cezanne

Proof? I could list many such caches in my area but I certainly will not do that for obvious reasons. Since the focus of geocaching has changed it is not so surprising that many hiders of hiking caches left or at least stopped to hunt for caches. Before one thinks about fixing the algorithm and how that can be done, it is the e-mail message that should be fixed. That would help already a lot and can be very relevant when to comes to reactions to the mail that take place before a reviewer takes any action at all. I do not think at all the argument that GS does not want to encourage someone to ignore maintenance requests. Those who wish to ignore things, will do it anyway. Many of those cachers who care will either be irrated like barefootjeff or will decide to archive their caches (in particular those who are not any longer emotionally attached to geocaching). Somehow it affects the wrong people.

Not in all areas and for all types of caches it is that competitive. In my area groups often start together and hunt together. Not for all caches seconds play a role. For example, in case of my hiking caches a hike of several hours is included and no night visits are welcome. But even when cachers from different groups meet each other at GZ it is quite common around here that they share the FTF - I have never heard about anything as competitive as what you mentioned above.

Sometimes the group of FTF-ers consists of several people, up to 10 or even more, in particular for night caches. And this unfortunate practice of editing logs later has also carried over to logs which are not FTF logs. I recently received 10 logs for the same cache on the same day by a group - 9 of which later got edited - that happened over days. very annoying for a cache owner and very difficult to quickly become aware of spoilers.

I'd welcome any effort from YOU that tries to have both target groups in mind as well as possible - and I've asked you to offer some input in that manner. Sadly you appear to have ignored that request and instead continued to simply complain that your needs are not being catered to and this is why I have lost sympathy for your cause. I'm sorry. I must have overlooked that request in the many pages here. It did not happen intentionally. While I have some ideas on this issue I wonder whether it makes sense to outline them here. While I found your proposed rating system interesting and more appealing than the one which GS apparently has in use right now, I do not even have any hopes that a system like the one you suggested ever would get implemented and even less a more complex one. As the lost sympathy is regarded, I can deal with that. My goal was not to receive sympathy anyhow. I do think however that it is also in the interest of cachers like yourself if more cachers are willing to post DNF, NM and NA logs if appropriate. If they are concerned about losing caches, they will shy away from such logs which is not helping the cause. I'm somehow quite frustrated as it turned out in the course of this discussion that even a simple and very moderate change of the text of the e-mail which is sent to the cachers does not seem to be within what we can hope for. Originally I thought it was simply an unfortunate formulation that happened and that GS would be more than willing to make a small change once pointed to the way the mail could be understood.

Because neither the cache owner nor all others who want to read the real log get notified about the edit. It's much less inconvenient to ask cachers like you to put the caches on your watchlist or on a bookmark list. Then you receive a mail notification about the FTF logs regardless of the log type.

If you do it ten times you have lost a whole FP.

Given the grand scheme, for this extremely rare circumstance you are so very concerned about I don't think you'll get much support beyond sympathy. I would not say that it is extremely rare that caches hard to reach are owned by cachers who are not any longer actively hunting for caches (this includes those who still maintain their caches and those who do not maintain them). Of course that could happen already with the "old" system - my point was mainly that these are cases where the target audience for such caches will not have the slightest interest that a reviewer takes any action. Already right now there are way more reasons than the ones often mentioned that cachers often refrain from posting NM and NA logs and to some extent also DNF logs and that trend will for sure grow and not become weaker by initiatives like the one discussed here.

That's mainly a question of what properly means. For a cache that gets 1-2 visits a year, it's for example very questionable to require that a wet log book gets exchanged within 14 days while for a nano with 15 visits per week a log book that is full for a month is a real issue. That's subjective - for me there are more cons than pros if the system is automated. I do not refuse to see the advantages it has for others (and in particular the reviewers). Cachers like me have much more to lose than to win. I'd welcome any effort that tries to have both target groups in mind as well as possible. Arguing that this health score approach in its current form is something all cachers who care about cache quality and do not appreciate junk profit from is simply wrong. It's unfair to classify those who have valid concerns as cachers who appreciate junk. How often shall I repeat that I'm not concerned about mails that I might receive? I'm concerned about caches that get lost in my area and not about mails sent to me.

