cezanne

Then allow me to explain. It's obvious to me that the PQ's referenced above have been created for the sole purpose of bringing some facts into the thread - not outlandish imagined scenarios which serve no purpose other than to drag a thread screaming from its tracks - but cold, hard facts. I find that quite refreshing. It would be nice to see more of it. Facts are good. I like facts This very PQ certainly has been created for that purpose. Yet many cachers create such PQs also outside of the context of a discussion like this one and it fits the general trend that many seem to be care more about the data base than the actual caches out there. When it comes to someone complaining that there are no attractive caches to be found in their area, it is relevant how many caches are in bad condition but not how many caches carry a certain flag. I'm not against facts. However it is also a fact that there are caches out there who carry the NM attribute and do not have any problem. There are caches out in the mountains with a quality container which is in good condition and do not have any issue and this being the original condition, not the result of a throwdown. Now suppose that the owner is not active any longer and someone posts a NM by mistake (for example a new cache who used the wrong log type). The NM attribute cannot be cleared but the cache is perfectly ok and in my opinion much nicer than >90% of what gets newly hidden. One of the issues I have this health score thing in the way it is described here is that it aims at deleting such caches from the map while I have a strong interest into such caches staying on the map and in the data base. The real conflict cases are not containers of the type you posted photos of. It's a clash of interests.

Actually I expect any cacher who complains about having no enjoyable caches to visit to look at all caches in the area that could be potentially enjoyable. So it would be a natural consequence to look at logs and one could place NAs wherever appropriate without having a look at all caches with a red wrench and going through that list. A red wrench is certainly no obstacle for a cache to be enjoyable, not even for you. It should be about the real condition of the cache and not about formalities. For me it's like that: Either I want to visit a cache or I don't. In the latter case it's pretty much irrelevant for me in which condition the cache is, but as cachers are different there will be other cachers that care and if none cares, then I see no problem. I never understood why the main interest of some people seems to get caches off the map. I'm selecting all my caches manually. I could not even tell how many caches are there in area with a certain property and I never understood the people who e.g. create a PQ of all caches which are disabled since say x months, or all with a red wrench and are not reviewers. Why should I care? I look at caches that I have not found and at some I found for certain reasons. But why should I look at caches with a certain property without being a reviewer and somehow only with the goal to argue about clearing the map?

Me too.

The more I think about the issue the more I come to the conclusion that it is a different thing whether an algorithm is developped that should provide reviewers with a list of caches they might want to have a look at. If a reviewer is willing to do the work, it could not create a damage if they get listed a cache with say 1 or 2 DNFs and if they then looked at the logs, they would quickly see that in such cases typically no action is necessary. It should also be up to the reviewers to provide their kind of feedback to GS when it comes to which type of system is useful for them. The problematic area starts when the same algorithm and produced cache list is used to trigger the mentioned e-mails which are sent to cache owners. When cache owners are effected they should be able to provide feedback too and more importantly, it would be reasonable to use a different parameter setting or a different algorithm to produce a different sort of list (DNFs e.g. should definitely play a smaller role for this case).

Yes. And if it doesn't then it should, otherwise it the algorithm could be effectively disabled by the CO simply deleting any logs they don't like. The number of incorrect logs subsequently deleted by authors for whatever reason is going to be tiny, and if the algorithm is correctly balanced it will be statistically insignificant. Is it really tiny? Is it not? Maybe, maybe not. I do not have data. I only know that it is not too uncommon that I choose the wrong log types or make mistakes when splitting my logs into parts or log caches in the wrong order and then delete logs to get the order right and repost logs.

So how would your perceived system cope with 12 DNFs coming from the same group who cached together and visited the wrong final location or who had a car accident and then went back home vs 12 DNFs of individual cachers who all could not find the cache on that day? I guess it would consider this as something very negative, wouldn't it? The spam example seems less complex to me (though it is complex enough) as this widespread spectrum of different uses of DNFs is something that really makes things complicated in my opinion.

Yes. And if it doesn't then it should, otherwise it the algorithm could be effectively disabled by the CO simply deleting any logs they don't like. The number of incorrect logs subsequently deleted by authors for whatever reason is going to be tiny, and if the algorithm is correctly balanced it will be statistically insignificant. Is it really tiny?

Cache logs are never "deleted" they're only removed from view but remain in the database. The only logical way for this algorithm to work would be for it to process the logs in the database, and not just the logs on the cache page - therefore COs deleting DNF/NM/NA logs should have no effect on the way the algorithm works. Of course many COs won't realise this and may still delete DNFs, which would be unfortunate, but many COs have been doing that for years anyway. Do you really think that the algorithm takes into account archived logs? That would include logs that are deleted by the author out of mistake (wrong log type or wrong cache) too and that would not make sense at all. I see a big difference between NM/NA and DNF logs. While NM and NA have been introduced by GS with a specific purpose in mind, DNF logs have been handled quite individually since geocaching started off. There are cachers who log DNF whenever they do not end up with a success after having pressed go to on their gps and some that only log DNF if they explored every possible place, asked previous finders and still could not find the cache to name only some extreme ends and not all the spectrum in between. While of course it happens that some cachers use NM and NA in the wrong way, that's not a really widespread thing while the extremely different interpretation of DNF is an issue in my eyes which needs to be taken into account. I still wonder whether those who work on the health score algorithm have taken into account that many DNF logs say absolutely nothing about the cache health.

