Jump to content

Your geocache might need maintenance.


Recommended Posts

Let's compare this thread to the ones about logging DNFs where people comment that if they plan to go to look for a cache they will post a DNF if for whatever reason they didn't actually even go to GZ.

 

I don't post DNFs like that, but I do post DMFs after searches that weren't thorough, because it's for my own records as much as anything.

 

If my DNF logs are going to be treated as NM logs, I will probably change and stop using DNF at all. I don't want to receive these nuisance emails and I don't want to trigger them for others.

 

There are those that claim to post just like that. I personally don't post a DNF unless I finished looking. If I spend 2 minutes looking and a terrible downpour starts and I leave I post nothing since even just a note doesn't add anything useful and since I didn't really search a DNF is not appropriate to my way of thinking. If I spend 2 minutes looking and a bear arrives to help look I would post a note rather than a DNF as that is useful information for anyone that actually reads logs -- I very seldom do. If I look as well as I can that day I post a DNF. That's a legitimate Did Not Find.

 

Generally I look at logs to see how many DNFs are there and if they are interspersed with finds I read them looking for logs of admitted throw downs or to determine if they appear to be legitimate finds. I don't get out often and don't see a point to wasting time looking for throw downs or caches that aren't there. DNFs that weren't actually searched for at GZ could have me ignoring good caches. And now it appears we have an algorithm that uses those DNFs as a reason to create an alert.

Link to comment

Let's compare this thread to the ones about logging DNFs where people comment that if they plan to go to look for a cache they will post a DNF if for whatever reason they didn't actually even go to GZ.

 

I don't post DNFs like that, but I do post DMFs after searches that weren't thorough, because it's for my own records as much as anything.

 

If my DNF logs are going to be treated as NM logs, I will probably change and stop using DNF at all. I don't want to receive these nuisance emails and I don't want to trigger them for others.

 

There are those that claim to post just like that. I personally don't post a DNF unless I finished looking. If I spend 2 minutes looking and a terrible downpour starts and I leave I post nothing since even just a note doesn't add anything useful and since I didn't really search a DNF is not appropriate to my way of thinking. If I spend 2 minutes looking and a bear arrives to help look I would post a note rather than a DNF as that is useful information for anyone that actually reads logs -- I very seldom do. If I look as well as I can that day I post a DNF. That's a legitimate Did Not Find.

 

Generally I look at logs to see how many DNFs are there and if they are interspersed with finds I read them looking for logs of admitted throw downs or to determine if they appear to be legitimate finds. I don't get out often and don't see a point to wasting time looking for throw downs or caches that aren't there. DNFs that weren't actually searched for at GZ could have me ignoring good caches. And now it appears we have an algorithm that uses those DNFs as a reason to create an alert.

 

Just curious, where in the guidelines does it define a "legitimate" or "appropriate" DNF?

 

What is legitimate and appropriate is writing clear, communicative logs for the benefit of other geocachers and cache owners. It is frustrating that the content of our logs no longer matters, and that DNFs are now no different than NMs. Whether my search meets your personal criteria for being thorough or not, I never consider a DNF to mean that I think a cache isn't there. The best and most experienced cachers can miss caches, even easy ones, from time to time.

 

Inventing arbitrary personal rules and then putting words like "legitimate" and "appropriate" around them is neither legitimate nor appropriate. Having your own process is fine, but you have not demonstrated why your process should be considered a best practice, or more "legitimate" and "appropriate" than someone else's.

Link to comment

The first tier effect of poor caches is a diminished caching experience. The second tier effect is that members leave. The third tier effect is less caches than there otherwise would be (of all quality levels).

There are two first tier effects of GS accepting responsibility for poor caches. First, COs can start thinking they can ignore logs and just wait for GS to complain before they do maintenance. Second, COs that don't deserve the automated message have to waste time investigating whether there's actually a problem. In some cases, the second case may lead to the first.

 

The second tier effect is that if GS is responsible, the community no longer is, so people feel less inclined to file NMs and NAs because GS is going to take care of it for them, thus exacerbating the original problem instead of solving it.

 

The third tier effect is that local communities are less important and will be less likely to form to begin with, so geocachers become more isolated.

 

So if we could choose to simply delete the occasional unwarranted email, we'd experience more inner peace, and those receiving warranted emails would get a nudge and some would take action (improving the overall quality of caches).

I have to admit that the unwarranted emails are no big deal and that people getting them should just chill. I'm more worried about the strategic problem of GS thinking they need to send them. If they don't send these messages, the people that suffer are the people that should be filing those NMs and NAs. In particular, the dialog created by someone asking GS to do something is the perfect conduit for educating people about their responsibility to monitor cache quality.

 

If a cache owner has the mindset of waiting for GS to complain about maintenance before they do any, than they probably shouldn't be cache owners in the first place.

 

I don't see this as GS taking responsibility for anything other than pointing out what may be a potential issue, something that the cache owner should already be aware of.

 

The message only states that there "may" be an issue and lists possible solutions to the problem. If your a new cache owner this "could" be helpful.

 

This seems like an attempt to bring much needed awareness to the issue.

 

I agree that the onus should be on the caching community to regulate bad or absentee cache owners through NA's & NN's. If cachers are hesitant to use these tools and we shun any attempt by GS to address the problem than what's left?

 

I like the idea of GS trying to be more proactive in this fight. Now it's time for cachers to do the same.

Link to comment

Let's compare this thread to the ones about logging DNFs where people comment that if they plan to go to look for a cache they will post a DNF if for whatever reason they didn't actually even go to GZ.

 

I don't post DNFs like that, but I do post DMFs after searches that weren't thorough, because it's for my own records as much as anything.

 

If my DNF logs are going to be treated as NM logs, I will probably change and stop using DNF at all. I don't want to receive these nuisance emails and I don't want to trigger them for others.

 

There are those that claim to post just like that. I personally don't post a DNF unless I finished looking. If I spend 2 minutes looking and a terrible downpour starts and I leave I post nothing since even just a note doesn't add anything useful and since I didn't really search a DNF is not appropriate to my way of thinking. If I spend 2 minutes looking and a bear arrives to help look I would post a note rather than a DNF as that is useful information for anyone that actually reads logs -- I very seldom do. If I look as well as I can that day I post a DNF. That's a legitimate Did Not Find.

