Placement ban due to Divisiveness?

[Keystone]

Nothing was "implemented" - I associate that term with a new feature, like the overhaul of the bookmark lists page. Private discipline for a single individual's account is not a new thing. Nor is it new, sadly, for a disciplined account owner to "go public" and share selectively from their email correspondence with Geocaching HQ. It might be a new "thing" for someone to copy a private email they saw on Facebook and perpetrate a hoax.

 

The entire worldwide Community Volunteer Reviewer community is not notified each time that private discipline is implemented on a single account. Typically, the local reviewer(s) involved are kept informed.

[+Touchstone]

Yes, it looks that way now.

 

I still think this is another bad implementation by GS.

 

So if I understand you correctly, you think this is a bad implementation on Groundspeak's part, of having some third party manipulate their private email in a single disciplinary action to make it appear that this is some systematic approach to throttle back Listing submissions on an entire group of cache owners, when in fact there is not a single piece of evidence to suggest that this is, in fact, the case?

 

I have to agree. This is very bad form on Groundspeak's part to allow you to be duped in this fashion

[+redsox_mark]

I understand that bans are not a new thing. And there must be specific circumstances behind the private discipline given the statement of "Divisiveness".

 

What's causing a bit of confusion I think is the combination of these points:

 

1. The (private) email talks about 2017 Quality focus, and indicates that Groundspeak wishes to limit the number of caches a hider can own.

2. Keystone confirmed there is a 2017 Quality focus.

 

So while nothing new has happened, this makes us curious cachers wonder things like

 

1. What is the limit of hides Groundspeak would like to see?

2. Will cachers over that limit expect to get a hiding ban, even if there are no other issues?

 

Obviously if the private mail had been treated private there would be no issue. But the private mail mentions a sort of policy change, which makes us wonder what the new policy is. That seems natural.

[+Team Microdot]

I understand that bans are not a new thing. And there must be specific circumstances behind the private discipline given the statement of "Divisiveness".

 

What's causing a bit of confusion I think is the combination of these points:

 

1. The (private) email talks about 2017 Quality focus, and indicates that Groundspeak wishes to limit the number of caches a hider can own.

2. Keystone confirmed there is a 2017 Quality focus.

 

So while nothing new has happened, this makes us curious cachers wonder things like

 

1. What is the limit of hides Groundspeak would like to see?

2. Will cachers over that limit expect to get a hiding ban, even if there are no other issues?

 

Obviously if the private mail had been treated private there would be no issue. But the private mail mentions a sort of policy change, which makes us wonder what the new policy is. That seems natural.

 

Beat me to it

[+MartyBartfast]

Yes, it looks that way now.

 

I still think this is another bad implementation by GS.

 

So if I understand you correctly, you think this is a bad implementation on Groundspeak's part, of having some third party manipulate their private email in a single disciplinary action to make it appear that this is some systematic approach to throttle back Listing submissions on an entire group of cache owners, when in fact there is not a single piece of evidence to suggest that this is, in fact, the case?

 

I have to agree. This is very bad form on Groundspeak's part to allow you to be duped in this fashion

 

No, this is a change in their policy, or at least the implementation of this policy, and by not being open about it it's lead to some confusion amongst the community, not least the person who was (possibly) spoofed as above. I don't buy the "nothing has changed" line, as the intro to the original message clearly states:

 

"Geocaching HQ has a new focus on geocache quality and health in 2017"

 

and it would seem this private dicipline was as a result of this new (ergo a change) focus.

 

I don't think many would think this is a bad thing, so why didn't they publicise this new focus before implementing it?

[+Touchstone]

I would assert that this is not a change in Policy, but a continued asserted effort that has been going on for several years now, beginning with the introduction of Favorite Points, if not before that.

[+DragonsWest]

Rather surprised there doesn't sound like GS/GC have a reviewer news page.

[+redsox_mark]

I would assert that this is not a change in Policy, but a continued asserted effort that has been going on for several years now, beginning with the introduction of Favorite Points, if not before that.

