Reviewer is disabling my caches?

[+narcissa]

I'm assuming there's some sort of algorithm that is in place (?) that sends out a note for long unfound caches with DNFs but it's certainly an inconsistent one that might need to be re-examined.

 

Flash forward two years ....

 

"The automated algorithm that sends out maintenance reminders is too complicated for anyone to understand. Why can't we just rely on the judgment of human volunteers to look at cache listings and decide if intervention is needed?'

 

Flash forward two more years ...

 

"Human reviewers are too inconsistent in how they choose caches that need intervention. Why can't we have automated algorithms that make that decision more consistently?"

 

Flash forward still two more years ...

 

"The automated algorithm that sends out maintenance reminders is too complicated for anyone to understand. Why can't we just rely on the judgment of human volunteers to look at cache listings and decide if intervention is needed?'

 

This is about the sum of it. The forum robots want everything to be a predictable algorithm until the algorithm does something they don't like. Then they want human judgment to supercede until the humans do something they don't like. Then they complain that they want to see the precise rules that led to a subjective decision. And heaven forbid someone agree with a subjective decision that the forum robots don't like.

[+narcissa]

It wasn't arbitrary. There were several reasons why it would draw attention and the action was in keeping with normal reviewer tasks.

 

I don't assume reviewers are perfect and on other issues I have my criticisms. The attitude in this thread seems to be that the reviewer cannot be reasoned with, and that the "30 day countdown" is an inevitable death for the cache. Experienced geocachers should know better.

Again, regardless of whether you believe the check up to be reasonable, ascribe benevolent motivations to reviewers (and often the opposite to cache owners), there is no documented reason for any reviewer to impose that maintenance visit in this instance.

 

Frankly, there are only one or two posters who are ascribing motivations and assuming negative attitudes toward reviewers (frankly on the pro visit side), while the rest of us discuss a fine technical issue.

 

I don't know where experienced geocachers have acquired this notion that they are only responsible for cache maintenance when there's a complaint.

 

Wait a minute here: aren't you the one who has been claiming that people are misrepresenting your arguments? Yet you feel OK with turning around and misrepresenting others? Nice double standard.

 

You are consistently conflating the disabling of a cache with "requesting cache maintenance." That is dishonest, and you know it. The reviewer could easily have requested that the CO perform cache maintenance without disabling the cache. So your repeated claim that the reviewer was simply requesting maintenance is false. Objectively false.

 

If you find yourself unable to argue a situation in good faith, without misrepresentation, then perhaps it might be helpful to take a step back. The entire discussion here is at cross-purposes.

 

I can tell that you're quite upset about something but your comment isn't making much sense. Reviewers routinely disable caches when they ask for maintenance; I don't see these actions as distinct from each other.

[+GeoBain]

I'm assuming there's some sort of algorithm that is in place (?) that sends out a note for long unfound caches with DNFs but it's certainly an inconsistent one that might need to be re-examined.

 

Flash forward two years ....

 

"The automated algorithm that sends out maintenance reminders is too complicated for anyone to understand. Why can't we just rely on the judgment of human volunteers to look at cache listings and decide if intervention is needed?'

 

Flash forward two more years ...

 

"Human reviewers are too inconsistent in how they choose caches that need intervention. Why can't we have automated algorithms that make that decision more consistently?"

 

Flash forward still two more years ...

 

"The automated algorithm that sends out maintenance reminders is too complicated for anyone to understand. Why can't we just rely on the judgment of human volunteers to look at cache listings and decide if intervention is needed?'

 

This is about the sum of it. The forum robots want everything to be a predictable algorithm until the algorithm does something they don't like. Then they want human judgment to supercede until the humans do something they don't like. Then they complain that they want to see the precise rules that led to a subjective decision. And heaven forbid someone agree with a subjective decision that the forum robots don't like.

 

Your points are as valid as anybody else's and didn't need to use inflammatory phrasing ("Forum robots" - really?).

[+fizzymagic]

I can tell that you're quite upset about something but your comment isn't making much sense.

I am not upset. I am trying to give you feedback about how you are coming off, which is as a debater who whines about being misrepresented and then misrepresents others.

 

Reviewers routinely disable caches when they ask for maintenance; I don't see these actions as distinct from each other.

 

Thus the disconnect. People in this thread have been very patiently trying to explain to you how they view the action of disabling a cache as very different from the action of asking for maintenance. It has reached the point where your refusal to understand their position appears to be willful, because I am pretty sure you are not stupid.

 

Let me try to articulate to you the main perspective of several people in this thread:

 

Disabling a cache is a much more drastic action than simply asking for a maintenance check.

 

Is that clear? You are free to disagree all you want; however, it is not productive is to simply assert the contrary as if it were a fact. Your repeated insistence on doing so is neither advancing the discussion nor making you look as if you are interested in genuine discussion.

[+barefootjeff]

The reviewer also said that s/he was alerted to these caches because of the automated message from HQ that I neglected to respond to (because I figured the caches were fine - they were).

 

 

Interesting. This is the first direct link I've seen between the HQ reminders and subsequent reviewer action. I've seen other discussions where someone complains about the HQ reminder (if they think no action needed), and advice they can ignore it, as it is just a "friendly" reminder.

Since its inception I've suspected there's more to it than just a friendly reminder. The Help Centre article describing these automated maintenance emails gives the CO three options: visit and repair the cache within a "reasonable" time and log an OM, disable the cache until you can visit and repair it, or archive it. Ignore isn't an option. An "it's fine" note isn't an option.

 

The wording of the first paragraph also implies that the email can be generated even if there are no DNFs, NMs or NAs, simply if the cache hasn't been found for "a long time".

[+narcissa]

I can tell that you're quite upset about something but your comment isn't making much sense.

I am not upset. I am trying to give you feedback about how you are coming off, which is as a debater who whines about being misrepresented and then misrepresents others.

 

Reviewers routinely disable caches when they ask for maintenance; I don't see these actions as distinct from each other.

 

Thus the disconnect. People in this thread have been very patiently trying to explain to you how they view the action of disabling a cache as very different from the action of asking for maintenance. It has reached the point where your refusal to understand their position appears to be willful, because I am pretty sure you are not stupid.

 

Let me try to articulate to you the main perspective of several people in this thread:

 

Disabling a cache is a much more drastic action than simply asking for a maintenance check.

 

Is that clear? You are free to disagree all you want; however, it is not productive is to simply assert the contrary as if it were a fact. Your repeated insistence on doing so is neither advancing the discussion nor making you look as if you are interested in genuine discussion.

 

Okay, thank you for giving me permission to disagree with you.

[+narcissa]

The reviewer also said that s/he was alerted to these caches because of the automated message from HQ that I neglected to respond to (because I figured the caches were fine - they were).

 

 

Interesting. This is the first direct link I've seen between the HQ reminders and subsequent reviewer action. I've seen other discussions where someone complains about the HQ reminder (if they think no action needed), and advice they can ignore it, as it is just a "friendly" reminder.

Since its inception I've suspected there's more to it than just a friendly reminder. The Help Centre article describing these automated maintenance emails gives the CO three options: visit and repair the cache within a "reasonable" time and log an OM, disable the cache until you can visit and repair it, or archive it. Ignore isn't an option. An "it's fine" note isn't an option.

 

The wording of the first paragraph also implies that the email can be generated even if there are no DNFs, NMs or NAs, simply if the cache hasn't been found for "a long time".

 

There isn't much value in a maintenance reminder if it isn't backed with clear expectations and a timeline for response. Nobody likes to deal with the hand of the Leviathan, but too many cache owners neglect their maintenance responsibilities.