 

Generally I look at logs to see how many DNFs are there and if they are interspersed with finds I read them looking for logs of admitted throw downs or to determine if they appear to be legitimate finds. I don't get out often and don't see a point to wasting time looking for throw downs or caches that aren't there. DNFs that weren't actually searched for at GZ could have me ignoring good caches. And now it appears we have an algorithm that uses those DNFs as a reason to create an alert.

 

Just curious, where in the guidelines does it define a "legitimate" or "appropriate" DNF?

 

What is legitimate and appropriate is writing clear, communicative logs for the benefit of other geocachers and cache owners. It is frustrating that the content of our logs no longer matters, and that DNFs are now no different than NMs. Whether my search meets your personal criteria for being thorough or not, I never consider a DNF to mean that I think a cache isn't there. The best and most experienced cachers can miss caches, even easy ones, from time to time.

 

Inventing arbitrary personal rules and then putting words like "legitimate" and "appropriate" around them is neither legitimate nor appropriate. Having your own process is fine, but you have not demonstrated why your process should be considered a best practice, or more "legitimate" and "appropriate" than someone else's.

 

From their blog:

 

3 Little Geocaching Letters that say “I Care”

 

You’ve looked. You really have. The geocache is not a container magnetized under the park bench. It’s not that funny looking rock, and of course it’s not under the lamp post cover. You’ve checked the previous logs and the hint. The geocache could be there, but you can’t seem to find it. You give up (for now). Geocaching doesn’t stop there though. Here’s what you do. You log a DNF on the geocache page. It’s “Did not find” and it means, “I care.”

 

When you log a DNF, you’re telling geocachers that the geocache may be more difficult to find than anticipated or may even be missing. You’re also letting the geocache owner know that they may need to double check that their geocache container can still be located at the posted coordinates.

 

If you’re a geocacher who logged any of the more than nine million DNF’s posted to Geocaching so far, thanks from the geocaching community. It’s a small way to help ensure the quality of geocaching. Plus, you can always go back and search again. Who knows, maybe this time you’ll catch a break and log a “Found it!”

 

Add a comment below and share your DNF strategy with other geocachers. When do you log a DNF?

 

From the Help Center:

 

What log type should I use?

 

Didn't Find It (aka: DNF)<br style="color: rgb(89, 89, 91);">Use if you looked for a geocache and you couldn't find it. Share your story and let others know if you were able to see evidence of a critter making off with or destroying the geocache (half eaten lids), muggle activity (swag all spread out outside the geocache), or if you were just off your "caching game" for the day. It's best to remain humble in a DNF log - because we've learned that the geocache is most likely there... staring at you, mocking you, and waiting for you to come back and try again. It is important to post a DNF. If a cache owner sees a string of DNFs on the geocache page they will usually check to see if it is still there. Also, it will alert other finders of the possibility that the geocache either is missing or super tough to find.

 

Link to comment

The first tier effect of poor caches is a diminished caching experience. The second tier effect is that members leave. The third tier effect is less caches than there otherwise would be (of all quality levels).

There are two first tier effects of GS accepting responsibility for poor caches. First, COs can start thinking they can ignore logs and just wait for GS to complain before they do maintenance. Second, COs that don't deserve the automated message have to waste time investigating whether there's actually a problem. In some cases, the second case may lead to the first.

 

The second tier effect is that if GS is responsible, the community no longer is, so people feel less inclined to file NMs and NAs because GS is going to take care of it for them, thus exacerbating the original problem instead of solving it.

 

The third tier effect is that local communities are less important and will be less likely to form to begin with, so geocachers become more isolated.

 

So if we could choose to simply delete the occasional unwarranted email, we'd experience more inner peace, and those receiving warranted emails would get a nudge and some would take action (improving the overall quality of caches).

I have to admit that the unwarranted emails are no big deal and that people getting them should just chill. I'm more worried about the strategic problem of GS thinking they need to send them. If they don't send these messages, the people that suffer are the people that should be filing those NMs and NAs. In particular, the dialog created by someone asking GS to do something is the perfect conduit for educating people about their responsibility to monitor cache quality.

 

If a cache owner has the mindset of waiting for GS to complain about maintenance before they do any, than they probably shouldn't be cache owners in the first place.

 

I don't see this as GS taking responsibility for anything other than pointing out what may be a potential issue, something that the cache owner should already be aware of.

 

 

Adding to the part of GS taking responsibility... it makes good business sense to remove abandoned, junk caches and have a database full of maintained caches with active owners.

Link to comment

The first tier effect of poor caches is a diminished caching experience. The second tier effect is that members leave. The third tier effect is less caches than there otherwise would be (of all quality levels).

There are two first tier effects of GS accepting responsibility for poor caches. First, COs can start thinking they can ignore logs and just wait for GS to complain before they do maintenance. Second, COs that don't deserve the automated message have to waste time investigating whether there's actually a problem. In some cases, the second case may lead to the first.

 

The second tier effect is that if GS is responsible, the community no longer is, so people feel less inclined to file NMs and NAs because GS is going to take care of it for them, thus exacerbating the original problem instead of solving it.

 

The third tier effect is that local communities are less important and will be less likely to form to begin with, so geocachers become more isolated.

 

So if we could choose to simply delete the occasional unwarranted email, we'd experience more inner peace, and those receiving warranted emails would get a nudge and some would take action (improving the overall quality of caches).

I have to admit that the unwarranted emails are no big deal and that people getting them should just chill. I'm more worried about the strategic problem of GS thinking they need to send them. If they don't send these messages, the people that suffer are the people that should be filing those NMs and NAs. In particular, the dialog created by someone asking GS to do something is the perfect conduit for educating people about their responsibility to monitor cache quality.

 

If a cache owner has the mindset of waiting for GS to complain about maintenance before they do any, than they probably shouldn't be cache owners in the first place.

 

I don't see this as GS taking responsibility for anything other than pointing out what may be a potential issue, something that the cache owner should already be aware of.

 

 

Adding to the part of GS taking responsibility... it makes good business sense to remove abandoned, junk caches and have a database full of maintained caches with active owners.

 

This feature does nothing to address inactive owners. Those owners are already ignoring cache logs. Why would they pay attention to a form letter?

Link to comment

Let's compare this thread to the ones about logging DNFs where people comment that if they plan to go to look for a cache they will post a DNF if for whatever reason they didn't actually even go to GZ.

 

I don't post DNFs like that, but I do post DMFs after searches that weren't thorough, because it's for my own records as much as anything.

 

If my DNF logs are going to be treated as NM logs, I will probably change and stop using DNF at all. I don't want to receive these nuisance emails and I don't want to trigger them for others.