 

We can debate if it is "policy" or just "focus".. but the "leaked" email says:

 

"New focus on geocache quality and health for 2017".

 

"We have started to impose hiding suspensions...."

 

"We would like to see hiders limit themselves to far fewer than the number of caches that you currently own".

 

To me that sounds like some changes in policy. Especially the last point about limiting numbers for hiders. I've never seen this before in any guidelines, help center, etc.

 

And I think that's good, by the way!

[+L0ne.R]

I would assert that this is not a change in Policy, but a continued asserted effort that has been going on for several years now, beginning with the introduction of Favorite Points, if not before that.

 

That's disheartening. Here I was thinking that Groundspeak had a new policy in place this new year and would crackdown on all the power hiders. It's an addiction with some hiders and they need help controlling their habit. Instead they get encouragement from the numbers-majority, many who carry a sackful of cheap micros to "help" the power hiders and help themselves to another smiley.

[Keystone]

Rather surprised there doesn't sound like GS/GC have a reviewer news page.

There are multiple communication channels where Geocaching HQ can communicate to and with Community Volunteer Reviewers and Forum Moderators (as in, more than two formal, established channels). But, in my nearly 14 years as a volunteer, I cannot recall individual discipline cases being highlighted for the team worldwide. As I stated in another post, the local reviewer(s) do typically get looped in on such cases. Often, the local reviewer is the person who escalates the issue to HQ.

[cezanne]

But, in my nearly 14 years as a volunteer, I cannot recall individual discipline cases being highlighted for the team worldwide.

 

That definitely would not make sense.

 

What appears to be surprising however is that there are community reviewers out there who apparently have not yet heard about the 2017 Groundspeak iniative for cache health and quality which is mentioned in the mail cited in the OP.

[+Manville Possum]

It's an addiction with some hiders and they need help controlling their habit. Instead they get encouragement from the numbers-majority, many who carry a sackful of cheap micros to "help" the power hiders and help themselves to another smiley. [/size]

 

I'm cutting back on how many caches I own, and I'm not planning on any new placements in 2017. It may be time to let a few go, and help out the community by leaving really nice throwdowns with a dry log and swag.

[Keystone]

But, in my nearly 14 years as a volunteer, I cannot recall individual discipline cases being highlighted for the team worldwide.

 

That definitely would not make sense.

 

What appears to be surprising however is that there are community reviewers out there who apparently have not yet heard about the 2017 Groundspeak iniative for cache health and quality which is mentioned in the mail cited in the OP.

It's quite possible that one or more of the 300+ Community Volunteer Reviewers may have "missed a memo" from time to time.

 

Me, I was aware of the "cache health and quality" initiative for 2017.

[+DragonsWest]

Rather surprised there doesn't sound like GS/GC have a reviewer news page.

There are multiple communication channels where Geocaching HQ can communicate to and with Community Volunteer Reviewers and Forum Moderators (as in, more than two formal, established channels). But, in my nearly 14 years as a volunteer, I cannot recall individual discipline cases being highlighted for the team worldwide. As I stated in another post, the local reviewer(s) do typically get looped in on such cases. Often, the local reviewer is the person who escalates the issue to HQ.

 

Well, the reason I would expect more exposure to a decision would give volunteers an idea what can transpire and how it transpires - perhaps the Who isn't so necessary. A reviewer may be on the fence about something developing locally and seeking passive guidance (precedence) before active (contacting HQ).

[+narcissa]

I would assert that this is not a change in Policy, but a continued asserted effort that has been going on for several years now, beginning with the introduction of Favorite Points, if not before that.

 

We can debate if it is "policy" or just "focus".. but the "leaked" email says:

 

"New focus on geocache quality and health for 2017".

 

"We have started to impose hiding suspensions...."

 

"We would like to see hiders limit themselves to far fewer than the number of caches that you currently own".

 

To me that sounds like some changes in policy. Especially the last point about limiting numbers for hiders. I've never seen this before in any guidelines, help center, etc.

