Geocache Health Score

[cezanne]

When it comes to reviewers vs community, I believe that the local community has more time and interest to care about the specifics of a cache while the reviewers need to do their job on a more general level.

 

And when the local community doesn't care about the specifics of the cache? What then?

 

I did not suggest to abolish reviewers anyhow.

 

When noone has an interest and the energy to fight that a cache continues to live, then it won't happen anyway. This does not change the fact that for many caches it's the better solution to extend their life cycle than coming up a new cache listing.

 

I will continue to consider every case individually depending on its merits both when it comes how I act and how I reply when someone asks for my advice. There are more options to fix issues with a cache than archival (regardless of whether by a reviewer or the owner) and archival often is not the best option.

[+dprovan]

I've been actively caching for almost seven years now.

 

In all that time not only have I never heard of anybody successfully sabotaging any active cache listing in order to place a cache of their own I've never even heard of anybody trying to do so.

I think you're thinking that the absence of a problem proves cezanne wrong, but I think it just confirms that what cezanne is saying is, in fact, the accepted etiquette. You haven't seen those things because it's just not done, and cezanne is simply stressing that you shouldn't do it, either.

[+fizzymagic]

But now that you've listed 5 problem caches in my area, I understand that the caches you're talking about aren't causing problems, they just aren't living up to your standards, and you want your standards enforced even though the community accepts those caches. No wonder my talk about community is ignored: the problem isn't that the communities aren't doing what they should, the problem is that the communities aren't doing what you think they should.

 

I hate to beat a dead horse, but to me that's been obvious for quite a while in these discussions.

 

The definition of a "problem cache" appears to be different from what most people would think -- it appears to refer to "a cache that is not maintained to my standards."

 

Which is why I tend not to participate in these discussions any more; even if there were some change for the better, the goalposts would move and those who are invested in being unhappy with all those lazy, no-good COs would find a new pretext to complain.

[+SeattleWayne]

This algorithm is based on a combination of logs and circumstances, including

 

Did Not Find (DNF)

Needs Maintenance (NM)

Needs Archived (NA)

Caches that have not been found in a long time

Difficulty and terrain rating

 

We really don't like the 4th circumstance in that list. We have several remote caches that don't get many visitors, the people that have gone have really liked them though so I don't think archiving is really the answer. We also have several that require a bit of a hike to get to them so they also don't get many visits.... again, the people that do go to them love them so there is no good reason to archive.

 

I would hate to see this hobby turn into 1/1 caches only! Many cachers, us included, prefer remote caches, caches that require a hike, kayak and canoe caches..... those are all going to be affected by 4 and 5 on that list.

 

Who's saying they need to be archived just because they only get a couple visits a year?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I guess I do not understand what sets off the cache-killing algorithm. Random areas across the world? I guess it would take a while to scan all the caches. (And from this thread, some seem poor algorithm choices...)

Example: Found a cache last year that had not been found in over four years. Not capable of searching the spot for the first step. Searched (probably for an hour) for the final, using the hint. Found it! Great area! Logged an NM because the log was soaked. (Nine month ago?) DNF six months ago, by a cacher who was capable of searching the first stage. That cacher was unable to find the first stage.

That would seem to me to be the sort of cache that the cache-killing algorithm would delight in. One find in four years with NM, followed by an DNF. So, I'd say that the cache-killing algorithm does not really serve any useful porpoise. Sorta picks caches at random with relatively useless specs.

[+dprovan]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but to me that's been obvious for quite a while in these discussions.

 

The definition of a "problem cache" appears to be different from what most people would think -- it appears to refer to "a cache that is not maintained to my standards."

Yeah, that's my cross to bear: I always imagine anyone I'm talking to is aware of their own foibles, but it's never true.

[+SeattleWayne]

I guess I do not understand what sets off the cache-killing algorithm. Random areas across the world? I guess it would take a while to scan all the caches. (And from this thread, some seem poor algorithm choices...)

Example: Found a cache last year that had not been found in over four years. Not capable of searching the spot for the first step. Searched (probably for an hour) for the final, using the hint. Found it! Great area! Logged an NM because the log was soaked. (Nine month ago?) DNF six months ago, by a cacher who was capable of searching the first stage. That cacher was unable to find the first stage.

That would seem to me to be the sort of cache that the cache-killing algorithm would delight in. One find in four years with NM, followed by an DNF. So, I'd say that the cache-killing algorithm does not really serve any useful porpoise. Sorta picks caches at random with relatively useless specs.

 

Doesn't mean it has to be archived.

[+barefootjeff]

I've tried to make my latest hide (GC70YHG) as DNF-proof as possible. It's a D1 with the only plausible hiding place pretty much given away by the cache title, and where it is you'd have to be extremely unlucky to have your hunt interrupted by muggles. But five days after publication it's only just had its FTF and, with no-one watching it and the current showery weather forecast to continue for at least another week, I doubt it'll get any more finds in the short term at least.

 

It's probably too boring for those who love a good bush cache and too much bush-bashing for those who prefer P&Gs, so I guess in spite of my best efforts, its health score is already on the slippery slope to becoming a "problem cache". A DNF due to a sudden downpour or a snake sunbaking on top of GZ will be all it takes, but at least it's an easy one for me to go and check on when the email comes, and one I won't lose much sleep over if it ends up archived due to insufficient finders.

 

Yes, I am being rather facetious, but dull-as-dishwater D1s like this seem to be the direction the health score thing is pushing us. I'm now reluctant to hide anything much more challenging that might be awkward for me to check on at short notice, but as long as it's for the greater good, who are we to complain?