 

There are those that claim to post just like that. I personally don't post a DNF unless I finished looking. If I spend 2 minutes looking and a terrible downpour starts and I leave I post nothing since even just a note doesn't add anything useful and since I didn't really search a DNF is not appropriate to my way of thinking. If I spend 2 minutes looking and a bear arrives to help look I would post a note rather than a DNF as that is useful information for anyone that actually reads logs -- I very seldom do. If I look as well as I can that day I post a DNF. That's a legitimate Did Not Find.

 

Generally I look at logs to see how many DNFs are there and if they are interspersed with finds I read them looking for logs of admitted throw downs or to determine if they appear to be legitimate finds. I don't get out often and don't see a point to wasting time looking for throw downs or caches that aren't there. DNFs that weren't actually searched for at GZ could have me ignoring good caches. And now it appears we have an algorithm that uses those DNFs as a reason to create an alert.

 

Just curious, where in the guidelines does it define a "legitimate" or "appropriate" DNF?

 

What is legitimate and appropriate is writing clear, communicative logs for the benefit of other geocachers and cache owners. It is frustrating that the content of our logs no longer matters, and that DNFs are now no different than NMs. Whether my search meets your personal criteria for being thorough or not, I never consider a DNF to mean that I think a cache isn't there. The best and most experienced cachers can miss caches, even easy ones, from time to time.

 

Inventing arbitrary personal rules and then putting words like "legitimate" and "appropriate" around them is neither legitimate nor appropriate. Having your own process is fine, but you have not demonstrated why your process should be considered a best practice, or more "legitimate" and "appropriate" than someone else's.

 

From their blog:

 

3 Little Geocaching Letters that say “I Care”

 

You’ve looked. You really have. The geocache is not a container magnetized under the park bench. It’s not that funny looking rock, and of course it’s not under the lamp post cover. You’ve checked the previous logs and the hint. The geocache could be there, but you can’t seem to find it. You give up (for now). Geocaching doesn’t stop there though. Here’s what you do. You log a DNF on the geocache page. It’s “Did not find” and it means, “I care.”

 

When you log a DNF, you’re telling geocachers that the geocache may be more difficult to find than anticipated or may even be missing. You’re also letting the geocache owner know that they may need to double check that their geocache container can still be located at the posted coordinates.

 

If you’re a geocacher who logged any of the more than nine million DNF’s posted to Geocaching so far, thanks from the geocaching community. It’s a small way to help ensure the quality of geocaching. Plus, you can always go back and search again. Who knows, maybe this time you’ll catch a break and log a “Found it!”

 

Add a comment below and share your DNF strategy with other geocachers. When do you log a DNF?

 

From the Help Center:

 

What log type should I use?

 

Didn't Find It (aka: DNF)<br style="color: rgb(89, 89, 91);">Use if you looked for a geocache and you couldn't find it. Share your story and let others know if you were able to see evidence of a critter making off with or destroying the geocache (half eaten lids), muggle activity (swag all spread out outside the geocache), or if you were just off your "caching game" for the day. It's best to remain humble in a DNF log - because we've learned that the geocache is most likely there... staring at you, mocking you, and waiting for you to come back and try again. It is important to post a DNF. If a cache owner sees a string of DNFs on the geocache page they will usually check to see if it is still there. Also, it will alert other finders of the possibility that the geocache either is missing or super tough to find.

 

This blog entry, that isn't part of the guidelines, doesn't indicate that I'm required to search for any period of time or with any quantifiable degree of effort. It actually corroborates my point that the DNF log should communicate clearly with other geocachers and cache owners. It is still up to the cache owner to decide the value and relevance of any given DNF log. And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that I should use a "note" instead of a "DNF" based on someone else's arbitrary rules. When I don't find a cache, I mark it as "Did Not Find" in my GPS, and it automatically enters a DNF field note. That process is built into my device and the website.

Link to comment

The first tier effect of poor caches is a diminished caching experience. The second tier effect is that members leave. The third tier effect is less caches than there otherwise would be (of all quality levels).

There are two first tier effects of GS accepting responsibility for poor caches. First, COs can start thinking they can ignore logs and just wait for GS to complain before they do maintenance. Second, COs that don't deserve the automated message have to waste time investigating whether there's actually a problem. In some cases, the second case may lead to the first.

 

The second tier effect is that if GS is responsible, the community no longer is, so people feel less inclined to file NMs and NAs because GS is going to take care of it for them, thus exacerbating the original problem instead of solving it.

 

The third tier effect is that local communities are less important and will be less likely to form to begin with, so geocachers become more isolated.

 

So if we could choose to simply delete the occasional unwarranted email, we'd experience more inner peace, and those receiving warranted emails would get a nudge and some would take action (improving the overall quality of caches).

I have to admit that the unwarranted emails are no big deal and that people getting them should just chill. I'm more worried about the strategic problem of GS thinking they need to send them. If they don't send these messages, the people that suffer are the people that should be filing those NMs and NAs. In particular, the dialog created by someone asking GS to do something is the perfect conduit for educating people about their responsibility to monitor cache quality.

 

If a cache owner has the mindset of waiting for GS to complain about maintenance before they do any, than they probably shouldn't be cache owners in the first place.

 

I don't see this as GS taking responsibility for anything other than pointing out what may be a potential issue, something that the cache owner should already be aware of.

 

 

Adding to the part of GS taking responsibility... it makes good business sense to remove abandoned, junk caches and have a database full of maintained caches with active owners.

 

This feature does nothing to address inactive owners. Those owners are already ignoring cache logs. Why would they pay attention to a form letter?

 

True. But it's a start.

Link to comment

The first tier effect of poor caches is a diminished caching experience. The second tier effect is that members leave. The third tier effect is less caches than there otherwise would be (of all quality levels).

There are two first tier effects of GS accepting responsibility for poor caches. First, COs can start thinking they can ignore logs and just wait for GS to complain before they do maintenance. Second, COs that don't deserve the automated message have to waste time investigating whether there's actually a problem. In some cases, the second case may lead to the first.

 

The second tier effect is that if GS is responsible, the community no longer is, so people feel less inclined to file NMs and NAs because GS is going to take care of it for them, thus exacerbating the original problem instead of solving it.

 

The third tier effect is that local communities are less important and will be less likely to form to begin with, so geocachers become more isolated.

 

So if we could choose to simply delete the occasional unwarranted email, we'd experience more inner peace, and those receiving warranted emails would get a nudge and some would take action (improving the overall quality of caches).