 

And I think that's good, by the way!

 

The wording is odd if it's really meant to be a personal ban / discipline situation.

 

If someone has been placed under some sort of hiding ban because of their behaviour as an individual, I would expect the email to be more specific about what it was (and such an email likely wouldn't be shared by the recipient).

 

It's either a very passive-aggressive way to notify someone of a private discipline issue, or a very ineffective way of implementing a new policy.

[+redsox_mark]

I would assert that this is not a change in Policy, but a continued asserted effort that has been going on for several years now, beginning with the introduction of Favorite Points, if not before that.

 

That's disheartening. Here I was thinking that Groundspeak had a new policy in place this new year and would crackdown on all the power hiders. It's an addiction with some hiders and they need help controlling their habit. Instead they get encouragement from the numbers-majority, many who carry a sackful of cheap micros to "help" the power hiders and help themselves to another smiley.

 

Don't be disheartened. Maybe it is an "initiative" rather than "policy", but it seems clear Groundspeak are planning some improvements in this area. I look forward to future announcements.

[+Michaelcycle]

I would assert that this is not a change in Policy, but a continued asserted effort that has been going on for several years now, beginning with the introduction of Favorite Points, if not before that.

 

We can debate if it is "policy" or just "focus".. but the "leaked" email says:

 

"New focus on geocache quality and health for 2017".

 

"We have started to impose hiding suspensions...."

 

"We would like to see hiders limit themselves to far fewer than the number of caches that you currently own".

 

To me that sounds like some changes in policy. Especially the last point about limiting numbers for hiders. I've never seen this before in any guidelines, help center, etc.

 

And I think that's good, by the way!

 

The wording is odd if it's really meant to be a personal ban / discipline situation.

 

If someone has been placed under some sort of hiding ban because of their behaviour as an individual, I would expect the email to be more specific about what it was (and such an email likely wouldn't be shared by the recipient).

 

It's either a very passive-aggressive way to notify someone of a private discipline issue, or a very ineffective way of implementing a new policy.

To quote Keystone from above "share selectively from their email correspondence with Geocaching HQ"

 

Unless you have seen emails that I haven't I think your conclusion is unsupported.

[+narcissa]

I would assert that this is not a change in Policy, but a continued asserted effort that has been going on for several years now, beginning with the introduction of Favorite Points, if not before that.

 

We can debate if it is "policy" or just "focus".. but the "leaked" email says:

 

"New focus on geocache quality and health for 2017".

 

"We have started to impose hiding suspensions...."

 

"We would like to see hiders limit themselves to far fewer than the number of caches that you currently own".

 

To me that sounds like some changes in policy. Especially the last point about limiting numbers for hiders. I've never seen this before in any guidelines, help center, etc.

 

And I think that's good, by the way!

 

The wording is odd if it's really meant to be a personal ban / discipline situation.

 

If someone has been placed under some sort of hiding ban because of their behaviour as an individual, I would expect the email to be more specific about what it was (and such an email likely wouldn't be shared by the recipient).

 

It's either a very passive-aggressive way to notify someone of a private discipline issue, or a very ineffective way of implementing a new policy.

To quote Keystone from above "share selectively from their email correspondence with Geocaching HQ"

 

Unless you have seen emails that I haven't I think your conclusion is unsupported.

 

Even if it's incomplete correspondence (which is entirely possible), it seems a little odd that a personal ban notice would contain this level of justification and explanation. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it is clumsy communication. If someone is behaving poorly, tell them they were behaving poorly. It doesn't need to be wrapped in higher philosophy.

 

If they are, in fact, implementing a new policy, selectively banning previously unaware cache owners is not a good way to do it.

 

So again, It's either a very passive-aggressive way to notify someone of a private discipline issue, or a very ineffective way of implementing a new policy.

[+Michaelcycle]

I would assert that this is not a change in Policy, but a continued asserted effort that has been going on for several years now, beginning with the introduction of Favorite Points, if not before that.

