Jump to content

Geocache Health Score


Team Microdot

Recommended Posts

 

This has already been mentioned and accepted.

 

There is no need to clog the thread with multiple repetitions of this information.

 

Your points have been duly noted.

 

Noone has however suggested anything that could help to take this into account in an automatic approach (not surprising to me) and the discussion is about the latter.

 

Noone has to suggest anything that could help to take this into account in an automatic approach because the ultimate decisions are still made by human beings - something which is unlikely to change.

 

You are lamenting an issue which does not exist.

Link to comment

I don't remember anyone suggesting the need to run out and check on a cache because of a single dnf.

 

The mails that are sent to people like Barefootjeff do that where of course archive is another option mentioned.

 

I would consider myself a typical run of the mill cache owner. How would this rating system inconvenience me?

 

Are you only a cache owner? Don't you search for caches too? It very heavily would affect me even if I did not own a single cache.

 

Dnfs are one of the things that would need to be tweaked. Doesn't mean the idea is a bad one.

 

As a cache finder it would effect my caching. I'd probably have a better idea of what caches were more likely to be in place and in tact.

 

I think everyone can understand your arguments but caches like yours are in the minority and don't represent the bulk of the caches that are out there. For you this type of rating system could be problematic but for the majority of caches out there it could provide a platform to clean up some of the basic issues we're seeing. Try to see the merits of the system based on the big picture.

Link to comment

 

Me too. That's exactly what I would do.

 

What happened though is that several people over the two years it was a state logged NM and added photographs until EVENTUALLY someone pulled the NA trigger - but two years is a long time.

 

I have a question for you: Would you also log NA if you encountered a cache in perfect condition which carried the NM attribute since say 2 years?

 

Human intelligence can easily distinguish between the cases.

 

I rather would want to wait until someone logs NA for your example mentioned above (if noone logs NA and noone alerts a reviewer privately it is apparently because the involved people did not want the cache to be archived) than ending up with an automatic procedure which also affects caches that are in good condition.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

Dnfs are one of the things that would need to be tweaked. Doesn't mean the idea is a bad one.

 

I just cannot think of a reasonable way to do it.

So far noone has argued why the mere presence of DNFs should say something about the cache health.

The same message is sent by some cachers as note - why take it more seriously and take it into account when someone else uses the DNF log type?

 

I think everyone can understand your arguments but caches like yours are in the minority and don't represent the bulk of the caches that are out there.

 

When I wrote about the effects on myself I had cachers and not caches in mind. I'm much more concerned about the caches hidden by others than my own caches.

I do not think that the number of cachers who use DNF for every sort of failure during their search is that small. That said it implies that it is not just about tweaking a threshold for the number of DNFs. There is a whole lot more involved and as long DNF has not a well defined meaning which is the same for everyone automatic approaches will not be very successful.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

Me too. That's exactly what I would do.

 

What happened though is that several people over the two years it was a state logged NM and added photographs until EVENTUALLY someone pulled the NA trigger - but two years is a long time.

 

I have a question for you: Would you also log NA if you encountered a cache in perfect condition which carried the NM attribute since say 2 years?

 

No - I wouldn't. Could you quit with the pointless questions now?

 

Human intelligence can easily distinguish between the cases.

 

Which is why humans are still an integral part of the system. Could you quit repeatedly stating the obvious now?

 

I rather would want to wait until someone logs NA for your example mentioned above (if noone logs NA and noone alerts a reviewer privately it is apparently because the involved people did not want the cache to be archived) than ending up with an automatic procedure which also affects caches that are in good condition.

 

Flawed logic. False equivalence. Just because a person doesn't pull the trigger does not mean they would not welcome the cache being archived - it just means they chose not to be the person who pulled the trigger.

Link to comment

 

Dnfs are one of the things that would need to be tweaked. Doesn't mean the idea is a bad one.

 

I just cannot think of a reasonable way to do it.

 

I think everyone can understand your arguments but caches like yours are in the minority and don't represent the bulk of the caches that are out there.

 

When I wrote about the effects on myself I had cachers and not caches in mind. I'm much more concerned about the caches hidden by others than my own caches.

I do not think that the number of cachers who use DNF for every sort of failure during their search is that small. That said it implies that it is not just about tweaking a threshold for the number of DNFs. There is a whole lot more involved and as long DNF has not a well defined meaning which is the same for everyone automatic approaches will not be very successful.

 

Multiple dnfs is a sign that something MAY be wrong with the cache.

 

I don't know what to tell you. The basic guidelines on maintaining a cache are clear.

 

In the end it's the reviewer that determines if a cache gets archived not the automated system that sends out the friendly reminder.

 

Again I ask you. How will this rating system adversely effect the majority of good cache owners?

Link to comment
The email strongly implies that the CO should do something, something visible to the algorithm and ultimately to any reviewer who might become involved, even if that something isn't on the list of options. The Help Centre article goes further now, saying that the CO is expected to do something that will improve the cache's health score. If nothing else, there needs to be a way for the CO to say to the system that this was a false positive, the DNF (like most DNFs) was due to something unrelated to cache health, without having to go to the effort of visiting a remote cache or pretend that you did with an armchair OM log.