Thanks for this pros and cons arguments. Regardless of that, after publishing new geocache as a owner, first hours after FTF I always read logs. I wonder how are first impressions and possible errors. Later logs are not so important, even if they change. As a cache owner "FTF - details later" is not a log I can conclude anything from. As a cache owner I care a lot that cachers do not post spoilers both in text and in the posted photos. So all logs are important for me. You can award a FP but you lose 1/10 of a FP whenever you do what niraD described above. Normally PMs get a new FP for every 10 finds but when you delete finds and relog them, the counter is effected. You can put them all on a bookmark list and get informed about logs.

No, I'm not into the listing stats or any stats at all. Some weeks ago I started an attempt to find cachers who would be willing to adopt some very nice but not easy to get (and not often visited caches) of someone who left geocaching due to lack of time but whom I managed to contact. Apart from two cachers living further away than would be ideal and who could only take over a single cache I did not receive any replies at all. I have made similar experiences before and the same happened to other cachers. If those caches get archived, noone will hide new caches there either. It's not like that the spots are there are in high demand. The number of cachers who want to be responsible for caches that are not easy to get to and that are visited only few times decreases more and more and actions like the ones discussed here to not help in this regard. It is so much easier to only search for caches or to put out only caches that are easy to get to. In case of multi caches where the route is what the cache is about an additional issue comes in if someone would hide a new cache (not in the adoption case). Either the whole design would need to be changed or otherwise the cache would receive quite negative logs due to plagiarism. If a traditional is hidden at spot X where also the container plays a role or even the key role, just slightly shifting the hideout or hiding a different container will change the nature of the cache. Most caches that I enjoy are hidden in areas so that they are not easy to reach for any cacher - we used to live with a system that puts different expectations on such caches than on a typical urban hide. As soon as this type of different treatment breaks down completely, it will have quite painful effects around here.

I did not log so far at all and it will take a while until I find the time - there are other caches I need to log before that. The status of the cache is known anyway. The location of the cache is nothing special at all. I just happened to be in the area.

Das glaube ich nicht und die Nachteile, die weiter oben aufgelistet wurden, wuerde ich nicht in Kauf nehmen wollen. FTF-Jaeger und andere Cacher, die moeglichst rasch neue Caches besuchen wollen, fahren oft 50km und mehr in eine Richtung. Da wuerde ich ein schlechtes Gefuehl dabei haben wenn ich dazu beitruege dass diese Leute mehrmals in die Gegend kommen anstatt nur einmal.

I'm getting bored of hearing about them. I say let them archive. I expected you to write that. But along the same lines as you do not care about these caches which are very valuable for me (including those I have found but which I regard as valuable for attracting the type of cacher that hides the caches I enjoy) I do not mind to find occasionally some cache containers out there which are in bad condition and still in the game which you would have preferred to be removed earlier. 2 days ago I found a wet container in two wet bags - the log strip was dry as I had been added by the last finder before us. At this cache I also reflected about this tread and came to the conclusion that I would not have enjoyed that cache more with a perfectly well maintained container. I visited that cache after having visited a beautiful multi cache (with a container in good condition) where I still would have enjoyed the cache very much if I happened to encounter a wet container (which always can happen). It's simply a clash of interests. I would not say that those who are willing to accept to lose some very nice caches in order to get rid of the junk they do not want to be bothered with have more right than cachers who are concerned about losing caches the loss of which cachers like you take into account as a by-product.

I would not dare to say that and even if it were true it does not help. I rather have 20 junk caches not filtered out among 1000 typical caches than say 1 out of 20 atypical ones affected. First, I was referring to the point in time when someone decides to archive a cache they maintained until then. Things like the emails discussed here can make alleviate the decision towards archival by someone not any longer attached to geocaching. Second, there can be many reasons for someone leaving geocaching without following the procedure above. It depends on one's view point. I also regard NM logs as unnecessary (not messages about maintenance issues). I never ever search for or hide more caches than I can read logs for from the start to the end. The difference is that you still actively participate in geocaching too. Someone who only left some caches out there because there are some local cachers out there whom they want to please will not care at all about the big picture. They are willing to keep their caches up to the point where it is getting (too) inconvenient/cumbersome. Moreover, what about geocaches in good condition hidden by cachers who passed away or left geocaching without having been able or willing to remove the container? Why shouldn't we enjoy those cachers if there are issues with them? Archiving such caches for formal reasons does not solve a single issue and does not make anyone win anything in the cases I have in mind (not urban spots where 1000 people want to hide their new short lifed micro/nanos). Cezanne