I have to admit that the unwarranted emails are no big deal and that people getting them should just chill. I'm more worried about the strategic problem of GS thinking they need to send them. If they don't send these messages, the people that suffer are the people that should be filing those NMs and NAs. In particular, the dialog created by someone asking GS to do something is the perfect conduit for educating people about their responsibility to monitor cache quality.

 

If a cache owner has the mindset of waiting for GS to complain about maintenance before they do any, than they probably shouldn't be cache owners in the first place.

 

I don't see this as GS taking responsibility for anything other than pointing out what may be a potential issue, something that the cache owner should already be aware of.

 

 

Adding to the part of GS taking responsibility... it makes good business sense to remove abandoned, junk caches and have a database full of maintained caches with active owners.

 

This feature does nothing to address inactive owners. Those owners are already ignoring cache logs. Why would they pay attention to a form letter?

 

Agreed. It's pretty wishy-washy and will have no effect on inactive owners, but it may have an effect on new owners or good owners who've let things slide a little or borderline owners who were thinking of setting-and-forgetting but might be persuaded to check on their caches.

What would you suggest GS do about the inactive owners problem?

 

Link to comment

Of course, there's no sign of any real help for the biggest cache quality issue of the day, i.e. throw-downs.

You and others have said this before but I still am curious how this has been an actual problem for you (and anyone else) much less it being the "biggest" quality issue of the game currently.

 

I have found as many as three containers for a single cache, and I'm only in the hundreds of finds That's not a problem?

I'm not sure just how multipule containers at one site are a problem for finders.

 

This leaves me so baffled I'm not sure how to reply. Multiple containers at a single location are, in an of themselves, a problem.

Link to comment

The first tier effect of poor caches is a diminished caching experience. The second tier effect is that members leave. The third tier effect is less caches than there otherwise would be (of all quality levels).

There are two first tier effects of GS accepting responsibility for poor caches. First, COs can start thinking they can ignore logs and just wait for GS to complain before they do maintenance. Second, COs that don't deserve the automated message have to waste time investigating whether there's actually a problem. In some cases, the second case may lead to the first.

 

The second tier effect is that if GS is responsible, the community no longer is, so people feel less inclined to file NMs and NAs because GS is going to take care of it for them, thus exacerbating the original problem instead of solving it.

 

The third tier effect is that local communities are less important and will be less likely to form to begin with, so geocachers become more isolated.

 

So if we could choose to simply delete the occasional unwarranted email, we'd experience more inner peace, and those receiving warranted emails would get a nudge and some would take action (improving the overall quality of caches).

I have to admit that the unwarranted emails are no big deal and that people getting them should just chill. I'm more worried about the strategic problem of GS thinking they need to send them. If they don't send these messages, the people that suffer are the people that should be filing those NMs and NAs. In particular, the dialog created by someone asking GS to do something is the perfect conduit for educating people about their responsibility to monitor cache quality.

 

If a cache owner has the mindset of waiting for GS to complain about maintenance before they do any, than they probably shouldn't be cache owners in the first place.

 

I don't see this as GS taking responsibility for anything other than pointing out what may be a potential issue, something that the cache owner should already be aware of.

 

 

Adding to the part of GS taking responsibility... it makes good business sense to remove abandoned, junk caches and have a database full of maintained caches with active owners.

 

This feature does nothing to address inactive owners. Those owners are already ignoring cache logs. Why would they pay attention to a form letter?

 

True. But it's a start.

 

A start to what?

Link to comment

The first tier effect of poor caches is a diminished caching experience. The second tier effect is that members leave. The third tier effect is less caches than there otherwise would be (of all quality levels).

There are two first tier effects of GS accepting responsibility for poor caches. First, COs can start thinking they can ignore logs and just wait for GS to complain before they do maintenance. Second, COs that don't deserve the automated message have to waste time investigating whether there's actually a problem. In some cases, the second case may lead to the first.

 

The second tier effect is that if GS is responsible, the community no longer is, so people feel less inclined to file NMs and NAs because GS is going to take care of it for them, thus exacerbating the original problem instead of solving it.

 

The third tier effect is that local communities are less important and will be less likely to form to begin with, so geocachers become more isolated.

 

So if we could choose to simply delete the occasional unwarranted email, we'd experience more inner peace, and those receiving warranted emails would get a nudge and some would take action (improving the overall quality of caches).

I have to admit that the unwarranted emails are no big deal and that people getting them should just chill. I'm more worried about the strategic problem of GS thinking they need to send them. If they don't send these messages, the people that suffer are the people that should be filing those NMs and NAs. In particular, the dialog created by someone asking GS to do something is the perfect conduit for educating people about their responsibility to monitor cache quality.

 

If a cache owner has the mindset of waiting for GS to complain about maintenance before they do any, than they probably shouldn't be cache owners in the first place.

 

I don't see this as GS taking responsibility for anything other than pointing out what may be a potential issue, something that the cache owner should already be aware of.

 

 

Adding to the part of GS taking responsibility... it makes good business sense to remove abandoned, junk caches and have a database full of maintained caches with active owners.

 

This feature does nothing to address inactive owners. Those owners are already ignoring cache logs. Why would they pay attention to a form letter?

 

Agreed. It's pretty wishy-washy and will have no effect on inactive owners, but it may have an effect on new owners or good owners who've let things slide a little or borderline owners who were thinking of setting-and-forgetting but might be persuaded to check on their caches.

What would you suggest GS do about the inactive owners problem?

 

To begin with, they could take a good hard look at the changes they've implemented in recent years that encourage poor cache ownership. They could have acquiesced to the numbers crowd without completely giving up on cache quality expectations. Instead of turning a blind eye to the throw-down nonsense, they should hold cache owners responsible for each and every cache they place, whether it's a "power trail" or a well-crafted single cache.

 

Using form letters to pick on cache owners who have the audacity to ignore worthless DNFs from people with no credibility isn't going to make anything better.

Link to comment
To begin with, they could take a good hard look at the changes they've implemented in recent years that encourage poor cache ownership.

What changes are you referring to?

They could have acquiesced to the numbers crowd without completely giving up on cache quality expectations.

How?

Instead of turning a blind eye to the throw-down nonsense, they should hold cache owners responsible for each and every cache they place, whether it's a "power trail" or a well-crafted single cache.

How?

Link to comment
To begin with, they could take a good hard look at the changes they've implemented in recent years that encourage poor cache ownership.

What changes are you referring to?

