Old unmaintained caches should be more aggresively archived

[+dubidubno]

Groundspeak should seek more solutions for getting rid of old caches that are not adequately maintained.

 

One way could be to require cache owners to declare that their cache is in good condition once a year. If they don't do this Groundspeak should issue a reminder and the cache could then be archived after a set period, for example three months, if the owner doesn't respond.

 

This doesn't mean that the cache owner has to visit the cache. It's a way to remind her to check the logs and visit if necessary. It will also filter out inactive users. Non-paying accounts could have stricter rules or vice versa.

 

One cacher in my area has been inactive for years, resulting in lots of needs maintenance logs without anything happening, until finally someone had the courage to post a Needs Archived log.

[Keystone]

If there is absolutely nothing wrong with a cache, why archive it if the cache owner doesn't do a forced check-in?

 

I think that the Health Score Algorithm has done a lot to improve the ability to identify caches with problems, leading to archival if the issue isn't addressed. What do you think of it?

 

As a Reviewer, I get as many complaint emails for "premature archiving" or "aggressive archiving" as I do for any other subject. And much of that does not come from the cache owner (who's often long gone). If your idea were implemented, I would not want the archive logs to come from me. My inbox couldn't handle the abuse.

[+TriciaG]

One cacher in my area has been inactive for years, resulting in lots of needs maintenance logs without anything happening, until finally someone had the courage to post a Needs Archived log.

This is the solution: other cachers need to grow a spine and post NA logs.

 

It's up to US, not to Groundspeak, to judge cache condition.

[+Team DEMP]

One cacher in my area has been inactive for years, resulting in lots of needs maintenance logs without anything happening, until finally someone had the courage to post a Needs Archived log.

 

I don't specifically look online for problem caches but as I look for caches in an area I might target and I see a string of DNFs, I sometimes post a Needs Maintenance. I add that cache to my watchlist and remove it if there's a response from the owner. After a month or so post, if there's no further action on the cache, I post a Needs Archive log. A reviewer picks that up within the week and reacts to it giving the cache owner 1 month to respond before it's archived. That tactic appears to work well though reviewers might have a different take on the approach.

[+wmpastor]

I don't specifically look online for problem caches but as I look for caches in an area I might target and I see a string of DNFs, I sometimes post a Needs Maintenance. I add that cache to my watchlist and remove it if there's a response from the owner. After a month or so post, if there's no further action on the cache, I post a Needs Archive log. A reviewer picks that up within the week and reacts to it giving the cache owner 1 month to respond before it's archived. That tactic appears to work well though reviewers might have a different take on the approach.

There is a debate from time to time whether a person should post NM or NA without having actually visited the site. I think it's pretty extreme to post NA without having been there.

 

The algorithm at headquarters now would pick up on a lot of possible cache health issues and send the "your cache may need attention" letter.

Edited January 20, 2017 by wmpastor

[+Team DEMP]

I don't specifically look online for problem caches but as I look for caches in an area I might target and I see a string of DNFs, I sometimes post a Needs Maintenance. I add that cache to my watchlist and remove it if there's a response from the owner. After a month or so post, if there's no further action on the cache, I post a Needs Archive log. A reviewer picks that up within the week and reacts to it giving the cache owner 1 month to respond before it's archived. That tactic appears to work well though reviewers might have a different take on the approach.

There is a debate from time to time whether a person should post NM or NA without having actually visited the site. I think it's pretty extreme to post NA without having been there.

 

Posting a NA would only occur after a series of DNFs followed by a NM with a 1 month wait after the NM. I also look to see the last time the site shows the cache owner logged in and in many cases it's been months/years. If the cacher is active or I happen to know them, I first message the owner before posting a NM/NA log.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Team DEMP

[+dubidubno]

There is a debate from time to time whether a person should post NM or NA without having actually visited the site. I think it's pretty extreme to post NA without having been there.

 

The algorithm at headquarters now would pick up on a lot of possible cache health issues and send the "your cache may need attention" letter.