[cezanne]

I just ran a PQ for caches with red wrenches within 25 miles of one of your hides (near the airport). There are 669 caches with a red wrench.

 

Red wrenches do not imply that there is really a problem. In my area there are many caches with red wrenches that are perfectly fine and are maintained (by the cache owner). In some other cases the red wrenches refer to minor issues (could be that the log book only allows five further logs for a cache that has only a few visits per year, a wrong waypoint for the parking coordinates, a wrong attribute etc).

 

2299 View - the owner hasn't logged in since March 2016 -- but the cache is being found, owner hasn't posted OM

 

First, the website only displays logins via the website.

Second, this cache is a perfect example of what I said above. There are many caches which are fine and carry the NM attribute.

In case of that cache it even could be that something went wrong - the way NM attributes can be cleared changed over the years and there also have been some problems as to whether the attribute shows up (in some cases people logged a NM from their mobiles the attribute did not show up) or disappears (there have been cases where it did not disappear).

 

In my opinion it's a formality if a cache which is fine carries the red wrench.

 

I think do too much stress is put on such formalities and not on the real condition of a cache. For example, I used to post a note when I checked (parts of my) cache without an issue being addressed by someone and I also sometimes deleted earlier notes about cache visits by myself in order to reduce the number of logs written by myself in a line. Every human being could read the logs. If one wants to apply algorithms things change.

 

If such

[+Team Microdot]

But now that you've listed 5 problem caches in my area, I understand that the caches you're talking about aren't causing problems, they just aren't living up to your standards, and you want your standards enforced even though the community accepts those caches. No wonder my talk about community is ignored: the problem isn't that the communities aren't doing what they should, the problem is that the communities aren't doing what you think they should.

 

I hate to beat a dead horse, but to me that's been obvious for quite a while in these discussions.

 

The definition of a "problem cache" appears to be different from what most people would think -- it appears to refer to "a cache that is not maintained to my standards."

 

I call this a problem cache:

 

 

It was archived yesterday but had managed to exist for almost two years despite numerous NM's and photographs.

 

Thankfully someone eventually saw sense and pulled the NA trigger.

[cezanne]

 

I call this a problem cache:

 

 

I guess most (all?) cachers will call this a problem cache.

Hardly any cacher will call a cache with an uncleared NM attribute but in perfect shape a problem cache.

 

There are also caches in my area which are difficult to find and whenever DNFs show up I would bet on the cache still being there

and I have always been right in these cases.

A recent case was this one

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC62HTE_dogs-playground?guid=1d5bb4b3-0531-411f-ac10-36b827d8399c

I was sure that the cache would be at its place even before the owner went there and confirmed it. I had overlooked the cache myself.

There are also other cases where I came at least twice and where sometimes cachers post a NM if they the second DNF logger in a row for a cache

which is not easy to find. I do not expect cache owners to rush out every time in such cases. It's a different matter if there is a reasonable evidence that

a cache got lost or suddenly DNFs pop up for an easy cache which never had a history of DNFs and which is easy to find at all seasons.

 

Cezanne

Edited March 1, 2017 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

 

I call this a problem cache:

 

 

I guess most (all?) cachers will call this a problem cache.

 

Good - I'm glad about that.

 

I was actually wrong earlier - this cache existed in a similar state to this for OVER two years.

 

Hopefully most (all?) cachers will agree that it should have been archived much, much earlier than that.

 

An earlier image of the same cache:

 

[+justintim1999]

But it could just as easily go the other way; a lacklustre traditional that's seen better days is blocking a creative multi someone might have in mind to more effectively highlight the location's attractions. If the traditional's owner hasn't responded to NMs, would it still be in bad form for the person contemplating the multi to post an NA?

 

Of course this could also happen though I never experienced it in a large area around my home.

To answer your question, I always prefer if two different parties are involved whenever possible without ending up with nothing been done at all. That does not mean that I regard a cacher who happens to post a NA and then places a cache at the now free location as a bad cacher. I do not wish to label people at all.

 

When it comes to the whole discussion here the main reason which makes me end up with headache is that I prefer if the human aspect plays a role as large as possible and machines play a role as small as possible.

 

When it comes to reviewers vs community, I believe that the local community has more time and interest to care about the specifics of a cache while the reviewers need to do their job on a more general level.

 

We need to get past the fear of what others will think and focus on the facts. Is the cache being maintained? If not than it should be archived. The reasons for an individual actively trying to archive a unmaintained cache could be strictly personal an to be honest it doesn't matter to me.

 

I think what's being missed here is that there ARE two parties involved. The NA poster and the cache owner. Someone can post as many NM's and NA's as they want. As an ACTIVE cache owner I can wipe them all away.

 

I too have never heard of someone trying to sabotage a cache to get it archived and claim the spot. I'm not saying it hasn't happened but to base an entire argument on the possibility is foolish. Someone may be able to accomplish this by targeting caches that are obviously not being maintained. Trying to do something like that to an active cache owner would probably be more work than it's worth and eventually they would be exposed.

[cezanne]

 

We need to get past the fear of what others will think and focus on the facts.

 

I'm not talking about any fears.

 

If stupid automatic algorithms take over cachers like myself will tend to give up caches they have cared about in a responsible way.

 

Someone can post as many NM's and NA's as they want. As an ACTIVE cache owner I can wipe them all away.

 

You can but you need to be motivated to do so and that even more applies to how one reacts to messages sent out like the one for barefootjeff's cache.

 

The price one has to pay when such systems are in use is not worth in my eyes what such a system can achieve.