 

Without that, it discourages people from hiding new hiking caches, or any caches that will likely run afoul of the algorithm because of few finds and/or the prospect of DNFs. It's certainly discouraged me. As I keep saying, DNFs and time between finds are terrible metrics of cache health, unless of course Groundspeak's definition of a healthy cache is one that gets lots of finds and no DNFs, and that anything else is bad for the game.

Sure, but again, once someone knows that it's possible to ignore the emails if there is no problem, then there's no detriment to 'good hiking caches' (which let's say from this point on refers to any good-condition cache where time between finds and/or DNFs do not identify a problem with the cache in any way).

 

But I will agree (and have) on the apparent 'tone' of the email concept - those who don't know may be influenced (unnecessarily) away from hiding the types of caches that may produce such false negatives (and 'annoying' emails). In which case, the good suggestions I have no problem with (which I agreed to earlier) would be A] improving the email wording, and B] tweaking the algorithm to better weigh the factors being considered, if it doesn't already do so.

 

But, if that happens this time and I log a DNF, it'll negatively impact the cache's Health Score even though there's nothing wrong with the cache! This is a tough cache and it won't get many finders, so there's a good chance my DNF could trigger the dreaded email, putting the CO in the same quandary I was in back before Christmas. If that happens, he might think twice about hiding any more caches like this, which would be a real shame.

Then all the CO needs to know is that they can ignore the email. Problem solved. If somehow a reviewer takes notice, easy explanation: There is no problem. If the reviewer agrees, there is no problem (except maybe an occasional annoying email). If the reviewer sees a problem, well then there's a problem to address as a responsible CO. The only way it hurts is if the CO doesn't know they can ignore the email and receive no consequence. In that case, see above.

 

From your own example and others I've seen, it is clear to me the DNF algorithm is too "sensitive". But if the goal of the health score is to flag caches which are likely needing some attention, DNFs probably need to be part of it.

 

As a human: If I see a cache with a NM saying the cache is broken, then it is probably broken.

 

If I see a cache with a single DNF, I think it could be missing. I'll look closer and read the log. If it is high difficulty, then 1 DNF doesn't say much to me, and would not put me off. If the hint says it is on the back of a sign, and there is only one sign within 500 feet, there had been many finds before without a DNF, and the DNF is from an experienced cacher, I'll think the cache is likely missing. Likewise if I see 10 straight DNFs by different people spread out over months on a cache which is low difficulty, that likely has an issue too. 10 DNFs on a a high difficulty cache with a history of many DNFs means something else.

 

A tool can't understand the logs. It can only look at numbers. So I would adjust the thresholds it uses, so that at least it would need multiple DNFs, and also taking into consideration the difficulty, etc. It can't be perfect. If they say 5 DNFs are needed, it could flag a cache where the 5 DNFs are statistical anomaly. But it's better than flagging up a cache for 1 DNF.

Indeed. See above. :)

 

If it's caches abandoned by owners who've left the game, they're either not going to get the email or will ignore it as they're no longer interested or bothered by any consequences.

There are no consequences.

If I'm wrong and there are automated consequences (not involving human interaction) to ignoring the email, someone please highlight them, as to me that would be a game changer.

 

Has anyone had a cache archived that was actually in perfectly good condition? If the system automatically archived caches once they reached a certain health score, that would be an issue. However, I'm sure reviewers use common sense when deciding whether to archive or not.

Precisely.

 

No, it's not simple. One of my caches (a 2.5/2) had 11 DNFs over its lifetime and not one of them had anything to do with the cache needing attention. It was well-camouflaged, that's all. And doing frequent checks on high-terrain caches isn't trivial either and is hardly warranted when the DNF log says "I could see it in its hiding place out over the edge of the cliff but wasn't game to climb down there."

Additionally, with the growing popularity of large group caching, it often happens that one cache may receive 20 copy/paste DNF logs from everyone in the group. That would kill a cache health score depending on how they're weighted. But, again, if that raises the cache to the attention of the reviewer, then we're back to human judgement, and in that case if nothing is wrong with the cache, then there is no danger to the cache.

(aside from a potential perceived danger to those who don't (yet) know any better)

 

Yes there may be some collateral damage and some caches may be lost in the crossfire, but that could be easily resolved by the CO's responding to NM/NA/Reviewer notes. The final trigger is still being pulled by a human reviewer, so if the CO opens a discussion with the reviewer explaining why their cache may have been incorrectly identified or why they can't immediately perform maintenance then I think(hope) in most cases the reviewers would be amenable and would hang off archiving them.

 

I would also hope that GS will be tweaking the thresholds for the algorithm in order to reduce the number of false positives as the feature beds in.

All of this!

 

Most of the DNF logs say the same thing; too many muggles to do a proper search. Did I log another DNF today? Not on your life! I don't want to be responsible for the demise of a perfectly good cache.

Likewise, but again, DNFs won't cause the demise of a good condition cache because of the algorithm, if no automated consequences will occur. A human reviewer should see no problem. So if COs infer from the email that a problem can be (incorrectly) assumed and a consequence will occur if not dealt with, then per my earlier point, yes the email wording can be improved, and yes the algorithm can be tweaked. But it's all about what people read from the email, not what tangibly occurs to their caches.