 

What happens after such an email has been sent?

[+hzoi]

There is a debate from time to time whether a person should post NM or NA without having actually visited the site. I think it's pretty extreme to post NA without having been there.

 

The algorithm at headquarters now would pick up on a lot of possible cache health issues and send the "your cache may need attention" letter.

 

What happens after such an email has been sent?

Nothing automatic, though I believe the local reviewer would be able to check if such an email had been sent and then would be able to gauge whether the CO had responded or not.

[+niraD]

One way could be to require cache owners to declare that their cache is in good condition once a year. If they don't do this Groundspeak should issue a reminder and the cache could then be archived after a set period, for example three months, if the owner doesn't respond.

I really don't see the point, honestly. There are accounts that own thousands of caches.

 

How long do you think it would take before a third-party tool could declare all of an owner's caches to be in good condition with one click?

 

How long do you think it would take before such a tool were used by owners of only hundreds of caches? Of only dozens of caches?

 

If you want to filter out inactive owners, then require that cache owners click a button to indicate they're still active once a year. But that should only be necessary when they haven't been active in some way on the web site.

 

In the meantime, the current system of NM and NA logs works when people use it.

[+Mudfrog]

There is a debate from time to time whether a person should post NM or NA without having actually visited the site. I think it's pretty extreme to post NA without having been there.

 

The algorithm at headquarters now would pick up on a lot of possible cache health issues and send the "your cache may need attention" letter.

 

What happens after such an email has been sent?

May be wrong but i'm guessing that reviewers may get a copy of or some sort of notification that the email was sent. They then take notice of the cache to see if any response comes forth. The routine now, at least seems to be here in our area, is a reviewer posts a note to the cache page asking that the CO check on his cache. If nothing happens after 30 days, the reviewer's archive log shows up. I know that in our area, there are more caches being archived these days than are being placed. I imagine this is due, at least in part, to the algorithm that is in place now.

[Keystone]

There is a debate from time to time whether a person should post NM or NA without having actually visited the site. I think it's pretty extreme to post NA without having been there.

 

The algorithm at headquarters now would pick up on a lot of possible cache health issues and send the "your cache may need attention" letter.

 

What happens after such an email has been sent?

Nothing automatic, though I believe the local reviewer would be able to check if such an email had been sent and then would be able to gauge whether the CO had responded or not.

That's correct at a high level. The Health Score feature greatly aids reviewers in identifying listings that may require their attention. The human eye can weed out the maintenance emails which may not have been warranted due to imperfections in the algorithm.

[+Touchstone]

You still have a Needs Maintenance Attribute on one of your caches from back in August that needs clearing:

 

https://coord.info/GC4Q826

[+NanCycle]

There is a debate from time to time whether a person should post NM or NA without having actually visited the site. I think it's pretty extreme to post NA without having been there.

 

The algorithm at headquarters now would pick up on a lot of possible cache health issues and send the "your cache may need attention" letter.

 

What happens after such an email has been sent?

 

The recipient comes to the forum to complain about their perfectly good D=3 cache being threatened with archival after 2 or 3 consecutive DNFs.

[+dprovan]

Groundspeak should seek more solutions for getting rid of old caches that are not adequately maintained.

Why Groundspeak? You have way more information about the caches in your area than Groundspeak. The system is designed for you to call problems to their attention, not for them to unilaterally decide what should happen to caches in your area.

 

One cacher in my area has been inactive for years, resulting in lots of needs maintenance logs without anything happening, until finally someone had the courage to post a Needs Archived log.

From what you're saying, when someone posts an NA, the cache gets archived, so everything on the Groundspeak end appears to be working perfectly. So focus on the real problem, which is no one having the "courage" to post an NA. Why are they afraid of a CO that's not even playing the game any more? If the absent CO notices at all, he'll probably be relieved when all those caches he doesn't care about anymore are finally archived.