[+justintim1999]

 

We need to get past the fear of what others will think and focus on the facts.

 

I'm not talking about any fears.

 

If stupid automatic algorithms take over cachers like myself will tend to give up caches they have cared about in a responsible way.

 

Someone can post as many NM's and NA's as they want. As an ACTIVE cache owner I can wipe them all away.

 

You can but you need to be motivated to do so and that even more applies to how one reacts to messages sent out like the one for barefootjeff's cache.

 

The price one has to pay when such systems are in use is not worth in my eyes what such a system can achieve.

 

Two observations,

 

No one is going to take over one of my caches through blunt force.

 

The note sent to barefootjeff was probably unwarranted. I agree the system needs to be tweaked. This isn't about the few caches that will be inconvenienced by these reminders, It's about the thousands that will be identified and removed.

[+thebruce0]

I think people are forgetting - this is merely an email reminder! Wording aside, this email does nothing about the cache. It does not archive it. It does not make more likely to be archived. Secondly, reviewers - human - are always the final say, despite how 'bad' a cache health score is, the reviewer always makes the final judgement. Even a cache that may have a good health score could be archived by a reviewer on a whim. This email is ultimately irrelevant to the actual existence of cache listing.

 

Ignore the email and then what? An active owner might need to make a case to a reviewer. No problems? No worries. Problems? Fix'em.

A cache with a bad health score will only be archived after due process if the reviewer believes it to be a problem cache (that means there's also been insufficient argument that the community would like it to remain, whether by reasoning or by their own proxy maintenance). And again, if the community maintains the cache for an inactive owner, that doesn't immediately mean the cache will be archived - it's still up to the reviewer's judgement.

 

There's a whole lot of sky-is-falling going on here with the mere existence of this algorithm, as accurate or not as it may be. Humans still make the final decision. Sabotage can't happen if the reviewer isn't convinced that a cache needs to be archived. And if the reviewer suspects a form of sabotage, it's even more likely that it won't.

 

Now, if you're somehow personally insulted by the email content in some way because oh-no-a-script-thinks-your-cache-is-a-problem, well there's nothing anyone can do about that . Just don't be.

[+redsox_mark]

I think the score/emails are in general a good idea. And no algorithm will be perfect.

But I don't like that it seems very sensitive to DNFs. And while the emails can be ignored, owners getting emails because of a single DNF will get annoyed. And, cachers will learn that their DNFs may cause these emails, and avoid logging DNFs.

 

I would like the algorithm to be adjusted so that it is far less sensitive to DNFs than it seems to be now.

[+Team Microdot]

I think the score/emails are in general a good idea. And no algorithm will be perfect.

But I don't like that it seems very sensitive to DNFs. And while the emails can be ignored, owners getting emails because of a single DNF will get annoyed. And, cachers will learn that their DNFs may cause these emails, and avoid logging DNFs.

 

I would like the algorithm to be adjusted so that it is far less sensitive to DNFs than it seems to be now.

 

With respect - then what should it be sensitive to?

 

Let's look at the original list:

 

This algorithm is based on a combination of logs and circumstances, including

 

Did Not Find (DNF)

Needs Maintenance (NM)

Needs Archived (NA)

Caches that have not been found in a long time

Difficulty and terrain rating

 

DNF is risky because the DNF'ers might be clueless noobs*

 

NM is risky because some people are clueless about what justifies NM*

 

Needs archived is risky because people might just be trying to sabotage the CO and or their caches*

 

Not found in a long time is risky because well, some caches don't get found very often

 

Difficulty and terrain rating is risky for various reasons - it's subjective, people might fake it in a bid to save themselves getting nuisance emails or people might even just resort to hiding dull 1/1/ caches only

 

*Opinions expressed copiously and indiscriminately in these forums

 

Doesn't leave much that can be safely used

[+redsox_mark]

I think just increase the thresholds for DNFs.

 

If a single NM is ignored for X months, I think an email is justified. Or an NA.

 

But don't send an email on a new cache because of 1 DNF in the first 2 weeks of its life.

[+L0ne.R]

We need to get past the fear of what others will think and focus on the facts.

 

I'm not talking about any fears.

 

If stupid automatic algorithms take over cachers like myself will tend to give up caches they have cared about in a responsible way.

 

 

The current state of numbers caching is affecting my desire to participate as a cache owner. We've picked up and archived 3 of our caches this winter (total of 30 favorite points). I've lost any interest in replacing them. We usually hide 2-3 caches per year. I expect the spots will be filled by the numbers-style cache owners this Spring, once they notice the empty spaces.

[+L0ne.R]

We need to get past the fear of what others will think and focus on the facts.

 

I'm not talking about any fears.

 

If stupid automatic algorithms take over cachers like myself will tend to give up caches they have cared about in a responsible way.

 

Someone can post as many NM's and NA's as they want. As an ACTIVE cache owner I can wipe them all away.

 

You can but you need to be motivated to do so and that even more applies to how one reacts to messages sent out like the one for barefootjeff's cache.

 

The price one has to pay when such systems are in use is not worth in my eyes what such a system can achieve.

 

Two observations,

 

No one is going to take over one of my caches through blunt force.

 

The note sent to barefootjeff was probably unwarranted. I agree the system needs to be tweaked. This isn't about the few caches that will be inconvenienced by these reminders, It's about the thousands that will be identified and removed.

 

+1!

[+Team Microdot]

I think just increase the thresholds for DNFs.

 

If a single NM is ignored for X months, I think an email is justified. Or an NA.

 

But don't send an email on a new cache because of 1 DNF in the first 2 weeks of its life.