 

Completely agree as well, but I think it misses the point of this thread, which is to talk about our *feelings* on the subject, and not based on any actual facts. So let's get back on topic and talk about how we feel about this new tool :laughing:

wub.gif

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I have a question for you: Would you also log NA if you encountered a cache in perfect condition which carried the NM attribute since say 2 years?

 

No - I wouldn't. Could you quit with the pointless questions now?

 

Lone.R apparently thinks that this a reason for archival too. That's why I wanted to know your opinion.

 

Which is why humans are still an integral part of the system. Could you quit repeatedly stating the obvious now?

 

They are but at a point where it might already be too late. If a cache owner decided to archive his/her cache and not to hide any new ones, it does not help that at a later stage human reviewers would have been involved.

 

Flawed logic. False equivalence. Just because a person doesn't pull the trigger does not mean they would not welcome the cache being archived - it just means they chose not to be the person who pulled the trigger.

 

I do not think so as when writing to the reviewer noone except the reviewer will ever learn who pulled the trigger.

Moreover when I talk to people I often get the reply that a find is a find. It is also supported by the fact that at least in my country cachers start to rush out to a cache that is in danger of getting archived due to its bad condition. They do not act along the lines "I want to avoid caches in a bad condition and I welcome if this cache disappears soon and will not visit it now". Instead they act like "Oh this cache could become unavailable soon. So let's hurry up, change our plans and log this cache as later it will be too late". You can also observe the same pattern if a cache gets published that violates the guidelines and people know that sooner or later it will disappear.

Link to comment

 

I rather would want to wait until someone logs NA for your example mentioned above (if noone logs NA and noone alerts a reviewer privately it is apparently because the involved people did not want the cache to be archived) than ending up with an automatic procedure which also affects caches that are in good condition.

 

Flawed logic. False equivalence. Just because a person doesn't pull the trigger does not mean they would not welcome the cache being archived - it just means they chose not to be the person who pulled the trigger.

 

I do not think so as when writing to the reviewer noone except the reviewer will ever learn who pulled the trigger.

 

Which is a complete non-sequitur and has nothing to do with what I wrote.

 

You claim that a person not posting NA on a cache that's been nothing more than a box of wet filth is because they don't want the cache archived.

 

I claim it's because they didn't want to be the person to pull the trigger and that in all likelihood they'd be quite happy to see that cache archived.

 

Whoever knows or does not know who pulled the trigger has nothing to do with whether or not a particular person wanted the cache to be archived.

 

I think I'll leave this here for now as it's just filling the thread with junk and I'm tired of following your ever decreasing and irrelevant circles. It's tiresome.

Link to comment

 

You claim that a person not posting NA on a cache that's been nothing more than a box of wet filth is because they don't want the cache archived.

 

No I wrote "neither posted a NA nor contacted a reviewer" which makes a difference. Moreover I happened to have questioned cachers I know

and I often get the reply that any cache in any condition is better than no cache - in particular that holds true for the majority of streakers (not all) I'm familiar with.

Link to comment

He won't be weeded out. His containers are so good they never need maintenance. He shouldn't get DNF, NMs or NAs.

I wasn't asking whether he would be weeded out. I asked Manville Possum whether he wanted him to be weeded out since he fit the description of someone that expected not to maintain his caches.

 

And just who are you asking about? You were never clear. <_< I had no one geocacher in mind. Still, sounds like you asked a loaded question that was not on topic. :huh:

Link to comment

I have a question for you: Would you also log NA if you encountered a cache in perfect condition which carried the NM attribute since say 2 years?

 

No - I wouldn't. Could you quit with the pointless questions now?

 

Lone.R apparently thinks that this a reason for archival too. That's why I wanted to know your opinion.

 

 

Sorry I stopped reading. Skimmed and saw my name. I don't think that a cache in perfect condition should be archived.

It begs the question....why are there 2 NM logs on a cache in perfect condition?

Why isn't there an OM?

I suspect a throwdown and an absentee owner.

I'm sensing some very strong feelings in support of throwdowns/litter and abandoned listings. But it's just a feeling I'm getting, I could be wrong. rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

I'm sensing some very strong feelings in support of throwdowns/litter and abandoned listings. But it's just a feeling I'm getting, I could be wrong. rolleyes.gif

 

No - I think you're dead right - we do have people here overtly coming out in support of wet boxes of filth because the smiley is more important.

 

I'm shocked and saddened :(

Link to comment

I'm sensing some very strong feelings in support of throwdowns/litter and abandoned listings. But it's just a feeling I'm getting, I could be wrong. rolleyes.gif

 

No - I think you're dead right - we do have people here overtly coming out in support of wet boxes of filth because the smiley is more important.

 

I'm shocked and saddened :(

 

Exactly. I posted a NM on a listing full of water, the next finder dumped the water and added a log and stated how easy it is just to add a log. :blink: The container was broken, and it's likely full of water again after yesterdays storms, but they got to log a found it. :(

Link to comment

I'm sensing some very strong feelings in support of throwdowns/litter and abandoned listings. But it's just a feeling I'm getting, I could be wrong. rolleyes.gif

 

No - I think you're dead right - we do have people here overtly coming out in support of wet boxes of filth because the smiley is more important.