[+dprovan]

Posting a NA would only occur after a series of DNFs followed by a NM with a 1 month wait after the NM.

Ideally an NM follows several DNFs and an NA leaves a month of reaction time after an NM, but sometimes an NM or NA might come more quickly.

 

But I rarely post an NA on a cache where I posted an NM because it starts to smack of me holding a grudge for some reason. Better to leave the NA for someone else to use to offer a second opinion about whether it's time to give up on the cache. Admittedly, I can afford to have that attitude because in my area, the culture is such that someone else will post the NA when it's time.

 

If the cacher is active or I happen to know them, I first message the owner before posting a NM/NA log.

Well, naturally you can do whatever makes you feel comfortable, but when there's a problem that leads me to post an NM or NA, I'm doing it to convey information to other seekers as much as to the CO, so I let the publicly filed log itself be my way of notifying the CO of my conclusion.

[+cerberus1]

One cacher in my area has been inactive for years, resulting in lots of needs maintenance logs without anything happening, until finally someone had the courage to post a Needs Archived log.

This is the solution: other cachers need to grow a spine and post NA logs.

 

It's up to US, not to Groundspeak, to judge cache condition.

+1

Wasn't thinking of spine, but I agree.

- Rather than yet more "rules" presented from Groundspeak, this is an issue easily fixed by cachers, by simply using the tools already provided.

[cezanne]

This doesn't mean that the cache owner has to visit the cache.

 

Without doing so one can never say for certain that everything is ok.

 

It will also filter out inactive users. Non-paying accounts could have stricter rules or vice versa.

 

Paying a fee to Groundspeak is in no relation to the willingness and ability to maintain caches.

Some of the nicest caches I know are owned by cachers who have stopped to geocache a long time ago - the caches are in good order however. Archiving such caches would be very stupid.

 

One cacher in my area has been inactive for years, resulting in lots of needs maintenance logs without anything happening, until finally someone had the courage to post a Needs Archived log.

 

I do not think that it requires courage to write a NA log on a cache with a missing owner. Often only NM logs are written and no NA logs when the cachers who write the NM logs do not wish the cache to be archived. I would never write a NA log for a nice cache with a leaky container.

Edited January 20, 2017 by cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

I do not think that it requires courage to write a NA log on a cache with a missing owner. Often only NM logs are written and no NA logs when the cachers who write the NM logs do not wish the cache to be archived. I would never write a NA log for a nice cache with a leaky container.

 

Sure it requires courage. You never see folks who log NAs patted on the back in the forums. They almost always end up called "Cache Cops". You even say you never log NAs (on messy containers....you don't specify if you ever log NAs and if so, when). What about the person who likes to remain friendly with those numbers players who frequent events and group caching. It could be awkward posting an NA on their abandoned messy or missing caches, or even posting NAs on any caches because it means fewer numbers.

I would never write a NA log for a nice cache with a leaky container.

 

That's an oxymoron. A cache includes the container and contents. In fact the word cache is the contents. A wet (soon to be moldy if not already) log and contents is not a nice cache.

[cezanne]

Sure it requires courage. You never see folks who log NAs patted on the back in the forums. They almost always end up called "Cache Cops". You even say you never log NAs (on messy containers....you don't specify if you ever log NAs and if so, when).

 

Yes, I write NA logs but only when I think that the cache should be archived (for when missing and the cache owner is inactive, when the cache has a serious issue) and not when it requires maintenance.

The log is called "Needs archived" and not "Could a reviewer maybe have a look".

 

 

I would never write a NA log for a nice cache with a leaky container.

 

That's an oxymoron. A cache includes the container and contents. In fact the word cache is the contents. A wet (soon to be moldy if not already) log and contents is not a nice cache.

 

 

For me it still can be a nice cache and my statement was "I would never .....".

It was not "One should not .....".

Please respect that it is not you who decides what is a nice cache for me. I equally respect that swag plays an important role for you while often it rather annoys me when I drop things and have to pick them up again.