 

No?

 

Not even if the hider is new and might be using the wrong coordinate format and thus placed the cache in a completely different location to where people are searching?

 

Perhaps in fact the algorithm might also include a factor for 'CO health'?

[+justintim1999]

I think just increase the thresholds for DNFs.

 

If a single NM is ignored for X months, I think an email is justified. Or an NA.

 

But don't send an email on a new cache because of 1 DNF in the first 2 weeks of its life.

 

I'd also remove the difficulty and terrain rating and limit the effects of a cache not being found for "a long time." Only multiple dnf's, NM's & NA should be considered and owner's maintenance logs should balance the other three out.

[cezanne]

 

Now, if you're somehow personally insulted by the email content in some way because oh-no-a-script-thinks-your-cache-is-a-problem, well there's nothing anyone can do about that . Just don't be.

 

There is something which can be done for sure: Reformulate the options a cache owner is provided with and offer do nothing or write a note at most in a case where you feel that the message received is not appropriate.

 

If I get an e-mail that only offers me to archive a cache, pay a maintenance visit within the next 2 weeks and/or fix an issue, then I would not feel insulted, but just would decide to take the archive option.

I'm not willing to post an OM log without visiting the cache but I would not be willing to rush out to visit a cache based on what a faulty algorithm provides.

It's not about what a reviewer might do or not do - it's that the options GS offers are not sufficient.

[cezanne]

 

If a single NM is ignored for X months, I think an email is justified. Or an NA.

 

If the NM is on the basis of a cache situation like the ones shown in the photos of TeamMicrodot, yes.

If the NM attribute just has not been cleared and the cache is perfectly fine, no.

 

A human can easily distinguish between the cases - an algorithm can just stupidly look at the attributes and other data.

[+justintim1999]

 

If a single NM is ignored for X months, I think an email is justified. Or an NA.

 

If the NM is on the basis of a cache situation like the ones shown in the photos of TeamMicrodot, yes.

If the NM attribute just has not been cleared and the cache is perfectly fine, no.

 

A human can easily distinguish between the cases - an algorithm can just stupidly look at the attributes and other data.

 

That's where we get into trouble. All NM's and NA's should be addressed in one way or another. Unfortunately we can't pick and choose what NM's we should or shouldn't respond to. If, in your case, you have a cache that's a day's hike to get to then work it out with your reviewer. I just find it hard to believe that people would hang up there hiking boots and sell off there gps because of a couple of simple e-mails that could, possibly help the game.

[+Team Microdot]

A human can easily distinguish between the cases - an algorithm can just stupidly look at the attributes and other data.

 

I reckon with the right gearing ratios algorithms could include most if not all of the existing parameters and more and become fairly sophisticated with minimal coding.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think just increase the thresholds for DNFs.

 

If a single NM is ignored for X months, I think an email is justified. Or an NA.

 

But don't send an email on a new cache because of 1 DNF in the first 2 weeks of its life.

 

I'd also remove the difficulty and terrain rating and limit the effects of a cache not being found for "a long time." Only multiple dnf's, NM's & NA should be considered and owner's maintenance logs should balance the other three out.

 

A cache with a 4D rating or higher might, by definition, require multiple visits to find it. If people are logging correctly it would have at least as many DNFs and Found it logs. If it's not, it's most likely overrated. Removing the D rating from the algorithm doesn't any sense at all.

Edited March 1, 2017 by NYPaddleCacher

[+justintim1999]

I think just increase the thresholds for DNFs.

 

If a single NM is ignored for X months, I think an email is justified. Or an NA.

 

But don't send an email on a new cache because of 1 DNF in the first 2 weeks of its life.

 

I'd also remove the difficulty and terrain rating and limit the effects of a cache not being found for "a long time." Only multiple dnf's, NM's & NA should be considered and owner's maintenance logs should balance the other three out.

 

I cache with a 4D rating or higher might, by definition, require multiple visits to find it. If people are logging correctly it would have at least as many DNFs and Found it logs. If it's not, it's most likely overrated.

 

There are going to be some of these situations that just won't exactly fit into the system. Multiple dnf should be allowed before any type of cache health hit as it may not be a true indication of the cache's condition.

 

You're right on the money when it comes to logging correctly. That in itself would clear up much of the problems.

[cezanne]

A human can easily distinguish between the cases - an algorithm can just stupidly look at the attributes and other data.

 

I reckon with the right gearing ratios algorithms could include most if not all of the existing parameters and more and become fairly sophisticated with minimal coding.

 

Even with that the system cannot distinguish between a NM attribute that never got cleared and one that is solidly backed up.

[+Team Microdot]

A human can easily distinguish between the cases - an algorithm can just stupidly look at the attributes and other data.

 

I reckon with the right gearing ratios algorithms could include most if not all of the existing parameters and more and become fairly sophisticated with minimal coding.

 

Even with that the system cannot distinguish between a NM attribute that never got cleared and one that is solidly backed up.

 

Clearing the NM attribute is a maintenance requirement and thus the responsibility of the CO.

 

The reminder email might also point out to the CO precisely how to clear the NM attribute just in case they don't know how to.

 

These automated emails, rather than the nuisance you seem to see them as, could provide welcome and useful service to CO's.

[+thebruce0]

I would presume there is weighting on the various scoring elements, and I would presume that mere DNFs score low on the significance scale, but can indeed have an effect. I would also presume that time is taken into consideration between certain cache properties/events/logs. These are presumptions. But I wouldn't expect every point listed to be weighted equally, as some are most certainly more relevant to problem caches than others. If the presumption is wrong, then the algorithm should be tweaked. Not because the omg-email, but because on principle, if the notice is to alert to potential problems and request the CO address them, then best to be aware that various factors influencing the notice are not equally indicative of problems.