 

I'm shocked and saddened :(

 

Exactly. I posted a NM on a listing full of water, the next finder dumped the water and added a log and stated how easy it is just to add a log. :blink: The container was broken, and it's likely full of water again after yesterdays storms, but they got to log a found it. :(

 

May as well play a QR based game :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Sorry I stopped reading. Skimmed and saw my name. I don't think that a cache in perfect condition should be archived.

 

But you seem to insist that a NM attribute that does not get cleared is a serious issue that warrants a NA or reviewer intervention.

 

It begs the question....why are there 2 NM logs on a cache in perfect condition?

 

There could be many reasons. In my area for example it happens often that CO fix problems but do not bother to clear NM attributes and I do not have a problem with it.

 

It also could be that the NM log happened as a mistake and the cache owner did not want to react with OM before visiting the cache which is not really necessary if there is no issue. Personally I would not log OM for example only to neutralize a wrong NM log without having visited my cache.

 

I'm glad that I did not have the case that happened to others that someone posted a NM log saying that the bicycled allowed attribute should be removed because reaching the cache involves climbing a tree which was not possible to him with his bicycle shoes.

 

And then of course there are caches with a cache owner which is not currently reachable (could be illness, longer vacation or really left the game) where a minor issue showed up was posted like the log book is full when all backsides are still available. In such cases no intervention of anyone else is needed and certainly not a throwdown.

 

I'm against throwdowns but do not have an issue with things like if someone adds an additional log book in a container with ample space available.

If one archives a cache in perfect condition noone wins. The container is still out there and will not get removed. There is noone you could be annoyed or disappointed by a cache in good condition. So why do fight so fervently for getting rid of such caches?

 

I look at caches and try to judge them on the basis of their individual merit.

 

When real problems show up, it is early enough to take care about a cache. I cannot understand why I should bother about a cache that should also be a nice experience for a very selective cacher. It just seems that you do that out of principle.

Link to comment

I'm sensing some very strong feelings in support of throwdowns/litter and abandoned listings. But it's just a feeling I'm getting, I could be wrong. rolleyes.gif

 

No - I think you're dead right - we do have people here overtly coming out in support of wet boxes of filth because the smiley is more important.

 

I'm shocked and saddened :(

 

Certainly neither fizzymagic, nor barefootjeff nor myself do belong to that group. So who else who participated here?

Our lines of arguments were never about the smiley is more important for us.

 

When I mentioned that many care about the find, I did it to explain why I think that what you assume to be the main reason for the existence of many unmaintained caches that stay in that state over many months without anyone taking action is wrong - at least it is wrong in my area. I do not know yours.

What I wrote might be irrelevant for you as might be my recommendation: Do not expect too much from a health score system. It will not change how many in the community feel and act (and here I do not mean minority groups interested into remote caches etc), but mainstream cachers).

Link to comment

I don't search for caches with NM on them, and they can be filtered out easily. Hopefully this new health score will filter some out for good. :laughing:

 

Actually many cachers do not search for caches with the last log being a DNF. I will not change however my approach of logging DNFs in the described cases.

Moreover I know that many cachers do not search for my caches as the description often sounds more complicated than the cache is - that's actually sometimes even intended by me. Whoever wants to filter out my caches is welcome to do so. Those for whom I hide my caches will not filter them out and that's fine.

Link to comment

Would be nice if the public (aka us cachers) could see if a cache was tagged by the system and the CO sent a message.

 

I am an aggressive NM/NA cacher. I've had 2 cache owners contact me directly regarding all my NMs and NAs. One asked me why I didn't reach out directly to him, which to me is exactly what I did when I logged the NM (which was shortly then archived). The other ended up replaced by the CO after 9 months following the 1st DNF. For all the others, it was a NM followed by NA followed by a reviewer TD then Archiving. I show 31 NAs I logged in the last 11 months, all which resulting in the cache being archived.

 

Link to comment

Sorry I stopped reading. Skimmed and saw my name. I don't think that a cache in perfect condition should be archived.

 

But you seem to insist that a NM attribute that does not get cleared is a serious issue that warrants a NA or reviewer intervention.

 

It begs the question....why are there 2 NM logs on a cache in perfect condition?

 

There could be many reasons. In my area for example it happens often that CO fix problems but do not bother to clear NM attributes and I do not have a problem with it.

 

It also could be that the NM log happened as a mistake and the cache owner did not want to react with OM before visiting the cache which is not really necessary if there is no issue. Personally I would not log OM for example only to neutralize a wrong NM log without having visited my cache.

 

I'm glad that I did not have the case that happened to others that someone posted a NM log saying that the bicycled allowed attribute should be removed because reaching the cache involves climbing a tree which was not possible to him with his bicycle shoes.

 

And then of course there are caches with a cache owner which is not currently reachable (could be illness, longer vacation or really left the game) where a minor issue showed up was posted like the log book is full when all backsides are still available. In such cases no intervention of anyone else is needed and certainly not a throwdown.

 

I'm against throwdowns but do not have an issue with things like if someone adds an additional log book in a container with ample space available.

If one archives a cache in perfect condition noone wins. The container is still out there and will not get removed. There is noone you could be annoyed or disappointed by a cache in good condition. So why do fight so fervently for getting rid of such caches?

 

I look at caches and try to judge them on the basis of their individual merit.

 

When real problems show up, it is early enough to take care about a cache. I cannot understand why I should bother about a cache that should also be a nice experience for a very selective cacher. It just seems that you do that out of principle.