There have been threads about the topic before. Moreover, 2017 has been announced as the year with special focus on cache health which lets me think that more is to come. But also the type of caches I do not care about. I'm worried about the rest. Apparently you misunderstood my point regarding the changes in the caching world which is very far from paranoia. I know many cache owners who do not cache actively longer and their willingness to comply with things they will regard as unnecessary formalities will be limited and at some point there is the point where they decide to give up their caches which they still maintain despite having stopped to hunt for caches. That's certainly a different perspective you have from that point of view than as someone who regularly hunts for caches and stays in contact with cachers (through cache hunts, events, forums, social media, meetings cachers at other caches etc). Have you contact to such former cachers and have talked about them how they perceive certain changes and how this influences their reactions and actions?

Right, but have you ever thought about how akward it is for the cache owner to receive a notification about a useless found it log like "Found - details later" and then have to watch the cache page for the details? I do care what people log for my caches (log text, photos etc) and do not want to miss spoilers for a few days but at the same time I do not have the time to check the cache page several times per day. As someone who hides a cache I contribute actively to an official part of geocaching while FTF races are not an official part and I think if someone gets inconvenienced, then rather those screening for FTFs and not even be willing to put such caches on their watchlist - in that manner they get notified about any sort of log and so a note is fine anyway - if it were me, I could not post any log at all from the field and it could be many hours later that I return home.

It cannot be against any rules. It is even allowed to not write any online logs at all and it is also allowed to log all finds as notes and leave that forever.

I rather feel angst that caches get archived that mean a lot to me and which are not junk. I'm also concerned about the system as I use DNFs in a way completely unrelated to the issues of junk and caches that might be missing. When I post a NA for a cache for which this is appropriate, I'm not concerned about how the CO might feel. However when I post a DNF reporting on for example my issues with climbing trees or going down steep slopes, then I'm very much concerned if a new system changes what never has been a problem since I have started with geocaching. For those cache owners out there who have almost or completely stopped to hunt for geocaches themselves but still maintain their caches requests like of the type sent out by the mail come across as particularly weird and it easily can be the last drop that makes the cup run over and lead to archival of caches in good shape. In my opinion it is important to keep in mind that the mail is not only sent out to those who still cache regularly and who keep an active eye on how things develop at this site, they are also sent out to people who are not any longer closely attached to geocaching and kept their caches to please the community. Mails of the sent type will reinforce the feeling of those cache owners that the current community does not have much in common with what geocaching used to be.

Yes there is - you can write a note and place it on the cache page. Given that caches are not automatically archived but are looked at by human beings this should essentially tell the people who matter what the situation is. Doesn't that work to solve the problem that is being suggested?So, can we get that added to the email that the system automatically sends? Something simple, like: "If you have received this email in error, then post an explanation as a Note to your cache listing." That would be very helpful indeed and if they allowed a note (instead of OM) it would also also cases like easily can arise for old caches which are in good shape but do not have an active owner. Post #4 in this thread http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=343284 describes a situation which I have encountered in many areas. It would be very painful to lose such caches as a result of something which claims to have cache quality in mind.

I have learnt about the score before this thread. My concern is about using the score for automatic messages. If reviewers use the tool to help them and have a look at the logs, human intelligence is involved. Mails like the one sent to barefootjeff are what causes a lot of the concern voiced here. I do not know what you call a typical cache. I do not think that I own a typical cache and probably most of the caches I like are untypical in your eyes.

Is that the plan now? I must have missed that memo. As far as I knew we were talking about a system which could help to fill the void left by real people neglecting to make proper use of the NM / NA system. Maybe this could be the explanation: Different people define proper use of the NM/NA system differently. When I do not post a NM log or NA log it is a conscious decision and is not taking place because I'm worried about what might happen or what others might think if I logged NM or NA. I do not use NM and NA in a one-size-fits-all standard either and the system is at least to some extent designed to achieve something which I do not like to be seen filled. I agree with you on caches like the one you posted photos of but I would disagree with you on many other cases that are also target of the system.