 

We can debate if it is "policy" or just "focus".. but the "leaked" email says:

 

"New focus on geocache quality and health for 2017".

 

"We have started to impose hiding suspensions...."

 

"We would like to see hiders limit themselves to far fewer than the number of caches that you currently own".

 

To me that sounds like some changes in policy. Especially the last point about limiting numbers for hiders. I've never seen this before in any guidelines, help center, etc.

 

And I think that's good, by the way!

 

The wording is odd if it's really meant to be a personal ban / discipline situation.

 

If someone has been placed under some sort of hiding ban because of their behaviour as an individual, I would expect the email to be more specific about what it was (and such an email likely wouldn't be shared by the recipient).

 

It's either a very passive-aggressive way to notify someone of a private discipline issue, or a very ineffective way of implementing a new policy.

To quote Keystone from above "share selectively from their email correspondence with Geocaching HQ"

 

Unless you have seen emails that I haven't I think your conclusion is unsupported.

 

Even if it's incomplete correspondence (which is entirely possible), it seems a little odd that a personal ban notice would contain this level of justification and explanation. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it is clumsy communication. If someone is behaving poorly, tell them they were behaving poorly. It doesn't need to be wrapped in higher philosophy.

 

If they are, in fact, implementing a new policy, selectively banning previously unaware cache owners is not a good way to do it.

 

So again, It's either a very passive-aggressive way to notify someone of a private discipline issue, or a very ineffective way of implementing a new policy.

Of course it is only a part of the communication. Where, for example, do you see the term of the suspension? Without the entire exchange it is impossible to understand the context of what has been shared.

[+narcissa]

I would assert that this is not a change in Policy, but a continued asserted effort that has been going on for several years now, beginning with the introduction of Favorite Points, if not before that.

 

We can debate if it is "policy" or just "focus".. but the "leaked" email says:

 

"New focus on geocache quality and health for 2017".

 

"We have started to impose hiding suspensions...."

 

"We would like to see hiders limit themselves to far fewer than the number of caches that you currently own".

 

To me that sounds like some changes in policy. Especially the last point about limiting numbers for hiders. I've never seen this before in any guidelines, help center, etc.

 

And I think that's good, by the way!

 

The wording is odd if it's really meant to be a personal ban / discipline situation.

 

If someone has been placed under some sort of hiding ban because of their behaviour as an individual, I would expect the email to be more specific about what it was (and such an email likely wouldn't be shared by the recipient).

 

It's either a very passive-aggressive way to notify someone of a private discipline issue, or a very ineffective way of implementing a new policy.

To quote Keystone from above "share selectively from their email correspondence with Geocaching HQ"

 

Unless you have seen emails that I haven't I think your conclusion is unsupported.

 

Even if it's incomplete correspondence (which is entirely possible), it seems a little odd that a personal ban notice would contain this level of justification and explanation. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it is clumsy communication. If someone is behaving poorly, tell them they were behaving poorly. It doesn't need to be wrapped in higher philosophy.

 

If they are, in fact, implementing a new policy, selectively banning previously unaware cache owners is not a good way to do it.

 

So again, It's either a very passive-aggressive way to notify someone of a private discipline issue, or a very ineffective way of implementing a new policy.

Of course it is only a part of the communication. Where, for example, do you see the term of the suspension? Without the entire exchange it is impossible to understand the context of what has been shared.

 

Not relevant. My point is that regardless of what else was said, the text that we do see isn't necessary or appropriate if it's a personal ban based on poor behaviour.

[Keystone]

It's rather pointless to criticize one part of an email conversation without seeing the original communication and the response to it, don't you think? You're welcome to speculate in a vacuum, but please be respectful.

[+L0ne.R]

It's an addiction with some hiders and they need help controlling their habit. Instead they get encouragement from the numbers-majority, many who carry a sackful of cheap micros to "help" the power hiders and help themselves to another smiley. [/size]

 

I'm cutting back on how many caches I own, and I'm not planning on any new placements in 2017. It may be time to let a few go, and help out the community by leaving really nice throwdowns with a dry log and swag.

