Your geocache might need maintenance.

[+TriciaG]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

*shakes head*

[+J Grouchy]

Don't dumb it down.

If you could rate it 1.75, that's where I'd put it.

My very first find was very similar to this...a black-painted junction box magnetically attached to the steel beam landing support on a black-painted staircase. I had no idea what a cache was supposed to look like, but after a few minutes I figured it out. Compared to that, the one in the photo in this thread is a piece of cake. I think the only advice I might give would be to let folks know not to disconnect any of the REAL equipment, because I HAVE seen caches that make use of conduit very much like the stuff shown in that photo.

[+usyoopers]

We got an email like that yesterday as well.... 7/18. It is in regards to our cache GC5FE8B. While I don't feel that this was "mean" or "nasty" and we certainly don't feel ashamed or picked on, it is a little strange. The cache does have 2 dnf's on it, two cachers were out together on 3/6/16, their log indicates that they believe the cache to be under the snow. Yes, I do think we need to get out and check on it as there hasn't been anyone out there since then I just find it odd that we just got this email..... why didn't we get it in March??

[+justintim1999]

No problem with this what-so-ever.

[+cerberus1]

We got an email like that yesterday as well.... 7/18. It is in regards to our cache GC5FE8B. While I don't feel that this was "mean" or "nasty" and we certainly don't feel ashamed or picked on, it is a little strange. The cache does have 2 dnf's on it, two cachers were out together on 3/6/16, their log indicates that they believe the cache to be under the snow. Yes, I do think we need to get out and check on it as there hasn't been anyone out there since then I just find it odd that we just got this email..... why didn't we get it in March??

I thought it was automatic, but maybe it needs a person to say, "Okay brillsbury, time to hit the automoton". Click...

Since the OP and you guys are within the same timeframe, and no other threads after last September, maybe someone does have to activate it.

[+wmpastor]

 

...

 

It took me three visits to find my first LPC. By this logic they should all be terrain 2.5. I don't think so.

 

I assume you meant difficulty 2.5. Terrain 2.5 might be if you needed to climb up the lamppost first, or if the lamppost was on a steep hill.

 

But yes, the emails may occur with false positives, but are actually nothing more than a friendly suggestion that the cache "may" need to be looked at.

[+narcissa]

 

...

 

It took me three visits to find my first LPC. By this logic they should all be terrain 2.5. I don't think so.

 

I assume you meant difficulty 2.5. Terrain 2.5 might be if you needed to climb up the lamppost first, or if the lamppost was on a steep hill.

 

But yes, the emails may occur with false positives, but are actually nothing more than a friendly suggestion that the cache "may" need to be looked at.

 

Yes, my deepest apologies for the error.

 

Automated spam isn't friendly. Cache owners already get notifications of cache logs.

[+L0ne.R]

It seems like most people are arguing that Groundspeak should do nothing about the increasing amount of junk abandoned caches on their site. A database full of abandoned caches is preferable to possibly slighting an owner of an evil cache (at least meant to be evil to newbies).

 

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs. It would be interesting to know how many caches within 40 miles of downtown Annapolis have current last 3 (or more) DNF logs in a row. I've seen a lot of abandoned caches where the CO is gone or does nothing. People keep logging DNFs or false finds and no one will log the much needed NM. If GS's algorithm is 3 DNFs in a row for D1.5 or under, what's the harm? That there will be fewer evil caches? That evil caches will be listed with at least a D2 rating? (Is the difference between 1.5 and 2 really dumbing down the game?) Or only cache owners willing to check their caches and listings more often will own evil caches? That's a good thing IMO.

 

I see a lot of abandoned stuff in my area. That's why last year I placed 75 NAs and 72 of them are now archived.

I logged 89 NMs, 67 are now archived, 9 are currently disabled, 7 by the reviewer. 2 disabled by the owners.

Most of the archived caches were archived by reviewers. Some were archived by cache owners whose form of maintenance is to do nothing until after the NA and after the reviewer posts a note, then archive the cache.

Or:

• get mad at the person who posted the NA for forcing them to go out and replace the cache
• get mad at the person who posted the NA because they were hoping someone would throwdown a cache
• string things along by posting how they will get out to check the cache very soon but never do
• post OMs saying they will get to the cache soon but never do

If this little nudge does something to remind cache owners of their responsibility, I think it's good for the pastime, even if it irks owners of evil caches.

[+L0ne.R]

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.

 

What's the harm? Create a bookmark list for those caches that you didn't give a thorough search for.

Post DNFs on caches you couldn't find and suspect are missing. Post notes on caches you didn't search intently enough. It will still be in your personal records.

For the cache owners of evil hides that post low D ratings, or want a lot of DNFs, expect to have to pay closer attention to those hides and listings.

 

To those CO's who don't want to check their caches, simply ignore GS's automated message. Nothing happens anyway until someone posts an NA. (Or in some areas with vigilant reviewers if there are 3 NMs that go unaddressed.)

Edited July 19, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+NanCycle]

So really, you would give this a D greater than 1.5?

 

 

I agree that this type of cache is easy for the experienced cacher. Definitely a 1 or 1.5 for anyone who has found one of these already.

This style of cache is generally placed to be an evil cache, something that will impress the newbie with its clever disguise.

If you don't mean for it to stump people and are only using this disguise to keep it from muggles, perhaps you can put a more give away clue in the hint, since experienced cachers will see the cache immediately and won't need the hint but newbies will appreciate an "easy to find or solve within about 10-15 minutes". Currently it's taking new cachers 1/2 hour and still they aren't finding it. "Magnetic" isn't working for them. Maybe: Flat. Magnetic. In plain sight.

Or up the D to a 2.5 and in the description write that it will be a D1 for experienced cachers but might be difficult for newbies.

 

Yes, it's a 1.0 for anyone who has seen one before and a 2.5 (or more) if it's the first one they've seen. I think a 2.0 would be perfect, and it would keep down the nuisance emails every time a couple noobs can't figure it out. And if you want to include wording to indicate that it will be easier for experienced cachers, that would be good too.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

What's the harm? Create a bookmark list for those caches that you didn't give a thorough search for.

Post DNFs on caches you couldn't find and suspect are missing. Post notes on caches you didn't search intently enough. It will still be in your personal records.