 

By the way: I have found leaky containers where the log sheet was perfectly true and there was no other contents than the log sheet.

[+dprovan]

it requires courage. You never see folks who log NAs patted on the back in the forums. They almost always end up called "Cache Cops".

I've never been called a cache cop. I've never seen anyone else called a cache cop. Maybe that's because the people I know only file legitimate NAs.

 

What about the person who likes to remain friendly with those numbers players who frequent events and group caching.

Why would I want to stay friendly with someone that's not taking care of their caches and then blaming me when I call them on it? And how could they show their face at an event -- let alone ask me to go caching with them -- when they don't take my friendly NA in the spirit it was given?

 

It could be awkward posting an NA on their abandoned messy or missing caches, or even posting NAs on any caches because it means fewer numbers.

The cache is gone. It's already "fewer numbers" whether I post an NA on it or not.

[cezanne]

The cache is gone. It's already "fewer numbers" whether I post an NA on it or not.

 

If the cache is gone, it's a completely different story to e.g. when the log book is full.

Archiving a cache because the log book is full is not what I regard as a good solution and so I would try for other solutions before. The same is true if something has slightly changed at one virtual stage of a multi cache.

 

I happen to try to contact some cachers who are hardly active in geocaching any longer via alternative channels and often with success. They then either adapt their cache or decide to adopt it or decide themselves that they wish to archive it (which also increases the chance that containers get removed). This causes more work but I see it as a valid contribution as in my opinion the local community should care about the actual caches out there and not what is listed on gc.com.

Edited January 21, 2017 by cezanne

[+barefootjeff]

There is a debate from time to time whether a person should post NM or NA without having actually visited the site. I think it's pretty extreme to post NA without having been there.

 

The algorithm at headquarters now would pick up on a lot of possible cache health issues and send the "your cache may need attention" letter.

 

What happens after such an email has been sent?

 

The recipient comes to the forum to complain about their perfectly good D=3 cache being threatened with archival after 2 or 3 consecutive DNFs.

Or a seven-week-old T=5 that had one DNF.

 

Before leaping on the bandwagon of more such algorithm-based cache-weeding systems that require COs to make additional cache visits, consider the effect this has on high terrain caches, the ones where such visiting takes the best part of a day or even longer (plus recovery time afterwards). The ones that get few finds and where the DNFs are much more likely to be because the terrain defeated the searcher than the cache being missing. I have a T4 like that and I'm now dreading the day it gets pinged by the algorithm as a result of a group of people all DNFing it because it was getting late and they didn't want to be caught out in the bush after dark. And there are plenty of T4.5s that are much tougher to reach, both for the searcher and the CO.

 

If there's a genuine problem with the cache, sure the CO has to bite the bullet and address it, but to require additional visits just because it's been a while since the last find or the last OM, or because of a DNF where the searcher didn't even reach GZ, is a step too far in my book. This will just result in fewer people being willing to hide such caches.

[+Touchstone]

It's kind of paradoxical to me that these hypothetical thin skinned cache owners that are being discussed, can receive notification of 2-3 DNF's (or more) without any concern or acknowledgement, yet when they get some automated email from Groundspeak, in the blandest of tones, stating, hey! you might want to take a look at your Listing page and see if everything looks Okidokie, that suddenly their hair is on fire, and bolt into action

[+dprovan]

The cache is gone. It's already "fewer numbers" whether I post an NA on it or not.

If the cache is gone, it's a completely different story to e.g. when the log book is full.

I'm talking about posting an NA that is valid. If someone in this thread is suggesting archiving caches for trivial problems, I definitely didn't mean to support them.