I do think that if the reviewers in my country started to make use of this tool, it would change a lot. May I ask whether the reviewers in your area right now do sweeps for NM attributes? (They do not need to do that - some do, some don't.) I know that the reviewers do not archive a cache within a few days (right now I'm waiting for soon a month for a response to a NA log I filed). I also know that owner feedback can avoid many archivals. However I'm concerned about situations where this does not apply. I'm getting desperate. I'm blamed for repeating myself, but then the same sorts of arguments are repeated when it comes to my concerns so that I try to explain again that I'm aware of the process but that it does not resolve the issues I see. If a cache in good condition does not have an active owner (or at least not an owner who is any more motivated to fuss around with formalities which have not played a role when they started to geocache) the owner will not react and so the cache will be gone soon when the system discussed here is used everywheree. If a cache owner decides to archive a cache due to being frustrated by the text of the mail as it is sent right now, it does not play the slightest role that the involved reviewer would not archive the cache. Before the reviewer could do anything, the cache is long archived. I do understand that the system is both helpful for the reviewers and for many participants here. But please respect that I know the situation in my area the best among those who write here and I'm convinced that the system in the current form has more negative sides than positive ones in my area and even more so for me - every single cache that appeals to me is very valuable for me. If I lose 10 caches, that's much and very hurtful. There are tons of new caches out there with fresh log books, fresh containers - however I enjoy only few of them while among the older ones the proportion I enjoy is much higher. Apparently most cachers here select caches via flags, parameters, attributes etc. I select them after having looked at every single cache page in my area. I often decide deliberately to visit a cache where I know that the container is in bad condition but the cache route is something I enjoy while those tip top containers are boring for me and I only do them if there is nothing else. I do not expect the majority around here to understand this, but it needs to be taken into account. All what is written here will not change my mind that for cachers like me there is hardly anything positive about the system but there are a lot of negative aspects. YOu wrote that the health score algorithm does not influence your way of hiding caches. May I ask whether it influences your way of logging in case you happen to log DNFs also when it is certainly not about the cache having a problem.

I cannot recall that anyone suggested a way to modify the algorithm such that it does not react to caches with an uncleared NM attribute which are in good shape. Post an OM log is also not a solution for the described situation. I'm aware that there are areas where the reviewers already now do sweeps also for caches with the NM attribute and not only for NA logs. This is not happening in my area - so there a whole lot more could change here.

I wouldn't expect them to. If the cache is in good shape - play on I asked because you answered say no to junk to my example of a cache in good shape owned by someone who has quit geocaching which ends up with a NM log (e.g. by mistake or by a newbie) noone can clear so that it will stay there. No, not the discussion of course. I was thinking that you might define every cache with an owner not regularly logging into the site any longer as junk. Some apparently want to remove all such caches from the data base regardless of the condition of the cache. Actually I only mentioned cases which I'm familiar with. They exist and I'm really concerned about these caches and not inventing something for the sake of discussion. I appreciate that. It does not change that apparently many are more focussed on the NM attribute than on the condition of a cache. There are perfectly fine caches out there with the NM attribute and it will never get cleared and I do not want that those caches get archived unless they have a problem.

How do you define *junk*? Up to now I understood junk in the context of geocaching as a problem cache of the type who posted photos of. If you understand as junk an ammo can in perfect condition belonging to a cache which pleases all who go for it but with an owner who has given up geocaching, then I think that most cachers I know that like hiking caches would not join in your "say no to junk". What plays a role for me is the condition of a cache and whether the listing is up to date. I do not care whether the owner is active if there is no issue at all. There are many caches out there owned by active owners that do not get visited by their owners for years. briansnat e.g. mentioned caches older than 10 years in perfect shape that he never visited. In a semiurban area more can change and so I happen to visit caches more often in areas where something can change. Up on a remote mountain it often suffices to have a good container - if an issue shows up, then an active owner will visit the cache, otherwise not. If an issue arises for a cache of a not active owner, it's early enough to deal with the issue when there is one. It's the same as for every cache even with an active owner. You will never know in advance whether someone will react if there is an issue. So why make a difference whether the owner is reachable if a cache does not have an issue? These caches definitely do not take away room for other cache placements. Typically it is neither possible to find cachers who are willing to adopt such caches nor cachers that would hide a new such cache. So why archive caches that are in perfect shape out of a formality which plays a role for cachers who do not go for such caches anyhow? It feels like dictatorship to me.