For the cache owners of evil hides that post low D ratings, or want a lot of DNFs, expect to have to pay closer attention to those hides and listings.

 

To those CO's who don't want to check their caches, simply ignore GS's automated message. Nothing happens anyway until someone posts an NA. (Or in some areas with vigilant reviewers if there are 3 NMs that go unaddressed.)

 

A bookmark list is clunky and adds extra steps to my process. I use field notes to log cache visits.

 

For years we've been strongly encouraged to use DNF to communicate with cache owners and fellow cachers. I generally make and effort to write my DNF logs clearly, so the cache owner and other cachers know if it was an extended search, or poor searching conditions, or an aborted attempt due to muggles, etc. DNF means "Did Not Find." It doesn't mean "It Isn't There." I can't possibly know if a cache is missing or not.

 

Given all the complaints about short logs, late logs, and all the other log transgressions that people whine about, it's very frustrating that the effort I put into my logs will be boiled down to a falsehood and used to trigger automated spam emails. It's such a disappointing way to treat people.

[+narcissa]

It seems like most people are arguing that Groundspeak should do nothing about the increasing amount of junk abandoned caches on their site. A database full of abandoned caches is preferable to possibly slighting an owner of an evil cache (at least meant to be evil to newbies).

 

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs. It would be interesting to know how many caches within 40 miles of downtown Annapolis have current last 3 (or more) DNF logs in a row. I've seen a lot of abandoned caches where the CO is gone or does nothing. People keep logging DNFs or false finds and no one will log the much needed NM. If GS's algorithm is 3 DNFs in a row for D1.5 or under, what's the harm? That there will be fewer evil caches? That evil caches will be listed with at least a D2 rating? (Is the difference between 1.5 and 2 really dumbing down the game?) Or only cache owners willing to check their caches and listings more often will own evil caches? That's a good thing IMO.

 

I see a lot of abandoned stuff in my area. That's why last year I placed 75 NAs and 72 of them are now archived.

I logged 89 NMs, 67 are now archived, 9 are currently disabled, 7 by the reviewer. 2 disabled by the owners.

Most of the archived caches were archived by reviewers. Some were archived by cache owners whose form of maintenance is to do nothing until after the NA and after the reviewer posts a note, then archive the cache.

Or:

• get mad at the person who posted the NA for forcing them to go out and replace the cache
• get mad at the person who posted the NA because they were hoping someone would throwdown a cache
• string things along by posting how they will get out to check the cache very soon but never do
• post OMs saying they will get to the cache soon but never do

If this little nudge does something to remind cache owners of their responsibility, I think it's good for the pastime, even if it irks owners of evil caches.

 

If someone has ignored the NMs and the DNFs in their inbox and their caches are still unmaintained, what makes you think they're going to pay any attention to an automated spam email?

[Keystone]

We got an email like that yesterday as well.... 7/18. It is in regards to our cache GC5FE8B. While I don't feel that this was "mean" or "nasty" and we certainly don't feel ashamed or picked on, it is a little strange. The cache does have 2 dnf's on it, two cachers were out together on 3/6/16, their log indicates that they believe the cache to be under the snow. Yes, I do think we need to get out and check on it as there hasn't been anyone out there since then I just find it odd that we just got this email..... why didn't we get it in March??

Because it wouldn't be fair to pounce on the cache owner so soon after receiving the log notifications for the DNF's. The hamsters who send out the cache maintenance reminder emails are trained to wait for an appropriate period of time before the email is triggered.

[+cleandrysurface]

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs.

 

And how many of those red wrenches are for MY caches?

 

Put THAT in your algorithm.

 

If this little nudge does something to remind cache owners of their responsibility, I think it's good for the pastime, even if it irks owners of evil caches.

 

Has nothing to do with being the owner of some evil caches. This cache is far from evil. Will take advice and revise the hint. It has everything to do with good intentions and poor execution.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

It seems like most people are arguing that Groundspeak should do nothing about the increasing amount of junk abandoned caches on their site. A database full of abandoned caches is preferable to possibly slighting an owner of an evil cache (at least meant to be evil to newbies).

 

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs. It would be interesting to know how many caches within 40 miles of downtown Annapolis have current last 3 (or more) DNF logs in a row. I've seen a lot of abandoned caches where the CO is gone or does nothing. People keep logging DNFs or false finds and no one will log the much needed NM. If GS's algorithm is 3 DNFs in a row for D1.5 or under, what's the harm? That there will be fewer evil caches? That evil caches will be listed with at least a D2 rating? (Is the difference between 1.5 and 2 really dumbing down the game?) Or only cache owners willing to check their caches and listings more often will own evil caches? That's a good thing IMO.

 

I see a lot of abandoned stuff in my area. That's why last year I placed 75 NAs and 72 of them are now archived.

I logged 89 NMs, 67 are now archived, 9 are currently disabled, 7 by the reviewer. 2 disabled by the owners.

Most of the archived caches were archived by reviewers. Some were archived by cache owners whose form of maintenance is to do nothing until after the NA and after the reviewer posts a note, then archive the cache.

Or:

• get mad at the person who posted the NA for forcing them to go out and replace the cache
• get mad at the person who posted the NA because they were hoping someone would throwdown a cache
• string things along by posting how they will get out to check the cache very soon but never do
• post OMs saying they will get to the cache soon but never do

If this little nudge does something to remind cache owners of their responsibility, I think it's good for the pastime, even if it irks owners of evil caches.

 

If someone has ignored the NMs and the DNFs in their inbox and their caches are still unmaintained, what makes you think they're going to pay any attention to an automated spam email?

 

It's not about those people so much as about the game and cache ownership as a whole. A reminder to those who haven't abandoned the cache, the listing or the game that there is a certain level of responsibility expected from the hiders to keep the database clean and the game fun for all.

[+L0ne.R]

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs.

 

And how many of those red wrenches are for MY caches?

 

Put THAT in your algorithm.

 

 

It's not just about you, it's about the pastime and the database. GS can't treat every cache individually. They don't have the resources to fine-tooth-comb every cache.

[+narcissa]

It seems like most people are arguing that Groundspeak should do nothing about the increasing amount of junk abandoned caches on their site. A database full of abandoned caches is preferable to possibly slighting an owner of an evil cache (at least meant to be evil to newbies).