Edited January 21, 2017 by dprovan

[+dprovan]

It's kind of paradoxical to me that these hypothetical thin skinned cache owners that are being discussed, can receive notification of 2-3 DNF's (or more) without any concern or acknowledgement, yet when they get some automated email from Groundspeak, in the blandest of tones, stating, hey! you might want to take a look at your Listing page and see if everything looks Okidokie, that suddenly their hair is on fire, and bolt into action

I'm not one of those people, but I can explain it to you. First of all, the whole point behind these complaints is that the CO has a perfectly good reason for ignored those two or three DNFs: as the CO, they know very well what pattern of finds and misses is a problem and what pattern isn't. The automated email might be bland, but it still insinuates that there's a problem which the CO was too incompetent to notice. (Although to be honest, I have no problem seeing how some of the versions of the automated e-mail quoted in the forums could be read as a veiled threat, so I'm not sure those CO would always agree they're bland.)

 

I've never gotten one of those messages, and I never take anything in geocaching very seriously, anyway, but even I can see how the message might be upsetting to some. And what's important is the people that read, think, and complain about those messages are, more often than not, precisely the people that are maintaining their caches. The worst offenders ignoring problems with their caches are also going to ignore an automated message about them ignoring their caches. To me, the paradox would be a CO that doesn't care about his caches suddenly taking an interest because of an automated message.

 

Having said all that, I'm not really concerned about these automated messages in themselves. I'm more annoyed about the erosion of local responsibility that is implied by these centralized sweeps.

[+Manville Possum]

Groundspeak should seek more solutions for getting rid of old caches that are not adequately maintained.

 

I don't think that will ever happen. Seems the community is more interested in propping up old listings than posting an NA that is only going to cause problems.

[+lodgebarn]

Sure post an N/A if you have visited the cache and tried to find where it does seem to be gone. Post a N/M if you are planning a visit. Cache cops just lob out N/A where that isn't the case and is quite distasteful to me.

[+barefootjeff]

It's kind of paradoxical to me that these hypothetical thin skinned cache owners that are being discussed, can receive notification of 2-3 DNF's (or more) without any concern or acknowledgement, yet when they get some automated email from Groundspeak, in the blandest of tones, stating, hey! you might want to take a look at your Listing page and see if everything looks Okidokie, that suddenly their hair is on fire, and bolt into action

Now we're back to the assumption that a DNF means there's a problem with the cache. Most of the time it doesn't, at least in my experience, it just means the searcher was looking in the wrong place or even didn't make it to GZ for whatever reason.

 

The email itself might be full of words like "may" and "seems", but the Help Centre article is more explicit - upon receipt of the email, the only options for the CO are to immediately visit the cache and perform the needed maintenance, disable it until that can be done, or archive it. That might be fine if checking on the cache only takes half an hour, but it's a different story if it requires a day of rugged hiking in the middle of summer and it's obvious from the DNFs that there's nothing wrong with the cache.

 

By using DNF as a metric for maintenance required, it's weeding out hard-to-find caches as well. Call me paranoid, but I can't help wondering if this is the intent.

[+dubidubno]

One way could be to require cache owners to declare that their cache is in good condition once a year. If they don't do this Groundspeak should issue a reminder and the cache could then be archived after a set period, for example three months, if the owner doesn't respond.

I really don't see the point, honestly. There are accounts that own thousands of caches.

Can you provide examples of accounts with thousands of active caches? How does such a user manage to maintain all those caches?

 

How long do you think it would take before a third-party tool could declare all of an owner's caches to be in good condition with one click?

How long do you think it would take before such a tool were used by owners of only hundreds of caches? Of only dozens of caches?

There are various technical solutions one can implement to avoid this.

[+dubidubno]

The Health Score feature greatly aids reviewers in identifying listings that may require their attention.

 

What exactly is this feature? Is it documented anywhere? This is the first time I've heard about it.

[+L0ne.R]

One way could be to require cache owners to declare that their cache is in good condition once a year. If they don't do this Groundspeak should issue a reminder and the cache could then be archived after a set period, for example three months, if the owner doesn't respond.

I really don't see the point, honestly. There are accounts that own thousands of caches.

Can you provide examples of accounts with thousands of active caches? How does such a user manage to maintain all those caches?