 

I do see a NM that has not been cleared a problem even if the cache was repaired. If it's a simple matter of educating cache owners on how and why they need to post OML than lets push that. How is anyone including reviewers suppose to know if an owner is truly active if OML's aren't being issued?

 

Fighting to get ownerless caches removed regardless of condition.

 

Maybe if we could get people to consistently and accurately post NM's and NA's we could completely discount the value of DNFs and use them strictly as an indication of our particular caching experience.

Link to comment

I don't search for caches with NM on them, and they can be filtered out easily. Hopefully this new health score will filter some out for good. :laughing:

 

Actually many cachers do not search for caches with the last log being a DNF. I will not change however my approach of logging DNFs in the described cases.

 

 

I don't search for caches that the last log was a DNF, and filter them as well. :) When I see 3 DNF's in a row with no OM, then all of a sudden a mega numbers cacher with a canned log finds it, I suspect a Throwdown. Now the cache is being found again, and the owner left the game years ago, but the community took over their soggy paper caches that used to be ammo cans, but are now pill bottles. :(

 

I see a need for a health check. B)

Link to comment

I do see a NM that has not been cleared a problem even if the cache was repaired. If it's a simple matter of educating cache owners on how and why they need to post OML than lets push that. How is anyone including reviewers suppose to know if an owner is truly active if OML's aren't being issued?

 

First, I care about caches and not whether cachers are truly active.

Second, clearing NM attributes is not a reliable sign of the sort of activity that you probably care about.

There are cachers out there who log into gc.com each day, find hundreds of cache per year but do not take care of their caches.

There are cachers out there who log into gc.com only very infrequently, stopped to search for caches, but visit their caches with a reasonable frequency and only own active caches that are in good condition.

 

Fighting to get ownerless caches removed regardless of condition.

 

That's certainly a very controversial topic in the community.

I would not join in at all in such a fight.

 

I also rather have a muggle find a nice cache by chance than abandoned junk. As long as cachers visit a cache in good condition and report on the condition, the local community receives feedback on the condition and has some kind of control of what happens that will never be available for geolitter.

Link to comment

I don't search for caches with NM on them, and they can be filtered out easily. Hopefully this new health score will filter some out for good. :laughing:

 

Actually many cachers do not search for caches with the last log being a DNF. I will not change however my approach of logging DNFs in the described cases.

 

 

I don't search for caches that the last log was a DNF, and filter them as well. :)

 

Then be glad that you do not live in my area as it makes not much sense to filter out a cache because I was not able to climb a tree, find the trail access, open a normal lock 99% of the people around me can open with ease etc.

 

When I see 3 DNF's in a row with no OM, then all of a sudden a mega numbers cacher with a canned log finds it, I suspect a Throwdown.

 

I hope you have a look at what the DNF loggers wrote. If they were all together and wrote that their car broke down, it's some unfair to suspect the next cacher to be mega numbers cacher who left a throwdown. It would also quite silly for the CO to post an OM log if I did not dare to climb a tree or the car of some cachers broke down.

Link to comment

I don't search for caches with NM on them, and they can be filtered out easily. Hopefully this new health score will filter some out for good. :laughing:

 

Actually many cachers do not search for caches with the last log being a DNF. I will not change however my approach of logging DNFs in the described cases.

 

 

I don't search for caches that the last log was a DNF, and filter them as well. :)

 

Then be glad that you do not live in my area as it makes not much sense to filter out a cache because I was not able to climb a tree, find the trail access, open a normal lock 99% of the people around me can open with ease etc.

 

When I see 3 DNF's in a row with no OM, then all of a sudden a mega numbers cacher with a canned log finds it, I suspect a Throwdown.

 

I hope you have a look at what the DNF loggers wrote. If they were all together and wrote that their car broke down, it's some unfair to suspect the next cacher to be mega numbers cacher who left a throwdown. It would also quite silly for the CO to post an OM log if I did not dare to climb a tree or the car of some cachers broke down.

 

You are not making much sense to me. :unsure: Of course I read past logs, I'm a select cacher. I just archived one of my tree climing caches because people did not put it back where it was found, then I start getting logs about why is the DT rating so high. :(

Link to comment

 

You are not making much sense to me. :unsure: Of course I read past logs, I'm a select cacher. I just archived one of my tree climing caches because people did not put it back where it was found, then I start getting logs about why is the DT rating so high. :(

 

But if you read past logs, then why do you systematically filter out caches with the last log being a DNF or with 3 DNFs in a row regardless of what the logs say?

Link to comment

 

You are not making much sense to me. :unsure: Of course I read past logs, I'm a select cacher. I just archived one of my tree climing caches because people did not put it back where it was found, then I start getting logs about why is the DT rating so high. :(

 

But if you read past logs, then why do you systematically filter out caches with the last log being a DNF or with 3 DNFs in a row regardless of what the logs say?

 

Because in my experience those are the ownerless junk caches that I don't enjoy searching for. :) I just hate seeing that geocaching now is more about Throwdowns and propping up other people's junk than the pride it used to be in cache ownership. :(

Link to comment

I don't see this as GS trying to manipulate anything. In fact GS has gone out of their way to remain quite neutral when it comes to how individuals play the game.