 

I have thought about doing that too, but it will twist my knickers if the delinquent cache owner gets patted on the back for supplying a good container and dry logbook. Are you planning on leaving an online note? And subsequently adding a 'your welcome' note whenever someone thanks the owner for a dry, swag size cache?

[+Viajero Perdido]

I'm not planning on any new placements in 2017. It may be time to let a few go, and help out the community by leaving really nice throwdowns with a dry log and swag.

Ditto.

 

Most of my "container flow" lately has been going toward maintenance - both my caches and those of others - and this should bring up the average quality by a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee little bit.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Viajero Perdido

[+Manville Possum]

It's an addiction with some hiders and they need help controlling their habit. Instead they get encouragement from the numbers-majority, many who carry a sackful of cheap micros to "help" the power hiders and help themselves to another smiley. [/size]

 

I'm cutting back on how many caches I own, and I'm not planning on any new placements in 2017. It may be time to let a few go, and help out the community by leaving really nice throwdowns with a dry log and swag.

 

I have thought about doing that too, but it will twist my knickers if the delinquent cache owner gets patted on the back for supplying a good container and dry logbook. Are you planning on leaving an online note? And subsequently adding a 'your welcome' note whenever someone thanks the owner for a dry, swag size cache?

 

I have in the past left a note on the cache page, but that is if the cache may be missing, and I've already been given permission from the cache owner to do so, but I would not claim it as a find.

 

I got a pretty good deal on 50 of those official geocaching stickers recently, and I've got plenty of containers that hold out moisture, add a sheet of rite in the rain in a baggie, toss in the old micro and do my happy dance.

[+L0ne.R]

It's an addiction with some hiders and they need help controlling their habit. Instead they get encouragement from the numbers-majority, many who carry a sackful of cheap micros to "help" the power hiders and help themselves to another smiley. [/size]

 

I'm cutting back on how many caches I own, and I'm not planning on any new placements in 2017. It may be time to let a few go, and help out the community by leaving really nice throwdowns with a dry log and swag.

 

I have thought about doing that too, but it will twist my knickers if the delinquent cache owner gets patted on the back for supplying a good container and dry logbook. Are you planning on leaving an online note? And subsequently adding a 'your welcome' note whenever someone thanks the owner for a dry, swag size cache?

 

I have in the past left a note on the cache page, but that is if the cache may be missing, and I've already been given permission from the cache owner to do so, but I would not claim it as a find.

 

I got a pretty good deal on 50 of those official geocaching stickers recently, and I've got plenty of containers that hold out moisture, add a sheet of rite in the rain in a baggie, toss in the old micro and do my happy dance.

 

My temptation is to put a bison tube that's placed in a spot where a swag size container can fit, into a palm size authentic (not the leaky knock offs) Lock & Lock. But I don't think the point would get across.

[cezanne]

 

My temptation is to put a bison tube that's placed in a spot where a swag size container can fit, into a palm size authentic (not the leaky knock offs) Lock & Lock. But I don't think the point would get across.

 

I do not own micros but I would regard such an action as very inappropriate. As cache owners we do not wish that others change our cache without asking for permission. I do not like traditionals at locations I regard as boring but I do not move them or turn them into multi caches by adding a stage. What you suggest above (even when probably not meant fully serious) is not ok in my eyes. There is no rule that asks for swag size containers.

One can ask for proper maintenance but a bison tube that is properly maintained is perfectly fine - just not everyone's preferred cache type.

[+Mudfrog]

I would assert that this is not a change in Policy, but a continued asserted effort that has been going on for several years now, beginning with the introduction of Favorite Points, if not before that.

 

That's disheartening. Here I was thinking that Groundspeak had a new policy in place this new year and would crackdown on all the power hiders. It's an addiction with some hiders and they need help controlling their habit. Instead they get encouragement from the numbers-majority, many who carry a sackful of cheap micros to "help" the power hiders and help themselves to another smiley.