 

There will always be false positives. Which, again, is why this system is not a final say, but a "heads up" alert to the CO. If you believe it to be a false positive, then you have reasoning to present to the reviewer IF the cache comes to their attention in some manner in the future.

 

If I get an e-mail that only offers me to archive a cache, pay a maintenance visit within the next 2 weeks and/or fix an issue, then I would not feel insulted, but just would decide to take the archive option.

I'm not willing to post an OM log without visiting the cache but I would not be willing to rush out to visit a cache based on what a faulty algorithm provides.

It's not about what a reviewer might do or not do - it's that the options GS offers are not sufficient.

"Offers"? You mean requests? If you do nothing, that itself will not be the cause of immedaite action. These are not "do this or else" requirements in the email. They are suggestions for the CO to move forward given potential problems that flagged the notice. If they are not problems, you have no issue, and the reviewer will understand that IF it comes to the point of being addressed.

 

If someone is still "annoyed" by an occasional (ie extremely rare) email to be ignored, in this day and age of the mass spam machine, I'd suggest stepping back from email for a while

[cezanne]

Clearing the NM attribute is a maintenance requirement and thus the responsibility of the CO.

 

While I would take care of a NM attribute for one of my own caches I do not care at all what others do. I care about the actual condition of a cache and

that I'm able to find caches of the type I enjoy. Geocaching just worked fine for many years without NM attributes and logs.

 

From time to time I let cachers know that they might have forgotten to clear a NM attribute and tell them how to do it in case of new cachers.

I do this however only because I know sometimes automatic approaches are used.

Personally, I would not care the least.

 

The reminder email might also point out to the CO precisely how to clear the NM attribute just in case they don't know how to.

 

These e-mails are not available in all languages.

 

These automated emails, rather than the nuisance you seem to see them as, could provide welcome and useful service to CO's.

 

I yet have to wait for those cachers who receive such mails and consider them as useful. Most cachers consider it as useful to be informed about the status of a cache, yes.

I yet have to encounter cacher who regards it as useful to receive an automatic mail of the mentioned type.

[cezanne]

"Offers"? You mean requests?

 

No not requests.

maybe I should have used offered options.

 

If you do nothing, that itself will not be the cause of immedaite action. These are not "do this or else" requirements in the email. They are suggestions for the CO to move forward given potential problems that flagged the notice. If they are not problems, you have no issue, and the reviewer will understand that IF it comes to the point of being addressed.

 

The suggestions need to cover all possible options. Before any reviewer will be able to do anything, people like me will have chosen already one of the suggested options. If only archiving, fixing and visiting a cache within 14 days are offered, then it's clear how I would act.

The reviewer would not ever get a chance to get involved - I would act immediately.

 

If someone is still "annoyed" by an occasional (ie extremely rare) email to be ignored, in this day and age of the mass spam machine, I'd suggest stepping back from email for a while

 

It's not about being annoyed - it's about following what the e-mail is asking for.

 

If a reviewer writes a log on a cache and asks for reaction of a cacher within 30 (or even 14 days) their formulation typically includes the option that one reacts within the given period and explains one's plans. One might write I will visit the cache when the snow melted away or I will hide a new container when the construction site is closed or whatever. The text of what is currently send out is extremely unfortunate for those who wish to comply with what they are asked to do.

Edited March 1, 2017 by cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

I would presume there is weighting on the various scoring elements, and I would presume that mere DNFs score low on the significance scale, but can indeed have an effect.

 

Well I've seen a new cache, only one log of any type (a DNF), 2 weeks old, fails the health score and generates a mail. DNF must have a large significance as there was nothing else to trigger concern. Well, apart from "not been found in a long time"... if 2 weeks is a "long time".

[+justintim1999]

"Offers"? You mean requests?

 

No not requests.

maybe I should have used offered options.

 

If you do nothing, that itself will not be the cause of immedaite action. These are not "do this or else" requirements in the email. They are suggestions for the CO to move forward given potential problems that flagged the notice. If they are not problems, you have no issue, and the reviewer will understand that IF it comes to the point of being addressed.

 

The suggestions need to cover all possible options. Before any reviewer will be able to do anything, people like me will have chosen already one of the suggested options. If only archiving, fixing and visiting a cache within 14 days are offered, then it's clear how I would act.

The reviewer would not ever get a chance to get involved - I would act immediately.

 

If someone is still "annoyed" by an occasional (ie extremely rare) email to be ignored, in this day and age of the mass spam machine, I'd suggest stepping back from email for a while

 

It's not about being annoyed - it's about following what the e-mail is asking for.

 

If a reviewer writes a log on a cache and asks for reaction of a cacher within 30 (or even 14 days) their formulation typically includes the option that one reacts within the given period and explains one's plans. One might write I will visit the cache when the snow melted away or I will hide a new container when the construction site is closed or whatever. The text of what is currently send out is extremely unfortunate for those who wish to comply with what they are asked to do.

 

If I were you the e-mail would prompt me to contact my reviewer and explain my situation. They may agree with you and allow the NM to remain until the next log. They may also ask that you to take a look. The fear of loosing your cache shouldn't be the determining factor. your ability to properly maintain it shouldn't be. I know that's a tough pill to swallow.

[+J Grouchy]

I would presume there is weighting on the various scoring elements, and I would presume that mere DNFs score low on the significance scale, but can indeed have an effect.