I wasn't saying GS was trying to manipulate anything. I think GS is earnestly reacting to complaints they've received.

 

I was accusing you of manipulating GS to convince them to apply your standards to everyone else.

 

To me this is about cache maintenance. I admit, hiking caches are a special situation and require a little more tact when dealing with them. On the flip side the owners of these caches should be held to the same standard as everyone else.

 

It may reduce these types of hides but only because cache owners might stop and think. "If I hide this, will I be able to maintain it properly?"

COs that feel able to maintain a cache properly will be asking themselves if they can maintain the cache up to the far higher standards the algorithm requires.

Link to comment

Because in my experience those are the ownerless junk caches that I don't enjoy searching for. :) I just hate seeing that geocaching now is more about Throwdowns and propping up other people's junk than the pride it used to be in cache ownership. :(

 

I hardly think that a cache gets transformed into junk because clumsy me cannnot reach a cache and leaves a DNF log.

But of course anyone is free to select caches in whichever manner they want.

 

I wonder however about something else at least in Lone.R's case. You seem to live in an area with not many cachers, but she lives in an area with many cachers and new caches.

 

I find a lot of new caches as I have found the older ones already a long time ago. Among these caches there are many that do not appeal to me very much and which I only use for my purpose to be physically more active. However hardly any of these caches is junk, filthy, involves a throwdown and also pill bottles are not that frequent as cache containers around here either. Micros dominate and caches with swag are very rare - however what I experience in all areas of my country where I have cached so far is quite different from finding mainly leaky containers. I know that areas are different but I'm not sure whether it's really that extreme as some report for their area.

Link to comment

COs that feel able to maintain a cache properly will be asking themselves if they can maintain the cache up to the far higher standards the algorithm requires.

Then they don't know enough about cache ownership. Namely, that the algorithm is not a consequence, and that the email can be ignored if the CO knows that there is no problem with the cache, rather than try to "live up to" the unrealistic, imperfect notification algorithm.

 

But again, perhaps that comes down to what (unenlightened) COs infer from the wording of the email.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I don't see this as GS trying to manipulate anything. In fact GS has gone out of their way to remain quite neutral when it comes to how individuals play the game.

I wasn't saying GS was trying to manipulate anything. I think GS is earnestly reacting to complaints they've received.

 

I was accusing you of manipulating GS to convince them to apply your standards to everyone else.

 

To me this is about cache maintenance. I admit, hiking caches are a special situation and require a little more tact when dealing with them. On the flip side the owners of these caches should be held to the same standard as everyone else.

 

It may reduce these types of hides but only because cache owners might stop and think. "If I hide this, will I be able to maintain it properly?"

COs that feel able to maintain a cache properly will be asking themselves if they can maintain the cache up to the far higher standards the algorithm requires.

 

I wish I had that power but sadly they don't even know I exist. I didn't suggest the idea it but I'm willing to give it a try because I think it has merit. So the fact that I support it must mean I'm manipulating the system. You better crush me now before I begin to take over....everything.

 

What higher standards are required? As far as I know it's fix up the cache and respond to issues. Is there more to cache maintenance than that?

 

And what's wrong with striving to be better than the standard? Isn't that a good thing?

Link to comment

COs that feel able to maintain a cache properly will be asking themselves if they can maintain the cache up to the far higher standards the algorithm requires.

Then they don't know enough about cache ownership.

 

Ok, then apparently also cachers like myself do not know enough about cache ownership. I rather wonder whether it's that the text of the email and some features of the algorithm needs to be changed than that cachers like me need to learn more about cache ownership.

Link to comment

I find a lot of new caches as I have found the older ones already a long time ago. Among these caches there are many that do not appeal to me very much and which I only use for my purpose to be physically more active. However hardly any of these caches is junk, filthy, involves a throwdown and also pill bottles are not that frequent as cache containers around here either. Micros dominate and caches with swag are very rare - however what I experience in all areas of my country where I have cached so far is quite different from finding mainly leaky containers. I know that areas are different but I'm not sure whether it's really that extreme as some report for their area.

 

New caches tend to be in better condition than old, unmaintained caches. Surprising? No.

 

Are you saying that an issue that exists shouldn't be dealt with unless it is extreme? You do seem to be obsessed with extremes.

Link to comment

Ok, then apparently also cachers like myself do not know enough about cache ownership. I rather wonder whether it's that the text of the email and some features of the algorithm needs to be changed than that cachers like me need to learn more about cache ownership.

 

Just keep hiding geocaches. Seems the MKH under a lamp post is quite popular. :D

Link to comment

COs that feel able to maintain a cache properly will be asking themselves if they can maintain the cache up to the far higher standards the algorithm requires.

Then they don't know enough about cache ownership. Namely, that the algorithm is not a consequence, and that the email can be ignored if the CO knows that there is no problem with the cache, rather than try to "live up to" the unrealistic, imperfect notification algorithm.

 

But again, perhaps that comes down to what (unenlightened) COs infer from the wording of the email.

 

Ok, then apparently also cachers like myself do not know enough about cache ownership. I rather wonder whether it's that the text of the email and some features of the algorithm needs to be changed than that cachers like me need to learn more about cache ownership.