 

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs. It would be interesting to know how many caches within 40 miles of downtown Annapolis have current last 3 (or more) DNF logs in a row. I've seen a lot of abandoned caches where the CO is gone or does nothing. People keep logging DNFs or false finds and no one will log the much needed NM. If GS's algorithm is 3 DNFs in a row for D1.5 or under, what's the harm? That there will be fewer evil caches? That evil caches will be listed with at least a D2 rating? (Is the difference between 1.5 and 2 really dumbing down the game?) Or only cache owners willing to check their caches and listings more often will own evil caches? That's a good thing IMO.

 

I see a lot of abandoned stuff in my area. That's why last year I placed 75 NAs and 72 of them are now archived.

I logged 89 NMs, 67 are now archived, 9 are currently disabled, 7 by the reviewer. 2 disabled by the owners.

Most of the archived caches were archived by reviewers. Some were archived by cache owners whose form of maintenance is to do nothing until after the NA and after the reviewer posts a note, then archive the cache.

Or:

• get mad at the person who posted the NA for forcing them to go out and replace the cache
• get mad at the person who posted the NA because they were hoping someone would throwdown a cache
• string things along by posting how they will get out to check the cache very soon but never do
• post OMs saying they will get to the cache soon but never do

If this little nudge does something to remind cache owners of their responsibility, I think it's good for the pastime, even if it irks owners of evil caches.

 

If someone has ignored the NMs and the DNFs in their inbox and their caches are still unmaintained, what makes you think they're going to pay any attention to an automated spam email?

 

It's not about those people so much as about the game and cache ownership as a whole. A reminder to those who haven't abandoned the cache, the listing or the game that there is a certain level of responsibility expected from the hiders to keep the database clean and the game fun for all.

 

The people who need that kind of reminder won't notice the email.

 

"Responsibility" doesn't mean we need to jump up and rush out to the cache every time a noob has trouble. Good cache owners are capable of following their logs and making judgment calls based on the content. Many DNFs do not require any kind of reaction at all.

[+justintim1999]

It seems like most people are arguing that Groundspeak should do nothing about the increasing amount of junk abandoned caches on their site. A database full of abandoned caches is preferable to possibly slighting an owner of an evil cache (at least meant to be evil to newbies).

 

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs. It would be interesting to know how many caches within 40 miles of downtown Annapolis have current last 3 (or more) DNF logs in a row. I've seen a lot of abandoned caches where the CO is gone or does nothing. People keep logging DNFs or false finds and no one will log the much needed NM. If GS's algorithm is 3 DNFs in a row for D1.5 or under, what's the harm? That there will be fewer evil caches? That evil caches will be listed with at least a D2 rating? (Is the difference between 1.5 and 2 really dumbing down the game?) Or only cache owners willing to check their caches and listings more often will own evil caches? That's a good thing IMO.

 

I see a lot of abandoned stuff in my area. That's why last year I placed 75 NAs and 72 of them are now archived.

I logged 89 NMs, 67 are now archived, 9 are currently disabled, 7 by the reviewer. 2 disabled by the owners.

Most of the archived caches were archived by reviewers. Some were archived by cache owners whose form of maintenance is to do nothing until after the NA and after the reviewer posts a note, then archive the cache.

Or:

• get mad at the person who posted the NA for forcing them to go out and replace the cache
• get mad at the person who posted the NA because they were hoping someone would throwdown a cache
• string things along by posting how they will get out to check the cache very soon but never do
• post OMs saying they will get to the cache soon but never do

If this little nudge does something to remind cache owners of their responsibility, I think it's good for the pastime, even if it irks owners of evil caches.

 

If someone has ignored the NMs and the DNFs in their inbox and their caches are still unmaintained, what makes you think they're going to pay any attention to an automated spam email?

 

It's not about those people so much as about the game and cache ownership as a whole. A reminder to those who haven't abandoned the cache, the listing or the game that there is a certain level of responsibility expected from the hiders to keep the database clean and the game fun for all.

 

I agree. If your a responsible cache owner this shouldn't bother you at all. If your an absentee cache owner you'll ignore this like you've ignored your caches. This is for the owners in the middle that will sooner or later come down on one side or the other. It's a simple reminder of your responsibilities as a cache owner and nothing more.

 

In the OP's case I would have ignored the e-mail and waited for another DNF before acting. I wouldn't have posted a NM simply to satisfy the "GeoBot" unless I physically checked on the cache.

 

Could this be Groundspeak's attempt to deal with the growing lack of NM's & NA's?

 

A good idea is a good idea even if it inconveniences some.

[+niraD]

Yes, it's a 1.0 for anyone who has seen one before and a 2.5 (or more) if it's the first one they've seen.

Yeah, that's the problem with common hide styles. It's a quick easy find for experienced geocachers who know to search in the usual places. It's a lot harder for newbies who haven't figured out what the usual places are.

 

A lot of common hides have low difficulty ratings because they're in the usual place, which is misleading for newbies who are advised to start with easy hides, only to discover that the low-difficulty cache is anything but an easy hide for new geocachers.

[+cleandrysurface]

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs.

 

And how many of those red wrenches are for MY caches?

 

Put THAT in your algorithm.

 

 

It's not just about you, it's about the pastime and the database. GS can't treat every cache individually. They don't have the resources to fine-tooth-comb every cache.

 

That's a false argument. I don't expect anyone to vet every notification that pops out of the hamster mill. My point is if GS can write an algorithm to filter out D1.5s with 3 or more consecutive DNFs, then they can certainly write an algorithm that cross references those with CO activity and the condition of the COs other caches.

 

On the other hand, if all of my efforts to keep up on the maintenance of my caches, such as on this one - https://coord.info/GC2CN1P , are for naught, because I am just going to get pinged anyway, then maybe I should rethink my maintenance program because now I can just kick back and wait for GS to tell me when I have to do my maintenance.

[+cleandrysurface]

It seems like most people are arguing that Groundspeak should do nothing about the increasing amount of junk abandoned caches on their site. A database full of abandoned caches is preferable to possibly slighting an owner of an evil cache (at least meant to be evil to newbies).