Then that's their problem. There's no practical reason to get angry for receiving an occasional extra email. They need to calm down. The email is not some public criticism of the owner or their ability to maintain good caches. It's not a hit to CO pride. What other rare hypothetical instances can you concoct? Read the post just above where it is about actions to clear the health score of a cache and you will see that's not rare and hypothetical that someone is unhappy with his cache being flagged. Deleting DNFs could be something some cachers will resort to and note that unlike finds there is no chance to have DNFs reinstalled by GS.

Do you really think that then the reviewers would end up with less work? I'd guess that they would end up with more work than ever before at least right now where the used algorithm seems to be quite immature. Do you really think that it makes sense that the owner of cache that gets sent the mail because someone like me DNF-ed the cache due to being too clumsy to climb up to the cache should really be recommended to bother the reviewers who are overloaded anyway with something which is obvious anyhow namely that such a cache does not need attention.

Is it that easy? I do not think so. For example, what about cache owners who wish to only own caches with a very good health score? They would get angry at DNF logs that degrade the score of their caches. It would create more pressure on turning DNF logs into notes.

We do not yet know much about the algorithm. Quite probably it has a number of further weaknesses. I doubt that it is is a good idea if only the feedback of reviewers is heared when it affects all cachers (not only cache owners). I also wonder how one would manage to adjust the DNF component reasonably without involving human intelligence. I would feel much more comfortable if I knew that by continuing my habit of logging DNFs for failures I will not cause inconveniences for the owners of the caches on which I log DNFs. That is something that concerns me much more than my own caches.

It depends. I do not leave any swag in my own caches and if someone puts in say a business card and I happen to visit my cache I remove the business card. I do not schedule visits to care about what might be in the container other than what has been intended by me (log book, pencil, stash note, maybe trackables) if it does not cause any danger for the cache.

I give up. It was meant as an example demonstrating the logic and not to say that the e-mail of GS is like kicking someone out of the room. So what about the example "in order to be a nice guy take the red ball or the blue ball" while there is the hidden option to take the yellow ball and still to be considered as nice guy.

If it should not be ignored, then in many cases archival (by the cache owner) is the only option. It certainly cannot be avoided that the algorithm is inaccurate at times. It does not make sense however to formulate the e-mail in a way that does not mention all options that are ok for Groundspeak. It's like either "eat the salad or leave the event" while they also would accept people not eating the salad if they explained that they are not allowed to eat salad out of medical reasons.

Let me reiterate and focus bluntly on my point for you: Knowledge that "the algorithm is not a consequence, and that the email can be ignored if the CO knows that there is no problem with the cache". That is all. That's it. Not an insult. Not one CO being in any way "better" than another. Simply, and strictly, knowledge that as a CO the email can be ignored. A CO who does not know this knows less than one who does. To me it still sounds like arguing that one should pass a sign which says that access is prohibited if one knows that nothing happens and noone really cares if one is passing through silently. It appears extremely unfortunate to me to argue along the lines that some things can be ignored when we discuss a topic like this one. It somehow invites people to decide which of the requests of GS they can ignore and do not need to take care of at all.

Not very logical as the mails are sent out to the COs. It's unwise to criticize someone's logic unless you know all of the facts. I meant something completely different. I neither intended to criticize what MarcoCR wrote nor was it my intention to create the impression that I do not believe that the health score helps the reviewers. What I meant, I cannot but repeat again, is that the formulation of the mail that is sent to the cache owners and does not offer them an option like do nothing if no maintenance is required or check with your reviewer or write a note on the cache page and explain your situation is nothing that will be helpful for the reviewers or for any cachers out there. It does not improve cache quality, it does not make the job of reviewers easy. It just causes frustration and anger among some of the cache owners who have taken care of their caches properly for many years and would continue so without being irritated by strange mails. I suggest to either use the system only for the reviewers or if the emails are an integral component of the system (which is nothing I would have an issue with), then please change the formulation. Why should it help the reviewers if cache owners decide to archive their perfectly fine caches because that's the only possible option among the two mentioned ones that applies? Does it make sense if someone archives his well maintained cache if they had bad luck and had a recent visitor at their cache which is like me and logs a DNF for any kind of failure or a group of 10 people caching as a group who all log a DNF because the person who did the computation made a mistake? I'm not against an initative for cache quality. I'm not against making the hard job easier for reviewers. I cannot see however why an email that is formulated in the way it is should be helpful and why an improved formulation would not be much more helpful. I think that all the participants in this thread have an interest into reasonably maintained caches. We just differ in approaches which make sense to reach this goal and what side effects should be taken into account. While I understand that no system is perfect and that in order to reach certain goals, one might need to live with negative side effects I'm convinced that a changed formulation of the mail would not make a single cache worse and would not make the job of a single reviewer or lackey more difficult but it would help people a lot who take the messages they get very seriously and who would not consider to ignore something if this is not a mentioned option. I also do not think that it would help the reviewers and those interested into well maintained caches if more angst is produced with respect to logging DNFs.