 

....that's exactly what I was saying. (re-inserted the rest of the quote for clarity you left out)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I find a lot of new caches as I have found the older ones already a long time ago. Among these caches there are many that do not appeal to me very much and which I only use for my purpose to be physically more active. However hardly any of these caches is junk, filthy, involves a throwdown and also pill bottles are not that frequent as cache containers around here either. Micros dominate and caches with swag are very rare - however what I experience in all areas of my country where I have cached so far is quite different from finding mainly leaky containers. I know that areas are different but I'm not sure whether it's really that extreme as some report for their area.

 

New caches tend to be in better condition than old, unmaintained caches. Surprising? No.

 

Are you saying that an issue that exists shouldn't be dealt with unless it is extreme? You do seem to be obsessed with extremes.

 

No, I just wonder why Lone.R describes her situation like nearly every cache that she could go for is in terrible condition, mislabeled or something else is wrong with it.

Of course newer caches are often in better condition than old, unmaintained caches (not necessarily by the way as there are caches that don't seem to require maintenance to be in perfect shape) and that's why I wrote the above.

 

I just wondered whether in her home area visiting caches soon after they got published could be a compromise solution for part of Lone.R's problems. So something like apply some other filters and add the filter that a cache got hidden within the last months.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I don't search for caches with NM on them, and they can be filtered out easily. Hopefully this new health score will filter some out for good. :laughing:

 

Actually many cachers do not search for caches with the last log being a DNF. I will not change however my approach of logging DNFs in the described cases.

 

 

I don't search for caches that the last log was a DNF, and filter them as well. :) When I see 3 DNF's in a row with no OM, then all of a sudden a mega numbers cacher with a canned log finds it, I suspect a Throwdown. Now the cache is being found again, and the owner left the game years ago, but the community took over their soggy paper caches that used to be ammo cans, but are now pill bottles. :(

 

I see a need for a health check. B)

 

+1.

I can't think of an example where that wasn't the case...absent owner, string of DNFs, mega numbers cacher comes through, cache found and others find it afterwards, no login or OM from the owner....it's a throwdown. Time for a health check.

Link to comment

COs that feel able to maintain a cache properly will be asking themselves if they can maintain the cache up to the far higher standards the algorithm requires.

Then they don't know enough about cache ownership. Namely, that the algorithm is not a consequence, and that the email can be ignored if the CO knows that there is no problem with the cache, rather than try to "live up to" the unrealistic, imperfect notification algorithm.

 

But again, perhaps that comes down to what (unenlightened) COs infer from the wording of the email.

 

Ok, then apparently also cachers like myself do not know enough about cache ownership. I rather wonder whether it's that the text of the email and some features of the algorithm needs to be changed than that cachers like me need to learn more about cache ownership.

 

....that's exactly what I was saying. (re-inserted the rest of the quote for clarity you left out)

 

I just do not agree with you as my argument is not with respect to when a reviewer would take actions and which actions - I would not say that I know less about cache ownership than do - yet we arrive at different conclusions. My argument is that if such a mail is sent out by Groundspeak, it should be taken seriously and in the way it is formulated and if we do that then many of us will decide that we cannot live up to what they ask for and might decide to take action and archive our (affected) caches even being aware that the reviewers would not take action. Actually in my area reviewer response times are slow anyhow even in matters that seem important to me - so I'm certainly not driven by feeling a threat by some reviewers. It's a lot about how I feel treated by GS as a cache owner, a company who needs cachers who hide and maintain caches.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

I can't think of an example where that wasn't the case...absent owner, string of DNFs, mega numbers cacher comes through, cache found and others find it afterwards, no login or OM from the owner....it's a throwdown. Time for a health check.

 

However a string of DNFs (not even if the DNFs are independent which often is not the case) does not imply that the owner is absent, nor that the next finder is a mega numbers cacher nor that a throwdown has been left.

 

For example I know a cache that had 7 independent DNf logs (some even had help from previous finders and still could not find the cache). Between some of the DNFs the cache was checked and was there. I also happened to fail at this cache in my first attempt and now knowing where the cache is hidden I'm almost certain that the cache is still fine when I read yet another DNF. At certain times of the year the cache is even more challenging - I failed already at an easier time.

 

I know many a number of such examples.There is another one where I have been four times and found it in the fourth attempt after having been told exactly where it is.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

It's a lot about how I feel treated by GS as a cache owner, a company who needs cachers who hide and maintain caches.

 

I'm a customer and cache owner that pays to use their site and I see the health score as a good thing. :)

 

The health score is nothing a good cache owner should be concerned with, and if a reminder email is too much a bother, just wait until a finder leaves a unpleasant log, or a DNF.

Link to comment

It's a lot about how I feel treated by GS as a cache owner, a company who needs cachers who hide and maintain caches.

 

I'm a customer and cache owner that pays to use their site and I see the health score as a good thing. :)

 

The health score is nothing a good cache owner should be concerned with, and if a reminder email is too much a bother, just wait until a finder leaves a unpleasant log, or a DNF.

 

I do not mind receiving e-mails (I receive hundreds of them anyway). I argued about the contents of the mail which only provides two options: archival or immediately visit the cache regardless of whether such a visit is necessary or not. It's absurd if you are triggered to check your cache because I did not dare to climb up to one of your tree caches.