 

I know of only one with over 1000 hides. He doesn't maintain most of them. He's quite popular so has a lot of other cachers who will help him. They leave containers whenever they can't find one of his caches and then he thanks them in his OM log.

[+Touchstone]

Project GC returns 61 cache owners who have hidden over 1,000 caches in the U.S. Not sure how many of those are still active. I'll leave that as an exercise for the OP.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Touchstone

[+dprovan]

Can you provide examples of accounts with thousands of active caches? How does such a user manage to maintain all those caches?

Perhaps I'm just lucky, but in my area, the COs with many, many hides almost never have caches that can be described as "old unmaintained caches". I don't think how they do it is not really relevant to this discussion.

[Keystone]

The Health Score feature greatly aids reviewers in identifying listings that may require their attention.

 

What exactly is this feature? Is it documented anywhere? This is the first time I've heard about it.

In a forum thread advocating that "Groundspeak should seek more solutions for getting rid of old caches that are not adequately maintained," it's good to know about the things which are already in place for this purpose. One example of this is the Health Score project, launched in September 2015. You can see the announcement of this tool here. Please also read this Help Center article.

 

The Health Score is also integrated into the toolset used by Community Volunteer Reviewers. Here is one example, of many: When evaluating whether to take action against a cache listing that shows signs of a maintenance problem, it's very useful to know that Geocaching HQ sent an automated reminder email in the past. If I do not see a response from the owner after the date of the reminder email, and if there truly is a maintenance issue, I am more likely to take action -- and faster.

[+dubidubno]

The Health Score feature greatly aids reviewers in identifying listings that may require their attention.

 

What exactly is this feature? Is it documented anywhere? This is the first time I've heard about it.

In a forum thread advocating that "Groundspeak should seek more solutions for getting rid of old caches that are not adequately maintained," it's good to know about the things which are already in place for this purpose. One example of this is the Health Score project, launched in September 2015. You can see the announcement of this tool here. Please also read this Help Center article.

 

The Health Score is also integrated into the toolset used by Community Volunteer Reviewers. Here is one example, of many: When evaluating whether to take action against a cache listing that shows signs of a maintenance problem, it's very useful to know that Geocaching HQ sent an automated reminder email in the past. If I do not see a response from the owner after the date of the reminder email, and if there truly is a maintenance issue, I am more likely to take action -- and faster.

 

I am aware of the two pages you link to. "Health Score" isn't mentioned in them.

[Keystone]

"Health Score" is Geocaching HQ's name for the algorithm. The Health Score identifies caches that might need attention, and emails are sent based on the Health Score algorithm as described in the sources I linked in my prior post.

 

I hope that this clarification is helpful.

[+Michaelcycle]

I see that the word mold in a log can now trigger a TDL (Temporarily Disable Listing) from a reviewer.

 

Hyphathetically (I could not resist) that could trigger an argument about what consistutes sufficient mold to require intervention.

[+dprovan]

"Health Score" is Geocaching HQ's name for the algorithm. The Health Score identifies caches that might need attention, and emails are sent based on the Health Score algorithm as described in the sources I linked in my prior post.

 

I hope that this clarification is helpful.

That helps, but now to go back to your original comment:

 

I think that the Health Score Algorithm has done a lot to improve the ability to identify caches with problems, leading to archival if the issue isn't addressed. What do you think of it?

Is the algorithm published? The links you mention only talk about the messages. Nothing at all about what triggers the messages to be sent. If the algorithm isn't published, how can we think anything coherent about it?

 

Furthermore, do you really mean the algorithm itself has improved things, or is it the automated messages sent because of triggers that you're crediting with the improvement?

[+barefootjeff]

"Health Score" is Geocaching HQ's name for the algorithm. The Health Score identifies caches that might need attention, and emails are sent based on the Health Score algorithm as described in the sources I linked in my prior post.

 

I hope that this clarification is helpful.