 

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs. It would be interesting to know how many caches within 40 miles of downtown Annapolis have current last 3 (or more) DNF logs in a row. I've seen a lot of abandoned caches where the CO is gone or does nothing. People keep logging DNFs or false finds and no one will log the much needed NM. If GS's algorithm is 3 DNFs in a row for D1.5 or under, what's the harm? That there will be fewer evil caches? That evil caches will be listed with at least a D2 rating? (Is the difference between 1.5 and 2 really dumbing down the game?) Or only cache owners willing to check their caches and listings more often will own evil caches? That's a good thing IMO.

 

I see a lot of abandoned stuff in my area. That's why last year I placed 75 NAs and 72 of them are now archived.

I logged 89 NMs, 67 are now archived, 9 are currently disabled, 7 by the reviewer. 2 disabled by the owners.

Most of the archived caches were archived by reviewers. Some were archived by cache owners whose form of maintenance is to do nothing until after the NA and after the reviewer posts a note, then archive the cache.

Or:

• get mad at the person who posted the NA for forcing them to go out and replace the cache
• get mad at the person who posted the NA because they were hoping someone would throwdown a cache
• string things along by posting how they will get out to check the cache very soon but never do
• post OMs saying they will get to the cache soon but never do

If this little nudge does something to remind cache owners of their responsibility, I think it's good for the pastime, even if it irks owners of evil caches.

 

If someone has ignored the NMs and the DNFs in their inbox and their caches are still unmaintained, what makes you think they're going to pay any attention to an automated spam email?

 

It's not about those people so much as about the game and cache ownership as a whole. A reminder to those who haven't abandoned the cache, the listing or the game that there is a certain level of responsibility expected from the hiders to keep the database clean and the game fun for all.

 

I agree. If your a responsible cache owner this shouldn't bother you at all.

 

I disagree. I am a responsible cache owner and it does bother me because its telling me that I am not a responsible cache owner. Note my entry on 4/22/16. If responsible cache ownership is not recognized by GS then why bother?

 

In the OP's case I would have ignored the e-mail and waited for another DNF before acting. I wouldn't have posted a NM simply to satisfy the "GeoBot" unless I physically checked on the cache.

 

I did check the cache. Pics to prove it...

 

A good idea is a good idea even if it inconveniences some.

 

A good idea is only a good idea to those that aren't inconvenienced.

[+justintim1999]

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs.

 

And how many of those red wrenches are for MY caches?

 

Put THAT in your algorithm.

 

 

It's not just about you, it's about the pastime and the database. GS can't treat every cache individually. They don't have the resources to fine-tooth-comb every cache.

 

That's a false argument. I don't expect anyone to vet every notification that pops out of the hamster mill. My point is if GS can write an algorithm to filter out D1.5s with 3 or more consecutive DNFs, then they can certainly write an algorithm that cross references those with CO activity and the condition of the COs other caches.

 

On the other hand, if all of my efforts to keep up on the maintenance of my caches, such as on this one - https://coord.info/GC2CN1P , are for naught, because I am just going to get pinged anyway, then maybe I should rethink my maintenance program because now I can just kick back and wait for GS to tell me when I have to do my maintenance.

 

Dose this simple reminder diminish anything about your cache and your diligent maintenance of it? It shouldn't. It's a private e-mail not public.

 

What if you intended on checking on your cache and simply forgot until you read this reminder? How about a new cacher that's unsure on when maintenance is required and uses this information as a guide.

 

With all the useless e-mails we deal with every day why would one that may actually do some good pose a problem?

[+dprovan]

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

It's often claimed that the forums are badly skewed against reality, so therefore it makes sense to discount strong and coherent arguments found in the forums if HQ disagrees with the conclusions. Now you're using forum posts from people shouting "do something" to make your case? Well, OK, but as you search for your "do something" shouts, make sure to also check how often the people calmly responded by explaining the more effective approaches that don't involve GS used by those communities without this problem. Yes, HQ listens, but selectively.

[+justintim1999]

It seems like most people are arguing that Groundspeak should do nothing about the increasing amount of junk abandoned caches on their site. A database full of abandoned caches is preferable to possibly slighting an owner of an evil cache (at least meant to be evil to newbies).

 

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs. It would be interesting to know how many caches within 40 miles of downtown Annapolis have current last 3 (or more) DNF logs in a row. I've seen a lot of abandoned caches where the CO is gone or does nothing. People keep logging DNFs or false finds and no one will log the much needed NM. If GS's algorithm is 3 DNFs in a row for D1.5 or under, what's the harm? That there will be fewer evil caches? That evil caches will be listed with at least a D2 rating? (Is the difference between 1.5 and 2 really dumbing down the game?) Or only cache owners willing to check their caches and listings more often will own evil caches? That's a good thing IMO.

 

I see a lot of abandoned stuff in my area. That's why last year I placed 75 NAs and 72 of them are now archived.

I logged 89 NMs, 67 are now archived, 9 are currently disabled, 7 by the reviewer. 2 disabled by the owners.

Most of the archived caches were archived by reviewers. Some were archived by cache owners whose form of maintenance is to do nothing until after the NA and after the reviewer posts a note, then archive the cache.

Or:

• get mad at the person who posted the NA for forcing them to go out and replace the cache
• get mad at the person who posted the NA because they were hoping someone would throwdown a cache
• string things along by posting how they will get out to check the cache very soon but never do
• post OMs saying they will get to the cache soon but never do

If this little nudge does something to remind cache owners of their responsibility, I think it's good for the pastime, even if it irks owners of evil caches.

 

If someone has ignored the NMs and the DNFs in their inbox and their caches are still unmaintained, what makes you think they're going to pay any attention to an automated spam email?

 

It's not about those people so much as about the game and cache ownership as a whole. A reminder to those who haven't abandoned the cache, the listing or the game that there is a certain level of responsibility expected from the hiders to keep the database clean and the game fun for all.

 

I agree. If your a responsible cache owner this shouldn't bother you at all.

 

I disagree. I am a responsible cache owner and it does bother me because its telling me that I am not a responsible cache owner. Note my entry on 4/22/16. If responsible cache ownership is not recognized by GS then why bother?

 

In the OP's case I would have ignored the e-mail and waited for another DNF before acting. I wouldn't have posted a NM simply to satisfy the "GeoBot" unless I physically checked on the cache.

 

I did check the cache. Pics to prove it...

 

A good idea is a good idea even if it inconveniences some.

 

A good idea is only a good idea to those that aren't inconvenienced.

 

I'm a responsible cache owner and I think it a great idea.