 

I do not fear unpleasant logs and even less DNFs. Why should I? I write so many DNF logs myself and typically it is me who is to blame for my failure and I just tell my story. If a cache log leaves me with any doubt that there might be an issue with a cache of mine, I look further into the case every time.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

What would you do for a cache like Shelter II?

 

It currently has 317 DNF logs (over 12 years). I believe it got something like 180 DNF logs before it got it's first found it log. In that time the CO went out and verified that it was still there many times. Look at the actual logs and you see that there were two cases when the CO disabled the cache, fixed an issue then re-enabled it. In both cases that happened the day of or after an issue was pointed out (not even due a NM log). It's also obvious that many are enjoying the challenge and wearing their DNF (in many cases, multiple DNF logs by the same person) as a badge of honor. The CO has obviously been maintaining the cache. It's just very hard to find and the large number of DNF logs accurate reflect the experience. If an automated nag email were in place with a message after every third DNF they'd have received over 100 message. If it were me, I would have archived the cache a long time ago.

It might interest you to know that, since the introduction of the Cache Health notification emails in late 2015, this particular cache has never received one of the system-generated messages.

 

For every actual or speculative example of an inaccurate algorithm, there are plenty of other examples where the algorithm performed well. When it doesn't perform well, reviewers can see this and we can give very specific feedback to Geocaching HQ. This has led to adjustments to the algorithm.

 

But I have posted all that before.

Link to comment

I find a lot of new caches as I have found the older ones already a long time ago. Among these caches there are many that do not appeal to me very much and which I only use for my purpose to be physically more active. However hardly any of these caches is junk, filthy, involves a throwdown and also pill bottles are not that frequent as cache containers around here either. Micros dominate and caches with swag are very rare - however what I experience in all areas of my country where I have cached so far is quite different from finding mainly leaky containers. I know that areas are different but I'm not sure whether it's really that extreme as some report for their area.

 

New caches tend to be in better condition than old, unmaintained caches. Surprising? No.

 

Are you saying that an issue that exists shouldn't be dealt with unless it is extreme? You do seem to be obsessed with extremes.

 

No, I just wonder why Lone.R describes her situation like nearly every cache that she could go for is in terrible condition, mislabeled or something else is wrong with it.

Of course newer caches are often in better condition than old, unmaintained caches (not necessarily by the way as there are caches that don't seem to require maintenance to be in perfect shape) and that's why I wrote the above.

 

I just wondered whether in her home area visiting caches soon after they got published could be a compromise solution for part of Lone.R's problems. So something like apply some other filters and add the filter that a cache got hidden within the last months.

 

The best solution for me is knowing which cache owner is likely to provide the type of geocaching experience I like. Which will limit me to about 20 cache finds per year locally, and no more geocaching vacations. So be it.

But I'm hoping Groundspeak will actually crack down on the 'unhealthy' stuff in the database this year.

Link to comment

I think we may as well just turn this thread over to cezanne as it's now clearly past the point where the original topic of discussion

 

So maybe tell us on what parameters and in which manner you would make a health score depend on so that it does not catch the wrong caches and cache owners. I promise not to comment on it.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I think we may as well just turn this thread over to cezanne as it's now clearly past the point where the original topic of discussion

 

So maybe tell us on what parameters and in which manner you would make a health score depend on so that it does not catch the wrong caches and cache owners.

 

I have to find another wall to bang my head against. This ones had it.

Link to comment

 

I do not mind receiving e-mails (I receive hundreds of them anyway). I argued about the contents of the mail which only provides two options: archival or immediately visit the cache regardless of whether such a visit is necessary or not. It's absurd if you are triggered to check your cache because I did not dare to climb up to one of your tree caches.

 

 

If this were the case I believe contacting your local reviewer would be the thing to do, or just wait for it to be temp disabled.

The contents of the email would just trigger me to post a OM log to the cache and forget about it. What seems to be working best for me is I post a OM log on my out of the way caches after I check on them once a year. It let's others know that my caches are being maintained. B)

Link to comment

I have a feeling this has just been introduced to help the reviewers. I read a post written by a Spanish reviewer the other day which said that he had 500 pages of caches that needed maintenance in his area. Perhaps this system is just to help them prioritise which caches need attention first.

 

Not very logical as the mails are sent out to the COs.

It's unwise to criticize someone's logic unless you know all of the facts.

 

In fact, markoCR is correct, in that Community Volunteer Reviewers greatly benefit from the Cache Health tool. It's made our jobs much easier when it comes to maintenance issues. And, while we don't receive copies of the individual emails sent to cache owners, we have multiple tools in our toolbox to know about them.

 

I would only add to markoCR's point: the Cache Health tool also benefits cache owners and local communities, because an increased focus is placed on maintenance. It's a response to the complaints over the years about so many caches that are in poor condition. Now, if a community loved missing and broken caches, and hated clean, dry caches, then they'd be bummed about the Cache Health notification system.

Link to comment

I think we may as well just turn this thread over to cezanne as it's now clearly past the point where the original topic of discussion

 

So maybe tell us on what parameters and in which manner you would make a health score depend on so that it does not catch the wrong caches and cache owners.

 

I have to find another wall to bang my head against. This ones had it.

In related news, Walls.com have just sent a "Wall Health Notification" message to the owner of that wall, asking them to choose from the following options:

1. Maintain that wall.

2. Tear down that wall.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...