They could have acquiesced to the numbers crowd without completely giving up on cache quality expectations.

How?

Instead of turning a blind eye to the throw-down nonsense, they should hold cache owners responsible for each and every cache they place, whether it's a "power trail" or a well-crafted single cache.

How?

 

You might find it helpful to review the discussion from front to back, since my comments are an extension of other points that were already made. Dragging everything back to a 101 level every time a new person joins the conversation is a little tedious for those who have been engaged for the duration of the thread.

Link to comment

The first tier effect of poor caches is a diminished caching experience. The second tier effect is that members leave. The third tier effect is less caches than there otherwise would be (of all quality levels).

There are two first tier effects of GS accepting responsibility for poor caches. First, COs can start thinking they can ignore logs and just wait for GS to complain before they do maintenance. Second, COs that don't deserve the automated message have to waste time investigating whether there's actually a problem. In some cases, the second case may lead to the first.

 

The second tier effect is that if GS is responsible, the community no longer is, so people feel less inclined to file NMs and NAs because GS is going to take care of it for them, thus exacerbating the original problem instead of solving it.

 

The third tier effect is that local communities are less important and will be less likely to form to begin with, so geocachers become more isolated.

 

So if we could choose to simply delete the occasional unwarranted email, we'd experience more inner peace, and those receiving warranted emails would get a nudge and some would take action (improving the overall quality of caches).

I have to admit that the unwarranted emails are no big deal and that people getting them should just chill. I'm more worried about the strategic problem of GS thinking they need to send them. If they don't send these messages, the people that suffer are the people that should be filing those NMs and NAs. In particular, the dialog created by someone asking GS to do something is the perfect conduit for educating people about their responsibility to monitor cache quality.

 

If a cache owner has the mindset of waiting for GS to complain about maintenance before they do any, than they probably shouldn't be cache owners in the first place.

 

I don't see this as GS taking responsibility for anything other than pointing out what may be a potential issue, something that the cache owner should already be aware of.

 

 

Adding to the part of GS taking responsibility... it makes good business sense to remove abandoned, junk caches and have a database full of maintained caches with active owners.

 

This feature does nothing to address inactive owners. Those owners are already ignoring cache logs. Why would they pay attention to a form letter?

 

True. But it's a start.

 

A start to what?

 

The start of cleaning up some of these neglected caches. The start of educating owners on cache maintenance and the importance of it. The start of GS's realization that something needs to be done and their willingness to try. The start of actually trying to do something about the problem other than complaining about it on forums like this.

Link to comment

 

The start of cleaning up some of these neglected caches. The start of educating owners on cache maintenance and the importance of it. The start of GS's realization that something needs to be done and their willingness to try. The start of actually trying to do something about the problem other than complaining about it on forums like this.

 

The owners who see the emails are already aware of their responsibilities. This system actually removes some responsibility from owners and undermines their ability to exercise their own discretion in handling their own caches. Infantalizing cache owners doesn't help anything.

 

The bad cache owners aren't going to see the emails at all. Someone who ignores cache logs is not going to suddenly be inspired to act because of a vague form letter from HQ.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

You might find it helpful to review the discussion from front to back, since my comments are an extension of other points that were already made. Dragging everything back to a 101 level every time a new person joins the conversation is a little tedious for those who have been engaged for the duration of the thread.

 

Let's see....opinion, opinion, anecdotal story, opinion...etc.

 

Nope, don't see anything closely related to a possible solution that you've brought up. Right off, I'd have to characterize your response as a bit of a brush off.

Link to comment

The first tier effect of poor caches is a diminished caching experience. The second tier effect is that members leave. The third tier effect is less caches than there otherwise would be (of all quality levels).

There are two first tier effects of GS accepting responsibility for poor caches. First, COs can start thinking they can ignore logs and just wait for GS to complain before they do maintenance. Second, COs that don't deserve the automated message have to waste time investigating whether there's actually a problem. In some cases, the second case may lead to the first.

 

The second tier effect is that if GS is responsible, the community no longer is, so people feel less inclined to file NMs and NAs because GS is going to take care of it for them, thus exacerbating the original problem instead of solving it.

 

The third tier effect is that local communities are less important and will be less likely to form to begin with, so geocachers become more isolated.

 

So if we could choose to simply delete the occasional unwarranted email, we'd experience more inner peace, and those receiving warranted emails would get a nudge and some would take action (improving the overall quality of caches).

I have to admit that the unwarranted emails are no big deal and that people getting them should just chill. I'm more worried about the strategic problem of GS thinking they need to send them. If they don't send these messages, the people that suffer are the people that should be filing those NMs and NAs. In particular, the dialog created by someone asking GS to do something is the perfect conduit for educating people about their responsibility to monitor cache quality.

 

If a cache owner has the mindset of waiting for GS to complain about maintenance before they do any, than they probably shouldn't be cache owners in the first place.

 

I don't see this as GS taking responsibility for anything other than pointing out what may be a potential issue, something that the cache owner should already be aware of.

 

 

Adding to the part of GS taking responsibility... it makes good business sense to remove abandoned, junk caches and have a database full of maintained caches with active owners.

 

This feature does nothing to address inactive owners. Those owners are already ignoring cache logs. Why would they pay attention to a form letter?

 

True. But it's a start.

 

A start to what?

 

The start of cleaning up some of these neglected caches. The start of educating owners on cache maintenance and the importance of it. The start of GS's realization that something needs to be done and their willingness to try. The start of actually trying to do something about the problem other than complaining about it on forums like this.

 

The owners who see the emails are already aware of their responsibilities. This system actually removes some responsibility from owners and undermines their ability to exercise their own discretion in handling their own caches. Infantalizing cache owners doesn't help anything.

 

The bad cache owners aren't going to see the emails at all. Someone who ignores cache logs is not going to suddenly be inspired to act because of a vague form letter from HQ.

 

That's why I said it's a start. GS need to continue to work on ways to help the geocaching community deal with this problem. Nothing in the e-mail undermines anything. It's a simple reminder of a potential issue with a cache. No action is required by GS. You can deal with the issue as you see fit.

 

As a matter of fact I have a cache that has a needs maintenance on it. It's a letterbox hybrid and the cacher that posted the NM was new and probably didn't understand the concept. The next cacher found it and log it with no issues. I completely forgot about it but this discussion reminded me that I should take a look and post an owners maintenance log. Mission accomplished.