 

I must have misunderstood your owners maintenance log. I believe you, no need for pics

 

I doubt I'd be exempt from these e-mails and I'm sure I'll eventually receive one. When I do I'll be thinking about maintenance of my caches, which is what there intended to do.

[+AustinMN]

It seems like most people are arguing that Groundspeak should do nothing about the increasing amount of junk abandoned caches on their site. A database full of abandoned caches is preferable to possibly slighting an owner of an evil cache (at least meant to be evil to newbies).

 

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs. It would be interesting to know how many caches within 40 miles of downtown Annapolis have current last 3 (or more) DNF logs in a row. I've seen a lot of abandoned caches where the CO is gone or does nothing. People keep logging DNFs or false finds and no one will log the much needed NM. If GS's algorithm is 3 DNFs in a row for D1.5 or under, what's the harm? That there will be fewer evil caches? That evil caches will be listed with at least a D2 rating? (Is the difference between 1.5 and 2 really dumbing down the game?) Or only cache owners willing to check their caches and listings more often will own evil caches? That's a good thing IMO.

 

I see a lot of abandoned stuff in my area. That's why last year I placed 75 NAs and 72 of them are now archived.

I logged 89 NMs, 67 are now archived, 9 are currently disabled, 7 by the reviewer. 2 disabled by the owners.

Most of the archived caches were archived by reviewers. Some were archived by cache owners whose form of maintenance is to do nothing until after the NA and after the reviewer posts a note, then archive the cache.

Or:

• get mad at the person who posted the NA for forcing them to go out and replace the cache
• get mad at the person who posted the NA because they were hoping someone would throwdown a cache
• string things along by posting how they will get out to check the cache very soon but never do
• post OMs saying they will get to the cache soon but never do

If this little nudge does something to remind cache owners of their responsibility, I think it's good for the pastime, even if it irks owners of evil caches.

 

If someone has ignored the NMs and the DNFs in their inbox and their caches are still unmaintained, what makes you think they're going to pay any attention to an automated spam email?

 

It's not about those people so much as about the game and cache ownership as a whole. A reminder to those who haven't abandoned the cache, the listing or the game that there is a certain level of responsibility expected from the hiders to keep the database clean and the game fun for all.

 

I agree. If your a responsible cache owner this shouldn't bother you at all.

 

I disagree. I am a responsible cache owner and it does bother me because its telling me that I am not a responsible cache owner. Note my entry on 4/22/16. If responsible cache ownership is not recognized by GS then why bother?

 

I would think that they assume responsible cache ownership is reflected in OM logs, not Note logs. For all they know, your note may say something like "It appears the cache is missing. Can someone leave a new container the next time they are out there?" Such things have been done before.

[+wmpastor]

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.

 

What's the harm? Create a bookmark list for those caches that you didn't give a thorough search for.

Post DNFs on caches you couldn't find and suspect are missing. Post notes on caches you didn't search intently enough. It will still be in your personal records.

For the cache owners of evil hides that post low D ratings, or want a lot of DNFs, expect to have to pay closer attention to those hides and listings.

 

To those CO's who don't want to check their caches, simply ignore GS's automated message. Nothing happens anyway until someone posts an NA. (Or in some areas with vigilant reviewers if there are 3 NMs that go unaddressed.)

 

A bookmark list is clunky and adds extra steps to my process. I use field notes to log cache visits.

 

For years we've been strongly encouraged to use DNF to communicate with cache owners and fellow cachers. I generally make and effort to write my DNF logs clearly, so the cache owner and other cachers know if it was an extended search, or poor searching conditions, or an aborted attempt due to muggles, etc. DNF means "Did Not Find." It doesn't mean "It Isn't There." I can't possibly know if a cache is missing or not.

 

Given all the complaints about short logs, late logs, and all the other log transgressions that people whine about, it's very frustrating that the effort I put into my logs will be boiled down to a falsehood and used to trigger automated spam emails. It's such a disappointing way to treat people.

 

It's just a matter of seeing the glass as half full, not half empty.

 

These emails will alert COs to possible problems. If you're certain your cache is fine and that several n00000bs couldn't find it, do nothing.

 

If would agree with you *IF* there were repercussions, like archiving, but there are not. There is not even the minor black mark, as Keystone pointed out, of having an unfavorable note in the log history.

Edited July 19, 2016 by wmpastor

[+wmpastor]

Yes, it's a 1.0 for anyone who has seen one before and a 2.5 (or more) if it's the first one they've seen.

Yeah, that's the problem with common hide styles. It's a quick easy find for experienced geocachers who know to search in the usual places. It's a lot harder for newbies who haven't figured out what the usual places are.

 

A lot of common hides have low difficulty ratings because they're in the usual place, which is misleading for newbies who are advised to start with easy hides, only to discover that the low-difficulty cache is anything but an easy hide for new geocachers.

This is true. I found a gas station LPC that had a hint that said "in the usual place." A noob posted a DNF and asked in his post, "Where's the usual place?" Amusing to others, and probably also to the n000b after he/she got a couple of more months of experience!

[+wmpastor]

 

And how many of those red wrenches are for MY caches?

 

Put THAT in your algorithm.

 

 

Um, is this perfect algorithm going to raise dues?

[+briansnat]

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

 

Are you under the impression that showing that other people besides reviewers requested something means that HQ did not prioritize the action because reviewers wanted it?

 

I am assuming that you understand basic logic, so my guess is that I hit a nerve. Sorry.

 

Anything more would be off topic.

 

Where did you get the impression that the reviewers asked for this? Keystone said nothing of the sort. I've never heard a clamor from the review team for such an automated e-mail, in fact I never saw a single request for it.

 

Because HQ came up with a procedure that happens to be helpful for reviewers, doesn't mean that the reviewers asked for it. I'm sure many reviewers actually prefer to handle this sort of stuff on their own.

 

However, there has been a long history of complaints from the community regarding the number of poorly maintained caches and that was what Groundspeak was addressing with this.

[+L0ne.R]

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

It's often claimed that the forums are badly skewed against reality, so therefore it makes sense to discount strong and coherent arguments found in the forums if HQ disagrees with the conclusions. Now you're using forum posts from people shouting "do something" to make your case? Well, OK, but as you search for your "do something" shouts, make sure to also check how often the people calmly responded by explaining the more effective approaches that don't involve GS used by those communities without this problem. Yes, HQ listens, but selectively.