 

Well I've seen a new cache, only one log of any type (a DNF), 2 weeks old, fails the health score and generates a mail. DNF must have a large significance as there was nothing else to trigger concern. Well, apart from "not been found in a long time"... if 2 weeks is a "long time".

 

The "not found for a long time" should only count towards a "health rating" if that span of whatever time includes at least two or three DNF logs. Folks not even looking for a cache has, in my opinion, nothing to do with a the "health" of a cache.

[cezanne]

 

If I were you the e-mail would prompt me to contact my reviewer and explain my situation. They may agree with you and allow the NM to remain until the next log. They may also ask that you to take a look. The fear of loosing your cache shouldn't be the determining factor. your ability to properly maintain it shouldn't be. I know that's a tough pill to swallow.

 

Why should someone do that? (By the way such mails can be sent also for caches with no NMs and no NA logs at all). Most cache hiders I know hide and maintain caches for the community and not for themselves.

If GS is not any longer interested enough in having these caches on their site, then it's saving work and energy to remove them.

 

I might try to contact a reviewer if I want to rescue a cache owned by someone else because I have some interest into it.

 

I do not fear to lose a cache - I maintain them for others. Every cache I get rid of, makes me end up with less work. Right now the balance still works but when GS pushes things forward, it will not any longer be that way for me and others.

 

There is no tough pill to swallow involved. I'm not unhappy with maintenance requirements but with the way how GS deals with this matter and there is an easy way out of that which however ultimately would cause GS a problem in the long run.

 

I'm also extremely unhappy with the high importance of DNF logs which results from approaches like the one discussed here. I'd say that >90% of my DNF logs are for caches which are still there. Except in very special cases it's wasted time if a cache owner checks a cache after a DNF coming from me.

Edited March 1, 2017 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

Clearing the NM attribute is a maintenance requirement and thus the responsibility of the CO.

 

While I would take care of a NM attribute for one of my own caches I do not care at all what others do. I care about the actual condition of a cache and

that I'm able to find caches of the type I enjoy. Geocaching just worked fine for many years without NM attributes and logs.

 

Time moves on. Things change. Good luck trying to resist that.

 

The reminder email might also point out to the CO precisely how to clear the NM attribute just in case they don't know how to.

 

These e-mails are not available in all languages.

 

Easily remedied.

 

These automated emails, rather than the nuisance you seem to see them as, could provide welcome and useful service to CO's.

 

I yet have to wait for those cachers who receive such mails and consider them as useful. Most cachers consider it as useful to be informed about the status of a cache, yes.

I yet have to encounter cacher who regards it as useful to receive an automatic mail of the mentioned type.

 

I yet have to encounter a cacher who regards it as a hinderance to receive an automatic mail of the mentioned type.

 

I wonder if it might be possible that the sort of person in whom a simple email triggers a dramatic adverse reaction might also be also statistically be the same sort of person who would react badly to being asked to maintain their caches, and if the emails might be worded in such a way that these likely non-maintainers could be naturally and automatically weeded out without incurring the cost of human labour.

[+Team Microdot]

I'm also extremely unhappy with the high importance of DNF logs which results from approaches like the one discussed here. I'd say that >90% of my DNF logs are for caches which are still there. Except in very special cases it's wasted time if a cache owner checks a cache after a DNF coming from me.

 

The algorithms could easily take that into account. Maintaining a record of your average finds-to-dnf ratio would be, I expect, a trivial matter. Using that ratio to weight a DNF from you should also be a trivial matter.

 

The longer I think about the potential system, the more interesting it sounds. I'd quite like to see how it would perform in practice

[+justintim1999]

 

If I were you the e-mail would prompt me to contact my reviewer and explain my situation. They may agree with you and allow the NM to remain until the next log. They may also ask that you to take a look. The fear of loosing your cache shouldn't be the determining factor. your ability to properly maintain it shouldn't be. I know that's a tough pill to swallow.

 

Why should someone do that? (By the way such mails can be sent also for caches with no NMs and no NA logs at all). Most cache hiders I know hide and maintain caches for the community and not for themselves.

If GS is not any longer interested enough in having these caches on their site, then it's saving work and energy to remove them.

 

I might try to contact a reviewer if I want to rescue a cache owned by someone else because I have some interest into it.

 

I do not fear to lose a cache - I maintain them for others. Every cache I get rid of, makes me end up with less work. Right now the balance still works but when GS pushes things forward, it will not any longer be that way for me and others.

 

There is no tough pill to swallow involved. I'm not unhappy with maintenance requirements but with the way how GS deals with this matter and there is an easy way out of that which however ultimately would cause GS a problem in the long run.

 

I'm also extremely unhappy with the high importance of DNF logs which results from approaches like the one discussed here. I'd say that >90% of my DNF logs are for caches which are still there. Except in very special cases it's wasted time if a cache owner checks a cache after a DNF coming from me.

 

I thought the reason was obvious. There's something not quite right with the cache and GS want's to make sure you're aware of it. The fact that the e-mail was even sent indicates that something that should have been addressed that has not.

 

would you agree that multiple dnf's could indicate an issue with the cache.

 

1 dnf: I wouldn't worry about.

2 dnfs: I'd start to wonder

3 dnfs

[+thebruce0]

"Offers"? You mean requests?

No not requests.

maybe I should have used offered options.