Majority is the keyword here. GS, like any other business, is going to focus on what they think the majority wants since normally, that majority equals more payday. Speculation on my part here,,, what i have a feeling may be happening is that GS is finding that many in this majority aren't buying into the hobby. There are lots of new players but i have a feeling not that many are really getting interested enough to stay with it and "buy" into geocaching.

 

If this is the case, then maybe we need to hold off being disheartened. It makes sense from a business standpoint, that a change or two needs to be made. Who knows, maybe, just maybe, this strange idea of trying to promote quality back into geocaching may be the ticket!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Yes, it looks that way now.

 

I still think this is another bad implementation by GS.

 

So if I understand you correctly, you think this is a bad implementation on Groundspeak's part, of having some third party manipulate their private email in a single disciplinary action to make it appear that this is some systematic approach to throttle back Listing submissions on an entire group of cache owners, when in fact there is not a single piece of evidence to suggest that this is, in fact, the case?

 

I have to agree. This is very bad form on Groundspeak's part to allow you to be duped in this fashion

 

No, this is a change in their policy, or at least the implementation of this policy, and by not being open about it it's lead to some confusion amongst the community, not least the person who was (possibly) spoofed as above. I don't buy the "nothing has changed" line, as the intro to the original message clearly states:

 

"Geocaching HQ has a new focus on geocache quality and health in 2017"

 

and it would seem this private dicipline was as a result of this new (ergo a change) focus.

 

I don't think many would think this is a bad thing, so why didn't they publicise this new focus before implementing it?

 

People keep on using the word, implement. If someone actually did get a hiding ban, it was an "enforcement" of a policy. Earlier it was mentioned that the "new focus on geocache quality and health" had not be distributed to reviewers. Perhaps that was intentional. Again, assuming someone got a hiding ban, it appeared to have come from an enforcement of the policy by a lackey, not from a reviewer.

Nevertheless, the fact that the policy has not been published in an official Groundspeak communication channel (is Facebook an official communication or not...seems to change depending on the issue) makes it awfully difficult for players *and* reviewers to be in compliance with this new focus on geocache quality and health.

[+JL_HSTRE]

A new policy or initiative isn't very effective if nobody knows about it.

 

I'm reminded of a doomsday machine in a certain Peter Sellers movie.

 

Or to use another film example: is everyone on double secret probation?

 

I should note that the initiative sounds like a good idea and I am okay with a certain amount of subjectivity involved from Groundspeak, but there needs to be some communication and clear Guidelines.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Joshism

[+Team Microdot]

Nevertheless, the fact that the policy has not been published in an official Groundspeak communication channel (is Facebook an official communication or not...seems to change depending on the issue) makes it awfully difficult for players *and* reviewers to be in compliance with this new focus on geocache quality and health.

 

In fact focus is a quality which seems to be sorely lacking right now. At the moment things appear decidely blurry

[+NYPaddleCacher]

But, in my nearly 14 years as a volunteer, I cannot recall individual discipline cases being highlighted for the team worldwide.

 

That definitely would not make sense.

 

What appears to be surprising however is that there are community reviewers out there who apparently have not yet heard about the 2017 Groundspeak iniative for cache health and quality which is mentioned in the mail cited in the OP.

 

Which begs the question, "if a reviewer approves and published 100 new caches from a CO that already has a lot of hides", will GS reprimand the reviewer as well as the CO? Will reviewers have any enforcement powers on this 2017 Groundspeak initiative for cache health and quality?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Nevertheless, the fact that the policy has not been published in an official Groundspeak communication channel (is Facebook an official communication or not...seems to change depending on the issue) makes it awfully difficult for players *and* reviewers to be in compliance with this new focus on geocache quality and health.

 

In fact focus is a quality which seems to be sorely lacking right now. At the moment things appear decidely blurry

 

I think that many would a agree that a focus on quality and heal policy is a good thing, but that there are questions about how that policy is being communicated and enforced.

 

 

[cezanne]

A new policy or initiative isn't very effective if nobody knows about it.