Link to comment

That's why I said it's a start. GS need to continue to work on ways to help the geocaching community deal with this problem. Nothing in the e-mail undermines anything. It's a simple reminder of a potential issue with a cache. No action is required by GS. You can deal with the issue as you see fit.

 

As a matter of fact I have a cache that has a needs maintenance on it. It's a letterbox hybrid and the cacher that posted the NM was new and probably didn't understand the concept. The next cacher found it and log it with no issues. I completely forgot about it but this discussion reminded me that I should take a look and post an owners maintenance log. Mission accomplished.

 

Actively participating in a forum discussion is quite different than receiving a vague form letter (especially since you've already admitted to ignoring the cache log notification).

 

Poorly maintained caches are a nuisance for many cachers, but it's important to keep sight of the fact that cache owners are still the life blood of the game. Antagonizing good cache owners while merely paying lip service to cache maintenance is a poor strategy.

Link to comment

Of course, there's no sign of any real help for the biggest cache quality issue of the day, i.e. throw-downs.

You and others have said this before but I still am curious how this has been an actual problem for you (and anyone else) much less it being the "biggest" quality issue of the game currently.

 

I have found as many as three containers for a single cache, and I'm only in the hundreds of finds That's not a problem?

I'm not sure just how multipule containers at one site are a problem for finders.

 

This leaves me so baffled I'm not sure how to reply. Multiple containers at a single location are, in an of themselves, a problem.

Still not the point I often try to make and the one people rarely respond to, including your two replys.

 

To me it is the number of times something happens to a substantial number of searchers that makes it a problem. Finding multiple containers a few times over 600, 2000 or 10,000 finds is a yawner of a problem. I don't think I've had it happen more than 20 times over 14 years, if even that many. It is so below the radar...

 

Reading about it 30 times in the forums makes it sound bad but is it, really?

Link to comment

That's why I said it's a start. GS need to continue to work on ways to help the geocaching community deal with this problem. Nothing in the e-mail undermines anything. It's a simple reminder of a potential issue with a cache. No action is required by GS. You can deal with the issue as you see fit.

 

As a matter of fact I have a cache that has a needs maintenance on it. It's a letterbox hybrid and the cacher that posted the NM was new and probably didn't understand the concept. The next cacher found it and log it with no issues. I completely forgot about it but this discussion reminded me that I should take a look and post an owners maintenance log. Mission accomplished.

 

Actively participating in a forum discussion is quite different than receiving a vague form letter (especially since you've already admitted to ignoring the cache log notification).

 

Poorly maintained caches are a nuisance for many cachers, but it's important to keep sight of the fact that cache owners are still the life blood of the game. Antagonizing good cache owners while merely paying lip service to cache maintenance is a poor strategy.

 

Simply commenting on the complaining I read right here on this forum about poorly maintained caches and what should be done about them. Never compared participating in the forum with receiving GS's e-mails.

 

This is a little more than lip service. This is actually trying to do something rather than just talking about doing something.

 

I don't think anyone is expecting GS to solve this problem by themselves. It's obvious that the caching community is going to have to spear-head this thing if it's ever going to get better. I for one appreciate the gesture GS has put forth.

 

Take the e-mail for what it is.... A friendly reminder. Don't read into it any more than that because you'll just be fishing for another silly reason not to support what their trying to do.

Link to comment
To begin with, they could take a good hard look at the changes they've implemented in recent years that encourage poor cache ownership.

What changes are you referring to?

They could have acquiesced to the numbers crowd without completely giving up on cache quality expectations.

How?

Instead of turning a blind eye to the throw-down nonsense, they should hold cache owners responsible for each and every cache they place, whether it's a "power trail" or a well-crafted single cache.

How?

 

You might find it helpful to review the discussion from front to back, since my comments are an extension of other points that were already made. Dragging everything back to a 101 level every time a new person joins the conversation is a little tedious for those who have been engaged for the duration of the thread.

I've read the entire thread - followed it from the beginning. I don't recall your details on these points, although I may have missed them. I only recall you complaining about the "spam" emails. *shrug*

Link to comment
the guidelines incentivize caches that will be abandoned and/or have maintenance problems

 

I thought I knew the guidelines pretty well. But this is new to me. Can you point me to the relevant guideline section(s)? :unsure:

 

As I wrote earlier, this thread is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. I would be happy to discuss it in a new thread.

Link to comment
the guidelines incentivize caches that will be abandoned and/or have maintenance problems
I thought I knew the guidelines pretty well. But this is new to me. Can you point me to the relevant guideline section(s)? :unsure:
As I wrote earlier, this thread is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. I would be happy to discuss it in a new thread.
Look, Ma! A new thread!

 

(I'm curious. So sue me...)

Link to comment

I just received this automated message for one of my caches, GC6WPQ5. This D2/T5 multi was published on the 10th of November this year, was found on the 20th of November, then had a DNF on the 25th of December. Apart from a note someone posted on the 19th of November wondering why no one had gone looking for it yet, those are the only logs. The DNF says that they were running short of time and there was a nearby group of muggles setting up camp who were starting to make searching uncomfortable so, given that the cache is well hidden, it is in all likelihood still there.

 

The email has given me three options, to immediately visit the cache and perform the required repairs, disable the listing until I can do that, or archive it.

 

This cache is only accessible by boat (hence the T5) and at this time of year in the middle of our summer Christmas holiday season, the bay is likely to be full of jet skis and water skiers, making it unpleasant for kayaking, with the beach below GZ a popular place for those people to get into the festive spirit so to speak. After getting the DNF I'd been planning a visit sometime in the coming weeks but was going to wait a little while until most of the muggles were back at work.

 

My dilemma now is whether I should now disable the cache until I can do that, as the email says I should, which would block anyone else who might have been thinking of doing it over the holidays, or ignore the email and risk a reviewer stepping in before I can get out there.

 

I'm very surprised this has happened after just ONE DNF on a D2/T5 multi that's only two months old. I thought the bar was supposed to be set higher for harder caches, or is a single DNF now equivalent to an NM or NA in the eyes of TPTB?

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment

I just received this automated message for one of my caches, GC6WPQ5.

......

I'm very surprised this has happened after just ONE DNF on a D2/T5 multi that's only two months old. I thought the bar was supposed to be set higher for harder caches, or is a single DNF now equivalent to an NM or NA in the eyes of TPTB?

 

That does seem harsh to me, and I suspect a reviewer should be able to defuse the situation if you contact one. With all the rubbishy, neglected hides floating around, you would think yours should be the last to get such an automated message..... It makes you wonder exactly how their algorithm works??