Nope, language barrier. It's not offers at all. They provide suggestions for the CO to move forward. These are not requirements. They are requests. It is not an exhaustive list. The CO is not restricted to doing only what is suggested in the email. They are prominent, most likely actions the CO can and should take, but not required to take. If required, there would need to be a consequence for not doing one of the requests. There is not. Because the reviewer would make a judgement call IF it gets to the point that the reviewer needs to make a jdugement call. The email does not do this.

 

The suggestions need to cover all possible options. Before any reviewer will be able to do anything, people like me will have chosen already one of the suggested options. If only archiving, fixing and visiting a cache within 14 days are offered, then it's clear how I would act.

The reviewer would not ever get a chance to get involved - I would act immediately.

That's good. But no, the CO is not required to act immediately. The CO may ignore the email. That does not in and of itself bring on an automated consequence that sees no human review.

 

It's not about being annoyed - it's about following what the e-mail is asking for.

Or not.

It's a notice. An alert. A warning, that if there is indeed a problem with your cache, then it may eventually be brought to the attention of reviewers who may act on what they believe to be problems. So, to avoid that, do something. If nothing needs to be done, then there's nothing to do, because the reviewer will see that, or you can explain why that is so.

 

If a reviewer writes a log on a cache and asks for reaction of a cacher within 30 (or even 14 days) their formulation typically includes the option that one reacts within the given period and explains one's plans. One might write I will visit the cache when the snow melted away or I will hide a new container when the construction site is closed or whatever. The text of what is currently send out is extremely unfortunate for those who wish to comply with what they are asked to do.

That is a human reviewer action having made a human judgement call. That is not an automated script that sends out a notice email which is what is being discussed here.

 

If I were you the e-mail would prompt me to contact my reviewer and explain my situation. They may agree with you and allow the NM to remain until the next log. They may also ask that you to take a look. The fear of loosing your cache shouldn't be the determining factor. your ability to properly maintain it shouldn't be. I know that's a tough pill to swallow.

If the reviewer asks you to take a look after you've decided to initiate contact (the email didn't bring it to their attention, you did) and explain why you think there isn't a problem, then there's probably a problem; that's how they've judged your cache status. In which case, if there isn't, then the email isn't what you should be annoyed at, the reviewer is.

Edited March 1, 2017 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

I thought the reason was obvious. There's something not quite right with the cache and GS want's to make sure you're aware of it.

 

First a single DNF does not mean there is necessarily something not quite right with the cache. Out of my last 20 DNFs only one cache was missing, all others were fine.

 

Second, if GS wants me to consider contacting a reviewer or to write a note explaining the situation, they need to list another option in the mail they sent out and not only

list archive, visit the cache within 14 days.

 

would you agree that multiple dnf's could indicate an issue with the cache.

 

1 dnf: I wouldn't worry about.

2 dnfs: I'd start to wonder

3 dnfs

 

If 3 DNFs come from me or cachers like me or a group, I would not start to be worried. As a cache owner I ask the logger of a DNF for details if not enough details are contained in the log.

Recently I had a group of 12 people find a cache of mine - they just as well could have made a small mistake and I would have ended up with 12 DNFs and yet would know after having talked to them that they have not been at the right location. Of course 12 independent DNFs is a different thing. A human being can check that all 12 visits happened together - a computer cannot do that.

[+justintim1999]

"Offers"? You mean requests?

No not requests.

maybe I should have used offered options.

Nope, language barrier. It's not offers at all. They provide suggestions for the CO to move forward. These are not requirements. They are requests. It is not an exhaustive list. The CO is not restricted to doing only what is suggested in the email. They are prominent, most likely actions the CO can and should take, but not required to take. If required, there would need to be a consequence for not doing one of the requests. There is not. Because the reviewer would make a judgement call IF it gets to the point that the reviewer needs to make a jdugement call. The email does not do this.

 

The suggestions need to cover all possible options. Before any reviewer will be able to do anything, people like me will have chosen already one of the suggested options. If only archiving, fixing and visiting a cache within 14 days are offered, then it's clear how I would act.

The reviewer would not ever get a chance to get involved - I would act immediately.

That's good. But no, the CO is not required to act immediately. The CO may ignore the email. That does not in and of itself bring on an automated consequence that sees no human review.

 

It's not about being annoyed - it's about following what the e-mail is asking for.

Or not.

It's a notice. An alert. A warning, that if there is indeed a problem with your cache, then it may eventually be brought to the attention of reviewers who may act on what they believe to be problems. So, to avoid that, do something. If nothing needs to be done, then there's nothing to do, because the reviewer will see that, or you can explain why that is so.

 

If a reviewer writes a log on a cache and asks for reaction of a cacher within 30 (or even 14 days) their formulation typically includes the option that one reacts within the given period and explains one's plans. One might write I will visit the cache when the snow melted away or I will hide a new container when the construction site is closed or whatever. The text of what is currently send out is extremely unfortunate for those who wish to comply with what they are asked to do.

That is a human reviewer action having made a human judgement call. That is not an automated script that sends out a notice email which is what is being discussed here.

 

If I were you the e-mail would prompt me to contact my reviewer and explain my situation. They may agree with you and allow the NM to remain until the next log. They may also ask that you to take a look. The fear of loosing your cache shouldn't be the determining factor. your ability to properly maintain it shouldn't be. I know that's a tough pill to swallow.

If the reviewer asks you to take a look after you've decided to initiate contact (the email didn't bring it to their attention, you did) and explain why you think there isn't a problem, then there's probably a problem; that's how they've judged your cache status. In which case, if there isn't, then the email isn't what you should be annoyed at, the reviewer is.

 

I'd rather be proactive with my reviewer. If they determine, after hearing my case, that I need to go and check on the cache than that's what I'll do.