That helps, but now to go back to your original comment:

 

I think that the Health Score Algorithm has done a lot to improve the ability to identify caches with problems, leading to archival if the issue isn't addressed. What do you think of it?

Is the algorithm published? The links you mention only talk about the messages. Nothing at all about what triggers the messages to be sent. If the algorithm isn't published, how can we think anything coherent about it?

Good question. What, in HQ's mind, constitutes a healthy geocache? One would hope that this would've been defined when designing an algorithm to detect unhealthy caches.

 

The Help Centre page says "The emails may result from any combination of logs, including Did Not Find (DNF's), Needs Maintenance (NM), Needs Archived (NA) or caches that have not been found in a long time."

 

Okay, a healthy cache shouldn't have any outstanding NMs or NAs, I think that's a given, except I'm not sure why the email would be generated for a cache with an NA since by then its fate is already in the hands of a reviewer.

 

The other two are contentious. Does a cache need to have regular finds and no DNFs to be healthy? I've already personally seen that just one DNF in combination with a low number of finds (in my case one) was enough to trigger the email. Are caches that are rarely found or hard to find inherently unhealthy?

 

Prevention is better than cure, so some guidance on what constitutes a healthy cache would be helpful when designing new caches.

[+Touchstone]

"Health Score" is Geocaching HQ's name for the algorithm. The Health Score identifies caches that might need attention, and emails are sent based on the Health Score algorithm as described in the sources I linked in my prior post.

 

I hope that this clarification is helpful.

That helps, but now to go back to your original comment:

 

I think that the Health Score Algorithm has done a lot to improve the ability to identify caches with problems, leading to archival if the issue isn't addressed. What do you think of it?

Is the algorithm published? The links you mention only talk about the messages. Nothing at all about what triggers the messages to be sent. If the algorithm isn't published, how can we think anything coherent about it?

 

The following statement in one of the Articles articulates some aspects of the topic being discussed:

 

The emails may result from any combination of logs, including Did Not Find (DNF's), Needs Maintenance (NM), Needs Archived (NA) or caches that have not been found in a long time.

 

One could surmise that a some combination of the above results in the email trigger, which seems like a reasonable approach, depending on those thresholds.

 

Furthermore, do you really mean the algorithm itself has improved things, or is it the automated messages sent because of triggers that you're crediting with the improvement?

 

I think your point is different than what Keystone was discussing. His point was merely from a Reviewers point of view, in being able to identify problem Listings and make a determination on an appropriate action/response. Time will tell if there is some quantifiable improvement to the game over this initiative.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

One way could be to require cache owners to declare that their cache is in good condition once a year. If they don't do this Groundspeak should issue a reminder and the cache could then be archived after a set period, for example three months, if the owner doesn't respond.

I really don't see the point, honestly. There are accounts that own thousands of caches.

Can you provide examples of accounts with thousands of active caches? How does such a user manage to maintain all those caches?

 

According to ProjectGC there are 11 caches owners with more than 2000 hides in the U.S. (http://project-gc.com/Statistics/TopHidden?country=United+States&submit=Filter)

 

 

How long do you think it would take before a third-party tool could declare all of an owner's caches to be in good condition with one click?

How long do you think it would take before such a tool were used by owners of only hundreds of caches? Of only dozens of caches?

There are various technical solutions one can implement to avoid this.

 

And just as quickly, someone can develop a technical solution to circumvent those technical solutions.

 

 

[+niraD]

How long do you think it would take before a third-party tool could declare all of an owner's caches to be in good condition with one click?

How long do you think it would take before such a tool were used by owners of only hundreds of caches? Of only dozens of caches?

There are various technical solutions one can implement to avoid this.

And just as quickly, someone can develop a technical solution to circumvent those technical solutions.

And ultimately, what would be the point?

 

If the new "declare the cache in good condition" action doesn't actually require a visit to the cache location, then all it really means is that the CO is still paying attention. In that case, a simple "still paying attention" action is a more direct solution anyway.