at the event in Berlin) and it has caused a large uproar in local German speaking forums that GS did not implement this stupid idea.

Why should someone do that? (By the way such mails can be sent also for caches with no NMs and no NA logs at all). Most cache hiders I know hide and maintain caches for the community and not for themselves. If GS is not any longer interested enough in having these caches on their site, then it's saving work and energy to remove them. I might try to contact a reviewer if I want to rescue a cache owned by someone else because I have some interest into it. I do not fear to lose a cache - I maintain them for others. Every cache I get rid of, makes me end up with less work. Right now the balance still works but when GS pushes things forward, it will not any longer be that way for me and others. There is no tough pill to swallow involved. I'm not unhappy with maintenance requirements but with the way how GS deals with this matter and there is an easy way out of that which however ultimately would cause GS a problem in the long run. I'm also extremely unhappy with the high importance of DNF logs which results from approaches like the one discussed here. I'd say that >90% of my DNF logs are for caches which are still there. Except in very special cases it's wasted time if a cache owner checks a cache after a DNF coming from me.

No not requests. maybe I should have used offered options. The suggestions need to cover all possible options. Before any reviewer will be able to do anything, people like me will have chosen already one of the suggested options. If only archiving, fixing and visiting a cache within 14 days are offered, then it's clear how I would act. The reviewer would not ever get a chance to get involved - I would act immediately. It's not about being annoyed - it's about following what the e-mail is asking for. If a reviewer writes a log on a cache and asks for reaction of a cacher within 30 (or even 14 days) their formulation typically includes the option that one reacts within the given period and explains one's plans. One might write I will visit the cache when the snow melted away or I will hide a new container when the construction site is closed or whatever. The text of what is currently send out is extremely unfortunate for those who wish to comply with what they are asked to do.

While I would take care of a NM attribute for one of my own caches I do not care at all what others do. I care about the actual condition of a cache and that I'm able to find caches of the type I enjoy. Geocaching just worked fine for many years without NM attributes and logs. From time to time I let cachers know that they might have forgotten to clear a NM attribute and tell them how to do it in case of new cachers. I do this however only because I know sometimes automatic approaches are used. Personally, I would not care the least. These e-mails are not available in all languages. I yet have to wait for those cachers who receive such mails and consider them as useful. Most cachers consider it as useful to be informed about the status of a cache, yes. I yet have to encounter cacher who regards it as useful to receive an automatic mail of the mentioned type.

I reckon with the right gearing ratios algorithms could include most if not all of the existing parameters and more and become fairly sophisticated with minimal coding. Even with that the system cannot distinguish between a NM attribute that never got cleared and one that is solidly backed up.

If the NM is on the basis of a cache situation like the ones shown in the photos of TeamMicrodot, yes. If the NM attribute just has not been cleared and the cache is perfectly fine, no. A human can easily distinguish between the cases - an algorithm can just stupidly look at the attributes and other data.

There is something which can be done for sure: Reformulate the options a cache owner is provided with and offer do nothing or write a note at most in a case where you feel that the message received is not appropriate. If I get an e-mail that only offers me to archive a cache, pay a maintenance visit within the next 2 weeks and/or fix an issue, then I would not feel insulted, but just would decide to take the archive option. I'm not willing to post an OM log without visiting the cache but I would not be willing to rush out to visit a cache based on what a faulty algorithm provides. It's not about what a reviewer might do or not do - it's that the options GS offers are not sufficient.

I'm not talking about any fears. If stupid automatic algorithms take over cachers like myself will tend to give up caches they have cared about in a responsible way. You can but you need to be motivated to do so and that even more applies to how one reacts to messages sent out like the one for barefootjeff's cache. The price one has to pay when such systems are in use is not worth in my eyes what such a system can achieve.

I guess most (all?) cachers will call this a problem cache. Hardly any cacher will call a cache with an uncleared NM attribute but in perfect shape a problem cache. There are also caches in my area which are difficult to find and whenever DNFs show up I would bet on the cache still being there and I have always been right in these cases. A recent case was this one https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC62HTE_dogs-playground?guid=1d5bb4b3-0531-411f-ac10-36b827d8399c I was sure that the cache would be at its place even before the owner went there and confirmed it. I had overlooked the cache myself. There are also other cases where I came at least twice and where sometimes cachers post a NM if they the second DNF logger in a row for a cache which is not easy to find. I do not expect cache owners to rush out every time in such cases. It's a different matter if there is a reasonable evidence that a cache got lost or suddenly DNFs pop up for an easy cache which never had a history of DNFs and which is easy to find at all seasons. Cezanne

Red wrenches do not imply that there is really a problem. In my area there are many caches with red wrenches that are perfectly fine and are maintained (by the cache owner). In some other cases the red wrenches refer to minor issues (could be that the log book only allows five further logs for a cache that has only a few visits per year, a wrong waypoint for the parking coordinates, a wrong attribute etc). First, the website only displays logins via the website. Second, this cache is a perfect example of what I said above. There are many caches which are fine and carry the NM attribute. In case of that cache it even could be that something went wrong - the way NM attributes can be cleared changed over the years and there also have been some problems as to whether the attribute shows up (in some cases people logged a NM from their mobiles the attribute did not show up) or disappears (there have been cases where it did not disappear). In my opinion it's a formality if a cache which is fine carries the red wrench. I think do too much stress is put on such formalities and not on the real condition of a cache. For example, I used to post a note when I checked (parts of my) cache without an issue being addressed by someone and I also sometimes deleted earlier notes about cache visits by myself in order to reduce the number of logs written by myself in a line. Every human being could read the logs. If one wants to apply algorithms things change. If such

And when the local community doesn't care about the specifics of the cache? What then? I did not suggest to abolish reviewers anyhow. When noone has an interest and the energy to fight that a cache continues to live, then it won't happen anyway. This does not change the fact that for many caches it's the better solution to extend their life cycle than coming up a new cache listing. I will continue to consider every case individually depending on its merits both when it comes how I act and how I reply when someone asks for my advice. There are more options to fix issues with a cache than archival (regardless of whether by a reviewer or the owner) and archival often is not the best option.