 

Link to comment

I just received this automated message for one of my caches, GC6WPQ5. This D2/T5 multi was published on the 10th of November this year, was found on the 20th of November, then had a DNF on the 25th of December. Apart from a note someone posted on the 19th of November wondering why no one had gone looking for it yet, those are the only logs. The DNF says that they were running short of time and there was a nearby group of muggles setting up camp who were starting to make searching uncomfortable so, given that the cache is well hidden, it is in all likelihood still there.

 

The email has given me three options, to immediately visit the cache and perform the required repairs, disable the listing until I can do that, or archive it.

 

This cache is only accessible by boat (hence the T5) and at this time of year in the middle of our summer Christmas holiday season, the bay is likely to be full of jet skis and water skiers, making it unpleasant for kayaking, with the beach below GZ a popular place for those people to get into the festive spirit so to speak. After getting the DNF I'd been planning a visit sometime in the coming weeks but was going to wait a little while until most of the muggles were back at work.

 

My dilemma now is whether I should now disable the cache until I can do that, as the email says I should, which would block anyone else who might have been thinking of doing it over the holidays, or ignore the email and risk a reviewer stepping in before I can get out there.

 

I'm very surprised this has happened after just ONE DNF on a D2/T5 multi that's only two months old. I thought the bar was supposed to be set higher for harder caches, or is a single DNF now equivalent to an NM or NA in the eyes of TPTB?

 

It sounds like your cache has been swept up by the algorithm quite needlessly. Ask the reviewer who published your cache for advice.

Link to comment

I just received this automated message for one of my caches, GC6WPQ5. .......

 

It sounds like your cache has been swept up by the algorithm quite needlessly. Ask the reviewer who published your cache for advice.

 

This would be a good one for Groundspeaks engineers to look at - why on earth was this cache picked out?? Clearly the algorithm (must be pretty basic!) needs a tweak (or an overhaul).

 

 

Link to comment

I've just been chatting with the DNF'er. She sent me a photo of where she'd been looking and it's definitely the wrong rock ledge under the wrong blackened tree, so I'm fairly confident the cache is still there. I really don't want to have to go out there right now and risk having my little kayak capsized by powerful speedboats and jet skis, or have to go climbing up to GZ through sozzled muggles camped on the little beach. In a month's time it'll go back to being a quiet little backwater and I'll be more than happy to go for a paddle then when the tides and winds are favourable.

 

When these automated notifications were introduced a couple of years back, I'm pretty sure a lackey said the bar would be set higher for multis, mysteries and high D/T caches since these were more likely to have few finds and some DNFs, but it appears that hasn't happened. And it's not as if there's any behind-the-scenes history that might have triggered this - none of my 25 hides have ever received a NM, let alone had one go untended, and the few DNFs I've had have been due to seeker error not cache disappearance.

 

I can't help wondering if I should now be super-careful about ever logging a DNF, if doing so flags the cache as abandoned.

Link to comment

I've just been chatting with the DNF'er. She sent me a photo of where she'd been looking and it's definitely the wrong rock ledge under the wrong blackened tree, so I'm fairly confident the cache is still there. I really don't want to have to go out there right now and risk having my little kayak capsized by powerful speedboats and jet skis, or have to go climbing up to GZ through sozzled muggles camped on the little beach. In a month's time it'll go back to being a quiet little backwater and I'll be more than happy to go for a paddle then when the tides and winds are favourable.

 

When these automated notifications were introduced a couple of years back, I'm pretty sure a lackey said the bar would be set higher for multis, mysteries and high D/T caches since these were more likely to have few finds and some DNFs, but it appears that hasn't happened. And it's not as if there's any behind-the-scenes history that might have triggered this - none of my 25 hides have ever received a NM, let alone had one go untended, and the few DNFs I've had have been due to seeker error not cache disappearance.

 

I can't help wondering if I should now be super-careful about ever logging a DNF, if doing so flags the cache as abandoned.

 

We should log DNFs as we did before, and push back against Groundspeak when they post these senseless robot logs on our caches.

 

Just talk to your local reviewer and clear up the confusion.

Link to comment

I just received this automated message for one of my caches, GC6WPQ5. This D2/T5 multi was published on the 10th of November this year, was found on the 20th of November, then had a DNF on the 25th of December. Apart from a note someone posted on the 19th of November wondering why no one had gone looking for it yet, those are the only logs. The DNF says that they were running short of time and there was a nearby group of muggles setting up camp who were starting to make searching uncomfortable so, given that the cache is well hidden, it is in all likelihood still there.

 

SNIP

 

I'm very surprised this has happened after just ONE DNF on a D2/T5 multi that's only two months old. I thought the bar was supposed to be set higher for harder caches, or is a single DNF now equivalent to an NM or NA in the eyes of TPTB?

 

The final (hopefully) twist in this tale is that the person who logged the one and only DNF last weekend went back yesterday and found it this time. The cache is in perfect condition and right where it was meant to be, as expected for one that's only seven weeks old.

 

I'm curious to see if the system takes exception to me not logging a timely OM in response to its Might Need Maintenance email. No offence to the hamsters, but in light of what's transpired, this whole idea of declaring a cache in need of immediate maintenance (or disablement pending maintenance or archival) on the basis of one DNF log is silly.

Link to comment

Same idea still applies. Contact a reviewer before panicking about it.

 

Nobody's panicking, but the person who logged the DNF is now upset that her action led to this, as she thought she was doing the right thing. Perhaps "DNF" should be renamed "CIM" (cache is missing) if that's how the system is interpreting it.

 

Yes, many of us are bothered by this and the only way it's going to get fixed is if we are proactive about challenging these things when they are unfair.

 

Instead of feeling immediately obligated to maintain a cache that likely doesn't need maintenance, ask a reviewer why the cache has been flagged. Or maybe even complain using the contact form.

 

We shouldn't stop using the logs the way we always have. We should be pushing back on this silly flawed system.

Link to comment

Same idea still applies. Contact a reviewer before panicking about it.

 

Nobody's panicking, but the person who logged the DNF is now upset that her action led to this, as she thought she was doing the right thing. Perhaps "DNF" should be renamed "CIM" (cache is missing) if that's how the system is interpreting it.

How does she know? It was an email to you, not a note on the cache page, correct?

Link to comment

Same idea still applies. Contact a reviewer before panicking about it.