 

I don't see at as skewed when there's evidence. In the OP's territory there's 763 red wrenches within 40 miles of ground zero. Within 40 miles of your location in California there are over 1000 red wrenches. Within 40 miles of my location there are 500 red wrenches. And that's just a drop in the bucket. As we know via the forums there is an issue with people not wanting to log NMs and NAs. So there's probably triple that amount of languishing missing and junk caches owned by delinquent or absent cache owners.

[+dprovan]

Within 40 miles of your location in California there are over 1000 red wrenches.

That tells me that red wrenches aren't a good criteria for identifying a widespread problem with poorly maintained caches.

 

As we know via the forums there is an issue with people not wanting to log NMs and NAs.

And that's the true problem.

[+cleandrysurface]

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

It's often claimed that the forums are badly skewed against reality, so therefore it makes sense to discount strong and coherent arguments found in the forums if HQ disagrees with the conclusions. Now you're using forum posts from people shouting "do something" to make your case? Well, OK, but as you search for your "do something" shouts, make sure to also check how often the people calmly responded by explaining the more effective approaches that don't involve GS used by those communities without this problem. Yes, HQ listens, but selectively.

 

I don't see at as skewed when there's evidence. In the OP's territory there's 763 red wrenches within 40 miles of ground zero. Within 40 miles of your location in California there are over 1000 red wrenches. Within 40 miles of my location there are 500 red wrenches. And that's just a drop in the bucket. As we know via the forums there is an issue with people not wanting to log NMs and NAs. So there's probably triple that amount of languishing missing and junk caches owned by delinquent or absent cache owners.

 

a.) So what? Even if everyone maintained their caches to an acceptable standard there would still be NM logs.

 

b.) Out of how many caches without wrenches?

 

c.) Please provide a basis for your conclusion that there is "triple that amount".

 

[+justintim1999]

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

It's often claimed that the forums are badly skewed against reality, so therefore it makes sense to discount strong and coherent arguments found in the forums if HQ disagrees with the conclusions. Now you're using forum posts from people shouting "do something" to make your case? Well, OK, but as you search for your "do something" shouts, make sure to also check how often the people calmly responded by explaining the more effective approaches that don't involve GS used by those communities without this problem. Yes, HQ listens, but selectively.

 

I don't see at as skewed when there's evidence. In the OP's territory there's 763 red wrenches within 40 miles of ground zero. Within 40 miles of your location in California there are over 1000 red wrenches. Within 40 miles of my location there are 500 red wrenches. And that's just a drop in the bucket. As we know via the forums there is an issue with people not wanting to log NMs and NAs. So there's probably triple that amount of languishing missing and junk caches owned by delinquent or absent cache owners.

 

My area tops out at over 1000.

 

This tells me that the proper way to maintain caches is relatively unknown or ignored and that a little reminder of how and when is needed.

[+cleandrysurface]

However, there has been a long history of complaints from the community regarding the number of poorly maintained caches and that was what Groundspeak was addressing with this.

 

That's my point. The cache in question is not poorly maintained, so they aren't addressing anything. They would be better off just sending out these notifications to COs randomly. Would've have saved them a bunch of money on their fancy algorithm.

[+cleandrysurface]

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

It's often claimed that the forums are badly skewed against reality, so therefore it makes sense to discount strong and coherent arguments found in the forums if HQ disagrees with the conclusions. Now you're using forum posts from people shouting "do something" to make your case? Well, OK, but as you search for your "do something" shouts, make sure to also check how often the people calmly responded by explaining the more effective approaches that don't involve GS used by those communities without this problem. Yes, HQ listens, but selectively.

 

I don't see at as skewed when there's evidence. In the OP's territory there's 763 red wrenches within 40 miles of ground zero. Within 40 miles of your location in California there are over 1000 red wrenches. Within 40 miles of my location there are 500 red wrenches. And that's just a drop in the bucket. As we know via the forums there is an issue with people not wanting to log NMs and NAs. So there's probably triple that amount of languishing missing and junk caches owned by delinquent or absent cache owners.

 

My area tops out at over 1000.

 

This tells me that the proper way to maintain caches is relatively unknown or ignored and that a little reminder of how and when is needed.

 

Same question - out of how many caches total?

[+cleandrysurface]

It seems like most people are arguing that Groundspeak should do nothing about the increasing amount of junk abandoned caches on their site. A database full of abandoned caches is preferable to possibly slighting an owner of an evil cache (at least meant to be evil to newbies).

 

If you look at the OP's location there are red wrenches on every page. Within 40 miles of the OP's location there are 763 caches with NMs. It would be interesting to know how many caches within 40 miles of downtown Annapolis have current last 3 (or more) DNF logs in a row. I've seen a lot of abandoned caches where the CO is gone or does nothing. People keep logging DNFs or false finds and no one will log the much needed NM. If GS's algorithm is 3 DNFs in a row for D1.5 or under, what's the harm? That there will be fewer evil caches? That evil caches will be listed with at least a D2 rating? (Is the difference between 1.5 and 2 really dumbing down the game?) Or only cache owners willing to check their caches and listings more often will own evil caches? That's a good thing IMO.

 

I see a lot of abandoned stuff in my area. That's why last year I placed 75 NAs and 72 of them are now archived.

I logged 89 NMs, 67 are now archived, 9 are currently disabled, 7 by the reviewer. 2 disabled by the owners.

Most of the archived caches were archived by reviewers. Some were archived by cache owners whose form of maintenance is to do nothing until after the NA and after the reviewer posts a note, then archive the cache.

Or:

• get mad at the person who posted the NA for forcing them to go out and replace the cache
• get mad at the person who posted the NA because they were hoping someone would throwdown a cache
• string things along by posting how they will get out to check the cache very soon but never do
• post OMs saying they will get to the cache soon but never do

If this little nudge does something to remind cache owners of their responsibility, I think it's good for the pastime, even if it irks owners of evil caches.

 

If someone has ignored the NMs and the DNFs in their inbox and their caches are still unmaintained, what makes you think they're going to pay any attention to an automated spam email?

 

It's not about those people so much as about the game and cache ownership as a whole. A reminder to those who haven't abandoned the cache, the listing or the game that there is a certain level of responsibility expected from the hiders to keep the database clean and the game fun for all.