So maybe tell us on what parameters and in which manner you would make a health score depend on so that it does not catch the wrong caches and cache owners. I promise not to comment on it.

I'm a customer and cache owner that pays to use their site and I see the health score as a good thing. The health score is nothing a good cache owner should be concerned with, and if a reminder email is too much a bother, just wait until a finder leaves a unpleasant log, or a DNF. I do not mind receiving e-mails (I receive hundreds of them anyway). I argued about the contents of the mail which only provides two options: archival or immediately visit the cache regardless of whether such a visit is necessary or not. It's absurd if you are triggered to check your cache because I did not dare to climb up to one of your tree caches. I do not fear unpleasant logs and even less DNFs. Why should I? I write so many DNF logs myself and typically it is me who is to blame for my failure and I just tell my story. If a cache log leaves me with any doubt that there might be an issue with a cache of mine, I look further into the case every time.

However a string of DNFs (not even if the DNFs are independent which often is not the case) does not imply that the owner is absent, nor that the next finder is a mega numbers cacher nor that a throwdown has been left. For example I know a cache that had 7 independent DNf logs (some even had help from previous finders and still could not find the cache). Between some of the DNFs the cache was checked and was there. I also happened to fail at this cache in my first attempt and now knowing where the cache is hidden I'm almost certain that the cache is still fine when I read yet another DNF. At certain times of the year the cache is even more challenging - I failed already at an easier time. I know many a number of such examples.There is another one where I have been four times and found it in the fourth attempt after having been told exactly where it is.

Then they don't know enough about cache ownership. Namely, that the algorithm is not a consequence, and that the email can be ignored if the CO knows that there is no problem with the cache, rather than try to "live up to" the unrealistic, imperfect notification algorithm. But again, perhaps that comes down to what (unenlightened) COs infer from the wording of the email. Ok, then apparently also cachers like myself do not know enough about cache ownership. I rather wonder whether it's that the text of the email and some features of the algorithm needs to be changed than that cachers like me need to learn more about cache ownership. ....that's exactly what I was saying. (re-inserted the rest of the quote for clarity you left out) I just do not agree with you as my argument is not with respect to when a reviewer would take actions and which actions - I would not say that I know less about cache ownership than do - yet we arrive at different conclusions. My argument is that if such a mail is sent out by Groundspeak, it should be taken seriously and in the way it is formulated and if we do that then many of us will decide that we cannot live up to what they ask for and might decide to take action and archive our (affected) caches even being aware that the reviewers would not take action. Actually in my area reviewer response times are slow anyhow even in matters that seem important to me - so I'm certainly not driven by feeling a threat by some reviewers. It's a lot about how I feel treated by GS as a cache owner, a company who needs cachers who hide and maintain caches.

New caches tend to be in better condition than old, unmaintained caches. Surprising? No. Are you saying that an issue that exists shouldn't be dealt with unless it is extreme? You do seem to be obsessed with extremes. No, I just wonder why Lone.R describes her situation like nearly every cache that she could go for is in terrible condition, mislabeled or something else is wrong with it. Of course newer caches are often in better condition than old, unmaintained caches (not necessarily by the way as there are caches that don't seem to require maintenance to be in perfect shape) and that's why I wrote the above. I just wondered whether in her home area visiting caches soon after they got published could be a compromise solution for part of Lone.R's problems. So something like apply some other filters and add the filter that a cache got hidden within the last months.

Then they don't know enough about cache ownership. Ok, then apparently also cachers like myself do not know enough about cache ownership. I rather wonder whether it's that the text of the email and some features of the algorithm needs to be changed than that cachers like me need to learn more about cache ownership.

I hardly think that a cache gets transformed into junk because clumsy me cannnot reach a cache and leaves a DNF log. But of course anyone is free to select caches in whichever manner they want. I wonder however about something else at least in Lone.R's case. You seem to live in an area with not many cachers, but she lives in an area with many cachers and new caches. I find a lot of new caches as I have found the older ones already a long time ago. Among these caches there are many that do not appeal to me very much and which I only use for my purpose to be physically more active. However hardly any of these caches is junk, filthy, involves a throwdown and also pill bottles are not that frequent as cache containers around here either. Micros dominate and caches with swag are very rare - however what I experience in all areas of my country where I have cached so far is quite different from finding mainly leaky containers. I know that areas are different but I'm not sure whether it's really that extreme as some report for their area.

If it does not work you might want to start an inquiry for the source of the problem. There could be multiple reasons - spam folder, problem of your ISP, etc