 

Nobody's panicking, but the person who logged the DNF is now upset that her action led to this, as she thought she was doing the right thing. Perhaps "DNF" should be renamed "CIM" (cache is missing) if that's how the system is interpreting it.

How does she know? It was an email to you, not a note on the cache page, correct?

 

I posted about it on one of the local Facebook geocaching groups, asking for advice on how best to proceed. She then contacted me, sending me a photo of where she'd been looking which was clearly the wrong spot (turned out it was about 10 metres away). Anyway she's found it now so that's the main thing.

 

Instead of feeling immediately obligated to maintain a cache that likely doesn't need maintenance, ask a reviewer why the cache has been flagged. Or maybe even complain using the contact form.

 

I tried the contact form but the response from HQ was just a rehash of the Help Centre article about the emails and how they've been well-received by the community and are helping promote good cache maintenance.

Link to comment

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it Jeff.... it would be a reviewer taking action, and they would quickly see there was nothing to see here.....

Ditto.

Having met them,I like to think our reviewers are smarter than the average algorythm and are on top of it. You have nothing to worry about Jeff.

Link to comment

Some observations:

 

1. These are private emails, not logs to the cache page. If a maintenance email gets publicized to the local community, that's the cache owner's option.

 

2. The emails are sent automatically based on an algorithm. No algorithm is perfect, and it cannot fully replace human judgment (by both the cache owner and their reviewer). The algorithm is tweaked from time to time based on community feedback (and especially reviewer feedback, when we see anamolies like barefootjeff's cache). In this case, I'm betting that the odd result was due to the fact that there had only been one find on the cache before the DNF, and the cache had been available for about six weeks. Perhaps in response to the feedback given, the algorithm might give a bit more weight to the D/T ratings for caches like this, and to the cache type, and a bit less to the time between finds and the importance of a single DNF.

 

3. I don't think any reviewer, and in particular the experienced and community-oriented Australian review team, would have taken action against this cache if barefootjeff continued to do nothing. Again, the value of human judgment. (Note, however, that many reviewers are dogs.)

 

4. Due to the recent find, I can confirm that the algorithm now regards barefootjeff's cache as being in good shape. (Off topic, everyone should check out that cache listing for an example of a well-designed multicache with a great writeup and photos.)

 

5. Geocaching HQ recognizes that the algorithm isn't perfect. That's why there are no firm demands or automatic consequences when one of these private emails is sent. Here is part of the text from the automated email, with emphasis added:

 

Subject: Your geocache might need maintenance

 

Your geocache, {CACHE NAME} (GCXXXXX), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

Link to comment

Some observations:

 

...

 

2. The emails are sent automatically based on an algorithm. No algorithm is perfect, and it cannot fully replace human judgment (by both the cache owner and their reviewer).

 

...

 

5. Geocaching HQ recognizes that the algorithm isn't perfect. That's why there are no firm demands or automatic consequences when one of these private emails is sent. Here is part of the text from the automated email, with emphasis added:

 

Subject: Your geocache might need maintenance

 

Your geocache, {CACHE NAME} (GCXXXXX), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

 

It's a statistical fact that ANY algorithm with a non-zero true positive rate will also have a non-zero false positive rate. Barefootjeff's case is an example of a false positive, and his will by no means be the last.

 

On the whole, I think that the algorithmic approach is not a bad thing. However, the email you quoted does not seem to acknowledge that there will be false positives. Note the sentences:

 

The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container.

 

These imply that some maintenance must be needed; they hedge only on what exactly is required. In my opinion, the certainty of false positives needs to be acknowledged in the email, in the form of instructions for what to do if the email was generated in error. The email you quoted contains nothing of the kind.

Link to comment

 

I tried the contact form but the response from HQ was just a rehash of the Help Centre article about the emails and how they've been well-received by the community and are helping promote good cache maintenance.

 

It is still worth making the complaint so they can make improvements.

 

Nothing I have read from the reviewers who have commented on this issue suggests that reasonable judgment won't prevail when the algorithm is flawed. It just takes some clear communication to get things sorted.

Link to comment

Some observations:

 

1. These are private emails, not logs to the cache page. If a maintenance email gets publicized to the local community, that's the cache owner's option.

 

2. The emails are sent automatically based on an algorithm. No algorithm is perfect, and it cannot fully replace human judgment (by both the cache owner and their reviewer). The algorithm is tweaked from time to time based on community feedback (and especially reviewer feedback, when we see anamolies like barefootjeff's cache). In this case, I'm betting that the odd result was due to the fact that there had only been one find on the cache before the DNF, and the cache had been available for about six weeks. Perhaps in response to the feedback given, the algorithm might give a bit more weight to the D/T ratings for caches like this, and to the cache type, and a bit less to the time between finds and the importance of a single DNF.

 

3. I don't think any reviewer, and in particular the experienced and community-oriented Australian review team, would have taken action against this cache if barefootjeff continued to do nothing. Again, the value of human judgment. (Note, however, that many reviewers are dogs.)

 

4. Due to the recent find, I can confirm that the algorithm now regards barefootjeff's cache as being in good shape. (Off topic, everyone should check out that cache listing for an example of a well-designed multicache with a great writeup and photos.)

 

5. Geocaching HQ recognizes that the algorithm isn't perfect. That's why there are no firm demands or automatic consequences when one of these private emails is sent. Here is part of the text from the automated email, with emphasis added:

 

Subject: Your geocache might need maintenance

 

Your geocache, {CACHE NAME} (GCXXXXX), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

 

Thanks for your observations and assurances (I'm still blushing at no.4). My hope was that this case might result in some tweaking of the algorithm parameters to prevent others from getting the email in similar circumstances and if that's happening, excellent.

 

While the words "might" and "may" appear throughout the email, it still only provides three options for responding to it: do a maintenance visit and log an OM, disable your cache until you can do that, or archive it. There's no "if you feel this has been sent in error, ignore it and tell us why" option, which is really needed because the algorithm is looking at lone DNF logs as indicative of a cache problem. ONE DNF does not mean the cache is missing, as this case has shown. I'd even go further and say that just one lone DNF should never imply that any cache is missing - most isolated DNFs are because the seeker was looking in the wrong place. A string of DNFs on a low difficulty cache, yes sure, but one DNF on a D2/T5 multi?

 

Also, the 4 day turnaround from the DNF being logged to when the email was sent is far too short. If you're going to send these emails when a DNF is the only issue, at least allow time for the DNFer to have another crack at it, or for someone else to log a Found It which would wipe the slate clean.

 

Anyway, them's my thoughts.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...