 

I agree. If your a responsible cache owner this shouldn't bother you at all.

 

I disagree. I am a responsible cache owner and it does bother me because its telling me that I am not a responsible cache owner. Note my entry on 4/22/16. If responsible cache ownership is not recognized by GS then why bother?

 

I would think that they assume responsible cache ownership is reflected in OM logs, not Note logs. For all they know, your note may say something like "It appears the cache is missing. Can someone leave a new container the next time they are out there?" Such things have been done before.

 

To clarify, I referenced the note to illustrate that I do monitor this cache. I do not expect the Geo-bot to validate the condition of my caches based on my note logs. I use notes to communicate to people looking for it that it is still there. If I replace a log or a container, then I post an OM log. I shouldn't have to post an OM log just to prove that the cache is in good condition. The onus should be on the Geo-bot to prove that it isn't.

[+cleandrysurface]

OK. I'm done here. The only people that appear to be left in the room are the ones that like to argue for its own sake.

 

Until next time.

[+justintim1999]

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

It's often claimed that the forums are badly skewed against reality, so therefore it makes sense to discount strong and coherent arguments found in the forums if HQ disagrees with the conclusions. Now you're using forum posts from people shouting "do something" to make your case? Well, OK, but as you search for your "do something" shouts, make sure to also check how often the people calmly responded by explaining the more effective approaches that don't involve GS used by those communities without this problem. Yes, HQ listens, but selectively.

 

I don't see at as skewed when there's evidence. In the OP's territory there's 763 red wrenches within 40 miles of ground zero. Within 40 miles of your location in California there are over 1000 red wrenches. Within 40 miles of my location there are 500 red wrenches. And that's just a drop in the bucket. As we know via the forums there is an issue with people not wanting to log NMs and NAs. So there's probably triple that amount of languishing missing and junk caches owned by delinquent or absent cache owners.

 

My area tops out at over 1000.

 

This tells me that the proper way to maintain caches is relatively unknown or ignored and that a little reminder of how and when is needed.

 

Same question - out of how many caches total?

 

Still here

 

10 mile radius. 516 caches. 76 need maintenance. about 15%. These are the caches that someone actually bothered to post a NM.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

What's the harm? Create a bookmark list for those caches that you didn't give a thorough search for.

Post DNFs on caches you couldn't find and suspect are missing. Post notes on caches you didn't search intently enough. It will still be in your personal records.

For the cache owners of evil hides that post low D ratings, or want a lot of DNFs, expect to have to pay closer attention to those hides and listings.

 

To those CO's who don't want to check their caches, simply ignore GS's automated message. Nothing happens anyway until someone posts an NA. (Or in some areas with vigilant reviewers if there are 3 NMs that go unaddressed.)

 

A bookmark list is clunky and adds extra steps to my process. I use field notes to log cache visits.

 

For years we've been strongly encouraged to use DNF to communicate with cache owners and fellow cachers. I generally make and effort to write my DNF logs clearly, so the cache owner and other cachers know if it was an extended search, or poor searching conditions, or an aborted attempt due to muggles, etc. DNF means "Did Not Find." It doesn't mean "It Isn't There." I can't possibly know if a cache is missing or not.

 

Given all the complaints about short logs, late logs, and all the other log transgressions that people whine about, it's very frustrating that the effort I put into my logs will be boiled down to a falsehood and used to trigger automated spam emails. It's such a disappointing way to treat people.

 

It's just a matter of seeing the glass as half full, not half empty.

 

These emails will alert COs to possible problems. If you're certain your cache is fine and that several n00000bs couldn't find it, do nothing.

 

If would agree with you *IF* there were repercussions, like archiving, but there are not. There is not even the minor black mark, as Keystone pointed out, of having an unfavorable note in the log history.

 

The email in and of itself is an unwelcome intrusion and a repercussion. As a CO I get an email every time someone writes any kind of log or note on one of my caches, so I am already immediately alerted to problems. I can decide for myself what to do without additional spam from HQ. Frankly, it's just insulting that they would implement this feature and claim that they're "doing something" about cache maintenance. If they actually care about cache maintenance, maybe they should reconsider the way they've deliberately changed the game and incentivized bulk cache placements that end up becoming neglected garbage.

[+narcissa]

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

It's often claimed that the forums are badly skewed against reality, so therefore it makes sense to discount strong and coherent arguments found in the forums if HQ disagrees with the conclusions. Now you're using forum posts from people shouting "do something" to make your case? Well, OK, but as you search for your "do something" shouts, make sure to also check how often the people calmly responded by explaining the more effective approaches that don't involve GS used by those communities without this problem. Yes, HQ listens, but selectively.

 

I don't see at as skewed when there's evidence. In the OP's territory there's 763 red wrenches within 40 miles of ground zero. Within 40 miles of your location in California there are over 1000 red wrenches. Within 40 miles of my location there are 500 red wrenches. And that's just a drop in the bucket. As we know via the forums there is an issue with people not wanting to log NMs and NAs. So there's probably triple that amount of languishing missing and junk caches owned by delinquent or absent cache owners.

 

This attempt at math is missing several data points.

[+briansnat]

However, there has been a long history of complaints from the community regarding the number of poorly maintained caches and that was what Groundspeak was addressing with this.

 

That's my point. The cache in question is not poorly maintained, so they aren't addressing anything. They would be better off just sending out these notifications to COs randomly. Would've have saved them a bunch of money on their fancy algorithm.

 

Obviously the algorithm isn't perfect and it flagged your cache in error. I'm sure it is continually being tweaked to improve it. However the e-mail does go out for thousands of caches that completely deserve it. Some of those COs will take steps to fix the cache. That's a good thing. If anybody's cache is the undeserving target of one of these e-mails, there is a simple solution. Every e-mail application that I'm aware of has a delete button.

Edited July 19, 2016 by briansnat

[+wmpastor]

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

It's often claimed that the forums are badly skewed against reality, so therefore it makes sense to discount strong and coherent arguments found in the forums if HQ disagrees with the conclusions. Now you're using forum posts from people shouting "do something" to make your case? Well, OK, but as you search for your "do something" shouts, make sure to also check how often the people calmly responded by explaining the more effective approaches that don't involve GS used by those communities without this problem. Yes, HQ listens, but selectively.