 

According to Keystone the reviewers received information about the initiative.

 

What makes me wonder however is how there can be an initiative dealing with cache quality as cache quality is not defined and no two cachers have the same idea about a quality cache. It's one thing to try to reduce the number

of caches that are in bad condition but a completely different one to focus on quality.

[+Team Microdot]

Nevertheless, the fact that the policy has not been published in an official Groundspeak communication channel (is Facebook an official communication or not...seems to change depending on the issue) makes it awfully difficult for players *and* reviewers to be in compliance with this new focus on geocache quality and health.

 

In fact focus is a quality which seems to be sorely lacking right now. At the moment things appear decidely blurry

 

I think that many would a agree that a focus on quality and heal policy is a good thing, but that there are questions about how that policy is being communicated and enforced.

 

I agree - and the presence of those questions is what I was getting at.

[Pacific NW]

Majority is the keyword here. GS, like any other business, is going to focus on what they think the majority wants since normally, that majority equals more payday.

 

Totally agree. Money talks and it sounds like it is starting to speak up.

[+The A-Team]

What makes me wonder however is how there can be an initiative dealing with cache quality as cache quality is not defined and no two cachers have the same idea about a quality cache. It's one thing to try to reduce the number

of caches that are in bad condition but a completely different one to focus on quality.

Quoting the email that was posted (which I should note still hasn't been proven to be legitimate):

Geocaching HQ has a new focus on geocache quality and health for 2017.

Since the subjective "quality" factor on its own isn't covered by any of the guidelines, I have to assume this is primarily focused towards maintenance issues (a cache in poor condition could be considered to be of "low quality"). Specifically, I suspect it relates to a recurring failure to comply with the following guidelines:

• Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance.
  As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing.
  
• Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.
  You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order...
  

With the possible very rare exception, I'm unable to conceive of a way to properly maintain many thousands of caches, so I have no problem with such hiders being prevented from hiding any more (if that's really what's happening here).

[cezanne]

With the possible very rare exception, I'm unable to conceive of a way to properly maintain many thousands of caches, so I have no problem with such hiders being prevented from hiding any more (if that's really what's happening here).

 

I was not commenting on the hiding ban, but on Keystone's confirmation that GS indeed wants to focus on cache quality and health in 2017. As quality is mentioned in addition to health there needs to be more behind the scenes than just dealing with maintenance issues as otherwise the chosen formulation does not seem to be appropriate.

[+Panther in the Den]

The topic of quality reminds me of when they briefly brought back Virtuals. I don't think it will work here either as it is too subjective.

[+Team Microdot]

The topic of quality reminds me of when they briefly brought back Virtuals. I don't think it will work here either as it is too subjective.

 

What about health?

 

Can we agree on what constitutes a healthy cache?

 

 

Edit:typo

Edited January 9, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+Mudfrog]

The topic of quality reminds me of when they briefly brought back Virtuals. I don't think it will work here either as it is too subjective.

 

What about health?

 

Can we agree on what constitutes a healthy cache?

 

 

Edit:typo

You would think we could but alas,,, i'd bet money there are a few poor souls out there who think wet, smelly, and moldy caches are healthy cache qualities.

[+Manville Possum]

The topic of quality reminds me of when they briefly brought back Virtuals. I don't think it will work here either as it is too subjective.

 

It makes me think of the Waymarking site, where one person just over does a location by seeing how many categories one picture can fit in.

[+Team Microdot]

The topic of quality reminds me of when they briefly brought back Virtuals. I don't think it will work here either as it is too subjective.

 

What about health?

 

Can we agree on what constitutes a healthy cache?

 

Edit:typo

You would think we could but alas,,, i'd bet money there are a few poor souls out there who think wet, smelly, and moldy caches are healthy cache qualities.

 

I expect someone on here will make it their life's work to analyse in infinite detail every possible 'side' of wetness and its potential impact in any number of make-believe scenarios before recommending a detailed study by a carefully selected committee in a bid to decide whether a wet, smelly logbook is a good thing or a bad thing just in case the impact of such a decision will upset the balance of life as we know it or tilt the Earth on its axis and send it crashing headlong into the Sun.