[cezanne]

Nope, language barrier. It's not offers at all. They provide suggestions for the CO to move forward. These are not requirements. They are requests. It is not an exhaustive list.

 

If it's not an exhaustive list, the mail is ill-formulated. This is my main point here.

They do not mention that there other options as well which is very bad. My arguments are based on taking the options they offer as an exhaustive list and having to choose one of the options they list to be a complying cacher.

 

The reviewers come into play much later.

Edited March 1, 2017 by cezanne

[+thebruce0]

If it's not an exhaustive list, the mail is ill-formulated. This is my main point here.

They do not mention that there other options as well which is very bad. My arguments are based on taking the options they offer as an exhaustive list and having to choose one of the options they list to be a complying cacher.

 

The reviewers come into play much later.

If only to be "nicer" about what can be done, sure, better wording. I'd be for that.

But the fact it doesn't list other options doesn't mearn there aren't other options lest you incur annoying proactive maintenance requirements or archival.

The email is just an alert, a notice. Reviewers may do that too if they are kind enough to send a CO a friendly note about their cache. This algorithm just makes that more common. If there isn't really a problem, then there really isn't a problem.

 

I wouldn't defend the point that the email is the best wording they could choose. So if that's your only point, then sure. Improve the wording. But that doesn't change anything else about the implication of receiving the email.

 

I'd rather be proactive with my reviewer. If they determine, after hearing my case, that I need to go and check on the cache than that's what I'll do.

Good safe call I'd do the same.

Edited March 1, 2017 by thebruce0

[+dprovan]

It was archived yesterday but had managed to exist for almost two years despite numerous NM's and photographs.

 

Thankfully someone eventually saw sense and pulled the NA trigger.

Sounds like the system worked perfectly. If someone had posted the NA in a timely manner, you wouldn't be bringing this cache up in this context.

 

I think people are forgetting - this is merely an email reminder!

Well, no, it's a Health Score. It's being used to trigger e-mails -- not "reminders" since the complaint is that it sends e-mails even when there's nothing wrong -- but I'm more concerned with the concept behind it than any effects. Now it's used to send e-mails, but what will it be used for next? If the e-mails are unsuccessful at reducing bad caches, the same people complaining now will complain that it's not being used aggressively enough. And on the other hand, if the e-mails are successful, people will be encouraged to use it more proactively.

 

When "old timers" complain about hiking caches disappearing, I often question whether that's true, so the thing I worry about the most is that this shifts the focus in a way that works against those caches. Until now, a cache's fate is based on its interaction with seekers, so a seldom visited cache will be fine for long periods, and that's appropriate because seldom visited have correspondingly fewer problems. The health score turns this around so all caches get the same attention regardless of how infrequently anyone notices them. We can adjust the algorithm, but we can't change the fact that this means the system itself is now responsible for ferreting out bad caches. I don't see how we can avoid this hurting those hiking caches that I always assure the old timers there are still plenty of.

 

With respect - then what should it be sensitive to?

It should be sensitive to the community's opinion, but the whole point of the procedure is that the community isn't fit to identify bad caches.

[+Manville Possum]

It should be sensitive to the community's opinion, but the whole point of the procedure is that the community isn't fit to identify bad caches.

 

I see the community identify problems quite often in their logs, but never post that NA. So I don't agree that the community is not fit to identify bad caches, it's that most of us feel bad for posting NM's or NA. Many geocachers refuse to post NM or NA, because it too often causes problems.

[+justintim1999]

It was archived yesterday but had managed to exist for almost two years despite numerous NM's and photographs.

 

Thankfully someone eventually saw sense and pulled the NA trigger.

Sounds like the system worked perfectly. If someone had posted the NA in a timely manner, you wouldn't be bringing this cache up in this context.

 

I think people are forgetting - this is merely an email reminder!

Well, no, it's a Health Score. It's being used to trigger e-mails -- not "reminders" since the complaint is that it sends e-mails even when there's nothing wrong -- but I'm more concerned with the concept behind it than any effects. Now it's used to send e-mails, but what will it be used for next? If the e-mails are unsuccessful at reducing bad caches, the same people complaining now will complain that it's not being used aggressively enough. And on the other hand, if the e-mails are successful, people will be encouraged to use it more proactively.

 

When "old timers" complain about hiking caches disappearing, I often question whether that's true, so the thing I worry about the most is that this shifts the focus in a way that works against those caches. Until now, a cache's fate is based on its interaction with seekers, so a seldom visited cache will be fine for long periods, and that's appropriate because seldom visited have correspondingly fewer problems. The health score turns this around so all caches get the same attention regardless of how infrequently anyone notices them. We can adjust the algorithm, but we can't change the fact that this means the system itself is now responsible for ferreting out bad caches. I don't see how we can avoid this hurting those hiking caches that I always assure the old timers there are still plenty of.

 

With respect - then what should it be sensitive to?

It should be sensitive to the community's opinion, but the whole point of the procedure is that the community isn't fit to identify bad caches.

 

Please don't infer that BIG BROTHER is about to crush us all. That will only lead to panic and the merits of this idea will be strangled before they have a chance to actually do something.

 

Is everyone on this forum paranoid?

 

Do you really think this will result in hiking caches being archived? Sorry but I have a little more faith in the ability of cache owners and reviewers to work these types of issues out.

[+Manville Possum]

Do you really think this will result in hiking caches being archived? Sorry but I have a little more faith in the ability of cache owners and reviewers to work these types of issues out.

 

Only those that are ownerless will be archived. I believe that is why some are worried.