 

I don't see at as skewed when there's evidence. In the OP's territory there's 763 red wrenches within 40 miles of ground zero. Within 40 miles of your location in California there are over 1000 red wrenches. Within 40 miles of my location there are 500 red wrenches. And that's just a drop in the bucket. As we know via the forums there is an issue with people not wanting to log NMs and NAs. So there's probably triple that amount of languishing missing and junk caches owned by delinquent or absent cache owners.

 

This attempt at math is missing several data points.

 

I'm not sure what data points are missing, but hopefully they'll be supplied to aid the discussion. %, perhaps?

[+wmpastor]

 

...

 

However, there has been a long history of complaints from the community regarding the number of poorly maintained caches and that was what Groundspeak was addressing with this.

 

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).

 

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).

[+fizzymagic]

Where did you get the impression that the reviewers asked for this? Keystone said nothing of the sort. I've never heard a clamor from the review team for such an automated e-mail, in fact I never saw a single request for it.

 

Thanks for providing relevant information.

 

However, there has been a long history of complaints from the community regarding the number of poorly maintained caches and that was what Groundspeak was addressing with this.

 

IMO, and it is just my opinion, the problem would be far better addressed by dealing with the root causes rather than the symptoms, but apparently HQ does not agree.

 

As long as the guidelines incentivize caches that will be abandoned and/or have maintenance problems, the problems will continue. Sending out nagmails will not likely have any significant effect.

[+JL_HSTRE]

There are additional factors than can raise a Difficulty rating besides the Find-DNF ratio (a cache could have a 100% Find rate but be D4-D5 due to a tool required), but generally speaking my mindset is:

 

D1 = should never get DNFs

 

D1.5 = occasional DNF, nearly always from newer cachers

 

D2 = DNFs uncommon, but not a cause for concern

 

D3 = almost as many DNFs as Finds

 

D4 = more DNF than Finds

 

D4.5/D5 = DNF is the norm, Find is rare

 

I recently bumped a D1.5 cache up to D2. It was a large pill bottle on the back side of a palm tree, but for whatever reason it was giving newer cachers lots of trouble. After verifying it was there I bumped up the rating.

 

Aren't cachers only initially shown 1.5/1.5 or easier caches until they check a box asking to see all cache listings?

[+dprovan]

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.

[+narcissa]

There are additional factors than can raise a Difficulty rating besides the Find-DNF ratio (a cache could have a 100% Find rate but be D4-D5 due to a tool required), but generally speaking my mindset is:

 

D1 = should never get DNFs

 

D1.5 = occasional DNF, nearly always from newer cachers

 

D2 = DNFs uncommon, but not a cause for concern

 

D3 = almost as many DNFs as Finds

 

D4 = more DNF than Finds

 

D4.5/D5 = DNF is the norm, Find is rare

 

I recently bumped a D1.5 cache up to D2. It was a large pill bottle on the back side of a palm tree, but for whatever reason it was giving newer cachers lots of trouble. After verifying it was there I bumped up the rating.

 

Aren't cachers only initially shown 1.5/1.5 or easier caches until they check a box asking to see all cache listings?

 

I've seen honest DNF logs on large caches, i.e. 5 gallon buckets. Setting the bar for difficulty 1 at "should never get DNFs" would essentially erase difficulty 1 from existence if everyone followed this. Sometimes people just can't find the cache and it doesn't necessarily mean that the cache owner has done anything wrong.

[+narcissa]

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

It's often claimed that the forums are badly skewed against reality, so therefore it makes sense to discount strong and coherent arguments found in the forums if HQ disagrees with the conclusions. Now you're using forum posts from people shouting "do something" to make your case? Well, OK, but as you search for your "do something" shouts, make sure to also check how often the people calmly responded by explaining the more effective approaches that don't involve GS used by those communities without this problem. Yes, HQ listens, but selectively.

 

I don't see at as skewed when there's evidence. In the OP's territory there's 763 red wrenches within 40 miles of ground zero. Within 40 miles of your location in California there are over 1000 red wrenches. Within 40 miles of my location there are 500 red wrenches. And that's just a drop in the bucket. As we know via the forums there is an issue with people not wanting to log NMs and NAs. So there's probably triple that amount of languishing missing and junk caches owned by delinquent or absent cache owners.

 

This attempt at math is missing several data points.

 

I'm not sure what data points are missing, but hopefully they'll be supplied to aid the discussion. %, perhaps?

 

I would love to know the logic behind the "probably triple" formula, and I'm curious to know why there was no mathematical adjustment to account for frivolous NM or NA logs.

[+Sagefox]

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. The problem should be fixed but in the mean time you got the find and a story to tell in your Found It log.

 

Now if you are going to next say that some COs might delete your Found It because you didn't actually find the correct container then I will revert to the main point of my post that you have not responded to: How many times does this happen to cachers over the broader spectrum? What percentage of their total finds involve throw-downs that present an ACTUAL problem.

 

Your one example is not one I can get worked up about because you actually found a cache. If you've had 30 of what I might call real problems, which is more than double what I was suggesting, then maybe I would perk up my ears and watch for a trend that might be developing. I just don't see those kinds of numbers (percentages) as likely for throw-downs.

 

Problems take on a life of their own when shotgun blasted across the forums but unless they become a significant portion of a significant number of find counts then I don't see it as a real problem.

 

The issue in this topic is a REAL one. The high number of caches with maintenance problems and one specific attempt by HQ to do something about it. Maybe there are many other things that could be done but why whack on any attempt to provide some help. The game has always been experimental. Give this experiment some time.

 

EDIT: plurals problem.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Team Sagefox

[+Sagefox]

The email in and of itself is an unwelcome intrusion...

...Frankly, it's just insulting that they would implement this feature and claim that they're "doing something" about cache maintenance.

 

Maybe you feel this way because you keep your caches maintained. I don't think this feature is directed at people who keep their caches maintained. How many of these emails do you expect to receive?

 

If they actually care about cache maintenance, maybe they should reconsider the way they've deliberately changed the game and incentivized bulk cache placements that end up becoming neglected garbage.

 

This problem has been around since the beginning of the game and way before power trails. Cache maintenance problems are common across the board. I doubt many, if any, poorly maintained non-power trail caches are due to the influence of power trails. The bulk of bad maintenance caches where I look at owner stats are from people who've probably never seen a power trail.