[+Panther in the Den]

The topic of quality reminds me of when they briefly brought back Virtuals. I don't think it will work here either as it is too subjective.

 

What about health?

 

Can we agree on what constitutes a healthy cache?

 

 

Edit:typo

There are tools already to help with keeping caches healthy. I think the primary issue here is quality or maybe the unspoken density.

[+Team Microdot]

The topic of quality reminds me of when they briefly brought back Virtuals. I don't think it will work here either as it is too subjective.

 

What about health?

 

Can we agree on what constitutes a healthy cache?

 

 

Edit:typo

There are tools already to help with keeping caches healthy. I think the primary issue here is quality or maybe the unspoken density.

 

I disagree but an answer to the question would still be nice.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I expect someone on here will make it their life's work to analyse in infinite detail every possible 'side' of wetness and its potential impact in any number of make-believe scenarios before recommending a detailed study by a carefully selected committee in a bid to decide whether a wet, smelly logbook is a good thing or a bad thing just in case the impact of such a decision will upset the balance of life as we know it or tilt the Earth on its axis and send it crashing headlong into the Sun.

 

I work at a university. I'm sure if you could line up grant funding, we would be more than happy to provide the study.

 

Here's an off-the-wall idea. What if logging a find had a few more 'survey' questions? As Panther in the Den noted, there are some tools for keeping caches healthy. But, DNF/NM/NA have some drawbacks also. Maybe they could change the logging so that the status could be derived from a small set of questions. I'm not sure what those questions might be, but that has never stopped me from throwing out incomplete ideas before.

[+Team Hugs]

Here's an off-the-wall idea. What if logging a find had a few more 'survey' questions? As Panther in the Den noted, there are some tools for keeping caches healthy. But, DNF/NM/NA have some drawbacks also. Maybe they could change the logging so that the status could be derived from a small set of questions. I'm not sure what those questions might be, but that has never stopped me from throwing out incomplete ideas before.

 

1. If you make logging more complicated, it stands to reason that you'll discourage people (particularly newbies) from logging anything. Unless they're crafted awfully carefully, the information gathered from the survey questions might not make up for the lost logs. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's gotta be carefully done.

 

2. As you note, there are already simple feedback mechanisms available: DNF/NM/NA. The fact that even those mechanisms are under-utilized (and, alas, discouraged by some COs) makes me wonder how any other feedback mechanism could work. Maybe we could start by promoting the proper use of the existing tools.

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

2. As you note, there are already simple feedback mechanisms available: DNF/NM/NA. The fact that even those mechanisms are under-utilized (and, alas, discouraged by some COs) makes me wonder how any other feedback mechanism could work. Maybe we could start by promoting the proper use of the existing tools.

 

Agreed - although I'd be curious to see how even Groundspeak could put a positive spin on that which wouldn't incur the wrath of the caching mafia (a term coined by a friend of mine for the set of cachers who like to brandish the caching police banner whenever anyone dares to point out the guidelines / tries to follow them / encourages others to follow them).

[+hzoi]

The topic of quality reminds me of when they briefly brought back Virtuals. I don't think it will work here either as it is too subjective.

That must have been prior to my joining in 2007, unless you're talking about challenges.

[+thebruce0]

Agreed - although I'd be curious to see how even Groundspeak could put a positive spin on that which wouldn't incur the wrath of the caching mafia (a term coined by a friend of mine for the set of cachers who like to brandish the caching police banner whenever anyone dares to point out the guidelines / tries to follow them / encourages others to follow them).

Caching mafia on one end - innocent/apathetic cachers stuck in the middle - caching police on the other end. I like the depiction Dare we have left and right extremists in the geocaching community? Guh, let's not make geocaching political lol

[+Team Microdot]

Guh, let's not make geocaching political lol

 

That horse has not only bolted but was last seen heading for the edge of our solar system